SA - Road safety program launched with a focus on cyclists

Theo Bekkers wrote:

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
Gags wrote:

Is 70 cyclist fatalities a year only for Australia?? Seems really
high to me as that is obviously nearly 1.5 casualties per week!!!

Over all the states. Wouldn't surprise me, as I bet cyclist
fatalities only get in the newspaper if there's something heart
tugging about them or they need a filler. There are over 1500 car
occupants killed a year, do you read about all of them?

This is 4.1ppl a day, or 28.9 per week,
or 19 times more ppl than those killed on bicycles.

That is less than 1 cyclist killed for every dead motorist, or just under 5%
of road fatalities. How would that relate to hours spent on the road? How
much less safe per hour of road use are bicyles? Anybody know?

Theo

Ask yourself what's the ratio of motorists to cyclists when you take a
look
at the passing traffic.
I reckon maybe 0.5% of traffic is a cyclist.
I can wait 20 minutes on Northbourne Ave
and see 2 guys go past on bicycles. How many hundred motorists? lots.
And an occasional bus full of ppl.
The cyclists probably don't ride as far as ppl drive, so the
total bicycle kilometres travelled each day per annun in Oz
probably is less than 0.5% of total motorvehicle distance travelled.
But the ratio of dead cyclists to dead motorists isn't 1:200, 0r 0.5%,
its allegedly about 1:20, or 5%.

I guess this makes a bicycle 10 times more dangerous than being
a motorist or being a passenger in a bus.
One would think that the risk can be much reduced by riding only on
quiet
streets with little traffic, or on designated cycle paths away from main
roads.

But one main reason greenist politicians are mainly ignored
when they implore everyone to ride to work is the danger ppl know exists
when facing motorists armed with a tonne of iron, and defending
themselves
with only 500 grams of lycra.

Patrick Turner.

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 20 Aug 2007 08:57:00 GMT
Patrick Turner wrote:

But one main reason greenist politicians are mainly ignored
when they implore everyone to ride to work is the danger ppl know exists
when facing motorists armed with a tonne of iron, and defending
themselves
with only 500 grams of lycra.

So the solution is to do what they did with drink-driving.

massive education campaign coupled with some really serious
enforcement of laws. A few high profile cases of *careless* drivers
who hit cyclists being imprisoned, a story every week how someone who
was driving poorly was arrested and fined and had to leave their car
cos they were taken to the copshop.

A story every couple of weeks about a cyclist who reported a bad
driver and the driver was convicted and lost their licence.

Would take 2-3 years to start to have an effect...

Zebee
- who notes that some 4-5 years after motorcycle awareness campaigns
were instituted in NSW, the number of car hits motorcycle crashes
has recently dropped by something like 20%.

Theo Bekkers Wrote:
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
Gags wrote:

Is 70 cyclist fatalities a year only for Australia?? Seems really
high to me as that is obviously nearly 1.5 casualties per week!!!

Over all the states. Wouldn't surprise me, as I bet cyclist
fatalities only get in the newspaper if there's something heart
tugging about them or they need a filler. There are over 1500 car
occupants killed a year, do you read about all of them?

That is less than 1 cyclist killed for every dead motorist, or just
under 5%
of road fatalities. How would that relate to hours spent on the road?
How
much less safe per hour of road use are bicyles? Anybody know?
Yep. Per 100,000 hrs exposure and per 100,000 kms travelled you're
aproximately four times more likely to die on the road as a cyclist.[1]

That sounds bad but the risk of dying of road trauma is really quite
small as a car occupant, multiply it by four and it's still quite
small. Given that the British Medical Journal reckon the benefits to
risk ration of cycling is 20:1 in the UK where you're ten times more
likely to die, I reckon it's a good tradeoff.

Let's not forget though that cycling is safer than walking ;-)



[1]http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2005/pdf/Cross_modal_safety_comparisons.pdf
Table 4


--
EuanB

In article ,
EuanB wrote:

Per 100,000 hrs exposure and per 100,000 kms travelled you're
aproximately four times more likely to die on the road as a cyclist.

Surely the ratio per hour and the ratio per km would be different, no?

in the UK where you're ten times more likely to die

Are there any theories to explain the big difference compared to here?

--
Shane Stanley

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 20 Aug 2007 08:57:00 GMT
Patrick Turner wrote:

But one main reason greenist politicians are mainly ignored
when they implore everyone to ride to work is the danger ppl know exists
when facing motorists armed with a tonne of iron, and defending
themselves
with only 500 grams of lycra.

So the solution is to do what they did with drink-driving.

massive education campaign coupled with some really serious
enforcement of laws. A few high profile cases of *careless* drivers
who hit cyclists being imprisoned, a story every week how someone who
was driving poorly was arrested and fined and had to leave their car
cos they were taken to the copshop.

A story every couple of weeks about a cyclist who reported a bad
driver and the driver was convicted and lost their licence.

