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

[Thoglette]

With all respect, !! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !! your statistics. They're not the be all of life.

I'm sorry that you've had a personal tragedy. I truly am.

As someone who uses statistics to make decisions on a regular basis I'll be amongst the front runners to roll out the line "lies, damn'd lies and statistics". One needs to equally aware of the conscious and unconscious bias of any one claiming to be "evidence based" or "scientific".

But, without utlising statistics, exactly how do you propose we do things like, say, decide whether a safety enhancement for commercial aircraft should be rolled out across the global fleet? And yes, some poor bastard has to make that decision.

After all, the only "safe" aircraft is one that never leaves the hanger.

[DavidS]

Anecdotes are not data, which is why we use statistics.

The reality is that cycling is a very safe activity, one might even go so far as to say it is a healthy activity.

DS

[human909]

Based on the anecdotes presented here one would think that toddling along helmetless in Amsterdam on their bumpy brick roads is extremely dangerous. Whereas bunch riding at high speeds in close proximity to other cyclists is extremely safe.

One could almost think that there is a strong bias of cyclists here to reinforce their own choices and approach to cycling. Rather than an unbiased assessment of risk.

But you know let's ignore the statistics and sensible risk assessment and stick with cherry picked anecdotes.

[warthog1]

One could almost think that there is a strong bias of cyclists here to reinforce their own choices and approach to cycling. Rather than an unbiased assessment of risk.

But you know let's ignore the statistics and sensible risk assessment and stick with cherry picked anecdotes.

Which is human nature to have bias toward their own choices.
Can you honestly say you have never exhibited bias toward casual clothes wearing utility cyclists?

In some respects it is safer to be in a bunch ride situation.
My experience is of less bully boy behaviour from motorists. Perhaps they are intimidated by a larger group and more inclined to show a modicum of respect.

[fat and old]

With all respect, !! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !! your statistics. They're not the be all of life.

I'm sorry that you've had a personal tragedy. I truly am.

As someone who uses statistics to make decisions on a regular basis I'll be amongst the front runners to roll out the line "lies, damn'd lies and statistics". One needs to equally aware of the conscious and unconscious bias of any one claiming to be "evidence based" or "scientific".

But, without utlising statistics, exactly how do you propose we do things like, say, decide whether a safety enhancement for commercial aircraft should be rolled out across the global fleet? And yes, some poor bastard has to make that decision.

Thanks, but it wasn't your fault. It was no one's fault, and that's obviously the point I'm making. I know intellectually that my brother is a statistical anomaly...an anecdote as it were. But he was a real person, and the accident had real consequences that cannot be waved away with a mathematical sweep of the brush. Sure, you can use statistics to develop policy and hopefully influence outcomes....but you still need those human causes and effects to decide what to apply your statistics too. For some of us, it's either too late or beyond the control of math.

After all, the only "safe" aircraft is one that never leaves the hanger.

And I still ride my bike

Based on the anecdotes presented here one would think that toddling along helmetless in Amsterdam on their bumpy brick roads is extremely dangerous. Whereas bunch riding at high speeds in close proximity to other cyclists is extremely safe.

One could almost think that there is a strong bias of cyclists here to reinforce their own choices and approach to cycling. Rather than an unbiased assessment of risk.

But you know let's ignore the statistics and sensible risk assessment and stick with cherry picked anecdotes.

No, not at all. Lets apply statistics.

You're a minority within a minority. Therefore, statistically your opinion is worth jack and you don't even deserve to be heard. Harsh, no? Yet statistically correct.

Anyway....applying statistics and sensible risk assessment to the issue of cycling on the road (Which is the activity being discussed).

There's no dispute that cyclists are over represented in the injury department. Whether that figure is 50% or 80% for single cyclist accidents, or the figure is 50% of car/cycle accidents the figures are high. Too high. On that we all agree. What to do? Cycling is not an inherently dangerous activity; it is apparent that the interaction with motor vehicles is.

Cycling is not dangerous. However the environment in which we cycle is. The statistics make this abundantly clear.

