How does mode of travel affect risks posed to other road users? An analysis of English road fatality data, incorporating gender and road type.
bicycle
cross sectional study
driver
motor vehicle occupant
passenger
pedestrian
Journal
Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention
ISSN: 1475-5785
Titre abrégé: Inj Prev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9510056
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2021
02 2021
Historique:
received:
19
10
2019
revised:
20
01
2020
accepted:
25
01
2020
pubmed:
8
4
2020
medline:
5
10
2021
entrez:
8
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Most analysis of road injuries examines the risk experienced by people using different modes of transport, for instance, pedestrian fatalities per-head or per-km. A small but growing field analyses the impact that the use of different transport modes has on other road users, for instance, injuries to others per-km driven. This paper moves the analysis of risk posed to others forward by comparing six different vehicular modes, separating road types (major vs minor roads in urban vs rural settings). The comparison of risk posed by men and women for all these modes is also novel. Per-vehicle kilometre, buses and lorries pose much the highest risk to others, while cycles pose the lowest. Motorcycles pose a substantially higher per-km risk to others than cars. The fatality risk posed by cars or vans to ORUs per km is higher in rural areas. Risk posed is generally higher on major roads, although not in the case of lorries, suggesting a link to higher speeds. Men pose higher per-km risk to others than women for all modes except buses, as well as being over-represented among users of the most dangerous vehicles. Future research should examine more settings, adjust for spatial and temporal confounders, or examine how infrastructure or route characteristics affect risk posed to others. Although for most victims the other vehicle involved is a car, results suggest policy-makers should also seek to reduce disproportionate risks posed by the more dangerous vehicles, for instance, by discouraging motorcycling. Finally, given higher risk posed to others by men across five of six modes analysed, policy-makers should consider how to reduce persistent large gender imbalances in jobs involving driving.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Most analysis of road injuries examines the risk experienced by people using different modes of transport, for instance, pedestrian fatalities per-head or per-km. A small but growing field analyses the impact that the use of different transport modes has on other road users, for instance, injuries to others per-km driven.
METHODS
This paper moves the analysis of risk posed to others forward by comparing six different vehicular modes, separating road types (major vs minor roads in urban vs rural settings). The comparison of risk posed by men and women for all these modes is also novel.
RESULTS
Per-vehicle kilometre, buses and lorries pose much the highest risk to others, while cycles pose the lowest. Motorcycles pose a substantially higher per-km risk to others than cars. The fatality risk posed by cars or vans to ORUs per km is higher in rural areas. Risk posed is generally higher on major roads, although not in the case of lorries, suggesting a link to higher speeds. Men pose higher per-km risk to others than women for all modes except buses, as well as being over-represented among users of the most dangerous vehicles.
CONCLUSIONS
Future research should examine more settings, adjust for spatial and temporal confounders, or examine how infrastructure or route characteristics affect risk posed to others. Although for most victims the other vehicle involved is a car, results suggest policy-makers should also seek to reduce disproportionate risks posed by the more dangerous vehicles, for instance, by discouraging motorcycling. Finally, given higher risk posed to others by men across five of six modes analysed, policy-makers should consider how to reduce persistent large gender imbalances in jobs involving driving.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32253257
pii: injuryprev-2019-043534
doi: 10.1136/injuryprev-2019-043534
pmc: PMC7848050
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
71-76Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/K023187/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_UU_00002/11
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/P02663X/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/P024408/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.
Références
PLoS One. 2013;8(1):e51462
pubmed: 23326315
Accid Anal Prev. 2018 Aug;117:75-84
pubmed: 29660561
Int J Epidemiol. 2000 Apr;29(2):315-22
pubmed: 10817131
Accid Anal Prev. 2012 Nov;49:23-9
pubmed: 23036378
Accid Anal Prev. 2017 Aug;105:21-29
pubmed: 27181087
BMC Public Health. 2010 Nov 15;10:699
pubmed: 21078190
Inj Prev. 2007 Apr;13(2):125-9
pubmed: 17446254
J Safety Res. 2008;39(6):577-82
pubmed: 19064042
Inj Control Saf Promot. 2003 Sep;10(3):123-30
pubmed: 12861910
Front Psychol. 2016 Sep 27;7:1412
pubmed: 27729877
Accid Anal Prev. 2003 Mar;35(2):227-35
pubmed: 12504143