Knowing their place on the roads: What would equality mean for walking and cycling?
Trials and dangers faced by pedestrians and cyclists have not only created an impression of undesirable conditions, but have promoted arguments of injustice and inequality. High rates of death and injury coupled with reporting of poor infrastructure and fear of the behaviour of other road users point to a plausible prima facie concern that pedestrians and cyclists suffer inequalities. Yet this appearance masks uncertainty about what factors are relevant in judging inequality and how these should be treated against potentially competing claims. This article develops a framework assessing conditions for walking and cycling according to a theoretical conception of political and social equality, and so providing a basis on which to make arguments for change in transport policy, planning and law. In developing the framework we examine the relevance to equality of a range of factors, including measurement of road casualties, questions of responsibility to increase walking and cycling as means of contributing to pollution and carbon reduction, matters of fault and responsibility for road safety, and the economic impacts of improving conditions for walking and cycling.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 61 (2014)
Issue (Month): C ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Mohammed A. Quddus & Alon Carmel & Michael G. H. Bell, 2007. "The Impact of the Congestion Charge on Retail: the London Experience," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 41(1), pages 113-133, January.
- Bjorn Harsman & John Quigley, 2011.
"Political and Public Acceptability of Congestion Pricing: Ideology and Self Interest,"
ERSA conference papers
ersa10p1477, European Regional Science Association.
- Harsman, Bjorn & Quigley, John M., 2010. "Political and Public Acceptability of Congestion Pricing: Ideology and Self Interest," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt14n0h1nv, University of California Transportation Center.
- Harsman, Bjorn & Quigley, John M., 2010. "Political and Public Acceptability of Congestion Pricing: Ideology and Self Interest," Berkeley Program on Housing and Urban Policy, Working Paper Series qt77b5243v, Berkeley Program on Housing and Urban Policy.
- John Hills & Mike Brewer & Stephen P Jenkins & Ruth Lister & Ruth Lupton & Stephen Machin & Colin Mills & Tariq Modood & Teresa Rees & Sheila Riddell, 2010. "An anatomy of economic inequality in the UK: report of the National Equality Panel," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 28344, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
- Björn Hårsman & John M. Quigley, 2010. "Political and public acceptability of congestion pricing: Ideology and self-interest," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(4), pages 854-874.
- Karel Martens, 2011. "Substance precedes methodology: on cost–benefit analysis and equity," Transportation, Springer, vol. 38(6), pages 959-974, November.
- David Banister, 2012. "Transport and economic development: reviewing the evidence," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(1), pages 1-2, January.
- G.A. Cohen, 1990. "Equality of What? On Welfare, Goods and Capabilities," Discussion Papers (REL - Recherches Economiques de Louvain) 1990035, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
- Martens, Karel & Golub, Aaron & Robinson, Glenn, 2012. "A justice-theoretic approach to the distribution of transportation benefits: Implications for transportation planning practice in the United States," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 684-695.
- Berdica, Katja, 2002. "An introduction to road vulnerability: what has been done, is done and should be done," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 117-127, April.
- Karel Martens, 2012. "Justice in transport as justice in accessibility: applying Walzer’s ‘Spheres of Justice’ to the transport sector," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(6), pages 1035-1053, November.
- Banister, David, 2008. "The sustainable mobility paradigm," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 73-80, March.
- Lucas, Karen, 2006. "Providing transport for social inclusion within a framework for environmental justice in the UK," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 801-809, December.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:61:y:2014:i:c:p:238-248. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.