Victoria: New TAC Campaign

[cfsmtb]

Received a email from "46"
http://www.46.com.au/

It's a new campaign from TAC - ad involves a composite of TAC's
previous ad campaigns to the tune of Powerfingers "These Days". I don't
like Powderfinger, but anyway...

From the site: It's 46 too many Don't become a statistic etc etc

Then there's: What can I do about the hidden toll?
http://www.46.com.au/todo.html

But there's no information directly pertaining to cyclists - except for
the injury calculator on the right; Ok, type in Female, Bicyclist, 30-39


"28 people, just like you are injured on Victorian roads every year"

:(


--
cfsmtb

[cfsmtb]

cfsmtb Wrote:
> Ok, type in Female, Bicyclist, 30-39
>
> "28 people, just like you are injured on Victorian roads every year"
>
> :(

Then type in: Female, Passenger, 30-39

"251 people, just like you are injured on Victorian roads every year."

Yes, I prefer to be out & about on the bike. :o


--
cfsmtb

[SuzieB]

cfsmtb Wrote:
> Received a email from "46"
> http://www.46.com.au/
>
> But there's no information directly pertaining to cyclists - except for
> the injury calculator on the right; Ok, type in Female, Bicyclist, 30-39
>
>
> "28 people, just like you are injured on Victorian roads every year"
>
> :(
But that's safer than walking... Female, Pedestrian, 30-39 - "65
people, just like you are injured on Victorian roads every year."

Just some more good incentive to get me on the bike riding to work.


--
SuzieB

[Resound]

cfsmtb Wrote:
> Received a email from "46"
> http://www.46.com.au/
>
> It's a new campaign from TAC - ad involves a composite of TAC's
> previous ad campaigns to the tune of Powerfingers "These Days". I don't
> like Powderfinger, but anyway...
>
> From the site: It's 46 too many Don't become a statistic etc etc
>
> Then there's: What can I do about the hidden toll?
> http://www.46.com.au/todo.html
>
> But there's no information directly pertaining to cyclists - except for
> the injury calculator on the right; Ok, type in Female, Bicyclist, 30-39
>
>
> "28 people, just like you are injured on Victorian roads every year"
>
> :(

Lots more if you're a boy (91). I wonder how much of that is to do with
us being crazy risk-taking testosterone driven bunnies and how much is
due to the fact that there seems to be a lot more male than female
cyclists on the road. Odd that more female than male drivers are
injured (923/744). Given that women are lower risk drivers I would have
expected those figures to be the other way around.


--
Resound

[EuanB]

SuzieB Wrote:
> But that's safer than walking... Female, Pedestrian, 30-39 - "65 people,
> just like you are injured on Victorian roads every year."
>
> Just some more good incentive to get me on the bike riding to work.

91 male cyclists injured every year as opposed to 78 male pedestrians.
It's hard to say which is safer based on just those numbers. How many
km/s travelled on average? 500m to the nearest car park? As opposed
to the 60kms a day I do?

Statistics, you can do anything with them ;-)


--
EuanB

[cfsmtb]

EuanB Wrote:
> 91 male cyclists injured every year as opposed to 78 male pedestrians.
> It's hard to say which is safer based on just those numbers. How many
> km/s travelled on average? 500m to the nearest car park? As opposed
> to the 60kms a day I do?
>
> Statistics, you can do anything with them ;-)


Yeah, but compare this:

28 injured per year as a Female, Bicyclist 30-39

to the staggering

923 injured per year as a Female, Driver 30-39

I've never held a license & hopefuly won't have too. But am considering
learning how to drive simply as skill just in case the need ever
arises....


--
cfsmtb

[Resound]

cfsmtb Wrote:
> Yeah, but compare this:
>
> 28 injured per year as a Female, Bicyclist 30-39
>
> to the staggering
>
> 923 injured per year as a Female, Driver 30-39
>
> I've never held a license & hopefuly won't have too. But am considering
> learning how to drive simply as skill just in case the need ever
> arises....

