disobeying traffic rules: irresponsibility or consequence?

Disobeying traffic rules: irresponsibility or consequence?

Vratislav FVratislav FILLERILLERAuto*Mat Auto*Mat

VOCA meeting,VOCA meeting,

Vienna, 29.3.-3.4.2012Vienna, 29.3.-3.4.2012

Disobeying traffic rules: irresponsibility or consequence? (0)

Good news first: Kapitána Jaroše crossing


Outline

Status quo of disobeying in Czech Republic Space for disobeying in various traffic modes Sources of disobeying: Legislation, personal point of view,

infrastructure Does „lawful“ mean „impractical“? Effects on level of cycling transportation Effects on public perception of cycling Practical point of view: comprehensive bending of rules Reducing space for disobeying Opportunities and risks for campaigners One final question :-)


Status quo in Prague - 1 Riding on interrupted cyclepaths and crosswalks, running red lights when crossing minor streets


Status quo in Prague - 2 Sidewalks commonly used as cycle path (not legal in CZ)


Status quo in Prague - 3 Using tram lanes when zero space on right

Photo: Václav Kříž


Status quo in Prague - 4 Using counterflow oneways (with some querilla legalization :-) )

Photo: Václav Kříž

Cro

ssin

g w

ith p

icto

cori

do

r

Cro

ssin

g w

ith tr

affi

c lig

hts

Rid

ing

alo

ng p

ark

ed

ca

rs

Cro

ssin

g o

f bus

y ro

ad

Inte

rrup

ted

bik

e la

nes

Ove

rta

king

que

ue

Tur

ning

left

fro

m 2

nd.+

lane

Da

nge

rous

cro

ssw

alk

Rid

ing

in tr

affi

c ja

m

Sa

fe c

ross

wa

lk

One

wa

y a

ga

inst

flo

w

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

5%17% 18% 21% 24% 27%

37%46%

61%66%

88%

Admitted disobeying of rulesSurvey among 412 cyclists, Prague 2010


Status quo in Prague - 5

The survey was carried out by Vratislav Filler in project of NGO Oživení, „Jak odstranit klíčové bariéry cyklodopravy v Praze“ in 2010

More numbers

Crosswalk „Agip“:

• 2 of ~700 cyclists dismounted (Pr.T. 2007)

Kapitána Jaroše:

40% run red to avoid dangerous waiting

(Oživení, 2010).

Mánes:

• only 3 of 50 cyclists pass legally; waiting for green takes 60-80 sec (Survey Pr.T. 16.4.2011.)


Status quo in Prague - 6

Photos (from up to down): Václav Kříž, Tomáš Cach, Tomáš Prousek


Space for disobeying Different opportunities for cars, pedestrians and cyclists

There is not too many ways, how to break rules in car here.

(photo Cycling Commitee of Prague)

What else to do than to disobey?

(Yes, You may dismount, but that is not the purpose why

the bicycle was made for.)


Effects of disobeying - cars Car speeding proven at least

as dangerous as alcohol Especially threating unprotected

participants of traffic

Illegal car parking creates bareer mostly for other participants of traffic

Source of plots: Advancing Sustainable Safety, SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research, 2006. Both plots are based on scientific studies.


Effects of disobeying - bicycles Ride against one-way flow is mostly safe

– Only 3 serious accidents in Vienna since 1980 (where legal, source: Ing. Blaha)

Crosswalk interrupting cyclepath has no negative safety effect in CZ.

– – In CZ, cyclists generally do not have right of way on bicycle crossing.

Ride on sidewalks has effect depending on frequency of pedestrians and cyclists.

Source of plot: Gute Lösungen in und für Wien, 2012

problematic

Possible


Effects of disobeying - summary

Very different effects of common disobeying for particular groups:

For cars, usual effect is threat for others.

For bicycles, there is mostly no effect on safety

except threat to pedestrians.

As much as possible „harmless“ offences should be legal.


Sources of disobeying (1 - external) Sources: Internal (cyclist, vehicle) x external (infrastructure,

rules)

Non-bicycle infrastructure – – why to dismount?– – pointless slowings down

Not natural infrastructure – – pointless waiting on lights– – pointless detours– – mandatory worse routes

Remark: well known reasons for poor infrastructure are wrong norms and outdated preferences of decisive executives.

Rules not for bicycles– – prohibited safe behaviour (e.g. taking lane)– – prohibited natural behaviour (two cyclists abreast)– – car favouring rules (right of way, mandatory infrastructure...)

Image: Cach, Syrový, Prousek


Sources of disobeying (2 - internal)

Lack of knowledge– – Sidewalks, crosswalks and counterflow streets considered to be legal

Personal– – Ruthlessness towards pedestrians.

– – Haste (red lights, risky maneuver)

– – Alcohol

– – Yes, and there is still space for some unintended mistakes...

Vehicle / equipment– – Helmets , reflectors, lights...

