Oxford and Cambridge cycle survey reveals top tips for reducing risks

  • Thread starter Just zis Guy, you know?
  • Start date



J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
Oxford and Cambridge cycle survey reveals top tips for reducing risks
=====================================================================

A new report has been published describing the training, skills and
experiences of 5,000 cyclists in Oxford and Cambridge.

The survey was commissioned by a group of organisations led by
Oxfordshire County Council and Cambridge City Council.

It revealed that around 40% of cyclists had avoided accidents - coming
off their bikes once in ten years or even less often, and the survey
went on to give some clues to why this is.

For instance, when asked for tips on cycling, the most common piece of
advice people gave for reducing risks was to be aware of everything,
to observe other road users and anticipate their movements.

The second most popular piece of advice was about positioning on the
road - to ride a metre or so out from the kerb or from parked cars so
as to avoid hazards and to deter drivers from overtaking too closely.

The most serious types of accidents involved a vehicle overtaking a
cyclist. Women seem to be more likely than men to have these types of
accident.

The survey also found that women were more likely to say they find it
hard to look back over their shoulders and to tell when it is safe to
pull in to traffic. More work needs to be done to understand why this
is the case.

The most common type of incident by far was slipping or skidding due
to a hazard such as a pothole, metal cover, ice, loose gravel, a
greasy road or a low kerb at a shallow angle.

Cllr David Robertson, the County Council's Cabinet Member for
Transport, said: "There is a lot to learn from this survey both for
the authorities and the individual cyclists.

"We plan to use these findings to improve conditions and training
advice particularly through links with our partners on the project."

The report is available to download from
www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/cyclingsurvey


Notes:

1. The Oxford & Cambridge Cycling Survey, conducted by Dr Ian Walker
of Bath University on behalf of Oxfordshire County Council. Available
to download from http://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/cyclingsurvey.htm

2. Key findings of the survey were:

o Close to 5,000 people returned a survey form. The peak age range of
respondents was 21-30.
o The most common reasons for bicycle trips were commuting and
shopping.
o The longest journey a person regularly made by bicycle was,
typically, 3.3 miles.
o The clear majority of bicycles were traditionally framed, with
derailleur gears, rim brakes, and battery lamps front and rear.
o Men were substantially more likely than women to carry out routine
maintenance on their bicycles.
o One-third of respondents had experienced an accident in the past
year, 72% of which resulted in no actual injury.
o 61% of seriously injurious accidents (and 93.8% of all accidents)
were not reported to authorities. Even for serious accidents caused by
a motorist, less than one-third were reported.
o Women have been found more likely than men to experience certain
types of serious accident; accordingly, they reported being
substantially less able to look back over their shoulders and to tell
when it is safe to pull into traffic.
Partner organisations
The Oxford and Cambridge Cycle Survey was led by Oxfordshire County
Council in partnership with Cambridge City Council, and the following:
" Oxford City Council
" Cambridgeshire County Council
" University of Oxford
" Cambridge University
" Oxford Brookes University
" John Radcliffe Hospital NHS Trust
" The Oxford Bus Company
" BMW Plant Oxford
" Stagecoach Oxford
" Oxfam
" CTC - the national cyclists' organisation
" Oxford Primary Care Trust

Contact
Dr Ian Walker, Bath University on 07881 908508
Celia Jones, Oxfordshire County Council on 07775 638994
Clare Rankin, Cambridge City Council on 01223 457108

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> The survey also found that women were more likely to say they find it
> hard to look back over their shoulders and to tell when it is safe to
> pull in to traffic. More work needs to be done to understand why this
> is the case.


I suspect that the explanation is likely to involve bras.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine
 
"Danny Colyer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> The survey also found that women were more likely to say they find it
>> hard to look back over their shoulders and to tell when it is safe to
>> pull in to traffic. More work needs to be done to understand why this
>> is the case.

>
> I suspect that the explanation is likely to involve bras.
>


My overshoulderboulderholder does not impede me looking over my shoulder...
honest - and I have big boulders...

