A recent study by Teun Uitdewilligen, researcher at the Institute for Road Safety Research (SWOV), reveals a correlation between rising cycling volumes and increased accident risks in major Dutch cities.
Conducted with extensive data from Amsterdam, Utrecht, Rotterdam, and The Hague, the study finds that higher numbers of cyclists contribute to both objective and perceived risks of accidents. Uitdewilligen presented his findings in his dissertation, “Road Safety of Cyclists in Dutch Cities”, for which he received a doctorate from the University of Twente on November 1.
Rising bicycle accidents
While the number of cyclists in the Netherlands is growing, the increase in cycling accidents contrasts with trends observed in other countries, where a higher volume of cyclists often correlates with improved safety. According to Uitdewilligen, cycling intensity in Dutch cities has reached a point where safety no longer improves as cyclist numbers grow. The study explores how different infrastructural and environmental factors—such as speed limits, the presence of cycle paths, and road design—affect both accident rates and cyclists’ perception of safety.
Key factors contributing to accident risk
Uitdewilligen’s research, which analyzed data on traffic volume and density across various city sections, indicates that the exposure to other traffic, particularly to other cyclists, is a primary factor in accident risk. Notably, the study found that roads with speed limits of 50 km/h that have dedicated cycle paths are safer for cyclists than roads with a 30 km/h limit that mix cyclists with motor vehicles. Additionally, areas with high densities of intersections and commercial zones, such as shopping and dining areas, see an elevated risk of cycling accidents.
Cyclist perceptions and route preferences
The study also examined subjective safety through a survey of 1,329 cyclists in the four cities, who were asked to select routes based on various factors, including traffic volume, type of infrastructure, and travel time. The results highlighted that traffic volume negatively impacts cyclists’ route preferences and their perception of safety, especially among older cyclists and women. Most respondents preferred routes they perceived as safer, with separate cycle paths preferred despite traffic-related concerns.
Traffic density and risk perception
Uitdewilligen’s analysis shows a strong statistical relationship between cyclists’ perception of risk and actual accident risk, particularly where exposure to cyclists and motor vehicles is high. Interestingly, the perception of accident risk tends to rise even more sharply than objective risk in high-density traffic areas, driven largely by the volume of fellow cyclists.
Policy recommendations
The SWOV has released a policy-focused summary of Uitdewilligen’s findings, urging Dutch policymakers to prioritize cyclist safety through dedicated infrastructure investments. Key recommendations include separating cyclists from motor traffic wherever possible and designing cycle paths that can safely accommodate large volumes of cyclists.
By addressing both objective and perceived safety risks through infrastructure improvements, the Netherlands aims to support the continued growth of cycling while mitigating associated safety risks for its urban cyclists.
France’s capital city launches initiative to curb through-traffic while promoting eco friendly transportation in city centre
From November 5, 2024, Paris will enforce a Limited Traffic Area (LTA) in the heart of its city. This initiative, modeled after similar zones in other European cities such as Madrid, Milan, and Rome, aims to curb through-traffic and encourage public and eco-friendly modes of transportation within Paris’s 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th arrondissements. The implementation of this restricted traffic zone is intended to reduce congestion and emissions, promoting a safer and more accessible city centre for pedestrians and cyclists.
Overview of the Limited Traffic Area (LTA)
The LTA, covering approximately 131 kilometres of roadways in central Paris, prohibits vehicles from using the area as a transit route to cross from one side of the city to another. Instead, only vehicles that have origins or destinations within the LTA’s boundaries are allowed to enter. Signage around the perimeter will inform drivers when they are approaching, entering, or exiting the restricted zone.
