Article by Rachel Aldred, University of Westminster (MethodsNews Spring 2015)
The Near Miss Project is the first project to collect data allowing us to calculate the rate at which UK cyclists experience non-injury incidents such as near misses. Why do near misses matter?
There are two reasons why near misses matter. Firstly, near misses can indicate systemic problems which may prove catastrophic in the future (which is why many industries, including air travel, record and analyse them). Secondly, near misses can have a major impact on journey experiences, particularly for vulnerable road users such as cyclists and pedestrians.
As the research project progresses I have become convinced that near misses (used as shorthand for a range of non-injury incidents) are a key missing link helping to explain what is sometimes referred to as 'fear of cycling'.
Why do people think cycling is so scary, when the absolute risk of dying or being seriously injured is low, even in a country such as the UK where cycling is riskier than it should be? Is it the fault of the media, for focusing on deaths and injuries? Is it the image of cyclists as sporty risk-takers? Or could it perhaps also be experiencing, seeing, or hearing about near misses?
How frequent are near misses, and what kind of an effect do they have?
When starting the Near Miss Project, there was relatively little near miss data. While we can calculate reported death and injury rates for people cycling in the UK per km or per hour, and there are some self-report injury studies that allow a rate calculation, we lack the same for near misses. I was inspired by a study by Mary Sissons Joshi and colleagues in the 1990s that collected this data for Oxford, with startlingly high rates.
But would we find the same in a national study? Could we also gather and analyse more in-depth, qualitative data about feelings and experiences? And could we use the study to crowd-source ideas about preventing near misses?
Within the scope of a small study, we could not cover all modes, so we just focused on cyclists. This allowed us to aim for national coverage. An online survey was chosen for data collection due to the participant group and the research budget. We had a target of 1,000 people completing a 'One Day Diary' online recording all cycle trips and incidents that day; in the end we received nearly 1,700 completed diaries of which the vast majority were from the UK.
The survey itself could be quite onerous if people experienced a number of incidents, so people only had to give details of the first 10 incidents if they had more. Even so, it wasn't a quick and easy survey, so I was relieved that around 60% of people who initially registered for the study were able to complete it on their pre-selected diary day.
Two papers from the study are currently in the peer review process, which will disseminate some of our key findings. One is that we have confirmed near misses are extremely common; even 'very scary' incidents are on average a weekly experience for regular commuting cyclists in the UK. This for me has confirmed the strong policy relevance of studying this area, both in academic projects and in professional practice.
Thinking about the impact of the survey instrument has been interesting from a methodological point of view. Many of our respondents commented that they take incidents for granted, as they have had to do so to continue cycling. There were some interesting reflections on the impact of recording these kinds of experiences. A few others were keen to stress they also felt cycling had strong intrinsic benefits, which for them still outweighed near miss experiences.
Some of the respondents expressed doubt about whether one could separate out incidents in this way, and recorded experiences that did not fit this category - for example, feeling constantly stressed cycling in busy traffic. As I analysed the data and removed a minority of experiences coded as 'non-incidents', I was concerned that the focus on 'incidents' itself limited what we could learn. But still, I hope that the project has been valuable in increasing our understanding - and ability to change - what may be a key barrier to cycling: albeit one that often slips under the radar.
Cyclists taking part in this study thought most incidents might be preventable - only a few percent were judged to be definitely not preventable (whether through infrastructure, enforcement, or behaviour change). Given the substantial emotional impacts of some of these near misses, for me this speaks of the need to take them seriously: they are not negligible, nor 'accidents', but a broader symptom of wider problems experienced by UK cyclists, which policy can help prevent.
The Near Miss Project is supported by Creative Exchange and Blaze.cc
http://www.nearmiss.bike/