from todays mx - "Cyclist deaths - high toll sparks warning"

Thursday, 30 September, page 2

Police are urging cyclists to be cautious after the number of road
bike deaths has doubled so far this year. Eight cyclists were killed
on Victorian roads this year, compared to four deaths in 2003.

The reminder coincides with the 21st anniversary of the Victorian
Police Safe Cycle Campaign, which aims to educate road users on how
to avoid bike collisions and injuries. October is Safe Cycle month
and police will reward cyclists obeying road rules.

Figures show a quarter of accidents happen when a cyclist turns on
to the road from the footpath and 30 per cent of casualities are
caused when drivers don't look for cyclists.


=======================

Hmmm, now - 25% of accidents caused by cyclists exiting off the
footpath, 30% by motorists not observing conditions, interesting but
concerning percentages. Discuss.

cfsmtb wrote:
> Thursday, 30 September, page 2
>
> Police are urging cyclists to be cautious after the number of road
> bike deaths has doubled so far this year. Eight cyclists were killed
> on Victorian roads this year, compared to four deaths in 2003.
>
> The reminder coincides with the 21st anniversary of the Victorian
> Police Safe Cycle Campaign, which aims to educate road users on how
> to avoid bike collisions and injuries. October is Safe Cycle month
> and police will reward cyclists obeying road rules.
>
> Figures show a quarter of accidents happen when a cyclist turns on
> to the road from the footpath and 30 per cent of casualities are
> caused when drivers don't look for cyclists.
>
>
> =======================
>
> Hmmm, now - 25% of accidents caused by cyclists exiting off the
> footpath, 30% by motorists not observing conditions, interesting but
> concerning percentages. Discuss.
>
>

I think somebody needs to explain to the Police how statistics work,
the requirement for valid sample sizes, and how statistics should be
analysed. From what I've seen, especially with speed reduction etc.
their interpretation of statistics really leaves something to be
desired. A jump from 4 to eight in a single year really doesn't mean
anything statistically. If it was 4 to eighty then I'd be worried.

DaveB

"fred_nieman" <fred_kneeman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:FCS6d.63$EE6.5393@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...

> "Sorry, mate, I didn't see you"

It'd be more like "Sorry, I didn't see your
husband/wife/son/daughter/dad/mother etc - now can I avoid the jail time and
just get a two year suspended sentence?"...


--
Alan Erskine
We can get people to the Moon in five years,
not the fifteen GWB proposes.
Give NASA a real challenge
Alanterskine1@bigpond.com

cripes, fred, where are you posting from? I posted this to cf/aus.bicycle at approx. 7pm Thursday evening, you're already posting back via the future - 3pm Friday afternoon......'puter clock set ahead or are you in Tonga?

"Alan Erskine" <alanerskine1@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:j0T6d.9568$5O5.3696@news-server.bigpond.net.au
> "fred_nieman" <fred_kneeman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:FCS6d.63$EE6.5393@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
>
>> "Sorry, mate, I didn't see you"
>
> It'd be more like "Sorry, I didn't see your
> husband/wife/son/daughter/dad/mother etc - now can I avoid the jail
> time and just get a two year suspended sentence?"...

Hey! I was SMSing someone, OK?

Sheesh.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

"cfsmtb" <cfsmtb.1decgy@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote in message
news:cfsmtb.1decgy@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com...
>
> cripes, fred, where are you posting from? I posted this to
> cf/aus.bicycle at approx. 7pm Thursday evening, you're already posting
> back via the future - 3pm Friday afternoon......'puter clock set ahead
> or are you in Tonga?
>
>
> --
> cfsmtb
>

Let's do the time warp again.

Marty

"Alan Erskine" <alanerskine1@bigpond.com> wrote in message news:<j0T6d.9568$5O5.3696@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> "fred_nieman" <fred_kneeman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:FCS6d.63$EE6.5393@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
>
> > "Sorry, mate, I didn't see you"
>
> It'd be more like "Sorry, I didn't see your
> husband/wife/son/daughter/dad/mother etc - now can I avoid the jail time and
> just get a two year suspended sentence?"...



XDFTYLM

I WOULD SAY 30 YEAR ALAN

Just came up with a brilliant idea!!!

For those wanting to ride on the footpath...
A large "retractable-silhouette-held-on-a-retractable-pole-coming-off-headtube" that can be flipped out to make it look like you are escorting a 12-or-under rider

I eez gonna be reeech, i tells yer!!!

"fred_nieman" <fred_kneeman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:FCS6d.63$EE6.5393@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
> cfsmtb wrote:
> > Figures show a quarter of accidents happen when a cyclist turns on
> > to the road from the footpath and 30 per cent of casualities are
> > caused when drivers don't look for cyclists.

<snip>

> 4) Ride on the footpath whenever you can when the road traffic looks
> nasty. OK, so it's illegal, unless you're a kid. Then again, which
> would you prefer:
> - the very small chances of a small fine, or of bumping into a
> pedestrian and making them upset with very little chance of any less
> than insignificant injury all round?
> or
> - 2 000 kilograms of 4WD hitting you at 60 kmh?

Judging by the 25% of accidents caused by riding off the footpath this does
hightlight the ridiculous risks of this technique. After all at every minor
street crossing you have to ride off the footpath, usually with no right of
way to traffic on the side street, and drivers turning off the parallel road
who have become unaware of their duty to give way. I'm always amazed to see
adult cyclists, obviously riding some distance (ie. kitted up for commuting)
and riding along the footpath. You will have a much safer time maintaining
your right to road space as a vehicle.

