The latest report on road deaths in Australia
shows 28 males and 5 females killed in the last 12 months, up 6.5% on the previous year, but with a declining trend over the last five years (average decline is 5% pa). I wonder if this the first slight sign confirming the theory that more people cycling makes cycling safer.
Overall WA is enjoying a decline in fatal crashes over the last year.
Promoting everyday cycling three days a week (or more...)
Interesting.
I had a look at the link mentioned in that PDF document:
http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/road_fatality_statistics/fatal_road_crash_database.aspx
It allows you to look at the data with more detail.
In NSW, in 2009, there were 14 cyclist fatalities, 10 of which involved another vehicle, 8 of which occurred on Friday, Saturday & Sunday.
Unfortunately there is no way to see data describing the mechanism of the collision and the type of injury sustained. I could determine from the NSW data that of the 10 multiple vehicle deaths, only 2 involved a heavy vehicle or a bus.
Looking at the national data for 2009:
Number of Deaths by State:
- NSW: 14 (of which 10 were multiple vehicle)
- VIC: 4 (all were multiple vehicle)
- QLD: 7 (of which 5 were multiple vehicle)
- SA: 2 (both were multiple vehicle)
- WA: 0 (well done WA!)
- TAS: 2 (1 was multiple vehicle)
- NT: 0
- ACT: 0
I spot a trend here… of the 29 cyclist deaths in 2009, 22 involved another vehicle.
If this is not an argument for separating vehicles and cyclists I don’t know what is. May we have some of our tax dollars spent on more, well designed cycle paths please, politicians!
Regards,
Dr Paul Martin
MBBS, FANZCA
The same argument could no doubt be used to segregate motorbikes and cars or cars and buses or buses and trucks.
Segregation of road users is not the answer, better adherence to the 3 Es may be.
Better road Engineering, better road user Education and better road rules Enforcement.
Segregation of transport should be based on speed differential. Trucks, buses, cars and motorbikes mostly travel at the same speed in the metropolitan environment, but cyclist travel at at least double the speed of pedestrians, and cars at double the speed of cyclists.
The list of super fit office executives who compete with themselves, glazing over at the thought of more exercise and reasons to endure more … and then drop dead of heart attacks in the middle of bicycle races, grows. I personally lost two CEOs this way in 2010 and then read about Piero Ferrero (same fate, same year).
All I am suggesting is obsession about exercise is as bad for you as none at all. Let’s have some role models mentioning moderation and balance in lives please.
When I spotted the research I was a bit pressed for time.
The observation by Paul that 75% of cyclist deaths involve another vehicle is a more relevant summary than the number of deaths. (And on a different tack – helmets are probably not a good protection when hit by a car….it would be interesting to see what % of the killed cyclists were wearing a helmet)
I’ve gone back and looked at the last 6 years of national data for cyclists deaths:
The bracketed figures are the number of deaths that involved another vehicle & the percentage)
2004 – 43 fatalities (33 involved another vehicle – 76% of total)
2005 – 41 (30 – 73%)
2006 – 39 (35 – 89%)
2007 – 41 (37 – 90%)
2008 – 28 (22 – 78%)
2009 – 31 (25 – 80%) – my previous figures were slightly out.
2010 – 8 (4 – 50%) – and we’re only 3 months into the year…
Overall, since 2004, there have been 231 recorded cyclist deaths on our roads. Of these, 186 (80.5%) involved another vehicle and only 45 (19.5%) did not. There were no cyclist deaths involving pedestrians (although no reverse data exists – ie. how many pedestrians were killed by cyclists – not many I would guess).
It is pretty clear that motorised vehicles kill cyclists and that we should be separating bicycles from cars with proper, wide bikeways that are direct and useful – not meandering ‘greenways’ through parks and gardens.
Any comments?
Regards,
Dr Paul Martin
MBBS, FANZCA
A quick glance at the Literature Review of the NSW Centre of Road Safety paper on electric assisted bicycles (May 2009) references some interesting bicycle safety statistics:
- Hutchinson studied bicycle crashes in South Australia from 2001 to 2004 and found that 87% of reported crashes involved a motor vehicle.
