"High death and injury rates among cyclists alarm road safety campaigners"

Iwannahurl · 05-08-2015 01:30PM #1

The "dangerization" thread notwithstanding, the Irish Times has put cycle safety on its front page today, with a large feature on page 3 as well. The IT's figures appear to be based on a recent RSA report, but it doesn't say which publication and I can't find anything new on the RSA's website.

High death and injury rates among cyclists alarm road safety campaigners
Most fatalities involve middle-aged men cycling in built-up areas

The disproportionately high injury and death rate among cyclists – relative to the cycling population on the road – is alarming road safety campaigners.

It is estimated that about 2 per cent of the population cycles to work or school each day, based on latest census data.

Prior to 2012, injuries involving cyclists represented about 2 per cent to 5 per cent of all road users injured annually.

However, in 2012 the number of cyclists injured jumped to 8 per cent, up from 395 to 630.

The numbers dying on the road have also been on the rise, though numbers have varied from year to year. Last year 12 cyclists were killed, more than double the number the previous year.

Most deaths involved another vehicle. Half of last year’s fatal collisions involved a car, while a third involved a truck, van or bus. In two cases, no other vehicle was involved.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/high-death-and-injury-rates-among-cyclists-alarm-road-safety-campaigners-1.2306903

Two fatalities involved only the cyclists themselves, while a large majority of deaths and injuries occurred during daylight hours when visibility was good. Despite this the RSA is again reported as saying that hi-vis is "critical" for cyclist safety.

Incidentally, at present the poll attached to the IT report indicates that 87% of survey respondents belief that Irish roads are not safe for cyclists.

rp · 05-08-2015 01:38PM

Nice of the RSA to admit that people are driving around in "potential murder vehicles". Hi-viz won't mitigate for that.

paddy no 11 · 05-08-2015 01:43PM

Attitude to cyclists is the problem nothing else. If a cyclist isnt wearing a hi vis or a helmet that doesnt give anyone the right to knock them down. This sort of attitude is way too prevalent ah shur he didnt have a helmet on what did he expect.

Moflojo · 05-08-2015 01:52PM

Very little, if any, mention of poor cycling infrastructure in the Irish Times cycling articles. This is the single biggest factor in cycling safety, in my opinion.

If I was being really cynical I'd say that the alarmist approach of the Irish Times is a good thing - it may scare beginner or potential cyclists off the road, but it could help to force an improvement in cycling infrastructure.

Unfortunately, in my experience, the only things that seem to motivate a local council to improve, or create, cycling infrastructure are serious or fatal cycling accidents. (With the exception of tourism-driven projects such as Great Western Greenway)

Call me a radical, but I don't think cyclists should have to die in order to instigate the construction of good, basic cycling infrastructure.

galwaycyclist · 05-08-2015 02:01PM

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The IT's figures appear to be based on a recent RSA report, but it doesn't say which publication and I can't find anything new on the RSA's website.

There was a somewhat ridiculous RSA "report" some months back. If its based on that then this a straightforward silly season article.

Iwannahurl · 05-08-2015 02:06PM

galwaycyclist wrote: »

There was a somewhat ridiculous RSA "report" some months back. If its based on that then this a straightforward silly season article.

OK, so a slow news day makes space for Carl O'Brien to pursue a personal interest perhaps?

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/fixed-penalties-a-cyclist-s-view-1.1467990

ted1 · 05-08-2015 02:09PM

the State of no interest in cyclist safety.

6.5 years with 1.5 years suspended for the drunk driver that hit a cyclist, left him to die in a ditch, then fled the country and disposed of the vehicle within 24 hours.

If the state was serious he should have got life.

If the RSA care about cyclists they should insist on signs at all points where there is a left turn crossing a cycle path, reminding the driver to look in their mirrors.
they would insist that HGV's be fitted with cameras either side of the vehicle to eliminate blind spots.
i could go on.

jon1981 · 05-08-2015 02:16PM

It will also be interesting to see how the state deal with these idiots which happened in July!

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/cyclist-62-killed-in-hit-and-run-crash-named-locally-31343260.html

A Dublin man in his 60s has been killed after being knocked off his bicycle in a hit-and-run in the city .

tomasrojo · 05-08-2015 02:20PM

The articles says:

However, in 2012 the number of cyclists injured jumped to 8 per cent, up from 395 to 630.

And what happened the next year?

What kind of crap analysis is this?

Abstract:
We are alarmed!

Methods:
Ah, who cares. Look up 'em yourself.

Remediation:
Helmets and hi-viz. Duh.

HivemindXX · 05-08-2015 02:26PM

There seems to be no source for that figure given (terrible journalism) but isn't it likely that the 2012 numbers are an anomoly? We are dealing with such low percentages that these numbers are very vulnerable to random spikes.