It's a good thing to have. There are times when driving is an
appropriate way of doing something...trailerloads of stuff to move, for
example.


--
Resound

[PiledHigher]

cfsmtb Wrote:
> Yeah, but compare this:
>
> 28 injured per year as a Female, Bicyclist 30-39
>
> to the staggering
>
> 923 injured per year as a Female, Driver 30-39
>
> I've never held a license & hopefuly won't have too. But am considering
> learning how to drive simply as skill just in case the need ever
> arises....

Obviously much safer to let the man drive!

....ducks like a magpie is swooping me...


--
PiledHigher

[cfsmtb]

PiledHigher Wrote:
> Obviously much safer to let the man drive!
>
> ....ducks like a magpie is swooping me...

Funny that... :D


--
cfsmtb

[flyingdutch]

cfsmtb Wrote:
> Funny that... :D
Better yet, check ths part on the TA site that all th data comes
from...

http://www.tacsafety.com.au/jsp/statistics/reportingtool.do

An extract of all available data pertaining to cyclists, of all ages,
times and locations over the last 5 years:
Fatality details
Location:
Melbourne
31
Rural Vic
23
Unknown
0

Type:
Pedestrian 2
Adjacent direction 4
Opposing direction 5
Same direction 27
Manoeuvring 10
Overtaking 3
On Road 0
Run off a straight road 2
Run off road on a curve 0
Passenger/misc 1
Unknown 0

The standouts:
Same direction 27!!!!!!!! Boy. TimC get's around :D

Female 6
Male 48
which is very disprapportionate(?) as supposedly the split of riders is
about 70/30

and for 'serious injury'
Pedestrian 12
Adjacent direction 414
Opposing direction 302
Same direction 412
Manoeuvring 514
Overtaking 22
On Road 221
Run off a straight road 192
Run off road on a curve 16
Passenger/misc 11
Unknown 5


--
flyingdutch

[cfsmtb]

flyingdutch Wrote:
> Better yet, check ths part on the TA site that all th data comes
> from...
>

Regardless, the stats can be utilised as a piece of effective
'mythbusting'. Cycling dangerous for women in my age group? Nope -
refer to the stats if you were driving a vehicle. Now on yer bike!


--
cfsmtb

[SuzieB]

cfsmtb Wrote:
> Regardless, the stats can be utilised as a piece of effective
> 'mythbusting'. Cycling dangerous for women in my age group? Nope -
> refer to the stats if you were driving a vehicle. Now on yer bike!
*Yes Ma'am! :) *


--
SuzieB

[Ray Peace]

EuanB wrote:
> SuzieB Wrote:
>
>>But that's safer than walking... Female, Pedestrian, 30-39 - "65 people,
>>just like you are injured on Victorian roads every year."
>>
>>Just some more good incentive to get me on the bike riding to work.
>
>
> 91 male cyclists injured every year as opposed to 78 male pedestrians.
> It's hard to say which is safer based on just those numbers. How many
> km/s travelled on average? 500m to the nearest car park? As opposed
> to the 60kms a day I do?
>
> Statistics, you can do anything with them ;-)
>
>
Greetings,
Most of the injuries are caused by the 1.5 tonnes of metal that
cleans you up. Statistics on single vehicle bicycle accidents anyone?
And for pedestrians, it's almost 100 per cent.
Regards,
Ray.

[coowoowoo]

SuzieB Wrote:
> *Yes Ma'am! :) *

Being in that age group, I'll third that sister.


--
coowoowoo

[cogcontrol]

Just comparing the number as presented by the TAC is absolutely
meaningless without factoring in proportions of male/female cyclists
across the population .
As there are many more male cyclists than female then of course the
figures are going to show more male injuries/fatalities. In fact if
these figures are compared with the proportion of male/female cyclists
could even show that it is more female accidents than male.

The only way such figures can be realistically compared is per
kilometre travelled.

