Safety of Pedestrians and Cyclists in Urban Areas

Brussels 1999

European Transport Safety Council

Rue du Cornet 34
B 1040
Tel: 0032 2 230 4106
Fax: 0032 2 230 4215
email: info@etsc.be

1999 European Transport Safety Council

Extracts from this publication may be reproduced with the permission of ETSC
ISBN: 90-76024-08-1

Acknowledgements
ETSC gratefully acknowledges the contributions of members of ETSCs Pedestrian
and Pedal Cyclist Safety Working Party to this review:
Working Party Members
Dr. Rudolf Gnther (Chairman)
Dr. Lars Ekman
Ir. Edgar Janssen
Mr. Derek Palmer
Mr. Antonio Lemonde De Macedo

Prof. Richard Allsop

Dr. Lene Herrstedt
Dr. Christa Michalik
Mr. Dominique Fleury

ETSC Staff
Mrs Jeanne Breen
Ms. Marie Ward
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.

The European Transport Safety Council

The European Transport Safety Council (ETSC) is an international non-governmental
organisation which was formed in 1993 in response to the persistent and
unacceptably high European road casualty toll and public concern about individual
transport tragedies. Cutting across national and sectoral interests, ETSC provides an
impartial source of advice on transport safety matters to the European Commission,
the European Parliament and, where appropriate, to national governments and
organisations concerned with safety throughout Europe.
The Council brings together experts of international reputation on its Working
Parties, and representatives of a wide range of national and international
organisations with transport safety interests and Parliamentarians of all parties on its
Main Council to exchange experience and knowledge and to identify and promote
research-based contributions to transport safety.
Board of Directors:
Professor Herman De Croo (Chairman)
Professor Manfred Bandmann
Professor G. Murray Mackay
Professor Kre Rumar
Mr Pieter van Vollenhoven

Main Council Chairmen:

Mr Dieter Koch MEP
Mr Mark Watts MEP
Executive Director:
Mrs Jeanne Breen

CONTENTS

PAGE

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................7

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................14
1.1 Crash risk ..................................................................................................................... 14
1.2 Broader societal perspectives .................................................................................... 14
1.3 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 15

2 Pedestrian and cyclist casualties in EU Countries.............................................16

2.1 General trends ............................................................................................................. 16
2.2 Major results from in-depth studies of crashes ...................................................... 17
2.3 General problems with sources of crash data......................................................... 18

3 Key problems for pedestrians and cyclists in relation to the modern traffic
system..........................................................................................................................19
4 Managing exposure to risk ...................................................................................21
4.1 Risks affecting walking and cycling ........................................................................ 21
4.2 Reducing risk from traffic.......................................................................................... 22
4.3 Urban safety management and sustainable safety ................................................ 23
4.4 Motor vehicle design and road user behaviour for sustainable safety............... 24

5 Casualty reduction .................................................................................................24

5.1 Road engineering measures ...................................................................................... 24
5.2 User protection and vehicle engineering measures............................................... 32
5.3 Road user measures.................................................................................................... 34
5.4 Training of professionals and information exchange on provision for
pedestrians and cyclists ................................................................................................... 37

6 The need for further research ...............................................................................39

6.1 Deeper understanding of the necessary change..................................................... 39
6.2 Fuller quantification of the problem and of progress made................................. 40
6.3 Safer cycles and further crash protection ................................................................ 40

7 Conclusions and recommendations.....................................................................41

References...................................................................................................................44

Executive Summary
Introduction
As part of ETSCs 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,
contributing around 22 per cent of all road deaths. The small proportion of
pedestrian and cyclist casualties that occur in rural areas are relatively severe and
should not be forgotten, but this review is concerned with the great majority that
occur in urban areas.
The per capita risk of death from walking and cycling in EU countries are shown in
Table 1 (p.15). These figures represent the per capita risk of the activity without
taking any account of the level of the activity. To obtain a better understanding of
the risk to both pedestrians and cyclists, each country needs to collect information on
the amount of walking and cycling.
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 nonmotorised 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 todays 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.
Consciousness 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.

9
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

10
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.
Modifying drivers attitudes and behaviour
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.
Consulting and influencing pedestrians and cyclists
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

11
later as parents and as middle-aged and elderly people adjusting to the changes in
capability that come with advancing years.
Mitigating the consequences of crashes
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 4580 per cent and their use needs to be encouraged, particularly in the
high-risk groups such as boys aged 1014 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.
Changing priorities in the minds of professionals and policymakers
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

12
campaigns to inform the public and win their acceptance of the necessary policies
and measures.
The need for further research
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.
Conclusion
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
For action by Member States and Local Authorities
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.
For action by the EU
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

13
- 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.
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
Give continued support including more financial support to Euro NCAP.
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.
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.

14

1 Introduction
This review on the safety of pedestrians and cyclists in urban areas forms part of
ETSCs general mission to define holistic strategies aiming at the improvement of
road safety in EU countries and identifying specific proposals addressing key
problem areas.
Results derived from quantitative and qualitative studies of the numbers and
circumstances of crashes involving pedestrians and cyclists are outlined; the
conceptual basis of strategies for countermeasures and their effective
implementation, derived from research and experience in different EU countries, are
presented; and finally wide-ranging recommendations are made.
Taking account of the valuable contributions on vulnerable road user safety made
recently by the OECD, ECMT, and first reports on the EU projects, MASTER and
PROMISING, this review offers additional information and insights to help to
reduce the road crash risk of vulnerable road users in the European Union.

1.1 Crash risk

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 (IRTAD,
1999). The risk of being killed in traffic per kilometre travelled is more than four
times higher for these two groups than for car occupants (ETSC, 1999a). 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. There are
notable differences between countries (for example, the proportion of fatalities who
are cyclists is lowest in Greece, Portugal and Spain), probably partly explained by
differences in amounts and patterns of walking and cycling. These, in turn, reflect
economic, social, infrastructural, topographical and climatic conditions. More
information is needed about levels of pedestrian and cyclist traffic in the EU before
crash risk differences can be fully understood.

1.2 Broader societal perspectives

In considering the needs of pedestrians and cyclists, health, environmental and other
social objectives are complementary to that of reducing the risk of injury on the
roads.
Health dimension. In contrast to motorised travel, walking and cycling require
physical effort and are, therefore, health-promoting. At all ages they are the most
common and regular physical activity. Their benefits to public health are
increasingly understood. As a result some Member States are introducing policies to

15
promote walking and cycling. For example, the Danish National Traffic Plan targets
4 per cent of total car traffic to be converted into cycling and walking by the year
2005 and one-third of all car journeys shorter than 3 km into non-motorised travel.
Environmental dimension. Motor traffic contributes significantly to urban
environmental pollution. Traffic congestion, speed-reducing measures and the
increasing availability of public transport mean that the time advantage of car travel
compared with cycling or the combination of public transport, walking or cycling in
urban areas has been reduced. A further environmental advantage of walking and
cycling over car travel is that they require less parking space.
Social dimension. Provision for walking is essential to social interaction, not only
because so many whole journeys and parts of so many journeys by public transport
or private vehicle are made on foot, but also because people of all ages also use
streets, pathways and pedestrian areas for a range of social activities such as talking
to neighbours or playing outdoors.
Walking or cycling, together with public transport, provide the main means of
getting about independently for a range of social groups including:

children and young people who are not qualified to drive a car;
adults accompanying smaller children;
older people who are less able or less inclined to use the car;
many wheelchair users; and
people who are denied or choose not to have access to private motor vehicles.

As well as providing for ease of access and movement on foot and by cycle, planning
and traffic management need to take into account that pedestrians and cyclists are
particularly sensitive to pollution and crime which can deter walking and cycling.
Improving the safety and attractiveness of urban areas for pedestrians and cyclists is
important for the quality of urban living.

1.3 Conclusion
Many societal considerations indicate that cycling and walking (in combination with
the use of public transport) should be encouraged, but this implies that high priority
should be given to reducing risks to pedestrians and cyclists from motor traffic.
The integration of safety and other important societal goals environmental
protection, health promotion and improvement of social interaction should lead to
increased public and institutional support for traffic safety measures. The recent
SARTRE survey (1998) of driving opinion in European countries indicates that
improvements for cyclists and of the public transport system are already
favoured by the majority of the EU drivers surveyed. This result suggests that
improvements in alternatives to private motor transport find broad public
acceptance in Europe.
This review sets out the challenge that providing for safer walking and cycling
presents to policymakers and professionals concerned with the many relevant
aspects of urban planning and design and of the road transport system and its use.

16

2 Pedestrian and cyclist casualties in EU Countries

Much of the epidemiological information presented here concerning the frequency,
types and nature of the pedestrians and cyclist crashes is based on records of
fatalities in the International Road Traffic Accident Database (IRTAD). Recording of
fatalities is more comparable than that of other casualties. Interpretation is hindered
by lack of data on amounts and kinds of walking and cycling.

2.1 General trends

In the EU as a whole in 1996, more than 9,400 pedestrians and cyclists were killed,
almost 22 per cent of all road traffic deaths. Nearly three-quarters of these were
pedestrians, and just over one-quarter cyclists.
As Table 1 shows, there are major differences between Member States, but these are
difficult to interpret without comparable measures of exposure to risk in each
country. For example, the relatively low numbers of cyclist fatalities in southern
European countries may well reflect primarily their low levels of cycle use.
The long-term trend in deaths has been downward for both pedestrians and cyclists.
Between 1980 and 1995, the pedestrian death rate per head for the EU as a whole fell
by 30 per cent. The cyclist death rate shows a smaller reduction over the same
period. Changes in exposure over time may also be important; some national studies
show reduced average exposure times (for example of children walking), possibly
indicating changes in patterns of mobility or outdoor activity.