If the writer doesn't think this is the case to what does he attribute this massive increase? Does he think that cyclist behaviour change that much between 2011 and 2012? Perhaps Top Gear had a particularly "funny" anti-bike segment that caused motorists to be a little more murderous on the roads.

It is difficult to believe that the equivalent data isn't available for 2013 but if it does show a reduction back down to the norm will we see a newspaper article joyfully explaining that cycling is now four times safer than in the past! More importantly will the RSA take credit on behalf of their hi-viz campaign.

tomasrojo · 05-08-2015 02:30PM

The numbers dying on the road have also been on the rise, though numbers have varied from year to year. Last year 12 cyclists were killed, more than double the number the previous year.

Flat out wrong.
Should have read something like:

The numbers dying on the road have been trending downwards for years, though there have been bad years. Last year 12 cyclists were killed, more than double the number the previous year. It remains to be seen whether this year resembles 2014 more than 2013.

Imagine: "numbers have varied from year to year". Unlike all the other road statistics.

tomasrojo · 05-08-2015 02:31PM

HivemindXX wrote: »

It is difficult to believe that the equivalent data isn't available for 2013

I suspect it is, and it didn't fit the narrative. Always a bad sign when you quote different statistics for different years, especially non-consecutive years (2014 for deaths, 2012 for injuries, for example).

tomasrojo · 05-08-2015 02:40PM

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Crash%20Stats/Review_of_Cyclist_Injuries_2012.pdf

They have to collate garda collision statistics, so they possibly haven't had a chance to do it for years after 2012.

2012 could easily be anomaly. The other years are pretty similar: 2-5%.

They claim that Dublin is unusually dangerous, which is the opposite of the usual claims (and what you'd conclude based on fatalities).

tomasrojo · 05-08-2015 02:57PM

According to the 2011 census report, 6% of those living in Dublin cycle to work (see Figure 16 appendix).

However, given that 17% of those injured on our roads in Dublin in 2012 were cyclists (figure 15
appendix), this indicates that cyclists in Dublin are over-represented in injury figures by almost a factor
of three. Cycling is therefore a particularly dangerous mode of travel in Dublin per cyclist population

There are trips taken by bike that aren't going to work.

This puts undue or at least premature emphasis on two annual statistics that might well be anomalies (one for injuries and one for fatalities) in two different years, and makes conclusions at odds with the fatality statistics, based on an assumption that nearly all journeys by bike are going to work (I assume they're including going to school as well).

It might have some merit, but I wouldn't put it on the front page of a newspaper.

tomasrojo · 05-08-2015 03:07PM

The report also assumes that serious injuries were under reported because the assessment was done by a Garda rather than a medical professional. I assume it's possible that a Garda could think a bloody but relatively minor injury was more serious that it was too?

Hmmzis · 05-08-2015 03:21PM

Read the article and he's making a total mess of the numbers.
First there is a statement that 2% cycle to work/school. The next paragraph states that cyclist injuries are 8% of the total.
Then a couple paragraphs later there is a statement that says 4 in 10 of injured cyclists were cycling for leasure and that only 1 in 10 were cycling to or from work.

So he has taken only the commuting percentage as a total of all cyclists but then for the injuries adds also leasure and some missing 5 in 10 category that are neither commuting or doing it for leasure.

From what I'm reading here is that commuting is way less dangerous than any other cycling activity and most injuries are due to leasure cycling or some other type of cycling that isn't leasure or commuting (racing maybe?).

Some way to make false statements, even for a journalist.

tomasrojo · 05-08-2015 03:21PM

If you exclude 2014, fatalities look like this:

Periodic high values scattered through general decline.

Cycling is therefore a particularly dangerous mode of travel in Dublin per cyclist population

(Graphs from http://irishcycle.com/2015/08/05/8894/)

tomasrojo · 05-08-2015 03:32PM

Hmmzis wrote: »

First there is a statement that 2% cycle to work/school. The next paragraph states that cyclist injuries are 8% of the total.
Then a couple paragraphs later there is a statement that says 4 in 10 of injured cyclists were cycling for leasure and that only 1 in 10 were cycling to or from work.

So he has taken only the commuting percentage as a total of all cyclists but then for the injuries adds also leasure and some missing 5 in 10 category that are neither commuting or doing it for leasure.

Shopping?

Hmmzis · 05-08-2015 03:43PM

tomasrojo wrote: »

Shopping?

Might well be. I'm sort of wondering if racing ijuries are part of the total number. Crashes in races are quite regular and a good few people would have required hospital visits after them.

tomasrojo · 05-08-2015 03:47PM

I just realised that most of the injuries being referred to are "not serious" (e.g. in 2012, the spike, 30 cyclist seriously injured, up from 16 the previous year, but quite similar to a few previous years -- see Figure 2c). So we're flapping our hands over predominantly minor injuries (30:600).

tomasrojo · 05-08-2015 03:49PM

Hmmzis wrote: »

Might well be. I'm sort of wondering if racing ijuries are part of the total number. Crashes in races are quite regular and a good few people would have required hospital visits after them.

