Ride London Accident

[rb58]

I was reflecting earlier this morning on all of this. First off, I need to say that I'm not a fan of sportives and this is the only one I've done in recent years. Apart from anything else, there's no cake [except this time there was - thanks @swansonj ]. However, I've enjoyed the ride on both occasions I've done it and I do believe what you get out of it will depend on your attitude and approach. Part of the problem is that it's trying to be all things to all people. A bit like the London marathon, but with a key difference - with the marathon the pros, semi-pros and fast amateurs go off first leaving a clear course for the fun runners. Most people are running at the same pace as those around them. RideLondon mixes it all up so you have club chain gangs trying to pass the fun-riders and first time charity riders. My suggestion would be to run the pro-race immediately before the sportive, then start times for the mass participation event can be allocated accorded to predicted speed/finish time. Most incidents I witnessed (and to be fair, I didn't see that many, so let's not overstate it) were the result of mixed speed and ability riders occupying the same space. I would be unfair to blame them all on the faster 'all the gear' riders as that certainly wasn't the case.

 

[rb58]

From Ride London Facebook page:

OFFICIAL STATEMENT: ROBIN CHARD

With deep sadness, we confirm the death of a participant in the 2016 Prudential RideLondon-Surrey 100.

Robin Chard, aged 48, from Bicester, suffered a cardiac arrest at Kingston Bridge at around the 25 mile mark and although he received immediate treatment from fellow riders and medical personnel at the scene, he died later in Kingston Hospital.

Robin’s wife Vickie said: “Robin was doing something he loved to raise money for Cancer Research UK, a cause that was very important to him after losing his father, his mother’s partner and my mother to cancer. I’d like to thank everyone who has helped and supported Robin and me, especially the event stewards, the event team and the amazing staff at Kingston Hospital.”

Robin’s fundraising link is here: https://www.justgiving.com/fundraising/Robin-Chard

Everyone involved in Prudential RideLondon would like to express sincere condolences to Robin’s family and friends.

No further details will be released and the family has asked for privacy. The exact cause of death will be established by later medical examination.

A total of 33 riders were taken to hospital and, of those, seven riders remain in hospital. Three riders were seriously injured. The Prudential RideLondon medical team is liaising closely with the hospitals and the welfare team is supporting the families of the injured riders.

 

[Globalti]

I've done the Cape Argus race three times, which usually has around 32,000 riders. They've been running this for many years and must have gained some experience because starters are carefully sorted by age and ability and from their previous year's time. Nonetheless I gave it up after my third time when I heard a terrible crash happening just behind me, which was rather un-nerving. The scenery far exceeds what London and Surrey can offer.

Edit: Can anybody calculate whether the accident rate yesterday was in line with the national average in terms of injuries per mile cycled?

 

[Pale Rider]

Deaths through over exertion are a regular occurrence in mass participation events.

The Great North Run went through a bad patch of one or more deaths annually.

It was moved to later in the year in the hope running it in cooler weather would lead to fewer fatalities.

It's worked so far, no deaths since it was pushed back.

 

[Beebo]

sMost incidents I witnessed (and to be fair, I didn't see that many, so let's not overstate it) were the result of mixed speed and ability riders occupying the same space. I would be unfair to blame them all on the faster 'all the gear' riders as that certainly wasn't the case.

about half a mile from the start, in one of the under pass sections, there was a young lady who was visible nervous / scared, she was a moving road block with everyone having to ride past her as she pulled on her brakes going down hill in the middle of a dual carriage way.
She clearly hadnt ever ridden in close proximity to other riders before and wasnt prepared for the experience.
The london marathon average speed is 5-6 miles per hour for the fun runners so any speed differentials with quicker runners is much less, and it is far easier to take evasive action. They dont have to close roads when runners are injured, everyone just runs past.

 

[mjr]

Edit: Can anybody calculate whether the accident rate yesterday was in line with the national average in terms of injuries per mile cycled?

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/ras53-modal-comparisons says we suffered 4074 injuries per billion km in 2014. I think yesterday saw 26'000 doing 160km and 3'000 doing 73.6km, which is 4'380'800km or 0.0043808 billion km, so I think we expect 17.9 injuries (3sf) or 18 injuries as we cannot have part of an injury.

I think I was told by someone who asked a finish-line marshal that there were high-40s injuries, but that's not confirmed by the reports above. They might be only the serious for which we'd expect 672 per bn km as many, or 2.94 (3sf), which seems about what we got. And we expect 0.0964 fatalities (3sf).

But if the high-40s total injuries is correct, unless I'm overlooking something obvious as usual, RideLondon 2016 seems about twice as dangerous as cycling in general and ten times deadlier (but the deadlier is very unfair, as it's a small number and you can't have a tenth of a death). As many of you may remember, I don't think much of their so-called "safety" measures (or medical advice, for that matter) so please check my maths.

 

[srw]

Edit: Can anybody calculate whether the accident rate yesterday was in line with the national average in terms of injuries per mile cycled?

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...data/file/447674/pedal-cyclists-2013-data.pdf

1 KSI per million miles. Yesterday there were about 24,000 riders, doing about 100 miles each (yes, I know some will have had a shortened case, but this is approximate hand-wavey stats). That's 2.4 million miles. So, based on the national average you'd expect about 2.4 KSI. In fact, according to Ride London, there were 4. Which, in the realm of small number statistics, is pretty close.

On the face of it I find that statistic surprising - I tend to the view that inexperienced and careless riding, and very tired riders, make for a much riskier environment than traffic following predictable rules does.

