Any statistics on how to get hurt?

There's some very detailed stuff about accidents in London 2003 here:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/streets/downloads/pdf/LRSR/Topic_Factsheets/Pedal-Cyclist-Casualties-04-05.pdf

e.g. for accidents involving another vehicle where the cyclist was severely
injured or killed

10% (the most common conflict) involved the door of the other vehicle being
opened into the path of the P/C and the cyclist either hitting it or
swerving to avoid it

9% involved the P/C riding off the footway into the path of another vehicle

9% involved the other vehicle turning right across the path of the P/C

9% involved the other vehicle turning left across the path of the P/C.

"lifeisgood" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

slightly following on from the sustainable transport plan thread, does
anyone know of a reliable study on bike accidents and their causes -
for example 15% of hospitalisations from cars pulling out from side
roads, 15% from cars hitting from behind, 30% car doors etc etc.

I can only find general stuff - nice to say yeah wear a helmet but not
quite detailed enough to worry more about cars behind me or pot holes
in front of me.

cheers

I've been reading the survey I found earlier. Here's an interesting
snippet:

The top accident contributory factor,
assigned to collisions resulting in 14% of
P/C casualties was 'Disobeyed Stop or
Give Way sign or marking'. However, the
top vehicle contributory factor (56%) was
'going ahead normally', i.e. the pedal
cycle was not deemed to have caused
the collision. Only 2% of P/C casualties
were recorded as disobeying a Stop or
Give Way sign thus implying that in the
majority of cases, where a junction
control was disobeyed, it was the other
vehicle that failed to stop or give way.

lifeisgood said:

slightly following on from the sustainable transport plan thread, does
anyone know of a reliable study on bike accidents and their causes -
for example 15% of hospitalisations from cars pulling out from side
roads, 15% from cars hitting from behind, 30% car doors etc etc.

Don't know, however one thing that is reckoned to be a reliable start to
not being an RTA stat yourself is read, digest and act on "Cyclecraft"
by John Franklin, publisher: The Stationery Office Books, ISBN: 0117020516

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

You've got me interested now. Here's another good one. The biggest danger
in Oxford and Cambridge seems to be skidding on metal manhole covers.

http://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/index/travel/cycle/cyclingsurvey.htm

in message <[email hidden]>,

lifeisgood (') said:

slightly following on from the sustainable transport plan thread, does
anyone know of a reliable study on bike accidents and their causes -
for example 15% of hospitalisations from cars pulling out from side
roads, 15% from cars hitting from behind, 30% car doors etc etc.

I can only find general stuff - nice to say yeah wear a helmet but not
quite detailed enough to worry more about cars behind me or pot holes
in front of me.

Once you've read the detailed stuff you probably won't wear a helmet much
of the time.

Some useful studies:
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/riskfactors.htm
http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/publications/bicycle_motor-vehicle/index.htm
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/321/7276/1582
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/Web/public.nsf/Documents/Brain_Injury_Mechanisms

Raw statistics:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=7250&Pos=&ColRank=1&Rank=272
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/sectionhomepage/dft_transstats_page.hcsp

Other sources of links:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
.::;===r==\
/ /___||___\____
//==\- ||- | /__\( MS Windows IS an operating environment.
//____\__||___|_// \|: C++ IS an object oriented programming language.
\__/ ~~~~~~~~~ \__/ Citroen 2cv6 IS a four door family saloon.

lifeisgood said:

slightly following on from the sustainable transport plan thread, does

Figures from Transport for London over the last few years are in a report
on their website.
I referenced it to uk.rec.cycling a few months ago - do a Google Groups
search on my name, plus TfL.
Or simply go to the TfL site and look through their press releases for
the last few months.