17
Table 1: Numbers of pedestrians and pedal cyclists killed in relation to
population and total road deaths in 14* EU-Countries in 1996
Percentage of road deaths that were
Coun Pop.
-try
mill.

Number of deaths

Deaths per
million
population

All road
users

Pedestrians

Cyclists Pedestrians

Pedestrians or
cyclists
Cyclists in
1996

Pedestrians in

Cyclists in

1996

1980

1996

1980

8.01

1027

157

73

19.6

9.1

22.4

15.3

22.9

7.1

4.3

10.18

1356

155

120

15.2

11.8

20.3

11.4

21.2

8.8

10.1

81.90

8758

1178

594

14.4

7.3

20.2

13.5

24.7

6.8

8.9

DK

5.29

514

68

88

12.9

16.6

30.4

13.2

20.0

17.1

12.2

39.68

5483

960

102

24.2

2.6

19.4

17.5

23.2

1.9

1.9

58.21

8541

1043

317

17.9

5.4

15.9

12.2

17.6

3.7

5.3

FIN

5.13

404

70

46

13.6

9.0

28.7

17.3

25.2

11.4

19.4

GR

10.48

2063

469*

33*

44.7

3.1

24.0

22.7

31.2

1.6

2.7

IT

57.25

6688

987

414

16.0

6.7

20.9

14.8

21.2

6.2

7.5

IRL

3.58

453

115

22

32.1

6.1

30.2

25.4

36.9

4.9

6.4

NL

15.60

1180

109

232

7.0

14.9

29.0

9.2

14.8

19.7

21.3

9.82

2730

624

75

63.5

7.6

25.6

22.9

8.82

537

74

49

8.4

5.6

22.9

13.8

15.7

9.1

13.2

UK

58.28

3740

1039

208

17.8

3.6

33.3

27.8

32.6

5.6

5.1

All
14

372.2

43474

7048

2373

18.9

6.4

24.5

16.2

23.6

5.5

9.1

2.8

Luxembourg is omitted because of its small number of deaths and consequent variability of the various ratios

* 1995 data

2.2 Major results from in-depth studies of crashes

The findings mentioned here indicate important characteristics of the crashinvolvement of pedestrians and cyclists. Quantitative information is included for
illustrative purposes only; results of particular studies may reflect national or
regional conditions and should not be extrapolated to whole countries or across the
EU.
Differences between age groups. There are various age-related differences in crash
risk. The risk per head of dying as a pedestrian in a crash is four times higher for
road users of 65 years and over than for all younger age groups. There is a similar
but less pronounced difference for cyclists. About 30 per cent of children under 6
killed in road crashes are pedestrians. For cyclists, the death rate per head is high
between the ages of 10 and 17.
Vehicles involved. Cars account for over 90 per cent of vehicles striking pedestrians
and cyclists. However, large numbers of cyclist crashes not involving any other
vehicle go unrecorded in the crash statistics; in a Dutch study that did include them,
over 40 per cent of all cyclist crashes were falls (Schoon, 1996). Nearly 20 per cent of
elderly cyclists involved in crashes are hit by another cycle or a moped, and these
collisions often lead to serious injuries.

18
Crash circumstances pedestrians. Only about 50 per cent of pedestrian deaths
occur while crossing a road. About a quarter occur while boarding or alighting from
a bus or getting into or out of a car. Others occur while walking along the road,
playing, running, or working. Most fatal crashes involving pedestrians are not
located at a marked crossing, the vast majority occurring more than 50m from such a
crossing. Elderly people are most frequently hit by vehicles when halfway or further
across the street, while children are mostly hit when starting to cross.
Crash circumstances cyclists. Most fatal or serious cyclist crashes occur at
junctions. Many are struck from the side while going straight ahead or turning
across the path of oncoming traffic. There are indications that about 10 per cent of
crashes involve loss of control of the cycle.
Intervisibility. Obstructed vision is a common factor for pedestrian crashes. In one
study, almost a third of pedestrians said that something made it difficult for them to
see the striking vehicle. Similarly, two-fifths of drivers said something made it
difficult to see the pedestrian. A parked car was the most commonly cited source of
obstruction. Only about one in ten drivers hitting a cyclist said they noticed them
beforehand, whereas over two-thirds of cyclists said they had noticed the striking
vehicle.
Familiarity with traffic situation. A high proportion of both pedestrians and
drivers involved in collisions between them know the site and have travelled
through it three to five times a week prior to the crash. Cyclists involved in crashes
at junctions also tend to be familiar with the site. Of children aged under 7 injured in
crashes, the majority are within 100m of home. In this age group, a larger proportion
of crashes happen in lightly trafficked streets than is the case for older children and
adult pedestrians.
Types of injuries. Head injuries are the major cause of death for three-quarters of
cyclist fatalities. Head or brain injury account for about half of all younger
hospitalised cycle crash victims. They are more often the result of crashes involving
no other vehicle than of a collision with a motor vehicle. Therefore, serious head
injuries experienced by cyclists could be effectively reduced by the general use of
cycle helmets. Over a quarter of injured cyclists still experienced physical
inconvenience two years after the collision (Larsen, 1994), and the proportion
permanently disabled increases with age.
Alcohol and relative poverty Thirty-five per cent of adult pedestrians (over the age
of 16) killed in a crash and tested for alcohol were found to have blood alcohol levels
above the legal limit for driving. This rate was higher than that of drivers involved in
fatal crashes (Fontaine et al., 1997). Injured adult pedestrians were found to be
predominantly from low socio-economic groups (for example, 26 per cent of heads of
household were unemployed).

2.3 General problems with sources of crash data

By far the most important information sources for quantitative statistical crash
analyses are data collected by the police or similar agencies at national level. The

19
weaknesses of this source of information for pedestrian and cyclist casualties are
well established:
Comprehensiveness and quality. The data are most often based on a limited number
of variables describing crash characteristics, and they provide very little information
on the injury consequences of crashes such as severity and types of injury, and
resulting disabilities. The range of possible factors that can be detected and described
on this basis is limited. Furthermore, the quality of statistical crash data in terms of
completeness and accuracy is not always satisfactory.
Underreporting. Pedestrian and cyclist crashes are heavily and disproportionately
underrepresented in the police crash statistics compared to what hospital records
and other studies show (OECD, 1998). A particularly important problem is the
substantial proportion of cyclist crashes that do not involve any other vehicle. Even
in the case of the more severe injuries, the police very seldom record these crashes;
they are therefore not adequately represented in the statistics.
Recognising these weaknesses, statistical analysis based on standard crash data
needs to be complemented by approaches such as direct observation in traffic of
events that are valid proxies for crashes (traffic conflict techniques); the observation
of particular characteristics of traffic behaviour and analysis of their determinants;
in-depth crash injury research; and collection of travel data about walking and
cycling in urban areas, which barely exists in most EU countries. There is also a
particular need for data about injuries in traffic to people with reduced mobility, in
view of the growing concern to meet their requirements for mobility.

3 Key problems for pedestrians and cyclists in relation to

the modern traffic system
The main problems for vulnerable road users are common to all EU Member States,
although they may differ in extent. The key factor which underlies the complex mix
of reasons for these problems is that the modern traffic system is designed largely
from a car-user perspective resulting in 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. For cyclists a helmet provides
useful protection against head injuries, but the use of helmets varies with age,
gender and location.
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 (Carlsson, 1996).
Another aspect of vulnerability is that the weight and speed of pedestrians rarely
pose any threat to other road users. Cyclists are sometimes a threat to pedestrians in
this respect but of no threat to other road users. Since pedestrians and cyclists pose
little threat to drivers, the drivers have less reason to be aware of them.

20
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. It is very difficult to influence cyclist behaviour by
road markings or traffic signs. If a pedestrian or a cyclist gains significantly by
walking across a lawn or cycling the wrong way along a one way road, then they do
it. Pedestrians are even more flexible than cyclists: they can jump over fences and
have hardly any stopping distance.
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 the 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. Pedestrians do not
regularly carry lamps. Even after massive campaigns, pedestrians seldom wear
luminous tags. Cycles are seldom equipped with proper lamps even though these
are available. One reason is that cyclists do not perceive a benefit from the lamps
because they are too weak to help in seeing the road surface.
Differing abilities
Pedestrians and to a large extent also cyclists are drawn from the entire range of the
population. They include children with lack of experience, elderly people with
reduced capacity and people with reduced mobility. No realistic licensing
procedures could exclude them from the streets, even if it were conceivable to think
of doing so in free societies.
Consciousness 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. Studies have shown
that pedestrians and cyclist have a higher value of time than drivers or those on
board public transport vehicles.
Estrangement
Involvement in the traffic process varies from person to person and from situation to
situation. When walking from one shop to the next, being a road user is not the
primary task. Pedestrians are often primarily doing other things than travelling on
foot. This, together with the fact that the modern traffic environment is designed
largely for cars rather than for pedestrians and cyclists, creates a state of
estrangement of pedestrians and cyclists. Cyclists more often make journeys, but
even they are often treated as intruders in the traffic system rather than as an
integral part of that system.

