Are women at greater risk?

BBC News notes a rash of homicides involving women cyclists hit by trucks and asks if women are at greater risk than men. The intro left me less than impressed

This year, seven of the eight people killed by lorries in London have been women.

Considering that women make only 28% of the UK's cycling journeys, this seems extremely high.

There are no national figures but there's little reason to think it is any different.

Really? Little reason. You don't think it would be pretty shocking if 87.5% of all cyclist fatalities involving trucks were women even though they make up only 28% of cyclists? Later they even refute their own numbers.

In 2008, 84% of the 115 fatalities were men and 81% of reported injuries were to men.

Which would mean that men are overrepresented among fatalities and injuries.

Nonetheless, the article does ask good questions, like do women ride differently than men and if so, does that place them at risk?

In 2007, an internal report for Transport for London concluded women cyclists are far more likely to be killed by lorries because, unlike men, they tend to obey red lights and wait at junctions in the driver's blind spot.

The report said that male cyclists are generally quicker getting away from a red light - or, indeed, jump red lights - and so get out of the danger area.

This would back up preliminary data out of Idaho that the Idaho stop actually makes cyclists safer.

They also discuss assertiveness as an issue.

Ms Noonan's reluctance to assert herself is typical, says Dr Dave Horton from Lancaster University, a sociologist who has written a study on the fear of cycling.

"Being highly visible in public spaces is something women are going to be less comfortable with than men, especially in the road environment in marked areas where people can see you and male drivers can see you.

"There's a discomfort around putting yourself on display. It's the idea that in a car it's much harder to see you."

But they point out

Two of the women recently killed were experienced, so it's not just about nerves, says Chief Inspector Graham Horwood of the Met Police Traffic Unit.

Frankly, I don't think they do a very good job of making the case that women are more at risk than men. 

Photo by WABA

Comments

[SJE]

Terrible way to get the data, but it does support other studies and my own experience that obeying the law strictly is more dangerous than idaho stops, or getting ahead of traffic at a red light. I'd rather be an intact "scofflaw" cyclist than a dead by the book biker.

[Jack]

Because the '08 study showed proportional risk for a much larger sample size, there are no conclusions that can be reasonably drawn from the fact 7 incidents of 8 (instead of 2 of 8) involved women. The only way to draw conclusions from such a ridiculously small sample is by examining each incident. You could probably find other factors with similar "patterns" in that sample. Maybe 7 of 8 victims had red or blue bikes! Then to try to gauge the relative risk of Idaho stops vs. Maryland stops based on this, when there's a good mix of riding styles even among women, is downright laughable.

[guez]

Jack,

Yes, but it's even worse than that. If we look at the 2008 data, men sustain 81% of the injuries and 84% of the fatalities, even though they "only" make up 72% of the cyclists. This would tend to suggest that male behavior (light-running, etc.) is in fact *dangerous*.

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics."

[Washcycle]

The 2007 study is just of people getting hit by lorries. So the law abiding behavior of women may make them susceptible to more intersection deaths, but it may protect them from other deaths. If that is true, the question is how can we get women to behave safer at intersections and men to behave safer at other locations? For the first part it doesn't have to be the Idaho stop - which law abiding women might feel uncomfortable with anyway. It could also be achieved with bike boxes.