Any statistics on how to get hurt?

slightly following on from the sustainable transport plan thread, does
anyone know of a reliable study on bike accidents and their causes -
for example 15% of hospitalisations from cars pulling out from side
roads, 15% from cars hitting from behind, 30% car doors etc etc.

I can only find general stuff - nice to say yeah wear a helmet but not
quite detailed enough to worry more about cars behind me or pot holes
in front of me.


cheers

There's some very detailed stuff about accidents in London 2003 he

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/streets/downlo...ties-04-05.pdf

e.g. for accidents involving another vehicle where the cyclist was severely
injured or killed

10% (the most common conflict) involved the door of the other vehicle being
opened into the path of the P/C and the cyclist either hitting it or
swerving to avoid it

9% involved the P/C riding off the footway into the path of another vehicle

9% involved the other vehicle turning right across the path of the P/C

9% involved the other vehicle turning left across the path of the P/C.


"lifeisgood" wrote in message
oups.com...
slightly following on from the sustainable transport plan thread, does
anyone know of a reliable study on bike accidents and their causes -
for example 15% of hospitalisations from cars pulling out from side
roads, 15% from cars hitting from behind, 30% car doors etc etc.

I can only find general stuff - nice to say yeah wear a helmet but not
quite detailed enough to worry more about cars behind me or pot holes
in front of me.


cheers

I've been reading the survey I found earlier. Here's an interesting
snippet:

The top accident contributory factor,
assigned to collisions resulting in 14% of
P/C casualties was 'Disobeyed Stop or
Give Way sign or marking'. However, the
top vehicle contributory factor (56%) was
'going ahead normally', i.e. the pedal
cycle was not deemed to have caused
the collision. Only 2% of P/C casualties
were recorded as disobeying a Stop or
Give Way sign thus implying that in the
majority of cases, where a junction
control was disobeyed, it was the other
vehicle that failed to stop or give way.

lifeisgood wrote:
slightly following on from the sustainable transport plan thread, does
anyone know of a reliable study on bike accidents and their causes -
for example 15% of hospitalisations from cars pulling out from side
roads, 15% from cars hitting from behind, 30% car doors etc etc.

Don't know, however one thing that is reckoned to be a reliable start to
not being an RTA stat yourself is read, digest and act on "Cyclecraft"
by John Franklin, publisher: The Stationery Office Books, ISBN: 0117020516

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

You've got me interested now. Here's another good one. The biggest danger
in Oxford and Cambridge seems to be skidding on metal manhole covers.

http://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/index/...lingsurvey.htm

in message .com,
lifeisgood ') wrote:

slightly following on from the sustainable transport plan thread, does
anyone know of a reliable study on bike accidents and their causes -
for example 15% of hospitalisations from cars pulling out from side
roads, 15% from cars hitting from behind, 30% car doors etc etc.

I can only find general stuff - nice to say yeah wear a helmet but not
quite detailed enough to worry more about cars behind me or pot holes
in front of me.

Once you've read the detailed stuff you probably won't wear a helmet much
of the time.

Some useful studies:
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/riskfactors.htm
http://www.toronto.ca/transportation...icle/index.htm
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte.../321/7276/1582
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/Web/...ury_Mechanisms

Raw statistics:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBas...ank=1&Rank=272
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...tats_page.hcsp

Other sources of links:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
.::;===r==\
/ /___||___\____
//==\- ||- | /__\( MS Windows IS an operating environment.
//____\__||___|_// \|: C++ IS an object oriented programming language.
\__/ ~~~~~~~~~ \__/ Citroen 2cv6 IS a four door family saloon.

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 01:58:02 -0700, lifeisgood wrote:

slightly following on from the sustainable transport plan thread, does
Figures from Transport for London over the last few years are in a report
on their website.
I referenced it to uk.rec.cycling a few months ago - do a Google Groups
search on my name, plus TfL.
Or simply go to the TfL site and look through their press releases for
the last few months.

"POHB" wrote in message
...

There's some very detailed stuff about accidents in London 2003 he

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/streets/downlo...ties-04-05.pdf

e.g. for accidents involving another vehicle where the cyclist was
severely injured or killed

10% (the most common conflict) involved the door of the other vehicle
being opened into the path of the P/C and the cyclist either hitting it or
swerving to avoid it

9% involved the P/C riding off the footway into the path of another
vehicle

9% involved the other vehicle turning right across the path of the P/C

9% involved the other vehicle turning left across the path of the P/C.

The first one is pretty easy to avoid, the second one is pure stupidity
(darwin award), the third one is the one that scares me most, and the last
one is fairly easily avoided by defensive positioning.

So it seems that going ahead normally (or Going ahead other for DTI) is
the worst, followed by junctions, whereas in palo alto it is junctions.

And in most cases it seems it is not the cyclists fault.

Great. When I am flying through the air it will be a comfort to know I
am not liable.

The most interesting part for me was

These results suggest that urban roadway design-not only bikeway
design-must take into account that intersections, construed broadly,
are the major point of conflict between bicycles and motor vehicles.
Separation of bicy*cles and motor vehicles leads to blind conflicts at
these intersections. It also encourages wrong-way travel, both on
sidewalks or paths and on the roadway at either end, further increasing
conflicts. Shared use of the roadway in the same direction of travel
leads to fewer conflicts and fewer accidents.

http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/riskfactors.htm

I am coming to agree with this - I am nice and happy on a cycle path in
say camden, but getting on and off them is terrifying. The only places
I feel safe are the big wide roads around Regents park - even then some
idiot pull out too fast.

So is the cycle movement to vote for big wide roads through london.?
Seems like foxes voting for hunting bills :-)

lifeisgood wrote:

So it seems that going ahead normally (or Going ahead other for DTI) is
the worst, followed by junctions, whereas in palo alto it is junctions.

And in most cases it seems it is not the cyclists fault.

Great. When I am flying through the air it will be a comfort to know I
am not liable.

It's not quite that bad. There are ways (1) to maximise the chance
that they'll see you and (2) to turn collisions into near-misses.

The most obvious example is cycling far enough from parked cars that
opening doors can't get you.

These results suggest that urban roadway design-not only bikeway
design-must take into account that intersections, construed broadly,
are the major point of conflict between bicycles and motor vehicles.
Separation of bicy*cles and motor vehicles leads to blind conflicts at
these intersections. It also encourages wrong-way travel, both on
sidewalks or paths and on the roadway at either end, further increasing
conflicts. Shared use of the roadway in the same direction of travel
leads to fewer conflicts and fewer accidents.

Yup, that's the consensus among those who think straight.

So is the cycle movement to vote for big wide roads through london.?
Seems like foxes voting for hunting bills :-)

Not quite. But roads wide enough for motor vehicles to pass bikes
easily, but not so wide that they form two lanes, are generally the
fastest and most pleasant to ride on. Overall width typically 9-10
metres. Unfortunately most of these roads have now been spoilt by any
or all of:
- squeezing in bus lanes
- central islands to create pinch points
- random parked motor vehicles

Colin McKenzie