Monash uni study says: Major injuries to cyclists continue to rise in Victoria despite road toll falling

[Thoglette]

Major injuries to cyclists continue to rise in Victoria despite road toll falling

A major new study suggests that in Victoria, cyclist safety is getting worse.

The research, published in the Medical Journal of Australia, found cyclists were the only road users to record an increase in the number of serious injuries.

The amount of major injuries increased 8 per cent per year between 2007 and 2015.

"Those numbers are out of control," said Dr Ben Beck, lead researcher from Monash University.

"We really need to ensure that we target our efforts not only to fatal crashes but also to serious injury crashes."
The paper also estimated the costs of death and disability caused by cycling incidents at $14 billion over nine years in Victoria.

Dr Beck said Victoria had introduced successful strategies to improve road safety overall, but cyclists were being left behind.

[Thoglette]

More cyclists are ending up in hospital with serious injuries, so we need to act now

Won't someone think of the children?

A particularly vacuous piece by Ben Beck, Research fellow, Monash University who gets funded by various safety organisations. Particularly given the title and the conclusion that, well, we don't know. And we're going to ignore the elephant in the room.

But one of the first comments asked the necessary question:

From a cultural perspective, did you track media mentions and sentiment? I’m curious to see an analysis of how negative media sentiment impacts on cyclist safety.

It remains surprising that Australian researchers with Govt funding find the rate of MV involvement in bicyle accidents to be significanty less than the generally agreed 80%. Ben Beck quotes 50%. - the ratio is out by a factor of four.

[fat and old]

It is weird that 50% is given as the figure for single cyclist accidents. Never seen that low a figure before. Must look closely at his research later and work this out.

[human909]

I've seen the ~50% figure comes from 50% of ALL cyclist road accidents. There are also single vehicle accidents and cyclist-cyclist accidents. In this context it is believable and makes sense.

That said I've also seen it misleadingly reported. AKA:
"Motorist at fault less than 50% of the time in cycling accidents"
(The statistics behind this headline was 48% cycling hospital admission were due to a motorist at fault.)

The inverse statistic and misleading headling to this is:
"Cyclists at fault 0.01% of the time in road accidents"
(Because most accidents are car on car.)

[human909]

And here we go with the misleading media again:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinio ... d0c27e0d04

[Cyclophiliac]

If only someone could force Susie O'Brien to read this other Monash Uni study:
https://theconversation.com/helmet-cam- ... safer-3540

[fat and old]

And the Age version....

Bicycle Network's chief executive Craig Richards hosed down fears about lack of safety for cyclist, saying there was just a 0.001 per cent chance of a cyclist being involved in a crash that requires hospitalisation.

That fella should know not to give any statements that include anything like that.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/i-rea ... ye49r.html

[warthog1]

And here we go with the misleading media again:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinio ... d0c27e0d04

The title "Herald Sun" was clear enough in the link.
Say no more
Cant open it.
They want me to pay for a subscription

[Scott_C]

The research article can be found on the Medical Journal of Australia site and can be read in full after creating a free account (asks for an email address but doesn't verify it):
https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2017/207 ... ed-problem

The research article says precisely nothing about categories of accident (single or multiple vehicle) or who is at cause, the only cycling related finding is that the incidence of cycling related serious injuries in Victoria has increased 8% per year from 2007 to 2015 on a population level (i.e. no adjustment for cycling participation or km cycled, purely based on population).

In my view there is a problem with their categorisation of seriously injured as a SI cyclist is half as likely to die in hospital (3.4%) as a SI motor vehicle occupant (6.9%) and less than a quarter as likely to die in hospital as a SI pedestrian (15%). I can't see that when a group is 4 times more likely to die than another group that simply counting serious injuries without regard to the severity of the injury can produce a comparable result.

[Aushiker]

The title "Herald Sun" was clear enough in the link.
Say no more

+ 1 News Corporation media? Don't bother going there. Good chance it is not an intelligent commentary.

[uart]

News Corporation media? Don't bother going there. Good chance it is not an intelligent commentary.

You wont be disappointed then. Here are the "top" comments.

