You don't need to be signed in to read BMJ Blogs, but you can register here to receive updates about other BMJ products and services via our site.

Bicycle Safety

Pondering the peanutabout…..

5 Jan, 17 | by Bridie Scott-Parker

I read the StreetsBlogUSA post Study: Diagonal Intersections are Especially Dangerous for Cyclists today with great interest, for a number of reasons that I thought I would share with you.

Firstly, there is no doubt that cyclists are a vulnerable road user group, and that particular segments of road are more problematic for cyclists. The research cited in the post pertains to an Injury Prevention publication which examined, in-depth, police reports of 300 car-cyclist crashes in the New York city area , and the police templates to record crash-pertinent information across the US. Innovative research which approaches a known problem from novel perspectives helps to provide additional pieces for the jigsaw puzzle that we seek to solve, and this research was an intriguing read indeed.

Secondly, the research revealed that some road configurations appeared to increase crash risk (i.e., we want to reconfigure these roads), and that the safest option in the most problematic circumstances was to separate the motor vehicle from the vulnerable cyclist. The ‘solution’ for cyclist safety can be a highly contentious issue, particularly here in Australia in which the motor vehicle has traditionally – through necessity – dominated our vast landscape, and as health and other benefits become apparent, cycling is gaining traction. Indeed, Cadel Evans, arguably Australia’s most celebrated cyclist, has tried to bring clarity to this divisive issue; stating that

I don’t think we should separate the two, because most people who ride a bike also have a car. In the end, they’re public roads for everyone. It’s a privilege to use roads; not a right.

 We have to respect everyone who’s using them, whether they’re driving a car, bus, tractor or truck, or riding a bike or are a pedestrian. We have to respect each other’s privilege and safety.”

in response to the question “What do you say to drivers who think cyclists don’t belong on the road?

Thirdly, the innovative solution of the peanutabout helps speak to ideas beyond the cyclist themselves – this is consistent with systems thinking which argues that safety (in this case, cyclist safety) emerges from a complex web of actions and interactions among a breadth of stakeholders who play a role in the larger safety system (e.g., in the case of my own research interests, an application of systems thinking in the young driver road safety). Given we are more than half way through the Decade of Action for Road Safety, and in the case of Australia, our road toll returned to an upward trajectory in 2016 after many years of a downward trajectory, such innovative thinking is critical.

Fourthly, the researchers noted that the templates used by police to record crash-pertinent information did not provide adequate details regarding the crash circumstances. Unfortunately this is not an uncommon problem, and again one that I have come across in my own research endeavours. If we are to effectively prevent injury, we need as much contextual and other information regarding the incident contributing to the injury.

Fifthly, while the peanutabout appears to be an ideal solution to the critical issues identified for the area noted, I am mindful that drivers do not always ‘cope well’ with complex infrastructure such as roundabouts. As a researcher within the realm of young driver road safety, and the mother of teen with the learner licence which requires full supervision whenever she is behind the wheel, Learner drivers often tell me that they ‘freak out’ when they come to a roundabout, and it is not actually round! According to Learners, roundabouts must be round, while oval roundabouts and others shaped as a parallelogram should be called something different. Hmmmm, on reflection, maybe Learners will be okay with a ‘peanutabout’…..

Finally, I paused to reflect on the safety implications for motorcyclists – another vulnerable road user group. While traversing a roundabout on his Harley Davidson last year, a colleague was driven over by a driver behind the wheel of 4WD, texting, who reported that she had checked the roundabout for vehicles before entering, and that she did not see – or hear – my colleague already on the roundabout (and thus he had right of way) until her front right tyre was on top of his leg and his motorbike. Thankfully he has managed to retain his leg, however he has had multiple operations, requires additional surgery, and will be scarred for life and never walk without support again. My colleague is the first to acknowledge that motorcyclists sometimes deliberately place themselves in danger through their riding behaviours – himself included – however we both eagerly await any intervention that will increase motorcycle safety when traversing complex infrastructure such as roundabouts.

