Older Dutch cyclists warned of electric bike dangers

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

I already presented evidence (to the ECF) regarding a dramatic rise in deaths in the 3 over 60s age groups for 2016 compared to 2007, that was bucking the trend of reduced deaths for all other age groups in NL. They didn't even bother replying despite their continued pressing for e-bikes without looking at the negatives and why increases in KSIs for those groups purchasing them in hugely greater numbers. One poster on here starting shouting the odds about how I needed to have a peer reviewed paper when the stats were pretty bloody obvious what the issue was.

However, these people are still active, well into their 80s in many cases, unlike our already dead or sedentary/rotting in a care home 80+year olds!

Road safety 'experts' and EU commision still use absolute numbers to prove not wearing helmets in NL is a massive problem, but then completely ignore the facts regading exposure and massively the greater health of the elderly and all other age groups compared to anywhere else.

Netherlands stands at 900 cycling kilometers per inhabitant, Germany  is 368 km per inhabitant, in England only 75 km. https://nltimes.nl/2016/04/12/netherlands-cyclists-likely-eu-hurt-traffic

Now, whose country is still presenting the greater risk of death and also increased mortality due to poor health/sedentary lifestyles. The Dutch save €60 in health expenditure for every 1€ spent on infra.

Yeah, the dutch are doing it all wrong (e-bike issues aside)

 

 

 

Unfortunately the raw numbers are meaningless without context.

The over 60 age group is growing rapidly so an increase in the absolute number of deaths is entirely expected.

Also, if there was a problem with e bikes and the over 60s then why has the 70-79 age group been spared? There is no significant rise in the number of deaths of that age group.

I've included an English version of your chart for those of us whose Dutch is a little rusty.

Rich_cb wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

I already presented evidence (to the ECF) regarding a dramatic rise in deaths in the 3 over 60s age groups for 2016 compared to 2007, that was bucking the trend of reduced deaths for all other age groups in NL. They didn't even bother replying despite their continued pressing for e-bikes without looking at the negatives and why increases in KSIs for those groups purchasing them in hugely greater numbers. One poster on here starting shouting the odds about how I needed to have a peer reviewed paper when the stats were pretty bloody obvious what the issue was.

However, these people are still active, well into their 80s in many cases, unlike our already dead or sedentary/rotting in a care home 80+year olds!

Road safety 'experts' and EU commision still use absolute numbers to prove not wearing helmets in NL is a massive problem, but then completely ignore the facts regading exposure and massively the greater health of the elderly and all other age groups compared to anywhere else.

Netherlands stands at 900 cycling kilometers per inhabitant, Germany  is 368 km per inhabitant, in England only 75 km. https://nltimes.nl/2016/04/12/netherlands-cyclists-likely-eu-hurt-traffic

Now, whose country is still presenting the greater risk of death and also increased mortality due to poor health/sedentary lifestyles. The Dutch save €60 in health expenditure for every 1€ spent on infra.

Yeah, the dutch are doing it all wrong (e-bike issues aside)

 

 

 

Unfortunately the raw numbers are meaningless without context. The over 60 age group is growing rapidly so an increase in the absolute number of deaths is entirely expected. Also, if there was a problem with e bikes and the over 60s then why has the 70-79 age group been spared? There is no significant rise in the number of deaths of that age group. I've included an English version of your chart for those of us whose Dutch is a little rusty.

I think you're both not far off saying the same thing. Your (Rich_cb) statement seems the more consistent of the two, but big kudos to BTBS  for initiating the provision of some actual data.

As you say, context matters - do we know how many of the over 60's e-bike deaths took place on cycle paths, and whether or not they were a result of collisions - as opposed to e.g. medical emergencies?

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

I already presented evidence (to the ECF) regarding a dramatic rise in deaths in the 3 over 60s age groups for 2016 compared to 2007, that was bucking the trend of reduced deaths for all other age groups in NL. They didn't even bother replying despite their continued pressing for e-bikes without looking at the negatives and why increases in KSIs for those groups purchasing them in hugely greater numbers. One poster on here starting shouting the odds about how I needed to have a peer reviewed paper when the stats were pretty bloody obvious what the issue was.

However, these people are still active, well into their 80s in many cases, unlike our already dead or sedentary/rotting in a care home 80+year olds!

Road safety 'experts' and EU commision still use absolute numbers to prove not wearing helmets in NL is a massive problem, but then completely ignore the facts regading exposure and massively the greater health of the elderly and all other age groups compared to anywhere else.

Netherlands stands at 900 cycling kilometers per inhabitant, Germany  is 368 km per inhabitant, in England only 75 km. https://nltimes.nl/2016/04/12/netherlands-cyclists-likely-eu-hurt-traffic

Now, whose country is still presenting the greater risk of death and also increased mortality due to poor health/sedentary lifestyles. The Dutch save €60 in health expenditure for every 1€ spent on infra.

Yeah, the dutch are doing it all wrong (e-bike issues aside)

 

The real point here is that when the elderly (especially over 80s and also over 70s), get in ANY KIND of collision they are much more prone to death and more severe injury than younger people are. There is no especial problem with cycling, electrically assisted or not. 

ChairRDRF wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

I already presented evidence (to the ECF) regarding a dramatic rise in deaths in the 3 over 60s age groups for 2016 compared to 2007, that was bucking the trend of reduced deaths for all other age groups in NL. They didn't even bother replying despite their continued pressing for e-bikes without looking at the negatives and why increases in KSIs for those groups purchasing them in hugely greater numbers. One poster on here starting shouting the odds about how I needed to have a peer reviewed paper when the stats were pretty bloody obvious what the issue was.

