December 1, 2024 • 33 mins
What if a simple policy change could dramatically decrease road injuries and elevate community well-being? Dr. Michael Schwandt, Medical Health Officer for Vancouver Coastal Health, helps us unravel the transformative potential of a 30 km/hour speed limit on residential streets in British Columbia. We examine how this seemingly small adjustment could significantly reduce traffic fatalities and injuries, while fostering a safer environment for cyclists and pedestrians alike.
From debunking misconceptions about cycling to advocating for safer infrastructure, this episode reveals the multifaceted strategies essential for creating more inviting communities. We explore the implications of transportation policies, such as the often-overlooked dangers of right turns on red lights, and discuss the collaboration needed between local governments and public health authorities to champion safe cycling and pedestrian practices. Tune in to discover how these changes could not only revolutionize safety but also enhance mental and physical well-being across communities.
***********************************************
The Bike Sense podcast with Peter Ladner is produced by the BC Cycling Coalition – your voice for safer and more accessible cycling and active transportation in British Columbia.
Got feedback or ideas for future episodes? Please drop us an email at admin@bccycling.ca.
Membership in the BCCC is now FREE! The future of this podcast depends on people like you becoming members at BCCycling.ca.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:07):
Welcome to Bike Sense , the BC Cycling Coalition's
podcast, where we talk about allthings related to active
transportation advocacy in BC.
I'm your host, peter Ladner,chair of the Board of the BC
Cycling Coalition.
I hope you enjoy the show.
The BC Cycling Coalition hasbeen working for some time with
(00:40):
a number of organizationsaligned with us on a specific
safety measure that we thinkwould be very important in
making our province safer forcyclists and pedestrians, and
that is a 30 kilometer per hourdefault speed limit on
residential streets throughoutthe province, that's, streets
with no painted line on them.
And to put this in perspective,we've invited on our podcast
(01:04):
today Dr Michael Schwant, who'sa medical health officer for
Vancouver Coastal Health.
He's also a clinical associateprofessor in the School of
Population and Public Health atUBC and he knows a bit about
this topic.
Michael, welcome to the podcast.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
Hey, thanks for having me on.
Speaker 1 (01:22):
Michael, you are a cyclist, I assume.
Do I assume?
Speaker 2 (01:25):
that, yeah, definitely, and I think that's
yeah, it's.
You know, I think one thing,because I moved about a little
bit as a like many have lived inVancouver and Toronto, and from
Winnipeg originally.
So biking in cities that arequite different cycling
environments over the years, itreally drives it home in terms
of direct experience of what adifference maker it is, and
(01:48):
you'll know this well, of course, but there's been.
You know, when I was in TorontoI happened to live in a
neighborhood that had a bikelane.
I was in downtown Toronto withlots of traffic, but I didn't
have to really interface with ittoo terribly much.
I biked every day and it waseasy, very easy.
In winnipeg I lived probablycloser to my the hospital I was
working at, never biked becauseit was a harrowing experience,
(02:09):
and being back there visiting,they've actually put a
protective bike lane in exactlymy previous route I would have
biked every day.
But the thing is, as you know,it's like I've been the same
person roughly the whole time,been into biking the whole time,
but that environment thatcreates that space or that
opportunity has been thedifference maker.
So when I think of times in mylife when I've been a daily
(02:32):
biker, for pleasure, forcommuting or times in my life
when the bike's been collectingdust.
It's really just due tobasically the local cycling
environment and those thingsthat mostly local and also
provincial government can doabout it that make all the
difference I've found so yeah,so I think that, yeah, you're
correct, peter, I do enjoybiking and that that sort of
(02:54):
impact living in differentneighborhoods and different
cities really every time you andnow, as you know, like nowadays
, it's like, yeah, I thinkimproving slowly but as well,
when travel, you see how good itcan be, so there's always that
opportunity.
You want to keep striving forbetter.
Speaker 1 (03:12):
Maybe we'll fundraise to send Doug Ford to Amsterdam
for a week and he can see howgood it is.
Oh my gosh, general aim in life, as I understand it, is to work
on preventing disease, injuryand problems health problems up
(03:34):
front, rather than just spendingall our energy on better
hospitals and better emergencymedical service and picking up
people injured beside the road.
Could you talk a little bitabout that, about the importance
of prevention, and where activetransportation in general and a
30-kilometer speed limit inparticular fit into that picture
?
Speaker 2 (03:52):
That's exactly right, peter.
As a public health physician, Iwork at the preventive side of
things, looking at how we canprotect and promote health and
avoid some of the negative andcostly health outcomes that
could come down the road.
So you'll know the oldexpression about an ounce of
prevention, and this is reallywhere we try to put our emphasis
in public health programs andin my own role as a medical
(04:15):
health officer in the community.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
But, michael, in my political experience a federal
cabinet minister once told methe hardest budget to advocate
for is prevention, because youget the money, you spend the
money.
You never have a tangibleoutcome necessarily.
I mean, there are probablyexceptions, but tell me how
difficult it is for you to sellthe concept of prevention and
(04:41):
saving money up front againstthe pressures of doing all the
necessary spending on hospitalsat the back end.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
Well, it's an extremely major part of our
practice because we see in theacute side of the healthcare
system, quite rightfully, anemphasis on treating people's
problems as they arise, makingsure that people who are injured
, for example, or suffering fromthe long-term consequences of
chronic disease, are receivingappropriate medical care.
(05:10):
And in the meantime we need towork upstream to try to prevent
some of those outcomes fromoccurring in the first place.
And it can be very hard from apreventive perspective to
describe all of the negativehealth impacts that didn't
happen because of our good work.
So trying to make the case when, if things are going very well,
we might not see any of thoseimpacts, and trying to explain
(05:31):
the issues that are avertedrather than describing all of
the, for example, patients thatwe've treated, all of the
patients that we didn't need to,can be a harder case to make in
many cases.
So we really spend a lot oftime working on our
communications and our advocacyto emphasize the preventive part
of the health care system.
You know, depending how thearithmetic is done, usually
(05:53):
people will quote numbers to saythat public health is 3% to 5%
of our health care spending interms of that preventive side of
things.
So we do see an opportunity todo more on the preventive side
and save those billion dollarbudgets that come downstream of
when we are unable to preventnegative health outcomes.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
But in the case of the 30 kilometer speed limit, I
believe there is data that wheremunicipalities have brought
this in, there has been areduction in fatalities and
injuries to pedestrians andcyclists and other active
transportation modes, and Iwondered if you could talk a
little bit about that, about theeffectiveness of a very simple
what seems to be a simplemeasure, on outcomes that can be
(06:35):
measured.
Speaker 2 (06:37):
Absolutely the default 30 kilometer an hour
speeds in residential areas or30 kilometer an hour limits
applied to specific areas havebeen increasingly studied and
we've seen very positiveoutcomes right around the world.
Certainly we've got examplesfrom the US and from Europe and
increasingly in Canada.