21
The key problems in combination
In real situations, difficulties for pedestrians and cyclists result from combinations of
these key problems. A crash is seldom a result of one single problem. A pedestrian
stumbling and becoming concussed on falling could stem from a combination of
vulnerability low speed is enough to cause concussion, instability a slightly uneven
footway resulted in the fall, flexibility the pedestrian stepped sideways to avoid a
puddle, incapability the pedestrian was elderly and not agile, consciousness of effort
he tried to avoid a detour around the puddle, estrangement he was primarily
engaged in his shopping.
A cyclist colliding with a car could stem from flexibility the cyclist was making an
unorthodox turn, instability even a slight contact with the car resulted in a fall,
invisibility the car driver saw the cycle too late, estrangement the cyclist was just
coming out of a park and was involved in an interesting conversation with a friend.
Insight into these key problems should be used to help in understanding the
conditions under which traffic planning and management has to be carried out.
Many of these problems are rather difficult to eliminate; good solutions are normally
a result of countermeasures that address several of them together.

4 Managing exposure to risk

The safety of people walking or cycling in urban areas has to be considered in the
context of policies for encouraging people to travel on foot, by cycle or by public
transport rather than by car in order to reduce environmental damage, improve
public health, and enhance the quality of life in towns and cities. These policies
imply that attractive routes should be available for shorter journeys to be made
wholly on foot or by cycle, and that it should be convenient to walk or cycle to and
from public transport stops. Those who make part of their journey by car should also
find it convenient to complete their journey on foot, by cycle or by public transport
from an appropriate parking place. Account should also be taken of policies for
improving access to all kinds of destinations for people with reduced mobility; these
policies require, for example, that routes for movement on foot should be negotiable
by wheelchair users and by the blind and partially sighted.
An important element in making walking and cycling attractive and convenient is
that they should be safe: unless it is perceived to be safe enough to walk or cycle,
people will not choose to do so, and even where risk is not perceived as a deterrent
by the pedestrians and cyclists themselves, those responsible for transport policy
should seek to reduce it as far as is reasonably practicable because of the social and
economic costs of death and injury in crashes. There will sometimes be trade-offs
between safety and other aspects of attractiveness and convenience.

4.1 Risks affecting walking and cycling

Safety of walking and cycling is jeopardised by three main kinds of risk: risk from
traffic, risk of falling, and risk from crime. The last of these is more a social problem
than a transport one, but transport policy can mitigate it by achieving routes for
walking and cycling that are well-maintained, well-lit, well-used and overlooked,
and provide their users with good visibility and intervisibility throughout their

22
journeys. Risk of theft of cycles can be reduced by providing secure or at least highly
visible storage places for cycles at non-home destinations. Reducing the risk of
falling is largely a matter of the detailed design and maintenance of the surfaces
used by pedestrians and cyclists - not only on footways and cycle paths, but also on
the carriageway, where the parts of the surface most used by crossing pedestrians or
by cyclists should have the highest quality of surface and the highest priority for
maintenance. Risk from traffic is essentially a matter of transport policy, including
road safety policy (OECD, 1998).

4.2 Reducing risk from traffic

There are many ways in which transport policy in general and road safety policy in
particular can contribute to reducing exposure to risk from traffic for those travelling
on foot or by cycle. Risk from traffic consists mainly of risk from mechanised
vehicles, but it also includes risk posed to pedestrians by cyclists and vice versa. It can
be reduced by

separating different kinds of road use to eliminate conflicts,

creating more favourable conditions for integrating different kinds of road use
through sharing of space, and
mitigating the consequences of collisions where these nevertheless still occur.

Where separation can be achieved in ways which provide convenient and attractive
routes for all road users, it very largely removes risk from traffic in the areas of
separation - but this advantage may be offset by increased risk where road users
re-enter shared space. Integration of different kinds of road use by sharing of space
often has the advantages of requiring less adaptation of the roads and paths and
enabling more direct routes to be provided. Taken together, these means of reducing
risk require action in respect of location of destinations, layout of sites and buildings,
design and maintenance of the road infrastructure, regulation of road use, design of
the vehicles, and behaviour of the road users themselves.
In planning the evolution of land-use, priority can be given to locating the most
likely destinations for walking and cycling - homes, schools, workplaces, shops,
social and recreational facilities, and public transport stops - where they can be more
readily served by safe, attractive and convenient routes for walking and cycling. As
sites and buildings are adapted, redeveloped or developed for the first time,
opportunities can be taken to achieve layouts which separate access by motor
vehicles from that on foot or by cycle, and adapt the latter to the local network of
pedestrian and cycle routes, including routes from public transport stops.
In the road infrastructure, priority can be given to identifying comprehensive
networks of pedestrian and cycle routes and making these routes attractive and safe
to use, having regard to and, if necessary, adapting the location of public transport
stops. The networks as a whole should achieve a high degree of connectivity and
individual routes within them should be direct and uninterrupted in respect of the
journeys that people would like to make. Routes will typically consist of a mixture of
sections of footpath or cycle path separate from any carriageway, wholly pedestrian
areas with or without admission of cyclists, footways or cycle tracks alongside
carriageways, and carriageways or other surfaces shared with motor vehicles. Where

23
routes cross appreciable flows of motor vehicles, careful attention will be given to
the location and design of the crossing point. Where the routes are not separated
from carriageways, and even more so where surfaces are shared with motor vehicles,
the layout will be such that the speeds of the latter are moderated.

4.3 Urban safety management and sustainable safety

Density of development in urban areas offers the possibility, through land-use
planning, for many of the purposes of day-to-day travel to be satisfied within
distances short enough for walking and cycling if people choose to do so - though it
cannot guarantee that they will so choose. It also makes viable relatively high levels
of public transport services to provide for longer journeys, with associated demand
for access on foot or cycle to public transport stops. At the same time, the density of
road networks in urban areas offers great scope for providing safe, attractive and
convenient routes for walking and cycling as part of the process of urban safety
management (IHT, 1990) or the implementation of sustainable road safety (Dutch
Ministry of Transport and Public Works, 1996). The key to this process is the
availability of numerous alternative routes for most journeys through the network of
roads, footpaths and cycle paths. Urban safety management and sustainable road
safety adapt the layout of this whole network to provide a hierarchy of routes for
pedestrians, routes for cyclists and roads with different mixtures of access and
movement functions for use by motor vehicles. The motor traffic is managed so that
it uses each road safely having regard to its functions, including any walking and
cycling that takes place there. By its very nature, such comprehensive adaptation in
the interests of safety will be the subject of safety impact assessment. The design and
implementation of the resulting changes should also be the subject of safety audit
(ETSC, 1997).
In the context of encouragement for walking and cycling, urban safety management
should give high priority first to identifying the pattern of journeys that people
would like to make on foot or cycle, and then to creating safe, attractive and
connected routes for this pattern of journeys. These routes should be designated in
conjunction with the functions of each road for all kinds of road user, and in
particular so that motor traffic uses each road in ways that are consistent with the
safety and convenience of pedestrians and cyclists. This should result in as much as
is practicable of the motor traffic travelling on main roads where pedestrians and
cyclists whose routes follow the main road can be separated from the motor traffic
and those whose routes cross the main road can be provided with safe and
convenient opportunities to do so, notwithstanding the possibly heavy flows of
motor traffic. This may well present challenging problems of junction design. Routes
for walking and cycling should follow more local roads or separate footpaths or
cycle paths to the greatest extent that is consistent with the objective that these routes
should be direct enough to be attractive to their intended users. Concentration of
motor traffic onto main roads should enable the more local roads to be adapted to
enable them to perform their functions in respect of motor vehicles consistently with
their forming parts of safe and attractive routes for pedestrians and cyclists. The
more these roads are used for walking and cycling, the more aware drivers will
become of the likelihood of encountering pedestrians and cyclists, and thus the
lower the risk that motor vehicles will pose to them. On public transport routes,
whether bus or light rail routes on main or more local roads, or bus or rail services

24
on segregated tracks, the stopping places should be served by the network of routes
for walking and cycling.

4.4 Motor vehicle design and road user behaviour for

sustainable safety
Motor vehicles can be designed to be less injurious to pedestrians and cyclists who,
despite all efforts to minimise the risk of this, are struck by them. Standards for
pedestrian-friendly car fronts and for underrun guards on larger vehicles are
important here. In due course, there is scope for in-vehicle telematic devices to limit
the speeds of motor vehicles to the level appropriate to each length of road or area of
shared surface, having regard to use by pedestrians and cyclists, and to further
reduce the risk of collision. In the meantime, drivers need to be educated about the
needs of pedestrians and cyclists and ways in which the road infrastructure is being
modified to provide better for them, requiring in turn new patterns of driver
behaviour, especially in respect of choice of route and choice of speed appropriate to
each part of the chosen route.
Last but not least, and in the context of the provision being made for them and the
changes in behaviour being required and asked of drivers, pedestrians and cyclists
themselves need to be educated and encouraged to take steps that are open to them
to reduce their own exposure to risk in the course of the increasing use they are
being encouraged to make of walking and cycling as means of transport. They need
to be fully consulted and informed about the routes being created or improved for
them, and especially of any situations in which, for the sake of safety, any route is
made somewhat less attractive or convenient in some other respect. Both pedestrians
and cyclists also need to be encouraged to use clothing and devices that increase
their conspicuity to drivers, and cyclists need to be encouraged to wear helmets.
In all these ways 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, and thus contribute
to sustainable safety.

5 Casualty reduction
The process of adapting the layout and use of roads and paths in urban areas to
manage the exposure of road users to risk will in many places be a lengthy one. At
every stage in this process, the responsible authorities should be taking all
practicable and affordable steps to reduce casualties in the prevailing circumstances
and to contribute to their further reduction in the longer term. The measures
available for this purpose are outlined in this section under the headings of road
engineering, user protection and vehicle engineering, and educating, training and
informing road users, including enforcing regulations.