However, these people are still active, well into their 80s in many cases, unlike our already dead or sedentary/rotting in a care home 80+year olds!

Road safety 'experts' and EU commision still use absolute numbers to prove not wearing helmets in NL is a massive problem, but then completely ignore the facts regading exposure and massively the greater health of the elderly and all other age groups compared to anywhere else.

Netherlands stands at 900 cycling kilometers per inhabitant, Germany  is 368 km per inhabitant, in England only 75 km. https://nltimes.nl/2016/04/12/netherlands-cyclists-likely-eu-hurt-traffic

Now, whose country is still presenting the greater risk of death and also increased mortality due to poor health/sedentary lifestyles. The Dutch save €60 in health expenditure for every 1€ spent on infra.

Yeah, the dutch are doing it all wrong (e-bike issues aside)

 

 

The real point here is that when the elderly (especially over 80s and also over 70s), get in ANY KIND of collision they are much more prone to death and more severe injury than younger people are. There is no especial problem with cycling, electrically assisted or not. 

You fail to grasp how things work.

if you have an overall decline in danger presented to people on bikes - absolute numbers going down across all age groups but only three specific age groups show a very large % increase conversely to the reduction in all the others, there most definitely IS a correlation. 

Deaths in the older age groups due to them being more fragile when falling off bikes would already show up in previous years, in fact more so if medically related because standard bike users would be more prone to exertion related deaths comparative to e-bike users in older age groups.

And yet the only groups that are purchasing e-bikes in huge, huge numbers (45% and up) are the only groups to go in the complete opposite direction with regards to deaths. As i said, you cannot use the older persons medical frailty or their frailty from falls because that would simply show a like for like drop across all age groups if there is no intervention/something changed.

The ONLY change is e-bikes, the roads/environ are safer because all the other groups are reducing death numbers across that 9 year period, so it can't be medical, it can't be fragility for the reason i explained, so it must by definition be the e-bikes.

Even Michael Coalville-Anderson wrote about this a ouple of years ago http://www.copenhagenize.com/2014/02/the-e-bike-sceptic.html

In my opinion, it is the faster speed that is more easily attained,  some e-bikes (& we're talking the non speed variants) exceed the 15.5mph (illegally so). Many Dutch cyclists of a certain age will not have cycled at those speeds for many, many years. You also have the added weight and momentum (kinetic energy) which means further to stop and the inability of some older people to judge all of that.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

You fail to grasp how things work.

if you have an overall decline in danger presented to people on bikes - absolute numbers going down across all age groups but only three specific age groups show a very large % increase conversely to the reduction in all the others, there most definitely IS a correlation. 

Deaths in the older age groups due to them being more fragile when falling off bikes would already show up in previous years, in fact more so if medically related because standard bike users would be more prone to exertion related deaths comparative to e-bike users in older age groups.

And yet the only groups that are purchasing e-bikes in huge, huge numbers (45% and up) are the only groups to go in the complete opposite direction with regards to deaths. As i said, you cannot use the older persons medical frailty or their frailty from falls because that would simply show a like for like drop across all age groups if there is no intervention/something changed.

The ONLY change is e-bikes, the roads/environ are safer because all the other groups are reducing death numbers across that 9 year period, so it can't be medical, it can't be fragility for the reason i explained, so it must by definition be the e-bikes.

Even Michael Coalville-Anderson wrote about this a ouple of years ago http://www.copenhagenize.com/2014/02/the-e-bike-sceptic.html

In my opinion, it is the faster speed that is more easily attained,  some e-bikes (& we're talking the non speed variants) exceed the 15.5mph (illegally so). Many Dutch cyclists of a certain age will not have cycled at those speeds for many, many years. You also have the added weight and momentum (kinetic energy) which means further to stop and the inability of some older people to judge all of that.

You've misunderstood relative and absolute risk again.

If cycling is getting safer but more people are cycling then the absolute number of fatalities can still rise.

The number of people over 60 is increasing rapidly compared to other age demographics, add to that the fact that e bikes allow more of that group to cycle and the 'at risk' population has increased massively.

That could easily cause an increase in the absolute number of deaths even if the risk per km cycled was decreasing.

There is also no significant rise in the 70-79 age group which completely undermines your theory regarding the 60-69 age group.

As a final point even if e-bikes were responsible for more deaths in crashes they may still present a public health benefit as the increase in cycling may lead to a greater reduction in mortality from other causes.

FrankH wrote:

"In the last three years at least 79 people were killed in road accidents when on an e-bike, of whom 87% were over the age of 60."

"Lies, damn lies and statistics".

The first question that occurred to me: Do we know if that is because over 60s can't control ebikes properly or is it because 87% of the people on ebikes are over 60?

agreed, and I suspect its the latter, but I mean thats almost the key bit to understand because how can you prescribe extra training for a bike if you dont understand whats causing the issue in the first place.

FrankH wrote:

"In the last three years at least 79 people were killed in road accidents when on an e-bike, of whom 87% were over the age of 60."

"Lies, damn lies and statistics".

The first question that occurred to me: Do we know if that is because over 60s can't control ebikes properly or is it because 87% of the people on ebikes are over 60?

Nail on the head.  The whole story is absolutely effing meaningless without this information.

fenix wrote:

How fast are e bikes in Holland ? What's super fast ?

15.5mph(top assisted speed).