Cheers, helen s ;-)




> --
> Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
> <URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
> "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine
 
"wafflycat" <waffles*A*T*v21net*D*O*T*co*D*O*T*uk>typed



> "Danny Colyer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> >> The survey also found that women were more likely to say they find it
> >> hard to look back over their shoulders and to tell when it is safe to
> >> pull in to traffic. More work needs to be done to understand why this
> >> is the case.

> >
> > I suspect that the explanation is likely to involve bras.
> >


> My overshoulderboulderholder does not impede me looking over my shoulder...
> honest - and I have big boulders...


I don't have big boulders; I don't always wear a bra. I always found
turning backwards difficult.

Women have narrow shoulders and their arms are usually fairly
lightweight. Having a short upper body means we ride bikes with short
stems. I think the effect of all this is that it is difficult to turn
the head without causing some handlebar movement, the effect of which is
greater on the sort of set-up many women will choose. (This also make
riding with hands off the handlebars _much_ more difficult)

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
Edgware.
 
Section 3.2.5 makes an interesting read; it was "an open question, each
respondent was asked about the best piece of advice they had ever been
given on cycling".

Of particular note to me was the differing % of men and women suggesting
that "advice on wearing helmets" was of most importance.
 
At Fri, 17 Jun 2005 22:17:58 +0100, message
<[email protected]> was posted by Helen Deborah
Vecht <[email protected]>, including some, all or none of the
following:

>Women have narrow shoulders and their arms are usually fairly
>lightweight. Having a short upper body means we ride bikes with short
>stems. I think the effect of all this is that it is difficult to turn
>the head without causing some handlebar movement


I thin k it's also true that women have longer legs in proportion to
their height than men do, but most bikes have a geometry designed for
men. That is going to make it more difficult to look back, because
the upper body is more stretched out so movement of the head and
shoulders will have more effect on handling.


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]>typed


> At Fri, 17 Jun 2005 22:17:58 +0100, message
> <[email protected]> was posted by Helen Deborah
> Vecht <[email protected]>, including some, all or none of the
> following:


> >Women have narrow shoulders and their arms are usually fairly
> >lightweight. Having a short upper body means we ride bikes with short
> >stems. I think the effect of all this is that it is difficult to turn
> >the head without causing some handlebar movement


> I thin k it's also true that women have longer legs in proportion to
> their height than men do, but most bikes have a geometry designed for
> men. That is going to make it more difficult to look back, because
> the upper body is more stretched out so movement of the head and
> shoulders will have more effect on handling.


Women can't win this way; short stem -> small movements cause big
effects on steering
Long stem -> body more stretched out so head movements cause steering
movements.

Short top tubes can cause toe/tyre conflict...

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
Edgware.
 
Following on from Helen Deborah Vecht's message. . .
>"wafflycat" <waffles*A*T*v21net*D*O*T*co*D*O*T*uk>typed
>> "Danny Colyer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> >> The survey also found that women were more likely to say they find it
>> >> hard to look back over their shoulders and to tell when it is safe to
>> >> pull in to traffic. More work needs to be done to understand why this
>> >> is the case.
>> >
>> > I suspect that the explanation is likely to involve bras.
>> >

>
>> My overshoulderboulderholder does not impede me looking over my shoulder...
>> honest - and I have big boulders...

>
>I don't have big boulders; I don't always wear a bra. I always found
>turning backwards difficult.
>
>Women have narrow shoulders and their arms are usually fairly
>lightweight. Having a short upper body means we ride bikes with short
>stems. I think the effect of all this is that it is difficult to turn
>the head without causing some handlebar movement, the effect of which is
>greater on the sort of set-up many women will choose. (This also make
>riding with hands off the handlebars _much_ more difficult)
>

My 2p.
I wonder if it is that women are keener to look behind (scared rabbit
mode) than men who may occasionally glance. Perhaps also men are less
likely to /percieve/ it as a problem and don't consider it worthy of
reporting - even if they 'know they ought' to look behind more often but
the hassle brings them into bad habits which they aren't keen to admit.

(As a result of reading this bit yesterday I decided to have a bit of a
practice: Result = Could do better, must try harder. )

Note the second bit of the report "... and to tell when it is safe to
pull in to traffic. " Somehow that doesn't come as a shock, but
interesting nevertheless.