5.1 Road engineering measures

Road conditions for pedestrians and cyclists can be made substantially safer to
enable a higher level of walking and cycling while reducing casualties. Dedicated

25
facilities may be the solution in some instances, traffic restraint and speed reduction
in others. A combination of measures should usually be applied and some
potentially effective measures are discussed here.
The aim should be to minimise potential conflict between motor vehicles and
vulnerable road users by engineering out potentially unsafe features on roads,
including those relating to traffic management schemes and maintenance projects
(Greibe, Nilsson and Andersen, 1998). Audits of existing infrastructure and planned
construction, traffic management schemes and maintenance work are useful first
steps.
5.1.1 Measures benefiting both pedestrians and cyclists
Effective measures will depend on the broader traffic, environmental, economic and
planning objectives of the town or city. The success, or otherwise, of any measure
will depend upon the social context, legal issues including traffic regulation, and
public acceptability. The following hierarchy of measures should be considered
before the design solution is chosen: traffic reduction; speed reduction; junction
treatment; the redistribution of road space; and the provision of special facilities
(IHT, 1996). These measures are not alternatives: implementing those higher up the
hierarchy may make it easier to introduce successfully the lower level measures or
may render them unnecessary. A high-quality infrastructure will incorporate many
or all of them.
Traffic reduction Heavy traffic flows are a major deterrent to walking and cycling.
Conflict between vulnerable road users and vehicles can be reduced by the
introduction of car-free areas or pedestrian zones. Traffic and speeds may also be
reduced by road closures. The closure of minor streets can offer lightly trafficked
routes for cyclists and a safer pedestrian environment. An area-wide approach
should be adopted to avoid displaced traffic leading to more crashes elsewhere.
Even at low speeds, mixing with heavy traffic, especially lorries, is hazardous. The
diversion of through and unnecessary traffic from some areas will reduce potential
conflict but will require appropriate advance signing and, possibly, some road
construction.
Speed reduction and traffic calming measures Speed of motor vehicles is critical to the
safety of vulnerable road users. At low speeds drivers have more time to react to the
unexpected and avoid collisions. At speeds of below 30 km/h pedestrians and
cyclists can mix with motor vehicles in relative safety.
Traffic calming reduces the speed of motor vehicles by various physical
modifications: vertical and horizontal deflections, changes in surface colour and
texture, a reduction in overall carriageway area, and signs and other symbols to
convey to drivers that they need to have greater awareness of vulnerable road users.
Gateways may indicate entries into traffic calmed areas. Traffic calming measures,
based upon various national guidelines, are now common throughout the EU. Such
schemes should be introduced as part of area-wide urban safety management. In
Denmark the EMIL project showed that traffic calming can lead to speed reductions
of 540 per cent with an average reduction of 10 km/h (ETSC, 1995).

26
In shared-use areas rights of way may be altered so that pedestrians (and possibly
cyclists) have priority over drivers (Greibe et al., 1998). Shared-use areas are usually
supported by physical measures and lower speed limits.
Provision for on-street parking should form an integral part of traffic calming since
parked vehicles can help reduce traffic speeds. Footway build-outs can define
parking areas and improve visibility for pedestrians at crossing points. Planting
schemes must not obscure pedestrians or cyclists.
Speed limits In urban areas, speed limits should reinforce an easily understood road
hierarchy. They should be lowered when a consequent reduction in actual vehicle
speeds can be expected and when the police can enforce the lower limit. Danish
research has shown that a change in the general speed limit in urban areas from 60
km/h to 50 km/h resulted in a 6 per cent improvement in cyclists' safety (Jensen,
1998). Localised variations in speed limits are normally unnecessary where the
character of the road limits the speed of most vehicles to a level appropriate to the
conditions.
Speed limit zones of 30 km/h (20 miles/h in the UK/Ireland) are most appropriate
where an urban safety management strategy has been adopted. Self-enforcing
measures in the zones are usually necessary to reduce speeds. In the Netherlands 30
km/h zones generated a 22 per cent reduction in personal injury crashes (OECD,
1998).
Gradeseparated crossings Pedestrians and cyclists are particularly at risk when
crossing heavily trafficked roads and are generally safer when separated from traffic.
To be successful, grade-separation, either by footbridges or subways, should be
without steps or troublesome ramps and keep vulnerable road users on their natural
desire-line whilst motor vehicles undergo the changes in grade and level. The main
use is for crossing roads with speed limits of 60 km/h or higher or heavily trafficked
roads. Subways should be brightly lit, regularly cleaned, have good through
visibility and be consistently overlooked (IHT, 1997).
Signs, distinctive surfaces and road markings Consistent signing and distinctive
surfaces help to advertise the presence of pedestrians and cyclists. Signing should
indicate route continuity and pedestrian or cycle route priority. Advance warnings
of pedestrians can help to slow traffic (Towliat, 1997). Road markings encourage
driver discipline and warn of changes to the highway layout. They are selfexplanatory and can reduce conflict, especially at intersections. Distinguishing cycle
lanes by surface colour is useful. Coloured surfaces should be used consistently so
that road users know what to expect. Raised rib road markings should not be used
where cyclists are likely to cross them.
Maintenance A Swedish study (Oberg et al., 1996) found that 78 per cent of injured
pedestrians and 42 per cent of injured cyclists in incidents not involving a motor
vehicle considered that the condition of the road surface was of significance. Routes
of importance to pedestrians and cyclists should therefore be identified for priority
maintenance. Such routes require regular sweeping to remove debris and loose
material as they are not routinely swept by motor vehicles.

27
Good winter maintenance is important also: for example, in Linkoping 70 per cent of
pedestrian injuries occur in the winter (Oberg et al., 1996). Anti-skid surfaces reduce
slipping dramatically: only 1 in 5 pedestrian injuries occur when surfaces are dry.
A good-quality riding surface is essential for the safety of cyclists (IHT, 1996).
Relatively minor defects in pavement or track surfaces can be a real safety hazard for
cyclists whereas for motorists they may be merely an inconvenience. As cyclists tend
to use the edge of the carriageway, efficient drainage is important.
Provision should be made for pedestrians and cyclists at road works, with
appropriate signing and routeing. Delays and detours for both groups should be
minimised. Maintenance works should be undertaken with particular regard to
people with reduced mobility. Reinstatement of the highway or footpath surface
immediately after road works have taken place should be to the highest standards.
Facilities such as tactile surfaces must be reinstated in full after street works have
been undertaken.
5.1.2 Measures benefiting pedestrians
Everyone needs to walk for work, shopping, education or leisure. Making the
pedestrian environment safer will therefore be beneficial. In doing so it is essential to
recognise the vulnerability of pedestrians and the special needs of the young, the
elderly and those with reduced mobility.
The needs and behaviour of pedestrians while playing, meeting socially, or shopping
are not the same as those related to reaching a destination. Increased protection is
needed for the former since their attention may well not be on the traffic, and their
movements may be erratic and thus unexpected by drivers (OECD, 1998).
Urban transport strategies should include the development and maintenance of a
comprehensive, safe, well-signed and well-lit network of pedestrian routes,
providing easy access to all major developments (see Section 4). Research in the UK
indicated that 55 per cent of elderly pedestrians experience problems with cracked
pavements; 40 per cent say that there is too much traffic; 31 per cent fear uncleared
snow and wet leaves; 29 per cent have problems with pavement cycling; 27 per cent
with vehicles parked on the pavement and 20 per cent because there is no pedestrian
crossing; and 15 per cent want more time to cross the road (Pedestrians Association,
1995). Such issues should be addressed in maintenance programmes as well as the
transport strategy.
Developing pedestrian networks Pedestrians aim to follow the shortest and most
direct path to their destination and prefer to be able to see the way ahead. Footways
and footpaths should be aligned accordingly. Feelings of personal security are
enhanced where routes are used by substantial flows of people. Corners and angles
of buildings or structures, where individuals might be hidden from one another,
should be avoided. Safe play areas should be provided for children.
Adequate pavement width (usually 2.5 m) should be provided so that pedestrians
need not walk on the carriageway (OECD, 1998) and the width is adequate for those
using wheelchairs (IHT, 1991).
Pedestrian crossings Pedestrian crossings are perceived to be safe places to cross the
road, although this is not necessarily the case (LRC, 1998). While crossings give some

28
protection to the young and elderly, many crashes occur in their vicinity: the 50m
either side of a signalised crossing is particularly dangerous. Pedestrian casualties
can be reduced by installing guardrails and some EU countries permit a stop line for
vehicles a few metres before the crossing to reduce conflict (OECD, 1998).
Dropped kerbs at crossings assist those with physical impairments while tactile
surfaces help those with visual impairments. Refuge islands (or a continuous central
reservation) provide help in crossing. Zebra crossings are also often used because of
their relatively low cost. Signalcontrolled pedestrian crossings can improve safety
especially on higher speed roads or those with high traffic levels (Jensen, 1998).
School crossing patrols provide a managed means of safer crossing for children as a
particularly vulnerable group. The choice of facility to provide will depend upon
local circumstances.
Pedestrian priority areas Pedestrian areas may be designed as such or be
conversions from streets used by vehicles, and their value in improving safety has
been demonstrated widely, especially for shopping streets. Pedestrian areas may be
exclusively for pedestrian use, for pedestrians and cyclists or for pedestrians and
cyclists along with some permitted vehicles at certain times of the day. The facility
for vehicles to use converted areas outside times of closure will often remain for
reasons of access and servicing, but the surface and layout of the street can be
designed for pedestrians, with a clear indication of the paths to be followed by
vehicles when they have access.
Streets dominated by heavy flows of traffic tend to be threatening to pedestrians. On
the other hand, traffic-free areas, such as shopping precincts, with too little activity,
can also promote anxiety in pedestrians. Whilst the fear of personal crime may be
out of proportion to its reality, the risks should always be considered in the layout
and design of areas used by pedestrians.
Facilities for people with reduced mobility A significant proportion of people has
some degree of reduced mobility and all of us are sometimes ill, impaired or
encumbered. The resulting needs must be understood before facilities, especially
pedestrian crossings, are designed or redesigned. Blind or partially-sighted people
can usually follow kerblines or the facades of buildings, but they can have problems
in finding their way in pedestrian areas (IHT, 1991). Different surface textures or
directional guidance paving can help them. Street furniture can be a hazard and
should not be placed on the natural routes taken by blind or partially-sighted people.
Changes in level should avoid the exclusive use of steps. If steps are unavoidable,
the top and bottom of flights of steps should have warning surfaces.
Guard rails A continuous safety fence on the edge of the footway can improve safety
at conflict points but should be installed only where there are risks of crashes from
pedestrians walking onto the road. Guardrails restrict peoples freedom and are
resented unless there is no practical alternative. Drivers must be able to see
pedestrians waiting to cross at the end of a length of guardrail.
5.1.3 Measures benefiting cyclists
Cyclists can mix safely with traffic at speeds below 30 km/h. They can also mix
safely with traffic at speeds between 30 km/h and 50 km/h unless there are
significant numbers of lorries or child cyclists. Additional lane width is desirable

