1. Melbourne School of Design The University of Melbourne
State of Australian Cities National Conference Gold Coast 2015
Why do cyclists feel safer in inner Amsterdam and Copenhagen than in inner Melbourne? A Contextual Framework
Warwick Pattinson
PhD Candidate
Melbourne School of Design The University of Melbourne
Good afternoon.
This paper is based on my PhD research (now in analysis and write up phase).

2. If so, why and what can we learn?
In Amsterdam and Copenhagen it looks like cyclists feel safer than in Melbourne.
Are they safer?
If so, why and what can we learn?
With a long term interest in sustainable transport and hearing of some very bad deaths and serious injuries to cyclists, in 2010 I decided to explore if city cycling could be made ‘safe enough’ to be part of the access solution for 21st century cities like Melbourne
Two standout larger cities for cycling are Amsterdam and Copenhagen, and that cycling is different there to in inner Melbourne is readily observed.
When visiting Amsterdam and Copenhagen one sees many more cyclists, on upright bikes and in ordinary clothes. They seem happy and comparatively unstressed.
So what can I and we learn from cycling cities like Amsterdam and Copenhagen about safety.
Amsterdam
Copenhagen
Melbourne

3. Methodology and methods
Interpretive research methodology Schwartz-Shea and Yanow (2012)
Importance of context and the construction of meanings
Method: comparative case study
objective data – crash statistics and document analysis
open-ended interviews (30): academics, government experts and advocates
observation
My approach has been to use interpretive research, as described by Schwartz-Shea and Yanow, it is a development of the Constructivist view of life rather than the scientific method, positivist view.
The Interpretive view sees meanings of something like “safety’ as constructed in specific contexts.
I conducted over 30 interviews in Melbourne, Amsterdam and Copenhagen. Informants were involved in transport cycling for Governments, as representatives of interest groups or as academic researchers. Reports and guidelines from these cities were also reviewed.
My own observations and reflections as a cyclist, pedestrian and public transport user in each city helped me to verify my understandings from the interviews and documents.
Safety has thus been taken as a construct. My premise is that people will only consider travel modes that allow them to create safety for their trip (e.g. by mode and route choice), and
Safety, as it effects mode choice, is mostly subjective, based on experience and perceptions.
One issue was how to restrict my scope to something manageable and another was how to make reasonable comparisons between three different cities.

4. My focus:
Inner city adult transport (not children, not recreational cycling)
Safety through government policy and individual actions:
Environment/infrastructure
People
Vehicles
My focus:
Inner city adult transport (not the outer suburbs, not children, not recreational cycling)
Safety through government policy and individual actions:
Environment/infrastructure
People
Vehicles
Safety as it is an essential pre-condition for transport cycling.

5. Comparative case study using inner Areas of three older Large Cities
Melbourne, Amsterdam, Copenhagen
City areas that developed before the “auto age” of the 20th century:
Medium to high density
Mix of land uses; accessible by short trips
Inner Melbourne
Population 446,000 Area 135 km2
Amsterdam
Pop. 820,000
Area 219 km2
My Melbourne study area is the inner area, known as the IMAP area containing 5 municipalitesthat are also known as the Plan Melbourne Central Subregion. Importantly they are a large part of 19th Century (pre –car) Melbourne that was and is served by suburban trains and trams. Amsterdam and Copenhagen are more or less single municipalities which has an important effect on institutional capacity.
Inner Melbourne contains a population of 446,000 compared to 820,000 in Amsterdam and 559,00 in Copenhagen.
It is comparable in area to Amsterdam but bigger than Copenhagen. The effect or bias of Melbourne’s incomparable car-dominated outer suburbs is thus reduced.
Also, Melbourne is where I have lived and worked for decades.
My focus is adults who could travel by bike and I am only considering travel safety.
So why only safety:
Copenhagen
Pop. 559,000
Area 559 km2

6. - because it is of fundamental importance
WHY SAFETY?
- because it is of fundamental importance
(Maslow 1943, Bauman et al 2008, Stern and Richardson 2005, Godefrooij 2014)
(Vanderbergh 2003)
People will only consider ‘safe’ travel modes:
Select vehicles that are safe enough when used on particular infrastructure, and that provide agency for them to create ‘safety’ for their trip - expressed by the outcome of mode/vehicle choice
Safety beliefs are strongly influenced by what people see and have experienced (familiarity).
Why Safety: because it is of fundamental importance
Mode choice factors are subjective and I find Safety interesting as a subjective construct - not just an objective fact.
People will only consider ‘safe’ travel modes that are perceived to be safe:
They select modes that are safe enough in terms of a chosen vehicle, used on particular infrastructure, with acquired skills skills: a combination that allows them agency to hope to create good if not failsafe travel; the outcome of individual choices is expressed by: mode choice and the quality of there subjective choice is indicated by injury outcomes
The key factors for safety: vehicle, infrastructure, and human skills are conceptualized as the Safe System

7. Safety is a System Outcome
The system elements interact with each other, for example peoples behaviour is effected by the road environment and the vehicles using it.
The safe systems approach can be proactive and fits with the strategic and normative planning approaches familiar to urban planners.
The northern European commitment to pursue road safety and sustainable travel management programs consistent with a true ‘safe systems’ approach has meant a significant investment in a wide range of programs including: road user education; local streets made safe (survivable) for cyclists and other road users by a 30 km/h speed limit (compared to the default urban speed limit in Australian cities of 50 km/h);
Northern Europe cycling supportive programs have included restrictions on car use, support for public transport and a higher density mixed use urban form have been part of a comprehensive package for sustainable travel which now shows progress that includes lower road trauma and healthier city populations.