"POHB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

There's some very detailed stuff about accidents in London 2003 here:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/streets/downloads/pdf/LRSR/Topic_Factsheets/Pedal-Cyclist-Casualties-04-05.pdf

e.g. for accidents involving another vehicle where the cyclist was
severely injured or killed

10% (the most common conflict) involved the door of the other vehicle
being opened into the path of the P/C and the cyclist either hitting it or
swerving to avoid it

9% involved the P/C riding off the footway into the path of another
vehicle

9% involved the other vehicle turning right across the path of the P/C

9% involved the other vehicle turning left across the path of the P/C.

The first one is pretty easy to avoid, the second one is pure stupidity
(darwin award), the third one is the one that scares me most, and the last
one is fairly easily avoided by defensive positioning.

So it seems that going ahead normally (or Going ahead other for DTI) is
the worst, followed by junctions, whereas in palo alto it is junctions.

And in most cases it seems it is not the cyclists fault.

Great. When I am flying through the air it will be a comfort to know I
am not liable.

The most interesting part for me was

These results suggest that urban roadway design-not only bikeway
design-must take into account that intersections, construed broadly,
are the major point of conflict between bicycles and motor vehicles.
Separation of bicy­cles and motor vehicles leads to blind conflicts at
these intersections. It also encourages wrong-way travel, both on
sidewalks or paths and on the roadway at either end, further increasing
conflicts. Shared use of the roadway in the same direction of travel
leads to fewer conflicts and fewer accidents.

http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/riskfactors.htm

I am coming to agree with this - I am nice and happy on a cycle path in
say camden, but getting on and off them is terrifying. The only places
I feel safe are the big wide roads around Regents park - even then some
idiot pull out too fast.

So is the cycle movement to vote for big wide roads through london.?
Seems like foxes voting for hunting bills :-)

lifeisgood said:

So it seems that going ahead normally (or Going ahead other for DTI) is
the worst, followed by junctions, whereas in palo alto it is junctions.

And in most cases it seems it is not the cyclists fault.

Great. When I am flying through the air it will be a comfort to know I
am not liable.

It's not quite that bad. There are ways (1) to maximise the chance
that they'll see you and (2) to turn collisions into near-misses.

The most obvious example is cycling far enough from parked cars that
opening doors can't get you.

Quoted message said:

These results suggest that urban roadway design-not only bikeway
design-must take into account that intersections, construed broadly,
are the major point of conflict between bicycles and motor vehicles.
Separation of bicy­cles and motor vehicles leads to blind conflicts at
these intersections. It also encourages wrong-way travel, both on
sidewalks or paths and on the roadway at either end, further increasing
conflicts. Shared use of the roadway in the same direction of travel
leads to fewer conflicts and fewer accidents.

Yup, that's the consensus among those who think straight.

Quoted message said:

So is the cycle movement to vote for big wide roads through london.?
Seems like foxes voting for hunting bills :-)

Not quite. But roads wide enough for motor vehicles to pass bikes
easily, but not so wide that they form two lanes, are generally the
fastest and most pleasant to ride on. Overall width typically 9-10
metres. Unfortunately most of these roads have now been spoilt by any
or all of:
- squeezing in bus lanes
- central islands to create pinch points
- random parked motor vehicles

Colin McKenzie

"Colin McKenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

... roads wide enough for motor vehicles to pass bikes easily, but not so
wide that they form two lanes, are generally the fastest and most pleasant
to ride on. Overall width typically 9-10 metres. Unfortunately most of
these roads have now been spoilt by any or all of:
- squeezing in bus lanes
- central islands to create pinch points
- random parked motor vehicles

In a few places creating a cycle lane stops the motors forming two lanes.
The Uxbridge Road in Acton used to be just about wide enough for two lines
of traffic each way. With a cycle lane the motors have all moved over to
leave not only the cycle lane itself but a pretty wide gap next to it clear,
which is nice because the cycle lane itself is full of the useual depressed
manholes, parked vehicles, broken glass etc.

Following on from lifeisgood's message. . .

Quoted message said:

So it seems that going ahead normally (or Going ahead other for DTI) is
the worst, followed by junctions, whereas in palo alto it is junctions.

And in most cases it seems it is not the cyclists fault.

