Some interesting stats here
The rate of cases involving pedal cyclists shows an average annual rate of increase of 6.8%. For both males and females in age groups 25–44 years, 45–64 years as well as for males aged 65 years and over, there were significant increases in age-specific rates over the 9-year period. The largest average annual increase in rates for males and females was recorded for those aged 45–64 years with increases of 14.0% for males and 14.4% for females.
Over the past five years, the number of cyclists counted travelling to and from the CBD between 7am and 7pm on a typical weekday increased from 6,153 in 2006 to 9,443 in 2011. This represents an overall increase of 51% and an average annual increase of 9.5%.
So i know the report stops in 2009, but if the trend continued on while cycling continues to grow (rapidly of late): doesn't that suggest cycling is actually getting safer?
I actually think the graph tracks disposable income. Cycling is cheaper than car commuting. Remember the GFC? Fuel costs?
The safety aspect is to a great extent dependent on rider skill. Skills don't apear overnight. I consider myself to be reasonably skilled at riding, and keep myself safer by riding defensively. That doesn't mean cycling is getting safer, just that I can easily find the routes of least danger. A noob cyclist is often scared witless by traffic and can't navigate back streets. An unskilled cyclist is not safe on Adelaide's roads.
Jilden, how do you explain:
The largest average annual increase in [serious injury] rates was recorded for those aged 45–64 years.
Cyclists more experienced. For those aged over 65 or nearing 80, reason given is that bodies more fragile, but would not expect this for cyclists in their 40s.
Ha! Many 45 year olds aren't experienced IMHO. Many get their first serious health scare and take up cycling as a preventative. I was a bit earlier, got back into serious cycling for the first time since I was 16 at age 35. (Changed my life!) Many young adults I know well enough to judge don't cycle as they work too hard and don't have time due to young family commitments.
Other thing is the current craze for top end road bikes. They are much less forgiving than the MTB's popular 10-20 years ago. MAMILs on carbon probably account for much of your statistic.
Affordability does come into play as distance increases and is perpetuated by people being scared at a lack of infrastructure, but cycling is still the superior choice for shorter distance travel. Your also right about beginners having the wobbles, but as conditions improve people are also starting to realise that driving is often a waste of not only money but time as well. Meanwhile cycling is not a waste of time, it's exercise. Cycling is a constructive form of transport.
I've been looking for a more recent modal share chart, but can't find one. This picture seems to show a trend of the % of cycling slightly increasing while the % of motoring is slightly decreasing. Its borderline irrelevent because it ends in 2006, but it does show a 5.6% increase in motor vehicle use for the period after Mhl's were introduced.
If the modal share trend has continued and cycling hase increased at 9.5% a year with only a 6.8% crash increase. Cycling could very well be getting safer. but if it is, its currently "sfa". We need more people riding bikes.
While there is an apparent decrease in the "cycle-to-work" rate in 1996 and following compared with 1991 and earlier, it would be unwise to attribute that to MHL, as a similar decrease is evident in the "walk only" and "car as passenger" figures. These are obviously not affected by MHL, so the "cause" of the decrease in cycling rates must be sought elsewhere. The long-term trend was for an increase in "car as driver" values, with this appearing to peak somewhere between 2001 and 2006.
(BTW, what was the weather like around Australia on census day in 1996?)
I believe some or all of the census data for 2011 is now available, so if someone has the liesure, they could build a table, possibly with an analysis by state or capital cities as well.
It was a factor, but yes there's certainly other things to take into account.
I agree - but therein lies the rub, how to get noobie MAMILs road experience in a safe manner?
Sam, more data to put together to answer your question. 2.2% increase per year in registered vehicles. What was cycling increase per year for same period? Then extrapolate when small increase in serious vehicle occupant injuries and huge increase in cyclist serious injuries.
TOTAL NUMBER OF VEHICLES ON REGISTER
There were 16.4 million motor vehicles, including Motor cycles, registered in Australia for the 2011 Motor Vehicle Census (MVC). On an annual basis this is 2.3% higher than the number of registrations from 2010 and an increase of 14.5% since 2006, when there were 14.4 million vehicles registered in Australia. The average annual growth over this five-year period was 2.7%.
1 137 957 registered vehicles in year 2006
1 239 672 registered vehicles in year 2010
1 261 925 registered vehicles in year 2011
11.3% change 06/11
2.2% change 10/11
2.2% average annual growth 06/11
VEHICLES AND RESIDENT POPULATION
In Australia there were 730 motor vehicles per 1,000 resident population in the 2011 MVC. This compares with 696 vehicles per 1,000 residents in 2006, an increase of 34 vehicles per 1,000 residents over this time.
Crumbs, this is about the 4th time I've tried to reply to this...each time something happens and my reply gets erased. So I'll just to the chase. Below a graph showing the number of cyclists seriously injured per year in Australia (in blue) and the number of cyclists seriously injured per year per million bikes imported. (# bikes imported has been used as a proxy for number of cyclists, on the assumption that each bike is owned by a different person and each bike is actually ridden). If the increase in accident rate was due solely to an increase in the number of cyclists on the road (ie no change in the underlying accident rate per cyclist) then the red line should be flat relative to the blue line. Note the red line is an underestimate of the accident rate since many people buy more than one bike and bikes owned does not equal bikes ridden. Taken at face value this might suggest that cycling has actually become more dangerous despite a 30% increase in bike imports.
Dahondude, there are AC members who own multiple bikes. To further complicate the data, a Melbourne study that found many cycling crashes are not reported to police and so do not make it into the stats.
Yes, but multiple bike owners make the stats WORSE not better
The stats provided in the report are serious life threatening accidents and these would not go unreported.