The 2nd Womble wrote:Percrime wrote:six THOUSAND? Admissions? Source please.
Bear in mind theses aren't even current or recent figures:
http://www.carrsq.qut.edu.au/publicatio ... ety_fs.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
There are approximately 6,000
emergency department
presentations and almost 10 deaths
each year from bicycle-related injury
in Queensland.
- Bicycle injuries make up a third of all
transport-related injuries presenting
to hospital emergency departments.
Interesting figures but quite strange. Unfortunately the federal government report is 2008/09 whereas the Queensland report is 2008 so a direct comparison is not possible. But the timing is very close. In addition, the source is different.
Anyway, the figures provided in the Queensland report do not agree with the federal report.
According to the federal report there were 9,577 serious injuries Australia wide in 2008/09 and of these 2,083 were of people normally resident in Queensland (can't seem to find a total for location of accident). This is a far cry from 6,000.
The death figures are just silly. In 2008 there were 6 deaths down from 10 in the previous year. Sorry, 6 ain't almost 10.
Again the federal figures disagree with proportions. In terms of serious injuries pedal cyclists represented 9,577 of 53,406 land transport serious injuries, hardly a third.
I understand the Queensland figures are measuring hospitalisations but, as someone has pointed out, hospital admissions can and do include minor injuries. I think the federal serious injury figures are a much better indication.
There were other interesting stats in there.
23% of serious injuries for road vehicle traffic crashes on bicycles were head injuries, this was second behind shoulder and upper limb on 44.5%. So, less than a quarter of serious injuries on bikes were head injuries, the only injuries potentially protected by a helmet.
They listed the nine most common vehicle accidents causing serious injury, only 2 of these involved bicycles (these were number 8 and 9) and of these neither was collision with a car. In other words you are more likely to be seriously injured in various ways as a car occupant, pedestrian, motorcyclist, then comes cyclist and the most common accidents causing serious injury for cyclists were either single vehicle or unspecified. All the talk of cars being the dominating factor are not borne out by the stats.
So, what do we have here? We have a situation where cycling is not all that dangerous, the main danger is not cars and helmets do not protect the most commonly injured part of a cyclist's body. So why are we forced to wear helmets? Seems a band aid solution where governments want to look like they are doing something. There is a need for better manners and education about road behaviour, but it is also the case that the current education and enforcement programmes which make the roads safer are also making the roads safer for cyclists.
Mandating helmet wearing for cyclists is certainly not justified when one looks at what is causing serious injuries.
DS