CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 1 hour 4 min ago

Re: Are Female Cyclist more at risk

31 May 2015 - 5:29pm
The Health and Safety Executive agree with both of you too.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/roadsafety/experi ... affic1.pdf

Well at least they agree that it is a problem which they should be involved in solving, rather than it is their fault for not doing so!

Re: Are Female Cyclist more at risk

31 May 2015 - 5:18pm
TonyR wrote:HSE is a big part of the problem. If the HGVs were killing people on a work site the HSE would be all over them about work practices, training, safeguards etc. but because it happens on the public roads, they couldn't care less. A good start would be to mandate HSE to treat all work related driving incidents on the roads the same as if they had occurred on a work site.

Sorry, I should have been clearer... I should have said 'health and safety management principles teach us...' or something like that. I meant HSE = health, safety, and the environment, as opposed to HSE = Health and Safety Executive.

But, I agree. I have said something similar on here in discussion of previous incidents.

Re: Are Female Cyclist more at risk

31 May 2015 - 5:14pm
Even in single vehicle accidents; that is, no motor vehicle involved when a cyclist crashes, that doesn't necessarily make the cyclists 'the authors of their own destruction'. One of the studies done by Rune Elvik at the the Transportøkonomisk institutt found that infrastructure can make a big difference in accident rates; even that simple things like inspecting cycle paths on a regular basis and repairing any problems found can reduce injury accident rates by 5%.

Also, it is unknown how many crashes involving a cyclist and no other vehicles were caused by another vehicle that left no evidence of involvement (e.g. a very close pass).

Re: Scotrail Online Cycle Place Booking

31 May 2015 - 5:00pm
Thanks for the replies I will try FGW

Re: Which commuter?

31 May 2015 - 4:58pm
karlt the 40min ride was nearly all in to be honest and it doesn't feel flat to me but isn't over the Pennines.
Commute is presently done on a hybrid with 35mm Voyager Hypers which I have found are only 35g heavier than 28 gatorskins so I might change the goal posts.

Re: Are Female Cyclist more at risk

31 May 2015 - 4:53pm
Vorpal wrote:The biggest problem with this is that cyclists and lorry drivers both are humans. Humans, even well-trained and experienced humans make errors from time to time. No one should have to pay for an error with his or her life.

In HSE, we are taught that things like training are only partly effective. When the consequences are serious, the best solutions are to either design out the risk, or eliminate exposure. That is to prevent the hazard from killing or seriously injuring someone by mean of design, or to prevent a person from being exposed to the hazard.

If we really want to prevent cyclists from dying in the manner, we need design solutions. Yes, short term, it could help to educate cyclists, but it not a complete solution, and it can never be enough.

HSE is a big part of the problem. If the HGVs were killing people on a work site the HSE would be all over them about work practices, training, safeguards etc. but because it happens on the public roads, they couldn't care less. A good start would be to mandate HSE to treat all work related driving incidents on the roads the same as if they had occurred on a work site.

Re: Scotrail Online Cycle Place Booking

31 May 2015 - 4:19pm
Try booking through first great western, think they allow bike bookings, they did recently but not checked if still current.

Doesn't matter that you're not using a FGW train BTW

Re: Are Female Cyclist more at risk

31 May 2015 - 4:13pm
ferdinand wrote:I think the article I got it from is here, but finding anything on the CTC site always requires a Diploma in Googling as there is so much stuff :
http://www.ctc.org.uk/blog/roger-geffen ... e-to-law-b

cyclist-deaths-contributory-factors.gif


Is that graph made up of crashes that actually involved two or more parties or does it include crashes where the cyclist managed to come off by themselves? In which case the data isn't as straight forward as it might look as saying "in all crashes it was the cyclists' fault x% of the time" is different to "in crashes between a cyclist and motor vehicle it was the cyclists' fault x% of the time".