Key locations, including the Grands Boulevards in the north, the islands of the Cité and Saint-Louis, and the main quays on the Seine’s right bank, are excluded from the LTA, allowing traffic to flow around rather than through the center. According to city officials, approximately 350,000 to 550,000 vehicles cross this sector daily, highlighting the significant impact the LTA could have on reducing overall traffic within the city’s central zone
Gradual implementation and education phase
To ensure a smooth transition, the city has instituted a “pedagogical phase” that allows residents and visitors time to adapt to the new restrictions. During this phase, drivers will not face penalties, with authorities focusing on education and awareness. Fines will be enforced in 2025, following additional consultations with the Prefecture of Police. The city has also released informational materials, including a video, to help explain the LTA rules and answer frequently asked questions.
Who will be able to enter the LTA?
Access to the LTA is limited to motor vehicles with specific reasons to be in the area, including:
Residents or workers based within the LTA boundaries
Those making deliveries
Individuals visiting medical facilities, shops, or cultural locations such as cinemas
People providing professional services or maintenance within the area
Cyclists, pedestrians, scooters, and other active transportation modes are unaffected by these restrictions, as the LTA only applies to motorized vehicles.
Exemptions and special permissions
Certain vehicles and professionals are exempt from the LTA’s transit restrictions to ensure the continued safety, accessibility, and functioning of essential services within the city center. Vehicles permitted to bypass these rules include:
Public transportation vehicles and taxis
Priority and emergency response vehicles
Public service vehicles for road maintenance and operations
Professionals eligible for specialized parking permits, such as healthcare and mobile service providers
Car-sharing vehicles and vehicles transporting individuals with disabilities or special mobility needs
Additionally, vehicles belonging to the PAM mobility service—a public transport system managed by Île-de-France Mobilités to assist individuals with disabilities—are also permitted unrestricted access to the LTA.
Looking ahead
The Paris LTA is one of several traffic-calming initiatives being pursued by European cities, seeking to balance mobility needs with sustainability and livability goals. While restrictions may pose challenges for some drivers, the city anticipates that the LTA will foster a more pedestrian-friendly urban centre, reduce air pollution, and support a healthier, more vibrant Paris for all residents and visitors.
• 77% of Brits support measures in their local area to encourage cycling and walking. Measures are supported by 6.5 people for every 1 against • 80% of Brits who expressed a preference want the UK’s streets redesigned to protect pedestrians and cyclists from motorists; 51% agree they would cycle more if these changes were made • But campaigners against the ‘green recovery’ have succeeded in forcing U-turns on initiatives to promote active travel • Analysis by prominent environmental psychologist claims data demonstrates people tend to overestimate other people’s opposition to cycling measures • #BikeIsBest spokesperson says “The small minority getting all revved up about their right to drive are having their voices heard through sheer volition. We need local leaders to be bold and secure a better future for the majority.”
23/07/20, London, UK. Latest YouGov research shows the public is overwhelmingly in favour of measures to encourage walking and cycling with 6.5 people supporting changes to their local streets for every 1 person against.
It shows that 70% believe more people cycling would reduce traffic congestion across the country and 65% of all Britons – rising to 80% of those with an opinion one way or the other – want to see British roads redesigned and changed to protect cyclists and pedestrians from cars. These responses are a clear indicator that there is overwhelming support across the country to bring about lasting changes to transport infrastructure which can tackle air pollution and climate change, as well as make streets more pleasant places to socialise and shop.
So far, 89 different local authorities have implemented a total of 503 temporary schemes that make more space for pedestrians and cyclists, according to Sustrans. However, vocal residents and pro-motoring groups have been successful in forcing some local authorities to perform U-turns on their initiatives to enable active travel, despite £250m of funding and statutory guidance issued mandating them to make bold changes that challenge the status quo. For example, in Reigate, Surrey, a pop-up cycle lane, due to be trialled for 3 weeks, lasted just 3 days after pressure from local MP Crispin Blunt MP. Other measures due in Ealing, Wandsworth, South Gloucestershire, Trafford, Portsmouth and Surrey have been reportedly cancelled.
Analysis of the YouGov data by Dr Ian Walker, a prominent Environmental Psychologist at the University of Bath, might even shed some light on why decision-makers are so open to heeding the vocal minority. This showed that people were clearly in support of more cycling in the UK, but at the same time they quite consistently overestimated other people’s opposition to this.
