Search

Using 2014 and 2015 data from the UK Near Miss Project, this paper examines the stability of self-report incident rates for cycling near misses across these two years. It further examines the stability of the individual-level predictors of experiencing a near miss, including what influences the scariness of an incident. The paper uses three questions asked for only in 2015, which allow further exploration of factors shaping near miss rates and impacts of incidents. Firstly, a respondent's level of cycling experience; secondly, whether an incident was perceived as deliberate; and finally, whether the respondent themselves described the incident as a 'near miss' (as opposed to only a frightening and/or annoying non-injury incident). Using this data, we find a decline of almost a third in incident rates in 2015 compared to 2014, which we believe is likely to be largely an artefact due to differences in reporting rates. This suggests caution about interpreting small fluctuations in subjectively reported near miss rates. However, in both years near miss rates are many times more frequent than injury collisions. In both years of data collection our findings are very similar in terms of the patterning of incident types, and how frightening different incident categories are, which increases confidence in these findings. We find that new cyclists experience very high incident rates compared to other cyclists, and test a conceptual model explaining how perceived deliberateness, near-miss status, and scariness are connected. For example, incidents that are perceived to be deliberate are more likely to be experienced as very frightening, independent of their 'near miss' status., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Abstract: This paper highlights the distinctive discursive framing of transport policy in Germany and the UK. Using an analysis of the introduction of the ‘scrappage bonus’ in both countries, against the background of the financial crisis, we show how distinct nationally specific discourses and political cultures are expressed within these. The German government was an early adopter of the policy, but the UK government was relatively late in introducing its own scheme. While the German scrappage scheme was introduced officially as an environmental bonus, the UK scheme did not make any reference to environmental concerns. We argue that these differences are important in the context of a wider research aim, to identify nationally specific mobility regimes and to develop an understanding of different possible pathways towards more environmentally friendly transport futures. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

This article brings together the concerns of environmental and disability movements through examining the role of transport. Both movements critique current transport policy and practice. The disability movement has analysed how it marginalises the needs of disabled people, while environmentalists argue current transport trends are unsustainable and marginalise alternatives. Although these critiques operate independently and even seem opposed to each other, a common agenda can be developed through extending the social model of disability. The social model can be used to understand how car-dominated transport systems can be understood as disabling populations larger than those conventionally recognised as “disabled”. The car offers the technological fix of enabling abilities, in particular speed and strength, but in practice disables in a number of ways. Urban sprawl and traffic increase barriers to participation and access for many both “able-bodied” and “disabled”, while car dominance damages social interaction and limits sensory perception. Furthermore, the car economy is a major cause of impairment through crashes and physical inactivity. Understanding these together requires integrating the social model of disability with an eco-social model of impairment. This can show how unequal forms of social organisation are embodied in people and environments to produce patterns of impairment, disability and disadvantage. Finally we suggest policies to move towards sustainable societies with increased opportunities for broader social participation. The article argues that the two movements can create and benefit from a shared vision of socially inclusive, low-energy, sustainable transport. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social epidemiologists have drawn attention to health inequalities as avoidable and inequitable, encouraging thinking beyond proximal risk factors to the causes of the causes. However, key debates remain unresolved including the contribution of material and psychosocial pathways to health inequalities. Tools to operationalise social factors have not developed in tandem with conceptual frameworks, and research has often remained focused on the disadvantaged rather than on forces shaping population health across the distribution. Using the example of transport, we argue that closer attention to social processes (capital accumulation and motorisation) and social forms (commodity, corporation, and car) offers a way forward. Corporations tied to the car, primarily oil and vehicle manufacturers, are central to the world economy. Key drivers in establishing this hegemony are the threat of violence from motor vehicles and the creation of distance through the restructuring of place. Transport matters for epidemiology because the growth of mass car ownership is environmentally unsustainable and affects population health through a myriad of pathways. Starting from social forms and processes, rather than their embodiment as individual health outcomes and inequalities, makes visible connections between road traffic injuries, obesity, climate change, underdevelopment of oil producing countries, and the huge opportunity cost of the car economy. Methodological implications include a movement-based understanding of how place affects health and a process-orientated integration of material and psychosocial explanations that, while materially based, contests assumptions of automatic benefits from economic growth. Finally, we identify car and oil corporations as anti-health forces and suggest collaboration with them creates conflicts of interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]