Full report (.pdf format)

As part of ETSC's current programme which receives matched funding from the European Commission, the European Transport Safety Council has brought together independent experts from across the EU to carry out a multi-disciplinary review of pedestrian and pedal cyclist safety in urban areas. The aim is to identify the key problems which need to be addressed and successful practice internationally in implementing effective measures. Recommendations are made for appropriate actions locally, nationally and by the EU for the short to medium term.

The casualty problem

In 1996 more than 9,400 pedestrians and cyclists were killed in EU countries as a consequence of road crashes, contributing 22 per cent of all road deaths. The risk of being killed in traffic per kilometre travelled is more than four times higher for these two groups than for car occupants. The severity of injuries is higher than for car occupants. The average severity is generally higher in rural areas, but the great majority of casualties to pedestrians and cyclists occur in urban areas.

On average in EU countries, pedestrian and cycle crash risks are higher for children, young people and elderly road users. In particular, the risk of death in traffic for pedestrians aged 65 and older is four times higher than for young adults.

The overall long term trend in deaths has been downward for both pedestrians and cyclists, but this may be due in some instances to a decline in walking and cycling as more people take to their cars for local journeys. However, this trend may be influenced in future by the encouragement now being given in several Member States to travel by foot, bicycle or public transport. For example, the Danish National Traffic Plan states that 4 per cent of total car traffic should be converted into cycling and walking by the year 2005 and one-third of all car traffic under 3 km into non-motorised travel. As travel by public transport is also encouraged, increasing account needs to be taken of the safety of walking or cycling to catch the bus, tram or train. Walking and cycling have much greater risk levels per hour than travel in public transport vehicles.

It should therefore be a high priority for those responsible for traffic systems in our urban areas to cater much better for the needs and physical vulnerabilities of pedestrians and cyclists, including people with reduced mobility. There are many ways in which the EU can help them to do so.

Key problems for pedestrians and cyclists in today's traffic system

Most road safety problems for pedestrians and cyclists are common to all Member States. These result from a complex mix of factors, but underlying all other problems is the fact that the modern traffic system is designed largely from a car-user perspective. There has been a lack of coherent planning of route networks for pedestrians and cyclists.

Vulnerability Even at relatively low impact speed, pedestrians and cyclists receive severe injuries, mainly because their only protection is their clothing. Speed plays an important role in determining the severity of the outcome of collisions. If the collision speed exceeds 45 km/h the likelihood for a pedestrian or cyclist to survive the crash is less than 50 per cent. If the collision speed is less than 30 km/h more than 90 per cent of those struck survive. Speed management, therefore, is a key element in a safe traffic system for vulnerable road users.

Flexibility Pedestrians and cyclists are very flexible in their behaviour and flexibility is one of the main advantages of these modes. In relation to other road users, however, this presents a problem. A motor vehicle driver can never be sure when or where to expect a pedestrian or a cyclist.

Instability Pedestrians and especially cyclists may trip or fall in the traffic environment. A small mistake or a minor failure of the cycle may result in a severe outcome even though there are no other road users present. A pedestrian may stumble and receive serious injuries just because of an uneven surface. The instability of pedestrians and cyclists is an even bigger problem when they are mixed with motor traffic.

Invisibility Pedestrians and cyclists can be difficult to see: They are small compared to a car, and can be hidden by one. At night the problem is more severe.

Differing abilities Pedestrians and cyclists include children with lack of experience, elderly people with reduced capability, and people with reduced mobility.

Conciousness of effort Making a detour in a motor vehicle may use extra fuel, but for pedestrians and cyclists it means extra use of their muscles. They are therefore highly motivated to find and keep to the easiest routes, often the most direct ones.

Estrangement Pedestrians are often primarily doing other things than travelling on foot, like window shopping or chatting with friends. This, together with the fact that the modern traffic environment is often designed for cars rather than for pedestrians and cyclists, creates a state of estrangement of pedestrians and cyclists. Cyclists make journeys more often, but even they are frequently treated as intruders in the traffic system rather than as an integral part of that system.

These key problems need to be addressed in combination in future traffic system planning.

Key casualty reduction strategies

The key strategies for achieving a safe traffic system for pedestrians and cyclists are:

• Managing the traffic mix, by separating different kinds of road use to eliminate conflicts where conditions are favourable to separation.
• Creating safer conditions elsewhere for integrated use of road space, for example through speed and traffic management, increased user and vehicle conspicuity, and vehicle engineering and technology.
• Modifying the attitudes and behaviour of drivers of motor vehicles through information, training and the enforcement of traffic law.
• Consulting and informing pedestrians and cyclists about changes being made for their benefit, and encouraging them in steps that they can take to reduce their risk.
• Mitigating the consequences of crashes through crash protective design and encouraging the use of protective equipment.