29
where traffic flows are heavy. Where traffic speeds are between 50 km/h and 65
km/h, segregation or additional lane width is necessary. Above 65 km/h,
segregation is essential.
Link design Cyclists need space to cycle safely: they should not be expected to stay
close to the nearside kerb at all times. Adequate width should be provided for
overtaking other cyclists, to be passed safely by motor vehicles, and for cyclists to
deviate around road defects, debris and other hazards. Danish studies show
reductions of 35 per cent in cyclist casualties on links after the construction of tracks
or lanes alongside urban roads (Herrstedt, 1997).
The appropriate link design will depend on the volume of cyclists, speed and
volume of motor vehicles, the functions of the route and the physical opportunities
present. It should also take account of the number of lorries, sight distances, onstreet parking, the number and type of junctions and accesses to properties. The
Dutch design manual provides guidance on when a cycle track, cycle lane or mixed
use is appropriate (CROW, 1993).
Various approaches to on-carriageway provision can be adopted. Wider nearside
lanes benefit cyclists' safety, particularly where there are significant numbers of
lorries or buses, and several European authorities endorse their use. Bus and cycle
lanes can also improve the safety of cyclists since they separate cyclists from general
traffic (IHT, 1996). Bus lanes may be either with-flow or contra-flow. Cyclists should
be allowed to use both. Particular care must be taken at bus stops to reduce
cyclist/pedestrian conflict.
With-flow cycle lanes give cyclists a well-defined space and allow them to overtake
safely. They can also contribute to traffic calming by visually narrowing the
carriageway. However, cycle lanes require effective waiting and loading restrictions.
Furthermore, there must be sufficient carriageway remaining for motor vehicles to
pass each other safely. Where occasional encroachment by motor vehicles is
essential, an advisory cycle lane may be useful.
Cycle lanes on links should be at least between 1.5m and 2m wide wherever
possible: wider lanes allow safer overtaking but narrower lanes are permitted in
some places. Widths of less than 1.5m give cyclists little room to manoeuvre around
debris, potholes and drainage grates while a lane wider than 2m may be abused by
motorists. If cycle flows are heavy (over 150 cyclists in the peak hour) 2.5m may be
required or another arrangement may be necessary. There have been several studies
of the safety of cycle lanes in relation to width and traffic levels (Angenendt, 1992
and Levelt, 1994). Cycle lanes should be located outside car parking or any bus bay,
and not between car parking and the footway (Wilkinson, Clarke, Epperson and
Knoblauch, 1994). Particular care must be taken when designing cycle lanes at
junctions.
One-way streets can endanger cyclists since they introduce additional hazards at
junctions where unusual road positioning is required. Contra-flow cycle lanes can be
relatively safe for cyclists as there is good intervisibility between them and oncoming
vehicles (Werele, 1992).

30
Cycle tracks or paths can provide safe off-carriageway provision within the
highway. Cycle tracks remove cyclists from hostile traffic conditions and provide a
higher degree of a safety than cycle lanes. Nevertheless over half of cyclist casualties
in Sweden are injured on cycle tracks and paths (Oberg et al., 1996). Cycle tracks are
most useful on roads with few junctions where traffic volumes or speeds are high,
and on routes used by lorries. Tracks should be at least 2m wide but 2.2m is
recommended, and they should be provided on both sides of the road to minimise
the need for crossing.
Route continuity is crucial and cycle tracks should not be discontinued at side roads
and junctions. A through cycle track should have priority over minor side roads and
accesses made clear by continuity of surface colour and markings. The track can be
continued across a minor road at footway height, creating a humped crossing.
Junctions A cycle network is only as good as its weakest features and these are often
the junctions. In Denmark over 60 per cent of crashes involving cyclists occur at
junctions (DRD, 1997). Junction designs that are cycle-friendly are also likely to be
pedestrian-friendly.
Drivers should know where to expect to find cyclists at junctions. Layouts that place
cyclists outside the driver's normal field of view are likely to be hazardous; those
that place the cyclists in front of and reasonably close to the driver tend to be safer
(Herrstedt et al., 1994). Free-flowing arrangements, particularly near-side turning
and merge lanes for vehicles, are particularly hazardous for cyclists. At some
junctions vehicles are prohibited from making certain turns but there is often no
reason to include cyclists in the prohibition.
Cyclists may find it difficult to make opposed turns at traffic signals. Some may
position themselves at the front of the traffic but this usually involves crossing the
stop line and may also make it difficult to see the signals. Advanced Stop Lines
(ASLs) provide a waiting area for cyclists between two stop lines - one for drivers
and an ASL for cyclists, so that waiting cyclists are ahead of motor vehicles and can
be seen easily. Danish research shows that crashes caused by turning vehicles
crossing the line of cyclists going straight ahead are reduced by 35 per cent by ASLs
(Herrstedt, 1997). Separate cyclist signals that give them a leading light may also
reduce crashes involving vehicles turning across their line of movement (Greibe et
al., 1998). They can also reduce the crash risk to children by up to 90 per cent (Leden,
1988).
Crossings Unsignalled crossings will normally be satisfactory on minor roads where
two-way traffic flows are less than 400 vehicles/h. If possible, priority should be
given to a primary cycle route over a minor road. Unsignalled crossings can also be
used on dual carriageways with flows of up to 1500 vehicles/h. Single carriageway
roads with higher traffic flows that can be divided by a central island may also be
suitable for unsignalled crossings. Single carriageway roads with two-way peak
flows of more than 1000 vehicles/h require signal-controlled crossings. These are
also likely to be required where speed limits are 60 km/h or above, or where a high
proportion of cyclists are children.
Where both cyclist and pedestrian flows are high and the predominant cyclist
movement is straight across the road, a parallel cycle/pedestrian crossing should be

31
provided. In the UK Toucan crossings provide a controlled combined crossing for
both cyclists and pedestrians and can be incorporated within signalised junctions.
Roundabouts Experience of roundabouts varies. Although smaller roundabouts can
reduce traffic speeds, large roundabouts and gyratories are the feature of the road
network most feared by cyclists: in the UK cyclists are some 15 times more likely
than car users to suffer a crash at a roundabout. Over half of these crashes are due to
motorists entering the roundabout and hitting cyclists (Layfield and Maycock, 1986).
There are many ways to make roundabouts safer for cyclists (Allott and Lomax,
1993). These include reducing the width of the circulatory carriageway, increasing
deflection on entry and improving signing, road markings and conspicuity.
Reducing the number of lanes entering and leaving the roundabout has reduced
crashes by 80 per cent at sites in the Netherlands (Dykstra, 1998). Annular cycle lanes
may be provided around the outside of larger roundabouts. Signal-control,
particularly with ASLs, can make large roundabouts safer for cyclists. Research
indicates that crashes involving cyclists can be reduced by 66 per cent on
roundabouts with full-time signals on all or some arms (Lines, 1995). However, large
gyratories are still likely to be intimidating if traffic speeds are over 50 km/h.
Research suggests that some roundabouts are working well for cyclists (Balsiger,
1992). Elvik's (1995) studies in Norway concluded that roundabouts reduced
personal injury crashes by 30 40 per cent, usually on roads with relatively low
vehicle flows and speeds but high flows of cyclists. Mini-roundabouts can form
useful features in traffic calming schemes.
5.1.4 Potential conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists
Pedestrian areas By physically restricting access for vehicles, pedestrian zones create
an environment where travel on foot and by cycle is safer. Opinion on admission of
cyclists to these areas may be divided, but there is a need to avoid pedestrian areas
resulting in unsafe or inconvenient conditions for cyclists, for example by forcing
them to use busy distributor roads. In Mechelin, cycling is permitted in pedestrian
streets in order to avoid detours for cyclists and this has so far proved to be safe
(Dykstra et al, 1998).
Segregating cyclists and pedestrians in pedestrian areas will not always be possible.
Where it is desirable, cycle movements can be combined with those of selected
vehicles, such as buses and service vehicles, permitted at particular times of day or
channelled by defined paths. In Bremen motor vehicles are prohibited from the large
central square and many neighbouring streets, permitting free and comparatively
easy access for pedestrians and cyclists. Cyclists and pedestrians can move freely,
while trams and buses - with their set movements - are easy to anticipate.
Research in the UK indicated that conflicts between cyclists and pedestrians in
pedestrian areas were less of a problem than appeared (Trevelyan and Morgan,
1993). Crashes in pedestrian areas between pedestrians and cyclists occur very rarely
while cyclists tend to respond to pedestrian density, modifying their speed,
dismounting and taking avoiding action where necessary.
Conversion of footways Cycling on the footway is common. Indeed in some
countries, such as Belgium and the Netherlands, small children are allowed to cycle
there. However it is of much concern to many pedestrians, particularly the elderly

32
and people who are visually impaired. In specific instances where no oncarriageway solution can be found, and where visibility is good, it may be
appropriate to convert the footway to shared use. Widening of the footway clear
signs and markings will help to make shared use more acceptable. Segregation by
white line only may be expedient but segregation by kerb or level is preferred by the
visually handicapped.
Bus stops A number of crashes between cyclists and pedestrians occur at bus stops.
Ways of overcoming this problem include using a different colour for the cycle lane
at the stop or rumble strips to guide cyclists away from potential conflict. However,
bus stops on refuges in the middle of streets can be particularly hazardous for
pedestrians (OECD, 1998).