The door zone: looking out for cyclist’s safety

17 Sep, 15 | by Sheree Bekker

lookforbikers

Bicycling related injuries are a complex problem. Take for example injuries related to “dooring” – in which a car driver or passenger opens a car door into the path of a cyclist, causing the cyclist to hit the door or veer into the path of oncoming traffic – which are becoming all-the-more common in our cities. Real video examples of this risk can be seen here and here.

Multiple factors contribute for the occurrence of “dooring” events, including those related to the behavior of road users, the infrastructure, traffic regulations, policies, and even recommendations based on bicycling safety research.

It has been suggested that the lack of awareness among car users can be in part explained by the limited efforts of city administrators to change the attitudes and social norms via increased penalties for “dooring” bikers and stronger campaigns promoting looking for bikers on the road.

In Injury Prevention Global News Highlights from 2014, Barry Pless wrote:

“A column in the New York Times, “Is it OK to kill cyclists?”, was prompted by the observation that “motorists in America generally receive no punishment for crashing into or killing cyclists, even when the ‘accident’ is transparently their fault.” In the Netherlands, the opposite is true: “if a motor vehicle hits a cyclist, … it is always assumed to have been the driver’s fault… ” because “the law treats pedestrians and cyclists as weaker participants in traffic…” The result is far fewer injuries to cyclists: 12 per billion km cycled in the Netherlands versus 58–109 in the USA.

Editor’s comment: Bicyclists need better protection. I am tired of complaints about how some cyclists behave. Their foolish behaviour mostly leads to harming themselves. In contrast, the far more dangerous car and truck drivers tend to be tolerated. Until there is equal condemnation for driver infractions, I suggest we cut bicyclists some slack. An example: recently, coroners reports were issued following three bicyclist deaths in Montreal. In the last year, 92 bicyclists were doored; 58 were taken to hospital and 2 died. The fine for dooring is US$30! Alongside a public awareness campaign reminding drivers that dooring is illegal, one coroner recommended charges of criminal negligence and a substantial increase in fines. “Motorists (must) accept that cyclists … are not obligated to restrict themselves to bike lanes.” It is time now for the balance in North America to swing in the direction of the Netherlands.” [emphasis ours] 

Another contributing factor to “dooring” is unsafe infrastructure. For example, even if bike lanes might be associated with overall risk reduction on average, they become a problem when built near to car parking spots, as open car doors usually block most of bike lane areas giving bikers no options to avoid crashes.

A 2014 commentary in Injury PreventionUnsuitability of the epidemiological approach to bicycle transportation injuries and traffic engineering problems, argued that problems such as the ‘door zone’ are also unwittingly created through the application of unsuitable methodologies in an attempt to solve complex problems:

“bicycle lanes have through systematic review received epidemiological approval. In cities around the world, these lanes, whether curbside of parked cars (therefore being cycle tracks) or roadside (ordinary bicycle lanes), typically run in the door zones. They are thus an obvious hazard. What is the common remedy offered, by epidemiologists and governments? Hypervigilance and luck, to be provoked by reducing turnover or putting the conflict on the passenger and curb side, large fines, stickers reminding drivers to watch out, advice to open the door with the opposite hand or for riders to look through vehicle windows for occupants’ heads, or even for occupants to open vehicle doors inch by inch”

It is true that bicycling safety is a complex problem. Indeed, complexity, by nature, increases the unpredictability of effects.  Likely, solutions to the “dooring” problem and others alike, would require embracing this complexity in scientific research and policy development, and also the work of of multidisciplinary teams, including engineers, road users, epidemiologists, sociologists, etc., that can study and rethink bicycling safety from different angles.

Two examples of strategies that are working to address this complexity are Vision Zero and Fatality Free Friday. Both bring together a diverse range of stakeholders – such as local traffic planners and engineers, police officers, policymakers, and public health professionals – to work towards safer mobility.