Studies in Toronto and Edmontonhave found decreases in both
(07:02):
crashes and then also outcomes,including mortality, where these
interventions have been studied, and I find that this is, you
know, a really positiveintervention because we often
find, with public health, a lotof our preventive work you know
vaccination programs and some ofthe work we do for clean
drinking water or air quality,for example it's really
invisible until it fails.
If there's a problem with anyof those things, then we know if
(07:23):
we see illness and negativehealth outcomes, but we don't
necessarily see the work goingon.
One of the things with thesedefault speed changes is that
people can really experiencethat right away.
People in these communitiesdescribe not only just the data
show less risk of injury, butpeople have a different
experience of the communitieswhen cars in a residential area
(07:44):
are coming through at 30kilometers an hour versus, say,
50 kilometers an hour plus which.
Anyone who's been next to aresidential street with a car
moving through that quicklyknows is a very tangible
difference.
So people's perception ofsafety and their experience of
their neighborhood environmentto cycle, to walk and to move
about in really changes.
(08:05):
So we actually have quite avisible impact on people's
potential well-being andenjoyment of their community.
Aside from that, longer-rangeimpact on health too.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
But you must have been involved, as we are, with
pushback from car drivers.
From the point of view ofsomeone driving a car, you do
not want to be constrained.
I mean, as a driver myself, Ijust want to go as fast as I can
whenever I'm driving andeverybody else get out of the
way so I can get to where I wantto go.
From that point of view, havingto slow down to 30 k's is a big
(08:40):
frustration, and we have seenpolitical parties cater to that
driving mindset with greatpolitical success.
However, as you point out, ifyou look at it from the point of
view of people in theneighborhood, it's quite a
different story, and some ofthose same people asked about in
your neighborhood should carsslow down?
In BC, a Mario Canseco surveyfound that two-thirds of the
(09:05):
people throughout the provincesaid they would like traffic to
be slower in their neighborhood,and yet we still have this
resistance from the provincialgovernment to do it, because
they say, well, municipalitiescan do it, we don't have to get
involved.
Speaker 2 (09:20):
Yeah, there seems to be a real hesitation to move
forward with some of thesemeasures, even though, as you've
described, researchers foundthat these are actually quite
popular when surveyed.
There are certainlyinterventions out there that
public health recommends wherewe don't have a lot of public
support and we could get intothings like automated speed
enforcement or even sometimesgiving over space in the roads
(09:41):
to protected cycling spaces,which can be very contentious,
and we're seeing right acrossCanada a lot of debate around
some of those interventions.
Slower speeds is somethingwhere we actually find wind.
Surveyed, many people, in factthe majority of people, actually
promote that because we findthat, as well as driving, most
people do spend time walkingabout their own neighborhoods,
(10:03):
and this focus on residentialneighborhoods indeed does seem
to be an area where we find moresupport than some of the other
interventions for injuryprevention and promotion of a
safe act of transportation.
And yet there is quite a majorconcern.
We see this pushback, whetherthat's at the local government
level or at the level ofprovincial governments who could
(10:24):
potentially enact thesedefaults.
I think there is a major worrythat things that are perceived
as slowing down traffic will bereceived negatively and the
political courage or the visionhasn't always been there to
enact these things has beenmodeled out by transportation
(10:46):
engineers.
Slowing down from 50 to 40 or30 kilometers an hour for that
very short part of a commutegetting out of one's own
neighborhood and onto majorarterials is only a small part
of the commute and doesn'treally significantly slow down
commuting times.
Uh, in any case, it provides asafer and hopefully uh uh more
positive driving experience andwalking experience and cycling
experience for neighborhoodresidents, without really
(11:07):
contributing to slower commutesthe way gridlock does, for
example.
Speaker 1 (11:12):
Could you give us the specifics of the difference if
a pedestrian is hit, say, by acar going at 50 kilometers an
hour and 30 kilometers an hour?
Speaker 2 (11:22):
Definitely, when somebody is struck by a car
traveling at 50 kilometers anhour, studies have found that
the risk of fatality can bebetween 80 and 90 percent.
That varies a little bitdepending on the nature of the
vehicle.
We see that even increasing withcar bloat, larger and heavier
vehicles that are on the road,Whereas when people are struck
(11:42):
by vehicles, when this has beenstudied, at 30 kilometers an
hour, we see fatality rates morein the range of 10% or so.
So potentially a five totenfold increase in the risk of
fatality occurs just within thatinterval.
Moving up from a 30 kilometeran hour speed to a 50 kilometer
an hour vehicular speed at thetime of contact goes from
(12:03):
basically describing the changefrom somebody being most likely
the vast majority of the time tosurvive, potentially with some
injury, unfortunately, to beingmore likely than not to die, to
pass away due to due to theinjury sustained.
So within that difference,which makes a limited material
impact to the, to the pilotingof a vehicle through a
(12:25):
neighborhood, we see a greatdifference in the risk to the
piloting of a vehicle through aneighborhood, we see a great
difference in the risk to aperson being struck who might be
walking, cycling or rolling inthe neighborhood.
Speaker 1 (12:35):
Well, in fairness to the perspective that I've been
sketching out here, there aremore than 60 municipalities in
BC that have some form of30-kilometer speed limit, so
this is not an unpopular opinionor move by municipalities, but
our ask is that it's madedefault province-wide and then
the municipalities don't have toput special signs up and pass
(12:58):
special bylaws and incur costs.
It's just the way it is.
Michael, could you talk alittle bit about other measures
for safety for cyclists andpedestrians that you are
pursuing that are high on yourlist?
Speaker 2 (13:12):
Definitely, within our regional health authority,
we really try to take the VisionZero approach, promoting a
safer overall, a safer systemfor transportation, including
looking at the roadways, thespeeds, vehicles and the drivers
that are moving them about, andas well as limiting speeds in
(13:33):
residential areas.
I think that the actualenvironment that people are
moving about in, that helps toaffect both the speed and the
nature of travel, is extremelyimportant.
So we see, oftentimes whenpeople describe that a lower
speed limit isn't necessarilygoing to slow down traffic, and
people will say, well, you canlower the speed limit on this
(13:54):
roadway, but if it's built moreor less like an airport runway,
people are naturally enoughgoing to speed through it.
And we say, yes, absolutely,that's the case.
And this is why it's an all ofthe above approach and we really
try to encourage some of thewell, well described and well
applied uh engineeringinterventions that are available
to uh to slow down traffic, tomake drivers more aware of their
(14:15):
speeds and to make it uh toessentially, you know, add
friction, whether that'svisually or physically.
Uh that leads people drivingmore slowly.
And this could be uh trafficcalming measures that we're
familiar with, that narrow roads, things that create less
rounded and more squared offcorners at intersections,
anything that can slow peopledown and add to a more safe
(14:38):
driving experience.
This is both for drivers andthen also for vulnerable road
users who are on the roads onfoot or on bikes and other
devices.
So this is another approach wetake, really trying to work with
local governments to promotethese.