5.2 User protection and vehicle engineering measures

Cyclists can be protected by various measures, some of them applied or directed to
the other object or vehicle involved in the collision. Those applied to motor vehicle
measures will also contribute to casualty reduction amongst pedestrians, most of
whom are struck by passenger cars. The main measure that pedestrians can take for
their own protection is to wear clothing that increases their conspicuity, especially in
poor daylight and in darkness.
5.2.1 User protection
The cycle and its equipment The visibility of the cycle and its user is an important
factor in preventing crashes. More than 30 per cent of the Dutch cycle crashes
occurring at night or in twilight could have been avoided if cycle lighting had been
working (Schoon, 1996). In Denmark, legislation in 1998 providing for safety
equipment for cycles requires lamps to be visible at a distance of 300 m and the
fitting of front, rear and wheel reflectors. The quality and use of lights can be
improved by enabling the storage of separate light systems or by designing the
lighting into the cycle frame. The use of rear view mirrors can be important,
especially for elderly road users, to improve the cyclists vision.
Failures of cycle components, like a sudden crack or a brake failure, can cause
serious crashes - 10 per cent of the cycle collisions in The Netherlands for example.
In 50 per cent of cycle collisions caused by such failures, someone was injured, and
one third of these needed medical treatment (Schoon, 1994).
Cycles show large differences in component strength and the reliability of brakes
and lighting. Cycles are often seen as consumer goods rather than road vehicles,
resulting in too little maintenance. In some countries, safety checks or training
programmes at schools are carried out by the police. A checklist for safety cycles
exists in Germany. EU-wide protection for cycle users would be offered by an EU
whole vehicle type approval sceme for cycles.
About three-quarters of crashes involving cycle passengers in The Netherlands
involve feet being trapped in the wheel spokes and 60 per cent of cycles have no
protection system to prevent this (Schoon, 1996).

33
A European standard is needed also for cycle child seats: a Dutch study showed that
at least 45 per cent of cycle passengers aged under 12 used such a seat, but 22 per
cent of these seats were considered to be poor (Schoon, 1996). The anchorage of
luggage could also be improved. Trailers designed for luggage and passengers are
being used increasingly.
Cycle helmets Head and brain injuries sustained by cyclists result more often from
crashes involving no other vehicle than from a collision with a motor vehicle. Serious
head injuries could be reduced effectively by bringing cycle helmets into general use.
Several studies indicate that cycle helmets reduce fatal and serious injury by between
45 and 80 per cent, and a European standard (EN 1708) exists for them.
In countries which do not require the use of helmets by law, the wearing rate is
normally less than 10 per cent (Weiss, 1994), but mandatory use is not recommended
for the time being, because studies in Sweden, Finland and Australia indicate that
people cycle less if helmet wearing is required. Instead the use of cycle helmets
should be strongly encouraged, partly by making their design more attractive and
providing for convenient and secure helmet storage on the cycle.
5.2.2 Motor vehicle measures
Injury to pedestrians and cyclists can be reduced by applying new technologies in
motor vehicles in two forms:
active safety measures aimed at crash avoidance; and
passive safety measures aimed at reducing injury in crashes that nevertheless
happen.
Crash avoidance With respect to lighting two aspects can be distinguished:
visibility of the vehicle itself to other road users; and
vision enhancement for the driver of the vehicle.
About 30 per cent of struck pedestrians did not see the car before the collision.
Location of parking to give pedestrians a better view and use of daytime running
lights are needed to improve the visibility of oncoming vehicles.
Telematics could contribute to reducing crashes including collisions with pedestrians
and cyclists through speed limiters to enforce the posted speed limit, collision
avoidance systems and autonomous intelligent cruise control to maintain safe
headways (ETSC, 1999b). Vision enhancement systems including the use of radar,
infrared cameras, image recognition technologies and head-up displays could
support the driver, especially at night and in bad weather. Micro-cameras are being
used to avoid the blind spot to the rear, which is especially important for heavy good
vehicles to help prevent their running over vulnerable road users when turning.
However, some of these devices may lead drivers to adapt their behaviour, for
example by driving faster when vehicle stability and driver vision are improved
(OECD, 1990, ETSC 1999b) This needs to be studied carefully before measures are
introduced on a large scale.
Passive safety In most of their collisions with motor vehicles, pedestrians and
cyclists are hit by the front of a passenger car. By 1994 the European Experimental
Vehicles Committee (EEVC) had developed a complete series of tests to assess the

34
injuriousness of the fronts of passenger cars (EEVC, 1994). Crash dummy parts used
in these tests represent an adult leg, upper leg and head, and a child head. These are
used to evaluate respectively the bumper, the bonnet leading edge and the bonnet
top of the passenger car in respect of the level of injury reduction achieved by their
design. The EEVC test methods were further improved in 1998.
If all cars on the road today were designed to pass the EEVC tests, up to 2100 fatal
and 19,000 serious pedestrian and cyclist casualties could be prevented annually
(ETSC, 1999). Requiring new cars to pass EEVC tests is one of the most important
actions that EU could take to improve road safety.
Since the end of 1996, the EEVC tests have been used in the European New Car
Assessment Programme (EuroNCAP), which provides consumer information ratings
on the crash test performance of new cars. The results show that current car designs
do not fulfil EEVC pedestrian protection requirements. However, the EuroNCAP
programme is influencing the design and safety aspects of cars and further EU
financial support is needed so that a full range of models can be tested.
The EEVC has also shown that so-called bull-bars made of steel tubes can be very
pedestrian and cyclist unfriendly (EEVC, 1996) and the EEVC tests mentioned
previously would prevent any harmful designs.
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. More than 30 vulnerable road users were killed and more than 80
seriously injured in this way in The Netherlands in 1995 (Schoon, 1996). Side
protection which closes off the open space between the wheels of the heavy good
vehicle is already quite common, and is preferable to the open frame permitted by
current legislation. Closed structures also reduce fuel consumption by 5 per cent,
making it advantageous to fleet owners themselves to adopt them (Schoon, 1996).
The EU should require the fitment of appropriate side guards to all new heavy goods
vehicles.

5.3 Road user measures

5.3.1. Information, education and training for all ages and user groups
Road engineering, user protection and vehicle engineering measures for casualty
reduction are directed at specific high risk behaviour or traffic situations and
consequently have clear crash and injury-reducing potential.
Information, education and practical training, on the other hand, are essential to
acquiring the attitudes, skills and knowledge needed for safe road use, as a
pedestrian or cyclist from childhood through to old age, but it is difficult to quantify
their casualty reduction potential. They have an important role to play in achieving:

Increased awareness about crash risks

Increased understanding and acceptance of the need for road safety measures
Transference of safety skills.

35
Training and education are not only for the young: they also have a role to play for
experienced road users, for example for those who have committed particular traffic
offences or whose changing capabilities require new skills and strategies to cope
with daily traffic.
Users of the roads today are having to cope with increasingly complex demands of
the system and there are limits as to what road safety benefits should be expected
from education and training without appropriate urban safety planning and
management. These must take greater account of the capabilities of road users,
particularly those who are most vulnerable: children and the elderly.
Not only have pedestrians and cyclists to be educated, but also car drivers, parents
and teachers as groups that are able to influence strongly the behaviour and learning
of children as pedestrians or cyclists, and those responsible for the formulation of
traffic rules, for driver instruction and for planning and building the traffic
environment to be used by pedestrians and cyclists (Wittink, 1998).
Education and training measures for children Children typically begin to use the
roads as pedestrians at the kindergarten age; the same is true for the use of cycles
(mostly for play, but also near the roads). The age distributions of pedestrians and
cyclists involved in crashes show the relative importance of these types of risks for
children (as pedestrians greatest at age 6 to 8 and as cyclists at age 11 to 14).
In general, the goals of traffic safety education for the younger age groups are
twofold:
to inculcate risk awareness and positive attitudes to road safety which may be
carried throughout life.
to encourage awareness of the environmental and health benefits of walking and
cycling.
For pre-school children
The roles of parents and other carers are to:
decide where children can play safely without continuous supervision by adults;
ensure use of passive safety devices during travel by car; and
try continually to improve the basic abilities of children as pedestrians including
the understanding of social interactions in traffic.
The roles of kindergartens or nurseries are to:
develop in the children a broad range of basic skills;
improve understanding of day to day traffic situations, especially through
outings; and
encourage parents and other carers in safety education in the home and to
integrate their efforts with those of the kindergarten or nursery.
In several EU countries these activities are supported by non-governmental traffic
safety organisations or special branches of the police. Generally, however, too little is
known about the road safety work of kindergartens and nurseries.
For school-age children and young people

36

Best practice in road safety education in school for ages up to 10 or 12 involves

explicit time tabled curricula for each grade. It should impart both knowledge and
age-related practical training in road use as a pedestrian or a cyclist in active cooperation with childrens families. Particularly important are:

walking to and from school (safer routes, dangerous crossing situations, safe
play);
using school or public transport ( behaviour and risks at stops and during travel);
programmes for cyclist training.

