4 research outputs found

    The Classification and Analysis of 300 Cycling Crashes that Resulted in Visits to Hospital Emergency Departments in Toronto and Vancouver

    No full text
    Although many benefits of cycling exist, the injuries often deter people from this sustainable mode of transportation. As part of the Bicyclists’ Injuries and Cycling Environment study, interviews were conducted with 300 injured cyclists who visited the emergency department of one of 5 hospitals in Toronto or Vancouver. This paper classifies the crashes based on their circumstances and analyzes selected characteristics with a particular interest in city and demographic comparisons. Crashes were broadly classified as collisions (72%) or falls (28%) and as involving motor-vehicles (48.3%) or not. Injured cyclists in Toronto more frequently collided with streetcar tracks (Odds Ratio: 21.0) or vehicle doors (OR: 3.96), and less frequently collided with pedestrians or animals (OR: 0.29) than those in Vancouver. In a multiple logistic regression model comparing the odds of a crash being a collision versus a fall, collisions were more common in Toronto (OR: 3.50) than Vancouver, on trips to work or school (OR: 4.66) than trips for other purposes, and for injured females (OR: 1.69) than injured males. In a second model, motor-vehicle involvement was found to be more common among injured cyclists less than 30 years old (OR: 2.00) than those who were older, and on trips to work or school (OR: 2.89) than for other purposes. The use of drugs or alcohol was not significantly related to the crash circumstances. Variations in crash circumstances between cities suggest that modification of infrastructure could improve safety and increase the number of cyclists.Science, Faculty ofEarth and Ocean Sciences, Department ofUnreviewedUndergraduat

    Bicycling crash circumstances vary by route type: a cross-sectional analysis

    No full text
    Abstract Background Widely varying crash circumstances have been reported for bicycling injuries, likely because of differing bicycling populations and environments. We used data from the Bicyclists’ Injuries and the Cycling Environment Study in Vancouver and Toronto, Canada, to describe the crash circumstances of people injured while cycling for utilitarian and leisure purposes. We examined the association of crash circumstances with route type. Methods Adult cyclists injured and treated in a hospital emergency department described their crash circumstances. These were classified into major categories (collision vs. fall, motor vehicle involved vs. not) and subcategories. The distribution of circumstances was tallied for each of 14 route types defined in an earlier analysis. Ratios of observed vs. expected were tallied for each circumstance and route type combination. Results Of 690 crashes, 683 could be characterized for this analysis. Most (74%) were collisions. Collisions included those with motor vehicles (34%), streetcar (tram) or train tracks (14%), other surface features (10%), infrastructure (10%), and pedestrians, cyclists, or animals (6%). The remainder of the crashes were falls (26%), many as a result of collision avoidance manoeuvres. Motor vehicles were involved directly or indirectly with 48% of crashes. Crash circumstances were distributed differently by route type, for example, collisions with motor vehicles, including “doorings”, were overrepresented on major streets with parked cars. Collisions involving streetcar tracks were overrepresented on major streets. Collisions involving infrastructure (curbs, posts, bollards, street furniture) were overrepresented on multiuse paths and bike paths. Conclusions These data supplement our previous analyses of relative risks by route type by indicating the types of crashes that occur on each route type. This information can guide municipal engineers and planners towards improvements that would make cycling safer

    Bicycling crash circumstances vary by route type: a cross-sectional analysis

    No full text
    Background: Widely varying crash circumstances have been reported for bicycling injuries, likely because of differing bicycling populations and environments. We used data from the Bicyclists’ Injuries and the Cycling Environment Study in Vancouver and Toronto, Canada, to describe the crash circumstances of people injured while cycling for utilitarian and leisure purposes. We examined the association of crash circumstances with route type. Methods Adult cyclists injured and treated in a hospital emergency department described their crash circumstances. These were classified into major categories (collision vs. fall, motor vehicle involved vs. not) and subcategories. The distribution of circumstances was tallied for each of 14 route types defined in an earlier analysis. Ratios of observed vs. expected were tallied for each circumstance and route type combination. Results Of 690 crashes, 683 could be characterized for this analysis. Most (74%) were collisions. Collisions included those with motor vehicles (34%), streetcar (tram) or train tracks (14%), other surface features (10%), infrastructure (10%), and pedestrians, cyclists, or animals (6%). The remainder of the crashes were falls (26%), many as a result of collision avoidance manoeuvres. Motor vehicles were involved directly or indirectly with 48% of crashes. Crash circumstances were distributed differently by route type, for example, collisions with motor vehicles, including “doorings”, were overrepresented on major streets with parked cars. Collisions involving streetcar tracks were overrepresented on major streets. Collisions involving infrastructure (curbs, posts, bollards, street furniture) were overrepresented on multiuse paths and bike paths. Conclusions These data supplement our previous analyses of relative risks by route type by indicating the types of crashes that occur on each route type. This information can guide municipal engineers and planners towards improvements that would make cycling safer.Applied Science, Faculty ofEmergency Medicine, Department ofMechanical Engineering, Department ofPopulation and Public Health (SPPH), School ofScience, Faculty ofNon UBCResources, Environment and Sustainability (IRES), Institute forMedicine, Faculty ofReviewedFacultyResearche
    corecore