Now, we apply a sensible risk assessment. I guess we should first agree on what a "risk" is. This is BNA, after all. For ease and impartiality, I have taken this from the google

A probability or threat of damage, injury, liability, loss, or any other negative occurrence that is caused by external or internal vulnerabilities, and that may be avoided through preemptive action

It's probably also a good idea to outline the meaning of "sensible". Again, from google

done or chosen in accordance with wisdom or prudence; likely to be of benefit.

Makes sense....the risk we face as cyclists of injury or worse at the hands of motor vehicles fits the explanation of "risk" to the letter. That preemptive action is what we take as a result of our sensible risk assessment. I cannot link pictures or diagrams anymore with ease, so I'll just spell out a quick matrix for R/A.

There are five levels (usually) of frequency (how likely is the outcome...in this case an injury to cyclists) applied to (usually) five levels of consequences that range from insignificant (no injury/minimal financial loss) to catastrophic (death/massive financial loss). Simple enough, and usually indisputable.

Applying this to road cycling injuries/death in Australia, we see that the frequency would be likely or probable; i.e. could easily happen/once a month. The consequence is catastrophic. Death is as bad as it gets. Again, usually indisputable.

The next step is to evaluate the options we have to reduce/eliminate the risk...remembering that the risk to cyclists on the road is mostly external as well as our statistical place in the hierarchy (numbers of cyclist using the roads compared to motor vehicles including public transport). Commonly used Hierarchy of Risk Control as supplied by most Safety organisations is acceptable here. Six levels of controls that are applied to the problem to ensure a safe environment for the cyclist.

Eliminate the Hazard.

Preferable.....especially to cyclists. Remove all motor vehicles from the roads. Of course, this is ridiculous and not possible. Even should the authorities remove all private transport from the roads, commerce demands delivery of both human and non human material to there places in society. This is inescapable.

Substitution.

Substitute the hazard with something safer. I am not aware of any commercial or available to the public hover cars or trucks as yet. Nor are driverless cars anywhere near ready; driverless trucks less so. Unfortunately, there are no options here.

Isolation.

Isolate the hazard. Keep it away from people. Now we're getting somewhere. Separated Cycle lanes seem to be the answer to this option. All is not what it seems however. Separated cycle lanes still have gaps in them where vehicles require access to buildings and intersecting streets. This is again inescapable. Not only that; it leaves cyclists vulnerable at the worse places...intersections. Statistics show that there are more negative cyclist/motor vehicle interactions at these places. So they're really not the total answer. Part of the answer yes; probably the most significant part. But not infallible. Going further, separated lanes do not stop pedestrians from crossing into the path of cycles. This introduces a new hazard to cyclists, which when looked at from the R/A template results in a possibly catastrophic result for both the cyclist AND the pedestrian. So they're out.

Engineering Controls

Reduce the risk through engineering controls. Engineering controls are methods that are built into the design of a plant, equipment or process to minimize the hazard. Engineering controls are a very reliable way to control worker exposures as long as the controls are designed, used and maintained properly. Examples such as separated cycle lanes (already discussed and rejected as being inadequate), priority light signals and marked cycle lanes (which do nothing to protect a cycle from being struck by a motor vehicle), driverless cars and trucks (discussed earlier and rejected at this point in time). Not only are there few options open to us there is a large flaw contained in this concept...the maintenance of these controls. How many cycle lanes are worn away to the point of being unrecognisable? How many indeed are even legal due to the inability of authorities to make them so with the simple addition of a sign, or extra paint on the ground? Society has let us down, and the result is a failure of engineering controls to significantly reduce the risk to an acceptable limit. Statistics support this: the frequency is still probable or likely; the consequence remains death.

Administrative Controls

Reduce exposure to the hazard through administrative controls. The minimum passing distance legislation is probably the most recognisable example of the application of administrative controls. How's that working out for everyone? The various laws and penalties we have to protect society in general are applicable to cyclists. One can theoretically gaoled for killing a cyclist through negligence. Or at least receive a debilitating fine that will change your actions for ever. Unfortunately as we all know these penalties are rarely if ever applied to a driver of a motor vehicle that kills a cyclist. Again, fail.