Well established programmes for cyclist training are offered in different countries,
with target ages ranging from 8 to 12 years, in some cases influenced by national
rules about on-road cycling. Best practice training schemes comprise:
! combinations of theoretical and practical training concluding with a cycling test
of theory and practice, with a clear understanding that attendance at the training
and success in the test do not in themselves make children competent to cycle on
the roads; and
! learning environments including for practical training traffic gardens and later
on real traffic situations.
In many countries, cyclist training is realised by school teachers in co-operation with
the local police. The latter can be necessary for training in real traffic situations.
Some countries have specific curricula and timetables for traffic safety education in
at least the first few years at school. Even for these countries, doubts often are
expressed about the quality and quantity of this teaching. A major weakness is that
traffic safety education is very often not a part of vocational training for teachers and
kindergarten staff. Guidelines on best practice in standards for traffic education and
initial and in-service training for professionals would be helpful at EU-level.
Driver education and training In addition to the knowledge and skills required for
safe driving in general, with the safety of pedestrians and cyclists in mind learner
drivers should be trained specifically to recognise situations in which vulnerable
road users may be encountered and placed at risk, and how to respond to these
situations in ways that minimise that risk, having particular regard to the limited
capabilities of children, elderly people and people with reduced mobility. The initial
training given by professional driving instructors should cover this aspect
specifically and the instructors should be trained in doing so.
Subsequent information to drivers about changes in the traffic environment should
give particular emphasis to changes that impinge on the safety of pedestrians and
cyclists.
Older road users A fundamental problem in informing and training elderly people
as pedestrians and cyclists is their low receptiveness. This makes it all the more
important to develop suitable programmes for this target group as their numbers rise
over the coming decades and the value of continued physical activity to their health
is increasingly recognised.

37
Getting the most out of training Direct safety benefits from education, training and
information activities cannot usually be proved by empirical studies and negative
effects have even been found (OECD, 1998). Insufficient consideration of safetyreducing side-effects is probably one of the most critical failings of measures
intended to improve traffic safety by education and training. One of the most
important principles is the recognition and reduction of false expectations of the
trainees. Ways of achieving this objective have to be derived by systematic empirical
studies.
5.3.2. Encouraging user compliance with road safety rules
In order to have an impact on safety, legislation should address well established
safety problems and take account of the latest research and experience
internationally. When enforced, many safety rules continue to play a major role in
casualty reduction alcohol limits, speed limits, seat belt and helmet use, some of
which have been harmonised at EU level.
ETSC reviews (1997,1999c) have highlighted the importance of encouraging
compliance with such requirements, the varying levels of compliance in different
Member States and successful international best practice in increasing compliance.
Whereas the enforcement of legislation is a matter for Member States, the EU can
play a key role in encouraging information exchange on successful best practice
amongst policymakers and safety professionals.
User and safety organisations can be further encouraged and supported in assisting
with the dissemination of knowledge about traffic rules and regulations. Pedestrians
(especially children and elderly people) and cyclists who have not taken a driving
test may not be aware of important traffic rules, and all road users encounter
unfamiliar rules when they travel to different Member States. The idea of a devising
and widely disseminating a European Highway Code containing the most important
traffic rules from each Member State has much merit. It would provide an
opportunity to emphasise to drivers throughout Europe that most national highway
codes in Europe urge or require them to behave with consideration towards
vulnerable road users, especially children, the elderly persons and those with
reduced mobility.

5.4 Training of professionals and information exchange on

provision for pedestrians and cyclists
5.4.1 Training of professionals
School teachers According to the results of two questionnaires (ERSF, 1996(a),(b))
answered by 14 EU Member States,
at the pre-school level, traffic education is part of the initial training for kindergarten or
pre-school teachers in only 3 countries, and in these and 4 other countries some
supplementary training or in-service courses are given by traffic organisations;
at the primary school level, teachers in only 6 countries have traffic education included
in their initial training, with in-service training offered in 13 countries, but varying
greatly in extent and frequency; and

38
at the secondary school level, for the age group 10-14 teachers in 6 countries receive
traffic education included in their initial training, and for the age group 14-18 this is
the case in only 3 countries, with in-service training offered in 6 countries for the age
group 10-14, and in 4 countries for the age group 14-18, mainly by road safety
organisations.

These results show clearly the lack and insufficiency of preparation of teachers for
the very demanding task of traffic safety education including behaviour as
pedestrians and cyclists. This should be rectified by the responsible authorities.
Driving instructors According to the results of a European study (CEC, 1995), a
would-be driving instructor must possess a secondary school certificate, have
reached a certain age, in most countries have held a driving licence for from 2-6
years, and undertake training leading to a written or oral and practical examination.
The duration of the training varies from 2.5 months to 3 years. The degree to which
understanding of the safety of pedestrians and cyclists is covered by these
requirements is unclear.
Providers of facilities for pedestrians and cyclists
Targeting senior local authority management to ascertain how they assess cycling
and walking in their own organisation is necessary, as many seem to attach a low
priority to these issues. Two key requirements must be acknowledged: the need for
greater awareness of the importance of designing for pedestrians and cyclists; and
the need for better practical skills for practitioners. Professional training should aim
to ensure that walking and cycling issues are not divorced from other aspects of
traffic engineering, traffic management or urban design. Indeed they should be fully
integrated into formal training. It is essential that these matters are covered as part of
an inter-disciplinary approach given the wide range of professionals responsible.
There is still much emphasis on providing pedestrian and cycling facilities as an
afterthought to other schemes rather than considering it as an integral part in the
planning and design of transport facilities. If senior traffic engineers are not made
fully conversant with the needs of pedestrians and cyclists there may be a tendency
to leave everything to a relatively junior officer. This means that the provision of
facilities could take place outside of the context of overall transport planning or
traffic engineering, whereas it should be an integral element. Currently within local
authorities few senior officers have expertise on these issues. A senior person should
be explicitly responsible for including provision for pedestrians and cyclists in the
design process.
Perhaps the single most important issue is the need for training of existing qualified
professionals in the planning, design and construction of pedestrian and cycling
facilities. This is required for town planners, urban designers, architects, and
housing and education professionals as well as those working in transport.
5.4.2 Interdisciplinary training and dissemination of knowledge
In order to provide safer conditions for pedestrians and cyclists holistically, an
interdisciplinary approach is required. Professional training and information
exchange is therefore required in and between various areas such as: traffic
psychology, law-making and enforcement, traffic management, highway and traffic

39
engineering, transport planning, town planning, architecture, urban design, public
relations and research.
The authors have found no training concept to fulfil this need in the EU countries.
There are some courses offered by universities and colleges to give students a
holistic approach to transport without focusing upon developing individual
specialities, but these can give only limited coverage to the safety of pedestrians and
cyclists.
Additional training is given by professional institutions, and conferences, workshops
and seminars enhance the understanding of a range of transport topics including
walking and cycling. The programmes suggest that there is only limited
interdisciplinary information exchange and still a great deal of specialisation
individual disciplines.
There is no comprehensive database on what is being offered by universities,
colleges and professional and private institutions in the field of interdisciplinary
traffic safety work generally, let alone specifically concerning safety of walking and
cycling in the EU. The EU should investigate existing levels of training and
qualifications and their shortcomings.
A wealth of knowledge on improving safety of pedestrians and cyclists is already
readily available via publications produced by governments and other bodies. The
problem would appear to be one of national and local authorities not being able or
willing to allocate sufficient resources to training or to drawing systematically upon
information currently available. It is important to make sure that current information
is widely disseminated. The EU can play a key role in helping to disseminate
technical guidance and by synthesising best practice principles in EU guidelines.

6 The need for further research

Enough is already known to enable work to be started without delay in providing
for safer walking and cycling in the EU without risk of misdirecting resources in the
early stages. But there are three important areas in which greater knowledge and
understanding will be needed in order to maintain progress cost-effectively over the
decade or more that will be needed to achieve the transformation of conditions for
pedestrians and cyclists that is implied by the approach advocated in this review.
The three areas are:

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.

6.1 Deeper understanding of the necessary change

Investigation is needed into
! how walking and cycling can form an integral and attractive part of daily travel;

40
! preconditions for and safety implications of large increases in walking and
cycling;
! what makes a route attractive or unattractive for pedestrians or cyclists,
including subjective and objective risk;
! implications for pedestrians and cyclists of implementation of the intelligent
transport system (ITS);
! health effects and risks of walking and cycling by the elderly;
! the mechanisms whereby walking and cycling are safer where there are more
pedestrians and cyclists about, and
! the incidence of injury as road users to people with reduced mobility.

6.2 Fuller quantification of the problem and of progress made

Economical but statistically sound techniques of survey and analysis need to be
developed and tested for
! comparing the risks of travel on foot or by cycle with those of realistic travel
alternatives in a range of specific situations;
! quantifying death, injury and other harm arising from walking and cycling
without the involvement of a motor vehicle or in unreported collisions with
motor vehicles, and categorising the ways and circumstances in which they arise;
! monitoring the amounts of walking and cycling locally in urban areas;
! assessing patterns of potential movement on foot or bicycle in each part of an
urban area; and
! monitoring the effectiveness of education, information, publicity, road user
training and training of professionals relevant to the safety of walking and
cycling.