– – Analogica offenses exist for drivers too.


Sources of disobeying (3 - summary)Transport mode

Violation External sources Internal sources

Car Speeding Speed inducing infrastructure Haste, habit

Illegal parking Street design allowing it Excessive car use

Bicycle Sidewalks Missing or dangerous infrastructure

Scared by traffic, consi-dering it legal

Crosswalks Poor infrastructure, bad legislation

-

One-way counterflow

Bad legislation, ignorance of decision makers

Considering it legal

Running red lights Car oriented light setting Haste (rarely)

Pedestrians Crossing outside crosswalks

Missing/badly located crosswalks

Laziness (rarely)

Red lights Car oriented light setting Haste, running public transport

It seems that for drivers prevail internal sources, whereas for cyclists and pedestrians external. Many breaches are „enforced by infrastructure.“


Does „lawful“ mean „impractical“?

-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Willingness to ride by time convenience

all regular occasional

Difference in time to basic mean of transport (minuts)

Extrapolated part

0 50 100 150 200 2500%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Willingness to climb on daily route

all regular occassional climb (m)

„Yes – but how much?“

Time losses and uphills decrease willingness to ride:

Plots from survey of 412 Prague cyclists, by project of Oživení, „Jak odstranit klíčové bariéry cyklodopravy v Praze“, 2010.

When bicycle is slower than public transport, then every minute lost on

traffic light decreases willingness to cycle by 5%.

Stopping and starting to 20 km/h equals 1.6 m climb. Assume cyclepath in urban area with obligation to stop (or slow) on every crossing (200m span). It creates additional 80 m uphill on 10 km route,

decreasing willingness by 40%.


Prone to disobey? Does illegal ride discourage people?

– – „Keep rules even if wrong“ → lost for everyday cycling.

– – Centre of Prague: 80% adult men among cyclisnts (counting 2010)

– – Mixed with safety issues (perceived as biggest barrier in Prague – survey 2010).

Do more people cycle who are prone to disobey?– – First riders („pioneers“):

• → high experience

• → good risk assessment

• → good knowledge of principles

• → lower care about keeping official rules– – Newbies („followers“):

• → May not understand principles

• → May disobey needlessly


Bad image of cycling Status Quo changes when cycling rises rapidly

– – Level of acceptable sidewalk cycling is limited → strong negative effect!

– – On roads, effect of „safety in numbers“ is rather positive. Dangerous image of reckless cyclists:

– – 5% of reckless creates image of all

– – Complaints even from regular cyclists

– – Complaints from citizens→ turns politicans

against bicycle transport Connection with poor infrastructure and evil rules is not comprehensive

for people who do not cycle.– – Comparison with pedestrians fails, as they are rarely a threat

– – „It's like if a highway changes into a rural road“

– – „It's like if you're obliged to push the car“


Practical point of view „Light lane“? We do it without lasers! Creating new rules on the fly:

– – Changing roles („car“, „pedestrian“, „not being there“)

– – Creating virtual infrastructure (bike lanes, boxes, counterflow signs, green signals, etc.)

To suppress danger we need to be:

– – comprehensive for everybody. To suppres negative image of cycling, we need also to be:

– – acceptable for everybody!– – Desired image: „Well, OK, he/she did something clearly illegal, but

what else I would do on his/her place...“

– – Excludes aggressive techniques of invisible or „non-existent“ cyclist.


Reducing space for disobeyingPrinciples: Natural infrastructure. Requires standards of

– – actual safety (widths, radiuses, clearances...)

– – perceived safety (traffic to merge, speed...)

– – social safety (light, wide underpasses...)

– – practical atractivity (directness, quickness, no double hills...)

Considerable laws and technical norms Change way of thiking of traffic decision makers Education to be carefull and considerate. Education to understand each other.

Many of these principles are not achievable by campaigning organizations, but we need to keep them on mind.


Opportunities for campaigners„Safety in numbers“: + in traffic – on sidewalks

What to do when cycling rises?

Special focus on behaviour towards pedestrians– – Include among main messages about cycling transport

Collaboration with officials– – big city PR / information campaign to improve mutual

understanding – – find most effective measurements how to get newbie cyclists on the

road without discouraging them.– – cooperation with police to find sensible way to manage rising

amounts of „sidewalk cyclists“

Find own mechanisms how to suppress rude behaviour of cyclists toward pedestrians.

– work with community? – shoot them? ;-)


Neverending question: Integrated or segregated?Should we prefer integrated infrastructure, even if too poor?

Integrated infrastructure in „Wild-esatern style“

– Distractive for beginners

– Unusable for weak cyclists and children

What is then a „lowest quality tolerable“?

– Example: Kpt. Jaroše crossing – to be praised, but...

How to make this topic interesting for politicians?

How to catch non-cycling majority positively?

Thank you for your attention

disobeying traffic rules: irresponsibility or consequence?

Documents