In the words of Leah Shahum, director of Vision Zero:

traditionally, traffic planners and engineers, police officers, policymakers, and public health professionals have not collaborated in meaningful, cross-disciplinary ways to meet shared goals (partly because they literally did not have shared goals for safe streets).  Vision Zero acknowledges that there are many factors that contribute to safe mobility infrastructure, enforcement, individual behavior/education, and policies — and all must be coordinated with a safety-first approach.”

Injury prevention, at its core, remains a complex endeavour and one in which the strengths of multidisciplinary teams and different fields of research must be harnessed for full effectiveness. 

~ Julian Santaella and Sheree Bekker

“Drive Your Bike, Don’t Just Ride It”

21 Aug, 15 | by Angy El-Khatib

Last week, I wrote a short blog highlighting a publication in this month’s issue of Injury Prevention which stressed the need to gather “better” data as a step towards improving future bicycle safety endeavors.

This week, I am absolutely delighted to introduce a guest blog by someone who is equally passionate and enthusiastic about data as he is about bicycle safety – my mentor and inspiration, Dr. Christiaan Abildso (follow him on Twitter at @walkbikemgw)! He is an assistant professor in the Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences at WVU School of Public Health. His main areas of research include health promotion program evaluation and the social ecological determinants of physical activity, including policy and the built environment. Recently, he presented “The Burden of Pedestrian- and Cyclist-Motor Vehicle Crashes (PCMCVs) and Costs in West Virginia: 2000-06” as a part of the 2014 WVU Injury Control Research Center’s webinar series (you can watch it here).

Christiaan rode his bike to the 2015 MPH and PhD graduation ceremony while wearing his academic dress.

Christiaan rode his bike to the 2015 WVU MPH and PhD graduation ceremony while wearing his academic garb.

Christiaan has two very notorious and very utlized catchphrases; the first is “I love data!” and the second is “Change the world!” which he very well does by engaging in the community. He served as the Chairperson for the Morgantown Pedestrian Safety Board from 2008 to 2014, has been an Ex-officio Member of the Morgantown Municipal Bicycle Board since 2012, and is a current member of both the West Virginia Connecting Communities and the Morgantown Traffic Commission.

Since this month’s blogging topic was to be focused on bike safety, I asked Christiaan to write a guest blog about his own experience as he transitioned from a novice cyclist to a trained traffic rider.


 

“Drive Your Bike, Don’t Just Ride It”
By guest blogger: Christiaan Abildso

My first taste of freedom was experienced on a teal-green Peugeot in the mid-1980s in suburban Washington DC. With each passing summer and my super cool 5-speed, I was given more and more leeway by my parents to “ride to John’s house,” then to Tom’s house, then to the community pool and parks. As a young lad in pre-helmet days I had a great time riding on and off sidewalks, and on wide streets mostly of 25 mph speed limit. It was suburban America in a Levitt town in the summer. I was safe.

As I grew up I rode less or not at all until I got back into bicycle commuting about 6 years ago when I became a father, gas prices were high, and I didn’t have time to go to a gym. I began to experience that freedom yet again. However, I was now riding in a more urban environment with more traffic, narrower lanes, no bike lanes or separate infrastructure, and less kindness toward me as a cyclist – let’s face it, kids on bikes get more leeway to mess up than mid-thirties cyclists! One day, I moved from the end of 5 cars at a red light in the left lane in a three lane, one-way downtown road to the middle lane to be at the front of the traffic. I did this to jump the traffic and move back over in front of the left lane traffic to make a turn. As I jumped back to the left lane, a kind gentleman driving by leaned his Livestrong band covered left wrist and wagged a finger at me, saying “you should know better. You’re gonna get killed.”

