Unlit cyclists face greater injury risk study finds

User avatar
Aushiker
Posts: 21675
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:55 pm
Location: Fremantle, WA
Contact:

Unlit cyclists face greater injury risk study finds

Postby Aushiker » Fri Jul 27, 2012 4:23 pm

CYCLISTS riding without bike lights are three times more likely to be seriously injured in a crash than those who are lit up, a major study of cycling crashes in Melbourne has found.
The study also found that almost half the crashes in which the rider was hospitalised involved a blow to the head, with cyclists who were travelling faster than 30km/h five times more likely to receive a head injury than slower riders.
The crash statistics are contained in a 12-month study of 158 cyclists who were admitted to The Alfred and Sandringham hospitals between December 2010 and November 2011.


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/unlit ... z21nkbGW6J
Andrew
~ Aushiker.com

zero
Posts: 3018
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 2:54 pm

Re: Unlit cyclists face greater injury risk study finds

Postby zero » Fri Jul 27, 2012 7:06 pm

For those interested in the study.
http://www.monash.edu.au/miri/research/ ... arc311.pdf

The reporting on the study in that article is a crime against statistics worthy of having the reporter taken somewhere quiet and shot.


Whilst I'll defer to the predictive capability in their model of a light being fitted compared to injury severity, IMO they are detecting the correlation amongst incautious users who take minimal precautions (which may include obstacle and traffic management as well as equipment condition), and non light users.

User avatar
foo on patrol
Posts: 5824
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 11:12 am
Location: Sanstone Point QLD

Re: Unlit cyclists face greater injury risk study finds

Postby foo on patrol » Sat Jul 28, 2012 7:25 pm

Umm without stating the bleeding obvious, if you're not seen, then of course your odds are greater! :roll:

Foo
I don't suffer fools easily and so long as you have done your best,you should have no regrets.
Goal 6000km
Image

maestro
Posts: 153
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 1:06 pm

Re: Unlit cyclists face greater injury risk study finds

Postby maestro » Mon Jul 30, 2012 5:57 pm

zero wrote:For those interested in the study.
http://www.monash.edu.au/miri/research/ ... arc311.pdf


one rider collided with another rider who was being pursued by police, also on bicycles, apparently for not wearing a helmet.

:lol:

User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
Posts: 5769
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:58 pm

Re: Unlit cyclists face greater injury risk study finds

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Mon Jul 30, 2012 10:09 pm

zero wrote:For those interested in the study.
http://www.monash.edu.au/miri/research/ ... arc311.pdf

The reporting on the study in that article is a crime against statistics worthy of having the reporter taken somewhere quiet and shot.


Whilst I'll defer to the predictive capability in their model of a light being fitted compared to injury severity, IMO they are detecting the correlation amongst incautious users who take minimal precautions (which may include obstacle and traffic management as well as equipment condition), and non light users.


"Crime against statistics"? Why is it wrong to report this? As you almost indicate they are not saying cause and effect, they are simply alluding to a correlation so you have appently read their conclusions. It is YOU who have then gone beyond what is in evidence in this modest study to append your own opinion, unsupported at this time by any explanation or data. Give them a break Zero, this is a GOOD thing.

It would be wrong to NOT report such data if it is available and can be done easily. It all adds to what is available to other researchers. (And to opinionated bicyclists and unicyclists. :mrgreen: )
Unchain yourself-Ride a unicycle
Image

User avatar
KenGS
Posts: 1474
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:31 pm
Location: Rosanna, Victoria

Re: Unlit cyclists face greater injury risk study finds

Postby KenGS » Mon Jul 30, 2012 10:17 pm

49% of all riders were 180cm or more in height. 64% of men were 180cm or taller.
But for some reason there is no commentary on that
--Ken
Helmets! Bells! Rego!

User avatar
wurtulla wabbit
Posts: 513
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 8:08 pm

Re: Unlit cyclists face greater injury risk study finds

Postby wurtulla wabbit » Mon Jul 30, 2012 10:39 pm

Air is thinner up there and less brain function.

