Unlit cyclists face greater injury risk study finds

[Aushiker]

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

[zero]

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.

[foo on patrol]

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

Foo

[maestro]

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.

[ColinOldnCranky]

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. )

[KenGS]

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

[wurtulla wabbit]

Air is thinner up there and less brain function.

Think there should be banning night riding now.

[il padrone]

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


Oh....... we've already got that

[Mulger bill]

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

[wurtulla wabbit]

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

Have gossamer cranks on my avanti too

[zero]

"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. )

[Nobody]

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.

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.

[ColinOldnCranky]

"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. )

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.

[lethoso]

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

[il padrone]

Safer.... by a fairly good measure.

[foo on patrol]

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

Well, who'd have thunk that?

Foo

[il padrone]

Gossamer wings

[Mulger bill]

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

He's DOOMED!!!

[KenGS]

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

[il padrone]

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

[GraemeL]

[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