This statement made me think, what did I do wrong? That moment began my evolution from thinking like a “bike rider” to thinking like a “bike driver.” I began seeking the opinion of Frank Gmeindl – a League of American Bicyclists certified League Cycling Instructor (LCI) in Morgantown, WV, and uber-experienced rider with tens of thousands of miles of experience. He offered to ride behind me one day giving only these instructions (as I recall them): 1) ride like a vehicle, 2) be predictable, 3) be seen, and 4) take the lane. Following the ride – during which, in retrospect, I did a bunch of things that put me in harm’s way (like riding as far to the edge of the road as possible) – Frank patiently offered these same four suggestions, then took the lead. His few suggestions have, without a doubt, saved my life.

unnamed

Christiaan playing the “hipster” and picking up his Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs) on his bike.

I continued to seek out information, eventually taking the Safer City Cycling class offered by Frank and another local LCI. I have ridden thousands of miles over the past few years with the advice of Frank and others in my head. I now am confident enough in my abilities to ride in almost any condition on nearly any road without fear. Over the years I have evolved to be very calm in traffic and now help others when I see them riding in a way that puts them (or me as “one of those pesky bikers”) at risk of injury. I honed in on one statement I heard or read a few years back that summarizes how to operate a bicycle: “Drive your bike, don’t just ride it.” That neatly summarizes Frank’s four key lessons, and I often use that with others when they say I’m crazy for riding all the time and on almost any road. I also make an offer to them, as Frank did, to go for a ride to help.

To my fellow cyclists, when in traffic. Remember, we are traffic. We are adults. Vehicle drivers don’t want to hit us.

My advice when in traffic: Be seen. Be predictable. Take the lane. Drive your bike like you would a car…and, give a hand of thanks when a vehicle driver treats you well. It will make driving a bike safer for all of us.

 

 

Follow Dr. Christiaan Abildso at @walkbikemgw!

Step 1 of improving bicycle safety: gather data better!

14 Aug, 15 | by Angy El-Khatib

The month of August is the unofficial, “Blog about Road/Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety!” month here at IP BMJ Blog. Part of that is due to the August 2015 issue of Injury Prevention, which features several publications regarding the aforementioned topics.

One of them being this paper by Lusk, Asgarazdeh, and Farvid, looking at how bicycle-crash-scene data is being reported and how to improve our databases for the greater purpose of improving the safety of roadways and vehicles.

Lusk, Asgarazdeh, and Farvid report that, although police in the United States have been reporting bicycle crashes since bicycle use became popular in the 1890s, the reporting templates and coding practices have room for improvement. For example, the current police templates only have diagrams of two cars – no bikes. Lusk and her colleagues want police reporting mechanisms to include pictures of a bike. Another example, there are only two ways to code a bicycle crash – (1) “pedal cyclist” vs. motor cyclist and (2) whether the cyclist was wearing a helmet or not. Lusk and her colleagues purport that a template and reporting mechanism which includes the side of the bicycle that was impacted, whether the crash was caused by an open car door, or whether a cyclist was riding in the bike lane could help to improve future plans for the built environment (i.e., less parallel parked cards) and car designs (i.e., sliding car doors) will have a profound effect on how we view future bicycle/road safety endeavors.

Who would’ve ever thought that improving the way we report bicycle crashes could potentially help make bicycling safer and more prevalent?(Shhh… that’s a rhetorical question.)

Concern for prehospital care/ambulance services

10 Aug, 15 | by jmagoola

I spent last week travelling in Adjumani district (located in Northern Uganda) as part of an exercise in improving the quality of immunization data through support supervision and mentor-ship. This required us as a team to visit as many of the health facilities in the district as possible. Due to the limited sources of our country, we had to make do with one of the hospital ambulances as a means of transport. In between ferrying us from one health facility to another, the driver would get calls to go pick up emergency cases that required urgent transportation to hospital.

