Many people assume that public roads exist primarily for motor vehicles, implying that non-motorised modes (walking and cycling) have less right to use facilities. This paper concludes that such an assumption is unjustified. Traffic law recognises bicyclists' and pedestrian's right to use public roads, except where specifically prohibited. Bicycling and walking tend to reduce traffic congestion compared with the same trips made by motor vehicle. Although bicycling and walking have higher crash injury rates than motor vehicle travel, this can be reduced with safety programs. Increased accidents risk is more than offset by benefits of aerobic exercise, resulting in net increases in overall health. Although motorist user fees (fuel, taxes, registration charges and tolls) can be considered to fund most highway expenses, almost all funding for local roads (the roads pedestrians and cyclists use most) originates from general taxes that non-drivers pay equally. A number of studies indicate that driving costs $200-400 annually per vehicle in local roadway costs. Since bicycling and walking impose minimal roadway costs, people who rely on these modes tend to pay more than their share of roadway costs, while people who drive more than average underpay their costs. Walking and bicycling provide basic mobility. That is, they are available to, and frequently used by people who do not own or cannot drive automobile. There is a strong equity justification for improving the safety and convenience of these modes. A shift of resources from motor vehicle use to non-motorised modes could increase equity and benefit society. (Author/publisher)
Abstract