Would take 2-3 years to start to have an effect...

Zebee
- who notes that some 4-5 years after motorcycle awareness campaigns
were instituted in NSW, the number of car hits motorcycle crashes
has recently dropped by something like 20%.


I'd just love to see the politians get busy on the
legislation changes and revisions and get funding grants going for the
protection of cyclists by means of an education program.

But politics works on the fickle nature of the public and on
priorities and whether any votes are in it.
Maybe you spend millions on campaigns and providing a
secure new home for motoring murderers, and save 4 lives a year.

What's the difference between running over a cyclist "by accident"
to pranging into another vehicle and killing?
If you have THE MOST draconian road laws possible, and publically
hang offenders, you will STILL GET road kills.
And even if we all took to horses and buggies, same thing.
If you placed a 30 kph speed limit everywhere at all times,
there'd still be troubles, as folks fell asleeep from boredom at the
wheel.
And goverments would quickly fall if they brought such measures in.

Although I would love to see more spent on cyclists,
I doubt much or enough will ever happen happen fast to reduce the
lack of safety cyclists endure when mixing it with motorists.
Any improvement tends to be glacial paced incrementals.
There shalt not be any revolutions on the roads.

Even a couple of years back the insurance cover on cycling to work was
removed here.
If you had a fall, or accident going to work,
you could claim compo, but it was seen as a means of scamming by
cyclists,
and so they ride to work without cover. Is cycling encouraged?
With one hand they give a few cycle lanes, and with the other they
remove insurance,
so presumably the number of cyclists doesn't increase much.

Insurance isn't much joy to the relatives of someone who is brain
damaged.
Somehow I think the improvement and maintenance of a cycling
infrastructure should be the priority.
Perhaps the evidence is in the Netherlands, and europe, where bicycles
have been
more prominent. I ain't no expert, but I believe other countries may
have the key
to give us a better deal.
Retro fitting Sydney with cycle lanes and off road bike paths that
cyclists are going to WANT to ride on in preference to roads
is a very big ask because of the pressure on utilising each valuable
square inch of land.

There isn't enough room for all the motorists, let alone giving road
space
as a luxurious tracks for cylists.
And governments don't get any revenue from registration fees
or petrol taxes if a large numbers of ppl take to bicycles, and
porridge power to get to work.

I am so glad I left Sydney to live in a relatively
uncluttered environment of Canberra where the terrain of mainly rolling
countryside
without the awkward sandstone topology of Sydney makes the cycling very
pleasant
on many kms of dedicated bike paths well away from roads.

Everyone is free to complain about cycling in cities such as Sydney, but
it will never
change fast enough, and I figured out I'd be far better off well out of
the joint
back in 1973. I've been back for 2 years since then for work, and am
glad I
returned here.
Just how the hell I survived a year in 1988 riding all over Sydney in
its traffic
I don't really know.
Its a lot worse now.

As fast as some improvements are made, its back to square one, a dog
chasing it tail,
they make roads better and more cars are on them next day.

I figured out early that people determined to live in Sydney had to be
masochists.
I thought everyone was piled high on everyone else, all putting on the
agony,
putting on the style, and always got weighed down paying housing loans
off.
Then they spent 3 hours a day commuting in cars, and 3 hours at work to
pay for the
motoring, and then pay a huge extra through the nose for a tiny property
to be couped up
like chooks in an egg shed.

Big City Life IS basically all bull****. We are heroes at alienating
ourselves from living
as simple ppl. The main disease ppl have now is Affluenza, followed by
Dollarobia,
where the fear of not having enough keeps people jailed within a prison
of society and vapid ideals.

But I do like having a doctor and a dentist and PC tech handy when i
need one,
and plenty exist here but the ruthless presence of the BIG CITY
isn't quite so in my face.

Someone asked, "But doncha miss the beaches?"
My answer is that I don't really fit into a beach culture.
And the cost of yachting on the Harbour is akin to tearing up
$100 bills and throwing them overboard.
I'm too busy, and I cannot have what i see what walks on Balmoral beach
at 2pm, in summer....
If you ain't a rich poseur, and you ain't young, you don't belong in too
many
places now.

I see Sydney as a great big old sleasy whore who blows smoke in your
face everywhere you go, and grabs every last buck you have,
and while giving very little in return.
And a bicycle journey is just a pain in the arse.

Sydney has little option to be fresh, young, and inviting
because a huge number keep knocking at her door wanting a place to
live, work, enjoy and then die, preferably after getting at least
moderately wealthy over a lifetime.
Hardly any of the new comers want to ride a bicycle; that's all too
second class,
and they don't understand the middle class passion for fitness amoung
that determined minority of mainly young men who do a lot on porridge
power.
So making things better for cyclists isn't really on the city father's
minds.
There are always rather many important priorities.

Patrick Turner.

Shane Stanley wrote:

In article ,
EuanB wrote:

Per 100,000 hrs exposure and per 100,000 kms travelled you're
aproximately four times more likely to die on the road as a cyclist.