So we are left with using

Personal Protective Equipment

Helmets! In spite of our personal feelings on the matter it is clear that the use of PPE is an essential pert of cycling on the road. We owe it to ourselves to recognise and embrace this aspect of Risk Control as it is an integral component of Sensible Risk Assessment. Helmets, gloves, long sleeves and trousers should be part of every Sensible cyclist if they ride on the road. There are recent advancements in kevlar reinforced clothing that motorcyclists have adopted which should be looked at by any self respecting, safety conscious cyclist in order to mitigate the risk that motor vehicle pose.

Not only is he likelihood of that happening laughable it is actually useless. It will not do anything to reduce the frequency or the consequence of the risk. PPE is not the answer.

The only answer to a Sensible Risk assessment of cyclists riding on the road is to remove the cyclist from the road. The Statistics support this. The Sensible Risk Assessment supports this. The overwhelming majority of road users support this (statistically more people choose to drive a motor vehicle than ride a cycle).

Statistics and Sensible Risk Assessments. The answer to life's problems.

(With apologies to Thoglette.)

[CXCommuter]

Several items to raise,
Eliminate the hazard-
1) Driverless cars?
2) Motorists are the issue, not the vehicle. Attitudes are the primary issue here in Australia (and not just the haters, it is apparent throughout our society at all levels that cyclists don't belong)
3) the big issue with using the risk hierarchy is that elimination is usually done to the item that has the least impact upon the greater number of people (and the easiest to enforce), last time I checked this would involve removal of cyclists from motor vehicle interactions, I know that the above risk review was done from the view of a cyclist, but when looked at from overall society the outcome would be pretty grim.
Just a note, I hate the attitudes of general society towards cyclists in Australia (not just the haters who wish to hurt us but the majority of people in Australia), it appalls, saddens, frustrates and embarrasses me.
My wife (Japanese) will happily ride everywhere in Japan but will not touch a bicycle for transport in Australia she sees it as way too dangerous.

[CXCommuter]

Stuck my neck out above as a devils advocate, feel free to swing that axe

[fat and old]

3) the big issue with using the risk hierarchy is that elimination is usually done to the item that has the least impact upon the greater number of people (and the easiest to enforce), last time I checked this would involve removal of cyclists from motor vehicle interactions, I know that the above risk review was done from the view of a cyclist, but when looked at from overall society the outcome would be pretty grim.

Overall society?

Remove all private vehicles from the roads. Roadways are reserved for transport of goods through registered carriers and people through public transport. This is achieved through a massive investment in P/T of course. Cyclists are still removed from the roads as there are still vehicles using them.

All other transport is by foot. This achieves the aim professed by cyclists of a healthy society (statistics show increased health and lifespan to be one of the more commonly given reasons to cycle) and a population that is more easily controlled by the Authorities. Crime will go down (statistics show a great number of crimes facilitated by motor vehicle), apprehension will go up (as the enforcement arm of the Authority will have vehicles). The minority population may resent this at first but will come to recognise it for the progressive policy that it is and being in the best interest of all.

Driverless cars were addressed. They're a definite part of the solution...when they're online. At present they're an aspiration.

[CXCommuter]

3) the big issue with using the risk hierarchy is that elimination is usually done to the item that has the least impact upon the greater number of people (and the easiest to enforce), last time I checked this would involve removal of cyclists from motor vehicle interactions, I know that the above risk review was done from the view of a cyclist, but when looked at from overall society the outcome would be pretty grim.

Overall society?

Remove all private vehicles from the roads. Roadways are reserved for transport of goods through registered carriers and people through public transport. This is achieved through a massive investment in P/T of course. Cyclists are still removed from the roads as there are still vehicles using them.

All other transport is by foot. This achieves the aim professed by cyclists of a healthy society (statistics show increased health and lifespan to be one of the more commonly given reasons to cycle) and a population that is more easily controlled by the Authorities. Crime will go down (statistics show a great number of crimes facilitated by motor vehicle), apprehension will go up (as the enforcement arm of the Authority will have vehicles). The minority population may resent this at first but will come to recognise it for the progressive policy that it is and being in the best interest of all.

Driverless cars were addressed. They're a definite part of the solution...when they're online. At present they're an aspiration.

