Study in to EU cyclist safety.

On Thu, 12 May 2016 23:55:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/12/2016 8:45 PM, James wrote:
On 13/05/16 10:12, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/12/2016 5:02 PM, James wrote:


Though the cyclists suffer about twice as many deaths or serious
injuries per billion kilometres.

In other words, cyclists suffer fewer fatalities per km, but more
serious injuries per km.

Serious injuries may be more difficult to compare between countries, I
think, because I'm not sure that the definitions are uniform, country to
country. IOW, which injuries qualify as "serious"?

A classic cycling injury is a broken collar bone. The usual treatment
is, IIRC, to keep that arm in a sling for a month or two. Not that I
would want one, but I think it's rarely serious in the sense of
potentially life changing.



So my (sarcastic) question "Do I cue the rhetoric about grazed knees?"
was answered.

Most people see broken bones as "serious", I imagine. Even a broken rib
(another common cycling injury) can cause a punctured lung and serious
complications.

That's the worst case scenario game again. I have a friend who fell and
broke a rib while walking on a forest path. Yes, it hurt, but not
nearly as badly as the shingles pain two different friends of mine
endured. And the treatment was the same: tough it out, perhaps with mild
analgesics. Is shingles considered a "serious injury?" Then why should a
simple broken rib, with no complications?

To put it another way: Yes, a punctured lung is serious. A broken rib
is not. And only a tiny percentage of broken ribs puncture lungs.

A separated AC joint is relatively common, and that shoulder will never
be the same.

But they are generally not treated at all, beyond slings and mild pain
relievers. The only people who get surgery for that are athletes. For
others, its of no practical importance.

I suppose we could examine a list of specific injuries that are, and are
not, included in the "serious injury" part of KSI.

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." I can cite at least
four or five studies that show that cycling's medical benefits far
outweigh its risks.

Given these facts, it seems silly to spend time fantasizing about
hypothetical punctured lungs, or sports careers ruined by AC tears.

Cycling is simply not very dangerous on average, and unfortunately,
"average" includes people like Jay's drunk rider, lots of of
no-light-at-night folks, plenty of salmon riders, etc. If you ride
competently and with reasonable care, cycling is far safer yet.

Agreed :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

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.

--
JS

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?

As an example, flying risks are usually reported as a number versus
miles flown, or passenger miles flown. According to the U.S. Air
Force, if I remember correctly, non combat aircraft accidents are
largely associated with either landings or take-offs and therefore it
might be more logical to equate aircraft accidents with landings or
takeoffs (as they usually are the same number).

There was report of a year long study done by the California Highway
Patrol, in Los Angles county, in 2012, that included bicycles. "In
those cases where CHP placed the blame for the collision on the bike
rider, the overwhelming cause of the crashes (1,341 occurrences) was
the cyclist riding on the wrong side of the road.

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

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

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?
--
cheers,

John B.

Am 13.05.2016 um 10:55 schrieb John B.:

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

Even more significant than the number of accidents, the average severity
of incidents is significantly increased with high blood-alcohol level
(and with old age above 75 years).

Whereas sober (pedestrians and )cyclists on a simple fall typically have
some rashes and bruises, drunk people who fall often hit their head on
the ground because the reflexes protecting the head are severely reduced.

"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message ...
On 5/12/2016 6:17 AM, Graham wrote:

"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message ...
On 5/11/2016 8:05 PM, John B. wrote:
rOn Wed, 11 May 2016 15:39:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

[snip]

Actually, it's not just Pucher. This sort of comparison has been made
many times in many countries. I have some of the results on file. As I
recall, the only westernized country that found cycling more dangerous
than walking was Britain, for one year perhaps five years ago. (Someone
here pointed that out, IIRC.) But things were soon back to normal - that
is, back to cycling being safer.

I have provided those statistics here in the past purely for information as there is this constant argument over statistics. Here are the latest UK statistics up to and including 2014:

Reference: https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...al-comparisons Table TSGB0107 (RAS53001). They are expressed on a per billion kms basis.

Unfortunately the UK data do not support the "back to normal" statement above.

They do show a welcome very slowly falling long term trend for both cyclists and pedestrians with regard to the numbers killed. Within the bounds of statistical significance I think we can say that the same number of cyclists and pedestrians are killed in the UK in most years.

The trends that are emerging are that the number of cyclists being seriously injured and the total number of cyclist casualties are rising in both abslolute terms and relative to pedestrians. The number of cyclists seriously injured has recently exceeded twice that of pedestrians and the number for all casualties three times.