Personally I'd always take the road option as usually the main roads will
ensure your rights more clearly.

Cheers
Peter

"DRS" <drs@remove.this.ihug.com.au> wrote in message news:<cjh240$7cv$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>...
> "Alan Erskine" <alanerskine1@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:j0T6d.9568$5O5.3696@news-server.bigpond.net.au
> > "fred_nieman" <fred_kneeman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:FCS6d.63$EE6.5393@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
> >
> >> "Sorry, mate, I didn't see you"
> >
> > It'd be more like "Sorry, I didn't see your
> > husband/wife/son/daughter/dad/mother etc - now can I avoid the jail
> > time and just get a two year suspended sentence?"...
>
> Hey! I was SMSing someone, OK?
>
> Sheesh.

And I'm crying a lot and I am really sorry. And WTF it was only a
cyclist, not a little old lady...

Sheesh

cfsmtb <cfsmtb.1de2gz@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote in message news:<cfsmtb.1de2gz@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com>...
> Thursday, 30 September, page 2
>
> Police are urging cyclists to be cautious after the number of road
> bike deaths has doubled so far this year. Eight cyclists were killed
> on Victorian roads this year, compared to four deaths in 2003.
>
>

I didn't know it was that many. Problem is with these figures is
that's it's hard to find out where, how, why etc. Is there things we
could learn as cyclists to help, were they complete balls up by
motorists ? Is there any trends to these fatalties, can any good come
of them as far as preventing more tragedy ? Where can we find this
info ?

"rickster" <rdj1969@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:376aeeba.0409301743.3fb833d4@posting.google.com...
> cfsmtb <cfsmtb.1de2gz@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote in message
news:<cfsmtb.1de2gz@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com>...
> > Thursday, 30 September, page 2
> >
> > Police are urging cyclists to be cautious after the number of road
> > bike deaths has doubled so far this year. Eight cyclists were killed
> > on Victorian roads this year, compared to four deaths in 2003.
> >
> >
>
> I didn't know it was that many.

By way of comparison, about 10 years ago BV was happy that the cyclist death
rate had come down to below 30.

The lower bicycle usage due to the helmet laws was a major factor in this
reduction from at times over 50 I think. In the 80s we had much higher
deaths, but many nore kids (teens) rode to school, or stooged about on their
bikes on the footpath/shopping centre/backstreets. Only about 40% of kids
wore helmets, but about 80% of adults. The roads were probably less busy,
but there were few bike lanes and poor road surfaces. Most motorists treated
cyclists much worse than they do today (throwing objects out of car windows,
swinging a tree branch out of a window, and then there were the Volvo
drivers!). Pesonally I didn't know any cyclists who got killed by traffic
accidents.

What scenario is better for cycling??

Cheers
Peter

cfsmtb wrote:
> Thursday, 30 September, page 2
>
> Police are urging cyclists to be cautious after the number of road
> bike deaths has doubled so far this year. Eight cyclists were killed
> on Victorian roads this year, compared to four deaths in 2003.
>
> The reminder coincides with the 21st anniversary of the Victorian
> Police Safe Cycle Campaign, which aims to educate road users on how
> to avoid bike collisions and injuries. October is Safe Cycle month
> and police will reward cyclists obeying road rules.
>
> Figures show a quarter of accidents happen when a cyclist turns on
> to the road from the footpath and 30 per cent of casualities are
> caused when drivers don't look for cyclists.
>
>
> =======================
>
> Hmmm, now - 25% of accidents caused by cyclists exiting off the
> footpath, 30% by motorists not observing conditions, interesting but
> concerning percentages. Discuss.
>
>
"Sorry, mate, I didn't see you"

Sticker should be attached to every new or 2nd hand bicycle sold, saying:
1) assume every car driver is drunk, stupid, or both;
2) wear a helmet - bones heal, brain tissue doesn't;
3) you have a choice about cycling after dark:
(a) get 3 front lights plus a helmet light, 2 rear lights, and
reflective stuff all over you and your bike; or,
(b) don't ride your bike at night.
NB: if you chose option (a), don't feel safe anyway. See (1).
4) Ride on the footpath whenever you can when the road traffic looks
nasty. OK, so it's illegal, unless you're a kid. Then again, which
would you prefer:
- the very small chances of a small fine, or of bumping into a
pedestrian and making them upset with very little chance of any less
than insignificant injury all round?
or
- 2 000 kilograms of 4WD hitting you at 60 kmh?

Mmmm. I guess the font would have to be rather small... or the sticker
rather big...

xxx
p

ps: yes, I own and drive a car. And, wrt item(1), I make a point of
never driving when I have had even the weeniest bit of Mountain Goat, or
similar. As for the stoopid bit, I'm stoopid whether I'm walking,
cycling, driving, or catching the monorail in Sydney

>>>>> "Peter" == Peter Signorini <petesig@alphalink.com.au> writes:

Peter> Personally I'd always take the road option as usually the
Peter> main roads will ensure your rights more clearly.

Yup. Footpath is the most dangerous place a cyclist can be I reckon.
--
Cheers
Euan

25% of 8 fatalities is 2 riders. No mention of the ages. hard to draw conclusions from it.