Liacine Bouaoun1, Mohamed Mouloud Haddak2, Emmanuelle Amoros1. 1. Université de Lyon, F-69622 Lyon, France; Epidemiological Research and Surveillance Unit in Transport, Occupation and Environment (UMRESTTE), French Institute of Science and Technology for Transport, Development and Networks (IFSTTAR), Cité des Mobilités, 25 Avenue François Mitterrand, F-69675 Bron, France; Université Lyon 1, UMRESTTE, F-69373 Lyon, France. 2. Université de Lyon, F-69622 Lyon, France; Epidemiological Research and Surveillance Unit in Transport, Occupation and Environment (UMRESTTE), French Institute of Science and Technology for Transport, Development and Networks (IFSTTAR), Cité des Mobilités, 25 Avenue François Mitterrand, F-69675 Bron, France; Université Lyon 1, UMRESTTE, F-69373 Lyon, France. Electronic address: mouloud.haddak@ifsttar.fr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Travel practices are changing: bicycle and motorized two-wheeler (MTW) use are rising in some of France's large cities. These are cheaper modes of transport and therefore attractive at a time of economic crisis, but they also allow their users to avoid traffic congestion. At the same time, active transport modes such as walking and cycling are encouraged because they are beneficial to health and reduce pollution. It is therefore important to find out more about the road crash risks of the different modes of transport. To do this, we need to take account of the number of individuals who use each, and, even better, their travel levels. METHOD: We estimated the exposure-based fatality rates for road traffic crashes in France, on the basis of the ratio between the number of fatalities and exposure to road accident risk. Fatality data were obtained from the French national police database of road traffic casualties in the period 2007-2008. Exposure data was estimated from the latest national household travel survey (ENTD) which was conducted from April 2007 to April 2008. Three quantities of travel were computed for each mode of transport: (1) the number of trips, (2) the distance traveled and (3) the time spent traveling. Annual fatality rates were assessed by road user type, age and sex. RESULTS: The overall annual fatality rates were 6.3 per 100 million trips, 5.8 per billion kilometers traveled and 0.20 per million hours spent traveling. The fatality rates differed according to road user type, age and sex. The risk of being killed was 20 to 32 times higher for motorized two-wheeler users than for car occupants. For cyclists, the risk of being killed, both on the basis of time spent traveling and the number of trips was about 1.5 times higher than for car occupants. Risk for pedestrians compared to car occupants was similar according to time spent traveling, lower according to the number of trips and higher according to the distance traveled. People from the 17-20 and 21-29 age groups and those aged 70 and over had the highest rates. Males had higher rates than females, by a factor of between 2 and 3. CONCLUSION: When exposure is taken into account, the risks for motorized two-wheeler users are extremely high compared to other types of road user. This disparity can be explained by the combination of speed and a lack of protection (except for helmets). The differential is so great that prevention measures could probably not eliminate it. The question that arises is as follows: with regard to public health, should not the use of MTW, or at least of motorcycles, be deterred? The difference between the fatality risk of cyclists and of car occupants is much smaller (1.5 times higher); besides, there is much room for improvements in cyclist safety, for instance by increasing the use of helmets and conspicuity equipment. Traffic calming could also benefit cyclists, pedestrians and perhaps moped users.
BACKGROUND: Travel practices are changing: bicycle and motorized two-wheeler (MTW) use are rising in some of France's large cities. These are cheaper modes of transport and therefore attractive at a time of economic crisis, but they also allow their users to avoid traffic congestion. At the same time, active transport modes such as walking and cycling are encouraged because they are beneficial to health and reduce pollution. It is therefore important to find out more about the road crash risks of the different modes of transport. To do this, we need to take account of the number of individuals who use each, and, even better, their travel levels. METHOD: We estimated the exposure-based fatality rates for road traffic crashes in France, on the basis of the ratio between the number of fatalities and exposure to road accident risk. Fatality data were obtained from the French national police database of road traffic casualties in the period 2007-2008. Exposure data was estimated from the latest national household travel survey (ENTD) which was conducted from April 2007 to April 2008. Three quantities of travel were computed for each mode of transport: (1) the number of trips, (2) the distance traveled and (3) the time spent traveling. Annual fatality rates were assessed by road user type, age and sex. RESULTS: The overall annual fatality rates were 6.3 per 100 million trips, 5.8 per billion kilometers traveled and 0.20 per million hours spent traveling. The fatality rates differed according to road user type, age and sex. The risk of being killed was 20 to 32 times higher for motorized two-wheeler users than for car occupants. For cyclists, the risk of being killed, both on the basis of time spent traveling and the number of trips was about 1.5 times higher than for car occupants. Risk for pedestrians compared to car occupants was similar according to time spent traveling, lower according to the number of trips and higher according to the distance traveled. People from the 17-20 and 21-29 age groups and those aged 70 and over had the highest rates. Males had higher rates than females, by a factor of between 2 and 3. CONCLUSION: When exposure is taken into account, the risks for motorized two-wheeler users are extremely high compared to other types of road user. This disparity can be explained by the combination of speed and a lack of protection (except for helmets). The differential is so great that prevention measures could probably not eliminate it. The question that arises is as follows: with regard to public health, should not the use of MTW, or at least of motorcycles, be deterred? The difference between the fatality risk of cyclists and of car occupants is much smaller (1.5 times higher); besides, there is much room for improvements in cyclist safety, for instance by increasing the use of helmets and conspicuity equipment. Traffic calming could also benefit cyclists, pedestrians and perhaps moped users.
Authors: José Mateos-Granados; Luis Miguel Martín-delosReyes; Mario Rivera-Izquierdo; Eladio Jiménez-Mejías; Virginia Martínez-Ruiz; Pablo Lardelli-Claret Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-12-16 Impact factor: 3.390