Terry 23 hours ago
When it becomes mandatory for cyclists to be registered to ride their bicycles on the roads and take responsibility for all traffic rules, just as motor vehicle drivers do, then we may just accept them on the road system. They need to wear light, bright clothing, with a registered number on their back, so that everyone can identify them, just like our motor vehicles are! Thanks for bringing this menace to our attention once again, Susie.

Allan 22 hours ago
Register the rider at $100/annum, not the bike.
Make them wear a fluro vest. with the rego number on the front and back

Ian 23 hours ago
100% correct !
It's time that they are registered and accountable for their actions.

Malcolm 23 hours ago
Totally agree. And my latest gripe with cyclists in the city? Riding their bike throughout shopping malls in the city, especially the one off Elizabeth Street where there is a bike shop. So all the people walking through the mall - get out of their way! Then they are out the mall and then riding the wrong way in a one way street (Little Collins Street), then up on the footpath to avoid a red light. And we keep getting messages from Bike Victoria to be more careful and watch out for cyclists? You can't be serious.

Peter 22 hours ago
If bikes were only invented today and there was a push for them to be on the road with cars, trucks etc I am absolutely positive for health and safety reasons they would be banned. I hate coming across a cyclist for fear he is going to do something unpredictable and I will then be responsible for hurting or even killing another human being. No bikes should be allowed on roads it is far too dangerous.

Lyn 23 hours ago
Cyclists call for cars drivers to leave 1 meter space when passing yet they fly past slow traffic within arms reach, rules should apply to cyclists as well. how would a cyclist manage to pass stationary or slow traffic without breaking distance if it were made law, drivers can't be blamed if an accident occurs when they are passed by a cyclist within the legal distance..

Bill 21 hours ago
Wow! This must be the new Susie. I agree with this one! I too love cycling, but I must say I hate the rogue cyclists out there, not just the Lycra heros, but even the hippie happy go lucky strollers who weave in and out left and right with zero awareness of their surroundings! Riding a bike is great, but seriously you must be more alert and aware more than anyone on the road for all reasons above, I know I will never take on a car and win and at the same time ride to the conditions and think of the pedestrians. It an work for all, but there are too many cyclists out there that have let their selfishness get in the way of safety. If it means we must be registered then I'm all for it.

Rob 22 hours ago
Susie totally agree with you. Australian cyclists unlike their European counterparts are aggressive , entitled and ride at speeds that totally inappropriate for the surroundings. We pander to them and that reinforces their sense of entitlement.

brian. w 23 hours ago
Point no2, Its rare I see a car endanger a bike but often see the bikes create endangerment, usually from careless or ignorant riding methods. We were forced to gift them whole lanes to fit bike lanes and most of them often wander outside that line which drivers are forced to rely upon. We breach the line we wear licence points, they breach road rules and lose no points.

[outnabike]

I like the "We pander to them and that reinforces their sense of entitlement." I mean it the reason I ride.
I love the "close relationship" with fellow road sharers. Usually around 200 mm off my right elbow.

Pandering has to stop....

[AUbicycles]

On the stats, they appear plausible.

The 80% statistic which is a repeated in various non-related research papers is about 'at-fault' in collissions involving a bike rider. If you consider your own groups of cycling friends, this helps provide the perspective on the types of accidents where a fair number don't involve a motor vehicle.

[BJL]

On the stats, they appear plausible.

The 80% statistic which is a repeated in various non-related research papers is about 'at-fault' in collisions involving a bike rider. If you consider your own groups of cycling friends, this helps provide the perspective on the types of accidents where a fair number don't involve a motor vehicle.

Maybe plausible, but then you have this -

The research article says precisely nothing about categories of accident (single or multiple vehicle) or who is at cause, the only cycling related finding is that the incidence of cycling related serious injuries in Victoria has increased 8% per year from 2007 to 2015 on a population level (i.e. no adjustment for cycling participation or km cycled, purely based on population).

So, are they including cycling accidents that occur off road on shared paths or wherever? If so, if 50% of cycling accidents happen off road and 50% happen on road, and the study says motorists are responsible for 50% of cycling accidents, then it could be argued that motorists are at fault 100% of the time where the collision happens on the road.

