Wheelism: 1 Year on and 51 deaths later....

Discussion in 'The Bike Cafe' started by wheelist, Apr 4, 2006.

  1. wheelist

    wheelist New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Messages:
    638
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've been running the Wheelism website for exactly a year now, and apart from odd/funny cycling stories from around the UK, have been recording news about accidents on the road resulting in the death of a cyclist.

    Well, on the first birthday of the site I've counted 51 cyclist deaths directly attributable to collsions with other vehicles (cars, lorries, tractors....) - see the "Another One Bites The Dust" section

    And these results are for the UK only!!! :mad:

    (and I've probably missed some)

    QUESTION 1: Am I alone in thinking this figure is insanely high?

    One thing I've noticed on my rather macabre meanderings through local UK newspapers is the way cycling deaths are reported. It's always....

    "A cyclist was killed in a collision with a car" and never "A cyclist was killed when a driver collided with him" - the emphasis (possibly very slight) always appears to be against the cyclist i.e. that the cyclist caused the accident. Of course, this just may be some inherent psychological bias in the way I'm interpreting the news stories, but it's a recurring one, whatever.

    QUESTION 2: Given that I've been running the site for a year, and that some of you might even have visited it, does anyone have suggestions on how I might improve the site, comments about what you like, or would like to see etc.

    Cheers, :)

    Wheelist
     
    Tags:


  2. StartTday

    StartTday New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Messages:
    172
    Likes Received:
    0
    Although the figures are in the UK and not here in the States. I personally think the figures of death are rather low. But then again I'm comparing to how many people I see riding over here. Also, the figure is much lower than auto related deaths.

    Most people that I see have no clue about bicycle saftey, traffic laws, or even common sense.
     
  3. AussieRob

    AussieRob New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Messages:
    169
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have to go with StartTday on this one.

    51 is a lot of people who will never go home, but we really need an objective test. Deaths per/Km drive v ride. % of the cycling population v % of the driving population.

    I suspect cyclists are not worse off than drivers. I'll see if I can dig up some US or Aussie numbers. In the mean time ride safe.
     
  4. AussieRob

    AussieRob New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Messages:
    169
    Likes Received:
    0
    That was quicker and easier than I thought

    http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/research/99078/99-078.htm

    Now:

    1) Yes it is from '99
    2) You may or may not like the DOT however, the paper was prepared by the Uni. of NC http://www.hsrc.unc.edu/publications/archive1999.htm

    The crux of the paper is:

    A-Official motor vehicle crash statistics have been shown to significantly underestimate the numbers of injured pedestrians and bicyclists.

    B-reported percentages of bicyclists admitted to a hospital as a result of a bicycle-only rather than a bicycle-motor vehicle event varied widely, but most estimates fell in the 60-70 percent range

    C-between 5 and 20 percent of bicyclists admitted to a hospital were injured in motor vehicle events that occurred in a non-roadway or non-traffic environment. The percentage of non-roadway cases was higher in The Netherlands, which has a large network of off-road bicycle paths. It was also higher in the U.S. studies reviewed, where non-roadway percentages ranged from 25-50 percent.

    I think point B is most interesting. And to finish off I came across this table, again its old but I can't be arsed to look for an updated one:

    Odds of Death vs. Injury in Crashes by Vehicle
    Vehicle Odds
    [size=-1]Bus [/size][size=-1]000[/size][size=-1]1 in 1000[/size]
    [size=-1]Car, Station Wagon [/size][size=-1]000[/size][size=-1]1 in 108[/size]
    [size=-1]Pickup, SUV, Van [/size][size=-1]000[/size][size=-1]1 in 75[/size]
    [size=-1]Bicycle [/size][size=-1]000[/size][size=-1]1 in 71[/size]
    [size=-1]Large Truck [/size][size=-1]000[/size][size=-1]1 in 43[/size]
    [size=-1]Motorcycle, Motorbike [/size][size=-1]000[/size][size=-1]1 in 26[/size]
    [size=-1]On Foot [/size][size=-1]000[/size][size=-1]1 in 15[/size]
    [size=-1]Data From NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts 1997[/size]

    Moral of the story is ride don't walk.
     