So Vancouver Coastal Health,although we're a regional health
authority providing acute careto over a million residents in
(14:59):
our area, also provide fundingto community-based organizations
and even to some municipalgovernments to enact some of
these measures to try to createsafer spaces out in our
transportation environment.
I agree, peter, when we see somany different communities
dozens now, as you said, over 60that have implemented either
slow zones or, in some cases,all of communities, slower
(15:22):
cities, this is very positive,but we really need to, I think,
socialize and promote thesuccess of those projects.
I think that in many cases it'snot well understood that,
indeed, one, there's positiveimpacts in terms of people's
experiences of the roadways andtwo, some of the red herrings
that we hear about the potentialfor negative impacts just don't
(15:44):
come to pass.
These are communities that endup being more inviting to people
of all ages to use our streetspaces, and it's, generally
speaking, a positive experiencewhen we're able to get feedback
from residents of thosecommunities.
Speaker 1 (16:07):
Michael, I want to switch gears, as they say, for a
moment and talk about the otherday.
Somebody said to me theynoticed I was riding my bicycle.
They said oh how virtuous.
And I said I am not trying tobe virtuous, this is just fun
and practical.
I don't think that we canexpect the nice changes that we
(16:28):
all like and that many of usmost of us would like to see,
the people listening to thispodcast would like to see.
I don't think we can expectthem to happen because people
feel virtuous or want to do theright thing, even though it's
awkward and uncomfortable ordifficult for them.
I think, and I think it's beenproven and I'd love your
(16:59):
thoughts on this that if youjust build physical activity
into day-to-day life in a waythat makes it more efficient and
practical for people to do it,they or do something to be
virtuous and physically fit.
They just worked into theirdaily life and thereby,
therefore, they get healthier,just living, and we make that
more able to happen.
Speaker 2 (17:15):
Well, we find that societies around the world that
are healthier, where people livelonger and have better health
outcomes in terms of chronicdisease, are exactly those that
build physical activity, thatbuild healthy living into
day-to-day life.
Without that requirement forday-to-day decision making.
When we ask people to swimupstream and to go, you know,
(17:36):
almost against the grain to makehealthy decisions, we're really
fighting a losing battle.
I often say that we'd like tohave a zero finger wagging
approach to public health, sothat people are taking on these
healthy practices not becausethe doctor told them to do it or
because I saw a TV commercialor a billboard saying it's a
good idea, but because we'vemade the healthy choice, the
(17:57):
easy choice, in the first place.
So, if it's easier and moreconvenient and maybe even more
fun to bike or to walk to workor to school than it is to get
in a car and drive.
People are more likely to dothat and, you see, in societies
where we have higher uptake ofcycling, for example, it's in
large part because it's beenmade positive, pleasant to do
(18:17):
that, and sometimes as wellbecause there's some friction to
driving.
Because we don't havenecessarily a friction-free
driving experience, there mightbe costs associated with it.
Congestion charges in somecommunities globally have made a
difference, and so changingthat equation and that
decision-making environment canbe very helpful.
(18:38):
Even where I work for VancouverCoastal Health and the campus of
Vancouver General Hospital, wesee more and more work by our
own health authority looking atour carbon emissions and trying
to promote healthy practicesamong employees, trying to
create better receptionfacilities for people who bike
to work, because a lot of peoplesay they don't mind biking at
all.
In fact they enjoy being on thebike, but it's arriving at work
(19:01):
, finding a place to lock upthat's safe, finding a place to
change, coming into the patientcare or first meeting of the day
, having been off the bike andnot had a place to shower, etc.
That's the barrier.
So again, I think that whetherthat's at the level of the city
or town, or right down to theworkplace or the neighborhood
and housing.
(19:22):
Design can all have an impacton people's decision making, at
least as much so as simply beingtold it's the right thing to do
.
Speaker 1 (19:31):
Great points.
Have you got any thoughts aboutthe effect of active
transportation on mental health,which we're hearing so much
about today, particularly withyoung people?
Speaker 2 (19:42):
Yes, there's more and more research on that.
I think that the data the casehas been in for some time on the
impacts around chronic diseaseso whether that's blood pressure
, prevention of heart diseaseand so forth, the studies have
(20:02):
found that mental health impactsare very positive, whether
that's walking or biking, andthis could come through a
variety of different pathwaysthat have been postulated.
So one, just that feeling ofphysical activity.
Two, being outdoors.
It's probably a cliche for areason.
It's a common experience, windin the hair, as it were.
(20:24):
People describe actually havingfun when they bike, which is not
a common description of drivingthrough traffic or a lot of
other modes of transportation.
People look forward to thatpart of their days in many cases
.
Exposure to green spaces inmany cases, depending on the
nature of the route, there'sthat opportunity for being
around green and blue spaces.
Moving around trees or next tobodies of water can be very
(20:47):
positive for mental health.
There's lots of evidence tothat effect.
Then finally, social connectionpeople describe being more
amidst their community and theircommunity members when they're
at ground level, moving through,moving through neighborhoods on
foot or on a bike, than they dowhen they're enclosed in a
vehicle.
So people have that opportunityto, at whatever the level is
(21:09):
right for them to talk to or somuch as nod to a neighbor, duck
into a local store, and so forth.
And so there does seem to be avery positive mental health
impact on the use of active andsustainable transport as opposed
to vehicular transportation.
Speaker 1 (21:28):
I noticed you mentioned drop into a local
store because that, aside fromthe kind of community
interaction that is involved inthat, it's also a benefit for
those stores.
And, of course, the data isthere that shows that if you
have a bike route or morepedestrians outside your store,
you'll have more business.
Michael, do you have anythoughts about compulsory helmet
(21:50):
laws?
Are you a fan?
Speaker 2 (21:54):
This is a perennial question to your local public
health official and right now,the position I would take is
that in an ideal state, wewouldn't need to have compulsory
helmet laws.
And there are places, there arecycling networks and
environments on Earth where Ithink that it's quite reasonable
for people to bike without ahelmet, and people are doing
(22:16):
that in great numbers,relatively safely For the most
part.
Within our North Americancontext, I'd say we're not there
yet.
In our North American context,I'd say we're not there yet, and
so the presence of the use ofbicycle helmets is, I would say,
a good idea in the currentenvironment that we have.
So that's to say, in shorterterms, that when we don't have
(22:41):
separation of bikes from cars,when we do have that need to
move in and amongst vehicles, Iwould say, from a public health
perspective, need to move in andamongst vehicles.
I would say from a publichealth perspective, as the
saying says, nine out of 10public health physicians, if not
more, are going to say youshould probably wear a helmet
when you're biking anywhere nearvehicles, when that risk is
there, and even sometimes inenvironments without vehicles,
where there might be some risk.
Now, in terms of actual laws andenforcement of those.
(23:04):
I think that we need to be verymindful of the fact that these
policies can promote use ofcycling.
It sends a message that this isa good practice and something
that's advisable.
We need to be very mindful thatthe enforcement isn't punitive
in a way that discourages peoplefrom riding.
So if somebody is interested inriding but they haven't managed
(23:25):
to access a helmet, they, dueto convenience or due to other
barriers, don't have one on.
