A very interesting discussion.

But I wonder about the need to have a new category of "active
transport", or the need to define it too tightly.

The use of value-laden words to describe individual types of transport
can lead to a tendency to think of one kind of transport as "good" and
another as "bad".  Hence the concerns in this discussion about motorised
wheelchairs and public transport not being included in the active
transport category.

"Active" is a positive term, but what are the consequences for the
labelling of other forms of transport  as "passive", or maybe
"inactive"? All forms of transport have their utility, and all may have
positive or negative effects in terms of allocating our "active"
resources of time and energy, and may have greater or lesser health and
well-being benefits at the personal, household or societal levels.  (If
we're talking about environmental benefits/disbenefits, then we might as
well just stick with "green" or "sustainable")

Interestingly, the term "active" is regularly used in the context of
"active ageing", where it has a broader meaning, and avoids "definition"
discussions about what is "in" and what is "out".

So, use of "active" in this context does not coincide with the
discussions on this list about active transport.  Active ageing involves
a range of activities/mindsets whereby one keeps active - or indeed
becomes more positively active.  It's about what keeps you fit and
active and included and being as autonomous as possible in the context
of your own abilities and aspirations.

This might involve more walking or cycling as a means of physical
fitness. Or it might involve getting out more for the sake of an
interest, or hobby, or tourism; or becoming a volunteer driver etc. In
the context of active ageing or overcoming mobility exclusion, using
"passive transport" may be the key to increased activity and all its
benefits.

So I wonder if talking of a new category (as it were) of active
transport will tend to confuse discussions about green transport and
sustainable mobility, etc.  At the end of the day we want to design
settlements and transport systems which reduce the need to travel (by
car), make services and facilities more easy to reach by walking, by
cycling and by inclusive motorised devices (wheelchairs, scooters, etc)
for those who have restricted mobility, reduce the vulnerability of
slower road users, and make public transport more useable and
convenient.

Against this agenda, there seems only limited merit in developing new
cross-cutting distinctions through definitions of "active transport".
In fact, it may also have a negative impact in terms of muddying the
waters in other agendas such as the Active Ageing one.

Andy
(see www.futureeast.org.uk for some background on active ageing issues)

Andy Lake
HOP Associates
55 West St
Comberton
Cambridge
CB3 7DS
UK
Direct: +44 (0)1223 304 792
Office: +44 (0)1223 264 485
Fax:    +44 (0)1223 304855
www.virtual-mobility.com
www.hop.co.uk




-----Original Message-----
From: Universities Transport Study Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Stuart Clement
Sent: 14 February 2005 04:31
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [UTSG] Active Transport


0502141501

Colleagues

My bleat for some guidance on a definition of Active Transport has
thrown up some interesting points - and a right turn into the use of the
word 'mobility'.

Apologies, Eric, if my question appeared to be an elephant trap. I have
just returned from India and observed first hand what elephants can do
(evidenced by the busy-ness of the attendants armed with wheelbarrows,
shovels and brooms on the walk up to Amber Fort, Jaipur), hence I
wouldn't wish being in a trap with an elephant on anyone!

That aside, I was really casting about for a type of consensus [Wistful
thinking. Ed] since there were different viewpoints expressed in my
discussions with local colleagues.

Thankyou for highlighting Todd Litman's definition; and thanks Todd for
responding personally and others for joining the discussion by ether
(yet another grey definition).

David gave us insight to the meaning of the 'tyranny of distance' in
Australia (the New Zealand case - where the phrase is still often heard
by Pakeha - may be somewhat different as the Maori may well have felt
the same after the Great Migration) and Eric laments the 'tyranny of
words' which may be another form of the 'tyranny of grey' of definitions
as highlighted by Alice's viewpoint.

Starting with Eric's original offering with the 'none of which with
motors' clause. This seems reasonable. In our discussions we have
bandied about words such as 'self-transportee' and 'transporter' with
the idea that the propulsive force is provided by the self-transportee.
Several modes have bobbed up from people in the course of this exchange
and in discussions. Hence we have cycling, walking, manual wheelchairs,
skating, skateboarding, running, push scooters (the original unmotorized
variety), skiing, canoeing and rowing.

Passive transport is where the propulsive force is provided by the
transporter. Hence horses, camels, oxen, donkeys, cars, buses, taxis,
motorbikes, trains, ferries and trams are plonked in this category.

This definition of passive transport would of course include motorised
wheelchairs: all of the above require the use of muscles by someone to
make the contraption move and control it. It is interesting that you say
Alice: 'Any way of letting me into the definition without letting in the
undesirables' as this raises the dilemma of definitions for a purpose
and the ability of our society to cope with groups outside the 'normal'.
Thankfully our viewpoint of normal is being broadened magnificently as
time progresses. Hence I believe that the day is fast approaching, in
our society at least, where people like you Alice will not need to cast
about to be included in a definition so that your travel (and other)
needs will be considered as of right.

So to definitions for a purpose. There are those who are endeavouring to
effect travel behaviour change through a lessening of dependence on the
private car and an increase in other modes. Some include public
transport in a definition of active transport; whether through ignorance
(unlikely) or as a means to procure funding by having a neat banner
embrace the intent (far more likely as we all have to deal with
politicians). Travel by public transport is now regarded as a mixed mode
form; mostly because of improving modelling capabilities.

There are those who endeavour to design travel spaces for cyclists and
for those whose primary travel geography is apart from that used by
cars, buses, trucks, vans, motorbikes and the like. Often these
cyclists, pedestrians, skaters, people in wheelchairs (is there such a
word as wheelchairers Alice?) are labelled 'vulnerable road users'.
Could this be another case of 'definition for a purpose'? Possibly; do
we need to distinguish between active and passive transport in this
instance especially since motorbike riders can easily be labelled
'vulnerable'?

Should we then refer to those in motorised wheelchairs and those using
power-assisted bicycles as 'motor-dependent'?

Stuart Clement
Transport Systems Centre
University of South Australia
GPO Box 2471
Adelaide SA 5001
Ph: +61 (0)8 8302 1862
Fax: +61 (0)8 8302 1880
Email: [log in to unmask]
Mobile: +61 (0)439 439 142