Guardian: Nederland, more dead cyclists than motorists, e-bikes

[mjr]

I have been following the research on the subject for a number of years. And yes, there is also anecdotal evidence, but if you live here you collect many anecdotes. Anyway, there is some statistical evidence but until quite recently ebikes were not a separate category in the accident registration. We have better evidence for the severity of the injuries, viewtopic.php?f=6&t=121646&p=1267442#p1267442and they are quite a bit more serious for ebikers: https://www.swov.nl/feiten-cijfers/fact ... d-pedelecs
The explanation given is the greater weight and higher speed of ebikes. There is also research on behaviour of older cyclists, and the result was that by and large older cyclists try to be more careful.

That explanation may be given but what is it based on and how solid is it? I'm sorry but I'm rather slow at reading Dutch and it wasn't obvious to me.

One of their references (Davidse et al 2014 "Letselongevallen van fietsende 50-plussers: Hoe ontstaan ze en wat kunnen we eraan doen?") is a glossy publication of their own with lots of small samples made to look bigger by writing "25%" (of n=4 given in a heading not that near the data) instead of "1" - so the 20-40% "snelheid te laag" on page 6 is 1 or 2, the 12-15% "snelheid te hoog" on page 12 is 5 or 6 out of 41. How many e-bike riders are there in the Netherlands? What's the error variance going to be from using a sample size of 41? I'm going to guess it's so massive that the data analysis in that report isn't safe to draw firm conclusions from.

Another (Dozza et al 2012 "Using naturalistic data to assess e-cyclist behavior") seems to be based on studying just 12 e-bike riders to represent the whole of Europe!

I regard SWOV as useful but not to be trusted completely, rather like our TRL. I think both of them conclude that helmets are beneficial, so I view them as part of the failed Road Safety industry, rather than the more reasonable Road Danger Reduction approach.

[Cunobelin]

Just been working with some Belgians. They were very much of the opinion that there were more crashes/injuries since the advent of ebikes in Ghent (it's a thing in their press). Most of the crashes are restricted to the bike lanes and tend to be bike on bike. They put this down, partly, to there being the two classes of ebikes - the ones that assist up to around 15mph, and the ones that can do around 30mph but are still allowed in bike lanes. Given that the many Ghent cycle lanes are like many northern European infra - built for moving large numbers at moderate speeds, this isn't surprising I guess.

See above, as from January the light moped classification was removed from the higher powered e-bikes and they are no longer allowed on the cycle routes. At lest that is the case in the Netherlands

[Cyril Haearn]

Changing the rules so some e-bikes must use the road is not much use, doubtless many do not know about it
Better to mechanically restrict maximum speeds

Willem reports that an awful lot of people cycle in NL, plusminus?
Maybe more space should be taken from motors to create more fietspads

[mjr]

Just been working with some Belgians. They were very much of the opinion that there were more crashes/injuries since the advent of ebikes in Ghent (it's a thing in their press). Most of the crashes are restricted to the bike lanes and tend to be bike on bike. They put this down, partly, to there being the two classes of ebikes - the ones that assist up to around 15mph, and the ones that can do around 30mph but are still allowed in bike lanes. Given that the many Ghent cycle lanes are like many northern European infra - built for moving large numbers at moderate speeds, this isn't surprising I guess.

Worse than that when I visited earlier this year - many cycle lanes in the central area are quite narrow, on the edges of cobbled streets (fairly rough, but small, not Bruges's typical big pavé) and marked only by a dotted line of white cobbles or grey kerb (edit: see photo) - I joked that the anthem of Ghent was the rattling broken mudguard because you heard it everywhere. There are also a lot of tram tracks to avoid and cycle routes don't avoid them - it seems to be assumed that you'll go slow enough on wide enough tyres not to fall if you fall in or skate along.


