Cycling benefits 'outweigh deaths'

cfsmtb said:

Here's some breaking news from the world of politix that maybe of interest to you. Same old message or important media release?

Discuss.

theaustralian.news.com.au0,5744,11627517%255E1702,00.htmlOpen ↗

THE benefits of regular bike riding outweighed the loss of life through cycling accidents, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) said today.

.....refer to more, fwd'ed message below from Transport Australia>>>

--- In [email hidden], "Magarey Paul" <paul.magarey@d...> wrote:
Source documents for this are found at:

Media Release from Jim Lloyd:
http://www.ministers.dotars.gov.au/jl/releases/2004/December/l60_2004.htm (pasted below)

ASTB Web page: http://www.atsb.gov.au/road/mgraph/mgraph17/index.cfm
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[snip]
--- End forwarded message ---

Well, it seems sensible enough to me, there were two key points that stood out for me:

1. Increasing participation in cycling is likely to reduce the _rate_ of cycling accidents as less trips are taken by car and higher presence of cyclists on the roads improves motorists' familiarity with cyclists. - This isn't all that controversial and I'm sure will find favour in this newsgroup...

2. Wearing a helmet reduces the likelihood of injury in the event of an accident. (Except for neck injuries, according to the footnoted reference, otherwise the evidence in favour of helmets is "overwhelming"😉. - This is flamebait that some people will loudly, if not violently, oppose. Nevertheless, if I'm going to tumble down the road, I'd rather have something between the road and my head...

I ride and I drive, but I like riding more than I like driving... Now they tell me it's good for me as well!

Ritch.

"cfsmtb" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Here's some breaking news from the world of politix that maybe of
interest to you. Same old message or important media release?

Discuss.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,11627517%255E1702,00.html

Quoted message said:

THE benefits of regular bike riding outweighed the loss of life through
cycling accidents, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) said
today.

I am almost 57 years old and have diabetes. Walking is difficult, as I have
a bad ankle, broken ten years ago, now destroyed by arthritis. I can ride a
bicycle though, and the daily 10-15 kilometres I do is critical to my
managing my diabetes. I can "work off" whatever food I eat by going on a
bike ride an hour after eating. I like to translate every 100 kilometres of
bike riding I do as adding an extra day to my life. I just wish that drivers
(I also drive a lot) were not as aggressive, especially now leading up to
Christmas.

Henry.

cfsmtb said:

Here's some breaking news from the world of politix that maybe of
interest to you. Same old message or important media release?

Discuss.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,11627517%255E1702,00.html

THE benefits of regular bike riding outweighed the loss of life through
cycling accidents, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) said
today.

.....refer to more, fwd'ed message below from Transport Australia>>>

--- In [email hidden], "Magarey Paul"
<paul.magarey@d...> wrote:
Source documents for this are found at:

Media Release from Jim Lloyd:
http://www.ministers.dotars.gov.au/jl/releases/2004/December/l60_2004.htm
(pasted below)

ASTB Web page: http://www.atsb.gov.au/road/mgraph/mgraph17/index.cfm
--------------------------------------------------------------------

MEDIA RELEASE
The Hon Jim Lloyd MP
Minister for Local Government,
Territories and Roads
08 December 2004
L60/2004

MOTORISTS AND CYCLISTS MUST SHARE THE ROAD

There are around 2500 cyclists seriously injured on the public road
system each year according to a new statistical report by the
Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Cycle Safety: A National
Perspective.

Releasing the report today, Minister for Local Government, Territories
and Roads, Jim Lloyd, called for motorists and cyclists to share the
road.

"Cycling is an important form of transport and recreation for many
people in the community," Mr Lloyd said.

"It is important that motorists recognise the rights of cyclists to use
the road and be considerate."

"It is equally important for cyclists to know their responsibilities on
the road and follow the rules."

"While we shouldn't ignore the risks of cycling, we should also
recognise the significant benefits regular cycling can provide to the
community," he said.

"Cycling should be encouraged as it can provide significant
environmental and health benefits."

"The National Cycling Strategy, Australia Cycling: the National
Strategy, 1999-2004 recognises these benefits and my department
supports the implementation of the strategy through the Australian
Bicycle Council." Mr Lloyd said.

