Danger!

Danger!

U.S. Pedestrians, Cyclists Tempting Fate -- or Worse
(Both pursuits are much safer in Europe, new research says)

This is a story that begins with a personal anecdote about a dude named John Pucher, who walks everywhere. He's never been injured, but this is surprising since he's been walking everywhere for 29 years.

<scathingOverGeneralization>Because scientists seem to have infinite time and infinte interest in the most banal of things</scathingOverGeneralization>, Pucher and his colleague Lewis Dijkstra of the European Commission in Brussels did a happyfunlittle study.

Pucher and Lewis Dijkstra of the European Commission in Brussels found that cyclists and pedestrians in the United States were two to six times more likely to be killed than their German or Dutch counterparts. Per kilometer traveled, U.S. pedestrians were 23 times more likely to get killed than the occupants of a car, while bicyclists were 12 times more likely to be killed.

In the United States in 2000, 662,000 bicyclists and 191,000 pedestrians ended up in emergency rooms. And 740 of those cyclists and 4,598 pedestrians died.

"The main point of the article is that it is much, much more dangerous here in the United States to walk and cycle than it is in Europe," says Pucher, a professor of urban planning and transportation at Rutgers University in New Jersey. "The conclusion was that there are a lot of things we could do to make walking and cycling safer."

"The results are shocking," says Michael Greenberg, associate editor of the American Journal of Public Health, and an associate dean at Rutgers.

See, mom. I'm safer on da bike than I am in da tennis shoes.

What could we Americans do to address "the problem"?

Americans, who are suffering from an unprecedented obesity epidemic, tend to drive to a destination even though 41 percent of all trips in 2001 were shorter than two miles and 28 percent were less than one mile. While walking and cycling account for less than one-tenth of all urban trips in the United States, they account for one-third of all such trips in Germany and for half the trips in the Netherlands.

And as more Europeans have embraced bicycling and walking, the activities have become safer, with fatalities declining since the mid-1970s.

Not coincidentally, Europeans are also thinner and fitter than their highway-happy American counterparts, with lower rates of obesity, diabetes and hypertension.

What can be done about what the authors call the "appallingly unsafe, unpleasant, and inconvenient conditions faced by pedestrians and bicyclists in most American cities"? A few European-style adjustments, all of them eminently doable, might persuade Americans to leave their cars in the garage more often.

"We could have better sidewalks, auto-free zones, more bike paths," Pucher says. "We could have walking and cycling education programs in the schools. We could introduce driver training programs that make the motorist more sensitive to the dangers involved."

Other options already available in Europe include "traffic calming" of residential neighborhoods (such as speed bumps and curves); extensive auto-free zones in city centers; the introduction of "bicycle streets" where cyclists have the right of way over cars; bike systems that serve practical destinations, not just recreational attractions; and better enforcement of traffic regulations.

And in case you weren't convinced, Mom:

But don't wait for the United States to catch up with Europe before you start walking and pedaling. One study found the health benefits from cycling exceeded the risks 10-to-1. Even though it's far more dangerous to bike or walk in the United States, the probability of getting killed is still exceedingly low.

The probability of "getting killed." Heh. Strange turn of phrase. Like "got pregnant" and "getting/got married." Got born?

Anyway, I made my point (and pretty much quoted the whole article). I should go on to the next topic.

hln

Posted by hln at September 1, 2003 08:24 PM | Blogspot Blog