In this scenario, all the ambulance is manned by only a driver (no paramedic, no nurse) whose role is to pick you up and drop you at the nearest health facility. One of 2 ambulanes currently used by the district to transport patients during emergencies.No triage, no first aid, no prehospital care until arrival. This could contribute to the trauma mortality rates, which are already higher in rural areas before victims reach the hospital. It is known that travel time is a predictor of the outcome of an injury and as such many fatal injuries or their severity may be reduced by adequate prehospital trauma care. A previous study in Uganda found that fewer than 5% of injured patients are transported by ambulance to hospital  most of which ambulances are privately run and expensive. In neighboring Tanzania, a study evaluating access to prehospital care found there was no prehospital care in the region.

The interior of the ambulance, lacking paramedic supplies for first aid.

The interior of the ambulance, lacking paramedic supplies for first aid.

This highlights a major need to prioritize the development of prehospital trauma care if we are to address the issue of injuries. In addition, while the presence of an ambulance will reduce the travel time to hospital and thus increase the chance of survival, the ambulances themselves should be equipped with materials to offer some basic first aid during the course of transportation. They key policy and clinical practice questions we should ask ourselves should include; how equipped are the ambulances?; what should be the minimum standards a vehicle should attain before it is designated as an ambulance?

 

Safety in numbers or safety to get the numbers up?

7 Aug, 15 | by Klara Johansson

 

The August issue of Injury Prevention is online! And it has already led to media coverage. Cycling weekly has a nice news story based on the article by Christie & Pike.

 

 

The big question is: are cyclists safer when there’s more of us? as was posited in the classic paper by Jacobsen, reprinted in this issue.

We hope to discuss this question more in depth in this blog during August! But for the moment, the take-home message seems to be that we still don’t know whether there is truly safety in numbers, but we do know that system-wide traffic safety measures do increase safety. Cycling weekly also points out that when there are more cyclists, traffic planners and politicians are pressured to invest in cycling safety.

20141219_142700

The author of this blog post is a keen bicyclist, even on days when the numbers of cyclists are very low…

There are many reasons to wish for more people to take the bicycle! More physical activity for the people = better health. Fewer cars = more space for people, and less car exhausts – which benefits health as well as local and global environment. But in order to facilitate more bicycling, there is a strong need to construct traffic systems that are safe for both cyclists, pedestrians and vehicles. There are many facets of this: to a high extent the physical properties of roads and paths, but also the behaviour of cyclists and drivers (and the social norms and systems which drive this behaviour!), the willingness to embrace safety measures like helmets, and the new innovations for safe technology in vehicles and on roads.

Among the draft global Sustainable Development Goals, expected to be passed by the UN in September, goal number 9 calls for countries to “build resilient infrastructure” and also to “foster innovation”. It seems to me that an indispensable part of this would be safe and practical cycling infrastructure, using new innovations.

During August, this blog will have a special focus on bicycle safety, traffic safety overall, and the question on whether there is “safety in numbers” or not. Stay tuned! And keep the discussion alive, in the comments below, on Twitter, or on Facebook.

Now, have a nice weekend – and when you’re not out cycling, there’s tons of interesting reading in the new issue of Injury Prevention!

More background on our blogging team

19 Jun, 15 | by Bridie Scott-Parker

Blog 3: So today I wanted to share some more background on our blogging team. As an applied social psychologist, I find this information very interesting indeed!

What excites you about being part of the Injury Prevention social media editorial team?  

Sheree Bekker: The invaluable conversation that has sprung up around scholarly work through the collaborative power of social media and blogs inspires me to no end. I tend to find more relevant scholarly content through Twitter than through traditional platforms, and Injury Prevention has played a big part in that. As researchers, I believe that we should own our voice on social media, and constructively add value to this conversation.

David Bui: Through my studies in medical school I have seen the costs of injuries to society and individuals worldwide.  This is a great opportunity to harness the underutilised power of Social Media in health promotion and Injury Prevention, across multiple disciplines and multiple borders.

Angy El-Khatib: Being a part of the Injury Prevention social media editorial team is a great opportunity personally and collectively. By being a part of the social media editorial team, I am able to stay up to date on various topics within the realm of Injury Prevention while acquiring different perspectives from individuals from different backgrounds, disciplines, and locations. I’m also excited to be able to potentially increase readership and engage readers to create a conversation around the latest Injury Prevention research and ideas.