Re: Are Female Cyclist more at risk

31 May 2015 - 2:41pm
SO8 wrote:thirdcrank wrote: ... Sadly no simple answer that is achievable has been found

Having spent some time in the past myself searching for paperwork of every type, I appreciate what you meant in the earlier bit of your post. The succinct bit I have quoted seems to confirm what I was getting at in a long-winded sort of way and broken off by the arrival of my grandchildren so I never reached my point which is that in a system based on casualty reduction, it seems inevitable that the focus will be on the casualties and that leads to the casualties being seen as the problem AKA victim blaming. All that's happening in much of this thread is that a a subset of victims is being blamed. The alternative approach - danger reduction - seems to be beyond the wit of the authorities in the UK.

==============================================
Re the contributory factors from stats booklets. IMO, These are never much good at the best of times and as the "author of their own misfortune" line is based on survivors' evidence, it's particularly unhelpful in analysing fatal crashes.. A couple of years ago somebody (snibgo?) linked to a critique of police accident stats in the relevant annual report which explained in detail the shortcomings of the info. IIRC, it politely pointed out the shortcomings balanced by the benefits (the latter being "it's all we've got or are likely to get.")

Re: Is a cadence sensor worth it?

31 May 2015 - 2:23pm
NATURAL ANKLING wrote:Mick F's claimed low average is probably not much different from mine when I am out training on mixed surfaces and a weighted MTB.
Mick F's hills will no doubt contribute to his lower cadence too, then you would say that what about his end 2 ends, by his own admission he cruises at 10 MPH overall on them and the terrain would average flatter than his training rides at the reduced effort, so lower power needed than home rides. Result is same cadence.Although those graphs are very interesting, they may be more generalising than factual?

You say that I cruise at 10mph.
Not correct.
I cruise faster than that, but I always reckon on 10mph average for a long day's ride. 100miles fully loaded will take you 10hrs door-to-door. This includes stops for rest, comfort breaks, food, sightseeing, going through traffic and junctions etc etc etc.

With hills, I personally have higher cadences. Just looking a segment I do regularly up from the Cornish/English border towards Tavistock, my cadence is (looking at my records) about 70rpm.

End2End with a cadence monitor was only on the Chopper, but for the record the overall average cadence was 65rpm.
I have a long ride info too. In 2011, I rode up the the Yorkshire Dales for a 100mile jaunt into the Dales up horrendous climbs and descents, and averaged 64rpm overall home-to-home.

As mentioned earlier, I've sold all the Garmin stuff and no longer bother with it as it's pointless for me. I ride to enjoy myself, not to train for a race. All the HR and cadence info was interesting and thought-provoking, but I've risen above it now and take it all with a pinch of salt.

Perhaps crank length and leg length come into all this? Maybe muscle lengths and diameters come into it too?
Some internal combustion engines have long strokes and some short, some are "over-square" and some "sub-square". They both rev differently for max torque and power.

We are all different. You'll be telling me next that when I swim I should use a certain strokes-per-minute for maximum speed. Maybe when I climb stairs I should do it a particular rate, or when I walk I should use a particular stride frequency and pace length?

Pinch of salt.

I'm being held up as an example because I'm a frequent poster on here and I'm prepared to nail my colours to the mast.

Re: Are Female Cyclist more at risk

31 May 2015 - 1:39pm
ferdinand wrote:And I'd also advocate (and some won't like me making the argument) for measures to help cyclists not get ourselves killed. The data (CTC, 2012) shows that a significant proportion - 40% iirc - of cyclists killed on the roads are found to be the authors of their own destruction.

Ferdinand
The biggest problem with this is that cyclists and lorry drivers both are humans. Humans, even well-trained and experienced humans make errors from time to time. No one should have to pay for an error with his or her life.

In HSE, we are taught that things like training are only partly effective. When the consequences are serious, the best solutions are to either design out the risk, or eliminate exposure. That is to prevent the hazard from killing or seriously injured someone by mean of design, or to prevent a person from being exposed to the hazard.

If we really want to prevent cyclists from dying in the manner, we need design solutions. Yes, short term, it could help to educate cyclists, but it not a complete solution, and it can never be enough.

Re: Are Female Cyclist more at risk

31 May 2015 - 1:28pm
ferdinand wrote:Thanks for asking. Do you have a link to the TRL later data? There's never enough information on this stuff.
Cheers for that.
I had a quick look on the TRL website but they've changed it all and nothing was obvious. I'll take another look when I've a bit more time.

