Cycling Safety Information

Dept of Transport 2005 / 2002 || Australia || Hampshire || RoSPA || Flashing Lights || Head injuries v Helmet use

Cycling is NOT very Dangerous

Dept. Transport 2005

Source: Dept of Transport 2004 Accident Stats 30th June 2005

Road safety charity Brake commented on the 18% rise in cyclist deaths in 2004. Brake blamed a "woeful lack of cycle paths and other facilities for cyclists ... a cyclist is 20 times more likely to be killed than a car occupant on an urban road and 34 times more likely to be killed on a rural road ... investment in our road network to make it safe for vulnerable road users is needed" Source: Brake - pdf - Accident stats (2003).

Road deaths by mode of transport

• Half the people who die on roads (1,769) are in cars
• Vulnerable road users - cyclists, pedestrians, motorbike and moped riders account for 45% of all deaths (1,581 deaths in 2003)
  • Vulnerable road users are more likely to be killed because they don’t have protection of airbags, seat belts, crumple zones etc.
• 3% who die on roads are cyclists - 114 (2003)
• Cyclists are ten times more likely, per mile travelled, to be killed on the road than drivers of cars
• Cycling is not risk free - 50 child cyclists were killed or injured nationally per month in 2003.  

Motor Vehicle and Pedal Cycle Conspicuity Part 2: Pedal Cycle Lighting (source: pg 7)

• Of 24,585 cyclist casualties, 20,997 were slight, 3405 serious, 183 fatal
• 41 % killed or seriously injured occured during hours of darkness.
• 51% of cyclists at night used bright front and rear lights.
• 49% of night time cyclists had deficient lighting
• Of these, 15% of cyclists had one working light
• 9% had no lights at all

Passenger Death Rates by Mode of Transport, 2002

Source: Dept of Transport

• Car passengers death rate was 2.8 per billion passenger kilometers
• Cyclists death rate was 29.5 per billion passenger kilometers
• Cyclists death rate is ten times greater than car passengers death rate per kilometer travelled.

Australia - Kids account for majority of Cycling Accidents

68% of cyclist casualties were aged 16 years or less.
Source: Bicycle Crashes and Injuries in Western Australia, 1987-2000, RR131; University of Western Australia

Hampshire Cyclists casualities by age, location, manoeuvre

Source: Hantsweb, Pedal Cyclist Casualities in Hampshire, UK

Pedal cyclist casualties by age (2003)

Highest cyclists casualties are in the 10-14 (21%) and 15-19 (15%) age groups

Pedal cyclist casualties by location

Highest cyclists casualty figures occur at priority junctions (43%), away from junction (31%) & roundabouts (15%)

Pedal cyclist casualties by manoeuvre

Highest Cyclists casualty figures by manoeuvre were when cyclists were going ahead (80%), turning right (8%) and overtaking (4%)

Flashing or steady Bicycle Lights?

From Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling December 2005

Nigel Cliffe <m...@privacy.net> wrote: So, if trying to be noticed, use flashing. If trying to give your position (and thus not be hit) use fixed. With the caveat that there is no actual proof for the latter, much as we might advocate it.

Tony Raven <j...@raven-family.com> wrote: There is proof for the latter from fields outside cycling. Have a look here. There is also work from the aviation human factors that indicates double or multiple pulses are better than single evenly spaced pulses - the first attracts attention and the second gives positional information (think of lightning or meteor showers where you are continually frustrated by your attention being drawn to a flash in your peripheral vision but by the time you look there its all over).

157. Simon Brooke Dec 31 2005, in message <41o6u1F1dlrb...@individual.net>, Tony Raven('...@raven-family.com') wrote: Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: <owd...@googlemail.com> wrote: Common sense tells one that non-flashing lights are more visible as flashing lights are switched off intermittently. Whereas the DfT tells one the opposite: that flashing lights are around four times more visible. For very good reasons that are well understood in visual perception theory. It why emergency vehicles, tall structures and aircraft have flashing, and not continuous, warning lights. I'm slightly bothered by the people on this thread who are saying that blinking + steady 'must' be better than either alone. They may be right of course but it does not seem to me that we have the information to say that. The effect could as easily be subtractive - the steady element reducing the visibility of the blinking element, and the blinking element reducing the locatability of the steady element. We should have learned by now that jumping to conclusions, on safety issues, is frequently wrong.Not, of course, that this gives you any useful advice. Until the research is done, we just don't know.

Head injuries increase with increased helmet use
Source NY TImes (1*): the rate of head injuries per active cyclist has increased 51 percent just as bicycle helmets have become widespread. Why? Reasons cited in this article for this observed increase in head injuries with increased helmet use are:-

• Helmets are worn incorrectly, for example, helmet worn to far back leaving forehead unprotected
• Daredevel Effect: with a helmet, cyclists may feel an inflated sense of security, may ride faster and take more risks
  • a parallel situation is anti-lock brakes
    • when introduced ABS brakes were supposed to reduce accidents, but drivers realized their brakes were more effective & they started driving faster - (some) accident rates rose
  • to reduce the Daredevil Effect "you would be well advised to wear a helmet provided you could persuade yourself it is of little use"

Notable Quotes:

• "patients who were wearing helmets when they were injured are much better off than those who were not"
• "Bicycle helmets are the best technology we have for protecting the brain, the helmets serve the function of an air bag."

(1*) Frank Krygowski reference in uk.rec.cycling, Jan 5th 2006

Cycling is NOT very Dangerous

Try this quiz - Perceptions of Bicycle Safety. Frank Krygowski concludes:-

• Cycling is NOT very dangerous
  • Cycling is at least as safe as many other common activities
• it does us no good to pretend cycling is dangerous
  • Doing so discourages cycling and makes conditions worse for cyclists, and for society as a whole