Klara Johansson: I am very interested to explore ways to share and disseminate knowledge and research results, outside the “old-school”, regular channels. I look forward to learning from my new co-editors, who all seem to be great communicators.

Joseph Magoola: The opportunity to work and collaborate with a variety of scholars on the injury prevention platform is nothing short of exciting. It also excites and inspires me to have an opportunity to represent Africa since low and medium income countries bear the brunt of the injury burden.

Julian Santaella-Tenorio: It is really exciting to be part of this team and to have a space to communicate and express ideas on ways to improve injury prevention, and to discuss about new studies and topics relevant to this field. I am very motivated to learn more and continue growing as a researcher as I walk through this experience.

What are you passionate about?

Sheree Bekker: Intersectional issues drive my life’s work, and my aim is that my research is, and always will be, an extension of that.

David Bui: Passionate about bringing people and ideas together.

Angy El-Khatib: I am passionate about translating scientific evidence and research into public health action. My goal is to improve the health and wellbeing of myself as well as my community. Outside of my work, I am passionate about health, fitness, and wellness.

Klara Johansson: Open discussions and innovative research in collaborative teams with high scientific ambition + high levels of tolerance and kindness; I also enjoy making difficult subjects understandable to students and the general population. Passions on my free time: nature, gardening, books, movies, writing fiction, playing music (clarinet, harmonium, piano, accordion).

Joseph Magoola: Writing on my social media accounts (facebook, twitter and my blog) as a way of reaching out to the masses. I am also interested travelling a lot, especially by road and as such, ensuring road safety is part and parcel of my aims to contribute towards reducing the carnage of our roads.

Julian Santaella-Tenorio: I am passionate about things that can make people have a better, healthier and happier life. I am inspired by ideas challenging previous knowledge, creative thinking finding answers from different angles, and the power of multidisciplinary groups. That is why I am passionate about public health research.

 

I hope you are looking forward to hearing from our bloggers, starting next month!

More background on our new blogging team

18 Jun, 15 | by Bridie Scott-Parker

Today I will share more about our blogging team members.

Blog 2: Explain your injury prevention research and interests.

Sheree Bekker: My research investigates safety promotion and injury prevention policy and practice within community sport in Australia. I have a particular interest in dissemination and social marketing. The overall purpose of my research is to allow people to be safe, as well as feel safe, whilst participating in sport or physical activity.

David Bui: Undertaking a number of different projects currently; my injury prevention research focuses on Hip fracture and Falls Prevention research, working with Neuroscience Research Australia. I am also looking into Social Media and its utility in healthcare and civilian settings, and I believe that it represents a powerful new medium in health promotion and injury prevention.

Angy El-Khatib: I am interested in integrating public health approaches with athletic training practice. Athletic training has traditionally focused on the individual but may be able to maximize the effectiveness of prevention efforts by using population-level approaches to improve health and wellness.

Klara Johansson: I am not currently doing research on injury/safety. But I am interested in social difference in injury risk – and also how perceived risk of injuries affects people’s daily lives, mobility, fears and physical activity; and how perceived and real injury risks interrelate with each other and with gender and socioeconomics. Main focus on adolescent safety; real and perceived. Also interested in open data and availability/accessibility of injury statistics globally.

Joseph Magoola: My research interests center around prevention of injury, especially through generation of data for evidence-based decision making and policy action. I am also interested in the use of media to disseminate research findings and for advocacy.

Julian Santaella-Tenorio: At the moment I conduct research on policy evaluation, specifically on policies that impact injury-related outcomes. I am interested in looking at substance use policies and firearm-related legislation and their effects on the health of populations.

Tomorrow: Learn about their passions!