These are based on Garda RTCs, so all collisions with cars, pretty much.

tomasrojo · 05-08-2015 03:53PM

So, basically, Dublin commuters have more minor injuries than users of other transport modes. Well, that's active travel in slow-moving traffic for you.

This is a non-story.

tomasrojo · 05-08-2015 04:04PM

It's not a welcome trend, but it doesn't even look that anomalous if you exclude minor injuries.

Might well come down the following year too.

Thinkingaboutit · 05-08-2015 04:07PM

Moflojo wrote: »

Very little, if any, mention of poor cycling infrastructure in the Irish Times cycling articles. This is the single biggest factor in cycling safety, in my opinion.

If I was being really cynical I'd say that the alarmist approach of the Irish Times is a good thing - it may scare beginner or potential cyclists off the road, but it could help to force an improvement in cycling infrastructure.

Unfortunately, in my experience, the only things that seem to motivate a local council to improve, or create, cycling infrastructure are serious or fatal cycling accidents. (With the exception of tourism-driven projects such as Great Western Greenway)

Call me a radical, but I don't think cyclists should have to die in order to instigate the construction of good, basic cycling infrastructure.

Cycling infrastructure? Sometimes great, usually tokenistic, if not positively dangerous.

Beasty · 05-08-2015 04:16PM

As I pointed out in the off topic thread they are repeating last year's stats to sensationalise the situation when cyclist deaths have fallen back again this year (on a pro rata basis) - all the stats show, as already highlighted by tomasrojo, is a general downward trend in deaths. Even if serious injuries are rising (modestly) I do not believe there is any statistical evidence to support the sort of headlines being given to this "story". Indeed when you look at the general increase in cycling, perhaps another way to look at it is more along the lines "we've never had it so good"

Pity the RSA don't follow threads like this, as they really do themselves a disservice with the way they try and twist the stats to suit their own agenda

buffalo · 05-08-2015 04:30PM

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

Cycling infrastructure? Sometimes great, usually tokenistic, if not positively dangerous.

There's a new lane just outside St Pat's in Drumcondra. It currently lasts about 100m, although it looks like they'll extend it further when the work is completed. So maybe 150m of segregated lane with a bus stop in the middle of it, before cyclists are directed onto the footpath.

Meanwhile at the pinch point northbound after Fagan's, there's still absolutely nothing.

Carawaystick · 05-08-2015 04:47PM

buffalo wrote: »

There's a new lane just outside St Pat's in Drumcondra. It currently lasts about 100m, although it looks like they'll extend it further when the work is completed. So maybe 150m of segregated lane with a bus stop in the middle of it, before cyclists are directed onto the footpath.

Meanwhile at the pinch point northbound after Fagan's, there's still absolutely nothing.

It's not segregated, as its only parttime bike lane. 7-10 am and midday til 7pm. Outside of those times you can park away there.

The monorail metro bendy bus to Swords thingyamajig had plans to move the footpath west of the tolka bridge there by Fagans to allow a cycle lane on the existing footpath.

tomasrojo · 05-08-2015 04:56PM

The RSA are no good at analysis, but they're great at PR. Look at what they've got: a new report based on Garda RTC reports. They got front-page news, when the only significant finding in it is that there was a spike of minor injuries incurred by cyclists in 2012, and a much less prominent, possible temporary increase in serious injuries.

Now that's magic.

Chips Lovell · 05-08-2015 04:56PM

Moflojo wrote: »

Call me a radical, but I don't think cyclists should have to die in order to instigate the construction of good, basic cycling infrastructure.

No thanks. Segregating cyclists only enforces the erroneous impression that they don't belong on the road. Get rid of the cycle lanes.

Moflojo · 05-08-2015 05:19PM

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

Cycling infrastructure? Sometimes great, usually tokenistic, if not positively dangerous.

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

No thanks. Segregating cyclists only enforces the erroneous impression that they don't belong on the road. Get rid of the cycle lanes.

I said good, basic cycling infrastructure. My idea of good, basic cycling infrastructure is what currently exists in The Netherlands, not Ireland.

Be aspirational lads.

Chips Lovell · 05-08-2015 05:25PM

I am. They could be the best cycle lanes in the world, but they'll still a.) harden the perception among non-cyclists that cycling is so dangerous they need to be segregated and b.) reinforce the perception among many motorists that cyclists don't belong on the road.

Cycling isn't dangerous. Cycling infrastructure is a massive waste of money.

"High death and injury rates among cyclists alarm road safety campaigners"

Comments