What does really seem to work is the infrastructure is pervasive, especially being allowed to cycle through areas motorists may not, so motorists expect cyclists to be everywhere (and they pretty much are). Outside the centre, there were a lot of paint-only lanes but also some cycle tracks, but there were some sudden gradient changes off bridges and tight turns where I think you could easily crash if you had more speed, weaker brakes or simply a heavier bike than you're used to - and most of those would be the one-bike-only crash which willem says is increasing in NL (and bike-on-obstacle rather than bike-on-bike).

Even so, I'd suspect Ghent's press may be playing up the fear to get readers. If people are switching to e-bikes instead of motor scooters, it may still be a good thing, but the crash data needs splitting up more to see what's going on.

[Bmblbzzz]

The growth of e-bikes and of course the fact that Netherlands (and Germany and maybe some other countries?) allow mopeds on cycle paths, along with the recent arrival of various mobile contraptions that fall into the definitional gap between vehicle and something else, has prompted some people to think about what a cycle lane or path really is. Maybe it could be thought of as a lane or path for 'light independent transit'?

The two urbanists came up with pretty simple way to sort out how to allocate space, creating a few categories designating a few different vehicles based on three different speed ranges and wide, mid-width, and narrow lanes. It’s a way of rethinking how planners in the U.S. especially have allowed different modes to share the road when they don’t really fit together.

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/ ... is/568483/

[SA_SA_SA]

Do the statistics show which?

What do you want them to show?

Oh no: the statistics prove anything so we will ignore them line....

[Cunobelin]

I have been following the research on the subject for a number of years. And yes, there is also anecdotal evidence, but if you live here you collect many anecdotes. Anyway, there is some statistical evidence but until quite recently ebikes were not a separate category in the accident registration. We have better evidence for the severity of the injuries, viewtopic.php?f=6&t=121646&p=1267442#p1267442and they are quite a bit more serious for ebikers: https://www.swov.nl/feiten-cijfers/fact ... d-pedelecs
The explanation given is the greater weight and higher speed of ebikes. There is also research on behaviour of older cyclists, and the result was that by and large older cyclists try to be more careful.

That explanation may be given but what is it based on and how solid is it? I'm sorry but I'm rather slow at reading Dutch and it wasn't obvious to me.

One of their references (Davidse et al 2014 "Letselongevallen van fietsende 50-plussers: Hoe ontstaan ze en wat kunnen we eraan doen?") is a glossy publication of their own with lots of small samples made to look bigger by writing "25%" (of n=4 given in a heading not that near the data) instead of "1" - so the 20-40% "snelheid te laag" on page 6 is 1 or 2, the 12-15% "snelheid te hoog" on page 12 is 5 or 6 out of 41. How many e-bike riders are there in the Netherlands? What's the error variance going to be from using a sample size of 41? I'm going to guess it's so massive that the data analysis in that report isn't safe to draw firm conclusions from.

Another (Dozza et al 2012 "Using naturalistic data to assess e-cyclist behavior") seems to be based on studying just 12 e-bike riders to represent the whole of Europe!

I regard SWOV as useful but not to be trusted completely, rather like our TRL. I think both of them conclude that helmets are beneficial, so I view them as part of the failed Road Safety industry, rather than the more reasonable Road Danger Reduction approach.

Except the evidence is that the elderly riders do not travel higher speeds

According to the 2017 research:

The latest investigations, from December 2017, show that cycling is not more dangerous for older people on e-bikes, compared to regular pedal bikes. This is possibly because the speed difference between the two is only small. The average speed of the Dutch on a pedal bicycle is 12.4 km/h and the speed on an e-bike is 13 km/h.

Also according to "SafetyNL"

Electric bikes
Another common claim is that electric cycling is more dangerous. Not true, according to VeiligheidNL. We do see an increase in the number of accidents with an electric bicycle. And that also seems to lead to relatively more serious injuries than one is hit by an accident with an ordinary bicycle. However, after correction for age and gender, this effect appears to be due to the relatively high age of victims of electric bicycle accidents. Adjusted for gender, age and bicycle use, there is no difference in risk. From these results it could be concluded that prevention of cycling accidents should not necessarily focus on the electric bicycle, but rather on the older cyclist.