The ATSB report summarises some of the key cycling safety indicators.
Key findings of the report include:

* Cyclists account for around 2 per cent of road deaths and 11 per cent
of seriously injured each year.
* In 2003, cycling was the fourth most popular physical activity among
people aged 15 years and older.
* There is considerable evidence that the overall community benefits
from cycling are likely to outweigh the loss of life through cycling
accidents.

Cycle Safety: A National Perspective can be obtained from the ATSB's
web site: www.atsb.gov.au/road/mgraph/mgraph17/index.cfm

Media Contacts
Graeme Hallett ( Minister Lloyd's Office ) 0419 688 440
--- End forwarded message ---

These are the arguements the UK CTC (with the backing of medical groups)
have been using for years.

--
Remove norubbish to reply direct

Jack Russell

"cfsmtb" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Here's some breaking news from the world of politix that maybe of
interest to you. Same old message or important media release?

Discuss.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,11627517%255E1702,00.html

Quoted message said:

THE benefits of regular bike riding outweighed the loss of life through
cycling accidents, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) said
today.

Why, only yesterday my doctor told me that my mountain bike riding was good
and to keep doing it. Must remember to tell my wife! And my blood pressure
was "perfect".

Tony F
http://www.thefathippy.com

Jack Russell said:

cfsmtb said:

Here's some breaking news from the world of politix that maybe of
interest to you. Same old message or important media release?

Same old bull-[censored] message.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"It is important that motorists recognise the rights of cyclists to use
the road and be considerate."

Nice, but.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"It is equally important for cyclists to know their responsibilities on
the road and follow the rules."

And the same old boring "but we really don't believe it is the motorist
that is at fault and by saying the above we give all the problem
motorists a cop-out".

quote='Terry Collins'Jack Russell said:

cfsmtb said:

Here's some breaking news from the world of politix that maybe of
interest to you. Same old message or important media release?

Same old bull-[censored] message.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"It is important that motorists recognise the rights of cyclists to use
the road and be considerate."

Nice, but.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"It is equally important for cyclists to know their responsibilities on
the road and follow the rules."

And the same old boring "but we really don't believe it is the motorist
that is at fault and by saying the above we give all the problem
motorists a cop-out".[/QUOTE]

Bull-[censored] as in "not right", or Bull-[censored] as in "nothing new here"?

Motorist copout? Evidently, you read a different report than I...

Ritch

Most cyclists related jury/death stats always includes cyclists from age 0 which throws a poor reflection on it I reckon.

Not many adult aged cyclists out there who would build a ramp in the street out the front of their place to jump over their mates/pets etc.

cfsmtb said:

Here's some breaking news from the world of politix
that maybe of interest to you. Same old message or
important media release?

But... But... Cycling is _dangerous_! Otherwise we wouldn't be subjected to all that helmet propaganda that tells us if we leave the house without a helmet then we'l surely be struck down with scabies... Or was it thrush? Never can remember which. Indeed, I've been having trouble with remembering stuff ever since that shark bit my head while I was cycling outside the flags. Or was that without sunscreen?

Regards,

Suzy

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> "Terry" == Terry Collins <[email hidden]> writes:

Terry> Nice, but.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> "It is equally important for cyclists to know their

responsibilities on > the road and follow the rules."

Terry> And the same old boring "but we really don't believe it is
Terry> the motorist that is at fault and by saying the above we give
Terry> all the problem motorists a cop-out".

No, that's not what it says at all. It says that it's "...important for
cyclists to know their responsibilities on the road and follow the
rules."

I don't see how you can take issue with that statement. Of the cyclists
I see on my daily commute to and from the city I reckon about half show
no regard for traffic lights. I remember one afternoon where a guy
following me was doing the right thing stopping at reds whilst just
about everyone else sailed through them. "I reckon it's just you and me
today," is what he said to me. Unfortunately it's all too common an
experience.

So tell me again; how does a recognition that both cyclists and
motorists must obey the rules equate to giving the motorist a cop out?
--
Cheers
Euan

Quoted message said:

I don't see how you can take issue with that statement. Of the cyclists
I see on my daily commute to and from the city I reckon about half show
no regard for traffic lights. I remember one afternoon where a guy
following me was doing the right thing stopping at reds whilst just
about everyone else sailed through them. "I reckon it's just you and me
today," is what he said to me. Unfortunately it's all too common an
experience.