Think there should be banning night riding now.

User avatar
il padrone
Posts: 22847
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Unlit cyclists face greater injury risk study finds

Postby il padrone » Mon Jul 30, 2012 11:07 pm

Mandatory lights on all bicycles.....................................


Oh....... we've already got that :oops:
Mandatory helmet law?
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."

User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 28379
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: Unlit cyclists face greater injury risk study finds

Postby Mulger bill » Mon Jul 30, 2012 11:24 pm

News just in:
Scientific study reports higher survival rates amongst skydivers who use parachutes instead of gossamer wings...
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011

User avatar
wurtulla wabbit
Posts: 513
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 8:08 pm

Re: Unlit cyclists face greater injury risk study finds

Postby wurtulla wabbit » Mon Jul 30, 2012 11:36 pm

Haha, gossamer, that makes me giggle as that was a "model " of johnny bags when I was younger ! :D

Have gossamer cranks on my avanti too :D

zero
Posts: 3018
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 2:54 pm

Re: Unlit cyclists face greater injury risk study finds

Postby zero » Wed Aug 01, 2012 1:10 am

ColinOldnCranky wrote:"Crime against statistics"? Why is it wrong to report this? As you almost indicate they are not saying cause and effect, they are simply alluding to a correlation so you have appently read their conclusions. It is YOU who have then gone beyond what is in evidence in this modest study to append your own opinion, unsupported at this time by any explanation or data. Give them a break Zero, this is a GOOD thing.


I've got nothing against the authors of the study, beyond the amusing theorising in the conclusion. The predictive power of their model I'm fine with, as that would fit many possible causes and does not appear to be an unreasonable model of the data they are using.

The reporter who wrote the age article however reported "CYCLISTS riding without bike lights are three times more likely to be seriously injured in a crash than those who are lit up, a major study of cycling crashes in Melbourne has found", which is an absurd statement. The study is limited to people that are injured in crashes to the extent of requiring hospitilisation, and does not cover any of the population of riders in Melbourne, or most importantly the population of riders in Melbourne who crashed, or the population of riders with lights. Even the majority of crashes in the dataset are single vehicle accidents in daylight without even another vehicle involved - which cannot be explained by any rational understanding of the bicycle light.

It would be wrong to NOT report such data if it is available and can be done easily. It all adds to what is available to other researchers. (And to opinionated bicyclists and unicyclists. :mrgreen: )

Nobody
Posts: 7732
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Unlit cyclists face greater injury risk study finds

Postby Nobody » Wed Aug 01, 2012 7:12 am

KenGS wrote:64% of men were 180cm or taller.
I think this has to do with taller men being heavier and so go down hill faster. Since the energy carried at speed is a velocity squared relationship, their own weight works against them so they end up crashing harder from a higher speed. This correlates to the old saying about the bigger they are, the harder they fall.

wurtulla wabbit wrote:Air is thinner up there and less brain function.
Taller people are generally more cognitively intelligent than short people at least one study has found. So no excuse there.

User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
Posts: 5769
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:58 pm

Re: Unlit cyclists face greater injury risk study finds

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Thu Aug 02, 2012 8:25 pm

zero wrote:
ColinOldnCranky wrote:"Crime against statistics"? Why is it wrong to report this? As you almost indicate they are not saying cause and effect, they are simply alluding to a correlation so you have appently read their conclusions. It is YOU who have then gone beyond what is in evidence in this modest study to append your own opinion, unsupported at this time by any explanation or data. Give them a break Zero, this is a GOOD thing.


I've got nothing against the authors of the study, beyond the amusing theorising in the conclusion. The predictive power of their model I'm fine with, as that would fit many possible causes and does not appear to be an unreasonable model of the data they are using.