8. How to explore differences in safety outcomes and possible reasons?
1. Safety outcomes, by comparing data on mode, relative to use.
2. Reasons, by a Framework of factors, from interviews and documents, that influence outcomes and perceptions.
Environment ‘constructed’ – land use and roads
People – behavior, education, regulation
Vehicles – design and use, policy and regulation
So, how to explore differences in safety outcomes and possible reasons?
I decided to compare Safety outcomes by amount of trips by walking, cycling and car.
2. Then I developed a Framework of factors, based on the Safe System concept, from my interviews and documents, that appeared to have a strong influence on outcomes and perceptions.
The safe system elements and examples of factors from my findings are:
Environment ‘constructed’ – land use and roads
People – behavior, education, regulation
Vehicles – design and use, policy and regulation

9. Comparative safety outcomes Mode share and Trauma
90% with MV’s
So, is cycling safe enough in inner Melbourne, others have said say no and I agree, based on my comparison of modes used and injury outcomes.
In Inner Melbourne there are disproportionate injuries to cyclists (almost five fold relative to trips made) with most recorded injuries being caused by motor vehicles.
Statistical comparisons of crashes between cities are however very difficult and must be approached with caution.
The Melbourne crash data above is extracted from CrashStats based on Police reports, with police reports (being biased) by TAC insurance arrangements that give cyclists incentives to report injury crashes with motor vehicles but not bike only crashes.
Also, very few injury crashes are recorded by Police in Amsterdam so I used SWOV, the institute for road safety research in the Netherlands, who made estimates using police and hospital data (2014) .
With these limitations It appears that in Amsterdam, although cycling is more likely to result in injury than walking or car use, it is only 57% higher, but in Melbourne it is five times higher.
Note that in Amsterdam a growing number of bike only crashes are a significant contributor to cyclist trauma, by SWOV estimates accounting for ¾ of injuries, and mostly to adults, a trend that has emerged since 2000.
So how to understand the difference?
Only 25%with
MV’s

10. Reasons for difference explored by a framework of factors, from interviews and documents, that influence outcomes and perceptions.
Environment given and ‘constructed’ – land use and roads
People – behavior, education, regulation
Vehicles – design and use, policy and regulation
The next slide shows my expanded framework.

11. Framework of Safe System factors that effect adult perceptions of safety for short, inner city cycle trips
Land use/Activity opportunities
(exposure)
(perceptions)
Infrastructure
Quantity
Design Quality
Maintenance
Design Philosophy:
- Sections
- Intersections
- Parking
Fixed Context:
- Terrain
- Urban Morphology
- Weather
- History
Other(s) Vehicles
types
numbers
- aggressivity
Perceived Safety of Mobility
Options :
Car PT
Walk
Cycle
Motor cycle
Government: Taxes
Restrictions
Design Rules
Individual Experience
Ability
Vulnerability
Training
Bike (type)
Peer support
REASONS FOR DIFFERENCE From key informant interviews, document analysis and site observations in the three cities I developed an expanded framework that focuses on eight variable factors that effect perceptions of safety, relative to other modes, for everyday travel by bike.
For example:
Access factors: Short trips to nearby activities involve less exposure than long trips.
Individual experience: Being educated about cycling makes it a known option.
Government taxes on motor vehicles and fuel effect the relative cost of available modes .
Road design, Traffic regulations and speed limits can privilege motorised road users over vulnerable road users or vice versa.
Other Users
Behaviour
(Speed, Respect, etc.)
Regulation &
Compliance
Legend:
Environment
People
Vehicles

12. Environment - Historic Context
Melbourne
19th century Melbourne quickly developed to a suburban ‘transit’ city.
Cable trams, from the late 1840’s grew to an extensive network by the 1900’s.
By the 1860’s Melbourne also had five suburban train routes
Lower density of development, led by the availability of train and tram services, fostered an initial reliance on public transport, rather than cycling, and then later reliance on autos’.
First some observations about historical contextual differences. 19th century Melbourne quickly developed to a transit city with land use and transport strongly influenced by the technology of steam engines and steel rails: Cable trams in Melbourne grew from the late 1840’s to an extensive network by the early 1900’s. By the 1860’s Melbourne also had five suburban train routes, which together with the trams provided a practical and safe means of personal travel for ordinary (non-horse owning) residents. Melbourne’s lower density of development and the availability of train and tram services fostered an initial reliance on public transport rather than cycling.
Amsterdam and Copenhagen were medieval walking cities then in the 19 century the residents depended on walking, limited tram services and then bicycles.
There were no suburban trains in Copenhagen until the 1930’s and none in Amsterdam until the 1970’s.

