VRU AGE and Road Safety
Suzanne Meade
Introduction
• Who are VRU? Cyclist and Pedestrian
- Unprotected vulnerable road users.
• Within these two groups there is an
array of needs, utility and levels of
participation.
• This presentation looks at
terms of age and road safety.
1
VRU
in
Targets?
23%
VRU ¼ casualties
2:1 workers
?
Outcomes | policies
Street design standards /
Population density
75% living urban 2050
Reduce child deaths
Cycling (10%) 2020
Reduce car trips / health
15
premature/yr
3
VRU Safety –
Disproportionate VRU Risk
Mode Share
(National Statistics for Scotland, 2015)
1% mvkm
Casualty Proportion – STATS19
3
(Scottish Transport Statistics, 2016)
Overall Trend -
4
VRU Safety –
Travel Varies with Age
5
VRU Safety - Risk
Key
0-16
17-64
+65
Pedestrians
Decreases
after 10-14
Continued
Decrease to
70+
Sharp risk
increase.
Cyclists
Peak 10-14
Less risk
Likely
Increased risk
(Per mvkm x 10 higher than
car)
Scottish 0-16 and 65+ Age Groups travel less
compared to high bike mode share countries
(Netherlands, Germany)
6
VRU +65
17% Scottish Pop.
(increasing)Census 2011
Walk and Cycle
less (- 50%) and
shorter distance
Avoid Traffic/
travel at lower
speeds
STATS19 05-14
Fatal
Urban
Rural
7
Mostly Rural (Cyclists)
Injury
outcome/recovery
Serious Injury
Problem Locations
Slight Increase , Mostly
Urban(Cyclists)
Uncontrolled Junctions
23% KSI (Ped)
Uncontrolled Junctions
VRU 0-16 (Children)
18% Scottish Pop.
Global Drop
casualties (29% of all)
Walk and Cycle
shorter distance
Walk (4-11) 58%
(12-18) 42%
Primary cycling
growth (2.4%), + 12
don’t cycle (0.7%)
2.5 times
TATIS 2014 Table 15
STATS19 05-14
8
Fatal
Serious Injury
Problem Locations
Urban
Decrease
Decrease Urban
(Cyclists & Peds)
Links 1/3 KSI (Ped) on links, children
crossing/playing
Rural
Decrease
Cyclists little change
Uncontrolled Junctions(Cyclists)
VRU 17-64 (Adults-Commuters)
65% Scottish Pop.
Doubled (in some
places 2001-2011)
+ More affluent
+34% Hospital
+25% Police
Fatal
Urban
Rural
9
Mostly Rural
(Cyclists)
Higher cycling
speeds*
Serious Injury
Problem Locations
Marked Increase(Cyclists)
Uncontrolled Junctions,
Roundabouts & TL
Slight Increase (Cyclists)
Marked increase & link (cyclists)
Links(Cyclists)
Problem Areas for Age Groups
• Uncontrolled Crossings
• Cross-roads,
• T-Junction / Staggered T-Junctions,
• Pproportions of +65 at urban junctions
• Children on Links , proportionally higher
than junctions
• Serious Injury increase mainly 17-64 over a
relatively short time – Urban Junctions and
Rural Links
10
How do we Compare?
Key
Scotland
Mode Shares
Netherlands
(Secret to
Success)
Impact
+65
17-64
0-16
Yes
Space/mode
share
Rural Links
Space/
mode share
Traffic Calming WIP
(20mph)
Yes
Severity
Urban
Severity
Urban
Severity
Urban/Play
Junction
Treatment
Traffic
Lights(Yes)
Priority(No)
(75%)
Yes
Cognitive/
Space
Priority/
Space
Experience/
Space
Traffic
Education
Driver/Cyclists
Yes
Yes
Attitudes
Attitudes
Experience
Pro Cyclists
Regulation
No
Yes
?under
reporting
?under
reporting
?under
reporting
SiN
?
Yes
?
?Urban
maybe
?
Segregated
Cycle Paths
11 4
2% /
Very little
Protected Infra - Do we HAVE to wait?
-
2007-2013 & Pop 500k
12km to 152km
Risk reduced 50%(KSI/mvkm)
3 to +16 million trips
Segregated paths caused change
(Marques et al, 2017)
12
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jan/28/seville-cycling-capital-southern-europe-bike-lanes
Conclusion
• Think 8-80,
forgiving.
should
be
easy
to
• Transformation
to
segregation
have to take a very longtime.
• A lot is possible.
13
follow,
doesn’t
Operation Close Pass
Thankyou