That looks pretty grim

[fat and old]

This is why I choose to live and plan with my Human "anecdotes" and all of their frailties

[Thoglette]

Stuck my neck out above as a devils advocate, feel free to swing that axe

As usual, there's a spectrum of responses. The choice is not "transport as we have it now" or "everyone walks".

We already have a huge range of well understood and effective mechanisms for reducing the use of our hospitals and rehab facilities due to motor vehicle use.

By and large, these are ignored by government, both politicians and public servants.

Instead any proposal for transport beyond buckets of money to "fix the roads" is seen as some form of evil plot to create a socialist distopia. (And I refer you to the four or five postings directly above).

P.S. statistically, the rate of cyclist injury (as best we know it) is no higher per hour of exposure than 4WDs. It's significantly safer than using a motorcycle (which has a self-selection problem, particularly around motorcycles whose exhausts "fail" very early on in life).

I say "as best we know it" as reliable data on cycle use or accident rates is incredibly hard to get. Car usage is pretty well correlated to fuel consumption and, almost by definition, most accidents cause enough damage to ensure reporting of injuries. (As long as the injured party is in the MV).

The only thing harder to get is the total area of land and cost of building dedicated to the motor-vehicle. It's like no-one wants to know the answer.

[fat and old]

Stuck my neck out above as a devils advocate, feel free to swing that axe

As usual, there's a spectrum of responses. The choice is not "transport as we have it now" or "everyone walks".

We already have a huge range of well understood and effective mechanisms for reducing the use of our hospitals and rehab facilities due to motor vehicle use.

By and large, these are ignored by government, both politicians and public servants.

Instead any proposal for transport beyond buckets of money to "fix the roads" is seen as some form of evil plot to create a socialist distopia. (And I refer you to the four or five postings directly above).

Have you read much of the posting hereabouts? That dystopia is here; right now; if what I read daily is any indication All that's missing is the socialist aspect, and for the want of a few more dollars we'd have it.

No, you know as well as I do that the posts above are just an example that not only anecdotes can be thrown about to support or negate an argument. The same is easily done with statistics and "sensible" discussion by people who should know better.

[DavidS]

There's no dispute that cyclists are over represented in the injury department.

Whoa there, just stating this does not make it a fact. People falling off chairs represent a larger number of hospitalisations due to injury caused by an accident. I really don't think cyclists are "over-represented" when more people end up in hospital as a result of falling off chairs. Sorry, not buying it.

Cycling is not dangerous. However the environment in which we cycle is. The statistics make this abundantly clear.

No, the opposite is abundantly clear from the statistics.

To quote a crash report by Bicycle Network:

The chance of a bike rider crashing are just 0.003% on any day, and 0.99% in a year. The chance of having a crash that requires hospitalisation on any day is just 0.001%

This is the problem. The claim that cycling is an especially dangerous activity is simply not true. MHLs encourage this view as people see that cyclists are required to wear protective head gear and quite logically think cycling must be dangerous. Think about the above quote, if the chances of having a crash requiring hospitalisation on a particular day is 0.001% then a cyclist is likely to have an accident leading to hospitalisation, what, once every 300 years or so. That includes cyclists who ride on the roads. This is simply not a dangerous environment. There is risk, no question, but the risk is very very small.

I really do get very irritated by the constant insistence that somehow cycling on the roads is a particularly dangerous activity. This is simply wrong.

For the above Bicycle Network article see here: https://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/newsr ... ing-chair/

DS

[warthog1]

I believe riding a bicycle on the road is dangerous.
I go to the result all types of stupid on the road on a weekly basis.
The level of incapacity, incompetence, intolerance and impatience present in fair proportion of our drivers is staggering.
Riding a bicycle on the road in close proximity to 1500 plus kg fast moving objects under the "control" of muppets is dangerous.

That BNV article is a POS btw.
Way more people sit on a chair than ride a bike (damn close to 100% daily) and a large proprtion of the riders on that survey will not have even been riding in traffic.
If you are a rider who spends their time largely or exclusively on the road those results are meaningless.

