Would cyclists rather be injured than uncool?

Equipment and On Road Behaviour, Laws and Rules. Cycling Promotion and Advocacy

Re: Would cyclists rather be injured than uncool?

Postby jet-ski » Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:40 pm

But it's a REFLECTIVE nappy!
Xtracycle, Surly Long Haul Trucker, Bike Friday New World Tourist, Giant TCR, 9:zero:7
http://www.perthcyclist.net/blog
User avatar
jet-ski
 
Posts: 1404
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 4:51 pm
Location: Perth WA

by BNA » Fri Dec 09, 2011 10:38 am

BNA
 

Re: Would cyclists rather be injured than uncool?

Postby gdt » Fri Dec 09, 2011 10:38 am

I ride with a yellow jersey, 2*1W of flashing red, a massive red reflector, ankle straps, white reflective strips on the frame and helmet and reflective rims and tyres. It doesn't look bad, partly because I've gone to a lot of trouble to make it all look neat rather than slapped together. It's scary just how hard getting these parts was.

Of all of that, I'm told that the ankle straps are what makes the bike really stand out in the daytime as I ride down the side of the freeway. I'm told I'm visible from ages away at night, but all the reflectors really makes the bike jump out as their car approaches and that makes them re-assess the situation. Apparently side-on visibility at night is good, and it's the rims which are mainly responsible for that.

With the above experience in mind, I've now think that visibility is about much more than just the amount of light seen by the driver. I'm also very down on the idea that any single visibility device is going to make a difference, but that deleting a device is also a bad idea, as it all adds up.

I think we've been very let down by the standards-making process. A process which insists on chainguards to save trousers we don't wear getting caught between the chain and gears but which hasn't specified reflective paint on frames and rims, which can't standardise a theft-resistant mounting system for accessories, and which specs rear reflectors so small as to be useless.

This needs to be solved through standards making. My daughter won't wear any reflective accessories as she doesn't need the hassle in the schoolyard. I don't imagine she is unique and if we want our most risk-taking cyclists to be seen then they've got to have no choice in the matter. That can't be done through legislating clothing, because unnecessarily bringing rebellious youngsters into contact with the law has poor outcomes. So it has got to be done on the bike they buy.
gdt
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:36 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Would cyclists rather be injured than uncool?

Postby jet-ski » Fri Dec 09, 2011 11:58 am

gdt, not really sure what standards you are quoting, but it's a pretty easy 'problem' to solve - if you want her bike to be more reflective, get some reflective tape off ebay and go to town!
Xtracycle, Surly Long Haul Trucker, Bike Friday New World Tourist, Giant TCR, 9:zero:7
http://www.perthcyclist.net/blog
User avatar
jet-ski
 
Posts: 1404
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 4:51 pm
Location: Perth WA

Re: Would cyclists rather be injured than uncool?

Postby twizzle » Fri Dec 09, 2011 12:26 pm

Oxford wrote:
myforwik wrote:70% of collision involving bicycles are the fault of the cyclist. So high visibility won't help that much.

I have ridden along time in hi-vis and changed to non hi-vis. With hi-vis people pick you up *to quickly* and completely misjudge your speed. I have had people pull out in front of me constantly while wearing high-vis and never where I am wearing all black. I don't know.

the MUARC studies actually suggest nearly 90% of collisions involving cyclists and motor vehicles are the fault of the motor vehicle driver.

No. The helmet camera study showed a high percentage of people riding with helmet cameras were not at fault in accidents, but they are not representative of the general population. (Although, based on my riding experience, I would expect that number would be similar for the general population as well). But there is another Australian study somewhere (can't find via simple search) that investigated cause of death for bicycle accidents and something like 60% of the cyclists killed were at fault.


You may now all return to your normal viewing....

... myopic as it appears.

:P
I ride, therefore I am.
...real cyclists don't have squeaky chains...
User avatar
twizzle
 
Posts: 6382
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:45 am
Location: Taking a break.

Re: Would cyclists rather be injured than uncool?

Postby Oxford » Fri Dec 09, 2011 12:54 pm

twizzle wrote:
Oxford wrote:
myforwik wrote:70% of collision involving bicycles are the fault of the cyclist. So high visibility won't help that much.

I have ridden along time in hi-vis and changed to non hi-vis. With hi-vis people pick you up *to quickly* and completely misjudge your speed. I have had people pull out in front of me constantly while wearing high-vis and never where I am wearing all black. I don't know.

the MUARC studies actually suggest nearly 90% of collisions involving cyclists and motor vehicles are the fault of the motor vehicle driver.

No. The helmet camera study showed a high percentage of people riding with helmet cameras were not at fault in accidents, but they are not representative of the general population. (Although, based on my riding experience, I would expect that number would be similar for the general population as well). But there is another Australian study somewhere (can't find via simple search) that investigated cause of death for bicycle accidents and something like 60% of the cyclists killed were at fault.


You may now all return to your normal viewing....

... myopic as it appears.

:P

Yes but who investigated it, were they impartial? I'm afraid if it was the trusty boys in blue, then its not worth the paper its written on as they have a vested interest to find the easiest answer to close the file and often that means not running a "proper" investigation and looking at "all the facts".

my somewhat myopic view based on my experiences of the lack of initiative and desire by the law enforcement lads who seem to not want to enforce all the laws equally.
I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong.
User avatar
Oxford
 
Posts: 5493
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 1:49 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Would cyclists rather be injured than uncool?