Re: Scotrail Online Cycle Place Booking

31 May 2015 - 12:17pm
I had the same problem, and ended up going into a train station to book (Waverley) towards Oban. Maybe try and call a station direct, to book? you could also try their Twitter account, which seems to be quite responsive. Previously I bought tickets to Arbroath, but then couldn't get any space for the bike (and couldn't get my money back either)...

Re: Is a cadence sensor worth it?

31 May 2015 - 12:14pm
Hi,
http://www.me.utexas.edu/~neptune/Papers/msse32(7).pdf
2015-05-26_213332_a.jpg
Each line represents 100,200,300,400,500 watts respectively.
Showing that peak power is achieve at a particular cadence for that constant level of muscle activity.
As the power increases 100 200 300W etc, the peak of line has an increasing cadence.

The lines actually represent a constant muscle activation levels, efficiency comes at max power for that minimum muscle activity.

"Optimal cadence (cadence with lowest amplitude of EMG for a given power output) increased withincreases in power output: 57 +/- 3.1, 70 +/- 3.7, 86 +/- 7.6, and 99 +/- 4.0 rpm for 100, 200, 300, and 400 W, respectively.
Conclusion:
The results confirm that the level of muscle activation varies with cadence at a given power output. The minimum EMG amplitude
occurs at a progressively higher cadence as power output increases. These results have implications for the sense of effort and
preferential use of higher cadences as power output is increased."

"Although there is considerable discrepancy in the literature
with respect to preferred cadence (14,19,21), there is
general agreement that cyclists use a relatively high cadence
(11,19,21) and cyclists are more efficient at higher cadences
(11,29). It is also noteworthy that the world 1-h cycling
record has been consistently set with average cadence just
over 100 rpm (27). Assuming a sustained oxygen uptake of
5 Lzmin21, an efficiency of 25% and 20.93 kJzL21, the
power output during these efforts would be 419 W. This
level of sustained oxygen uptake would be feasible, based
on reports of elite cyclists (34), and 25% represents the
extreme upper level of reported values for efficiency in
cycle ergometry (1,7)."

So if you wanted to produce power at a lower than optimal cadence more muscle activity would be needed.

If you are not racing or trying to kill yourself then at that power level you determine, would have a cadence of 70 say at 200 Watts.

It would be pointless in turning faster or slower at that power output, unless you are training (slower) for strength, higher than optimal efficiency, you are just activating muscles more and in time fatigue unnecessarily.

So its still more power at a higher rpm but only if you are putting out that power at the optimal rpm.

Obviously if you decide to output the same power as your cycling buddy at a lower than optimal RPM then you will fatigue faster than your buddy.

Of course if you are just tootling along at a relaxed pace then with low power output your cadence will not mater much as there will be little power loss and little early fatique.

I suppose that's why we don't see racers and hour attempts at 70 rpm.......how long would anyone last.


Mick F's claimed low average is probably not much different from mine when I am out training on mixed surfaces and a weighted MTB.
Mick F's hills will no doubt contribute to his lower cadence too, then you would say that what about his end 2 ends, by his own admission he cruises at 10 MPH overall on them and the terrain would average flatter than his training rides at the reduced effort, so lower power needed than home rides. Result is same cadence.
The pro's cruise at up to 75 rpm but race at 75 - 85 / 90 +.
If I am out training its normally at the moment very mixed and 1:5 hill on 50 Ib bike 30 " gear is probably 30 - 40 rpm.
On the flat.....................well I just worked it out.
Cycle path flat and gravelled 18 mph 80 - 94 rpm.
Fast road top gear 25 mph 100 rpm.
Dropping down base of haytor 30 mph 120 rpm.
Moderate pace road flat 22 mph 88 rpm.
Dropping out of top gear 20 mph 80 rpm.
Up 1:7 hill 5 mph 48 rpm.
up 1:5 hill 3mph 34 rpm.
Up railway track 12 mph 74 rpm.