[human909]

Well said DavidS. I wanted to respond earlier but sometime you do start to wonder why you bother when people really are set in a particularly narrow viewpoint.

I really do get very irritated by the constant insistence that somehow cycling on the roads is a particularly dangerous activity. This is simply wrong.

I share your irritation. Sure, in Australia, it is far less safe than it should be. But that doesn't put it in the highly risky category. A choice of the average sedentary lifestyle is far more risky.

That said, the supposed riskiness of cycling it has been the persistent narrative of our government, our media and now many cyclists. Of course the majority of cyclists that are now left have a higher risk tolerance and it is confronting to their world view to suggest that regular cycling is actually not that risky.

The evidence of this is quite clear in this thread when people try to suggest that the risk of high speed bunch riding and the risks that average-joe/jane riders face are comparable. I regularly see infants being transported by bicycle where I live, to compare such cycling to high speed bunch riding is laughable.

[fat and old]

I regularly see infants being transported by bicycle where I live,

Oh, I'm sorry. Are we going to

stick with cherry picked anecdotes.

Is that acceptable now? I'd much prefer

statistics and sensible risk assessment

Not that I disagree with you on the relative dangers where you regularly ride.

I am confused however. For years, I've read that cycling is safe; it's the morons around us that make it dangerous. Now

I really do get very irritated by the constant insistence that somehow cycling on the roads is a particularly dangerous activity. This is simply wrong.

http://m.bicycles.net.au/forums/viewtop ... 53&t=93495

Tell them.

[fat and old]

There's no dispute that cyclists are over represented in the injury department.

Whoa there, just stating this does not make it a fact. People falling off chairs represent a larger number of hospitalisations due to injury caused by an accident. I really don't think cyclists are "over-represented" when more people end up in hospital as a result of falling off chairs. Sorry, not buying it.



DS

Seriously David...when was the last time you saw a bloke sitting on a chair on any road?

[baabaa]

I really do get very irritated by the constant insistence that somehow cycling on the roads is a particularly dangerous activity. This is simply wrong.

DS, why get irritated if this is your POV? Even better you have a couple of days to hop on a plane and head off to this…. (Run by the Satans lair of all on road stuff itself in Den Hague, the SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research.)
International Cycling Safety Conference 2017 - Special issue (AAP) ‘Improving cycling safety through scientific research’

Worldwide the popularity of cycling is booming due to its many positive impacts on health, environment and accessibility (Gerike and Parkin, 2015). Unfortunately, in most traffic systems cyclists are exposed to high levels of road risks (OECD/ International Transport Forum, 2013). In 2014, more than 2,000 cyclist deaths were recorded in the EU alone. Many more were seriously injured. Yet, policies to protect cyclists are scarce (ETSC, 2016) and research fundamental for the development of such policies is still in its infancy. From 30,302 papers on traffic safety indexed in Science Direct for the years 2012 to 2016, only 7.8% dealt with the safety of cycling.

https://www.swov.nl/en/news/special-iss ... c-research

Seems that the real work around “cycling on the roads is a particularly dangerous activity” may not have been done and you are taking on the opinion of others as facts. I would have a bit of look around these not so all about bike sort of sites and the work being done by them and maybe get off the bike forums for a bit.

[warthog1]

http://www.darebinbug.org.au/images/201 ... N3_037.pdf


Cycling rates are relatively low in Australia [1], but cyclists
comprise about 1 in 40 traffic crash fatalities [2] and about 1 in
7 serious injuries [3]. While fatalities and serious injuries for car
occupants (drivers and passengers) have declined over time,
cyclist fatalities have remained steady, and serious injuries have
increased [2, 3].


https://bitre.gov.au/publications/2015/ ... 071_fp.pdf

Table 4: Reported injuries: cyclists injured in traffic crashes
Year Australia
2008 4,269
2009 4,510
2010 4,404
2011 4,363
2012 4,300
2013 4,400
Cyclists as % of all
traffic injuries
4.4%

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/cycli ... 05erb.html

1471: That's the number of cyclist casualties - those seriously injured or killed - on Victorian roads in the year from July 2012, according to VicRoads' CrashStats website. Of those casualties, 88 per cent happened in a crash with a vehicle. In 8 per cent of casualties there was no collision and no object struck. Just 18 cases involved a cyclist-pedestrian collision where the cyclist was injured, and in three cases an animal was to blame for the cyclist's injury.


https://infrastructure.gov.au/roads/saf ... s_road.pdf

In the fifteen years from 1991 to 2005, 665 cyclists were killed in road crashes.

