According to The Age:
Latest Transport Accident Commission figures show one rider is killed every month in Victoria and one seriously injured every day.
Fourteen cyclists died in crashes last year — more than double the fatalities in 2005 — and two have died so far this year.
I presume the statistics they're talking about are the rolling road toll and serious injuries lists, which do indeed show a nasty jump in cyclist fatalities. Cyclist deaths in 2006 were twice the 5-year annual average, and indeed "Bicyclist" was the only category of road user in which there was an increased incidence of death compared to the previous twelve months.
What is going on here? SMIDSY, according to Assistant Commissioner Noel Ashby:
"Without doubt, the issue for cyclists is visibility," he said.
"The majority of those killed have simply not been seen.
Chilling and probably very true.
Helmet-heads
But what's this fixation with helmets? Both the Assistant Commissioner and David Healy of the Transport Accident Commission blather about helmets (presumably in response to specific questions):
"There is no doubt helmets protect you from head injury. Cyclists are placing themselves at much greater risk by not wearing them,"
True, but irrelevant. The risk Mr Healy is talking about here is risk of injury in the event of a collision, not the risk of actually being involved in a crash. The presence or absence of a bicycle helmet is not a contributory factor in the incidence of road collisions. A helmet is there to help after you've got into trouble but improving both cyclist visibility and driver attention could help prevent collisions entirely.
I'm generally in favour of helmets, and I know these guys are only taking an opportunity to get the message out, but in the context of this article it's just not relevant. And even somewhat confounding: is there really a view at large in the community that a helmet-less rider who is killed in a road crash in some way contributed to it? Or even deserved it?
On message
But good ol' Harry Barber hits the nail cleanly:
"The things that riders get wrong is that they ride at night without lights and they go through red lights.
Yes, exactly right: these are things that increase the chance of cyclists tangling with cars.
"But the things that drivers do to threaten riders' safety is mobile phone use. We've had riders killed by people not just on the phone but sending SMS text messages."
Unlike the previous two, Harry is right on message: cyclists stop doing things that put you at risk of collision, and drivers stop doing things that are life-threateningly negligent.
His assertion that: "The mobile phone user is the new drink driver" is a great sound-bite, not just because it's catchy but largely because it's entirely true. (And if you don't mind Harry, I think I might borrow that one!)
Footnote on photography
I happened to see a copy of this article in the paper today, and what's missing from the online version is the accompanying photo showing an attractive young couple sharing a bike (complete with under-inflated tyres and what appear to be very rusty rims)—he barefoot, she side-saddle on the top tube, both helmet-less—as they cruise down a public street.
And we all ride like that, don't we?
Glad to hear someone's maintaining standards Peter…
I actually saw someone reading a brochure as they were driving along today - I gave them a lot of free room.
But in general I agree - its both cyclists doing stupid things and drivers not paying enough attention that get people hit.
...actually, it occured to me (right after I hit 'go', of course) - what is the chance of one accident each month being enough to kill people? I mean, things that are just freaky, say an elm drops a seedpod just in front of someone, they got over it, and get knocked sideways and hit by a car. There's no way to eliminate this sort of random accident...
Well, the number sounds pretty small but it's an incomplete picture: is 14 deaths per year a long or high incidence when the level of participation is taken into account? That information is not to hand, but what makes that figure noteworthy is that it's double the previous 12-month period and the moving 5-year average.
And that poses a serious question that needs answering…
Comments
I'm riding like that now, while typing this on a smartphone with both hands. Not just content to sit on the crossbar, my spouse is also carrying a collection of rusty bayonet's in a bag filled with discarded medical waste.
We're both wearing ipods, but I'm also keeping an eye on my portable DVD player.