--
PETER FOX Not the same since the glue company came unstuck
[email protected]
www.eminent.demon.co.uk - Lots for cyclists
 
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 23:57:01 +0100, Helen Deborah Vecht
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Women can't win this way; short stem -> small movements cause big
>effects on steering
>Long stem -> body more stretched out so head movements cause steering
>movements.
>
>Short top tubes can cause toe/tyre conflict...



Is this why I see fewer women than men cycling?
 
Al C-F <[email protected]>typed


> On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 23:57:01 +0100, Helen Deborah Vecht
> <[email protected]> wrote:


> >Women can't win this way; short stem -> small movements cause big
> >effects on steering
> >Long stem -> body more stretched out so head movements cause steering
> >movements.
> >
> >Short top tubes can cause toe/tyre conflict...



> Is this why I see fewer women than men cycling?


No. The CTC doesn't appear to know why this is the case.

I suggest (in no particular order)

1) Fear of traffic.
2) 'Fashion' considerations[1]
3) Patronising attitudes by bike-shop staff
4) Sexual harassment on the roads
5) Fear of assault on 'facilities'
6) Cycle parking issues


[1] Clothing, hair-styles, sweat etc

Many women have smaller feet than I do (41.5 so do many men!) and
toe/tyre conflict may be less problematic for them.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
Edgware.
 
Helen Deborah Vecht <[email protected]> of wrote:
>Many women have smaller feet than I do (41.5 so do many men!) and
>toe/tyre conflict may be less problematic for them.


Not if they have a good fitting bike. I get the toe/tyre conflict thing on
my tiny tourer that fits me really well, and my feet are only size 37.
--
Equality may perhaps be a right, but no power on earth
can ever turn it into a fact. - Honore' de Balzac
Steph Peters delete invalid from [email protected]lid
Tatting, lace & stitching page <http://www.sandbenders.demon.co.uk/index.htm>
 
Helen Deborah Vecht <[email protected]> writes:

>"wafflycat" <waffles*A*T*v21net*D*O*T*co*D*O*T*uk>typed


>> "Danny Colyer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> >> The survey also found that women were more likely to say they find it
>> >> hard to look back over their shoulders and to tell when it is safe to
>> >> pull in to traffic. More work needs to be done to understand why this
>> >> is the case.
>> >
>> > I suspect that the explanation is likely to involve bras.
>> >


>> My overshoulderboulderholder does not impede me looking over my shoulder...
>> honest - and I have big boulders...


>I don't have big boulders; I don't always wear a bra. I always found
>turning backwards difficult.


>Women have narrow shoulders and their arms are usually fairly
>lightweight. Having a short upper body means we ride bikes with short
>stems. I think the effect of all this is that it is difficult to turn
>the head without causing some handlebar movement, the effect of which is
>greater on the sort of set-up many women will choose. (This also make
>riding with hands off the handlebars _much_ more difficult)


For a given height women often have longer legs and shorter upper
bodies, including arms. It's easiest to look over your shoulder
without turning the bars if you're putting no weight on the bars. This
is easier if the riding position is more upright. I've noticed that
women seem to be more likely to accept the advice of bike shop
assistants about how to set up their bikes. Bike shop assistants are
often deranged followers of fashion and rumour, and will often tell a
woman who only wants to shop and comute in a leisurely fashion on her
bike that she ought to have low handlebars to reduce wind resistance,
"increase power", and be more comfotable on longer rides (the latter
tow being rubbish, but often claimed by bike shop assistants). So they
do often end up with bikes in which it is more difficult to look over
one's shoulder.

Even though I'm pretty opinionated and technologicailly self-confident
and have been cycling for more than fifty years, I still let the
salestwits talk me into trying out a lower riding position than I
liked on my last bike purchase, and had to endure lots of resigned
head shaking and comments about my folly when I came back to insist
on a longer stem.

Mirror, anyone? With a good mirror you can check out the traffic
behind at leisure, and then you only need the last second short
shoulder check, called by motorcyclists the "lifesaver", to catch what
the mirror might have missed because it was too close etc.. The
lifesaver is much easier to do withour wobbling the bike, shorter and
less extreme than looking around behind, which you've already done
with the mirror.