And, to these ends

• Changing priorities in the minds of professionals and policymakers responsible for the traffic system through sharing of experience and promotion of research findings, and encouraging them to convince the public of the need for change.
• Separation and integration to make walking and cycling safer.

Comprehensive networks of pedestrian and cycle routes need to be identified which will consist of sections of footpath or cycle path separate from the carriageway, pedestrian areas, footways or cycle tracks alongside carriageways, and areas and carriageways shared with motor vehicles. Where separation can provide attractive routes, the safety benefits can be great: Danish studies, for example, show reductions of 35 per cent in cyclist casualties after the construction of cycle tracks alongside urban roads. But the scope for providing attractive routes by practicable separation for the journeys people really want to make on foot or bicycle is limited. Elsewhere it is necessary to create safer conditions for integrated use of shared road space through speed and traffic management, by increasing conspicuity, through vehicle engineering and collision-avoidance measures, and by influencing road user behaviour, as envisaged in the Dutch concept of sustainable safety.

Speed and traffic management Road safety engineering measures to create safer conditions for pedestrians and cyclists can be considered in terms of traffic reduction, speed reduction, junction treatments, the redistribution of road space and the creation of special facilities.

Motor traffic on local roads within cells formed by main roads can be reduced whilst creating good routes for walking and cycling through selective road closures and traffic calming, within a strategy of urban safety management. Area-wide schemes in Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK have reduced casualties in the treated areas and on surrounding main roads by between 15 and 80 per cent.

At speeds below 30 km/h, pedestrians and cyclists can mix with motor vehicles in relative safety, and in the Netherlands 30 km/h zones have reduced personal injury crashes by 22 per cent. As a contribution to sustainable safety, they are to be extended to cover built-up areas in general in the Netherlands, with specific exceptions for selected roads only.

Junctions are places where many pedestrians need to cross the road despite the risks in doing so, and in Denmark, for example, over 60 per cent of crashes involving cyclists occur at junctions. Good layout and sharing of the road space with the help of signs, markings and distinctive surfacing can simplify the tasks facing pedestrians and cyclists at junctions and thus reduce casualties there. Sharing of the road space between junctions is also important – not only cycle lanes, but also correct use of bus lanes and allocation of more of the width to nearside lanes on multilane roads used by cyclists.

Increased conspicuity The more conspicuous motor vehicles are to road users outside them, and the latter are to drivers, the more opportunity both will have to avoid collisions. Road layout can help in this and so can the use of daytime running lights by drivers, the use of lights at night by cyclists, and the wearing of reflective or light-coloured clothing by pedestrians and cyclists.

Vehicle engineering and technology Intelligent speed limiters, intelligent cruise control, collision-avoidance systems and vision enhancement for drivers are all forms of technology for the motor vehicle that could reduce the occurrence of collisions with pedestrians and cyclists - and better vehicle design could reduce the severity of injury to them in collisions that still occur. Better design and maintenance of cycles, helped by European Standards, could help to reduce not only such collisions but also the many injurious cycle crashes that involve no motor vehicle.

Training provided by driving instructors, the advice and information that drivers receive from user and safety organisations, and the influence exerted upon them by enforcement should all be reoriented to promote attitudes and behaviour based on higher priority for the safety of pedestrians and cyclists on the roads the drivers use. Emphasis should be placed both upon greater consideration and upon greater compliance with traffic laws concerning speed and giving way, whose effect on the safety of pedestrians and cyclists is strongest. Road users of all kinds would be helped in this by production of a European Highway Code summarising the common and differing traffic laws applying to road users in the various Member States.

Achievement of safe routes for walking and cycling which are also attractive to their intended users will be helped by consultation with pedestrians, cyclists and prospective cyclists in the catchment areas of the routes, as well as research into the journeys they wish to make on foot or bicycle.

Even on the best practicable routes, safe walking and cycling calls for competence on the part of the pedestrians and cyclists. Information, education and training should therefore be provided for pedestrians, cyclists and potential cyclists of all ages from the nursery and kindergarten through the school years to young adulthood, and later as parents and as middle-aged and elderly people adjusting to the changes in capability that come with advancing years.

The consequences of those crashes that still occur despite all the other measures should be mitigated by crash-protective vehicle design and encouraging the use of protective equipment. Since many pedestrian and cyclist collisions are with cars, major improvements in crash protection for both cyclists and pedestrians should be achieved by changing car design. EU-funded research over the last 20 years has developed safer car fronts for pedestrians and cyclists. Test procedures devised by the European Experimental Vehicles Committee (EEVC) and used in the EuroNCAP (new car assessment programme) are showing that new cars are not performing satisfactorily in this respect. A new EU Directive on safer car fronts for pedestrians and cyclists incorporating all the EEVC tests should, therefore, be implemented without delay to provide the necessary protection.

In the meantime, further EU funding is needed for the EuroNCAP consumer information programme, so that as many new cars as possible are subjected to these fairly expensive tests to encourage manufacturers to build in protection earlier than the Directive will require.