But without taking into account what types of accidents they are or where they occur, we'll never know. All we see is that 50% are caused my motorists implying that all cycling accidents in the study occurred on the road when that may be far from the truth. The study might have simply taken hospital admissions by cyclists and left it at that.

[Thoglette]

So, are they including cycling accidents that occur off road on shared paths or wherever?

Exactly: there are forms of "cycling" which have much higher rates of accidents : BMX, skate park, downhill MTB, fast bunches; racing.

Remove these and focus on "just cycling" and the accident rates are dominated by vehicle "interactions" and those are dominated by vehicle misbehaviour.

[antigee]

one issue which should also be raised when discussing cycling related injuries due to traffic collisions is do cyclists directly reduce the number of cyclist/vehicle collisions by their behaviour? (Other than simply not riding). Probably yes..........

This study from Monash Uni' carried out in Canberra studying extensive video from experienced commuter cyclists - the researchers assessed the video rather than the riders self reporting - from the Executive Summary:

No collision events were recorded. A total of 91 potentially unsafe cyclist-interactions were
identified. In the majority of events (93.4%), the behaviour of the driver led to the event. The most
common event type was left turn (37.3%) which involved a driver turning left across the path of the
cyclist, drivers turning across cyclists’ path from the adjacent direction (32.9%). Unexpectedly
opened vehicle doors accounted for 17.6% of cyclist-driver interactions. In the majority of all
events, a crash was avoided due to the evasive actions taken by cyclists

Bold section highlighted by me - full research report here, 78 page pdf if using a phone..... http://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf ... arc322.pdf

the riders in this study were all experienced commuters - it could be used as an argument to have mandatory cyclist training or it should be used to remind drivers that it is their attitude to other road users that is the problem - if its a shared responsibility to be safe then the driver contribution needs to be one hell of a lot larger than it is

[g-boaf]

So, are they including cycling accidents that occur off road on shared paths or wherever?

Exactly: there are forms of "cycling" which have much higher rates of accidents : BMX, skate park, downhill MTB, fast bunches; racing.

Remove these and focus on "just cycling" and the accident rates are dominated by vehicle "interactions" and those are dominated by vehicle misbehaviour.

I was in plenty of fast bunches overseas and there was only one really serious accident in the whole time and this was in racing conditions on a very high speed, technical descent. One of the media motorbikes crashed however.

And the key thing missing from the whole thing over there, given it was on public roads, was vehicle misbehaviour. The motorists were excellent.

[AUbicycles]

So, are they including cycling accidents that occur off road on shared paths or wherever? If so, if 50% of cycling accidents happen off road and 50% happen on road, and the study says motorists are responsible for 50% of cycling accidents, then it could be argued that motorists are at fault 100% of the time where the collision happens on the road.

Yes, and perhaps the assumption for readers is that it is on-road however it is not specified so is open to speculation.


For a press article, an actually research paper is boring so it isunderstandable that selective information is included - but you could request a copy and see if there are further details to provide the context.

[antigee]

On the stats, they appear plausible.

The 80% statistic which is a repeated in various non-related research papers is about 'at-fault' in collisions involving a bike rider. If you consider your own groups of cycling friends, this helps provide the perspective on the types of accidents where a fair number don't involve a motor vehicle.

Maybe plausible, but then you have this -

The research article says precisely nothing about categories of accident (single or multiple vehicle) or who is at cause, the only cycling related finding is that the incidence of cycling related serious injuries in Victoria has increased 8% per year from 2007 to 2015 on a population level (i.e. no adjustment for cycling participation or km cycled, purely based on population).

So, are they including cycling accidents that occur off road on shared paths or wherever? If so, if 50% of cycling accidents happen off road and 50% happen on road, and the study says motorists are responsible for 50% of cycling accidents, then it could be argued that motorists are at fault 100% of the time where the collision happens on the road.

But without taking into account what types of accidents they are or where they occur, we'll never know. All we see is that 50% are caused my motorists implying that all cycling accidents in the study occurred on the road when that may be far from the truth. The study might have simply taken hospital admissions by cyclists and left it at that.