We're not really doing anythingpositive in the longer run,
with appropriate car seats forinfants and young children,
(23:50):
enforcement being not a matterof fining and punishment, but
actually saying what's thebarrier here and, in fact,
providing people with uh, withthe helmet in some jurisdictions
.
So we've seen some positiveexamples in canada of that.
Say, if we're going to have ajurisdiction where we have
mandatory helmet use and peoplearen't using it, what can we do
to make that easier?
What are the reasons thatpeople might not?
(24:11):
So is there the possibility ofdiscounted use?
But I would say, overall, wewant to get to a place where
helmet use doesn't need to benecessary.
I think that the environmentsthat we're trying to create are
environments that are safeenough that, as we've seen in
other jurisdictions around theworld, that a person can bicycle
essentially as comfortably asthey can walk about.
(24:31):
I mean, that's the end goal,but I think that for the most
part we're not quite there yetand it's again.
Would highly recommend, for themost part, using a helmet if
you're biking about Vancouver,for example.
Speaker 1 (24:45):
I do feel compelled to note that it does send a
signal that this is a dangerousundertaking and if you actually
looked at the risk of headinjuries, the people who are
wearing helmets should beseniors walking across streets
and passengers in the cars ofpeople being driven by young men
.
But we don't enforce those andmake those helmet issues but we
(25:06):
leave that.
We don't have to get into that.
Speaker 2 (25:08):
Uh, unless you had a comment on that yeah, you know,
I do think that again, it getsback to this idea of you know,
the status quo transportationthat we need, that uh, we'll see
, uh, policymakers creating andmaintaining rules for cycling
that aren't necessarily appliedto to other modes of
transportation, and I think thatthis is that's consistent.
(25:29):
Unfortunately, we still see thelanguage describing cycling as
quote, alternate transport.
This is something that'sdifferent than the norm, and
that we have that sort ofdifferential risk evaluation
that you're describing andpolicies around it are not the
same as what we apply to othermodes of transportation, and I
think that that's, you know,continuing to bring an
(25:50):
evidence-based approach topolicy and to communications on
the topic is really important.
Speaker 1 (25:56):
Well, speaking of evidence, there's one more thing
I want to ask you before wewrap up here Right turns on red.
This is something that Iunderstand was not the common
policy in years past, but wasbrought in to move traffic along
during the oil crisis of the70s, and now there is, I gather,
(26:18):
pretty strong data that showsthese are very dangerous for
pedestrians and cyclists.
Do you think we should not haveright turns on red lights?
Speaker 2 (26:29):
Overall and I'll note first of all that depending on
the city or town that you're in,context does matter, so I won't
make this as a prescription forevery community in British
Columbia, but, again, overall,to give a simple answer, I'd say
that, yes, we should be lookingto limit this practice where
possible.
When we see evidence from otherprovinces, like Quebec, where,
generally speaking, that'sprohibited, these intersections
(26:51):
become much safer.
This is a very dangerous momentin our driving spaces and we
see, as you described, this waslargely put into place to allow
people to roll through withoutneeding to start and stop to
save fuel.
Then it might be good from that, might be useful from that
perspective.
I think less so in terms ofmodern technologies and the
(27:16):
current state of our drivingenvironment.
It's probably less importantfrom that perspective, but it's
very uh in terms of the riskthat's there, especially, as I
mentioned earlier, when we seeroadways with these, um, these
turning areas, right, turningareas that are almost designed
for speed.
So, even where we see, um, redlights or stop signs, but we see
(27:39):
these corners that are roundedoff a lot, facilitating even
encouraging uh, facilitating,even encouraging that continuous
motion, failing to slow down,sight lines that don't really
encourage or even allow peopleto have a sense of what they're
driving into.
It's very risky and I think thatwe would do well from an injury
(28:01):
prevention perspective and fromthe perspective of promoting
walking and cycling, creatingenvironments where people feel
and are safe to do so, limitingthat in many places.
You know, as you said, fromright off the top.
I think that some of thepushback that we see, we're
always trying to look at what'sthe ideal state and then what's
the pragmatic next step.
I think that if we could atleast look at certain high-risk
(28:21):
intersections and start tointervene there, eliminating
right turn on red and we do seethis in some cases but trying to
do this without wanting tobecome, as we're often accused
of being in Canada, the land ofthe pilots starting to actually
intervene, demonstrate wherethere is success, study these
errors and then proliferate thatpractice, would be a very
(28:43):
positive move.
The opportunity is there.
I don't think that necessarilyit's going to be immediately
accepted to go across the boardto ban right turn on red, but to
apply this more broadly,especially to known high-risk
intersections where we even haverisk, not only in general but
specifically observed, withright turns on red.
(29:06):
I think that we have anopportunity to intervene and
again study, demonstrate thepractice and expand it.
Speaker 1 (29:13):
Michael, given the close alignment between active
transportation advocates andpublic health advocates, what
would your advice be to peoplechampioning active
transportation in the smallercommunities around BC to partner
up with their local publichealth authorities?
Are there forums where you cando this?
(29:35):
Are you willing or interestedin joining in with active
transportation advocates andhelping campaigns or speaking to
their members, or whatever itmight take?
How can we make your interestsand our interests more closely
aligned and working more closelytogether?
Speaker 2 (29:55):
Oh, that's a strong yes, peter.
I think that public healthauthorities right across the
province are very interested tohear from community members and
organizations on this topic.
Speaking for Vancouver, we'vehad a very positive relationship
with Vision Zero Vancouver, aswell as Hub Cycling and other
local organizations working onsome of the topics we have
(30:17):
discussed today, and I thinkthat that's really crucial when
we go to advocate for thesehealthy policies to local
government decision makers andto provincial government
decision makers.
Oftentimes the health case,though we'd like to think as a
health authority that that mightcarry the day Oftentimes it's
some of the other benefits, theco -benefits of these policies
(30:40):
that really seem to beinfluential.
So, depending which citycouncillor you're speaking with,
the language of health might bethe most effective, but then
oftentimes the benefits forlocal business that you
described, for having a saferecycling environment, maybe the
climate benefits or some of theimprovements to air quality.
(31:03):
There's different things and Ifind that the broad coalition of
advocacy with people who arelooking at the issue through
different lenses could helpoftentimes to be more successful
in bringing out all of thedifferent good reasons to pursue
these policies rather than, forexample, a local health
official going in and saying dothis because it'll limit
(31:25):
injuries and take the load offof the emergency room.
I would say yes, and you know,the local cycling organization,
provincial organization likeyours, might bring other cases
that might resonate differently,and even more so, with decision
makers and with the public whoneed to support these policies.
Speaker 1 (31:45):
Terrific advice to end on.
Thank you so much, michael.
It's been very helpful and Ilove to hear perspective from
people who aren't alwaysdescribed as avid cyclists, who
bring other interests and veryimportant outcomes to this
discussion.
So thanks so much for joiningus and I look forward to working
with Vancouver Coastal Healthand all of our members working
(32:08):
with their local public healthauthorities to further these
goals.