Dr Ian Walker, Environmental Psychologist at the University of Bath, said: “Perhaps one reason negative voices find it so easy to sway things their way is that people have a tendency to misjudge public levels of support. The survey showed that, while most people think Britain would be a better place if more people cycled, they also guessed that other people were less supportive, and more hostile, to the idea than they were.”
The data showed that 3.26 people support the view that “Britain would be better if more people cycled” for every 1 against. But when asked what they thought the opinion of their friends or the general public would be, many respondents drastically overestimated the negativity towards cycling.
The YouGov survey of 2,010 people also showed: • 65% (rising to 79%, when people with no opinion are excluded) believe children should be able to play in the street without danger from cars cutting through. Many councils are planning “Low Traffic Neighbourhoods” to enable this, but these have started to run into exactly the sort of vocal local opposition described above. • 66% (rising to 83% of those with an opinion one way or the other) disagree that there is ‘nothing that can be done to stop people from being harmed by motor vehicles’, showing the public do not see the problems of motoring as a ‘done deal’. • Similarly, 71% (rising to 86% of those with an opinion) disagree that there is ‘nothing we can do to stop people being harmed by air pollution caused by motor vehicles’. • 33% – and 35% of regular car commuters – would use their car less if streets were designed to keep pedestrians and cyclists safe from motor traffic. These values rise to 47% and 46% when people with no opinion are put aside. • 10.6 people support local measures to encourage cycling and walking to each 1 opposed in the 18-24 age bracket, whereas in the 55+ bracket this falls to 4.56 people in favour to each 1 against. • Young people want a future cycling nation: 5.1 people think “Britain would be a better place if more people cycled” in the 18-24 age bracket, for every 1 person opposed.
Adam Tranter, a spokesperson for #BikeIsBest and an active travel campaigner, said: “The small minority getting all revved up about their right to drive are having their voices heard through sheer volition. If the silent majority want to see this new, greener, better Britain, they need to act now or face going back to the old normal, with polluted and dangerous streets.
“When 20mph streets were first proposed, pro-motoring groups were whipped up into a frenzy, just as they are today. In 2017, data showed that the proportion opposed or strongly opposed to residential 20mph limits was just 10%. The same is happening here with measures to enable more people to switch their journeys to cycling and walking.”
He added: “No-one is saying that all journeys can be cycled or walked but many of our towns and cities are experiencing congestion – not because of cycle lanes but because of people using their car for short journeys, often under 2 miles. Local authorities need to stand up and refuse to be bullied into a U-turn on plans to turn Britain into a better place. These are plans the public agree with, so people also need to speak up so their silence isn’t taken as consent to keep our streets dominated by motor vehicles.”
To show local authorities the unmet demand for better cycling infrastructure, the #BikeIsBest campaign has set up an online petition for people to show their support for measures to enable cycling.
All figures, unless otherwise stated, are from YouGov Plc. Total sample size was 2010 adults. Fieldwork was undertaken between 16th – 17th July 2020. The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all GB adults (aged 18+).
BikeIsBest has united over 50 leading cycle brands, retailers and organisations into one powerful voice with a single mission – to get more people riding bikes more often.
The #BikeIsBest campaign has been described as “the most extensive coordinated promotional campaign for cycling since the 1970s”, with #BikeIsBest unifying brands, retailers, organisations and influencers in order to actively promote cycling to a new demographic.
The campaign is also backed by British Cycling, Cycling UK, London Cycling Campaign, Sustrans, The Association of Cycle Traders (ACT) and Wheels For Wellbeing.
The increasing number of cars on our roads and the corresponding room that they are using has led a team of experts to promote the use of smaller vehicles in our city centres.