[Psamathe]

.....
Also according to "SafetyNL"

Electric bikes
Another common claim is that electric cycling is more dangerous. Not true, according to VeiligheidNL. We do see an increase in the number of accidents with an electric bicycle. And that also seems to lead to relatively more serious injuries than one is hit by an accident with an ordinary bicycle. However, after correction for age and gender, this effect appears to be due to the relatively high age of victims of electric bicycle accidents. Adjusted for gender, age and bicycle use, there is no difference in risk. From these results it could be concluded that prevention of cycling accidents should not necessarily focus on the electric bicycle, but rather on the older cyclist.

But it is the e-bike that is enabling the older cyclist to be out cycling so the two become inextricably linked. And my impression (impression as I admit to know knowing enough to make supportable proposals) is that a solution should focus on making those riders safer. I would not be proposing to just stop them cycling. My anecdotal experience is that they are traveling at higher speeds without adequate road sense/skills. e.g. faster you travel, faster your reaction time needs to be; heavier the rider->greater momentum->less effective brakes become. So a youngster travelling as <x>kmph might be fine whilst a 110Kg 75 year old travelling at the same speed might not.

Ian

[Cunobelin]

.....
Also according to "SafetyNL"

Electric bikes
Another common claim is that electric cycling is more dangerous. Not true, according to VeiligheidNL. We do see an increase in the number of accidents with an electric bicycle. And that also seems to lead to relatively more serious injuries than one is hit by an accident with an ordinary bicycle. However, after correction for age and gender, this effect appears to be due to the relatively high age of victims of electric bicycle accidents. Adjusted for gender, age and bicycle use, there is no difference in risk. From these results it could be concluded that prevention of cycling accidents should not necessarily focus on the electric bicycle, but rather on the older cyclist.

But it is the e-bike that is enabling the older cyclist to be out cycling so the two become inextricably linked. And my impression (impression as I admit to know knowing enough to make supportable proposals) is that a solution should focus on making those riders safer. I would not be proposing to just stop them cycling. My anecdotal experience is that they are traveling at higher speeds without adequate road sense/skills. e.g. faster you travel, faster your reaction time needs to be; heavier the rider->greater momentum->less effective brakes become. So a youngster travelling as <x>kmph might be fine whilst a 110Kg 75 year old travelling at the same speed might not.

Ian

Except the evidence does not support that argument. The elderly are travelling not only slower than the other groups, but there is no significant difference in speed between the ordinary and e-bikes.

Fast elderly riders on e-bikes is simply a myth.

The reality as pointed out by "SafetyNL" is that elderly cyclists are an issue, and this is what needs to be addressed

Otherwise it becomes like the helmet debate

We have two 75 year old riders who are at high risk, but lets deal with the one on the bike, because there is an agenda, and the other can die, be seriously injured, kill maim or injure because we think that is acceptable behaviour that does not need addressing

[Psamathe]

.....
Also according to "SafetyNL"

But it is the e-bike that is enabling the older cyclist to be out cycling so the two become inextricably linked. And my impression (impression as I admit to know knowing enough to make supportable proposals) is that a solution should focus on making those riders safer. I would not be proposing to just stop them cycling. My anecdotal experience is that they are traveling at higher speeds without adequate road sense/skills. e.g. faster you travel, faster your reaction time needs to be; heavier the rider->greater momentum->less effective brakes become. So a youngster travelling as <x>kmph might be fine whilst a 110Kg 75 year old travelling at the same speed might not.

Ian

Except the evidence does not support that argument. The elderly are travelling not only slower than the other groups, but there is no significant difference in speed between the ordinary and e-bikes.

Fast elderly riders on e-bikes is simply a myth.

The reality as pointed out by "SafetyNL" is that elderly cyclists are an issue, and this is what needs to be addressed

Otherwise it becomes like the helmet debate

We have two 75 year old riders who are at high risk, but lets deal with the one on the bike, because there is an agenda, and the other can die, be seriously injured, kill maim or injure because we think that is acceptable behaviour that does not need addressing

Read what I wrote: "...My anecdotal experience..." - and I experienced and saw elderly riders travelling too fast for their abilities (and was virtually "taken-out" by one - thank god I have fast enough reactions). So it is NOT a myth - because I saw it and experienced it. Statistically it may not be significant - but then you could maybe look at the number of KSI cyclists in relation to the number of cars on the roads or even the number of bikes on the roads. Just because it is a low percentage does not mean it does not need addressing.

