Unlit cyclists face greater injury risk study finds

CYCLISTS riding without bike lights are three times more likely to be seriously injured in a crash than those who are lit up, a major study of cycling crashes in Melbourne has found.
The study also found that almost half the crashes in which the rider was hospitalised involved a blow to the head, with cyclists who were travelling faster than 30km/h five times more likely to receive a head injury than slower riders.

The crash statistics are contained in a 12-month study of 158 cyclists who were admitted to The Alfred and Sandringham hospitals between December 2010 and November 2011.
Read more: Unlit cyclists face greater injury

Regards
Andrew
 

sidevalve

Über Member
Ok so they've worked out that it hurts more if you come off at a higher speed, Crums, that's a shock. That it helps to have lights at night and that wearing lycra increases the likelyhood of an accident. [which it probably will [according to the laws of statistics] in that a lycra clad cyclist is likely to travel further / faster than one who simply pops down to the corner shop wearing jeans]. Not sure why the lights during the day would have any effect [the article isn't clear on wether they were in use in daylight] however this is probably another quirk of statistics, ie anyone carrying lights in the day probably expects a long ride or a return in the dark and thus may be a more experienced rider anyway.
AHH ! Statistics, aint they wonderfull.
PS How much were these people paid to work this out and can I have their fee now I've explained it ?!!
 
The Monash University Accident Research Centre, which specialises in studies of the bleeding obvious!
... and in policy based evidence making.
 

MrJamie

Oaf on a Bike
Its actually worse than obvious because theyve lumped day and night together according to that article to make it harder to draw any conclusions from either.

Using bike lights was found to reduce the likelihood and severity of a crash both day and night, with 66 per cent of injured riders having no working light at the time.
It could just imply that daytime riders have a higher chance of injury than nighttime riders with lights. Bikes are possibly easier to see in contrast at night with modern lighting than in broad daylight.
 
Its actually worse than obvious because theyve lumped day and night together according to that article to make it harder to draw any conclusions from either.



It could just imply that daytime riders have a higher chance of injury than nighttime riders with lights. Bikes are possibly easier to see in contrast at night with modern lighting than in broad daylight.
Does it though.

I need to read the whole thing, but the statement simply says that both groups are affected, it could be two independent results with different outcomes, but both showing an overall benefit for lights

If you look at US sites, DRLs are a common point of advice
 

Smokin Joe

Legendary Member
In defence of the study, how would they know whether riding at night without lights is more dangerous if they didn't carry out research?

I mean, I rode unlit at night many times in my youth and I'm still here. The same probably goes for most of us. So although it seems patently obvious that you are more at risk, until someone crunches the numbers one can never be sure if that is the case, or indeed what the degree of risk attached actually is.

*Goes off to sit in "wiser than thou" corner with smug grin on face*
 
Top Bottom