Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Further to my previous reply, as luck would have it I cam across this paper today (trying to write my thesis!): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457509000876
It explores what can make a safety in numbers effect strong enough to reduce net casualties over the population, rather than merely reducing the risk per user mile.David,
There is a fair amount of evidence on this topic, and is usually referred to as the “safety in numbers effect”. As far as I am aware it is more well-researched for cycling than walking. An important thing to bear in mind is that the effect is often measured as a reduction-in-risk-per-user-mile-travelled rather than a reduction in total number of VRU injuries. So more active travel tends to result in less risk for each individual person who walks or cycles, but does not necessarily reduce total VRU injuries across the population. However, since active travel modes have less kinetic energy than motor traffic, if an increase in active travel results in a corresponding decrease in motor traffic, there is the potential for a reduction in total risk to all road users.
Some studies worth looking at:
1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457516301555 – The study itself has quite a narrow scope, but the literature review covers a good range of other studies.
2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1731007/ – Tests the theory with a range of datasets.
3. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022437522001402 – Looks at the effect on injury severity, rather than injury rates that most studies cover.
4. http://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/files/file_downloads_widget/0912_rg_rss-conf_safety-in-numbers_pres.pdf – This is a good non-academic summary but cites some of the academic evidence.