Speaker 2 (32:12):
Really great talking with you, Peter.
Thanks very much.
Speaker 1 (32:19):
You've been listening to Bike Sense, an original
podcast from the BC CyclingCoalition.
An original podcast from the BCCycling Coalition.
If you like the podcast, we'dbe grateful if you could leave
us a rating.
On whatever platform you use,you can also subscribe, so you
(32:39):
don't miss future episodes.
If you have comments orsuggestions for future episodes,
email me at peterladner atbccyclingca.
You can help us amplify BCCycling Coalition's voice.
Thank you.
Welcome to Bike Sense , the BC Cycling Coalition's
podcast, where we talk about allthings related to active
transportation advocacy in BC.
I'm your host, peter Ladner,chair of the Board of the BC
Cycling Coalition.
I hope you enjoy the show.
The BC Cycling Coalition hasbeen working for some time with
(00:40):
a number of organizationsaligned with us on a specific
safety measure that we thinkwould be very important in
making our province safer forcyclists and pedestrians, and
that is a 30 kilometer per hourdefault speed limit on
residential streets throughoutthe province, that's, streets
with no painted line on them.
And to put this in perspective,we've invited on our podcast
(01:04):
today Dr Michael Schwant, who'sa medical health officer for
Vancouver Coastal Health.
He's also a clinical associateprofessor in the School of
Population and Public Health atUBC and he knows a bit about
this topic.
Michael, welcome to the podcast.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
Hey, thanks for having me on.
Speaker 1 (01:22):
Michael, you are a cyclist, I assume.
Do I assume?
Speaker 2 (01:25):
that, yeah, definitely, and I think that's
yeah, it's.
You know, I think one thing,because I moved about a little
bit as a like many have lived inVancouver and Toronto, and from
Winnipeg originally.
So biking in cities that arequite different cycling
environments over the years, itreally drives it home in terms
of direct experience of what adifference maker it is, and
(01:48):
you'll know this well, of course, but there's been.
You know, when I was in TorontoI happened to live in a
neighborhood that had a bikelane.
I was in downtown Toronto withlots of traffic, but I didn't
have to really interface with ittoo terribly much.
I biked every day and it waseasy, very easy.
In winnipeg I lived probablycloser to my the hospital I was
working at, never biked becauseit was a harrowing experience,
(02:09):
and being back there visiting,they've actually put a
protective bike lane in exactlymy previous route I would have
biked every day.
But the thing is, as you know,it's like I've been the same
person roughly the whole time,been into biking the whole time,
but that environment thatcreates that space or that
opportunity has been thedifference maker.
So when I think of times in mylife when I've been a daily
(02:32):
biker, for pleasure, forcommuting or times in my life
when the bike's been collectingdust.
It's really just due tobasically the local cycling
environment and those thingsthat mostly local and also
provincial government can doabout it that make all the
difference I've found so yeah,so I think that, yeah, you're
correct, peter, I do enjoybiking and that that sort of
(02:54):
impact living in differentneighborhoods and different
cities really every time you andnow, as you know, like nowadays
, it's like, yeah, I thinkimproving slowly but as well,
when travel, you see how good itcan be, so there's always that
opportunity.
You want to keep striving forbetter.
Speaker 1 (03:12):
Maybe we'll fundraise to send Doug Ford to Amsterdam
for a week and he can see howgood it is.
Oh my gosh, general aim in life, as I understand it, is to work
on preventing disease, injuryand problems health problems up
(03:34):
front, rather than just spendingall our energy on better
hospitals and better emergencymedical service and picking up
people injured beside the road.
Could you talk a little bitabout that, about the importance
of prevention, and where activetransportation in general and a
30-kilometer speed limit inparticular fit into that picture
?
Speaker 2 (03:52):
That's exactly right, peter.
As a public health physician, Iwork at the preventive side of
things, looking at how we canprotect and promote health and
avoid some of the negative andcostly health outcomes that
could come down the road.
So you'll know the oldexpression about an ounce of
prevention, and this is reallywhere we try to put our emphasis
in public health programs andin my own role as a medical
(04:15):
health officer in the community.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
But, michael, in my political experience a federal
cabinet minister once told methe hardest budget to advocate
for is prevention, because youget the money, you spend the
money.
You never have a tangibleoutcome necessarily.
I mean, there are probablyexceptions, but tell me how
difficult it is for you to sellthe concept of prevention and
(04:41):
saving money up front againstthe pressures of doing all the
necessary spending on hospitalsat the back end.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
Well, it's an extremely major part of our
practice because we see in theacute side of the healthcare
system, quite rightfully, anemphasis on treating people's
problems as they arise, makingsure that people who are injured
, for example, or suffering fromthe long-term consequences of
chronic disease, are receivingappropriate medical care.
(05:10):
And in the meantime we need towork upstream to try to prevent
some of those outcomes fromoccurring in the first place.
And it can be very hard from apreventive perspective to
describe all of the negativehealth impacts that didn't
happen because of our good work.
So trying to make the case when, if things are going very well,
we might not see any of thoseimpacts, and trying to explain
(05:31):
the issues that are avertedrather than describing all of
the, for example, patients thatwe've treated, all of the
patients that we didn't need to,can be a harder case to make in
many cases.
So we really spend a lot oftime working on our
communications and our advocacyto emphasize the preventive part
of the health care system.
You know, depending how thearithmetic is done, usually
(05:53):
people will quote numbers to saythat public health is 3% to 5%
of our health care spending interms of that preventive side of
things.
So we do see an opportunity todo more on the preventive side
and save those billion dollarbudgets that come downstream of
when we are unable to preventnegative health outcomes.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
But in the case of the 30 kilometer speed limit, I
believe there is data that wheremunicipalities have brought
this in, there has been areduction in fatalities and
injuries to pedestrians andcyclists and other active
transportation modes, and Iwondered if you could talk a
little bit about that, about theeffectiveness of a very simple
what seems to be a simplemeasure, on outcomes that can be
(06:35):
measured.
Speaker 2 (06:37):
Absolutely the default 30 kilometer an hour
speeds in residential areas or30 kilometer an hour limits
applied to specific areas havebeen increasingly studied and
we've seen very positiveoutcomes right around the world.
Certainly we've got examplesfrom the US and from Europe and
increasingly in Canada.
Studies in Toronto and Edmontonhave found decreases in both
(07:02):
crashes and then also outcomes,including mortality, where these
interventions have been studied, and I find that this is, you
know, a really positiveintervention because we often
find, with public health, a lotof our preventive work you know
vaccination programs and some ofthe work we do for clean
drinking water or air quality,for example it's really
invisible until it fails.
If there's a problem with anyof those things, then we know if
(07:23):
we see illness and negativehealth outcomes, but we don't
necessarily see the work goingon.
One of the things with thesedefault speed changes is that
people can really experiencethat right away.
People in these communitiesdescribe not only just the data
show less risk of injury, butpeople have a different
experience of the communitieswhen cars in a residential area
(07:44):
are coming through at 30kilometers an hour versus, say,
50 kilometers an hour plus which.