All at average of 80 % of max HR.
On the turbo 80 - 91 avg max HR gives about 300 + watts
So my assumption of my lowish cadence is wrong although I did have in my youth.
Maybe nowadays I just got smart, or its simply that at 24 mph I have run out of gears on the Skip Trainer

We all tend to rely on perceived efficiency but the gears and how fast we want to go play a large part on the true efficiency of our ride along with fitness.

P.S. I could use the redundant granny on the Skip Trainer but my idea is that its strength building....

Re: Are Female Cyclist more at risk

31 May 2015 - 12:11pm
ferdinand wrote:Vorpal wrote:ferdinand wrote:Do men have more opportunities to pick up the habits that make them safer?

Maybe men do have more opportunities to pick up habits that make them safer, but is that really where the solution lies?

I really don't know. As I said, I'm speculating about causes for a possible problem that hasn't been clearly demonstrated to exist (or not) yet.
...
To me this can be looked at from several different perspectives. I suspect there are several ways to address the problem. We can spend time investigating if there is a gender effect, then study as to possible reasons causing the gender effect, then consider ways to address the underlying gender differences.

Or, we can stop these lorries crushing everybody (whatever their gender). Whilst we study if there is a gender effect, the reasons, etc. these lorries will keep killing people. So approach the problem from a different aspect. We (as a society) have and can afford the technology. So pass a few really simple laws requiring that technology.

At the same time, do the investigations into possible gender imbalances, the reasons, etc., but hopefully approaching things from a different perspective might solve the problem.

And whilst it is not a solution, I do question as to the onus being on cyclists to avoid being crushed. I think the onus should be on the lorries not to crush cyclists. That said, of course we [cyclists] should do all we can to protect ourselves. But it is lorries doing the killing, not cyclists.

Ian

Scotrail Online Cycle Place Booking

31 May 2015 - 12:05pm
Is there any where to do this anymore you cant do this through the website anymore tried East East Coast no joy there either. Scotrail refer to a Telphone number on their website but this takes you to the national rail who cant or wont give you the information.

This is a major step backwards not impressed with Arriva at all looking like I may be driving this trip.

Re: Are Female Cyclist more at risk

31 May 2015 - 12:00pm
kwackers wrote:ferdinand wrote:And I'd also advocate (and some won't like me making the argument) for measures to help cyclists not get ourselves killed. The data (CTC, 2012) shows that a significant proportion - 40% iirc - of cyclists killed on the roads are found to be the authors of their own destruction.
Have you got a link to that? Last time I looked at data on the TRL website the numbers were considerably smaller - more in the order of 10% (iirc).

Thanks for asking. Do you have a link to the TRL later data? There's never enough information on this stuff.

I think the article I got it from is here, but finding anything on the CTC site always requires a Diploma in Googling as there is so much stuff :
http://www.ctc.org.uk/blog/roger-geffen ... e-to-law-b

cyclist-deaths-contributory-factors.gif

That is a 2012 article referring to data from 2005-7 in a TRL research report, and is Roger Geffen trying to disentangle accident statistics. His suggestion is that the 43% figure in the case of deaths is too high because police are being harsh in their assessments.

There are also graphs of contributory factors by age on there too.

In my own immediate area I can point to cyclists mown down by inattentive drivers, and also one who rode his bike out in front of a train without looking properly.

Ferdinand

Re: Are Female Cyclist more at risk

31 May 2015 - 11:41am
thirdcrank wrote:It's been suggested that there's been some sort of official study which has been leaked but not published....

....It wouldn't be much of a labour to look at all the investigation reports of these deaths to consider all the possible links to see what common features if any there were beyond the obvious ones which have already been highlighted.

The possibility of digging out the files raises the issue of other crashes where the rider was injured but survived. For obvious reasons, there is generally more publicity surrounding fatal crashes than those where the casualty is gravely injured but survives. In these cases, the difference between death and survival may be as much a combination of luck and the skills of the medical people as the exact cause of the crash. So, if all so-called KSI crashes involving cyclists were looked at it may be that the numbers of male casualties would be found to be higher. To make this clear, I'm not suggesting that men are more likely to survive being run over by a truck than women, just that in this set of events, men have been less unlucky.

