Behind the nation's road toll are the injured

[redsonic]

Interesting article on ABC News showing how we currently have no way to measure the number of people injured in motor vehicle crashes nationally.


Dr Ali Abdelhamid:

"Obviously it's extremely tragic when someone loses their life unnecessarily on the roads, but what we see here in the hospital, in the Intensive Care Unit, are the patients who are living with the complications of their trauma," she says.

[elantra]

Yes quite thought-provoking.

The ABC News article that you linked states :
“ in the 12 months to November 2023, 1,253 people died. The total number of people killed on Australian roads in 2023 will be released on Monday.
But there are currently no national statistics on how many people were seriously injured in 2023.

The peak body for Australia’s road traffic and transport agencies, Austroads, has said robust national data has been a crucial information gap in the work to reduce road trauma in Australia.

The Australian institute of Health and Welfare will release a report on injuries for the 2022-2023 financial year in the middle of 2024, but there are variations in how data is collected
Each state and territory is responsible for collecting it’s own figures, but Austroads says inconsistency in the way they measure crashes and injuries makes it difficult to study how and why crashes occur, where they occur and the injuries that are caused “


As a tool for perspective and- dare I say- measurements of chronological changes (perhaps), I was able to “dig up” the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare publication in 1996.

This AIHW report tabulated data on Road injury hospital admissions in all Australian states EXCEPT QUEENSLAND, for the calendar year 1991.

In that year, they counted almost 25,000 hospital admissions for injured Motor car/truck occupants, motorcycle riders, bicycle riders and pedestrians.
As stated above, these figures exclude Queensland, so the total national figure for that year (1991) would likely have been getting up towards 30,000.

Many of this number would have been people with severe injuries, requiring multiple operations and long periods of hospitalisation.
Some of this number would have ended up with severe permanent disabilities.

Yes, I suspect that there are more recent figures available through the efforts of the AIHW, but I also suspect that these would similarly be incomplete and questionable due to the lack of a nationally consistent approach to data collection

[bychosis]

Might change a few peoples thinking of the numbers are bumped up from 1200 (not many out of 25mil) to include injuries. 30,000 is a lot.

[elantra]

Might change a few peoples thinking of the numbers are bumped up from 1200 (not many out of 25mil) to include injuries. 30,000 is a lot.

Yes, but these sorts of non-fatality figures don’t get our governments worked up, it is not a sexy topic with lots of social media debate and pressure groups to exert political pressure.

AND that ball-park number- 30,000 - does not include the “walking wounded” who attend Emergency departments and do not require admission to a hospital ward.

NOR does it include many other common types of presentation to health care professionals :

Here are just 2 examples

Example 1.
Young bloke has a bit of a crash while riding his pushbike to Uni. He had to brake and swerve suddenly to avoid a car that didn’t give way

He thinks he’s OK apart from a few scratches, but at Uni lectures he notices that his wrist is getting awfully sore as the day progresses.

So he catches a bus to the big hospital ED which is not far from Uni.
After a few hours he has been seen and has had a scan done.
He waits bit longer for the scan result .
The report says something like “suspected undisplaced fracture of the Scaphoid bone In wrist, recommend further investigation with MRI scan within 72 hours”

The Emergency Department junior doctor looks at report and says something like “sugar, that’s not something that I can organise from here tonight - go and see your GP in the morning”

So Uni student tries to book appointment online to see GP. But there are no appointments available for 3 weeks.
So he rings up the health advisory number and is advised that he will have to return to the ED for further management.
So that he does, and if he managed to see the same young doc from the night before, perhaps the doc will have learned that it is probable a dumb thing to tell patients to “go and see your GP in the morning”

Example 2.
bloke stops his car for amber light but car behind does not and shunts into his car from behind.
No big dramas, it was a Toyota Yaris, not a Mack truck. Details are exchanging etc.

But the next day our bloke wakes up with a stiff, sore neck. It’s verging on agony.
There’s no way he can go to work with this fairly typical whiplash type neck sprain.
His employer gives him the very useful (not) advice to go and see his GP and get a medical certificate!
So he goes to GP clinic and the Receptionist sees that he is in agony and squeezes him in to see GP straight away.
He gets his med cert for a few days and a script for some analgesics and is told to come back if not getting better quickly
He does get better but not that quickly so a week later he sees GP again and gets referred to a Physio
Another week or 2 later he’s heaps better, but still has to see GP again to get a report as he wants to make a claim against the other drivers CTP insurance.

