Professor Aldred was in conversation with Craig Thomas

Making the case for active travel has sometimes proven not be such an easy sell to the public, even prompting a backlash in some petrol-headed quarters. 

Active travel initiatives that improve cycling and walking infrastructure often limit the access of motor vehicles, with the beneficial consequence of improved road safety.

Rachel Aldred, as Professor of Transport and Director of the University of Westminster's Active Travel Academy, is eminently qualified to explain how society benefits from a new approach to mobility and road safety.

“Active travel is important because most people don’t do enough physical activity, which brings health benefits. There can be time or money issues with people doing organised physical activity, but people can walk to a train station for instance, on the way to work, activity that they don't need to think about.

“Walking and cycling don't lead to the noise and air pollution that driving does, either. And, if you are walking or cycling, you're not posing the same risk you would to other people as if you were operating a motor vehicle.”

With the benefits of active travel then so self-evident, the question is: why are we not yet seeing more funding being funnelled in a way that would lead to those health benefits?

Aldred explains: “The All-Party Parliamentary Cycling Group inquiry ‘Get Britain Cycling’ suggested back in 2013 that funding for cycling should be a minimum of £10 a head. If we’re really going to achieve this step change, we’re looking at £20 per person, or about £1.2 billion a year.”

Image: Rachel Aldred, Professor of Transport at the University of Westminster; credit: Oxford Atelier

Time to rethink

“The main road safety threats are interactions between people driving and others who are walking and cycling, so fundamentally it’s about reducing motor traffic volumes and speed,” says Aldred. “Reducing speed limits is clearly going to have an impact on road safety, as is reducing the volume of motor traffic and providing separated spaces for cyclists. 

“The Vision Zero approach is increasingly popular as we start to question why we tolerate deaths on the road: after all, we don't accept it in other areas of life. But it's not enough to just say we don't want people to die on the streets; we also want our streets to make people healthy, which is a more positive vision.”

A whole new culture

A shift in communication will be required for the public to see the health benefits of less driving, with fewer deaths on the road as a consequence, and more active travel.

Aldred adds: “It is important to remind people that while it may be annoying to have to drive slightly slower, they're much less likely to kill or seriously injure someone. We need to change the discourse and talk more about responsibility. Some of us do sometimes need to drive, but it’s risky and it risks doing damage to other people's health.”

Central to this progress is the role of national government. There are signs that large urban areas outside London might receive more resources to plan in a more integrated way, but Aldred thinks that it's still not enough.

“London has put restrictions on large lorries with poor vision, but if those vehicles continue to operate outside London, it’s not really solving the problem. We need more uniform restrictions and a stronger national lead.”

CIHT will be looking at the health benefits of transport in more detail in 2025 and this will feature in the programme for our national conference in May 2025.

Discover CIHT’s resources on active travel.

Newsletter image: cyclists pictured in London; credit: Shutterstock.