Study in to EU cyclist safety.

On 5/16/2016 6:20 PM, James wrote:
On 17/05/16 00:40, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/15/2016 10:59 PM, James wrote:
On 13/05/16 18:55, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 17:53:47 +1000, James
wrote:

On 13/05/16 13:55, Frank Krygowski wrote:


But as usual, this thread has morphed. The original point, by James,
was
that "cyclists are not at significantly higher risk of a head injury
than pedestrians or any other road user group."

That is once they have reached the ER.

Then someone posted fatality and KSI per billion km figures for
pedestrians and cyclists.

And while the fatality figures are close to the same for each, the KSI
figures shows cyclists are about twice as likely to end up in the
ER on
a per km basis.

However, as cyclists cover those kms, say, 4 times faster than
pedestrians, the risk figures must be modified to compare on a more
reasonable per hour or trip basis.

ISTM then, cyclists are about at 2 x 4 = 8 times greater risk of
KSI on
a per hour or trip basis (assuming a trip time is the same for both).

Perhaps 7 out of those 8 extra KSI's are trivial injuries? Here's
hoping.

The problem is the risk a factor of kilometers ridden or of hours
spent on the bike, or of some other factor?

Yes. Good point. As the majority of collisions with motor vehicles
occur at intersections, the risk factor may be related to the number of
intersections a person rides through per trip. It wouldn't be difficult
to estimate this for various environments, like typical urban, suburban
and rural, for example.


Does some bozo riding on the wrong side of the road have any
correlation with kilometers traveled?

That type of thing doesn't appear to hit the news here.


I read an Australian study that showed that a significant number of
Australian bicycle accidents are associated with high blood-alcohol
levels.


Again, I don't recall ever reading a media report that mentioned the
cyclist was intoxicated.

The closing lines article reporting the CHP study are "Bikers were
also found at fault for failure to yield, disobeying signs, improperly
turning, and speeding, but in all those 2,759 cases where they were
found to be at fault, it was still a bike up against a damn car"

Kilometers? Cars? Bicycles?


Police statistics from South Australia show drivers are at fault in
nearly 4 out of every 5 collisions. That would tend to indicate that
wrong way riding and riding while drunk are not significant.

Then I do think it's very different from the U.S.

Refs he
http://www.executivestyle.com.au/fin...collide-ghwwze



Especially inside cities, it's extremely common to see wrong-way riders,
people riding on sidewalks, etc. Likewise, it's common to see cyclists
violate traffic lights - not necessarily by totally ignoring them, but
frequently by slowing, looking both ways and accelerating through if
they think it's safe enough.

A study here showed that cyclists were only marginally more inclined
than drivers to run red lights. More he
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3857163.htm

And I recall reading that those who do ride through do not seem to place
themselves at great risk, according to crash statistics.

Riding on a sidewalk (footpath here) is not generally life threatening.
It is allowed in most Australian states and territories, with few side
effects.


I'm not saying those people-on-bikes are a majority of cyclists, but
they're far from unusual. In the center of our city (not my suburban
village, mind you) if you see a middle-aged low-income person on a bike,
he's almost certain to be riding facing traffic.

Wrong way riding does seem to correlate to a degree with income level;
but many times I've passed adults in well-to-do suburban neighborhoods
riding on the wrong side of the road.

They're usually nicely helmeted, though, so they're "safe." :-/

Oh, and lights at night? Night riding is really rare around here. I
guess people actually believe the stickers that come on the top tubes of
many new bikes, that include the warning "Never Ride at Night!" But if
I do see a night cyclist with a light, it's unusual enough to be a
pleasant surprise.

I wish all the above were not true, but that's what things look like
around here.



While I used to ride regularly at night in Melbourne, I noticed a lot of
unlit or poorly bicycles. Interestingly this does not seem to be a
significant cause of collisions. Likewise in the UK.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandst...ccidents-study

I suppose this may vary quite a bit from country to country. Cycling
cultures probably vary as much as other cultures. There have been quite
a few similar studies in the U.S. While I haven't read most of them in
detail, the most common finding seems to be that in the U.S., fault is
split quite close to 50-50.

I'm on a local committee that investigates fatal crashes, but I've seen
police reports from non-fatal, even minor injury crashes. One problem
that's cropped up is the crash report form used by the police. While
there is room for sketches of the situation, narration, etc., most of
the form is taken up by check boxes and boxes in which the officer is
required indicate one choice from a small table. For example, "Road
condition" is a choice from dry, wet, snow, ice, sand, water, slush, etc.

The problem regarding bike lights is that for a bicyclist, there's _one_
place for the cop to choose "Safety equipment," from the following list:
09= none used; 10=helmet used; 11=protective pads (elbows, knees,
etc.) 12=reflective clothing 13=lighting. So, if the cop sees a
helmet (or even elbow pads!) he's likely to use the space for that
choice. In any computer-based analysis of the reports, we don't get to
know if the cyclist had lights at night, despite those being legally
required at night. It's just weird.

FWIW, I'm a (minor) member of a team that's lobbying to produce a better
form. But bureaucracy moves slowly indeed.

ISTR a claim by Florida bike and ped planner Mighk Wilson (whom I've
met) that in Florida at least, unlit night cyclists are heavily
over-represented in serious car-bike crashes. Can't find that claim
now, but this article is interesting:

http://www.floridabicycle.org/freedomfromfear.html


- Frank Krygowski

On Monday, May 16, 2016 at 3:50:04 AM UTC+1, James wrote:
On 14/05/16 03:08, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, May 13, 2016 at 4:45:53 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
...hit some pot hole or other road discontinuity and . . . whap.
That happened to me without the booze (pot hole under water on
flooded road), and I had a concussion, small facial laceration and
an AC separation. I got a sling, but I wasn't that diligent wearing
it. I think my helmet helped mitigate the injuries based on
distribution, e.g. no forehead or scalp injury.

-- Jay Beattie.

That's when a helmet earns its keep, keeping you pretty despite
stupidity or bad luck.


Except bicycle helmets don't keep your face pretty, and a face plant is
not all that uncommon.

--
JS

Mmm. My last two face plants were near enough ten years apart so I'm not as expert on face plants as some of the incompetent and careless and reckless riders on RBT, and I retain the breakfall reflexes drilled into me in my athletic youth, which might account for something. But in neither case was my face marked, nor my glasses broken. (In one incident I broke both my little fingers. A breakfall from a bicycle is never as tidy as in the dojo. In fact, in the last one, the bloody bicycle did me more damage than the road, by scraping my shin.) The secret? A well-fitted and tightly strapped up, rounded helmet with a fairly wide visor and a thick navy-cut beard. Yeah, yeah, I know you fellows don't want to hear that, but I've been in plastic surgery, and it is really rather painful for a long time and then severely uncomfortable for an even longer time, and, if you're less confident and beloved by women than I am, your self-confidence may not recover either, so I reckon the right helmet is good value, especially since I would anyway wear a hat every time I leave the house because I'm so fairskinned that I burn easily even here in Ireland.

Andre Jute
Relentless rigour -- Gaius Germanicus Caesar