Apologies if all of this is a bit long winded but so is the aftermath of Road trauma, even if it isn’t that serious in the greater scheme of things

[bychosis]

Agree that it’s not report worthy for minor injuries etc but media etc all talk about fatalities which seriously understate the impact of car crashes. Part of the conversation about road safety needs to move to crash injuries and damage. Not sure how widespread but the latest anti speeding ads in NSW are showing living trauma victims.

We’re sorta used to fatalities being low and somewhat rare. Local news tends to record local fatalities or report on significant crashes where there are multiple. it’s time for a different tack.

[familyguy]

Might change a few peoples thinking of the numbers are bumped up from 1200 (not many out of 25mil) to include injuries. 30,000 is a lot.

I have had this discussion with people who watch shows like 24 Hours in Emergency/Kings Cross ER/etc. who say "they sure bring in a lot of people getting hit by cars on a bike, must be dangerous!" No mention made of the people bought in via falling off a horse or a ladder, the occasional stabbing, an overdose or three, elderly people having falls, etc.

My usual response is "if they highlighted car crash injuries resulting in emergency admissions, you'd fill the show with that and nothing else would get a look in". Blank stares. 30,000 doesn't surprise me one bit.

[find_bruce]

I have had this discussion with people who watch shows like 24 Hours in Emergency/Kings Cross ER/etc. who say "they sure bring in a lot of people getting hit by cars on a bike, must be dangerous!" No mention made of the people bought in via falling off a horse or a ladder, the occasional stabbing, an overdose or three, elderly people having falls, etc.

My usual response is "if they highlighted car crash injuries resulting in emergency admissions, you'd fill the show with that and nothing else would get a look in". Blank stares. 30,000 doesn't surprise me one bit.

The other approach I often ask is how many people die an early death due to a lack of exercise?

[bychosis]

I have had this discussion with people who watch shows like 24 Hours in Emergency/Kings Cross ER/etc. who say "they sure bring in a lot of people getting hit by cars on a bike, must be dangerous!" No mention made of the people bought in via falling off a horse or a ladder, the occasional stabbing, an overdose or three, elderly people having falls, etc

those that watch all those shows/figures also have no real idea on how many riders etc don’t get injured.

And what frequency do they find objective? 1200 car fatalities is too high, 30,000 (estimated) injuries as well. How many cyclists? How many ladder users?

[warthog1]

The other approach I often ask is how many people die an early death due to a lack of exercise?

[familyguy]

I have had this discussion with people who watch shows like 24 Hours in Emergency/Kings Cross ER/etc. who say "they sure bring in a lot of people getting hit by cars on a bike, must be dangerous!" No mention made of the people bought in via falling off a horse or a ladder, the occasional stabbing, an overdose or three, elderly people having falls, etc

those that watch all those shows/figures also have no real idea on how many riders etc don’t get injured.

And what frequency do they find objective? 1200 car fatalities is too high, 30,000 (estimated) injuries as well. How many cyclists? How many ladder users?

No idea, as it never reaches that philosophical a discussion point. There is, however, a distinct out-grouping from one group of friends as I am the only guy who rides among them. All their teenage kids ride places, but they don't seem to equate me with them. I have once resorted to asking who knows someone killed in a car crash and do they let that slide just as easily? When I respond that I know one guy killed by an inattentive driver (as distinct from a vindictive driver) and 3 people who have ended up in hospital through a combination of those two forms, they seem to shut up or change the subject. Which I don't mind, as long as they look out and take care around riders of any status.

[warthog1]

elderly people having falls, etc.

Far more common than road trauma.

May and Nancy are among the 70,000 Triple Zero (000) calls made in Victoria last year for an elderly person who had fallen.

https://www.ambulance.vic.gov.au/not-just-a-fall/

[Thoglette]

The other approach I often ask is how many people die an early death due to a lack of exercise?

It’ll come as no surprise that the Dutch actually track this. I posted some recent numbers hereabouts last year. The thing that stuck was more than an extra year of life expectancy due to cycling across the whole population.

[elantra]

Might change a few peoples thinking of the numbers are bumped up from 1200 (not many out of 25mil) to include injuries. 30,000 is a lot.