I'm very confused here Scott C is correct in saying that the research article says nothing about categories of accident or who is at cause

No idea where the 50% number comes from? is it in one of the newspaper articles? Agree 80% figure for driver at fault in vehicle/cyclist figures is commonly quoted and I could probably link to a handful of research papers that support this - also pretty sure have seen data that supports the view that for cyclist accident related hospital admissions there are a lot of "cyclist only" injuries - not all relate to MTB/Criterium/Trials/BMX etc but can be the result of gravel/potholes/wet leaves/oil/infrastructure collisions on roads and shared paths

Back to the research piece in the headline https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2017/207 ... ed-problem ......if you read it then it is very specific on what was included/excluded:

Road traffic-related cases were included if the incident occurred on a public road, street, or highway (including footpaths and road medians, but excluding dedicated walking and cycling paths that were not a part of a road

........I noted this because it excludes commuter/utility/recreational cyclist injuries that occur as the result of poorly maintained or designed dedicated shared paths and pedestrian / cyclist collisions on dedicated shared paths

[Thoglette]

I was in plenty of fast bunches overseas and there was only one really serious accident in the whole time and this was in racing conditions on a very high speed, technical descent. One of the media motorbikes crashed however.

You just made my point. "The rest of us" don't have really serious accidents. Nor even serious accidents. Not statistically. (At least once you remove motor vehicles from the mix, as you point out)

[g-boaf]

I was in plenty of fast bunches overseas and there was only one really serious accident in the whole time and this was in racing conditions on a very high speed, technical descent. One of the media motorbikes crashed however.

You just made my point. "The rest of us" don't have really serious accidents. Nor even serious accidents. Not statistically. (At least once you remove motor vehicles from the mix, as you point out)

Considering the conditions and the what happened, I'd not say that made any point - given there was over 300 people. I've saw one guy go down just riding slowly (15km/h) and getting caught out on a uneven surface and broken collarbone in that case. I'd say that was serious too and that guy certainly wasn't doing any kind of sporty riding. It can happen to anyone, regardless of the kind of riding you are doing. Sometimes it's just bad luck.

[human909]

Considering the conditions and the what happened, I'd not say that made any point - given there was over 300 people. I've saw one guy go down just riding slowly (15km/h) and getting caught out on a uneven surface and broken collarbone in that case. I'd say that was serious too and that guy certainly wasn't doing any kind of sporty riding.

You have quite a skewed view of what constitutes normal cycling if that is your response. 300 people is a small number. And now you are suggesting there were multiple serious accidents.

It can happen to anyone, regardless of the kind of riding you are doing. Sometimes it's just bad luck.

And it is VERY clear that some riding is more risky than other types. Lets not kid ourselves. Yet you seem intent on doing just that.

[g-boaf]

I did not suggest multiple incidents. You did, not me.

And what of the poor guy back in Australia ending up with a broken collarbone from a low speed accident? He was doing what you'd consider non risky riding. And just had nothing more than bad luck getting caught out by an uneven surface on a cycle way.

You cannot say 100% that you'll never have an accident when you are riding just because you are doing a type of riding you consider to be non risky. There are so many factors (aka risks) out there that are outside of your control. Sometimes it is just bad luck.

[warthog1]

I have never fallen in a bunch ride. I have been in hundreds but I am selective with respect to which bunch.
I have in a race but I was by myself at the time.
I have fallen multiple times individually. (maybe I should ride at the back )
I would agree there is more potential to crash in a bunch situation however.
In any case I think we can all agree Australian driving attitudes and behaviour are appalling. That is the issue here.

[fat and old]

I was in plenty of fast bunches overseas and there was only one really serious accident in the whole time and this was in racing conditions on a very high speed, technical descent. One of the media motorbikes crashed however.

You just made my point. "The rest of us" don't have really serious accidents. Nor even serious accidents. Not statistically. (At least once you remove motor vehicles from the mix, as you point out)

As I have pointed out before, my brother died from head injuries sustained in a low speed, single cyclist no vehicle accident when he missed a corner and hit a pole. With all respect, !! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !! your statistics. They're not the be all of life.