abdallahh/Flickr

You’re three times more likely to get hurt driving a car than taking the bus, say researchers.

It might be impossible to avoid all bumps, scratches, and bone-jarring accidents while traversing the big city, but your chances of arriving unscathed are better when you ride the bus rather than drive a car.

That’s the conclusion of researchers studying injuries along major traffic corridors in Montreal. By perusing police reports from 2001 to 2010, they found motorists on these routes had more than three times the injury rate of bus passengers. Buses were also safer for people sharing the road. Cars were responsible for 95 percent of pedestrian and 96 percent of cyclist injuries on these arteries, they write in a presentation for this month’s meeting of the Transportation Research Board.

During the same time period in Montreal, nobody was killed while riding the bus, though 668 people were injured. (It’s unknown if that number includes bus operators, who are powerful magnets for abuse.) Meanwhile, auto occupants suffered 19 deaths and 10,892 injuries. Cars were linked to 42 pedestrian and three cyclist deaths, while buses were linked to four and zero, respectively.

Density of injuries linked to public buses in Montreal from 2001 to 2010. (Morency et al./Transportation Research Board)

The researchers don’t drill down into the hows and whys of these discrepancies. But their work backs up, on the city level, what’s been known for some time on the macro scale. In the United States car occupants have a fatality rate 23 times greater than bus passengers, while it’s respectively 11 and 10 times higher in Australia and Europe. They suggest getting more people on public transit could make a large impact on public health. Here’s more from their full presentation:

We estimated that a 50% modal shift from car toward bus would prevent 35% of all injuries and 38% of severe injuries. The benefits may be underestimated, because we did not take into account the effect of having fewer vehicles on the road, the risk reduction—for all road users—associated with a reduction in traffic volume. However, the benefits may also be overestimated, because a modal shift towards public transit would likely increase the number of pedestrians and which is associated with an increase in pedestrian casualties or in the overall number of road casualties. It is worth mentioning that in Canada’s large metropolitan areas, transit access points are concentrated at intersections of wide major roads with the greatest rate of crashes and pedestrian injuries. To offset an increase in pedestrian exposure to crashes, a large reduction in traffic volume and the area-wide implementation of traffic calming measures and safer pedestrian crossings might be needed.

About the Author

Most Popular

  1. A vegetable farm next to high-rise apartments in Hong Kong.
    Design

    Just How Much of the World Is Urban?

    Experts at the European Commission assess the world as more urban than experts at the United Nations or New York University do. We need to resolve this debate.

  2. Equity

    The ‘Sweeping’ Effect of a $15-an-Hour Job Guarantee

    A new report analyzes the complicated labor market impact of a radical proposal that’s gaining traction on the left.

  3. Transportation

    Spain Wants to Ban Cars in Dozens of Cities, and the Public’s on Board

    As Madrid bans cars in the city center, the national government plans to do the same in more than 100 other places. A new survey suggests broad support across the country.

  4. Tesla vehicles sit in a parking lot in California.
    Transportation

    America’s Power Grid Isn’t Ready for Electric Cars

    The challenge isn’t just about how much energy electric vehicles will need. A more important question is when they’ll need it.

  5. A photo of an encampment of homeless people outside Minneapolis,
    Equity

    Why Minneapolis Just Made Zoning History

    The ambitious Minneapolis 2040 plan will encourage more dense housing development in single-family neighborhoods.