That line then raises the countless near misses, "damage only" crashes and the apparently increasing number of injury crashes which are recorded but not investigated.

"When I was a lad" I was knocked off my bike by an overtaking lorry on North Street, Wetherby, when it formed part of the Great North Road AKA the A1. I was uninjured other than minor bumps, but the wheels crushed my rear wheel. It was purely by my good luck that this forum was not spared 20,000+ posts. The police took a report but even in those days it will not have been recorded for the stats.

TfL and Loughborough University looked into all available fatal and serious injury collision files in London from 2008 to 2011 that were investigated by the Met's specialist Serious Collision Investigation unit. This took place in 2013 into 2014 if I remember correctly. The people at Loughborough Uni spent a huge amount of time going through every piece of paper for every collision to see what they could find to see if there was something being missed other than the obvious. They worked with the Met Police and were passionate about what they were doing but to look beyond the 'obvious' issues was not a simple task.

Getting the files together was not as easy as just 'digging them out' and in fact took many months as they were all at different stages in many locations - ongoing, waiting for court hearings, inquests and others completed.

As to any hidden report - I doubt it as I was one of the ones who worked with LU.

Sadly no simple answer that is achievable has been found

Re: Are Female Cyclist more at risk

31 May 2015 - 11:36am
ferdinand wrote:
And I'd also advocate (and some won't like me making the argument) for measures to help cyclists not get ourselves killed. The data (CTC, 2012) shows that a significant proportion - 40% iirc - of cyclists killed on the roads are found to be the authors of their own destruction.

Ferdinand

I certainly don't like the argument, and I don't agree with your data. Here are some reports of studies which show, roughly speaking, that three out of four bike car collisions are down to the driver. Sure cyclists make mistakes, but drivers make more.

A tiny proportion of accidents involving cyclists are caused by riders jumping red lights or stop signs, or failing to wear high-visibility clothing and use lights, a government-commissioned study has discovered.

he study, carried out for the Department for Transport, found that in 2% of cases where cyclists were seriously injured in collisions with other road users police said that the rider disobeying a stop sign or traffic light was a likely contributing factor. Wearing dark clothing at night was seen as a potential cause in about 2.5% of cases, and failure to use lights was mentioned 2% of the time.

With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study

Here is another.

The City of Westminster has revealed that more than two thirds of collisions between motor vehicles and cyclists within its boundaries in the past year that resulted in injury to the rider were due to some factor associated with the driver, compared to one in five cases where the cause was attributed to the rider. It has also disclosed that in three in five incidents involving a cyclist and a pedestrian, it’s the latter to whom responsibility is apportioned.

http://road.cc/content/news/83104-two-thirds-cyclist-injuries-following-collisions-motor-vehicle-due-driver-says

For variety here is one from Australia. It has a completely different method, and I don't think Aussies are too different from us.

Drivers were at fault in 87 per cent of incidents with cyclists and most did not realise they had behaved in a reckless or unsafe manner, according to the Monash University Accident Research Centre and The Amy Gillett Foundation.

The three-year study into cyclist safety on the roads used mounted video camera footage, as well as helmet-mounted cameras worn by cyclists, to determine the main causes of road accidents between cyclists and motorists.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/cars-to-blame-in-most-accidents-involving-bicycles-says-research-calling-for-new-passing-rules/story-e6frg6nf-1225958334292

I have more including one by the AA.

I think these studies show that there is most room for improvement in drivers' behaviour.

We cycle in a road environment which has been designed for motors, and to minimise their problems, but which pays little attention to our difficulties, and usually makes it harder for us to be safe. It is little wonder we sometimes get things wrong.

Re: Are Female Cyclist more at risk

31 May 2015 - 11:29am
Poor... I'll have to give up tapatalk

Archive

  • Patron: Her Majesty The Queen
  • President: Jon Snow
  • Chief Executive: Paul Tuohy
  • Cyclists' Touring Club (CTC): A company limited by guarantee, registered in England no.25185. Registered as a charity in England and Wales No 1147607 and in Scotland No SC042541

Copyright © CTC 2015

Terms and Conditions