SA - Road safety program launched with a focus on cyclists

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

Quoted message said:

G'day

From the Adealid Now.com.au at http://snipurl.com/peep/1polu

In an Australian first, the new Road Right program has been designed
by the the Amy Gillett Foundation to cut down the 70 cyclist
fatalitiest each year.

Is 70 cyclist fatalities a year only for Australia?? Seems really high to
me as that is obviously nearly 1.5 casualties per week!!!

Gags

Andrew Priest said:

G'day

From the Adealid Now.com.au at http://snipurl.com/peep/1polu

Regards
Andrew

L-PLATE students have a chance to win a new Volvo C30 if they take
part in a website questionnaire designed to build cyclist safety into
driver education.

In an Australian first, the new Road Right program has been designed
by the the Amy Gillett Foundation to cut down the 70 cyclist
fatalitiest each year.

Today, Mary Safe, mother of the champion Australian cyclist, who was
killed while training two years ago in Germany, launched the program
at Annesley College, her daughter Amy's old school.

The three-year national road safety program is an online questionnaire
at www.amygillette.org.au and along with thousands of dollars worth of
prizes, one lucky participant each year will win a new Volvo C30 motor
vehicle valued at $34,450.

"Our campaign is targeted at the 16-year-old learner drivers and in
2005 more than 373,000 learners permits were issued," Mrs Safe told an
assembly of Annesley College senior students today.

"Learners are going to be the drivers of the future and we want them
to be a lot more aware while on the road and to know how to take care
when they come across cyclists.

"Amy isn't the only cyclist killed on the road.

"when you lose a child, you need to find a reason to go on with your
life and the foundation has given a purpose, a direction again.

"She is still with me, today and she would be saying `good on you,
mum'."

Then Annesley College Year 12 student and learner driver took the
wheel of the C30 to drive the director of road safety in the
Department of Transport, Martin Small for a drive. Alongside, sharing
the road was Annesley junior school student Izzy Farmer, 11, who rides
her bike to school from Goodwood each day.

And in a poignant coincidence early this morning, Mrs Safe heard from
champion Australian cyclist, Lorian Graham, who was road training with
Amy on July 18, 2005 when she was struck and killed by a car in
Germany, has been selected in the Australian cycling road team.
-----
Churchlands, Western Australia
Giant CRX 1; Giant Boulder SE
http://aushiker.com http://backpackgeartest.org http://geocaching.com.au

They screwed up the URL in the article though, there's only one e in
Gillett. http:\\www.amygillett.org.au

The direct link to the questionnaire is
http://www.amygillett.org.au/roadright/index.cfm

--
--
Pete.B

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 20 Aug 2007 00:13:33 +1000

Gags said:

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

Quoted message said:

G'day

From the Adealid Now.com.au at http://snipurl.com/peep/1polu

In an Australian first, the new Road Right program has been designed
by the the Amy Gillett Foundation to cut down the 70 cyclist
fatalitiest each year.

Is 70 cyclist fatalities a year only for Australia?? Seems really high to
me as that is obviously nearly 1.5 casualties per week!!!

Over all the states. Wouldn't surprise me, as I bet cyclist
fatalities only get in the newspaper if there's something heart
tugging about them or they need a filler. There are over 1500 car
occupants killed a year, do you read about all of them?

Zebee

Zebee Johnstone said:

Gags <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Is 70 cyclist fatalities a year only for Australia?? Seems really
high to me as that is obviously nearly 1.5 casualties per week!!!

Quoted message said:

Over all the states. Wouldn't surprise me, as I bet cyclist
fatalities only get in the newspaper if there's something heart
tugging about them or they need a filler. There are over 1500 car
occupants killed a year, do you read about all of them?

That is less than 1 cyclist killed for every dead motorist, or just under 5%
of road fatalities. How would that relate to hours spent on the road? How
much less safe per hour of road use are bicyles? Anybody know?

Theo

Theo Bekkers said:

That is less than 1 cyclist killed for every dead motorist, or just
under 5% of road fatalities. How would that relate to hours spent on
the road? How much less safe per hour of road use are bicyles?
Anybody know?

Aaaarghh. That was meant to say "That is less than 1 cyclist killed for
every 20 dead motorists"

Theo
Need a proof-reader.

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:57:51 +0800

Theo Bekkers said:

Theo Bekkers said:

That is less than 1 cyclist killed for every dead motorist, or just
under 5% of road fatalities. How would that relate to hours spent on
the road? How much less safe per hour of road use are bicyles?
Anybody know?

Aaaarghh. That was meant to say "That is less than 1 cyclist killed for
every 20 dead motorists"

Oh good. I was wondering how you kill less than one cyclist. "Look,
do you mind just playing dead till another driver snuffs it?"