CC


--
cogcontrol

[Theo Bekkers]

Ray Peace wrote:

> Most of the injuries are caused by the 1.5 tonnes of metal that
> cleans you up. Statistics on single vehicle bicycle accidents anyone?
> And for pedestrians, it's almost 100 per cent.

I don't have any figures to hand but I'll lay odds that bicycle accidents
are like motorcycle accidents. 50% no other vehicle involved.

Theo

[flyingdutch]

Theo Bekkers Wrote:
> Ray Peace wrote:
>
> > Most of the injuries are caused by the 1.5 tonnes of metal that
> > cleans you up. Statistics on single vehicle bicycle accidents
> anyone?
> > And for pedestrians, it's almost 100 per cent.
>
> I don't have any figures to hand but I'll lay odds that bicycle
> accidents
> are like motorcycle accidents. 50% no other vehicle involved.
>
> Theo

they dont get reported/captured by TAC tho.
(They 'might' by hospitals/etc tho?)
unless they involve road paint or catseyes, i found out recently


--
flyingdutch

[TimC]

On 2005-10-20, flyingdutch (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
> cfsmtb Wrote:
>> Funny that... :D
> Better yet, check ths part on the TA site that all th data comes
> from...
>
> http://www.tacsafety.com.au/jsp/statistics/reportingtool.do
>
> An extract of all available data pertaining to cyclists, of all ages,
> times and locations over the last 5 years:
> Fatality details
> Location:
> Melbourne
> 31
> Rural Vic
> 23
> Unknown
> 0

Day(s) of the week:
Mon 7
Tue 12
Wed 5
Thu 3
Fri 6
Sat 4
Sun 7


Tuesday!? Eeek! That was the day I was hit (can't remember what days
the other 3 occasions over the past year were).

What is it about Tuesday? That's definitely statistically
significant, at about the 2-3sigma level.

> Type:
> Pedestrian 2
> Adjacent direction 4
> Opposing direction 5
> Same direction 27
> Manoeuvring 10
> Overtaking 3
> On Road 0
> Run off a straight road 2
> Run off road on a curve 0
> Passenger/misc 1
> Unknown 0
>
> The standouts:
> Same direction 27!!!!!!!! Boy. TimC get's around :D

I thought being hit behind (presumably the majority of same direction
fatalities) was a relatively rare occurence.

Now I definitely feel naked without my helmet mirror.

And you don't want to imagine me naked. Heh. Planted that thought on
you goodly, didn't I? :)

> Run off a straight road 192
> Run off road on a curve 16

Heh. I wonder what would have happened had I ran off the edge of
Clinton's road :)

--
TimC
VBScript is designed to be a secure programming environment. It
lacks various commands that can be potentially damaging if used in
a malicious manner. This added security is critical in enterprise
solutions. -- support.microsoft.com

[TimC]

On 2005-10-20, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Ray Peace wrote:
>
>> Most of the injuries are caused by the 1.5 tonnes of metal that
>> cleans you up. Statistics on single vehicle bicycle accidents anyone?
>> And for pedestrians, it's almost 100 per cent.
>
> I don't have any figures to hand but I'll lay odds that bicycle accidents
> are like motorcycle accidents. 50% no other vehicle involved.

Surely not. Motorcycle self inflicted deaths would happen typically
because of inapropriate speed or the like, wouldn't they (or the
relatively large speed of a motorbike compared to a bike would
certainly make things worse)? And 250kg of metal is unforgiving even
when not at speed.

Bikes? Only time speed's going to be an issue is around obstacles --
ie, cars. Or going down Warrandyte hill. Please do not let me fall
off down there! Eeek!