I think I did the sums last year, after the second heart attack inside three years, and realised that it was about on a par with the London Marathon. So, again, on a statistical basis it's not surprising that there was a cardiac fatality again.

The difference between the two events, that I suspect in due course will need to result in either fewer, more spread-out riders or a change of route to wider roads, is that getting medical assistance to a cyclist in a bunch of cyclists is much more disruptive of the flow of participants than it would be in a running event.

 

[Globalti]

Interesting, thanks for making the effort with the calcs. I'm not surprised as I'm sure there was a lot of crowding and idiocy.

 

[srw]

then start times for the mass participation event can be allocated accorded to predicted speed/finish time. .

They do seem to try to do this, but riders subvert it by waiting for friends, by mis-estimating their time on the entry form, by having refreshment stops and by the dumb bad luck of having mechanicals.

 

[srw]

So unless I'm overlooking something obvious as usual, RideLondon 2016 seems about twice as dangerous as cycling in general.

May I rephrase that?

"Taking part in RideLondon exposes you to the possibility of injury at a rate of about double that of going for a 100 mile ride on your own. But you're still extremely unlikely to be injured."

To get some sort of sense of the real risk I dug up the injury statistics for spectators at football grounds, something which most people wouldn't even think of as risky.

http://www.safetyatsportsgrounds.org.uk/safety/injury-statistics

Taking part in Ride London is only about three times as risky as going to a stadium to watch a football match. Here's how I reach that conclusion. It takes, let's say, 30 minutes to walk through a stadium to get to your seat, get a pie, go to the loo and so on. There was one injury per 31,300 spectators, or one injury per 15,000 participant-hours.

Ride London had 33 injuries for 29,000 participants. On average, participants took about 5 hours. That's about 33 injuries per 150,000 participant-hours, or one injury per 5,000 participant-hours.

Of course, I've only considered frequency - cycling injuries tend to be more severe than stadium injuries - but it's this sort of reframing of statistics that is the way to get people to see risk in a more rational way.

 

[mjr]

"Taking part in RideLondon exposes you to the possibility of injury at a rate of about double that of going for a 100 mile ride on your own. But you're still extremely unlikely to be injured."

Yes, the bold bit is important, although it wasn't part of the question asked.

Of course, I've only considered frequency - cycling injuries tend to be more severe than stadium injuries - but it's this sort of reframing of statistics that is the way to get people to see risk in a more rational way.

With the number of people wittering on about how safe they think riding on closed roads is, I think it's actually helpful to encourage people to realise that while both are pretty safe, day-to-day cycling has a far lower injury rate than this big event, while bringing health benefits that one ride a year just can't.

I assumed that people just lie on the application, on the basis that they think putting down a slow time will get their application binned.

Also, I think a lot of people have trouble estimating how much quicker they will go on closed roads, too, plus the terrain around London is reasonably gentle. Despite their notoriety, the hills are fairly sparse and not as big as even the Mendips, but you aren't exposed on wide windswept fens or levels either.

So you've a lot of too-fast fibs and too-slow errors, plus some groups all putting similar times in the hope of getting similar start times, so it'll be a mess of shuffling out even if there were no delays or diversions. If more riders had done it before, there might be more data to base start time allocations upon, but that'll take years, especially with such oversubscription.

 

[swansonj]

May I rephrase that?....

Of course, and unfortunately, the prime exponents of the art of describing risk in terms designed to make it sound more acceptable are the nuclear industry, the fracking and GM crops folk, and so on...

However worthy the cause, it's a route to be trodden with a certain amount of caution.

 

[srw]

Yes, the bold bit is important, although it wasn't part of the question asked.

No, but I think it's extremely important - extremely important! - to keep repeating it. It's the only way to change the narrative. Repeating something hundreds of times is what won David Cameron the last election, and won the Brexiteers the referendum. And if they can both do it with big lies for malign ends, then we can do it with a big truth for positive ends.

With the number of people wittering on about how safe they think riding on closed roads is, I think it's actually helpful to encourage people to realise that while both are pretty safe, day-to-day cycling has a far lower injury rate than this big event, while bringing health benefits that one ride a year just can't.

In my book, somewhere around double, plus or minus quite a lot because of the small sample size, and off a very small base isn't "far lower". It's "a bit lower".

And my expectation - and experience from the thread on here, non-cycling colleagues who've done the event and pure common sense, is that most people who sign up for a big event do so in the expectation that they will do a lot of day-to-day cycling to prepare. And then do that day-to-day cycling.

 

[srw]

Of course, and unfortunately, the prime exponents of the art of describing risk in terms designed to make it sound more acceptable are the nuclear industry, the fracking and GM crops folk, and so on...

However worthy the cause, it's a route to be trodden with a certain amount of caution.

That's the post-truth world for you.

I think it's slightly more honourable to reframe statistics and, at the same time, point out that that's what you're doing, than just to do the reframing while pretending that you're being neutral.

 

[PK99]

They do seem to try to do this, but riders subvert it by waiting for friends, by mis-estimating their time on the entry form, by having refreshment stops and by the dumb bad luck of having mechanicals.

I observed last year that with a middling start time I was being overtaken by pace lines of identically dressed fast club cyclists. They had clearly either waited and formed their group or had cheated by putting identical slow time projections.

From my experience of the start time allocated to me and everyone I knew who rode, the "seeding by projected ride time and age" was pretty good and consistent.