Anyone who's been next to aresidential street with a car
moving through that quicklyknows is a very tangible
difference.
So people's perception ofsafety and their experience of
their neighborhood environmentto cycle, to walk and to move
about in really changes.
(08:05):
So we actually have quite avisible impact on people's
potential well-being andenjoyment of their community.
Aside from that, longer-rangeimpact on health too.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
But you must have been involved, as we are, with
pushback from car drivers.
From the point of view ofsomeone driving a car, you do
not want to be constrained.
I mean, as a driver myself, Ijust want to go as fast as I can
whenever I'm driving andeverybody else get out of the
way so I can get to where I wantto go.
From that point of view, havingto slow down to 30 k's is a big
(08:40):
frustration, and we have seenpolitical parties cater to that
driving mindset with greatpolitical success.
However, as you point out, ifyou look at it from the point of
view of people in theneighborhood, it's quite a
different story, and some ofthose same people asked about in
your neighborhood should carsslow down?
In BC, a Mario Canseco surveyfound that two-thirds of the
(09:05):
people throughout the provincesaid they would like traffic to
be slower in their neighborhood,and yet we still have this
resistance from the provincialgovernment to do it, because
they say, well, municipalitiescan do it, we don't have to get
involved.
Speaker 2 (09:20):
Yeah, there seems to be a real hesitation to move
forward with some of thesemeasures, even though, as you've
described, researchers foundthat these are actually quite
popular when surveyed.
There are certainlyinterventions out there that
public health recommends wherewe don't have a lot of public
support and we could get intothings like automated speed
enforcement or even sometimesgiving over space in the roads
(09:41):
to protected cycling spaces,which can be very contentious,
and we're seeing right acrossCanada a lot of debate around
some of those interventions.
Slower speeds is somethingwhere we actually find wind.
Surveyed, many people, in factthe majority of people, actually
promote that because we findthat, as well as driving, most
people do spend time walkingabout their own neighborhoods,
(10:03):
and this focus on residentialneighborhoods indeed does seem
to be an area where we find moresupport than some of the other
interventions for injuryprevention and promotion of a
safe act of transportation.
And yet there is quite a majorconcern.
We see this pushback, whetherthat's at the local government
level or at the level ofprovincial governments who could
(10:24):
potentially enact thesedefaults.
I think there is a major worrythat things that are perceived
as slowing down traffic will bereceived negatively and the
political courage or the visionhasn't always been there to
enact these things has beenmodeled out by transportation
(10:46):
engineers.
Slowing down from 50 to 40 or30 kilometers an hour for that
very short part of a commutegetting out of one's own
neighborhood and onto majorarterials is only a small part
of the commute and doesn'treally significantly slow down
commuting times.
Uh, in any case, it provides asafer and hopefully uh uh more
positive driving experience andwalking experience and cycling
experience for neighborhoodresidents, without really
(11:07):
contributing to slower commutesthe way gridlock does, for
example.
Speaker 1 (11:12):
Could you give us the specifics of the difference if
a pedestrian is hit, say, by acar going at 50 kilometers an
hour and 30 kilometers an hour?
Speaker 2 (11:22):
Definitely, when somebody is struck by a car
traveling at 50 kilometers anhour, studies have found that
the risk of fatality can bebetween 80 and 90 percent.
That varies a little bitdepending on the nature of the
vehicle.
We see that even increasing withcar bloat, larger and heavier
vehicles that are on the road,Whereas when people are struck
(11:42):
by vehicles, when this has beenstudied, at 30 kilometers an
hour, we see fatality rates morein the range of 10% or so.
So potentially a five totenfold increase in the risk of
fatality occurs just within thatinterval.
Moving up from a 30 kilometeran hour speed to a 50 kilometer
an hour vehicular speed at thetime of contact goes from
(12:03):
basically describing the changefrom somebody being most likely
the vast majority of the time tosurvive, potentially with some
injury, unfortunately, to beingmore likely than not to die, to
pass away due to due to theinjury sustained.
So within that difference,which makes a limited material
impact to the, to the pilotingof a vehicle through a
(12:25):
neighborhood, we see a greatdifference in the risk to the
piloting of a vehicle through aneighborhood, we see a great
difference in the risk to aperson being struck who might be
walking, cycling or rolling inthe neighborhood.
Speaker 1 (12:35):
Well, in fairness to the perspective that I've been
sketching out here, there aremore than 60 municipalities in
BC that have some form of30-kilometer speed limit, so
this is not an unpopular opinionor move by municipalities, but
our ask is that it's madedefault province-wide and then
the municipalities don't have toput special signs up and pass
(12:58):
special bylaws and incur costs.
It's just the way it is.
Michael, could you talk alittle bit about other measures
for safety for cyclists andpedestrians that you are
pursuing that are high on yourlist?
Speaker 2 (13:12):
Definitely, within our regional health authority,
we really try to take the VisionZero approach, promoting a
safer overall, a safer systemfor transportation, including
looking at the roadways, thespeeds, vehicles and the drivers
that are moving them about, andas well as limiting speeds in
(13:33):
residential areas.
I think that the actualenvironment that people are
moving about in, that helps toaffect both the speed and the
nature of travel, is extremelyimportant.
So we see, oftentimes whenpeople describe that a lower
speed limit isn't necessarilygoing to slow down traffic, and
people will say, well, you canlower the speed limit on this
(13:54):
roadway, but if it's built moreor less like an airport runway,
people are naturally enoughgoing to speed through it.
And we say, yes, absolutely,that's the case.
And this is why it's an all ofthe above approach and we really
try to encourage some of thewell, well described and well
applied uh engineeringinterventions that are available
to uh to slow down traffic, tomake drivers more aware of their
(14:15):
speeds and to make it uh toessentially, you know, add
friction, whether that'svisually or physically.
Uh that leads people drivingmore slowly.
And this could be uh trafficcalming measures that we're
familiar with, that narrow roads, things that create less
rounded and more squared offcorners at intersections,
anything that can slow peopledown and add to a more safe
(14:38):
driving experience.
This is both for drivers andthen also for vulnerable road
users who are on the roads onfoot or on bikes and other
devices.
So this is another approach wetake, really trying to work with
local governments to promotethese.
So Vancouver Coastal Health,although we're a regional health
authority providing acute careto over a million residents in
(14:59):
our area, also provide fundingto community-based organizations
and even to some municipalgovernments to enact some of
these measures to try to createsafer spaces out in our
transportation environment.
I agree, peter, when we see somany different communities
dozens now, as you said, over 60that have implemented either
slow zones or, in some cases,all of communities, slower
(15:22):
cities, this is very positive,but we really need to, I think,
socialize and promote thesuccess of those projects.
I think that in many cases it'snot well understood that,
indeed, one, there's positiveimpacts in terms of people's
experiences of the roadways andtwo, some of the red herrings
that we hear about the potentialfor negative impacts just don't
(15:44):
come to pass.
