HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by McGuire, L Articles by Smith, N Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by McGuire, L Articles by Smith, N

Cycling safety: injury prevention in Oxford cyclists

John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK

Correspondence to:
L McGuire, Accident & Emergency Medicine, Wycombe General Hospital, High Wycombe, Bucks HP11 2TT, UK
(larry{at}mcguirel.freeserve.co.uk)

Objective—To assess injury prevention measures used by cyclists in Oxford and to detect any differences between wearers and non-wearers of cycling helmets.

Method—A prospective observational survey of a series of cyclists passing a single point on a busy city road in reduced lighting. Two observers jointly recorded four measures of injury prevention: use of front or rear light, high visibility (reflective or fluorescent) clothing, and cycling helmet. The use of the first three interventions was analysed in relation to helmet use/non-use.

Results—A total of 392 cyclists were observed over one hour. Fourteen (3.6%) were observed to use all four studied measures, while 137 (34.9%) used none of them. The frequency of measures observed was: lit front light 190 (48.5%), lit rear light 197 (50.2%), both lights on 163 (41.6%), helmet on 104 (26.5%), and high visibility clothing 39 (9.9%).

Despite the helmet using group's smaller size, it contained a significantly higher proportion of cyclists with lit front light (60.6% v 44.1%), lit rear light (61.5% v 46.2%), and high visibility clothing (27.9% v 3.5%), than the non-helmet group (p0.01). Whereas only 22% of the helmet users had no other observed measures, 47.2% of non-users did so.

Conclusion—Cycling helmet users were significantly more likely to use collision prevention measures in conditions of reduced visibility. Explanations may include higher levels of risk awareness and greater knowledge of safe cycling practices in the smaller, helmet using group. However, current measures by cyclists in a major cycling centre may be insufficient to prevent collisions and consequent serious injury or death.

Keywords: cycling; protective clothing; cycle lights