Slow cyclists more likely to be involved in a collision

It's nowt to do with a bunch of impatient twats in vehicles trying to make things difficult for us cyclists. This is my analysis of the study. I have been clipped several times with wing mirrors and run off the road onto the path on a bend. 

from my experience the only factor that matters is impatience. This has nothing to do with experience. Drivers don't like being held up, that simple. 

I didn't mean that as an insult and clearly being hit by a car is not the cyclists fault.

But riding slowly does make it harder to keep a straight line, probably something to do with the rate of spin of the wheels which act as gyroscopes.  This is just another argument for properly segregated cycle roads.

It's probably because the slower you go, the more inclided to wobble you are. Fast riders generally carry on in a straight line.

The reason is not that complex. It's quite simple, a combination of bad driving practise and impatience.

Very few drivers actually use the gears in conjunction with the engine. Subsequently they get into top gear as quickly as possible at low speed and low revs. Once in top there is reluctance to change down. This is not helped with the silly "Eco" gear change modes modern cars  have on dashboards.  Added to the fact few cars can actually do 30 or less on top gear. This increases the impatience factor as a slow moving vehicle means changing gear and disrupting the status quo of being in top gear. As a result more people are likely to do a "suspect" pass on a slower vehicle.

This is quite interesting. Relative risk is an absolute quantity so taking into consideration that the passing time is different. So, despite it taking 1.5x longer to pass a person doing 12mph than 8mph the person doing 8 suffers three times the risk. That is a lot, relatively speaking, though bear in mind that the general risk of injury from cycling in Great Britain is just 0.05 injuries per 1,000 hours of cycling [CTC Cycling Statistics]. This would suggest that there is an attitude shift between "slow" and "quick" people on bikes. Which is kind of weird. Consider Dr Ian Walker's research which suggested that the more profficient a cyclist looked the less space they gave, yet certainly a cyclist going slowly would look less professional and therefore be given more space. Yet, despite this they suffer greater risk. I suppose though that this isn't really that surprising the more I think about this. A similiar result could be guessed at using the Solomon curve (an individual's collision rate is a function of the difference between their speed and the average speed), so by going 12 mph a person on a bike is closer to the average speed and so has a lower collision rate.

We also have those helpful comments from the bus driver training to leave 1cm per 1 mph when passing, which might be a general trend.

A slower cyclist will be passed by more drivers in the same time period than a faster cyclist and the factor goes up further when comparing like distances. Has the research accounted for this?  More crashes and more close passes could just be directly proportional to the number of drivers who pass the cyclist, or if the incidents goes up faster than the number of drivers, then we can start considering drivers attitude to the slower cyclists.

The problem isn't the slow cyclists, it is the fast drivers.  Did the researchers look into the causes of the collisions, or just the speed of the cyclists?

One reason why faster cyclists are less likely to be the victim of a driver is that if you travel faster, the drivers have more time to react to your presence if they are following you.  On the other hand, they have less time if you are approaching them when they are stationary e.g. at a junction.  More analysis is needed of the circs of each collision, who was responsible and why it happened.  If riding faster makes you safer, why does it?  Given that accepted wisdom says that the faster you go, the more at risk you are, these conclusions are contradictory and confusing.

The conclusion that slow riders are more at risk can only be an interim conclusion, and we need to know why, and much more in depth research is required.

I must admit to feeling more vulnerable when cycling with Mrs H at her slow speed rather than at my slightly faster slow speed.

However, I'm trying to work out the relevance of the picture of cyclists in Osaka. Were you unable to source a picture of slow, old cyclists in Britain?

most accidents with bad dead-angle-visibility happen to woman, the reason is that most men are making sure they are in front of the cars at the junctions/traffic lights. Women tend to adhere to the rules to much.

Also don`t always assume you are seen. traffic is like a game of chess with a timer: think ahead! 

Going slow shouldn`t really be a problem, slow reaction times are though: older people on E-bikes tend to get in creashes more often too: they are not adjusted to the horsepower and are too relaxed at high speeds.

I bet the answer to this is "it's complex".

Cycling slowly means you will take longer to get to your destination and therefore be exposed to more incidences. That's logical, but IMO it's probably a minor cause because heavy traffic and bad luck with traffic lights impacts on your journey duration more than speed does.

I tend to find that I'm subject to more close passes and impatient driver behaviour when I'm slowed by headwind or a hill. I suspect that driver behaviour is the single biggest risk factor in collisions.

doesn't surprise me, the attitude of motorists does differ when i go up a hill or suffer into a headwind.

but obviously hi viz and helmets are the solution.