I have had this discussion with people who watch shows like 24 Hours in Emergency/Kings Cross ER/etc. who say "they sure bring in a lot of people getting hit by cars on a bike, must be dangerous!" No mention made of the people bought in via falling off a horse or a ladder, the occasional stabbing, an overdose or three, elderly people having falls, etc.

My usual response is "if they highlighted car crash injuries resulting in emergency admissions, you'd fill the show with that and nothing else would get a look in". Blank stares. 30,000 doesn't surprise me one bit.

The figures from the 1996 AIHW (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare) publication give an undistorted picture of the relative number of hospital admissions of bicyclists and motorists - admittedly for the year 1991 but I doubt if things have changed radically since then.
In that year : bicyclists were 16 percent of road crash hospital admissions and car/truck occupants 53 percent of admissions.
The rest of course were pedestrians, 14 percent, and motorcyclists, 17 percent.

AIHW 1996 publication states :

Only 0.5 percent of bicyclist injuries are critical, compared with 2.8 percent of pedestrian injuries, the group with the highest such incidence.
In increasing order, the proportion of serious, severe or critical injuries are : bicyclists 13 percent, vehicle occupants 24 percent, motorcyclists 29 percent, and pedestrians 33 percent

[antigee]

my impression is that the higher death rate on the roads is often associated with high speed collisions on rural roads so was surprised to read the end piece in this article:

https://www.drive.com.au/news/australia ... d-in-2023/

"While fatalities occurring in areas with posted speed limits of between 60 and 110km/h were down, those in speed limit areas of 50km/h increased by 21 per cent, while deaths within 40km/h speed limits or below grew by 62 per cent year-on-year.

or maybe not? possibly just press bias...reporting on the badly done by rural drivers and ignoring/dismissing pedestrian deaths in metro areas?

meanwhile the Xmas/New Year policing produced the usual alarming number of drivers with suspended or no permit:

https://www.drive.com.au/news/nsw-victo ... -offences/

"Meanwhile 1728 unregistered vehicles were detected by Victorian authorities, as well as 704 unlicensed and 644 disqualified or suspended drivers....

Victoria Police also says it impounded 438 vehicles."

[redsonic]

"While fatalities occurring in areas with posted speed limits of between 60 and 110km/h were down, those in speed limit areas of 50km/h increased by 21 per cent, while deaths within 40km/h speed limits or below grew by 62 per cent year-on-year.

You would think that the majority of deaths in zones posted 40 or below would be vulnerable road users. It is hard to imagine a passenger/driver of a modern car dying in a collision at that speed. Or else, they are going way faster than the posted speed limit.

[redsonic]

There is an article in the Conversation about the alarming upward trend in road deaths which seems to contradict Antigee's linked quote:

https://www.drive.com.au/news/australia ... d-in-2023/
"While fatalities occurring in areas with posted speed limits of between 60 and 110km/h were down, those in speed limit areas of 50km/h increased by 21 per cent, while deaths within 40km/h speed limits or below grew by 62 per cent year-on-year.

The Conversation article states that

Across Australia, the number of fatal crashes in 60–70 km/h zones has been rising, from 241 associated deaths in 2020 to 315 in 2022. Speeding is likely to play a role, but it’s unclear to what extent.
Also:
Remote and regional roads still pose a significantly higher risk of death, relative to their population. The road death risk is about six times higher in outer regional areas and nine times higher in remote areas compared to major cities.

And, 40kph speed limit deaths don't seem to be increasing:



Strange how statistics can say opposite things.....

[elantra]

There is an article in the Conversation about the alarming upward trend in road deaths which seems to contradict Antigee's linked quote:

https://www.drive.com.au/news/australia ... d-in-2023/
"While fatalities occurring in areas with posted speed limits of between 60 and 110km/h were down, those in speed limit areas of 50km/h increased by 21 per cent, while deaths within 40km/h speed limits or below grew by 62 per cent year-on-year.

The Conversation article states that

Across Australia, the number of fatal crashes in 60–70 km/h zones has been rising, from 241 associated deaths in 2020 to 315 in 2022. Speeding is likely to play a role, but it’s unclear to what extent.
Also:
Remote and regional roads still pose a significantly higher risk of death, relative to their population. The road death risk is about six times higher in outer regional areas and nine times higher in remote areas compared to major cities.

And, 40kph speed limit deaths don't seem to be increasing:



Strange how statistics can say opposite things.....