I know what you mean. As a cyclist, I understand the temptation: you can
see the road; you know it's safe; you want to keep moving, not stay
stuck at a red light that stays for what seems an interminable period.
As a motorist, though, I also understand the reason for the rule: if you
miss something when checking, run the red, and have an accident ...

There's only one place I can think of where cyclists can justifiably
argue that the light shouldn't apply, and that's on St Kilda Road,
heading south, just north of Melbourne Grammar. You have the road
heading south, and there's another road that curves around to join it in
a sort of curved T intersection. Because of the design of the
intersection, there is virtually no risk for a cyclist (in the bike
lane, anyway) if he (or she) chooses to run the red.

Mind you, I also have issues with a number of speed limits on the road
:-) (Three lanes, each way, divided road ... and it's a 60 kph limit?!
What the fsck are Vicroads smoking?)

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@ to usenet".

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 at 09:10 GMT, Stuart Lamble (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't see how you can take issue with that statement. Of the cyclists
I see on my daily commute to and from the city I reckon about half show
no regard for traffic lights. I remember one afternoon where a guy
following me was doing the right thing stopping at reds whilst just
about everyone else sailed through them. "I reckon it's just you and me
today," is what he said to me. Unfortunately it's all too common an
experience.

I know what you mean. As a cyclist, I understand the temptation: you can
see the road; you know it's safe; you want to keep moving, not stay
stuck at a red light that stays for what seems an interminable period.
As a motorist, though, I also understand the reason for the rule: if you
miss something when checking, run the red, and have an accident ...

And you think that the Camberwell Junction is bad. Just wait until
they take out the lights (they were digging up one of the lights when
I was there this morning), and have police directing the traffic. I
could have sworn I was there for 10 minutes. And you can't simply skip
over to Burke Rd side of things, and get a 2 minute headstart, because
the police are watching 🙂

--
TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/
vi is [[13~^[[15~^[[15~^[[19~^[[18~^ a
muk[^[[29~^[[34~^[[26~^[[32~^ch better editor than this emacs. I know
I^[[14~'ll get flamed for this but the truth has to be
said. ^[[D^[[D^[[D^[[D ^[[D^[^[[D^[[D^[[B^
exit ^X^C quit :x :wq dang it :w:w:w :x ^C^C^Z^D
-- Jesper Lauridsen <[email hidden]> from alt.religion.emacs

ritcho said:

Bull-[censored] as in "not right", or Bull-[censored] as in "nothing new here"?

Motorist copout? Evidently, you read a different report than I...

You must be new around here.

Those two paragraphs always appear together like lamb and mint sauce,
turkey and cranberry sauce, peanut butter and jelly (for the septic
lurkers), or whatever your favourite combination is.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> "Terry" == Terry Collins <[email hidden]> writes:

Terry ritcho said:

Quoted message said:

Bull-[censored] as in "not right", or Bull-[censored] as in "nothing new
here"?

Motorist copout? Evidently, you read a different report than I...

Terry> You must be new around here.

Terry> Those two paragraphs always appear together like lamb and
Terry> mint sauce, turkey and cranberry sauce, peanut butter and
Terry> jelly (for the septic lurkers), or whatever your favourite
Terry> combination is.

Help me out here please because it seems I'm missing something.

How does stating:

"It is important that motorists recognize the rights of cyclists to use
the road and be considerate."

and

"It is equally important for cyclists to know their responsibilities on
the road and follow the rules."

equate to giving the motorist a cop out? Seems to me it's far from bull
[censored] and more akin to common sense, so what am I missing that's so
obviously raised your hackles?
--
Cheers
Euan

Quoted message said:

"It is important that motorists recognize the rights of cyclists to use
the road and be considerate."

and

"It is equally important for cyclists to know their responsibilities on
the road and follow the rules."

equate to giving the motorist a cop out? Seems to me it's far from bull
[censored] and more akin to common sense, so what am I missing that's so
obviously raised your hackles?

As I said.

In 30 years, I've never seen a bicycle related media release that
doesn't use something similar to the first paragraph, then immediately
follow up with the second.

If a bicyclist breaks the law and gets injured, it is far greater the
chance that they will pay the consequence. If a motorist breaks the law,
the almost certainty is that someone else will pay the consequences.

And have you ever posted anything other than "but bicyclist deserve it
because they are always breaking the law. Why just last week I
saw....."? You should get a new neighbourhood.