The main types of crashes in which cyclists were fatally injured in 1996–00 are
described in Table 6. In 46 crashes (21 per cent), a motor vehicle ran into the rear
of a bicycle travelling in the same lane in the same direction. Twenty of these
occurred in a rural area during the day (between 6 am and 6 pm); a further 9
occurred in a rural area at night (between 6 pm and 6 am). In another 35 crashes (16
per cent), the cyclist was riding from the footway or verge onto the road and was hit
by a motor vehicle travelling along the road. In 24 crashes (11 per cent), the cyclist
was travelling straight ahead through an intersection and was hit by a motor vehicle
travelling straight ahead through the intersection from a different direction. In 18
crashes (8 per cent), the cyclist collided head-on with a motor vehicle coming from
the opposite direction.

I don't know what activity we are comparing cycling on the road to, in order to claim it is not dangerous.
It remains a dangerous activity as anyone who rides regularly on the road is all too aware.

[Thoglette]

I don't know what activity we are comparing cycling on the road to, in order to claim it is not dangerous.
It remains a dangerous activity as anyone who rides regularly on the road is all too aware.

Find me a brick wall, f'crying out loud.

Failing to define "dangerous" means you're immediately off in shock-jock-land of alt-facts.

You also fall directly into the shock-jocks' hands by failing to separate cycling on the road (which is not dangerous, as those who return from non-anglophone countries invariably report) from some epic failures in road design & delivery and the negligent or psychopathic behaviour of a small number of drivers.

Add this to respondents who cannot decide whether policy should be based on statistics or personal anecdote and this thread is going nowhere.

[warthog1]

I don't know what activity we are comparing cycling on the road to, in order to claim it is not dangerous.
It remains a dangerous activity as anyone who rides regularly on the road is all too aware.

Find me a brick wall, f'crying out loud.

Failing to define "dangerous" means you're immediately off in shock-jock-land of alt-facts.

You also fall directly into the shock-jocks' hands by failing to separate cycling on the road (which is not dangerous, as those who return from non-anglophone countries invariably report) from some epic failures in road design & delivery and the negligent or psychopathic behaviour of a small number of drivers.

Add this to respondents who cannot decide whether policy should be based on statistics or personal anecdote and this thread is going nowhere.

It is dangerous as a result of our road design and more importantly our driving culture which I'd have thought immediately obvious if you choose to read anything else I have written (which you have).
Furthermore the if you read the excerpts I quoted you would have noted the bulk of deaths and injury were the result of collision with a motor vehicle.
If anyone is in la la land it is you for choosing to make that interpretation of what was posted.

Edit;
I've just gone back and read the rest of your posts in this thread Thoglette
I think we are in furious agreement. Cycling in and of itself is not dangerous. It becomes so on the roads because of motorvehicles.

D'oh. Sorry.
I'll just head back to la la land

[DavidS]

To me dangerous means the probability of having an accident which leads to hospitalisation. None of the replies above deal with this.

Raw numbers are all well and good but lack context. What is the probability of having an accident leading to hospitalisation. 1,471 sounds like a high number for a 12 month period (by the way, why pick 12 months from July 2012? Just asking), but how many cyclists ride every day? I heard a report on the radio recently about a New Zealand study which estimated that the probability of being injured while cycling would average out to one accident every 25 years. Bear in mind this report did mention that it wasn't distinguishing between accidents which occurred during a race or mountain bike riding, both I would think are more dangerous than just commuting on the road which is my main experience of cycling.

More people may sit on chairs each day than ride a bicycle, but the comparison (as the poster above well knows) is put in because sitting on a chair is seen as an inherently safe activity. In contrast, cycling is presented, erroneously in my opinion, as a dangerous activity, at least cycling on roads is presented this way.