If the elderly riders are travelling at the same speed of younger riders that can be an issue because of things like slower reaction times, worse road sense, in some cases significantly greater weight. And these are issues with riders travelling at the same speeds. e.g. I am quite sure I would not be safe charging round an F1 track in an F1 car at the same speed as Lewis Hamilton - I don't have the reaction times, experience, etc. but I'd only be going at the same speed as all the other F1 drivers.

Ian

[Cunobelin]

But it is the e-bike that is enabling the older cyclist to be out cycling so the two become inextricably linked. And my impression (impression as I admit to know knowing enough to make supportable proposals) is that a solution should focus on making those riders safer. I would not be proposing to just stop them cycling. My anecdotal experience is that they are traveling at higher speeds without adequate road sense/skills. e.g. faster you travel, faster your reaction time needs to be; heavier the rider->greater momentum->less effective brakes become. So a youngster travelling as <x>kmph might be fine whilst a 110Kg 75 year old travelling at the same speed might not.

Ian

Except the evidence does not support that argument. The elderly are travelling not only slower than the other groups, but there is no significant difference in speed between the ordinary and e-bikes.

Fast elderly riders on e-bikes is simply a myth.

The reality as pointed out by "SafetyNL" is that elderly cyclists are an issue, and this is what needs to be addressed

Otherwise it becomes like the helmet debate

We have two 75 year old riders who are at high risk, but lets deal with the one on the bike, because there is an agenda, and the other can die, be seriously injured, kill maim or injure because we think that is acceptable behaviour that does not need addressing

Read what I wrote: "...My anecdotal experience..." - and I experienced and saw elderly riders travelling too fast for their abilities (and was virtually "taken-out" by one - thank god I have fast enough reactions). So it is NOT a myth - because I saw it and experienced it. Statistically it may not be significant - but then you could maybe look at the number of KSI cyclists in relation to the number of cars on the roads or even the number of bikes on the roads. Just because it is a low percentage does not mean it does not need addressing.

I did........ and the difference is that the Netherlands authorities want to address the issue of the high death and injury rates in ALL elderly cyclists, rather than an unevidenced decision to allow lots of cyclist to continue to die to fulfil an anti e-bikes agenda. I welcome your actual evidence to support not addressing the wider problem

If the elderly riders are travelling at the same speed of younger riders that can be an issue because of things like slower reaction times, worse road sense, in some cases significantly greater weight.

Except the evidence from the Netherlands shows this is simply NOT the case. The old riders are travelling slower

And these are issues with riders travelling at the same speeds. e.g. I am quite sure I would not be safe charging round an F1 track in an F1 car at the same speed as Lewis Hamilton - I don't have the reaction times, experience, etc. but I'd only be going at the same speed as all the other F1 drivers.

Ian

The best way would be to drive more slowly, which is what the evidence from the Netherlands shows is actually happening. However the analogy does work in one way though, the fact that both e-bikes and ordinary bikes are travelling at the same speed and therefore any problem with reaction times, etc would be applicable to all, reinforcing the sensible decision to educate ALL elderly cyclists

[Cunobelin]

Of course the other problem is as before, most of the accidents occur mounting and dismounting. perhaps the education is not to mount and dismount at these mythical high speeds

[Cunobelin]

Intersting graph,a also from the Netherlands:



Over 65 pedestrians also suffer a higher death rate than younger groups. what steps do we need to take, do we need to educate pedestrians?

[Cyril Haearn]

Intersting graph,a also from the Netherlands:



Over 65 pedestrians also suffer a higher death rate than younger groups. what steps do we need to take, do we need to educate pedestrians?