Postby Aushiker » Sat Dec 10, 2011 4:00 pm

Hi

The only studies I am aware of are

Henley, G. & Harrison, J. E. (2009). Serious injury due to land transport accidents, Australia 2006–07. (Injury Research and Statistics Series Number 53). Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.

which does not attribute blame

and there is a Federal report on road crashes which I cannot locate now :( I Have linked to it before in the forums so maybe someone has the details?

Edit: Found it. The reference is:

Australian Transport Safety Bureau (2006). Deaths of cyclists due to road crashes. Canberra, ACT: Australian Transport Safety Bureau

Andrew
.
User avatar
Aushiker
 
Posts: 20565
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:55 pm
Location: Fremantle, WA

Re: Would cyclists rather be injured than uncool?

Postby KenGS » Sat Dec 10, 2011 8:48 pm

twizzle wrote:
Oxford wrote:
myforwik wrote:70% of collision involving bicycles are the fault of the cyclist. So high visibility won't help that much.

I have ridden along time in hi-vis and changed to non hi-vis. With hi-vis people pick you up *to quickly* and completely misjudge your speed. I have had people pull out in front of me constantly while wearing high-vis and never where I am wearing all black. I don't know.

the MUARC studies actually suggest nearly 90% of collisions involving cyclists and motor vehicles are the fault of the motor vehicle driver.

No. The helmet camera study showed a high percentage of people riding with helmet cameras were not at fault in accidents, but they are not representative of the general population. (Although, based on my riding experience, I would expect that number would be similar for the general population as well). But there is another Australian study somewhere (can't find via simple search) that investigated cause of death for bicycle accidents and something like 60% of the cyclists killed were at fault.


You may now all return to your normal viewing....

... myopic as it appears.

:P

There is a report from Queensland http://eprints.qut.edu.au/34208/
From 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2008, there were 6328 crashes reported to police involving bicycles and motor vehicles, comprising 93.4% of police reported bicycle crashes. The bicyclist was deemed the at-fault vehicle in 2809 instances (44.4%). Younger cyclists (16 years or younger) and elderly cyclists (80+) were more likely to be the at-fault unit, while cyclists aged 30-69 were at fault in less than 30% of bicycle-motor vehicle crashes

Note the higher number of "cyclist at fault" for younger and older riders.
The role of traffic violations as contributing factors changed according to the unit at-fault (see Figure 4). When the motorist is at-fault, traffic violations were recorded in 85.4% of crashes and driver conditions were recorded for 16.4% of crashes. When the cyclist is at-fault, traffic violations were recorded in only 28.1% of bicycle-motor vehicle crashes.

and
For crashes where the bicyclist is at-fault, the most frequently recorded traffic violations are: "disobey traffic light" (6.4%); "fail to keep left" (5.1%); and "fail to give way" (4.7%). The contributing factors most likely to be indicated when a cyclist is the at-fault vehicle are: inattention/negligence (34.7%) or inexperience/lack of expertise (26.5%).
--Ken
Helmets! Bells! Rego!
User avatar
KenGS
 
Posts: 1463
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:31 pm
Location: Rosanna, Victoria

Re: Would cyclists rather be injured than uncool?

Postby Oxford » Sun Dec 11, 2011 6:10 am

From 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2008, there were 6328 crashes reported to police involving bicycles and motor vehicles,...

there's the rub, this only includes the incidents reported to police, how many incidents were not reported, did not have significantly adverse outcomes requiring investigation, but were the fault of the motorist? or the cyclist? this is where the MUARC study uncovered that many incidents were avoided by cyclists and their raised awareness, that were the doing of the motorist. I'm not going to disagree that some cyclists come off second best and often it is probably the fault of the cyclist, but there are many unreported incidents. when I was cycle commuting, I avoided plenty of incidents daily due to my own spatial awareness, that were 100% the fault of motorists breaching their requirements such as giving way, trying to bully other road users etc etc.
I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong.
User avatar
Oxford
 
Posts: 5493
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 1:49 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Would cyclists rather be injured than uncool?

Postby Aushiker » Sun Dec 11, 2011 12:07 pm

Oxford wrote:
From 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2008, there were 6328 crashes reported to police involving bicycles and motor vehicles,...

there's the rub, this only includes the incidents reported to police, how many incidents were not reported, did not have significantly adverse outcomes requiring investigation, but were the fault of the motorist? or the cyclist? this is where the MUARC study uncovered that many incidents were avoided by cyclists and their raised awareness, that were the doing of the motorist. I'm not going to disagree that some cyclists come off second best and often it is probably the fault of the cyclist, but there are many unreported incidents. when I was cycle commuting, I avoided plenty of incidents daily due to my own spatial awareness, that were 100% the fault of motorists breaching their requirements such as giving way, trying to bully other road users etc etc.


Good points. I for one will no longer reports incidents to the South Metropolitan District of the WA Police as it is a waste of time. I wonder how many others are now doing the same. Given past letters to the local paper I suspect there are few.

Andrew
User avatar
Aushiker
 
Posts: 20565
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:55 pm
Location: Fremantle, WA

Previous

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



Popular Bike Shops
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Ebay Ebay AU
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK

“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter

> FREE BNA Stickers