irishboyinlondon

Another report about the damaging effects of cars with unsurprising conclusions and recommendations.  Its been a while since I read a “cars are good for you” report….oh…wait…

Read the report “Transport, Physical Activity and Health: Present knowledge and the way ahead” here.

With just 39 per cent of men and 29 per cent of women reaching the Department of Health’s recommended level of health-enhancing physical activity, the answer to the UK’s growing obesity problem could depend on people choosing to swap car journeys for walking and cycling, according to a new study by researchers at UCL.

The report, commissioned by the Department for Transport, highlights the fact that physical inactivity costs the nation upwards of £6.5 billion per year through its impact on overweight and obesity, while also directly costing the NHS an additional £1.08 billion per annum.

The report, compiled by Professor Roger Mackett and Belinda Brown of UCL’s Centre for Transport Studies, concludes that:

• increasing physical activity through more walking and cycling is the key to improving health
• the only way to increase walking and cycling significantly is through reducing car use
• car ownership is entrenched in the lifestyles of many households and reduction is only feasible if households can maintain access to cars when they really need them and make rational, economic decisions about the most appropriate mode of travel for each individual journey (on foot, by car, bicycle, bus, train etc); this will lead to less car use
• the recent growth of car clubs, neighbourhood car rental schemes, car sharing and pay-as-you-go insurance helps to make this possible .

“Everyone knows that walking and cycling can provide valuable physical activity, but how we actually get people out of their cars is not so obvious,” says lead author, Professor Roger Mackett.

“The key lies in reducing overall car use, but enabling people to maintain their current lifestyles by ensuring access to a car when necessary. By shifting away from the current situation where most households own cars, to one where people can have the benefits of access to a car when they need it while using other forms of travel when it’s convenient we can empower people to make decisions which benefit their health, their household finances and the environment.

“We need to shift the emphasis from households spending thousands of pounds on a new car every few years and then experiencing a relatively low cost per trip, to a situation where people pay for each individual trip but don’t invest the initial lump sum. By doing this, we will all think much more carefully about the best way to make a journey – sometimes it will be by car, at other times it will be by train, bus, walking or bicycle. Some households will find that they no longer need to keep a car for their personal use and will save money.”

Abstract

Objective To estimate the risks and benefits to health of travel by bicycle, using a bicycle sharing scheme, compared with travel by car in an urban environment.

Design Health impact assessment study.

Setting Public bicycle sharing initiative, Bicing, in Barcelona, Spain.

Participants 181 982 Bicing subscribers.

Main outcomes measures The primary outcome measure was all cause mortality for the three domains of physical activity, air pollution (exposure to particulate matter <2.5 µm), and road traffic incidents. The secondary outcome was change in levels of carbon dioxide emissions.

Results Compared with car users the estimated annual change in mortality of the Barcelona residents using Bicing (n=181 982) was 0.03 deaths from road traffic incidents and 0.13 deaths from air pollution. As a result of physical activity, 12.46 deaths were avoided (benefit:risk ratio 77). The annual number of deaths avoided was 12.28. As a result of journeys by Bicing, annual carbon dioxide emissions were reduced by an estimated 9062344 kg.

Conclusions Public bicycle sharing initiatives such as Bicing in Barcelona have greater benefits than risks to health and reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Article by Mary Dejevesky in the Independent today about cycling in London. 

Given the enthusiasm with which London and its visitors have embraced “Boris bikes” and the recent efforts to signpost cycle routes, you would have thought that just a bit more thought (and cash) could have been earmarked for kerbing off cycle lanes, as in most Continental cities. This might entail expensive reapportioning of pavement and road space – but this is already being done in some of the most central areas, without any more space allocated to cyclists.

This is a missed opportunity, and it blights what should be an enjoyable experience. A letter-writer to The Independent last year observed that London cyclists seemed to be waging an angry crusade, compared with their more relaxed peers elsewhere. I agree. But as long as so many city cycle routes remain a hostile environment, our cyclists – or so they might argue – must stay angry to survive.