The data available for the last 3 years to 2014 (for last 10 years see the reference above) together with the 10 year averages a

Cyclists

Killed: 24 22 22 | 26
KSI: 668 646 672 | 607
All: 3929 4011 4228 | 4037

Pedestrians

Killed: 23 21 23 | 28
KSI: 333 288 291 | 332
All: 1403 1281 1309 | 1474

All I ask is that interested parties study the data and come to their own conclusions regarding whether they think a per billion kms basis is the correct basis on which to do these comparisons (the UK Government clearly thinks it is) and whether, on that basis, cycling in the UK is, as stated in the post above, safer than walking.

The data you linked actually confirms what I've been saying, except that
the anomaly occurred for two years, not just one as I thought. In eight
of the ten years listed, cycling had fewer deaths per km than pedestrian
travel. After two years (2012 and 2013) of being slightly worse,
cycling returned to beating walking in 2014. In the ten year average,
cycling beats walking.

And again, Britain is unique, AFAIK, in ever having walking safer than
cycling in deaths per km traveled. Most countries seem to routinely
find cycling safer by that measure.

In most years the differences in deaths per billion kms could easily be accounted for by data collection (kms covered) and rounding errors as they are quoted as integers. Surely rather than arguing over trivial differences we should be able to agree for all intents and purposes that the numbers are the same instead of making the pedantic point above.

What is more important is that ~25 in 1 billion is exceedingly low. Given that in most developed countires I expect the numbers are of a similar order of magnitude I guess virtually everyone contributing to this group never even thinks about the possibilty of getting killed when they jump on their bikes. Similarly even if we move to the all casualty categories where the cycling numbers are three times those of walking how many of us think we might be injured however slightly when we either walk out of the door or jump on our bikes. It is the zealots obsessing about these statistics and the small risks involved that scare people. It is they who are guilty of Danger Danger! not those who choose to wear any sort of protective gear when they ride be that helmet, gloves or glasses.

Those of us who do chose to wear such gear tend to know from personal experience that statistics used for transport planning and the like do not necessarily apply to us particularly if we ride competitively or in challenging environments where unfortunatly, as the say, "**** happens!" If you push the envelope you will from time to time come off and then be glad of the gear. Clearly none of this applies to the average utility cyclist and I support fully their right to be able to ride in normal clothes without the need for any special gear. It should be up to them whether or not they want to follow my example given the much lower level of "self imposed" risk they face. To me their main source of risk comes from the traffic they tend to ride in where my gear would not help them much anyway. I do no utility cycling and prefer the open roads to urban roads. To me cycling is a sport not a form of transport. Anywhere up to two miles I prefer to walk beyond that or if I have a serious load to carry I am afraid its the car. I have two daughters who cycle purely as a form of transport and have no interest in it at all as a sport. We all share a love of cycling and do not rubbish each others choices.

As to definitions the those behind the UK statistics a

Serious injury: Injury resulting in a person being detained in hospital as an in-patient, in addition all injuries causing: fractures, concussions, internal injuries, crushings, burns (excluding friction burns), severe cuts, severe general shock which require medical treatment even if this does not result in a stay in hospital as an in-patient.

Slight injury: Sprain (including neck whiplash injury), bruising or cuts which are not judged to be severe. Also slight shock requiring roadside assistance.

Graham.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Fri, 13 May 2016 11:16:55 +0200, Rolf Mantel
wrote:

Am 13.05.2016 um 10:55 schrieb John B.:

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

Even more significant than the number of accidents, the average severity
of incidents is significantly increased with high blood-alcohol level
(and with old age above 75 years).


The politically correct term is "upper middle age" :-)

Whereas sober (pedestrians and )cyclists on a simple fall typically have
some rashes and bruises, drunk people who fall often hit their head on
the ground because the reflexes protecting the head are severely reduced.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 13 May 2016 10:56:25 +0100, "Graham"
wrote:


"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message ...
On 5/12/2016 6:17 AM, Graham wrote:

"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message ...
On 5/11/2016 8:05 PM, John B. wrote:
rOn Wed, 11 May 2016 15:39:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

[snip]

Actually, it's not just Pucher. This sort of comparison has been made
many times in many countries. I have some of the results on file. As I
recall, the only westernized country that found cycling more dangerous
than walking was Britain, for one year perhaps five years ago. (Someone
here pointed that out, IIRC.) But things were soon back to normal - that
is, back to cycling being safer.

I have provided those statistics here in the past purely for information as there is this constant argument over statistics. Here are the latest UK statistics up to and including 2014:

Reference: https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...al-comparisons Table TSGB0107 (RAS53001). They are expressed on a per billion kms basis.

