Australia's MAMIL trend sees middle-aged cyclists soar as percentage of injured riders admitted to hospital increases

Chris Hayes wrote:

You rarely see cyclists here in London and on rides in the SE without a helmet but then again the UK cycling boom happened post Casartelli which was probably the turning point in compulsory helmet wear in the EU.

"......compulsory helmet wear in the EU."  Have you been reading the Sun or the Mail?  The EU doesn't have a compulsory helmet law.

If this is the state of your knowledge about the EU, please don't vote in the EU elections.

"......compulsory helmet wear in the EU."  Have you been reading the Sun or the Mail?  The EU doesn't have a compulsory helmet law.

If this is the state of your knowledge about the EU, please don't vote in the EU elections.

[/quote]

Fair point, I meant UCI... But thanks for the comment.  

Chris Hayes wrote:

Interesting that a compulsory helmet law should have led to a reduction in cyclists.

It's a real fact and been widely referenced and discussed at great length in many places.

Chris Hayes wrote:

You rarely see cyclists here in London and on rides in the SE without a helmet

You are talking about a specific subset of cyclists - people wearing lycra and trying to emulate the appearance of professional riders. Do you not notice all the people who cycle in London wearing normal clothes?

If you read the comments on the recent James Cracknell piece you'd realise that some of those choppers have taken on a blind belief in the magical properties of a holey (but not holy) polystyrene hat to protect them from all malevolent forces. They also have a tendency to preach at, scorn and throw rocks at any individual who dares to turn a pedal without one or even mention facts about their effectiveness.

As for the Casartelli connection, the pro riders really did not want to wear helmets and even in the early 2000s were still allowed to take them off for the final climb in a stage with an uphill finish (which I think is better for spectators and TV viewers with no additional risk to the riders).

FrankH wrote:

85% increase in the number of cyclists coupled with a 28% increase in the number of injuries (or 4% and 1.5%) looks like a decrease in the number of injuries per cyclist to me. Which is a good thing, isn't it?

Welcome to the world of Australian cycling research, where for the cost of the project, we'll find whatever you want.  Cheers blue.

FrankH wrote:

"...the report finds that over the 17-year period, 160,000 cyclists ended up in hospital with an average 1.5 per cent increase each year. That came against a background of an increase in the number of adults cycling, with an Australian Sports Commission survey finding a 45 per cent increase in cyclists aged 15-plus between 2001 and 2010"

They present the increase in injuries one way, over one set of years and the increase in cyclng another way, over a different set of years. Why do they do this? Are they trying to bamboozle us with numbers? If so, why?

1.5% increase per year over 17 years is an increase of approximately 28%.

45% increase over 10 years is an increase of over 4% per year. Extrapolate it to 17 years and it's about 85%

85% increase in the number of cyclists coupled with a 28% increase in the number of injuries (or 4% and 1.5%) looks like a decrease in the number of injuries per cyclist to me. Which is a good thing, isn't it?

If your figures are correct it is a good thing but we have no way of knowing if the figures are correct.

The 7 unknown years may seen a sustained decrease in cycling such that the overall number of cyclists was actually lower at the end of the 17 years than at the start.

<p>[quote=FrankH]</p>

<p>"...the report finds that over the 17-year period, 160,000 cyclists ended up in hospital with an average 1.5 per cent increase each year. That came against a background of an increase in the number of adults cycling, with an Australian Sports Commission survey finding a 45 per cent increase in cyclists aged 15-plus between 2001 and 2010"</p>

<p>They present the increase in injuries one way, over one set of years and the increase in cyclng another way, over a different set of years. Why do they do this? Are they trying to bamboozle us with numbers? If so, why?</p>

<p>1.5% increase per year over 17 years is an increase of approximately 28%.</p>

<p>45% increase over 10 years is an increase of over 4% per year. Extrapolate it to 17 years and it's about 85%</p>

<p>85% increase in the number of cyclists coupled with a 28% increase in the number of injuries (or 4% and 1.5%) looks like a decrease in the number of injuries per cyclist to me. Which is a good thing, isn't it?</p>

<p>[/quote]</p>

<p>I'd take their numbers with a huge pinch of salt. the Aus governments own figures show us that cycling as a whole with respect to trip rate per population head has gone down markedly except for Tasmania (which went up by nearly 50% but has low population) between 1985/6 and 2011.</p>

<p>Overall a population increase exceeded the cycling trips by around 38% so cycling numbers had gone down.</p>

<p>&nbsp;Also it doesn't state/define what a 'cyclist' is, is that anyone who rode a bike in the year, so this in itself is meaningless. Trip numbers/distances traveled are more important, rates of cycling per population are more important. As we've seen here in the UK, we've seen same number of trips but with slightly more miles covered annually since the mid 2000s.</p>

<p>But one of the important factors that these people fail to grasp is comparing injury rates with other modes, as per here in the UK. If the cycling injury rates go down but actually by less than that for peds and motorists then that's a worse outcome. if you've also put in a specific intervention (such as helmets) and that rate is still worse then from that you can come up with first the intervention had no/negative impact, that not enough is being done to lower the injury rates.</p>

<p>So a&nbsp;reduction in the injury rate itself does not indicate better in the true sense when firstly you might have fewer trips overall, the definition of 'cyclist' isn't defined correctly and/or the Injury rates&nbsp;fell by less (and in the UK cycling injuries fell significantly less than for peds since the mid 00s).</p>

<p>You also cannot extrapolate because many other factors change increases/decreases as well, so what happened over y years does not mean you are going to get the same results over the following x&nbsp;years.</p>

<p>yes they've made an utter horlicks of it when comparing but the rates of cycling per population indicate to me that their figures aren't accurate and are misrepresentative.</p>

<p>Also according to the their govs own stats head injuries are less than a 1/4, that 12.1% of all crashes involve a person on a bike</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>