Thread: Cyclists.

Originally Posted by bee utey

cyclicts? what next, psycholicts? alcoholicts?

Irrational blind hate just turns you into a loose cannon that endangers every other road user, including yourself.

Flinging insults like irrational blind hate, when reality bites is a normal last resort of a person who cannot accept reality.
If I said to you I was told laying strapped in bandages and drugged up, that if you continue this activity you will have a 50% chance to be back in hospital in 2 years and will 100% in the future suffer a permanent injury that will cause you permanent pain and restricted movement. Would you say I was all there?
The real world study of 150+ accidents hospital treated showed that over half of them had a prang previously in the last 2 years requiring hospital time. 87% where single bike pranks, with about 12-13% of those caused by avoiding hitting a car. Lots-a told you of a report that showed all cyclist have spine issues. And even the fastest you tube cyclist on this thread was slower than the bus in their dedicated lanes, and would slow traffic far less if the 2-4 cyclists who take up a lane car pooled.

Originally Posted by frantic

<snip> ..The real world study of 150+ accidents hospital treated showed that over half of them had a prang previously in the last 2 years requiring hospital time. 87% where single bike pranks, with about 12-13% of those caused by avoiding hitting a car. Lots-a told you of a report that showed all cyclist have spine issues. And even the fastest you tube cyclist on this thread was slower than the bus in their dedicated lanes, and would slow traffic far less if the 2-4 cyclists who take up a lane car pooled.

Sorry that's not correct, what the report stated was that for unprotected cyclists admitted to hospital for spinal cord injuries around 50% had complete lesions (para/quad/tetraplegia).

Not in the report, there are a lot of other injured cyclists, like Dave S, who suffer significant spinal damage (bone fractures etc) but without a spinal cord injuries and a far greater group of cyclists who are injured but the injuries are not spine related.

I was tyring to inform the thread that when spinal cord injuries occur in cyclists complete lesions are very likely to occur. What I didn't mention was that the rate of injuries in the group where an incident involved another vehicle was equivalent to the group where there was only the cyclist involved (no other vehicle) e.g. lost control, hit a bump or otherwise fell off the bike.

Originally Posted by frantic

The guardian link goes,nowhere?
This one from Monash says motorists involved in about 13% of crashes and blamed for 24%.
https://www.google.com/url?q=http://...namNrWkqnb_5WQ

Ahh found it. What an in depth study,,,Rofl. 54" incidents" and 3 actual accidents and 6 near misses gives a 87% outcome. What selective horse manure. Basically a few people wearing cameras riding around taxi and delivery drivers.
It looks even more like fertiliser when another study from the same university says the total opposite, with far more participants, actual accidents and not near misses. Of the 150+ accidents in the other monash study that where treated in hospitals, only 13% about 23 where with cars. The other 127 where with themselves, dodging cars( about 10%) or just simply falling off

Are you a statistician? Have you done a power analysis to determine the size of the effect to see if 54 is a statistically significant sample size?

Here is a different kind of study, also by MUARC, which looked at 13901 accidents. They don't attribute fault, but if you look through the types of accidents there are similarities.

[ame]http://www.monash.edu.au/miri/research/reports/muarc251.pdf[/ame]

In case the crappy pdf preview thing doesn't work - cut and paste below and remove the space.
http://www. monash.edu.au/miri/research/reports/muarc251.pdf

Originally Posted by frantic

Flinging insults like irrational blind hate, when reality bites is a normal last resort of a person who cannot accept reality.

And a poster who claims kangaroos hate cyclists is rational?
Reality is that cycling is as safe as any sport unless you happen to meet with dimwits in tin cans texting their stupidity for all the world to read. Wake me up when motorists stop dying in their hundreds and thousands every year.

Rofl bee utey, please read isuzurover's post and link. It actually further backs my argument.
Cycling is not in actual reality "as safe as any other sport", unless that sport is base jumping.
From that study. You have a crash in a 75kph+ zone and it's 40% chance of RIP.
In any crash with a vehicle it's 1:4 who never get up.
In the space of 4 years there where over 13,000 crashes and 3000+ dead, not including nsw. Could you tell me any other sport with that mortality rate? Please any sport?
Isuzurover, As to the other study being irrelevant, you don't need a degree to tell you that seeing a car driver doing the wrong thing 1.5 times a month on a commute is a pathetic effort at best. The odds are that the person with the camera could get killed at their next car /bike prang.

It would be useful to review stats that differentiate between number and severity of cycle incidents in these categories -

a) Speed zones (where incident occurred) 25-50kmh, 60-80kmh, 80-110kmh.

b) Reason for cycling at the time -

i) Commuting
ii) Training/competing (professional)
iii) Training/competing (amateur)
iv) Fitness, fun, recreation
v) Employment
vi) Unsure
vii) Why am I reading this crap?

c) Age

d) Previously involved in a bicycle incident Y/N.

e) Did you have a bell and mirror on your bike? Y/N/'What for?'/'No, people should stay out of my...etc.

f) Occupation (just for ****s and giggles).

I reckon a lot of angst (from all groups) and as important, incident/injury and cost, could be substantially reduced by seriously addressing the integration speeds, and implementing restrictions based on sensible risk assessment. This could even involve restricting cars, to local traffic only, during a large event such as the TDU.

The 'share the road always and in all places' approach, does not contribute to a safe and healthy environment, particularly in the case of the cyclist.

Originally Posted by isuzurover

Have you done a power analysis to determine the size of the effect to see if 54 is a statistically significant sample size?

whats the difference between an analysis and a power analysis ?

Originally Posted by Eevo

Originally Posted by isuzurover

Have you done a power analysis to determine the size of the effect to see if 54 is a statistically significant sample size?

whats the difference between an analysis and a power analysis ?

Statistics (mathematics)!