The reporter who wrote the age article however reported "CYCLISTS riding without bike lights are three times more likely to be seriously injured in a crash than those who are lit up, a major study of cycling crashes in Melbourne has found", which is an absurd statement. The study is limited to people that are injured in crashes to the extent of requiring hospitilisation, and does not cover any of the population of riders in Melbourne, or most importantly the population of riders in Melbourne who crashed, or the population of riders with lights. Even the majority of crashes in the dataset are single vehicle accidents in daylight without even another vehicle involved - which cannot be explained by any rational understanding of the bicycle light.

It would be wrong to NOT report such data if it is available and can be done easily. It all adds to what is available to other researchers. (And to opinionated bicyclists and unicyclists. :mrgreen: )

Apologies - You clearly were talking of the hacks contribution which I misunderstood. And agreed, the sampling is one of convenience (the data simply existed) not of design. So data is useful, as all data is, but conclusions are going to be limited.
Unchain yourself-Ride a unicycle
Image

lethoso
Posts: 1565
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 7:56 pm
Location: brisbane, 4101

Re: Unlit cyclists face greater injury risk study finds

Postby lethoso » Fri Aug 03, 2012 9:31 pm

with cyclists who were travelling faster than 30km/h five times more likely to receive a head injury than slower riders.


Hah, so it is safe to roll down to the shops without a helmet then :D
Image

User avatar
il padrone
Posts: 22847
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Unlit cyclists face greater injury risk study finds

Postby il padrone » Fri Aug 03, 2012 9:52 pm

Safer.... by a fairly good measure.
Mandatory helmet law?
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."

User avatar
foo on patrol
Posts: 5824
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 11:12 am
Location: Sanstone Point QLD

Re: Unlit cyclists face greater injury risk study finds

Postby foo on patrol » Sat Aug 04, 2012 6:11 pm

Mulger bill wrote:News just in:
Scientific study reports higher survival rates amongst skydivers who use parachutes instead of gossamer wings...


Well, who'd have thunk that? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Foo
I don't suffer fools easily and so long as you have done your best,you should have no regrets.
Goal 6000km
Image

User avatar
il padrone
Posts: 22847
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Unlit cyclists face greater injury risk study finds

Postby il padrone » Sat Aug 04, 2012 6:25 pm

Gossamer wings :wink: :mrgreen:

Image
Mandatory helmet law?
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."

User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 28379
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: Unlit cyclists face greater injury risk study finds

Postby Mulger bill » Sat Aug 04, 2012 7:17 pm

OHEMGEE!!1!!! No parachute!!!

He's DOOMED!!!
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011

User avatar
KenGS
Posts: 1474
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:31 pm
Location: Rosanna, Victoria

Re: Unlit cyclists face greater injury risk study finds

Postby KenGS » Sat Aug 04, 2012 9:07 pm

Mulger bill wrote:OHEMGEE!!1!!! No parachute!!!

He's DOOMED!!!

Almost as reckless at the two following him - WITHOUT <you know what>!!!!!!

Edit: Got carried away in a fit of outrage and mentioned the unmentionable :P
--Ken
Helmets! Bells! Rego!

User avatar
il padrone
Posts: 22847
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Unlit cyclists face greater injury risk study finds

Postby il padrone » Sat Aug 04, 2012 9:24 pm

Wearing the old classic Bell Biker - essential for pedal-powered flight :mrgreen:

Image
Mandatory helmet law?
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."

GraemeL
Posts: 1290
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 4:47 pm
Location: Perth

Re: Unlit cyclists face greater injury risk study finds

Postby GraemeL » Mon Aug 20, 2012 8:52 am

Aushiker wrote:[i]
CYCLISTS riding without bike lights are three times more likely to be seriously injured in a crash than those who are lit up, a major study of cycling crashes in Melbourne has found.


And they needed to do a study for 12 months to realise that? What a waste of money.

Graeme
***Looking For Information About Bicycle Cameras ***

* Bicycle Camera FAQ's *** Mounting FAQ’s & DIY Mounts *

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users