Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Australia's MAMIL trend sees middle-aged cyclists soar as percentage of injured riders admitted to hospital increases

45-64-year-olds now make up more than a quarter of hospital admissions -- quadrupling since turn of century

A report from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare highlights an increase in the number of older cyclists admitted to hospital since the turn of the millennium, with 45-64-year-olds now making up more than a quarter of admissions during a period that coincides with the rise of the MAMIL (middle aged man in Lycra) trend.

Entitled Pedal cyclist deaths and hospitalisations 1999–00 to 2015–16, the report finds that over the 17-year period, 160,000 cyclists ended up in hospital with an average 1.5 per cent increase each year.

That came against a background of an increase in the number of adults cycling, with an Australian Sports Commission survey finding a 45 per cent increase in cyclists aged 15-plus between 2001 and 2010 to stand at 2.1 million

(It’s worth noting that there had been a significant fall in the number of bike riders in Australia early in the previous decade after states introduced compulsory helmet laws between 1990 and 1992).

Referring to the 17 years covered by the report, AIHW spokesperson Professor James Harrison said: “Within this period, over 650 cyclists died in cycling crashes—an average of 38 deaths per year. Of these, 90 per cent were male, and 90 per cent of fatal incidents occurred on-road.”

The AIHW said that analysing hospital admissions of cyclists by age showed that the age range had “changed markedly” over the period.

As examples, it said that 48 per cent of injured cyclists in 1999-2000 were aged 5-14, but that fell to 20 per cent in 2015-16, while 25-44-year-olds accounted for 18 per cent at the start of the period but 31 per cent by the end of it.

In 1999-2000, just 7 per cent of injured cyclists admitted to hospital were aged 45-64, but by 2015-16, that had almost quadrupled to 26 per cent.

Professor Harrison said: “Nearly 6 in 10 hospitalised cyclists were injured in an on-road crash. Similarly, nearly 6 in 10 sustained a fracture, with the most common injury being a fractured arm.”

But he highlighted that older cyclists now accounting for a greater proportion of hospital admissions had implications in terms of treatment.

“The severity of injuries sustained by cyclists generally increased with age,” he explained.  

“Those aged 45 and over were more likely to have life-threatening injuries, stay longer in hospital and be transferred to another hospital.”

He added: “Cyclists aged 45 or older consumed 90% of the total hours of ventilator support, with more than half provided to those aged 45–64.”

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

12 comments

Avatar
pl6125 | 4 years ago
3 likes

I guess they could be Australians, but that’s Blenheim Palace..

Avatar
CXR94Di2 | 4 years ago
0 likes

 The States of Queensland and NSW have introduced signs, bus adverts, saying 'Move wider for Rider' and 1.5m distance signs.  I dont know about enforcement legislation but there is a push to change driver attitudes. 

A positive sign of increasing cycle numbers but worrying significant injuries.  Need to see if injuries caused by vehicle drivers knocking them off-most likely

Avatar
Chris Hayes | 4 years ago
0 likes

Interesting that a compulsory helmet law should have led to a reduction in cyclists.  You rarely see cyclists here in London and on rides in the SE without a helmet but then again the UK cycling boom happened post Casartelli which was probably the turning point in compulsory helmet wear in the EU.  Anyway - good to see people out on the road in Oz - and you've got to be out there to get injured! 

Just wondering which age group is most affected by household injuries...staying at home might be just as dangerous for us MAMILs! 

 

 

Avatar
burtthebike replied to Chris Hayes | 4 years ago
3 likes

Chris Hayes wrote:

You rarely see cyclists here in London and on rides in the SE without a helmet but then again the UK cycling boom happened post Casartelli which was probably the turning point in compulsory helmet wear in the EU.

"......compulsory helmet wear in the EU."  Have you been reading the Sun or the Mail?  The EU doesn't have a compulsory helmet law.

If this is the state of your knowledge about the EU, please don't vote in the EU elections.

Avatar
Chris Hayes replied to burtthebike | 4 years ago
1 like

 

"......compulsory helmet wear in the EU."  Have you been reading the Sun or the Mail?  The EU doesn't have a compulsory helmet law.

If this is the state of your knowledge about the EU, please don't vote in the EU elections.

[/quote]

Fair point, I meant UCI... But thanks for the comment.  

Avatar
Simon E replied to Chris Hayes | 4 years ago
4 likes

Chris Hayes wrote:

Interesting that a compulsory helmet law should have led to a reduction in cyclists.

It's a real fact and been widely referenced and discussed at great length in many places.

Chris Hayes wrote:

You rarely see cyclists here in London and on rides in the SE without a helmet

You are talking about a specific subset of cyclists - people wearing lycra and trying to emulate the appearance of professional riders. Do you not notice all the people who cycle in London wearing normal clothes?

If you read the comments on the recent James Cracknell piece you'd realise that some of those choppers have taken on a blind belief in the magical properties of a holey (but not holy) polystyrene hat to protect them from all malevolent forces. They also have a tendency to preach at, scorn and throw rocks at any individual who dares to turn a pedal without one or even mention facts about their effectiveness.

As for the Casartelli connection, the pro riders really did not want to wear helmets and even in the early 2000s were still allowed to take them off for the final climb in a stage with an uphill finish (which I think is better for spectators and TV viewers with no additional risk to the riders).