The key to achieving high levels of cycling appears to be the provision of separate cycling facilities along heavily travelled roads and at intersections, combined with traffic calming of most residential neighbourhoods. Extensive cycling rights of way in the Netherlands,Denmark and Germany are complemented by ample bike parking, full integration with public transport, comprehensive traffic education and training of both cyclists and motorists, and a wide range of promotional events intended to generate enthusiasm and wide public support for cycling. In addition to their many pro-bike policies and programmes, the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany make driving expensive as well as inconvenient in central cities through a host of taxes and restrictions on car ownership, use and parking. Moreover, strict land-use policies foster compact, mixed-use developments that generate shorter and thus more bikeable trips. It is the coordinated implementation of this multifaceted, mutually reinforcing set of policies that best explains the success of these three countries in promoting cycling. 

The European Platform on Mobility Management (EPOMM) have created TEMS, a database that lets you calculate and compare the modal split between cars, public transit, cycling and walking in different European cities including the UK!  

EPOMM hopes TEMS will enable comparison and a positive competition between cities for more sustainability. EPOMM is well aware that comparability is difficult with so many different survey methods - but it is far better then non-availability of data. With TEMS EPOMM aims to promote efforts and discussions to make modal split data and surveys more standardised in the future.

Interesting reading and graphics in the telegraph today. They have published a map detailing all of the reported bicycle accidents in London between August 2010 and July 2011.

Details of every accident involving a bicycle reported to Transport for London between August 2010 and July 2011 have been released…

Mapping the incidents reveals some of the most dangerous areas for cycling in London.

The junctions north and south of Blackfriar’s Bridge are notable for being the site of seven serious accidents and over a dozen non-serious accidents in the 12 months covered by the reports.

Transport for London recently announced plans to increase the speed limit for cars over Blackfriar’s Bridge, and restructure the northern junction.

Cycling groups staged protests against the changes, claiming the new designs didn’t take cyclist needs into account…

• There were 4,274 reported accidents on London’s roads between August 2010 and July 2011.

• One in ten accidents result in a serious injury (471 out of 4,274).

• 16 cyclists died on London’s roads in 2011, the highest annual figure since 2006.

• Eight accidents involved emergency service vehicles, including five ambulances and a fire engine.

• 36 cyclists involved in collisions had recently consumed alcohol, 11 of which were serious accidents.

Photo: Guardian/Russell Underwood/Corbis

Interesting piece in the Guardian Bike Blog by Matthew Wright!

The idealisation of Dutch cycling in the British cycling press omits to mention that being a respected, mainstream means of transport incurs responsibilities as well as offering rights. Laws about lights, bells, bikes on trains, as well as compulsory paths, are rigorously policed. Taking a bike on a train requires a €6 ticket in addition to the cyclist’s fare – a significant cost for regular leisure riders.

None of this is unreasonable when the other side of the bargain is the combination of amenity and respect accorded to Dutch cyclists. But mutual respect takes a long time to build. A recent article (with an excellent video documentary) explains that it took the Netherlands about 25 years to get where it is today, from the depths of a child-killing car-centred policy in the 1970s.

Dutch perceptions of their system are as much about a culture of respect as they are about separate lanes. “Segregation,” Marc van Woudenberg of the blog Amsterdamize tells me, “is just one (important) part of bicycle policies in the Netherlands, complemented with integral spatial planning, traffic calming, bike facilities and effective traffic laws.” “Strict Liability,” explains GJ Baan of Dutch gear shop And Dutch, “is supported by the Dutch law … [it means] the driver’s insurance is deemed responsible when a collision occurs between a cyclist and a car.”

Frank de Jong, of dutchcitybike.com, points out that a system that respects cyclists promotes respectful cycling in return: “When I bike in Holland, I get the sense that the road was designed with bikes and cars in mind from the outset … I feel respected as a cyclist, and therefore I’m more likely to respect the traffic rules.”

Eric van der Horst, of the Cycling Dutchman blog, explains that motorists in the Netherlands are much more tightly regulated: “The hazards of speeding are fully recognised: speed limits are present everywhere, margins for offenders are tiny, paid parking is up to five times more expensive than in the UK.”

Update 28 Oct 2011:

This article has generated a great buzz online!

In response to the piece, Marc from Amsterdamize (who was contacted by Matthew for a view on cycling in Denmark and directly refered to  in the blog), has written a comprensive response to the article, qualifiying and clarifying some of the statments made in the post.  You can and should read it here.  

The London Cycling Campaign who are running a “go dutch” campaign for the upcoming mayoral elections have clarified their stance here and As Easy As Riding A Bike has also written a great response to the article which you can read here.