These are communities that endup being more inviting to people
of all ages to use our streetspaces, and it's, generally
speaking, a positive experiencewhen we're able to get feedback
from residents of thosecommunities.
Speaker 1 (16:07):
Michael, I want to switch gears, as they say, for a
moment and talk about the otherday.
Somebody said to me theynoticed I was riding my bicycle.
They said oh how virtuous.
And I said I am not trying tobe virtuous, this is just fun
and practical.
I don't think that we canexpect the nice changes that we
(16:28):
all like and that many of usmost of us would like to see,
the people listening to thispodcast would like to see.
I don't think we can expectthem to happen because people
feel virtuous or want to do theright thing, even though it's
awkward and uncomfortable ordifficult for them.
I think, and I think it's beenproven and I'd love your
(16:59):
thoughts on this that if youjust build physical activity
into day-to-day life in a waythat makes it more efficient and
practical for people to do it,they or do something to be
virtuous and physically fit.
They just worked into theirdaily life and thereby,
therefore, they get healthier,just living, and we make that
more able to happen.
Speaker 2 (17:15):
Well, we find that societies around the world that
are healthier, where people livelonger and have better health
outcomes in terms of chronicdisease, are exactly those that
build physical activity, thatbuild healthy living into
day-to-day life.
Without that requirement forday-to-day decision making.
When we ask people to swimupstream and to go, you know,
(17:36):
almost against the grain to makehealthy decisions, we're really
fighting a losing battle.
I often say that we'd like tohave a zero finger wagging
approach to public health, sothat people are taking on these
healthy practices not becausethe doctor told them to do it or
because I saw a TV commercialor a billboard saying it's a
good idea, but because we'vemade the healthy choice, the
(17:57):
easy choice, in the first place.
So, if it's easier and moreconvenient and maybe even more
fun to bike or to walk to workor to school than it is to get
in a car and drive.
People are more likely to dothat and, you see, in societies
where we have higher uptake ofcycling, for example, it's in
large part because it's beenmade positive, pleasant to do
(18:17):
that, and sometimes as wellbecause there's some friction to
driving.
Because we don't havenecessarily a friction-free
driving experience, there mightbe costs associated with it.
Congestion charges in somecommunities globally have made a
difference, and so changingthat equation and that
decision-making environment canbe very helpful.
(18:38):
Even where I work for VancouverCoastal Health and the campus of
Vancouver General Hospital, wesee more and more work by our
own health authority looking atour carbon emissions and trying
to promote healthy practicesamong employees, trying to
create better receptionfacilities for people who bike
to work, because a lot of peoplesay they don't mind biking at
all.
In fact they enjoy being on thebike, but it's arriving at work
(19:01):
, finding a place to lock upthat's safe, finding a place to
change, coming into the patientcare or first meeting of the day
, having been off the bike andnot had a place to shower, etc.
That's the barrier.
So again, I think that whetherthat's at the level of the city
or town, or right down to theworkplace or the neighborhood
and housing.
(19:22):
Design can all have an impacton people's decision making, at
least as much so as simply beingtold it's the right thing to do
.
Speaker 1 (19:31):
Great points.
Have you got any thoughts aboutthe effect of active
transportation on mental health,which we're hearing so much
about today, particularly withyoung people?
Speaker 2 (19:42):
Yes, there's more and more research on that.
I think that the data the casehas been in for some time on the
impacts around chronic diseaseso whether that's blood pressure
, prevention of heart diseaseand so forth, the studies have
(20:02):
found that mental health impactsare very positive, whether
that's walking or biking, andthis could come through a
variety of different pathwaysthat have been postulated.
So one, just that feeling ofphysical activity.
Two, being outdoors.
It's probably a cliche for areason.
It's a common experience, windin the hair, as it were.
(20:24):
People describe actually havingfun when they bike, which is not
a common description of drivingthrough traffic or a lot of
other modes of transportation.
People look forward to thatpart of their days in many cases
.
Exposure to green spaces inmany cases, depending on the
nature of the route, there'sthat opportunity for being
around green and blue spaces.
Moving around trees or next tobodies of water can be very
(20:47):
positive for mental health.
There's lots of evidence tothat effect.
Then finally, social connectionpeople describe being more
amidst their community and theircommunity members when they're
at ground level, moving through,moving through neighborhoods on
foot or on a bike, than they dowhen they're enclosed in a
vehicle.
So people have that opportunityto, at whatever the level is
(21:09):
right for them to talk to or somuch as nod to a neighbor, duck
into a local store, and so forth.
And so there does seem to be avery positive mental health
impact on the use of active andsustainable transport as opposed
to vehicular transportation.
Speaker 1 (21:28):
I noticed you mentioned drop into a local
store because that, aside fromthe kind of community
interaction that is involved inthat, it's also a benefit for
those stores.
And, of course, the data isthere that shows that if you
have a bike route or morepedestrians outside your store,
you'll have more business.
Michael, do you have anythoughts about compulsory helmet
(21:50):
laws?
Are you a fan?
Speaker 2 (21:54):
This is a perennial question to your local public
health official and right now,the position I would take is
that in an ideal state, wewouldn't need to have compulsory
helmet laws.
And there are places, there arecycling networks and
environments on Earth where Ithink that it's quite reasonable
for people to bike without ahelmet, and people are doing
(22:16):
that in great numbers,relatively safely For the most
part.
Within our North Americancontext, I'd say we're not there
yet.
In our North American context,I'd say we're not there yet, and
so the presence of the use ofbicycle helmets is, I would say,
a good idea in the currentenvironment that we have.
So that's to say, in shorterterms, that when we don't have
(22:41):
separation of bikes from cars,when we do have that need to
move in and amongst vehicles, Iwould say, from a public health
perspective, need to move in andamongst vehicles.
I would say from a publichealth perspective, as the
saying says, nine out of 10public health physicians, if not
more, are going to say youshould probably wear a helmet
when you're biking anywhere nearvehicles, when that risk is
there, and even sometimes inenvironments without vehicles,
where there might be some risk.
Now, in terms of actual laws andenforcement of those.
(23:04):
I think that we need to be verymindful of the fact that these
policies can promote use ofcycling.
It sends a message that this isa good practice and something
that's advisable.
We need to be very mindful thatthe enforcement isn't punitive
in a way that discourages peoplefrom riding.
So if somebody is interested inriding but they haven't managed
(23:25):
to access a helmet, they, dueto convenience or due to other
barriers, don't have one on.
We're not really doing anythingpositive in the longer run,
with appropriate car seats forinfants and young children,
(23:50):
enforcement being not a matterof fining and punishment, but
actually saying what's thebarrier here and, in fact,
providing people with uh, withthe helmet in some jurisdictions
.
So we've seen some positiveexamples in canada of that.
Say, if we're going to have ajurisdiction where we have
mandatory helmet use and peoplearen't using it, what can we do
to make that easier?
What are the reasons thatpeople might not?
(24:11):
So is there the possibility ofdiscounted use?
But I would say, overall, wewant to get to a place where
helmet use doesn't need to benecessary.