- The Australian Transport Safety Bureau looked at circumstance of cyclist death between 1991 and 2005 and found that the most common fatal crash involved a motor vehicle traveling in the same direction
“If this is not an argument for separating vehicles and cyclists I don’t know what is. May we have some of our tax dollars spent on more, well designed cycle paths please, politicians!”
Well considering bike riders do not pay insurance, regostration, get their bikes inspected every year by a certified person I think that hardly entitles them to be getting extra. I ride bikes, but I do it offroad and Im sorry to say just like motorbikes the majority of bike riders seem to a have complete disrespect (like alot of motorists)and think they own the road. Stuff like clutching onto a car when stopped at lights, purposely riding in the road when theres plenty of room in a side lane etc. Technically in my view a bike should have less right of way as they do not pay the money like motorists do.
“Well considering bike riders do not pay insurance, regostration, get their bikes inspected every year by a certified person I think that hardly entitles them to be getting extra.”
So what you appear to be saying is that, if cyclists want the right to safe passage on our roads they must pay? Or let them suffer and die?
Should we in that case apply the same logic to pedestrians? Unless you pay extra you don’t get a footpath and you have to walk in the road???
I ride a bike and drive a car regularly. These statistics show that as a collective group motorists are, quite literally, getting away with murder.
It is absolutely right that, as motorists, we should pay given the yearly carnage we create – over 1.2 million deaths worlwide on the roads.
Boost123: Registration pays for administration of motor transport departments (presumably regostration pays for adminostration). Insurance pays for the injuries caused by cars. Neither of these payments by motorists pay for roads.
What insurance premium would bikes attract? They don’t cause injuries to people. If you get hit by a car you are lucky to survive. If you get hit by a bike you are unlucky to be injured at all.
I have a car and a 4.5 tonne 4×4 motorhome. I pay quite enough registration and insurance. Taxes pay for roads and I pay plenty of tax. I don’t ride my bike and drive my car at the same time.
Do unroadworthy bikes are cause accidents? How would the road worthiness of a bicycle stop a car from hitting it from behind? This is where most fatalities cycling fatalities occur. This would place a financial burden on families with kids who want to cycle.
The police are able to book cyclists for having an unroadworthy bike. Police can readily check the essentials like brakes, lights at night, a working bell or inappropriate modifications. The local police have stopped me and asked me to show that my bike was roadworthy. It only took a moment.
Cars are not checked for road worthiness annually in Queensland. The Queensland road toll does not show that road worthiness is a problem.
Cycling saves wear and tear on roads and eases congestion negating the need for more roads to be built. Why can’t I ask the government to spend some of the money I am saving them on a bicycle lanes? Most of the time I just want a shoulder to ride on. The tarred shoulder on a road improves the safety for motorists too.
Cycling offers health benefits. Some of the money saved by cycling in the health budget can be spent on cycling infrastructure?
Are you asking that we apportion rights according to how much registration a vehicle pays? Would it be OK for trucks to run cars off the road because the pay more? That would work out well for me when I’m driving my motorhome.
Further, there is little data available on whether cyclists abide by the law. This issue seems to fall in favour of cyclists: http://overthebarsinmilwaukee.wordpress.com/2010/09/21/scorchers-and-scofflaws-just-the-facts-please/
Firstly, you are extrapolating the data far beyond what is reasonable. You say that “motorists are getting away with murder” however there is nothing in these reports to indicate who is at fault. If a cyclist pulls out in front of a motor vehicle unsafely and is hit and killed, does that make the driver of the car a cold blooded murderer? It seems that is what you are suggesting, or are taking the preconceived idea that the cyclist is never at fault, when, at least according to the general consensus of society, it is often the reverse. However, I can’t state that as fact as, again, there is nothing in the data to prove that.
Furthermore, you condemn motorists for being involved in these mortality rates, but how else do you expect a cyclist to die on the roads? You can’t reach sufficient speed to hit a stationary object with such force that it would cause death. I’m struggling to think how there could be a cyclist death not involving a car, however please enlighten me, as that 19.5% has to come from somewhere.
I’m not against separating motorists and cyclists, I’m actually on this site as I am writing a report on cyclist deaths in Australia, including an analysis of the effect of helmet laws, bike lanes etc.
However with that said, lay off the motorists, condemning them to be murderers is simply ridiculous.