Beat Disability-By Embracing It

Hiding behind the mirage of development we see that Pakistan and Karachi, its biggest city, suffer a lot because of road traffic injuries. How often does it happen that we pick up a newspaper and don’t come across a headline that highlights the dangers of road traffic crashes? Will it be safe to say that a very low rate of investment in RTI’s (road traffic injuries) prevention accompanied by a high burden of RTI morbidity and mortality exists in Pakistan? Public efforts in RTI control are poorly-funded and hence this compares unfavorably with other conditions and with that of more developed nations where government efforts for traffic safety are well funded. Is it really deserving the low priority that it is getting?

Deaths from causes that were commonplace in the early 20th century – such as fatalities among workers in factories, mines, railroads and dockyards – are no longer accepted as inevitable today. Nowadays, many societies do not apply death penalty no matter how serious the crime is. A few years ago, about a hundred deaths caused by the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome (Sars) mobilised international efforts to arrest the disease; and millions of demonstrators came out on the streets in many countries to protest against a war in their belief that nothing justifies the deaths of innocent individuals. So why is this attitude absent when it comes to road traffic? Recent estimates suggest that the RTIs result in one million fatalities worldwide every year. A vast majority of these deaths involve people who are less than 50 years old. Another 20 to 30 million people suffer injuries that need hospitalisation or expert medical treatment.

Given the current low level of investment, initial investments in transport safety, if chosen with care, could turn out to be extremely beneficial for public health and welfare. If cost effectiveness analyses of these interventions are able to document these high returns they could help to encourage widespread replication efforts. Evaluating the effectiveness of these initial investments in road safety in the developing countries should become a priority for the research community.

Let’s consider the following scenario:

According to the traffic engineering bureau, Karachi, between 1994 and 2000 one person was killed every 14 hours, one person injured every 11 hours and one pedestrian died every 25 hours in road accidents in Karachi. The same survey showed that one motorcycle was involved in accident every 41 hours, one motorcyclist was killed every 82 hours, one car was involved in accident every 37 hours, one minibus was involved in accident every 28 hours

What are our indigenous problems, besides not following traffic regulations? Let’s consider the obvious problems that are often ignored.

Non-homogeneity of traffic exists in Karachi and what is meant by that is, we have at least three or four different kinds of modes at the same time -- which is bicyclists, pedestrians -- two or three different kinds of non-motorised modes -- which is hand-pulled carts -- and within motorised modes we see more busses, trucks on urban streets than you see in the western world and three-wheeled scooter taxis, which you don’t have in the US at all. So, there’s a much wider mix of vehicles and people on the streets in India and Pakistan.

When a truck or a bus hits a pedestrian or bicyclist, and if the driver doesn’t run away from the scene of the accident, he gets lynched; and every second day a bus or a truck gets burnt because it has run over a pedestrian. If a child is hit by a bus or truck, it is set on fire by the crowd. This is ample evidence that the people do not take the existence of accidents as something acceptable. What people are saying by indulging in this violence on the streets is that it’s not acceptable. It’s not acceptable to have your kids killed on the street. The second evidence we have is that road bumps are coming all over the place, even on the intercity roads, so that if a child gets killed on an intercity highway -- and these are not limited access highways, these are open highways -- if a child gets killed on a highway in a village, the villagers go to the local politician, force the politician to get the engineer to get a road bump on the highway.

Roadside vendors have often been treated as illegal occupants of road space by the authorities. Traffic and transport planners too view their presence as unnecessary and an impediment to the efficient movement of pedestrians and motorised traffic. Every now and then, the city authorities launch a drive to evict or shift them to different locations. All these decisions are taken by officials who don’t use the services of these vendors. Given the heterogeneous structure of our society, the presence of roadside vendors is inevitable. Once we accept the fact that they provide legitimate services needed by road users, it is possible to design spaces for them on the road as an integral part of road development plans. Such designs can ensure efficient movement of vehicles and pedestrians without causing hardship to honest hardworking citizens – the vendors.

The rising cost of travelling by public transport within the city and long working hours force workers to live close to their workplaces. A violation of the law thus becomes a pre-condition for their survival. A large number of people living in these units are employed in the informal sector providing various services to the outer areas of the city. However, because of the lack of employment opportunities, people living in these areas have to commute long distances across the city in search of employment. Unlike the traffic in cities of high-income countries, bicycles, pedestrians and other non-motorised modes are present in significant numbers on the arterial roads and intercity highways. Their presence persists despite the fact that engineers designed these highway facilities for the uninterrupted flow of fast moving motorised vehicles.

How to solve these situations?

According to professors Dinesh Mohan and Geetum Tiwari, the traffic expert from IIT New Delhi, what needs to be understood is that some of the theoretical base of road traffic injury control counter measures may have international applicability, but many of the physical solutions may not. There is clearly a poverty of theory. For example, most road safety measures instituted in high-income countries have centred on automobile and automobile occupant. Road and intersection designs are largely based on cars, buses and truck movements. Motorcycles dominate the roads in less motorised countries like ours; human powered vehicles, pedestrian carrying loads and locally designed vehicles. No traffic flow models and computer programmes are able to account for this mix.

So whether you talk about costs or about safety, what is the consumer looking for? Now we have to think what kind of a mass transport system we can provide -- that is flexible and reliable.

A well functioning road infrastructure must satisfy the requirements of all road users.

Pedestrians, bicyclists and non-motorised rickshaws are the most critical elements in mixed traffic in Indian cities. It is this group of road users that needs the services of vendors the most. If infrastructure design does not meet their requirements then all modes of transport will operate in sub-optimal conditions. An efficient and safe road-traffic system must satisfy two design principles:

1) Arterial roads which have more than 30m right of way (ROW) must have physically segregated bicycle/non-motorised vehicle (NMV) paths, which cannot be used by motorised vehicles (especially motorised two-wheelers).

2) Average speeds on roads which have less than 30m ROW must be brought to 20-30kms/h with the help of traffic calming measures.

For the people who continuously park their car outside their homes, start owning 250sq-ft of government land, as they park outside on the street. This space is more than what the poor man occupies for “squatter settlements”. What is the cost of the 250sq-ft flat in the cheapest locality? Let’s say Rs2,000/month. Hence, every car owner who is using the street to park is getting a subsidy from the government.

Internal road safety audit and process:

1) Ensure that the safety director/officer has direct access to top management.

2) Designate one individual as the responsible person for safety authority for the system.

3) Identify the role of the safety director.

4) Include a mechanism for ensuring that all employees are accountable for safety.

5) Establish and review data bases to assist the continuous monitoring of the systems safety programme.