Germany is largely considered as the most prolific country when it comes to car production, and one model has continually flourished. The VW Golf. Habitually at the top of popularity and sales rankings, the Golf has matched industry. One side-effect of this, however, is the size of the car. When the Golf was launched in 1974, it measured 1.61 metres wide. At 1.79 metres, the width of the 2022 model is the width of the largest Mercedes-Benz of the 1970s.
New versions of nearly every car model follows suit with the Golf, and this causes a problem for urban spacing, as our streets don’t mimic the trend. Konrad Otto-Zimmermann, former Secretary General of the International Association of Cities for Sustainable Development, ICLEI, has joined forces with a team of experts from urban and town planning. Together, they have developed “fine mobility” concept at the University of Kassel, recognising the need for, “disarmament in traffic from coarse to finer vehicles.”
The Research Association for Roads and Transport (FGSV) is retabulating car design and the corresponding parking space capacity that has become duly effected. Otto-Zimmermann was queried on this study: “In terms of craftsmanship, the FGSV’s approach is certainly clean. But the philosophy behind it, in my opinion, is wrong. The research company uses the vehicle stock to determine the dimensions of the average vehicle, which is not exceeded by 85 percent of all vehicles. Because the vehicles are getting bigger and bigger, the FGSV uncritically adopts this status and cements the car bloat for decades to come, instead of thinking normatively and providing incentives to save space. We should not let the market dictate the size of our parking spaces.”
Commenting on how municipalities can implement countermeasures, Otto Zimmerman said: “Urban space is the most important factor for municipalities. They should be able to decide how much space to give to which types of vehicles. Do they allow a few huge cars to be parked in a section of road, or is it not more appropriate to have more small vehicles parked there instead? So far, the municipalities have lacked the tools to do so. Together with colleagues from the University of Kassel, the VCD and the SRL, we have developed the concept of “fine mobility”. This gives them a new vehicle classification according to size and weight. We used a unit of measurement that everyone knows: product size. We distinguish between seven G-Classes from XXS, XS and S to M to L, XL and XXL.”
When questioned on the vehicle types used in his fine mobility concept, Otto-Zimmermann further commented, “We looked at the entire world of wheels, from roller skates to bicycles and light electric vehicles to off-road vehicles. Around 100 vehicles were systematically recorded. This also shows off all the vehicles above the bicycle and below the car with a meaningful category and a traffic area. The FGSV recognises only one design vehicle: passenger cars and design vehicles, bicycles and motorcycles.”
The new traffic plan in the city’s centre has triggered a 19% drop in traffic while increasing cycling by an average of 18%.
Good Move is the Regional Mobility Plan for the Brussels-Capital Region. Approved in 2020 by the Brussels Government, it defines the main policy guidelines in the field of mobility. This plan aims to improve the living environment of the people of Brussels, while supporting the demographic and economic development of the Brussels-Capital Region. In the city centre ‘pentagon’, the plan aims to change traffic flow through road closure and new one-way designation, thus leading to a less attractive driving experience.
After six months, the first results of the scheme have been unveiled, though local authorities state that it is too early to draw broad and sweeping conclusions. Initial findings indicate that the central part of Brussels has a reduced traffic flow, with more walking space, pedestrians, cyclists, reduced noise and cleaner air when compared to measurement prior to the scheme. Total traffic has fallen by approximately 19%, while morning and evening rush-hour cycling has risen by an approximately 23% and 13% respectively.
Alderman Dhondt was quoted in a press statement saying: “Many people have simply made a different mobility choice and switched to cycling or public transport, for example. The circulation plan thus contributes to the ultimate goal: a more pleasant city for everyone.”
Sixteen designated parking spaces have been set aside in the centre of Amersfoort in a quest to resolve the annoyance of irresponsibly parked electric scooters, shared by the city community. Similarly built hubs are also due for development in nearby local areas.
Residents have begun to protest against the often-abandoned vehicles, which have become hazardous for dwellers. A recent evaluation of the shared mobility scheme found that between January and August of 2022, bad parking accounted for over half of complaints. It’s believed that introducing designated parking areas will not only make the area safer, but will also make it easier to find one of the shared vehicles.