13. History and development
Melbourne 1910, access mostly by public transport and walking
Melbourne 2015, car domination problems of health and liveability
From some of my respondents talking about mode choice, such as trams being safer than bikes in Amsterdam, I found it very useful to review the early history of mechanised travel in each city.
I could not find much written(at least in English) but did find photos.
In pre 20th century, walking dominated city access and provided incidental exercise, today our central area is car dominated.

14. No suburban trains in Copenhagen until the 1930’s
The residents of Amsterdam and Copenhagen were dependent on walking, then trams and then bikes – and many kept riding!
Wait for a tram?
Or ride a bike!
They could walk, wait for a tram or ride a bike.
So there were historic, cultural transport behaviours that help explain difference but there are also recent and different aproaches to urban policy which I have grouped under the Road Environment., Peoples behaviour and Vehicles.
No suburban trains in Copenhagen until the 1930’s
No suburban trains in Amsterdam until the 1970’s

15. Road environment Melbourne (and other Australian cities):
Priority given to motorised mobility over safety of all road users
Road safety emphasis on motor vehicle occupants
Amsterdam and Copenhagen:
The needs of vulnerable road users given priority, by design, over the mobility demands of motor vehicle users
In Amsterdam
90% of roads have a 30 km/h speed limit (by design – few signs).
Roads with speed limits of 50 km/h or higher have separation for cyclists
In Copenhagen
local roads have a 30 or 40 km/h speed limit
In 50 km/h zones roads have the step change/ Copenhagen lane
In 60 km/h zones separate bike paths are provided .
Each of the elements or factors in a safe system interact but I will briefly discuss them in turn:
Road Environment, People and Vehicles.
The road environment in Melbourne (and other Australian cities):
Gives Priority to motorised mobility over safety of all road users
Since the 1970’s the Road safety emphasis has been on motor vehicle occupants
Amsterdam and Copenhagen:
The needs of vulnerable road users given priority, by design, over the mobility demands of motor vehicle users
MOVE TO NEXT SLIDE

16. disappearing bike lane protected intersection
Road Environment
Melbourne:
disappearing bike lane
Amsterdam:
protected intersection
Road designs that always consider safety of all road users as they do in Copenhagen and throughout the Netherlands.
In Australia we have had car safety measures labelled as road safety.

17. People Amsterdam and Copenhagen: Melbourne:
Adult road users have limited experience or understanding of cycling
Car drivers are the kings (and queens) of the road, pedestrians are treated as ‘serfs’ and cyclists as ‘ruffians’
Excessive reliance on regulations and enforcement for safe behaviour .
Amsterdam and Copenhagen:
Road users learn and know about about cycling
They share the road and respect each other ( to varying degrees)
Differences are significant.
MOVE TO NEXT SLIDE

18. People Drivers look out for cyclists (Copenhagen)
Road users who understand and respect each other

19. Vehicles
ANWB (the Dutch motoring association) has been a leader in and supported design of safe bikes
Truck designs (E U Standards) have been changed to ensure safer in interaction with cyclists
Truck access times and routes are restricted in cities
High taxes on cars and fuel
Again, with vehicles, significant differences, by actors like motoring associations and regulators.

20. Vehicle design Euro Truck: Melbourne Truck:
Cab-over, extra mirrors, driver seated lower
Melbourne Truck:
Long bonnet, extensive blind spots
Vehicle designs that consider other road users.
And controlled operation of large trucks in cities and truck cabins designed to ensure drivers can see cyclists (e.g. by lower driver positions, large field of view and extensive use of mirrors); and on busy roads, protected space and/or time for cyclists between and at intersections. For decades in

21. Conclusions and Discussion
Cycling in inner Melbourne is not yet ‘safe enough’ to be mainstream.
By a wide range of measures, supported by all levels of government, over many years, a safe enough context has been provided in Amsterdam and Copenhagen.
In Australia it will not be enough to adapt a few engineering measures.
And the response in Australia will need State and Federal support, as in Amsterdam/The Netherlands and Copenhagen/Denmark.
Politically, changes need to cleverly framed so that they are supported by most road users (win-win), not proposed as being for cyclists!
The health and environmental crises and the opportunities of autonomous vehicle technologies could possibly contribute to cycling becoming ‘safe enough’ to be part of everyday transport in Melbourne ?
Cycling in inner Melbourne is not yet ‘safe enough’ .
By a wide range of measures, supported by all levels of government, over many years, a safe enough context has been provided in Amsterdam and Copenhagen.
It will not be enough to adapt a few engineering measures.
Tthe response in Australian cities will need State and Federal support, our municipalities can not do it on their own.
Politically, changes need to cleverly framed so that they are supported by most road users (win-win), not proposed as being for cyclists!
The health and environmental crises and the opportunities of autonomous vehicle technologies could possibly contribute to cycling becoming ‘safe enough’ to be part of everyday transport in Melbourne ?

22. Thank you Questions ? Comments ?
Surely we can do better for our future generations
Thank you
Questions ?
Comments ?