On 16/11/13 03:33, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Friday, November 15, 2013 2:51:51 AM UTC-5, James wrote:

You may be correct of course, that it is a random variation. It could
also be that the toll has been unusually low over the past few years.
I'd expect the fatality to injury ratio to remain pretty constant,
wouldn't you agree?

In that case, given the chart he (don't know if you can access that
overseas?)

http://reporting.tacsafety.com.au/s/search.html?collection=tac-xml-meta&query=%21padrenull&form=template-report-graph&chart_type=line&x-axis=Date&y-axis=Age+Range+-+Serious+Injuries&meta_d3day=1&meta_d3month=Jan&me ta_d3year=2000&meta_d4day=31&meta_d4month=Dec&meta _d4year=2011&meta_F_orsand=%22Bicyclist%22&clive=t ac-injuries-xml#.UoXQSrTE2cU.mailto

You'll notice that in the age range of 26 to 59 year olds, the trend is
that injuries requiring hospitalisation have increased significantly.

That is weird. Meanwhile, it looks like the groups most notorious for risk-taking - the 0-17 and 18-25 year olds - have either level or decreasing injuries. Makes me wonder about exposure data, naturally.

My gut feeling is, people now think it's too risky to let your child
ride a bicycle, and then as they hit 18, why ride a bicycle when you can
drive?

Once you've got a job and accommodation, and find you're struggling to
make ends meet, or sitting in traffic queues has lost its charm, some
look for an alternative. Some accommodation may not even have room for
a motorcar. Hence the rather large uptake of cycling in the middle aged
ranks.

Despite rising fuel prices, once you're old, you probably don't want to
risk doing something as energetic as riding a bicycle, and we all know
how dangerous it is just walking up the street!

Here's another interesting article by a fellow who's travelled a bit
and, like you, Frank, bicycled in various other countries.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...-to-cycle-rage

I've long thought that some intense public education programs - via TV, billboards, radio, magazines, newspapers, internet, etc. - should be the first place to start. And if hostility in Oz is as great as that guy claims, maybe some police "sting" operations would be in order.

Of course, that requires first convincing the police...


Yes, well, interesting topics. A recent doco I saw suggested that when
a motorist sees a motorist run a red light, the thinking is, he's not
one of us, but when a cyclist runs a red light, all cyclists are
scofflaws. So the motorists have this notion that cyclists are their
own worst enemy, and have themselves to blame for their injuries and
deaths, despite much research showing that in possibly up to 87% of
"events", the motorist was at fault. (A study published that used
helmet cameras to document crashes and near misses found 87% of the
"events" were the fault of the car driver.
http://theconversation.com/helmet-ca...ing-safer-3540
)

Then of course the roads policies are so heavily swayed by the powerful
motoring lobby groups, instead of campaigns to warn drivers to take
extra care, we have to "share the road" - which in their mind means
don't hold me up at all, ever, or you're not sharing.

The police are rendered pretty much useless because the legal system is
heavily weighed in the motorists favour. Motorists only have to say "I
honestly thought there was enough room." and show remorse, and the small
fine and demerit point is no more than a slap on the wrist - while a
cyclist is dead. See
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/q...-1226635894242

Of course the facilities advocates are going nuts over here, crying for
segregation to keep us safe.

--
JS