Unfortunately the UK data do not support the "back to normal" statement above.

They do show a welcome very slowly falling long term trend for both cyclists and pedestrians with regard to the numbers killed. Within the bounds of statistical significance I think we can say that the same number of cyclists and pedestrians are killed in the UK in most years.

The trends that are emerging are that the number of cyclists being seriously injured and the total number of cyclist casualties are rising in both abslolute terms and relative to pedestrians. The number of cyclists seriously injured has recently exceeded twice that of pedestrians and the number for all casualties three times.

The data available for the last 3 years to 2014 (for last 10 years see the reference above) together with the 10 year averages a

Cyclists

Killed: 24 22 22 | 26
KSI: 668 646 672 | 607
All: 3929 4011 4228 | 4037

Pedestrians

Killed: 23 21 23 | 28
KSI: 333 288 291 | 332
All: 1403 1281 1309 | 1474

All I ask is that interested parties study the data and come to their own conclusions regarding whether they think a per billion kms basis is the correct basis on which to do these comparisons (the UK Government clearly thinks it is) and whether, on that basis, cycling in the UK is, as stated in the post above, safer than walking.

The data you linked actually confirms what I've been saying, except that
the anomaly occurred for two years, not just one as I thought. In eight
of the ten years listed, cycling had fewer deaths per km than pedestrian
travel. After two years (2012 and 2013) of being slightly worse,
cycling returned to beating walking in 2014. In the ten year average,
cycling beats walking.

And again, Britain is unique, AFAIK, in ever having walking safer than
cycling in deaths per km traveled. Most countries seem to routinely
find cycling safer by that measure.

In most years the differences in deaths per billion kms could easily be accounted for by data collection (kms covered) and rounding errors as they are quoted as integers. Surely rather than arguing over trivial differences we should be able to agree for all intents and purposes that the numbers are the same instead of making the pedantic point above.

How do they collect and document the mileage? Does every cyclist
report after each ride?




What is more important is that ~25 in 1 billion is exceedingly low. Given that in most developed countires I expect the numbers are of a similar order of magnitude I guess virtually everyone contributing to this group never even thinks about the possibilty of getting killed when they jump on their bikes. Similarly even if we move to the all casualty categories where the cycling numbers are three times those of walking how many of us think we might be injured however slightly when we either walk out of the door or jump on our bikes. It is the zealots obsessing about these statistics and the small risks involved that scare people. It is they who are guilty of Danger Danger! not those who choose to wear any sort of protective gear when they ride be that helmet, gloves or glasses.

Those of us who do chose to wear such gear tend to know from personal experience that statistics used for transport planning and the like do not necessarily apply to us particularly if we ride competitively or in challenging environments where unfortunatly, as the say, "**** happens!" If you push the envelope you will from time to time come off and then be glad of the gear. Clearly none of this applies to the average utility cyclist and I support fully their right to be able to ride in normal clothes without the need for any special gear. It should be up to them whether or not they want to follow my example given the much lower level of "self imposed" risk they face. To me their main source of risk comes from the traffic they tend to ride in where my gear would not help them much anyway. I do no utility cycling and prefer the open roads to urban roads. To me cycling is a sport not a form of transport. Anywhere up to two miles I prefer to walk beyond that or if I have a serious load
to carry I am afraid its the car. I have two daughters who cycle purely as a form of transport and have no interest in it at all as a sport. We all share a love of cycling and do not rubbish each others choices.

As to definitions the those behind the UK statistics a

Serious injury: Injury resulting in a person being detained in hospital as an in-patient, in addition all injuries causing: fractures, concussions, internal injuries, crushings, burns (excluding friction burns), severe cuts, severe general shock which require medical treatment even if this does not result in a stay in hospital as an in-patient.

Slight injury: Sprain (including neck whiplash injury), bruising or cuts which are not judged to be severe. Also slight shock requiring roadside assistance.

Graham.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
--
cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 13 May 2016 11:16:55 +0200, Rolf Mantel
wrote:

Am 13.05.2016 um 10:55 schrieb John B.:

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

Even more significant than the number of accidents, the average severity
of incidents is significantly increased with high blood-alcohol level
(and with old age above 75 years).

Whereas sober (pedestrians and )cyclists on a simple fall typically have
some rashes and bruises, drunk people who fall often hit their head on
the ground because the reflexes protecting the head are severely reduced.

