Helmet cam study reveals motorists to blame in vast majority of cycling crashes

"We've regularly featured stories here on road.cc highlighting the valuable
role that helmet cameras can play in providing evidence of dangerous driving
an even assault putting cyclists at risk of injury or worse. Now, a doctoral
student in Australia have used the devices to assess the risks involved in
cycling through Melbourne, and to establish the sequence of events that take
place during a crash.

Ms Johnson analysed 127 hours of footage compiled from helmet cameras used
by 13 cyclists to record their commute in the Victorian capital, and found
that drivers were responsible for nearly nine in ten potential crashes. In
three quarters of those incidents, the driver was assessed as being at
fault.


http://road.cc/content/news/46995-au...ycling-crashes


--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:37:41 +0100, "Simon Mason"
wrote:

Ms Johnson analysed 127 hours of footage compiled from helmet cameras used
by 13 cyclists to record their commute in the Victorian capital, and found
that drivers were responsible for nearly nine in ten potential crashes.

In 127 hours of footage the researcher identified "two crashes, six
“near-crashes” and 46 other “incidents” – the latter being described
as “similar to a near-crash"

and you try to tell people cycling is less risky than walking!

It sounds more like Russian roulette - send your child out and see if
it survives, that's one accident or potential accident for each 2 and
a bit hours of cycling.

On Oct 26, 11:07*pm, Peter Parry wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:37:41 +0100, "Simon Mason"

wrote:
Ms Johnson analysed 127 hours of footage compiled from helmet cameras used
by 13 cyclists to record their commute in the Victorian capital, and found
that drivers were responsible for nearly nine in ten potential crashes.

In 127 hours of footage the researcher identified "two crashes, six
“near-crashes” and 46 other “incidents” – the latter being described
as “similar to a near-crash" *

and you try to tell people cycling is less risky than walking!

It sounds more like Russian roulette - send your child out and see if
it survives, that's one accident or potential accident for each 2 and
a bit hours of cycling. *

One broken collarbone in 85000 miles seems pretty safe to me and in my
last BUPA check I had 110/68 blood pressure and the lung capacity of a
25 year old man.
Obesity is the biggest killer not cars - you have to look at the
bigger picture.
I'm not scared of traffic, I'm scared of ill health due to being
unfit.

--
Simon Mason

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 23:37:30 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason
wrote:

One broken collarbone in 85000 miles seems pretty safe to me

Do not confuse anecdote or personal experience with evidence. You
quoted an objective research paper where 127 hours of cycling
evidence was measured and assessed. It found that an accident, or
near accident occurred for each 2hrs and 20mins of cycling. This is
incompatible with the oft repeated claim that cycling is safe.

Simon Mason wrote:

"We've regularly featured stories here on road.cc highlighting the
valuable role that helmet cameras can play in providing evidence of
dangerous driving an even assault putting cyclists at risk of injury
or worse. Now, a doctoral student in Australia have used the devices
to assess the risks involved in cycling through Melbourne, and to
establish the sequence of events that take place during a crash.

Ms Johnson analysed 127 hours of footage compiled from helmet cameras
used by 13 cyclists to record their commute in the Victorian capital,
and found that drivers were responsible for nearly nine in ten
potential crashes. In three quarters of those incidents, the driver
was assessed as being at fault.


http://road.cc/content/news/46995-au...tudy-reveals-m
otorists-blame-vast-majority-cycling-crashes



"the footage does provide examples of cyclists turning their heads while
riding not only to check traffic to the right or parked cars to the left,
but also as a result of distractions such as signs, shopfronts and people
they perved on"


Stop perving, you lot! :-)

Simon Mason wrote:

"We've regularly featured stories here on road.cc highlighting the
valuable role that helmet cameras can play in providing evidence of
dangerous driving an even assault putting cyclists at risk of injury
or worse. Now, a doctoral student in Australia have used the devices
to assess the risks involved in cycling through Melbourne, and to
establish the sequence of events that take place during a crash.

Ms Johnson analysed 127 hours of footage compiled from helmet cameras
used by 13 cyclists to record their commute in the Victorian capital,
and found that drivers were responsible for nearly nine in ten
potential crashes. In three quarters of those incidents, the driver
was assessed as being at fault.

It's not stated whether the footage was chosen especially because it
contained "incidents".

In addition, what is not pointed out is that those with helmet cams are
possibly (probably IMO) the more "serious" cyclists who maybe pride
themselves on their safe and experienced attitude to cycling.

To get more a more real-world view, you would have to film all the other
cyclists as well.

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 08:18:33 +0100, Peter Parry wrote:

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 23:37:30 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason
wrote:

One broken collarbone in 85000 miles seems pretty safe to me

Do not confuse anecdote or personal experience with evidence. You
quoted an objective research paper where 127 hours of cycling
evidence was measured and assessed. It found that an accident, or
near accident occurred for each 2hrs and 20mins of cycling. This is
incompatible with the oft repeated claim that cycling is safe.


Indeed - and Mason could quite easily have an accident on the way home,
irrespective of how observant and careful he thinks he is being.

On Oct 27, 8:18*am, Peter Parry wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 23:37:30 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason

wrote:
One broken collarbone in 85000 miles seems pretty safe to me

Do not confuse anecdote or personal experience with evidence. *You
quoted an objective *research paper where 127 hours of cycling
evidence was measured and assessed. *It found that an accident, or
near accident occurred for each 2hrs and 20mins of cycling. *This is
incompatible with the oft repeated claim that cycling is safe.

That is because it is safe.
Being inactive is far more dangerous.

--
Simon Mason