I'm not going to defend the actions of motorists in Australia, but even their idiocy, lack of attention, gross incompetence, have not made cycling particularly dangerous. Of course there is the irony that we know that more cyclists equals safer roads, but promoting the fiction that cycling is dangerous on our roads discourages cycling and leads to a less safe road environment for cyclists. Still doesn't make it particularly dangerous though.

DS

[fat and old]

Davids....as you should realise given my posting history I'm actually in agreement with you on the "relative" dangers. What you should also realise is that I will post on the discussion at hand, and if things are said that I see as wrong, mistaken or plain stupid I'll say so (not that anyone's being deliberately stupid here). One of the big issues I have run up against is the constant shifting of the goalpost, obfuscation and double standards applied to almost anything cycling related (being a cycling forum I understand this. I can respect it. I cannot agree to it always as I have previously and constantly said I am a human first.). Take this discussion....I am called out on using an "anecdote". OK, I'll back up and try to use statistics and a Serious Risk assessment. In rebuttal, I am presented with anecdotes! You yourself started your last post with

To me dangerous means the probability of having an accident which leads to hospitalisation.

You apply your own unit of measurement to the issue.

Where is the consistency? Why does this happen, again and again? I have an idea, and I'm not blameless here.

1. Some posters just don't like being wrong. I'm in that category. By wrong I mean that they get the FACTS wrong. Not that they have a difference of opinion on what constitutes "dangerous".

2. Some posters don't have the ability to accept that they are not always right. I'm probably in that category as well. Here I'm referring to their own personal experiences and outlooks. You earlier told me

Whoa there, just stating this does not make it a fact.

In response to my statement that cyclists are over represented in the injury dept. You're correct. I gave no supporting evidence. I relied on my memory of supplied figures and also my personal feelings. My memory tells me that the report originally presented in this thread by the OP showed an increase in cycling injuries. My personal feelings tell me that one dead/SI cyclist due to an interaction with a motorist caused by negligence or otherwise is too many. Other posters have used their personal experiences to support/deny the claim that cycling on the road is dangerous. There is a Sydney based poster who's experience and opinion is based on riding main arterials. There is a Melbourne poster who's basing his attitude on his inner city experience. There is another Melb. based poster who regularly recounts his poor experiences on Melbourne's Sth East Metro arterials and connectors. I'm pretty sure this is what the smarter than me people call confirmation bias....although I'm probably wrong again . And to exacerbate the matter the common thread in these accounting's is the inability of posters to agree on what constitutes dangerous. I tried to apply a non-partisan approach with the Risk assessment to the best of my ability (I'm sure there are people here who would do much better); lo and behold I'm called because posters have a different interpretation of what dangerous is? I didn't invent the common Risk Assessment matrix's. I just used one (first one I could find from an Australian State OH&S organisation).

3. Some posters will "Cherry Pick" experiences and facts to support their POV, then change to a different one if the first does not suit the discussion. A good example is that one poster here cites his inner city experiences as evidence that cycling on the roads is safe, whereas previously he has referred to his observations of road traffic/infrastructure/suitability for cycling in the outer suburbs

Likewise I have no issue whatsoever mixing it up with heavy CBD and inner city traffic. But no way on earth would I ride regularly on busy outer suburban 80kph roads. I perceive significantly higher risk in that. Both the quality of drivers and the speed differential.

http://m.bicycles.net.au/forums/viewtop ... uter+north (Excellent thread btw.)

I may be wrong. I may have taken this out of context. I find that when these things are pointed out that is the usual reply. In this case I don't think so. (I absolutely agree with his sentiments, excepting that I do ride on a few of those roads, in the Outer North).

I'm sure that I have done similar as well. A search will provide evidence.

4. We all want to ride our bikes where we want how we want. This is the elephant in the room; almost no one will admit to it. Sure, we all have differing approaches to this; and those approaches will lead to disagreement which only demonstrates my assertion. Take the thread on the young fella that killed the pedestrian in London. No matter the facts of the case, or what side you're on; your opinion is based on how you feel you should be able to ride in that environment. The same posters that hold that the pedestrian should bear the greater responsibility will then profess to be model citizens when using shared paths. Yeah, so long as everyone else does the "right thing" according to their value system (I'm one of those).