Zebee

Zebee Johnstone said:

Theo Bekkers said:

Theo Bekkers said:

That is less than 1 cyclist killed for every dead motorist, or just
under 5% of road fatalities. How would that relate to hours spent on
the road? How much less safe per hour of road use are bicyles?
Anybody know?

Aaaarghh. That was meant to say "That is less than 1 cyclist killed
for every 20 dead motorists"

Quoted message said:

Oh good. I was wondering how you kill less than one cyclist. "Look,
do you mind just playing dead till another driver snuffs it?"

I can only see the obvious errors after I post, never before.

Theo

Theo Bekkers said:

Zebee Johnstone said:

Gags <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Is 70 cyclist fatalities a year only for Australia?? Seems really
high to me as that is obviously nearly 1.5 casualties per week!!!

Quoted message said:

Over all the states. Wouldn't surprise me, as I bet cyclist
fatalities only get in the newspaper if there's something heart
tugging about them or they need a filler. There are over 1500 car
occupants killed a year, do you read about all of them?

This is 4.1ppl a day, or 28.9 per week,
or 19 times more ppl than those killed on bicycles.

Quoted message said:

That is less than 1 cyclist killed for every dead motorist, or just under 5%
of road fatalities. How would that relate to hours spent on the road? How
much less safe per hour of road use are bicyles? Anybody know?

Theo

Ask yourself what's the ratio of motorists to cyclists when you take a
look
at the passing traffic.
I reckon maybe 0.5% of traffic is a cyclist.
I can wait 20 minutes on Northbourne Ave
and see 2 guys go past on bicycles. How many hundred motorists? lots.
And an occasional bus full of ppl.
The cyclists probably don't ride as far as ppl drive, so the
total bicycle kilometres travelled each day per annun in Oz
probably is less than 0.5% of total motorvehicle distance travelled.
But the ratio of dead cyclists to dead motorists isn't 1:200, 0r 0.5%,
its allegedly about 1:20, or 5%.

I guess this makes a bicycle 10 times more dangerous than being
a motorist or being a passenger in a bus.
One would think that the risk can be much reduced by riding only on
quiet
streets with little traffic, or on designated cycle paths away from main
roads.

But one main reason greenist politicians are mainly ignored
when they implore everyone to ride to work is the danger ppl know exists
when facing motorists armed with a tonne of iron, and defending
themselves
with only 500 grams of lycra.

Patrick Turner.

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 20 Aug 2007 08:57:00 GMT

Patrick Turner said:

But one main reason greenist politicians are mainly ignored
when they implore everyone to ride to work is the danger ppl know exists
when facing motorists armed with a tonne of iron, and defending
themselves
with only 500 grams of lycra.

So the solution is to do what they did with drink-driving.

massive education campaign coupled with some really serious
enforcement of laws. A few high profile cases of *careless* drivers
who hit cyclists being imprisoned, a story every week how someone who
was driving poorly was arrested and fined and had to leave their car
cos they were taken to the copshop.

A story every couple of weeks about a cyclist who reported a bad
driver and the driver was convicted and lost their licence.

Would take 2-3 years to start to have an effect...

Zebee
- who notes that some 4-5 years after motorcycle awareness campaigns
were instituted in NSW, the number of car hits motorcycle crashes
has recently dropped by something like 20%.

quote='Theo Bekkers'Zebee Johnstone said:

Gags <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Is 70 cyclist fatalities a year only for Australia?? Seems really
high to me as that is obviously nearly 1.5 casualties per week!!!

Quoted message said:

Over all the states. Wouldn't surprise me, as I bet cyclist
fatalities only get in the newspaper if there's something heart
tugging about them or they need a filler. There are over 1500 car
occupants killed a year, do you read about all of them?

That is less than 1 cyclist killed for every dead motorist, or just under 5%
of road fatalities. How would that relate to hours spent on the road? How
much less safe per hour of road use are bicyles? Anybody know?[/QUOTE]
Yep. Per 100,000 hrs exposure and per 100,000 kms travelled you're aproximately four times more likely to die on the road as a cyclist.[1]

That sounds bad but the risk of dying of road trauma is really quite small as a car occupant, multiply it by four and it's still quite small. Given that the British Medical Journal reckon the benefits to risk ration of cycling is 20:1 in the UK where you're ten times more likely to die, I reckon it's a good tradeoff.

Let's not forget though that cycling is safer than walking ;-)

[1]http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2005/pdf/Cross_modal_safety_comparisons.pdf Table 4

In article <[email hidden]>,

EuanB said:

Per 100,000 hrs exposure and per 100,000 kms travelled you're
aproximately four times more likely to die on the road as a cyclist.

Surely the ratio per hour and the ratio per km would be different, no?