  5. Cyclist14

    Cyclist14 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    555
    Likes Received:
    0
    or drive a bus (lol)
     
  6. Jaguar27

    Jaguar27 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Messages:
    648
    Likes Received:
    0
    Great Site mate, keep up the good work!! I like to keep up with Cycling stuff in the UK as I'm from there....
    As far as accicdents are concerned, clearly one should stay away from Vauxhalls and Hospitals over there...
    Any Death is very tragic...I think we all get way too complacent after a while, especially when we're tired.....do you think more accidents happen towards the end of a ride? I find myself paying less attention near the end....(sometimes I feel I've been ran over by a Steam Roller)...

    I had a good chuckle at the "Police have scrapped a squad of Rollerblading cops - after discovering they can't chase criminals across grass" Bit....

    Anyway, I've BM'd your site, it makes good reading...

    ;)
     
  7. wheelist

    wheelist New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Messages:
    638
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks AussieRob for your research :), it makes interesting if somewhat specious reading:

    a) It doesn't mention the number of cyclists killed in MV (motor vehicle) accidents - from the figures one might assume that nobody was killed.

    b) It tries to suggest that it's more dangerous just to ride a bike, than to ride a bike on the road, because most bike accidents don't involve cars. We all fall off - if you don't you're not riding hard enough! ;) But it's definitely more dangerous if you decide to ride on the road than not! (If you're gonna fall off, you're gonna fall off - I tend to think you'd be better off falling away from traffic)

    c) Non-roadway MV collisions? In my book these are just MV collisions - a guy was driving and there was a collision with a cyclist.

    Some of the bits of the DOT paper I found really interesting I've included below:

    • Overall, about three times as many males were involved in bicycle crashes as females.
    • Black and Hispanic bicyclists appeared to be at higher risk of bicycle-motor vehicle collisions on the roadway.
    • Bicycle helmet use was highest (35 percent) for bicyclists involved in bicycle-only, non-roadway events.
    • Bicyclists involved in either collision or non-collision events occurring on the roadway were more likely to be associated with alcohol use.
    • Almost two-thirds of the non-roadway bicycle-motor vehicle collisions occurred on sidewalks, generally when the motor vehicle was entering or exiting a driveway or parking lot.
    • Most of the rest of the non-roadway bicycle-motor vehicle collisions occurred in parking lots.
    • Almost half of the bicycle-only non-roadway events occurred on sidewalks and another one-fourth on off-road trails.
    • Two-thirds of the bicycle-bicycle collisions (n=28) occurred on the roadway, with most of the remainder on trails or sidewalks.
    • 40 percent of the bicycle-pedestrian collisions (n=21) occurred on the roadway, with the remaining 60 percent on sidewalks.
    • Bicycle roadway events were more likely to occur after 10 p.m. than were non-roadway events.
    • Almost one-fourth of the bicyclists injured in collisions on the roadway were hospitalized, compared to less than 10 percent for the other event categories.
    • Bicyclists injured in collisions with motor vehicles were twice as likely to receive lower limb injuries than those injured in bicycle-only events.
    • Bicyclists struck by a motor vehicle on the roadway were especially susceptible to head and trunk (chest, back, and abdomen/pelvis/lower back) injuries.
    Regarding your second set of results, these only state the chance of dying in a crash in/on a particular type of vehicle. They don't specify whether you hit another vehicle or what type of vehicle that was.
    Given that 60-70% of bike accidents DON'T involve another vehicle then I'd agree that perhaps only 1 in 71 crashes results in death. However, I'm not sure this figure would hold true if you counted the number of deaths that occurred in accidents which involved MV collisions.


    (How many pedestrian collisions don't involve another vehicle? People walkng into walls and stuff? :D)


    Personally, I think that 51 deaths in a year is too many, and the numbers could be reduced by more careful driving, a greater consideration for cyclists, and improved riding skills and road awareness. The point of my column was to counter-balance the statistics with more personal stories of the individuals that were killed in order to show the effects that a cycling death causes - unexpected and avoidable as they usually are. :(
     
  8. wheelist

    wheelist New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Messages:
    638
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks Jaguar27!

    I tend to think it's a good idea to stay away from Vauxhalls and hospitals all the time, not just when on the bike! (I mean - have you seen the Vauxhall adverts?!? Tossers.)

    Try to avoid riding past the Steam Roller factory on your way home in future.

    :D

    Wheelist
     
Loading...
Loading...