Need to slow down motors and separate more
Young fit people can survive a collision better, bones etc can mend

Just read of a possible solution in Luenen Germany
Children cross a road from school to get to a sports field
The teachers have a device to increase the length of the green phase for PoFs, quite good if 70 kiddies want to cross at once

[The utility cyclist]

I have been following the research on the subject for a number of years. And yes, there is also anecdotal evidence, but if you live here you collect many anecdotes. Anyway, there is some statistical evidence but until quite recently ebikes were not a separate category in the accident registration. We have better evidence for the severity of the injuries, viewtopic.php?f=6&t=121646&p=1267442#p1267442and they are quite a bit more serious for ebikers: https://www.swov.nl/feiten-cijfers/fact ... d-pedelecs
The explanation given is the greater weight and higher speed of ebikes. There is also research on behaviour of older cyclists, and the result was that by and large older cyclists try to be more careful.

That explanation may be given but what is it based on and how solid is it? I'm sorry but I'm rather slow at reading Dutch and it wasn't obvious to me.

One of their references (Davidse et al 2014 "Letselongevallen van fietsende 50-plussers: Hoe ontstaan ze en wat kunnen we eraan doen?") is a glossy publication of their own with lots of small samples made to look bigger by writing "25%" (of n=4 given in a heading not that near the data) instead of "1" - so the 20-40% "snelheid te laag" on page 6 is 1 or 2, the 12-15% "snelheid te hoog" on page 12 is 5 or 6 out of 41. How many e-bike riders are there in the Netherlands? What's the error variance going to be from using a sample size of 41? I'm going to guess it's so massive that the data analysis in that report isn't safe to draw firm conclusions from.

Another (Dozza et al 2012 "Using naturalistic data to assess e-cyclist behavior") seems to be based on studying just 12 e-bike riders to represent the whole of Europe!

I regard SWOV as useful but not to be trusted completely, rather like our TRL. I think both of them conclude that helmets are beneficial, so I view them as part of the failed Road Safety industry, rather than the more reasonable Road Danger Reduction approach.

Except the evidence is that the elderly riders do not travel higher speeds

According to the 2017 research:

The latest investigations, from December 2017, show that cycling is not more dangerous for older people on e-bikes, compared to regular pedal bikes. This is possibly because the speed difference between the two is only small. The average speed of the Dutch on a pedal bicycle is 12.4 km/h and the speed on an e-bike is 13 km/h.

Also according to "SafetyNL"

Electric bikes
Another common claim is that electric cycling is more dangerous. Not true, according to VeiligheidNL. We do see an increase in the number of accidents with an electric bicycle. And that also seems to lead to relatively more serious injuries than one is hit by an accident with an ordinary bicycle. However, after correction for age and gender, this effect appears to be due to the relatively high age of victims of electric bicycle accidents. Adjusted for gender, age and bicycle use, there is no difference in risk. From these results it could be concluded that prevention of cycling accidents should not necessarily focus on the electric bicycle, but rather on the older cyclist.

Except the max speed isn't 13km/h is it, that's an outright lie, the maximum speed that one can travel at with virtually no input even on the very basic models is in fact 25km/h, if you think all older generation cyclists/e-cyclists are pootling at the same speed they would with no assist then that's incredibly naive IMHO. You even have a forum member here who admits to the fun of going faster than they and their other half are capable of and the enjoyment they take from it. It's a normal human behaviour to go faster when you have it on tap as I've explained previously and we see this from moped users, from motorcyclists from car drivers and even larger vehicles, and yes e-bike users too.

Sorry but I don't believe their findings, they are protecting their vested interests, the very basis of the numbers tells us something is wrong, we have had no significant increase in cycling, it remains at the same level as it has for decades, we certainly haven't seen a doubling of over65s cycling as proferred up as a reason, what we have seen is a massive increase in the rate of older people dying and getting hurt which completely bucks the trend of the younger generations which has gone down, these are absolute undeniable facts.

If they can't see or accept the bare facts or simply want to say, nope, this is not happening then that's dangerous and a disgrace.
.