I wouldn't ride a bike without a mirror, simply because it allows me
to make much more complete and comprehensive rear observation than
would be possible or safe over my shoulder. I can easily ride with my
head over my shoulder without wobbling, but my knowledge of what rear
traffic is up to is much more complete with a mirror. I regard it as a
very important safety aid, and feel uncomfortably exposed to
approaching rear lunatics without it.

I've never understood why, on the vehicle which gets by far the most
overtaken, i.e. a bicycle, mirrors aren't compulsory, as they are on
vehicles which get overtaken much less often. I personally think the
lack of mirrors on bikes, and the concomitant and very important
training in how to use them, is a significant accident risk. This
study confirms that.

I sometimes surprise my wife by claiming that someone with no
motorcycling gear in the the supermarket is a good motorcyclist, just
by observing the instinctive "lifesaver" shoulder checks made before
changing direction with the supermarket trolley :)
--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
 
Helen Deborah Vecht <[email protected]> writes:

>Al C-F <[email protected]>typed


>> On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 23:57:01 +0100, Helen Deborah Vecht
>> <[email protected]> wrote:


>> >Women can't win this way; short stem -> small movements cause big
>> >effects on steering
>> >Long stem -> body more stretched out so head movements cause steering
>> >movements.
>> >
>> >Short top tubes can cause toe/tyre conflict...



>> Is this why I see fewer women than men cycling?


>No. The CTC doesn't appear to know why this is the case.


>I suggest (in no particular order)


>1) Fear of traffic.
>2) 'Fashion' considerations[1]
>3) Patronising attitudes by bike-shop staff
>4) Sexual harassment on the roads
>5) Fear of assault on 'facilities'
>6) Cycle parking issues



>[1] Clothing, hair-styles, sweat etc


>Many women have smaller feet than I do (41.5 so do many men!) and
>toe/tyre conflict may be less problematic for them.


My last bike purchase, my first hybrid, has a short top tube, and in
the first couple of months I nearly fell off several times due to
protruding toes catching the front wheel. It took more than a year,
possibly two, before I got used enough to it that now it never
happens, i.e., avoiding it by foot position on pedal became so
automatically instinctive that I can rely on it without thinking.
--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
 
Following on from Chris Malcolm's message. . .
>I've never understood why, on the vehicle which gets by far the most
>overtaken, i.e. a bicycle, mirrors aren't compulsory, as they are on
>vehicles which get overtaken much less often. I personally think the
>lack of mirrors on bikes, and the concomitant and very important
>training in how to use them, is a significant accident risk. This
>study confirms that.


(1) No it doesn't confirm anything of the sort.

(2) Why? What are you supposed to do if being overtaken? If there's no
decision to be made then you don't need the information and can
concentrate on what's up ahead not worry pointlessly about what's
behind. As you said yourself, you need to take a real look anyway when
manoeuvring.

(3) Mirrors are prone to break and have numerous blind spots (which vary
with rider position)

If you were riding in a group then I can see the purpose but otherwise
an unreliable distraction.

>
>I sometimes surprise my wife by claiming that someone with no
>motorcycling gear in the the supermarket is a good motorcyclist, just
>by observing the instinctive "lifesaver" shoulder checks made before
>changing direction with the supermarket trolley :)

Please remember that what applies to motorcycles is often totally
irrelevant to bicycles.

--
PETER FOX Not the same since the icecream business was liquidated
[email protected]
www.eminent.demon.co.uk - Lots for cyclists
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Oxford and Cambridge cycle survey reveals top tips for reducing

risks
>

=====================================================================
>
> A new report has been published describing the training, skills and
> experiences of 5,000 cyclists in Oxford and Cambridge.


Well, I just read the report summary, but that's good for a few
chuckles. I imagine that if you wanted to find a cyclist population
combining the maximum of arrogance and ignorance, Oxbridge is the
place to go. Certainly one gets the impression that those connected
with the survey were unfamiliar with, say, "Cyclecraft", or the
National Cycling Training curriculum

[snip]

I liked this bit.

> The most serious types of accidents involved a vehicle overtaking a
> cyclist. Women seem to be more likely than men to have these types

of
> accident.