Surely the ratio per hour and the ratio per km would be different, no?

in the UK where you're ten times more likely to die

Are there any theories to explain the big difference compared to here?

--
Shane Stanley

I always thought motocyclists had far riskier lives and
endured a lower life expectancy than motorists in cars, buses, and
lorries.

I would hazard a guess that while you are on a busy road as a cyclist,
and without a bike lane, you'd be more prone to a shorter life than
our motorcyclist bretheren.

But once you ride only on dedicated off road cycle paths, then the risk
plummets,
and perhaps you live to 91, as Opperman did, and die while on the
exercise bike, after having ridden further and faster than
just about anyone ever has.

Oppie was a real hero of the spoked wheel.
And he survived for so long, but
one must recal the roads upon which he rode were fairly uncluttered,
as mainly only the rich had cars.
How did he survive?

If Oppie was a young fella of 25 now, would he be seen on the roads?

One can only wonder, but it seems ppl in China can't wait to
not have to ride their bikes... and western country roads are fully
choked right up...

What's the ratio of life expectancy of cyclists in Bathurst, or Geelong,
compared to those in central Sydney or Melbourne?

I guess the expectancy is another silly statistical peice of BS because
the expectancy of life falls as you mount a bike, and then rises when
you get off.

Patrick Turner.

Patrick Turner Wrote:
Shane Stanley wrote:

In article ,
EuanB wrote:

Per 100,000 hrs exposure and per 100,000 kms travelled you're
aproximately four times more likely to die on the road as a
cyclist.

Surely the ratio per hour and the ratio per km would be different,
no?

in the UK where you're ten times more likely to die

Are there any theories to explain the big difference compared to
here?

--
Shane Stanley

I always thought motocyclists had far riskier lives and
endured a lower life expectancy than motorists in cars, buses, and
lorries.

I would hazard a guess that while you are on a busy road as a cyclist,
and without a bike lane, you'd be more prone to a shorter life than
our motorcyclist bretheren.

But once you ride only on dedicated off road cycle paths, then the
risk
plummets,
You'd think so wouldn't you? I did but studies and research strongly
suggest that a cyclist fares best when riding as a part of normal
traffic.

If you have an interest, check the body of evidence at
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html


--
EuanB

Shane Stanley Wrote:
In article ,
EuanB wrote:

Per 100,000 hrs exposure and per 100,000 kms travelled you're
aproximately four times more likely to die on the road as a cyclist.

Surely the ratio per hour and the ratio per km would be different, no?
No. Contray to popular belief the average speed for utility trips
taken by bicycle is about the same as a utility trip taken by a car, or
indeed quicker. It takes me 70 minutes to ride the thirty kilometers in
to work, the best I've done in a car is fifty.


in the UK where you're ten times more likely to die

Are there any theories to explain the big difference compared to here?
Not that I'm aware of, although I haven't invested any time in to the
matter. When I was riding in the UK cycling was just another way you
got around and warranted no special consideration.

If I had to guess I'd pin it on the higher speeds that traffic travels
at in the UK. For any given type of the road the speed limit's are
higher than in Australai.


--
EuanB

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 21 Aug 2007 06:13:43 +1000
EuanB wrote:
No. Contray to popular belief the average speed for utility trips
taken by bicycle is about the same as a utility trip taken by a car, or
indeed quicker. It takes me 70 minutes to ride the thirty kilometers in
to work, the best I've done in a car is fifty.

30km would be at the upper end for utility trips?

At first I thought "OK for some" but then I realised that the fastest
trip to work on the motorcycle is about 35 mins, the peak hour one is
more like 45 (with lanesplitting) which compares better to the 70 by
bicycle.

Peak hour by car doesn't bear thinking about!


If I had to guess I'd pin it on the higher speeds that traffic travels
at in the UK. For any given type of the road the speed limit's are
higher than in Australai.


Is there a breakdown between urban and non? I suspect urban UK roads
in most cities are narrower and more congested with cars and peds than
those in most Oz cities.

Zebee

In article ,
EuanB wrote:

Surely the ratio per hour and the ratio per km would be different, no?

No. Contray to popular belief the average speed for utility trips
taken by bicycle is about the same as a utility trip taken by a car, or
indeed quicker.

But are the majority of cycling miles utility trips? I would have
thought there'd be at least a ratio of something 2:3 between time and
distance figures.

in the UK where you're ten times more likely to die

Are there any theories to explain the big difference compared to here?

Not that I'm aware of, although I haven't invested any time in to the
matter. When I was riding in the UK cycling was just another way you
got around and warranted no special consideration.

If I had to guess I'd pin it on the higher speeds that traffic travels
at in the UK. For any given type of the road the speed limit's are
higher than in Australai.

Does this suggest that attitude matters less than road conditions, or is
the attitude to cyclists similar in England?

--
Shane Stanley