Amy J. Schramm

Relationships Between Self-Reported Bicycling Injuries and Perceived Risk of Cyclists in Queensland, Australia

Government focus on increasing active travel has motivated renewed interest in cycling safety. Because bicyclists are up to 20 times more likely to be involved in crashes with serious injury than are automobile drivers, an understanding of the relationships between risk factors for bicyclist crashes is necessary for identifying effective policy tools, for informing bicycle infrastructure investments, and for identifying high-risk bicycling contexts. A study was conducted to gain understanding of the complex relationships between bicyclist self-reported injuries resulting from crashes (e.g., hitting a car) and noncrashes (e.g., spraining an ankle) and perceived risk of cycling as a function of cyclist exposure, rider conspicuity, riding environment, rider risk aversion, and rider ability. Self-reported data from 2,500 Queensland, Australia, cyclists were used to estimate a series of seemingly unrelated regressions to examine the relationships between factors. The major findings suggest that perceived risk does not appear to influence injury rates, nor do injury rates influence perceived risks of cycling. Riders who perceived cycling as risky tended not to be commuters, did not engage in group riding, tended to always wear mandatory helmets and front lights, and lowered their perception of risk by increasing days per week of riding and by riding more on bicycle paths. Riders who always wore helmets had lower risk for crash injury. An increase in the number of riding days per week tended to decrease both crash injury and noncrash injury risk (e.g., a sprain). Further work is needed to replicate some of the study findings.

How do level of experience, purpose for riding, and preference for facilities affect location of riding?

Characteristics of the road infrastructure affect both the popularity of bicycling and its safety, but comparisons of the safety performance of infrastructure may be confounded by differences in the profiles of cyclists who use them. Data from a survey of 2,532 adult bicycle riders in Queensland, Australia, demonstrated that many riders rode reluctantly in particular locations and that preference for riding location was influenced by degree of experience and riding purpose. Most riders rode most often and furthest per week on urban roads, but approximately one-third of all riders (and more new riders) rode there reluctantly. Almost two-thirds of riders rode on bicycle paths, most by choice, not reluctantly. New riders rode proportionally more on bicycle paths, but continuing riders rode further in absolute terms. Utilitarian riders were more likely to ride on bicycle paths than social and fitness riders and almost all of this riding was by choice. Fitness riders were more reluctant in their use of bicycle paths, but still most of their use was by choice. One-third of the respondents reported riding on the sidewalk (legal in Queensland), with approximately two-thirds doing so reluctantly. The frequency and distance ridden on the sidewalk was less than for urban roads and bicycle paths. Sidewalks and bicycle paths were important facilities for both inexperienced and experienced riders and for utilitarian riding, especially when urban roads were considered a poor choice for cycling.