That's an odd kind of accident, because in most places it's pretty
rare. The summary doesn't say how often such accidents occur in
Oxbridge, but evidently it's often enough to cause concern. The
cause, apparently, is cyclists moving right without looking behind,
which turns out not to be a good idea.

I remember when I lived in the USA, round about 1970, when the "bike
boom" was at its height. The road safety establishment got terribly
worried that the new-fangled dropped handlebars would make it
impossible for cyclists to look over their shoulder. They did a big
research project and found that cyclists could look over their
shoulder, and some even did.

About ten years later there was the mountain bike boom. The road
safety establishment got terribly worried that the new-fangled flat
handlebars would make it impossible for cyclists to look over their
shoulder. They did a big research project and found that cyclists
could look over their shoulder, and some even did

Maybe I should read the full report

Jeremy Parker (BSc, Lond')
 
"Helen Deborah Vecht" <[email protected]> wrote

[snip]

> > Is this why I see fewer women than men cycling?

>
> No. The CTC doesn't appear to know why this is the case.
>
> I suggest (in no particular order)
>
> 1) Fear of traffic.
> 2) 'Fashion' considerations[1]
> 3) Patronising attitudes by bike-shop staff
> 4) Sexual harassment on the roads
> 5) Fear of assault on 'facilities'
> 6) Cycle parking issues
>
>
> [1] Clothing, hair-styles, sweat etc



There was some discussion about this on a London cycling Campaign
mailing list a while back.. I noticed at the time that women, in
London, not only ride less, but, on average, ride a shorter distance
as well. I don't have the numbers handy at the moment, but I recall
that the comparative areas reachable by the women's average riding
distance, and the men's, almost exactly matched the comparative
amounts of riding

Regarding fashion, didn't the fashion for "pedal pushers" in the USA
just about coincide with the minimum for cycling?

Jeremy Parker
 
Peter Fox wrote:
> (3) Mirrors are prone to break and have numerous blind spots (which vary
> with rider position)


A glasses mounted mirror can be invaluable. I can see far more with
mine than I could hope to see by looking over my shoulder.

> If you were riding in a group then I can see the purpose but otherwise
> an unreliable distraction.


YMMV.

>>I sometimes surprise my wife by claiming that someone with no
>>motorcycling gear in the the supermarket is a good motorcyclist, just
>>by observing the instinctive "lifesaver" shoulder checks made before
>>changing direction with the supermarket trolley :)

>
> Please remember that what applies to motorcycles is often totally
> irrelevant to bicycles.


OTOH, what applies to motorcycles is often *very* relevant to bicycles.
The importance of the lifesaver is an example.


--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> I thin k it's also true that women have longer legs in proportion to
> their height than men do


Repends who you believe. Richard Ballantine says they do, LJK Setright says
the opposite and someone else whom (grammer) I forget says there is no
significant difference.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger
Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger
 
Dave Larrington wrote:
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> > I thin k it's also true that women have longer legs in proportion to
> > their height than men do

>
> Repends who you believe. Richard Ballantine says they do, LJK
> Setright says the opposite and someone else whom (grammer) I forget
> says there is no significant difference.


If it's any help my grandfather used to say that women's legs are never
as long as they seem.

--
Dave...
 
Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]>typed
>> At Fri, 17 Jun 2005 22:17:58 +0100, message
>> <[email protected]> was posted by Helen Deborah
>> Vecht <[email protected]>, including some, all or none of the
>> following:
>>> Women have narrow shoulders and their arms are usually fairly
>>> lightweight. Having a short upper body means we ride bikes with
>>> short stems. I think the effect of all this is that it is difficult
>>> to turn the head without causing some handlebar movement

>> I thin k it's also true that women have longer legs in proportion to
>> their height than men do, but most bikes have a geometry designed for
>> men. That is going to make it more difficult to look back, because
>> the upper body is more stretched out so movement of the head and
>> shoulders will have more effect on handling.

> <snip>
>
> Short top tubes can cause toe/tyre conflict...



I remember seeing (a while back) a Roberts women's specific bike being
reviewed in the CTC mag, which had small wheels exactly to avoid this. I'd
assume that it was long enough ago that 26 inch wheels were a novelty on a
touring bike, and not that it was 24 inch wheels.

--
Ambrose