6.3 Safer cycles and further crash protection

Mechanical engineering and biomechanics research is needed into
! development of European standards for safe cycles;
! development of cycle lamps that are cheap, reliable and convenient to use in real
cycling conditions;
! development of a parents cycle for carriage of young children and cycle
passengers;
! improvement of cycle helmets to protect the face, to fit better, and to be more
attractive to users;
! the possibility of child seats for use interchangeably between cars and cycles; and
! reduction of head injuries to pedestrians and cyclists from striking the
windscreens and A-pillars of cars.
Much of the research required in the three foregoing areas is appropriate for EU
funding.

41

7 Conclusions and recommendations

In 1996 more than 9,400 pedestrians and cyclists died in EU countries contributing
around 25 per cent of all road deaths. The small proportion of pedestrian and cyclist
casualties that occur in rural areas are relatively severe and should not be forgotten,
but this review is concerned with the great majority that occur in urban areas.
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. 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 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. 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.
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.

42

Recommendations
For action by Member States and Local Authorities
! 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.
For action by the EU
! Give priority to the safety and convenience of walking and cycling in all aspects
of policy-making 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.
! Regularly ascertain level of under-reporting and extend the European EHLAS
database to include road accident 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.
! 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

43
! Give more financial support to Euro NCAP
! 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
! Develop and disseminate advice on sensible road use via a European Highway
Code.

44

References
ALLOTT and LOMAX CONSULTING ENGINEERS (1993) Cyclists and Roundabouts Update Report. Cyclists' Touring Club.
ANGENENDT, W. (1992) Influence of the Installation and Design of Cycle Paths on Road
Safety. BSV.
BALSIGER, O. (1992) To plan for cycling is to encourage it. The Cycle: Global
Perspectives Velo Mondiale Conference papers, September, Quebec.
BAMBERG, R., ZELLMER, H. (1994) Nutzen durch fahrzeugseitigen Fugngerschutz
(Benefits from Vehicle-Pedestrian Protection Measures). Berichte der BASt,
Fahrzeugtechnik Heft F5, Bergisch Gladbach, Germany.
CARLSSON G.(1996) Working material based on data from Switzerland, Germany
and Austria, NTF, Sweden.
CEC (1995) Traffic education and training of young drivers. Final Report of WP2,
Directorate General of Transport, Commission of the European Communities
VII/151/1995, Brussels.
COATES, N. (1993) The safety benefits of cycle lanes. Unpublished paper prepared for
Velo-City '93 Conference.
CROW (Centre for Research and Contact Standardisation in Civil Engineering)
(1993) Sign up for the bike. Design manual for a cycle-friendly infrastructure. The
Netherlands.
DRD (1997) Handbog I Trafihskkerhedsrevision. Vejdirektoratet Report, Danish Roads
Directorate.
DYKSTRA, H., LEVELT, P., THOMSEN J., THORSON O., VAN SEVEREN J.,
VANSEVENANT P., NILSSON P., JORGENSEN E., LUND B. & LAURSEN J. (1998)
Best Practice to Promote Cycling and Walking. DRD.
EEVC (1996) EEVC test methods to evaluate pedestrian protection afforded by passenger
cars.
Presented to the 15th ESV Conference, Melbourne, Australia.
EEVC (1994) Proposals for methods to evaluate pedestrian protection for passenger cars.
Final EEVC WG10 report.
EKMAN, L. (1996) On the Treatment of Flow in Traffic Safety Analysis. Lund Institute of
Technology.
EKMAN, L. AND KRONBORG, P. (1995) Traffic Safety for Pedestrians & Cyclists at
Signal Controlled Intersections. TFK.

45
EKMAN, L. AND DRASKOZY M. (1992) Trials with Microwave Detection of VRU &
Preliminary Empirical Model Test. Institute of Transport Studies Leeds WP336.
ELVIK, R. (1995) Working Document for the Traffic safety manual. TOI.
ERSF (1996a) Traffic education at the pre and primary school level in EU countries,
European Road Safety Federation, Brussels.
ERSF (1996b) Traffic education at the secondary school level in EU countries, European
Road Safety Federation, Brussels.
ETSC (1995) Reducing traffic injuries resulting from excess and inappropriate speed.
European Transport Safety Council, Brussels.
ETSC (1997) Road safety audit and safety impact assessment. European Transport Safety
Council, Brussels.
ETSC (1999) Safer car fronts for pedestrian and pedal cyclist protection. European
Transport Safety Council, Brussels.
ETSC (1999a) Exposure data for travel risk assessment: Current practice and future needs,
Brussels
ETSC (1999b) Intelligent transport applications and road safety. European Transport
Safety Council, Brussels.
ETSC (1999c) Police enforcement strategies to reduce traffic casualties in Europe. European
Transport Safety Council, Brussels.
FONTAINE, H. (1997) Typological analysis of pedestrian crashes. Journe dtudes sur
les Crashes de Pitons, Paris, 12 September.
FORESTER, J. (1983) Cycle transportation. MIT Press.
GREIBE, P., NILSSON,P., AND ANDERSEN. K. (1998) Urban Safety Management:
Overview of Danish Experiences. Vejdirektoratet Report No 37.
HERRSTEDT L. et al. (1994) Safety of cyclists in urban areas Danish experiences, Road
Directorate Report.
HERRSTEDT, L. (1997) Planning and Safety of Cycles in Urban Areas. Paper presented
to International Conference on Traffic Safety on Two Continents, Lisbon.
INSTITUTION OF HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION (1997) Transport in the
Urban Environment. London.
INSTITUTION OF HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION (1996) Cycle-Friendly
Infrastructure. London.
INSTITUTION OF HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION (1991) Reducing Mobility
Handicaps, Towards a Barrier-Free Environment. London.

46
INSTITUTION OF HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION (1990) Guidelines for urban
safety management. London.
IRTAD (1999) International road traffic and accident database (OECD), Federal
Highway Research Institute (Bast), Begisch Gladbach, February.
JENSEN. S. (1998) DUMAS Safety of Pedestrians and Two Wheelers. Danish Roads
Directorate Report 51.
LARSEN L.B. (1994) The epidemiology of bicyclists accidents. Journal of Traffic
Medicine, 22 1994, 27-31.
LAYFIELD, R., AND MAYCOCK, G. (1986) Cyclists at Roundabouts. Traffic
Engineering and Control, June.
LEDEN, L. (1998) Road Safety of Cycling Children Effects of Road Design and
Regulation.
Lund Institute of Technology, Bulletin 74.
LEVELT, P. (1994) Telematica: Kwetsbare Verkeersdeelnemars. SWOV Report 94-64.
LINES, CJ. (1995) Cycle crashes at signalised roundabouts. Traffic Engineering + Control
Feb.
LONDON RESEARCH CENTRE (1998) Annual Report. LRC London. OECD (1998)
Safety of vulnerable road users. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development.
MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT AND PUBLIC WORKS, NL (1996) Towards safer roads,
Opportunities to bring about a sustainably safe traffic system. Transport Research Centre
(AVV) of the Ministry of Transport and Public Works, The Netherlands.
OBERG, G., NILSSON, G., VELIN, H., WRETLING, P., BENTMAN, M., BRUNDELLFREIJ, K., HYDEN, C., AND STAHL, A. (1996) Single Crashes Among Pedestrians and
Cyclists. SNRTRI Report 799A.
OECD (1998) Safety of Vulnerable Road Users. Scientific Expert Group on the Safety of
Vulnerable Road Users (RS7). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development, Paris.
OECD (1990) Behavioural adaptations to changes in the road transport system. Road
Transport Research. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,
Paris.
PEDESTRIAN ASSOCIATION (1995) Driven Indoors. Pedestrian Association, UK.
SARTRE (1998) The attitude and behaviours of European car drivers to road safety. Part 1.
Report on principal results. SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research, The
Netherlands.

47
SCHOON, C.C. (1996) Praktijkonderzoek zijafscherming voor vrachtautos (Experimental
research on side protection for trucks). SWOV report R-96-24, Leidschendam, The
Netherlands.
SCHOON, C.C. (1996) Invloed kwaliteit fiets op ongevallen (Influence cycle quality on
crashes). SWOV report R-96-32, Leidschendam, The Netherlands.
SCHOON, C.C. (1994) Fietsongevallen als gevolg van een mechanisch gebrek (Cycle crashes
due to mechanical failures). SWOV report R-94-46, Leidschendam, The Netherlands.
TOWLIAT, M. (1997) Traffic Safety Problems for Pedestrians and Cyclists at Crossing
Points.
Lund Institute of Technology.
TREVELYAN, P. AND MORGAN, J. (1993) Cycling in Pedestrian Areas. Transport
Research Laboratory Report 15.
WEISS, B.D. (1994) Cycle related head injuries. Clinics in Sport Medicine 1994; 13(1).
WERELE, H (1992) Cycling in one-way streets: the Saarbrucken model. Polizei Verkehr
Technik 4/92, pp104-107, Germany.
WITTINK R. (1998) The best road safety approach for pedestrians and cyclists is to integrate
safety measures in a mobility plan. Paper presented to Congress of the Safety of
Vulnerable Road Users, KfV, Vienna.
WILKINSON, W., CLARKE, A., EPPERSON, B., and KNOBLAUCH R. (1994)
Selecting roadway design treatments to accommodate cycles. Federal Highway
Administration, Report No. FHWA-RD-92-073, Washington DC.