Anything that impedes on our ability to do what we want is seen as bad. Somebody else's fault.

No one wants to admit that cycling is/can be dangerous. No one should want to apply worksite OH&S values and methods to cycling today. To do so would mean that we should not be doing it, or at least be admitting of undertaking a dangerous activity which allows the greater population to see us for the fools they think we are. Smokers are regularly pilloried for contributing to their own health issues and condemned for the costs imposed on the rest of us through their own actions. To admit that cycling on the roads is dangerous puts us in the same category according to the haters and anti cyclists. Why don't mainstream advocacy groups support the abolition of MHL's? Is it possible they see this as being counter productive? Another case of cyclists wanting "everything" whilst contributing "nothing"? Holding society accountable for their safety? Is this country ready for that? Is this forum even ready for that? Warthog commented elsewhere on "political will"....that we'll be waiting forever to see that. Of course we will while there are so many individual differences of opinion.

Maybe cycling on the road in Australia isn't dangerous when looked at from the point of statistics and studies. I'm not sure that I know TBH. If I use a common worksite Risk Assessment it is. If I read this forum I get a daily reminder that it is. I know there's been a few occasions where I've felt very vulnerable in traffic, and a few where the conditions of the road have caused a scare lack of traffic notwithstanding. Considering the miles I've covered and the areas I ride I'm not surprised. But that's my experience, not a statistic or other fact. I'm happy to recount it if it means anything, so long as I know the parameters of the discussion.

My skewed outlook on life All I want is to ride my bike (in the sun, preferably )

[human909]

No one wants to admit that cycling is/can be dangerous. No one should want to apply worksite OH&S values and methods to cycling today. To do so would mean that we should not be doing it, or at least be admitting of undertaking a dangerous activity which allows the greater population to see us for the fools they think we are.

Huh?

The same logic can and does apply to driving...
The same logic can and does apply to eating...
The same logic can and does apply to swimming at a beach...

Lots of things are dangerous and lots of things don't meet worksite OH&S value. While we are at it most worksites don't meet worksite OH&S values. (The expectations are often impossible.)

EG; Reading some government endorsed safety documentation recently which mentioned a "safety management plan". In the safety management plan "ALL" potential risks need to be listed and addressed. This is an impossibility.

[warthog1]

To me dangerous means the probability of having an accident which leads to hospitalisation. None of the replies above deal with this.

Raw numbers are all well and good but lack context. What is the probability of having an accident leading to hospitalisation. 1,471 sounds like a high number for a 12 month period (by the way, why pick 12 months from July 2012? Just asking), but how many cyclists ride every day? I heard a report on the radio recently about a New Zealand study which estimated that the probability of being injured while cycling would average out to one accident every 25 years. Bear in mind this report did mention that it wasn't distinguishing between accidents which occurred during a race or mountain bike riding, both I would think are more dangerous than just commuting on the road which is my main experience of cycling.

More people may sit on chairs each day than ride a bicycle, but the comparison (as the poster above well knows) is put in because sitting on a chair is seen as an inherently safe activity. In contrast, cycling is presented, erroneously in my opinion, as a dangerous activity, at least cycling on roads is presented this way.

I'm not going to defend the actions of motorists in Australia, but even their idiocy, lack of attention, gross incompetence, have not made cycling particularly dangerous. Of course there is the irony that we know that more cyclists equals safer roads, but promoting the fiction that cycling is dangerous on our roads discourages cycling and leads to a less safe road environment for cyclists. Still doesn't make it particularly dangerous though.

DS

David I agree with your last part, more cyclists = greater relative safety.
The rest of it are statistics on injury and the one you picked out from July 2012 was the financial year just completed before it was written. It was for serious injuries.

If we compare it to driving a car (which is what most of the driving public are doing) it is dangerous. However it is dangerous because of them, so yes there is some gross hypocrisy there (on the drivers' part)

Driver behaviour is the cause and that is the thing that monetarily, is easily corrected. Cultural change doesn't need a huge infrastructure fix.
Politically it is a different story which is the source of the problem now and into the future.