Quoted message said:

in the UK where you're ten times more likely to die

Are there any theories to explain the big difference compared to here?

--
Shane Stanley

Shane Stanley said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

EuanB said:

Per 100,000 hrs exposure and per 100,000 kms travelled you're
aproximately four times more likely to die on the road as a cyclist.

Surely the ratio per hour and the ratio per km would be different, no?

Quoted message said:

in the UK where you're ten times more likely to die

Are there any theories to explain the big difference compared to here?

--
Shane Stanley

I always thought motocyclists had far riskier lives and
endured a lower life expectancy than motorists in cars, buses, and
lorries.

I would hazard a guess that while you are on a busy road as a cyclist,
and without a bike lane, you'd be more prone to a shorter life than
our motorcyclist bretheren.

But once you ride only on dedicated off road cycle paths, then the risk
plummets,
and perhaps you live to 91, as Opperman did, and die while on the
exercise bike, after having ridden further and faster than
just about anyone ever has.

Oppie was a real hero of the spoked wheel.
And he survived for so long, but
one must recal the roads upon which he rode were fairly uncluttered,
as mainly only the rich had cars.
How did he survive?

If Oppie was a young fella of 25 now, would he be seen on the roads?

One can only wonder, but it seems ppl in China can't wait to
not have to ride their bikes... and western country roads are fully
choked right up...

What's the ratio of life expectancy of cyclists in Bathurst, or Geelong,
compared to those in central Sydney or Melbourne?

I guess the expectancy is another silly statistical peice of BS because
the expectancy of life falls as you mount a bike, and then rises when
you get off.

Patrick Turner.

quote='Patrick Turner'Shane Stanley said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

EuanB said:

Per 100,000 hrs exposure and per 100,000 kms travelled you're
aproximately four times more likely to die on the road as a cyclist.

Surely the ratio per hour and the ratio per km would be different, no?

Quoted message said:

in the UK where you're ten times more likely to die

Are there any theories to explain the big difference compared to here?

--
Shane Stanley

I always thought motocyclists had far riskier lives and
endured a lower life expectancy than motorists in cars, buses, and
lorries.

I would hazard a guess that while you are on a busy road as a cyclist,
and without a bike lane, you'd be more prone to a shorter life than
our motorcyclist bretheren.

But once you ride only on dedicated off road cycle paths, then the risk
plummets,[/quote]
You'd think so wouldn't you? I did but studies and research strongly suggest that a cyclist fares best when riding as a part of normal traffic.

If you have an interest, check the body of evidence at http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html

Shane Stanley said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

EuanB said:

Per 100,000 hrs exposure and per 100,000 kms travelled you're
aproximately four times more likely to die on the road as a cyclist.

Surely the ratio per hour and the ratio per km would be different, no?

No. Contray to popular belief the average speed for utility trips taken by bicycle is about the same as a utility trip taken by a car, or indeed quicker. It takes me 70 minutes to ride the thirty kilometers in to work, the best I've done in a car is fifty.

Quoted post said:

> in the UK where you're ten times more likely to die

Are there any theories to explain the big difference compared to here?

Not that I'm aware of, although I haven't invested any time in to the matter. When I was riding in the UK cycling was just another way you got around and warranted no special consideration.

If I had to guess I'd pin it on the higher speeds that traffic travels at in the UK. For any given type of the road the speed limit's are higher than in Australai.

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 21 Aug 2007 06:13:43 +1000

EuanB said:

No. Contray to popular belief the average speed for utility trips
taken by bicycle is about the same as a utility trip taken by a car, or
indeed quicker. It takes me 70 minutes to ride the thirty kilometers in
to work, the best I've done in a car is fifty.

30km would be at the upper end for utility trips?

At first I thought "OK for some" but then I realised that the fastest
trip to work on the motorcycle is about 35 mins, the peak hour one is
more like 45 (with lanesplitting) which compares better to the 70 by
bicycle.

Peak hour by car doesn't bear thinking about!

Quoted message said:

If I had to guess I'd pin it on the higher speeds that traffic travels
at in the UK. For any given type of the road the speed limit's are
higher than in Australai.

Is there a breakdown between urban and non? I suspect urban UK roads
in most cities are narrower and more congested with cars and peds than
those in most Oz cities.

Zebee

In article <[email hidden]>,

EuanB said:

Quoted message said:

Surely the ratio per hour and the ratio per km would be different, no?

Quoted message said:

No. Contray to popular belief the average speed for utility trips
taken by bicycle is about the same as a utility trip taken by a car, or
indeed quicker.

But are the majority of cycling miles utility trips? I would have
thought there'd be at least a ratio of something 2:3 between time and
distance figures.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in the UK where you're ten times more likely to die

Quoted message said:

Are there any theories to explain the big difference compared to here?