Avatar
FrankH | 4 years ago
4 likes

"...the report finds that over the 17-year period, 160,000 cyclists ended up in hospital with an average 1.5 per cent increase each year. That came against a background of an increase in the number of adults cycling, with an Australian Sports Commission survey finding a 45 per cent increase in cyclists aged 15-plus between 2001 and 2010"

They present the increase in injuries one way, over one set of years and the increase in cyclng another way, over a different set of years. Why do they do this? Are they trying to bamboozle us with numbers? If so, why?

1.5% increase per year over 17 years is an increase of approximately 28%.

45% increase over 10 years is an increase of over 4% per year. Extrapolate it to 17 years and it's about 85%

85% increase in the number of cyclists coupled with a 28% increase in the number of injuries (or 4% and 1.5%) looks like a decrease in the number of injuries per cyclist to me. Which is a good thing, isn't it?

Avatar
burtthebike replied to FrankH | 4 years ago
4 likes

FrankH wrote:

85% increase in the number of cyclists coupled with a 28% increase in the number of injuries (or 4% and 1.5%) looks like a decrease in the number of injuries per cyclist to me. Which is a good thing, isn't it?

Welcome to the world of Australian cycling research, where for the cost of the project, we'll find whatever you want.  Cheers blue.

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to FrankH | 4 years ago
0 likes
FrankH wrote:

"...the report finds that over the 17-year period, 160,000 cyclists ended up in hospital with an average 1.5 per cent increase each year. That came against a background of an increase in the number of adults cycling, with an Australian Sports Commission survey finding a 45 per cent increase in cyclists aged 15-plus between 2001 and 2010"

They present the increase in injuries one way, over one set of years and the increase in cyclng another way, over a different set of years. Why do they do this? Are they trying to bamboozle us with numbers? If so, why?

1.5% increase per year over 17 years is an increase of approximately 28%.

45% increase over 10 years is an increase of over 4% per year. Extrapolate it to 17 years and it's about 85%

85% increase in the number of cyclists coupled with a 28% increase in the number of injuries (or 4% and 1.5%) looks like a decrease in the number of injuries per cyclist to me. Which is a good thing, isn't it?

If your figures are correct it is a good thing but we have no way of knowing if the figures are correct.

The 7 unknown years may seen a sustained decrease in cycling such that the overall number of cyclists was actually lower at the end of the 17 years than at the start.

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds replied to FrankH | 4 years ago
0 likes

<p>[quote=FrankH]</p>

<p>"...the report finds that over the 17-year period, 160,000 cyclists ended up in hospital with an average 1.5 per cent increase each year. That came against a background of an increase in the number of adults cycling, with an Australian Sports Commission survey finding a 45 per cent increase in cyclists aged 15-plus between 2001 and 2010"</p>

<p>They present the increase in injuries one way, over one set of years and the increase in cyclng another way, over a different set of years. Why do they do this? Are they trying to bamboozle us with numbers? If so, why?</p>

<p>1.5% increase per year over 17 years is an increase of approximately 28%.</p>

<p>45% increase over 10 years is an increase of over 4% per year. Extrapolate it to 17 years and it's about 85%</p>

<p>85% increase in the number of cyclists coupled with a 28% increase in the number of injuries (or 4% and 1.5%) looks like a decrease in the number of injuries per cyclist to me. Which is a good thing, isn't it?</p>

<p>[/quote]</p>

<p>I'd take their numbers with a huge pinch of salt. the Aus governments own figures show us that cycling as a whole with respect to trip rate per population head has gone down markedly except for Tasmania (which went up by nearly 50% but has low population) between 1985/6 and 2011.</p>

<p>Overall a population increase exceeded the cycling trips by around 38% so cycling numbers had gone down.</p>

<p>&nbsp;Also it doesn't state/define what a 'cyclist' is, is that anyone who rode a bike in the year, so this in itself is meaningless. Trip numbers/distances traveled are more important, rates of cycling per population are more important. As we've seen here in the UK, we've seen same number of trips but with slightly more miles covered annually since the mid 2000s.</p>

<p>But one of the important factors that these people fail to grasp is comparing injury rates with other modes, as per here in the UK. If the cycling injury rates go down but actually by less than that for peds and motorists then that's a worse outcome. if you've also put in a specific intervention (such as helmets) and that rate is still worse then from that you can come up with first the intervention had no/negative impact, that not enough is being done to lower the injury rates.</p>

<p>So a&nbsp;reduction in the injury rate itself does not indicate better in the true sense when firstly you might have fewer trips overall, the definition of 'cyclist' isn't defined correctly and/or the Injury rates&nbsp;fell by less (and in the UK cycling injuries fell significantly less than for peds since the mid 00s).</p>

<p>You also cannot extrapolate because many other factors change increases/decreases as well, so what happened over y years does not mean you are going to get the same results over the following x&nbsp;years.</p>

<p>yes they've made an utter horlicks of it when comparing but the rates of cycling per population indicate to me that their figures aren't accurate and are misrepresentative.</p>

<p>Also according to the their govs own stats head injuries are less than a 1/4, that 12.1% of all crashes involve a person on a bike</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

Avatar
burtthebike | 4 years ago
4 likes

Introducing a helmet law that virtually wiped out cycling by teenagers, who go on to drive cars, and utility cyclists, has resulted in mamils being virtually the only group left riding.  I'm baffled as to why the researchers wasted their time on this.  If most cyclists are mamils, and they feel safe because they've been told a helmet will save their life, they are going to be the ones crashing and going to hospital.

Is there a Nobel prize for the most bleedin' obvious piece of research?

Avatar
OldRidgeback | 4 years ago
2 likes

Australia has a lot to do to improve its road safety. The attitude of car drivers to cyclists as well as motorcyclists is even worse than in the UK.

Latest Comments