Quick physics question: Given a uniform density spherical cyclist
travelling at 99.0km/h down that hill, how far would they slide? :)

--
TimC
Your fault (core dumped)

[Resound]

"TimC" > wrote in message
...
> On 2005-10-20, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> Ray Peace wrote:
>>
>>> Most of the injuries are caused by the 1.5 tonnes of metal that
>>> cleans you up. Statistics on single vehicle bicycle accidents anyone?
>>> And for pedestrians, it's almost 100 per cent.
>>
>> I don't have any figures to hand but I'll lay odds that bicycle accidents
>> are like motorcycle accidents. 50% no other vehicle involved.
>
> Surely not. Motorcycle self inflicted deaths would happen typically
> because of inapropriate speed or the like, wouldn't they (or the
> relatively large speed of a motorbike compared to a bike would
> certainly make things worse)? And 250kg of metal is unforgiving even
> when not at speed.
>
> Bikes? Only time speed's going to be an issue is around obstacles --
> ie, cars. Or going down Warrandyte hill. Please do not let me fall
> off down there! Eeek!
>
> Quick physics question: Given a uniform density spherical cyclist
> travelling at 99.0km/h down that hill, how far would they slide? :)

Depends on a) what that density is, b) what the diameter is (ab gives axial
moment of inertia thingy), c) friction co-efficient between cyclist and road
(c/(ab) gives axial acceleration) and d) what degree of slip is determined
to be rolling rather than sliding. You may need to take into account change
in friction coefficient as lycra and skin abrades. The mathematics is left
as an exercise for the silly sod who initially posted the question. Do I win
a prize? Do I get extra points for not being a science bunny in the first
place? :P

>
> --
> TimC
> Your fault (core dumped)

[TimC]

On 2005-10-20, Resound (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> "TimC" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Quick physics question: Given a uniform density spherical cyclist
>> travelling at 99.0km/h down that hill, how far would they slide? :)
>
> Depends on a) what that density is, b) what the diameter is (ab gives axial
> moment of inertia thingy), c) friction co-efficient between cyclist and road
> (c/(ab) gives axial acceleration) and d) what degree of slip is determined
> to be rolling rather than sliding. You may need to take into account change
> in friction coefficient as lycra and skin abrades. The mathematics is left
> as an exercise for the silly sod who initially posted the question. Do I win
> a prize? Do I get extra points for not being a science bunny in the first
> place? :P

I believe I still owe you a goat. Um, oops, a wine.

--
TimC
Tim flies like an arrow -- Donald Weldh on RHOD

[dave]

TimC wrote:
> On 2005-10-20, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
>>Ray Peace wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Most of the injuries are caused by the 1.5 tonnes of metal that
>>>cleans you up. Statistics on single vehicle bicycle accidents anyone?
>>>And for pedestrians, it's almost 100 per cent.
>>
>>I don't have any figures to hand but I'll lay odds that bicycle accidents
>>are like motorcycle accidents. 50% no other vehicle involved.
>
>
> Surely not. Motorcycle self inflicted deaths would happen typically
> because of inapropriate speed or the like, wouldn't they (or the
> relatively large speed of a motorbike compared to a bike would
> certainly make things worse)? And 250kg of metal is unforgiving even
> when not at speed.

A significant percentage are going to be motorcycle going bush to dodge
(say ) oncoming car overtaking (or on wrong side) of narrow road.
Motorcyclist getting unlucky. Or similiar. we know these happen cos
most motorcyclists and indeed many drivers have a single vehicle
accident story that really involved another vehicle. What percentage
are fatals.. and what percentage of fatals these are.. who can say.

My own gut feeling is that it may be fairly high. The flick the bars
hard left.. spear into the forrest and hope approach has to be worth
trying as a last resort. But its likely to kill you.

And some percentage of bicycle accidents. will be the same. single
vehicle.. cos the other vehicle cannot be identified. The difference is
the bicycle accident will rarely be a fatal
>
> Bikes? Only time speed's going to be an issue is around obstacles --
> ie, cars. Or going down Warrandyte hill. Please do not let me fall
> off down there! Eeek!

Speed is always an issue. And you can die at really low speed. A guy
on this newsgroup had a friend killed on chapel st. And my day had a
mate killed (on a motorbike) at walking pace in his own driveway. They
were laughing at him till they realised he wasnt moving.

