Cycling benefits 'outweigh deaths'

Discussion in 'Australia and New Zealand' started by cfsmtb, Dec 8, 2004.

  1. cfsmtb

    cfsmtb New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    Messages:
    4,963
    Likes Received:
    0
    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 protected], "Magarey Paul" <[email protected]> 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 ---
     
    Tags:


  2. ritcho

    ritcho New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2004
    Messages:
    934
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  3. hemyd

    hemyd Guest

    "cfsmtb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > 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%5E1702,00.html
    >
    > 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.
     
  4. Jack Russell

    Jack Russell Guest

    cfsmtb wrote:
    > 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%5E1702,00.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 protected], "Magarey Paul"
    > <[email protected]> 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
     
  5. tony f

    tony f Guest

    "cfsmtb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > 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%5E1702,00.html
    >
    > 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
     
  6. Jack Russell wrote:
    >
    > cfsmtb wrote:
    > > 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-shit message.

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


    Nice, but.
    > >
    > > "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".
     
  7. ritcho

    ritcho New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2004
    Messages:
    934
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bull-shit as in "not right", or Bull-shit as in "nothing new here"?

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

    Ritch
     
  8. Marx SS

    Marx SS New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2004
    Messages:
    810
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  9. suzyj

    suzyj New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2004
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    0
    cfsmtb wrote:

    > 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
     
  10. >>>>> "Terry" == Terry Collins <[email protected]> writes:

    Terry> Nice, but.
    >> > > "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
     
  11. On 2004-12-09, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
    > 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".
     
  12. TimC

    TimC Guest

    On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 at 09:10 GMT, Stuart Lamble (aka Bruce)
    was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
    > On 2004-12-09, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> 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 protected]> from alt.religion.emacs
     
  13. ritcho wrote:

    > Bull-shit as in "not right", or Bull-shit 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.
     
  14. >>>>> "Terry" == Terry Collins <[email protected]> writes:

    Terry> ritcho wrote:
    >> Bull-shit as in "not right", or Bull-shit 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
    shit and more akin to common sense, so what am I missing that's so
    obviously raised your hackles?
    --
    Cheers
    Euan
     
  15. [email protected] wrote:

    > "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
    > shit 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 arse kissing. 30+ years in this country
    has produced bugger all.
     
  16. >>>>> "Terry" == Terry Collins <[email protected]> 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 arse 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 arse kissing. 30+ years in
    Terry> this country has produced bugger all.

    I don't class obeying the law as arse 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
     
  17. hippy

    hippy Guest

    "TimC" <[email protected]
    > 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
     
  18. hippy

    hippy Guest

    "suzyj" <[email protected]
    > cfsmtb wrote:
    > > 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
     
  19. ritcho

    ritcho New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2004
    Messages:
    934
    Likes Received:
    0
    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
     
  20. Sara

    Sara Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, ritcho
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    > 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.


    ahhhh gin & tonic ;)
     
Loading...
Loading...