I think that the environmentsthat we're trying to create are
environments that are safeenough that, as we've seen in
other jurisdictions around theworld, that a person can bicycle
essentially as comfortably asthey can walk about.
(24:31):
I mean, that's the end goal,but I think that for the most
part we're not quite there yetand it's again.
Would highly recommend, for themost part, using a helmet if
you're biking about Vancouver,for example.
Speaker 1 (24:45):
I do feel compelled to note that it does send a
signal that this is a dangerousundertaking and if you actually
looked at the risk of headinjuries, the people who are
wearing helmets should beseniors walking across streets
and passengers in the cars ofpeople being driven by young men
.
But we don't enforce those andmake those helmet issues but we
(25:06):
leave that.
We don't have to get into that.
Speaker 2 (25:08):
Uh, unless you had a comment on that yeah, you know,
I do think that again, it getsback to this idea of you know,
the status quo transportationthat we need, that uh, we'll see
, uh, policymakers creating andmaintaining rules for cycling
that aren't necessarily appliedto to other modes of
transportation, and I think thatthis is that's consistent.
(25:29):
Unfortunately, we still see thelanguage describing cycling as
quote, alternate transport.
This is something that'sdifferent than the norm, and
that we have that sort ofdifferential risk evaluation
that you're describing andpolicies around it are not the
same as what we apply to othermodes of transportation, and I
think that that's, you know,continuing to bring an
(25:50):
evidence-based approach topolicy and to communications on
the topic is really important.
Speaker 1 (25:56):
Well, speaking of evidence, there's one more thing
I want to ask you before wewrap up here Right turns on red.
This is something that Iunderstand was not the common
policy in years past, but wasbrought in to move traffic along
during the oil crisis of the70s, and now there is, I gather,
(26:18):
pretty strong data that showsthese are very dangerous for
pedestrians and cyclists.
Do you think we should not haveright turns on red lights?
Speaker 2 (26:29):
Overall and I'll note first of all that depending on
the city or town that you're in,context does matter, so I won't
make this as a prescription forevery community in British
Columbia, but, again, overall,to give a simple answer, I'd say
that, yes, we should be lookingto limit this practice where
possible.
When we see evidence from otherprovinces, like Quebec, where,
generally speaking, that'sprohibited, these intersections
(26:51):
become much safer.
This is a very dangerous momentin our driving spaces and we
see, as you described, this waslargely put into place to allow
people to roll through withoutneeding to start and stop to
save fuel.
Then it might be good from that, might be useful from that
perspective.
I think less so in terms ofmodern technologies and the
(27:16):
current state of our drivingenvironment.
It's probably less importantfrom that perspective, but it's
very uh in terms of the riskthat's there, especially, as I
mentioned earlier, when we seeroadways with these, um, these
turning areas, right, turningareas that are almost designed
for speed.
So, even where we see, um, redlights or stop signs, but we see
(27:39):
these corners that are roundedoff a lot, facilitating even
encouraging uh, facilitating,even encouraging that continuous
motion, failing to slow down,sight lines that don't really
encourage or even allow peopleto have a sense of what they're
driving into.
It's very risky and I think thatwe would do well from an injury
(28:01):
prevention perspective and fromthe perspective of promoting
walking and cycling, creatingenvironments where people feel
and are safe to do so, limitingthat in many places.
You know, as you said, fromright off the top.
I think that some of thepushback that we see, we're
always trying to look at what'sthe ideal state and then what's
the pragmatic next step.
I think that if we could atleast look at certain high-risk
(28:21):
intersections and start tointervene there, eliminating
right turn on red and we do seethis in some cases but trying to
do this without wanting tobecome, as we're often accused
of being in Canada, the land ofthe pilots starting to actually
intervene, demonstrate wherethere is success, study these
errors and then proliferate thatpractice, would be a very
(28:43):
positive move.
The opportunity is there.
I don't think that necessarilyit's going to be immediately
accepted to go across the boardto ban right turn on red, but to
apply this more broadly,especially to known high-risk
intersections where we even haverisk, not only in general but
specifically observed, withright turns on red.
(29:06):
I think that we have anopportunity to intervene and
again study, demonstrate thepractice and expand it.
Speaker 1 (29:13):
Michael, given the close alignment between active
transportation advocates andpublic health advocates, what
would your advice be to peoplechampioning active
transportation in the smallercommunities around BC to partner
up with their local publichealth authorities?
Are there forums where you cando this?
(29:35):
Are you willing or interestedin joining in with active
transportation advocates andhelping campaigns or speaking to
their members, or whatever itmight take?
How can we make your interestsand our interests more closely
aligned and working more closelytogether?
Speaker 2 (29:55):
Oh, that's a strong yes, peter.
I think that public healthauthorities right across the
province are very interested tohear from community members and
organizations on this topic.
Speaking for Vancouver, we'vehad a very positive relationship
with Vision Zero Vancouver, aswell as Hub Cycling and other
local organizations working onsome of the topics we have
(30:17):
discussed today, and I thinkthat that's really crucial when
we go to advocate for thesehealthy policies to local
government decision makers andto provincial government
decision makers.
Oftentimes the health case,though we'd like to think as a
health authority that that mightcarry the day Oftentimes it's
some of the other benefits, theco -benefits of these policies
(30:40):
that really seem to beinfluential.
So, depending which citycouncillor you're speaking with,
the language of health might bethe most effective, but then
oftentimes the benefits forlocal business that you
described, for having a saferecycling environment, maybe the
climate benefits or some of theimprovements to air quality.
(31:03):
There's different things and Ifind that the broad coalition of
advocacy with people who arelooking at the issue through
different lenses could helpoftentimes to be more successful
in bringing out all of thedifferent good reasons to pursue
these policies rather than, forexample, a local health
official going in and saying dothis because it'll limit
(31:25):
injuries and take the load offof the emergency room.
I would say yes, and you know,the local cycling organization,
provincial organization likeyours, might bring other cases
that might resonate differently,and even more so, with decision
makers and with the public whoneed to support these policies.
Speaker 1 (31:45):
Terrific advice to end on.
Thank you so much, michael.
It's been very helpful and Ilove to hear perspective from
people who aren't alwaysdescribed as avid cyclists, who
bring other interests and veryimportant outcomes to this
discussion.
So thanks so much for joiningus and I look forward to working
with Vancouver Coastal Healthand all of our members working
(32:08):
with their local public healthauthorities to further these
goals.
Speaker 2 (32:12):
Really great talking with you, Peter.
Thanks very much.
Speaker 1 (32:19):
You've been listening to Bike Sense, an original
podcast from the BC CyclingCoalition.
An original podcast from the BCCycling Coalition.
If you like the podcast, we'dbe grateful if you could leave
us a rating.
On whatever platform you use,you can also subscribe, so you
(32:39):
don't miss future episodes.
If you have comments orsuggestions for future episodes,
email me at peterladner atbccyclingca.
You can help us amplify BCCycling Coalition's voice.
Thank you.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.