Taking the good with the bad: bike helmet website

22 Oct, 14 | by Barry Pless

I recently came across a website that managed to be both impressive and depressing. The link is http://www.cycle-helmets.com/index.html

I have no idea how old it is or even, precisely, who is responsible for it. What is impressive is that it includes a massive amount of data on bicycling, bike helmet use, and helmet legislation for several countries, but principally for Australia. Some of the data are presented as graphs and others in tables. The amount of work that must have gone into assembling all this is staggering. I somehow suspect it has not been updated recently but it is still worth a visit if you are looking for any statistics related to these topics.

So why did I find it depressing? Simply because the commentary and text make it clear that all this effort is intended to discredit and oppose helmet legislation. Clearly, nothing I read convinces me that the data well support their opposition but to be fair, this is a far site better than the usual diatribes unsupported by anything remotely ‘scientific’.

For the record, I am not convinced helmet legislation discourages cycling or even if it does, the effect is short-lived. More importantly, as I have argued elsewhere and repeatedly, I am also not convinced that casual cycling, by children or adults, can do much to enhance cardiac fitness or reduce obesity. By casual cycling I mean trips of a few kilometres, by children or adults, to and from school or work, at a pace much slower than racers or couriers. In other words, the kind of recreational bicycling that is typical or average.

But even though I remain unhappy about the goals of this website, I must admit it is well done and exhaustive. And, for the most part, it seems that the data are accurate, even if they are consistently misinterpreted.

PS – At the very end I found this note: 

This website is maintained by Chris Gillham, a print/radio journalist and web designer based in the West Australian capital of Perth.
The site has been on the internet since 2000 and the accuracy of its data has never been challenged by relevant authorities. All information on the site is sourced to academic and government reports.

 

Proactive rather than ‘The Hindenburg’ response

3 Feb, 14 | by Bridie Scott-Parker

I had a conversation recently with a colleague who is a tireless worker in the safety of pedestrians, and his comment regarding policy response resonated with me so much that I thought I would share it with you. He likened policy response to road safety to the Hindenburg Disaster of 1937 (see www.airships.net/hindenburge/disaster for more information), such that improvements in safety only occur after tragic, highly-visible critical events. This policy response, which certainly is an important one, is frequently characterised by ‘too little, too late’. My colleague found this particularly frustrating when policy based in sound risk assessments and a plethora of evidence-based research can prevent – or at least minimise – the damage from catastrophe in the first place.

Whilst myself and my colleague are lucky enough to live, work, and indeed use the road environment in a developed country, evidence-based policy and practical responses are never more urgently needed than now in developing countries. The plight of these countries was highlighted in a recent The Economist article (read more at http://www.economist.com/news/international/21595031-rich-countries-have-cut-deaths-and-injuries-caused-crashes-toll-growing). What we in ‘rich countries’ refer to as vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and motor and pedal cyclists are never more vulnerable than when using the road networks of the developing world.

Interestingly, cost cannot be the only obstacle, with The Economist article stating that

iRAP has helped to build fences to separate pedestrians from traffic in Bangladesh, at a cost of just $135 to avert a death or serious injury; and installed rumble strips on hard shoulders in Mexico to alert drivers when they are veering from their lane ($920). Telling people about safety laws—and then making those laws stick—can be surprisingly affordable and effective, too. The share of people wearing seat belts in Ivanovo, Russia, rose from 48% in 2011 to 74% in 2012, after a police crackdown and social-media campaign partly paid for by Bloomberg Philanthropies, the foundation of Michael Bloomberg, New York’s former mayor and one of the few big aid donors to spend heavily on road safety. Dan Chisholm of the WHO calculates that enforcing speed limits and drunk-driving laws in South-East Asia would cost just 18 cents per person per year.”

I would argue that a part of our role as injury prevention practitioners, professionals and researchers in ‘rich countries’ is to help in the journey to identify, then remove or ameliorate, obstacles to developing nations maximising the benefits of our knowledge and experiences.

Latest from Injury Prevention

Latest from Injury Prevention