When heavy good vehicles and vulnerable road users are side by side and the vehicle turns in their direction, the pedestrian or cyclist is at risk of being run over by the vehicle. A mandatory EU requirement is needed for the fitment to all new heavy goods vehicles of sideguards that greatly reduce this risk.

However much is done to make motor vehicles less injurious to cyclists, the protection offered by cycle helmets remains crucial, not least because many head injuries to cyclists are sustained in crashes or falls that do not involve a motor vehicle. The injury-reducing effects of cycle helmets have been found to be in the region of 45–80 per cent and their use needs to be encouraged, particularly in the high-risk groups such as boys aged 10–14 years. The design of child seats can also affect the risk of injury to the young children carried in them, and a European standard for cycle child seats should therefore be developed.

Effective implementation of the foregoing range of measures for safer walking and cycling requires dedicated and technically informed effort by all of the many professionals involved, together with commitment by policymakers and the support of a convinced public.

This requires systematic dissemination of research-based interdisciplinary technical guidance that synthesises current best practice to town planners, architects, highway and traffic engineers, road safety professionals, the police and judiciary, driving instructors, teachers, those who work with parents and elderly people, and designers of vehicles and protective equipment. It also requires technically supported guidance in policy formulation to be communicated to policymakers, who in turn should be encouraged to join with road safety organisations and road user groups in campaigns to inform the public and win their acceptance of the necessary policies and measures.

All these efforts can be started on the basis of present knowledge, but to maintain progress cost-effectively in the medium term requires:

• deeper understanding of the change that is needed and its implications;
• fuller quantification of the problem and of progress made in addressing it; and
• safer cycles and further techniques of crash protection for pedestrians and cyclists.

A range of specific topics for research in these three areas has been identified.

By implementing known countermeasures it should be possible to achieve considerable increases in the use of healthier and more environmentally friendly means of transport and still reduce the numbers of deaths and injuries among pedestrians and cyclists. Deep commitment is needed from policymakers at local, national and EU levels to bring about this positive scenario. The following actions are recommended at these three levels.

Recommendations

• Give priority to the safety and convenience of walking and cycling in policymaking for planning, development and transport in urban areas, and in the implementation of development plans and the maintenance and enhancement of the transport and traffic systems of towns and cities.

• Give priority to the safety and convenience of walking and cycling in all aspects of policymaking relevant to planning, development and transport in urban areas and encourage Member States and Local Authorities to do likewise.

• Encourage Member States to collect exposure data on pedestrian and cyclist travel and include it in the CARE database (Community databank on road crashes and casualties in Europe).
• Regularly ascertain level of under-reporting and extend the EHLAS (European home and leisure accident surveillance system) database to include road collision reporting.

• Encourage information exchange to promote better conditions for walking and cycling through development of EU technical guidelines for professionals particularly on:
• Ways of providing for walking and cycling
• Safety audit and safety impact assessment
• Urban safety management
• Speed management
• Low cost/high return road safety engineering measures
• Training and encouragement for drivers in helping the integration of pedestrians and cyclists into the traffic system
• Initial and in-service training in the integration of pedestrians and cyclists for those involved in road safety education and training, driver training and the enforcement of traffic law
• Road safety education and training at pre-school, primary, secondary and tertiary levels, emphasising activity as pedestrians and cyclists
• Education and training of elderly road users
• In-service training for professionals in providing facilities for walking and cycling all in the context of the interdisciplinary approach that the task requires.
• Develop and disseminate advice on sensible road use via a European Highway Code summarising the common and differing traffic laws applying to road users in different Member States.
• Give continued support including more financial support to Euro NCAP

Legislation and standards

• Bring forward mandatory EU fitment requirements for:
• safer car fronts for pedestrians and cyclists incorporating EEVC test procedures
• closed sideguards on all new heavy goods vehicles
• daytime running lights for motor vehicles.
• Introduce EU Whole Vehicle Type Approval for cycles incorporating a range of technical safety criteria.
• Develop a European standard for cycle child seats and promote the use of cycle helmets for which a European standard (EN 1708) already exists.

ETSC gratefully acknowledges the contributions of members of ETSC’s Pedestrian and Pedal Cyclist Safety Working Party to this review:

Dr. Rudolf Günther (Chairman)
Prof. Richard Allsop (Co-editor)
Dr.Lars Ekman
Dr. Lene Herrstedt
Ir. Edgar Janssen
Dr. Christa Michalik
Mr. Derek Palmer
Mr. Dominique Fleury
Mr. Antonio Lemonde De Macedo

ETSC is grateful for the financial support provided by DGVII of the European Commission and for the contribution towards the printing and dissemination costs of this review provided by 3M Europe, BP Amoco, and KeyMed. The contents of this review are the sole responsibility of ETSC and do not necessarily reflect the view of sponsors nor organisations to which research staff participating in the Working Party belong.