Quoted message said:

Not that I'm aware of, although I haven't invested any time in to the
matter. When I was riding in the UK cycling was just another way you
got around and warranted no special consideration.

If I had to guess I'd pin it on the higher speeds that traffic travels
at in the UK. For any given type of the road the speed limit's are
higher than in Australai.

Does this suggest that attitude matters less than road conditions, or is
the attitude to cyclists similar in England?

--
Shane Stanley

Zebee Johnstone said:

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 21 Aug 2007 06:13:43 +1000

EuanB said:

No. Contray to popular belief the average speed for utility trips
taken by bicycle is about the same as a utility trip taken by a car, or
indeed quicker. It takes me 70 minutes to ride the thirty kilometers in
to work, the best I've done in a car is fifty.

30km would be at the upper end for utility trips?

I'd say that it's probably past the upper end, to be able to cycle 60kms every day you've gotta have a level of commitment beyond that of most people. I'm not saying that not everyone's capable, of course they are, but where's the motivation when you know nothing about riding a bike as means of transport?

A 15km trip though, that can be done in half 45 minutes by all but the frail and desperately unfit. Regular cyclists can get that down to under 30 minutes with not too much trouble so it's much more attractive to the more casual cyclist.

I don't mean this as some kind of snobbery, I just feel that that initial push to get someone on a bike instead of in a train or in a car is hard enough to achieve for people who's demographics suit cycling way more than driving. That initial push would be much harder where the it's more of a line ball call which, speaking for the south east suburbs, riding in from 30kms is in terms of journey time.

Quoted post said:

> If I had to guess I'd pin it on the higher speeds that traffic travels

Quoted message said:

at in the UK. For any given type of the road the speed limit's are
higher than in Australai.

Is there a breakdown between urban and non? I suspect urban UK roads
in most cities are narrower and more congested with cars and peds than
those in most Oz cities.

As I've said, I haven't really read much about it. I can confirm that all roads in the UK are narrower than their Australian counterparts and the speeds are generally higher.

Shane Stanley said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

EuanB said:

Quoted message said:

Surely the ratio per hour and the ratio per km would be different, no?

Quoted message said:

No. Contray to popular belief the average speed for utility trips
taken by bicycle is about the same as a utility trip taken by a car, or
indeed quicker.

But are the majority of cycling miles utility trips? I would have
thought there'd be at least a ratio of something 2:3 between time and
distance figures.

I would say so. Most roadies get their miles in commuting to work and there are a lot of commuters who don't ride socially.

Read the report.

Quoted post said:

> > > in the UK where you're ten times more likely to die

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Are there any theories to explain the big difference compared to here?

Quoted message said:

Not that I'm aware of, although I haven't invested any time in to the
matter. When I was riding in the UK cycling was just another way you
got around and warranted no special consideration.

If I had to guess I'd pin it on the higher speeds that traffic travels
at in the UK. For any given type of the road the speed limit's are
higher than in Australai.

Does this suggest that attitude matters less than road conditions, or is
the attitude to cyclists similar in England?

When I was riding in the UK I didn't notice any particular hostility towards cyclists, but then Iwas a child or in my teens. Lurking on uk.rec.bicycle and uk.transport(?) suggests that there is some animosity out there, and then of course there's the ridiculous pieces by Jeremey Clarkson.

Quoted message said:

I'd say that it's probably past the upper end, to be able to cycle
60kms every day you've gotta have a level of commitment beyond that of
most people. I'm not saying that not everyone's capable, of course
they are, but where's the motivation when you know nothing about riding
a bike as means of transport?

Definitely. I thought 6km was big at first 🙂 didn't help that going
home was uphill!

Then I was doing about 8-9km and reckoned I was a hero.

The only way I thought a 20km trip was worth contemplating was because
of the 'bent. A friend had one and was doing 25 or so each way and
said it was way better lying down. So I decided that it was the only
way to get the exercise and while expensive a bike you ride is always
cheaper than one you don't.

The first few rides around my suburb to get used to it scared the hell
out of me 🙂 Not because bents are weird but because hills are a
[censored]. I knew I had a few so had to practice. The first few rides
I was walking up most of them.

The motivation was mostly "i've said I will so I will" and "I'll feel
a poor fool if I give up now!" and "fitness is about working hard, so
stop whinging about working hard".

And of course "It's hard work, but I love riding this thing!"

I dunno most people would be willing to spend a lot of dosh on a
'bent, but without it I wouldn't be cycling...

How many people live 10km or 15km from work I wonder? Where I work a
lot of people live 20 or so, and with no decent cycle network now the
M2's history. Someone from St Ives wants to cycle but there's too
much ugliness on the Mona vale Road for him.

Zebee