We need more Critical Mass, not [censored] kissing. 30+ years in this country
has produced bugger all.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> "Terry" == Terry Collins <[email hidden]> writes:

Terry> As I said.

Terry> In 30 years, I've never seen a bicycle related media release
Terry> that doesn't use something similar to the first paragraph,
Terry> then immediately follow up with the second.

So what? It's a perfectly reasonable and balanced statement. What
would you prefer? "Motorists must treat cyclists with the utmost
respect and courtesy, but if cyclists want to be law breaking [censored] holes
then more power to them?" Just what would satisfy you?

Terry> If a bicyclist breaks the law and gets injured, it is far
Terry> greater the chance that they will pay the consequence. If a
Terry> motorist breaks the law, the almost certainty is that someone
Terry> else will pay the consequences.

What's that got to do anything? Does that change the validity of the
statement that motorists and cyclists should both respect the law and
use the roads with courtesy? I'd suggest it doesn't.

Terry> And have you ever posted anything other than "but bicyclist
Terry> deserve it because they are always breaking the law. Why just
Terry> last week I saw....."? You should get a new neighbourhood.

Don't recall every saying that cyclists are always breaking the law.
I've said that many cyclists *do*. I'm a cyclist, I don't so QED not
all cyclists break the law.

I like my neighborhood just fine. I ride to work every day, Highett to
the CBD or Highett to East Burwood depending and have ZERO motorist
problems. I put that down to riding with courtesy and obeying the law.

And yes, I do post on other topics. Like stacking on the tram tracks at
the end of Fitzroy Street. Some stuff about panniers and other stuff.

Terry> We need more Critical Mass, not [censored] kissing. 30+ years in
Terry> this country has produced bugger all.

I don't class obeying the law as [censored] kissing, I call it being a
responsible resident. One day I'll be able to say responsible citizen,
but I'm not quite there yet.

I'll reserve comment on Critical Mass, I haven't attended so I don't
know if they're being mis-represented in the press or not.
--
Cheers
Euan

"TimC" <[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

And you think that the Camberwell Junction is bad. Just wait until
they take out the lights (they were digging up one of the lights when
I was there this morning), and have police directing the traffic. I
could have sworn I was there for 10 minutes. And you can't simply skip
over to Burke Rd side of things, and get a 2 minute headstart, because
the police are watching 🙂

You'll be right.. they are slow and don't give a
rats about cyclists anyway! It's not like they can
leave the intersection.. :-)

hippy

"suzyj" <[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

cfsmtb said:

Here's some breaking news from the world of politix
that maybe of interest to you. Same old message or
important media release?

But... But... Cycling is _dangerous_! Otherwise we wouldn't be
subjected to all that helmet propaganda that tells us if we leave the
house without a helmet then we'l surely be struck down with scabies...
Or was it thrush? Never can remember which. Indeed, I've been having
trouble with remembering stuff ever since that shark bit my head while
I was cycling outside the flags. Or was that without sunscreen?

I hope it was lack of sunscreen.. I have heaps of that..
be buggered if I know where the flags are though!

hippy

quote='Terry Collins'ritcho said:

Bull-[censored] as in "not right", or Bull-[censored] as in "nothing new here"?

Motorist copout? Evidently, you read a different report than I...

You must be new around here.

Those two paragraphs always appear together like lamb and mint sauce,
turkey and cranberry sauce, peanut butter and jelly (for the septic
lurkers), or whatever your favourite combination is.[/QUOTE]

Hmm, new around here... okay, I haven't been reading ATSB reports for 30 years. However, the two paragraphs that always appear together are perfectly reasonable advice for all road users. They do not give a cop-out to motorists.

Motorcyclists have similar issues regarding the imbalance of risks posed by accidents with cars and they are issued with similar advice: the use of safety equipment and obeying the law reduce the risk of being injured on the roads (compared with _not_ using safety equipment and disobeying the road rules).

There was no cop-out when the 18yo girl failed right of way at a roundabout and collided with my nice shiny ZX6R. I ended up on the floor, she ended up with a ticket and an insurance claim (and a bollocking from her frustrated father...)

Ritch

In article <[email hidden]>, ritcho

Quoted message said:

Those two paragraphs always appear together like lamb and mint sauce,

Quoted message said:

turkey and cranberry sauce, peanut butter and jelly (for the septic
lurkers), or whatever your favourite combination is.

ahhhh gin & tonic 😉