I can see that fundamentally, the “Drive” article is comparing 2023 figures with 2022.
Whereas the “Conversation” article is comparing 2022 with prior years.

And I would agree that it is entirely possible for statistics to show a significant disparity if not comparing the same years.

Remote and Regional roads unfortunately have ALWAYS had a significantly higher per capita fatality rate.
The reasons are fairly obvious, people drive longer distances over roads that usually have a “speed limit” of 100 km/hr.
And these roads sometimes have rural-specific hazards like Roos, Livestock, and a higher risk of fatigue and perhaps speeding.
And when things go wrong it’s further away from the Tertiary hospitals.

On the East Coast there are lots of people travelling on 100 km/hr roads which have a “lower than average” serious incident rate because they are divided roads - or so congested a lot of the time that vehicles cannot get up to much velocity

In recent years the Motorways between Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane have very greatly reduced the possibility of vehicles having head on collisions.

[Duck!]

There is an article in the Conversation about the alarming upward trend in road deaths which seems to contradict Antigee's linked quote:

https://www.drive.com.au/news/australia ... d-in-2023/
"While fatalities occurring in areas with posted speed limits of between 60 and 110km/h were down, those in speed limit areas of 50km/h increased by 21 per cent, while deaths within 40km/h speed limits or below grew by 62 per cent year-on-year.

The Conversation article states that

Across Australia, the number of fatal crashes in 60–70 km/h zones has been rising, from 241 associated deaths in 2020 to 315 in 2022. Speeding is likely to play a role, but it’s unclear to what extent.
Also:
Remote and regional roads still pose a significantly higher risk of death, relative to their population. The road death risk is about six times higher in outer regional areas and nine times higher in remote areas compared to major cities.

And, 40kph speed limit deaths don't seem to be increasing:



Strange how statistics can say opposite things.....

Point for thought.... That graph shows a considerable increase in fatal incidents in the 60-70km/h zones since 2020. Potentially a result of much worse driving ability on display post-lockdowns, which many of us here have observed.

[jasonc]

Point for thought.... That graph shows a considerable increase in fatal incidents in the 60-70km/h zones since 2020. Potentially a result of much worse driving ability on display post-lockdowns, which many of us here have observed.

what about the reduction of speed limits of roads from 80 to 70 (and 70 to 60)? I know Qld do it a lot

[zebee]

Point for thought.... That graph shows a considerable increase in fatal incidents in the 60-70km/h zones since 2020. Potentially a result of much worse driving ability on display post-lockdowns, which many of us here have observed.

Seems to me that 60-70 streets are the ones that have more cars on them than any other kind so more chances for stupid crashes, and the higher speed means more chance of fatality?

Of course why the increase?

Would need to know type of crash and who died. Is this an increase in type of crash eg more spearing off the road compared to intersection crashes, or maybe type of intersection crash: more red light running. Are these impatience crashes or fail to see?

I saw a claim somewhere that at least in the US (which had a massive infection rate compared to Oz) that cognitive decline due to Covid might be part of it. That the nasty little thing causes inflammation and so damage everywhere including the brain.

[g-boaf]

If anyone is watching Channel 10 at the moment - the Ambulance Australia show, it's a scary reminder of how careful you have to be on a bike even when you have a green light.

He is riding again.

I kind of wish I had not watched that. I’m careful anyway, will be even more so.

[bychosis]

Saw the promos but didn't watch. Each time the promo cameon I was thinking I didn't want my partner to see it while knowing I ride roads a bit.

[g-boaf]

That unfortunately reinforces the belief that bikes have no place on or near roads (or crossing them with a green light for that matter).

I'm very careful when crossing roads at lights even when I do have a green light because you never know when a car is going to come flying along through the red light, even if other lanes of traffic are stopped. That happens very frequently at a crossing near where I live.

[bychosis]

That unfortunately reinforces the belief that bikes have no place on or near roads (or crossing them with a green light for that matter).

Yes. It's an unfortunate double edged sword for a message. On one hand, it serves as a warning to motorists that cyclists are extremely vulnerableso drovers shlukd tale extra caution, but the more likely scenario is the message gets interpreted as "dont ride on the roads or you'll die"

[AdelaidePeter]

If anyone is watching Channel 10 at the moment - the Ambulance Australia show, it's a scary reminder of how careful you have to be on a bike even when you have a green light.

He is riding again.

I kind of wish I had not watched that. I’m careful anyway, will be even more so.

What happened?