Rise of e-bikes leads to more cyclists than car occupants losing lives on Dutch roads in 2017

srchar wrote:

Suffice to say, most e-bikes I encounter are ridden by people who clearly have little experience of riding at the speeds they can attain and little regard for other road users.

Are you in the Netherlands, though?  If not, then I don't see that anecdotal experience is particularly relevant.  I doubt the demographic of e-bike users is  the same as in the UK.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

srchar wrote:

Suffice to say, most e-bikes I encounter are ridden by people who clearly have little experience of riding at the speeds they can attain and little regard for other road users.

 

Are you in the Netherlands, though?  If not, then I don't see that anecdotal experience is particularly relevant.  I doubt the demographic of e-bike users is  the same as in the UK.

Having visited the Netherlands last year, I concur regarding the standards of the e-bike users. (Normal bikes riders, especially in Ansterdam) are a law unto themselves. The majority of bikes we saw were older, city bikes (sit up and beg, with a 3 speed hub gear style) and invariably rattled enough that a bell was not needed. The e-bikes however flew past on the often narrow section of bike lane tht is on the footpath with alarming speed and little passing space.
 

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

What were the actual causes of death?  Are they counting, for example, heart-attacks (even those subsequent to suffering a fall)?  Or are we talking death solely due to physical trauma?

Older people are more likely to have existing health problems.  So does one not have to compare it with the death rate one would expect to see in that group if they were using another mode of transport?  (Or engaging in another leisure activity).  To be crude about it, how many of these guys would have come a cropper  via another means, had they not been using an e-bike?

 

The meaning of the statistics is very unclear to me.

A very good point - it's quite possible that some of them just died of old age - or doing things that pensioners are reportedly more inclined to, like driving the wrong way up a motorway.  What about the overall fitness levels of this age group - how many are living longer due to the increasingly active lifestyles - perhaps life expectancy is increasing?

If the increase in e-bikes is responsible for the in increased number of cyclist deaths, is it also responsible for the even greater decrease in motor vehicle occupant deaths?

alansmurphy wrote:

Good point apuking, so the incidence rate is actually falling, much less catchy headline though...

Depends how much those new riders use their shiny new e-bikes.  Without usage figures, it's not possible to infer any change in incidence.  Tripling ownership doesn't necessarily triple usage, if many of the new riders try it once, sh*t themselves and stick the e-bike in the garage, never to be ridden again.

srchar wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

Good point apuking, so the incidence rate is actually falling, much less catchy headline though...

Depends how much those new riders use their shiny new e-bikes.  Without usage figures, it's not possible to infer any change in incidence.  Tripling ownership doesn't necessarily triple usage, if many of the new riders try it once, sh*t themselves and stick the e-bike in the garage, never to be ridden again.

But it seems a fair first-guess that the usage rate will not have changed dramatically from what it was before.  Seems very unlikely to me that a tripling of ownership would not increase usage at all, even if it doesn't actually _triple_ the usage.

apuking wrote:

This whole news article is quite pointless as sales of E-bikes in the Netherlands to 65 years + have trippled over the figures of last year, so the rise from 20 to 38 deaths is quite irrelevant in relation to the quantity of elderly people riding e-bikes.

 

It's not quite irrelevant, but the issue should surely be what is the effect on the death rate of that age group overall, not what is the change in the death rate of cyclists.

  The question is has a lot of older people taking to using e-bikes led to those people doing better or worse, in terms of mortality, no?  Or, at least, 'is there anything that can be done to reduce what downside risks there might be, without reducing the benefits?'.

apuking wrote:

This whole news article is quite pointless as sales of E-bikes in the Netherlands to 65 years + have trippled over the figures of last year, so the rise from 20 to 38 deaths is quite irrelevant in relation to the quantity of elderly people riding e-bikes.

wrong, because the e bikes are replacing ordinary bikes for the most part, the increase in deaths outstrips increase in overall use and is in the opposite direction to falling deaths in the other groups. So it's very relevant.

Less physical effort would reduce heart attacks not increase them, also overall deaths per mile travelled went down only due to the non/low % e-bike buying groups. Increases in deaths of the older age groups has outstripped total miles increases thus the figure would be even better overall if not for e-bikes.

apuking wrote:

This whole news article is quite pointless as sales of E-bikes in the Netherlands to 65 years + have trippled over the figures of last year, so the rise from 20 to 38 deaths is quite irrelevant in relation to the quantity of elderly people riding e-bikes.

 

You still did not come back and address your incorrect statement regarding cycling numbers in NL  Please show how many over 65s are cycling as opposed to not cycling beforehand? You will find that cycling has been stagnant in NL for over a decade, this includes the older age catergories who are buying e-bikes. As I said upthread last year, people in the older age groups are rather more restricted by their own physical abilities when riding unaided, when you chuck in acceleration and a top speed that is in many cases best part of a 100% faster than they might prdinarily travel then you have a big big problem. 

That's because these people are not used to such speeds, have shortened thinking time for making decisions and as we know the worst scenario for deaths of NL cyclists is where they come to a junction with motor raods, this figure being put at circa 60 deaths annually (out of the circa 200 or so in total).

This also occurs for people not used to cycling at all but as I said last year, it was the age groups buying e-bikes in significant numbers (which does not equal more people cycling at all and you failed to prove your point on that) that had a reversal of the trend of fewer people on bikes dying between 2006 and 2016 in the groups that did not buy e-bikes in big numbers, the massive difference was clearly e-bikes whichever way you look at it. 

that's not to say that people should not use e-bikes but the acceleration and top speed for some is clearly too much, hence my proposal to ECF that the top speed should be 12mph or whatever in km/h. I beleive this would save lives as well as still alowing mobility, still encouraging people to choose to use cycles into older age or infirmity as well as the other up side of more range.

hawkinspeter wrote:

It sounds like they need a "beginner" mode for the e-bikes that restricts top speed to 15kmh. That should provide a reasonable compromise speed for people to get used to the handling/reactions and road conditions.

You make it sound like you're putting grandad on a 1000cc superbike. It's a still just a bicycle. Like anything in life, some things aren't for some people.

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

It sounds like they need a "beginner" mode for the e-bikes that restricts top speed to 15kmh. That should provide a reasonable compromise speed for people to get used to the handling/reactions and road conditions.

You make it sound like you're putting grandad on a 1000cc superbike. It's a still just a bicycle. Like anything in life, some things aren't for some people.

I agree that some things aren't for some people, but if a lot (65?) of people are dying from it, then we should consider a sensible way of increasing the safety for new riders.

Old people seem okay to travel around in mobility solutions, so a similar speed might be appropriate - when I've seen mobility scooters then don't seem to any faster than 10mph. (Of course mobility scooters are less demanding as you don't need to balance).

pjm60 wrote:

Quote:

proved popular among older people given the ease with which they enable them to reach speeds of up to XX kilometres an hour.

 

That's pretty quick, can't even see the numbers

XX=20. Not very fast at all. And that's probably Roman kilometres, so even slower.