You could have been killed the other day Tim, Im not in the slightest
trying to scare you.. the odds were with you.. but if you had fallen
badly and been terribly unlucky...
>
> Quick physics question: Given a uniform density spherical cyclist
> travelling at 99.0km/h down that hill, how far would they slide? :)
>
A lot furthur than you think. at that speed you are doing 27 meters a
second (just off the top of my head) Bet it takes a few seconds to stop

Dave

[TimC]

On 2005-10-20, dave (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> TimC wrote:
>> Surely not. Motorcycle self inflicted deaths would happen typically
>> because of inapropriate speed or the like, wouldn't they (or the
>> relatively large speed of a motorbike compared to a bike would
>> certainly make things worse)? And 250kg of metal is unforgiving even
>> when not at speed.
>
> A significant percentage are going to be motorcycle going bush to dodge
> (say ) oncoming car overtaking (or on wrong side) of narrow road.
> Motorcyclist getting unlucky. Or similiar. we know these happen cos
> most motorcyclists and indeed many drivers have a single vehicle
> accident story that really involved another vehicle. What percentage
> are fatals.. and what percentage of fatals these are.. who can say.

Particularly in a "non hit" and run. It might never be possible to
know that there was a driver at fault, if the driver disappears
without a trace, and the motorcyclist isn't alive to tell the story.

> You could have been killed the other day Tim, Im not in the slightest
> trying to scare you.. the odds were with you.. but if you had fallen
> badly and been terribly unlucky...

Yep. Agreed. It was damn close as it was -- I think his front tyre
was probably only a foot from my head when he must have swerved back
out into the traffic stream.


I might have some developments on this tomorrow.

--
TimC
The Klein-Gordon equation was derived by Schroedinger.
Hence its name. -- Peter Robinson, Rel. Quant. Mech Lecturer.

[dave]

TimC wrote:
> On 2005-10-20, dave (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
>>TimC wrote:
>>
>>>Surely not. Motorcycle self inflicted deaths would happen typically
>>>because of inapropriate speed or the like, wouldn't they (or the
>>>relatively large speed of a motorbike compared to a bike would
>>>certainly make things worse)? And 250kg of metal is unforgiving even
>>>when not at speed.
>>
>>A significant percentage are going to be motorcycle going bush to dodge
>>(say ) oncoming car overtaking (or on wrong side) of narrow road.
>>Motorcyclist getting unlucky. Or similiar. we know these happen cos
>>most motorcyclists and indeed many drivers have a single vehicle
>>accident story that really involved another vehicle. What percentage
>>are fatals.. and what percentage of fatals these are.. who can say.
>
>
> Particularly in a "non hit" and run. It might never be possible to
> know that there was a driver at fault, if the driver disappears
> without a trace, and the motorcyclist isn't alive to tell the story.
>

Yeah Exactly my point I,ll tell you how I lost a rear indicator to a
near head on at the goat.
>
>>You could have been killed the other day Tim, Im not in the slightest
>>trying to scare you.. the odds were with you.. but if you had fallen
>>badly and been terribly unlucky...
>
>
> Yep. Agreed. It was damn close as it was -- I think his front tyre
> was probably only a foot from my head when he must have swerved back
> out into the traffic stream.
>
>
> I might have some developments on this tomorrow.
>

When I got hit on the freeway.. when I broke my hip. When I went to get
up the guy who hit me had his radiator actually over my head.

Sometimes you get lucky, sometimes you get unlucky. Its not exactly
fair but its the way life is .

[Tom N]

cfsmtb wrote:

> But there's no information directly pertaining to cyclists - except for
> the injury calculator on the right; Ok, type in Female, Bicyclist, 30-39
>
>
> "28 people, just like you are injured on Victorian roads every year"

I find it concerning that 2 drivers aged 0-4 (female and male) are injured
every year. Probably because they can't see over the dashboard and reach
the pedals at the same time.