300 shared bicycles and 300 shared scooters are currently available for use by Amersfoort’s 150,000 inhabitants, although these numbers have reduced from 12,000 in mid-2022, due to two of five providers withdrawing from the sustainable transport scheme. However, the evaluation report concluded that half of the users have left their car at home in favour of the scooters, with the largest demographic under the age of 29. The main motives for the popularity were saving time, not needing to own a scooter or bike, and to have fun. From the reports, scooters have proved more favourable than the shared bicycles.
The evaluation was based upon Amersfoort residents’ survey answers, data from the providers, reports to local government and results from a survey of MBO students.
A new study, published in Nature Energy, states that cities should expect to see trade-offs between micromobility restrictions designed to promote public safety, and increased emissions associated with heightened congestion.
Titled “Impacts of micromobility on car displacement with evidence from a natural experiment and geofencing policy“, the study was created using data from Atlanta, USA. The city made for an ideal research base due to its sudden ban on the usage of shared micromobility devices at night, restricting use between 19:00-04:00 from 9 August, 2019 onwards. This gave the opportunity to compare traffic scenarios before and after the change.
The study found that, on average, travel times for car trips in Atlanta during evening hours increased between 9.9-10.7% immediately following the ban on shared micromobility. For an average commuter in Atlanta, that translated to an extra 2-5 minutes per evening trip.
The authors also concluded that the impact on commute times would likely be higher in other cities across the country. According to the study, “based on the estimated US average commute time of 27.6 minutes in 2019, the results from our natural experiment imply a 17.4% increase in travel time nationally.”
The economic impact of increased commuting times in the city of Atlanta was calculated at US $4.9M per annum. When looking on a national scale, the study estimated this impact to fall in the range of US $408M to $573M per annum.
Interestingly, the study’s dataset was recorded prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, which of course. played a major role in promoting, and increasing uptake of, shared micromobility. A similar study undertaken in todays’ transport climate could find an even greater burden on congestion, travel times, and economic impact on cities.
The Barcelona Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal) releases figures obtained from the study of 749 continental cities, projecting potential health detriment.
ISGlobal recently shared its noise pollution findings via the Environment International Journal, highlighting that 60 million people across Europe are negatively impacted by noise pollution. View the full breakdown of observed cities here.
The main cause of environmental noise in urban areas is road traffic, with previous research linking high levels of sustained environmental noise to a range of health impacts. Such impacts include a sustained stress response, in which stress hormones increase heart rate, blood pressure, and vasoconstriction. With time, such reactions may lead to chronic illnesses including depression, anxiety, and cardiovascular diseases. Even with this in mind, it is still surprising to learn of a further conclusion in the study: if cities committed to complying with World Health Organisation (WHO) noise-level guidelines, 3,600 ischaemic heart disease deaths could be prevented annually.
Of the 123 million adults that partook in the study, 48% were exposed to levels of environmental noise that averaged above 53 decibels in any given 24 hour period, exceeding guidelines by the WHO. Furthermore, 11 million adults admitted to being highly annoyed by road traffic noise, heightening associated stress levels.
It should be noted that results are not fully comprehensive and standardized as varying methodologies and datasets were utilized in the study. However, there can be no doubt that this extensive noise pollution study provides insight into a worrying traffic trend.
The booklet presents methods that could transform urban areas in regard to safety, covering key areas including city street design, traffic engineering, speed management, and improved mobility options. The booklet reflects policy makers’ new focus on converting typically motor-vehicle focused areas into liveable and safe spaces for residents.
9 measures are presented, each having proven to reduce traffic related deaths or serious injury. Case studies within each measure explore both the cost and the effectiveness of each method, allowing consideration for their application in comparable roads and cities. The booklet offers a truly global perspective into city road safety, and acts as a valuable new resource for transportation policy makers in urban areas.