In the struggle over three decades to reduce road deaths, the Dutch have been more successful than the Australians in making walking and cycling safer. Clearly the high level of bicycle use in the Netherlands has not prevented them from making their road system safer for all road users. This paper compares the Netherlands with urban Australia. The data show that the pedestrian death rate per million km walked is at least five times higher in urban Australia and the death rate per million km cycled is at least twice as high. In Australia cycling and walking to school are perceived as being unsafe by most parents, whose children are much more at risk than are children in the Netherlands. Hence the need to recognise the Netherlands as the model of world best practice in bicycle and pedestrian planning, within an overall environmental planning context. Australia is locked into a "developer driven" form of urban growth that is unsustainable because it discourages walking and cycling, both of which are necessary for human health and to replace many short polluting car trips. In particular, Australians walk much less than twenty years ago with a consequential increase in the proportion of short car trips. Not so the Dutch, who have better facilities for walking and bicycling; urban design and spatial planning more sensitive to their needs; lower speeds on urban roads; restrictions on motor vehicle use and parking; more rigorous traffic education; and strict enforcement of traffic regulations protecting non-motorised users. It is concluded that the Dutch have achieved synergetic joint outcomes in the areas of road safety, health and the environment. The peak cycling body, the Bicycle Federation of Australia (BFA), say that there is much to learn from the integrated Dutch national planning model. Policy and planning recommendations for encouraging safer cycling and walking presented here are based on recent BFA and the Pedestrian Council of Australia (PCA), submissions. (Author/publisher) For the covering entry of this conference, please see ITRD abstract no. E205861.
Samenvatting