The concept and definition of vulnerable road user requires some discussion. The degree of inclusiveness of the term road user is elastic. In most studies, for example, non-human life is excluded. Indeed, it is generally ignored, in this context, despite a growing concern in environmental circles for non-human sustainability. The notion of vulnerability is likewise subject to different interpretations. As Wilde has pointed out (1988), any use of the road is subject to some risk of casualty i.e. vulnerability is universal. But which users should be considered more easily hurt -those for whom existing records suggest a high incidence of casualty (the "statistically vulnerable"); or those whose condition and/or physical situation makes them inherently most easily hurt, regardless of statistical corroboration (the "inherently vulnerable") JGU Adams (1985, see IRRD 285631) discusses how those with high levels of risk will either themselves choose to reduce their exposure (some elderly, disabled, and possibly pregnant women and guardians -mostly mothers- of young infants); or have that option of lower exposure thrust upon them. Another way of casting light on this issue is to distinguish between voluntary and involuntary road users, the former in almost all cases having greater power, status and mobility than the latter. (A)
Abstract