I've read all kinds of stories about Drunks. Some even allege that a
Drunk, being nearly unconscious is less likely to be injured because
he is limp :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On 5/12/2016 7:38 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 5:12:05 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/12/2016 5:02 PM, James wrote:
On 13/05/16 06:17, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/12/2016 6:17 AM, Graham wrote:

"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message
...
On 5/11/2016 8:05 PM, John B. wrote:
rOn Wed, 11 May 2016 15:39:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

[snip]

Actually, it's not just Pucher. This sort of comparison has been made
many times in many countries. I have some of the results on file.
As I
recall, the only westernized country that found cycling more dangerous
than walking was Britain, for one year perhaps five years ago.
(Someone
here pointed that out, IIRC.) But things were soon back to normal -
that
is, back to cycling being safer.

I have provided those statistics here in the past purely for
information as there is this constant argument over statistics. Here
are the latest UK statistics up to and including 2014:

Reference:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...al-comparisons

Table TSGB0107 (RAS53001). They are expressed on a per billion kms
basis.

Unfortunately the UK data do not support the "back to normal"
statement above.

They do show a welcome very slowly falling long term trend for both
cyclists and pedestrians with regard to the numbers killed. Within the
bounds of statistical significance I think we can say that the same
number of cyclists and pedestrians are killed in the UK in most years.

The trends that are emerging are that the number of cyclists being
seriously injured and the total number of cyclist casualties are
rising in both abslolute terms and relative to pedestrians. The number
of cyclists seriously injured has recently exceeded twice that of
pedestrians and the number for all casualties three times.

The data available for the last 3 years to 2014 (for last 10 years see
the reference above) together with the 10 year averages a

Cyclists

Killed: 24 22 22 | 26
KSI: 668 646 672 | 607
All: 3929 4011 4228 | 4037

Pedestrians

Killed: 23 21 23 | 28
KSI: 333 288 291 | 332
All: 1403 1281 1309 | 1474

All I ask is that interested parties study the data and come to their
own conclusions regarding whether they think a per billion kms basis
is the correct basis on which to do these comparisons (the UK
Government clearly thinks it is) and whether, on that basis, cycling
in the UK is, as stated in the post above, safer than walking.

The data you linked actually confirms what I've been saying, except that
the anomaly occurred for two years, not just one as I thought. In eight
of the ten years listed, cycling had fewer deaths per km than pedestrian
travel. After two years (2012 and 2013) of being slightly worse,
cycling returned to beating walking in 2014. In the ten year average,
cycling beats walking.

And again, Britain is unique, AFAIK, in ever having walking safer than
cycling in deaths per km traveled. Most countries seem to routinely
find cycling safer by that measure.


Though the cyclists suffer about twice as many deaths or serious
injuries per billion kilometres.

In other words, cyclists suffer fewer fatalities per km, but more
serious injuries per km.

Serious injuries may be more difficult to compare between countries, I
think, because I'm not sure that the definitions are uniform, country to
country. IOW, which injuries qualify as "serious"?

A classic cycling injury is a broken collar bone. The usual treatment
is, IIRC, to keep that arm in a sling for a month or two. Not that I
would want one, but I think it's rarely serious in the sense of
potentially life changing.


It depends. Many of my friends have broken collar bones. My closest friend had internal fixation. Some end up with AC joint (acromio-clavicular joint -- the bump on the top of the shoulder) disruption and surgery because of that. Others get a sling only.

One of my son's good friends (with whom I rode when in SLC) just did a face plant with no helmet. He was knocked out and broke his face and jaw. He has his jaw wired shut and seems like a different person. He is having a very bad short-term recovery from his concussion. Shoe drops: he was riding drunk.

-- Jay Beattie.


That's a trend. Alcohol doesn't go well with fixed gear, no
brake:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...t/FACEPLNT.JPG

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 5/12/2016 7:45 PM, James wrote:
On 13/05/16 10:12, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/12/2016 5:02 PM, James wrote:


Though the cyclists suffer about twice as many deaths or
serious
injuries per billion kilometres.

In other words, cyclists suffer fewer fatalities per km,
but more
serious injuries per km.

Serious injuries may be more difficult to compare between
countries, I
think, because I'm not sure that the definitions are
uniform, country to
country. IOW, which injuries qualify as "serious"?

A classic cycling injury is a broken collar bone. The
usual treatment
is, IIRC, to keep that arm in a sling for a month or two.
Not that I
would want one, but I think it's rarely serious in the
sense of
potentially life changing.



So my (sarcastic) question "Do I cue the rhetoric about
grazed knees?" was answered.

Most people see broken bones as "serious", I imagine. Even
a broken rib (another common cycling injury) can cause a
punctured lung and serious complications.

A separated AC joint is relatively common, and that shoulder
will never be the same.


+1
both of mine

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971