Great. When I am flying through the air it will be a comfort to know I
am not liable.

There is good news. You can vastly minimise the risk from hazards by
the way you ride. eg Not next to parked cars, not filtering left
beside lorries, being in the right gear at junctions, being seen,
communicating with other road users and so on and so on.

Personally I regard cycling as much less risky than walking, especially
at night when you can't avoid close encounters on the pavement with
ill-mannered low-life.

You're taking an intelligent interest in /problems/ which is a good
thing. But beware that /solutions/ exist which are tried and tested -
rolling your own (better than nothing) is likely to miss important
things you have never _yet_ encountered. Start with Cyclecraft and then
treat yourself to a couple of hours on the road with eg CT-UK or ask
your town hall's cycling officer about where you can get cycle training.

--
PETER FOX Not the same since the deckchair business folded
[email hidden]
www.eminent.demon.co.uk - Lots for cyclists

lifeisgood said:

These results suggest that urban roadway design-not only bikeway
design-must take into account that intersections, construed broadly,
are the major point of conflict between bicycles and motor vehicles.
Separation of bicy­cles and motor vehicles leads to blind conflicts at
these intersections. It also encourages wrong-way travel, both on
sidewalks or paths and on the roadway at either end, further increasing
conflicts. Shared use of the roadway in the same direction of travel
leads to fewer conflicts and fewer accidents.

I am always loathe to suggest that we will reach cycling nirvana by
implementing wider roads/narrow roads/cycle paths/ASL/speed limits as
technological solutions are useless without the social will to abide by
them. You cannot engineer a technical solution to a sociological
problem.

If attitudes change, then life will be better. A presumption of fault
(potentially could be covered by 'driving without due consideration' )
would focus attention and make teh buggers look where they are sticking
their vehicle.

...d

Thanks,

Ultimately I think that we are now pointing the way to the solution -
the more people who work on line, the less journeys, the less traffic.
Makes some sense.

On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 22:56:25 +0100, Sue White <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

POHB <[email hidden]> whizzed past me shouting

Quoted message said:

10% (the most common conflict) involved the door of the other vehicle
being
opened into the path of the P/C and the cyclist either hitting it or
swerving to avoid it

Shouldn't there be compulsory plastic padding on vehicle doors?

Fair do's to the CTC - a number of years ago they campaigned
(unsuccessfuly AFAIR) for a change in the design of car door top corners
to make sure they were rounded to reduce the severity of injuries.

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Mike Gayler <[email hidden]> whizzed past me shouting

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Shouldn't there be compulsory plastic padding on vehicle doors?

Fair do's to the CTC - a number of years ago they campaigned
(unsuccessfuly AFAIR) for a change in the design of car door top
corners to make sure they were rounded to reduce the severity of
injuries.

Things have actually got worse in that respect with the spread of
Chelsea tractors that are twice as likely as cars to kill anyone they
hit.

--
Sue ]|(🙂

Sue White said:

Mike Gayler <[email hidden]> whizzed past me shouting

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Shouldn't there be compulsory plastic padding on vehicle doors?

Fair do's to the CTC - a number of years ago they campaigned
(unsuccessfuly AFAIR) for a change in the design of car door top
corners to make sure they were rounded to reduce the severity of
injuries.

Things have actually got worse in that respect with the spread of
Chelsea tractors that are twice as likely as cars to kill anyone they
hit.

And as they get older they also would get doors stuffed with Plastic
Padding (tm).

...d

Sue White <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

Mike Gayler <[email hidden]> whizzed past me shouting

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Shouldn't there be compulsory plastic padding on vehicle doors?

Fair do's to the CTC - a number of years ago they campaigned
(unsuccessfuly AFAIR) for a change in the design of car door top
corners to make sure they were rounded to reduce the severity of
injuries.

Quoted message said:

Things have actually got worse in that respect with the spread of
Chelsea tractors that are twice as likely as cars to kill anyone they
hit.

Big editorial in this week's bmj about this...

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
Edgware.