Many cyclists may be riding blind and risking serious injury, with more than than one in 10 having experienced an accident that they found was due to a structural failure undetected in the bike. Researchers now call for more stringent testing of bikes to identify these red flags before things go…

Many cyclists may be riding blind and risking serious injury, with more than than one in 10 having experienced an accident that they found was due to a structural failure undetected in the bike. Researchers now call for more stringent testing of bikes to identify these red flags before things go…

  • xiaoEnglish
    4·
    12 days ago

    Cross-sectional survey to investigate bicycle riders’ knowledge and experience of structural weakness in bicycles in Australia

    http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1814-0357Julie Hatfield1, http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5686-1729Soufiane Boufous1, Andrew Roman Novak2

Correspondence to Dr Julie Hatfield; [email protected]

    Abstract

    Background Structural weakness may occur within bicycles (eg, during manufacture or impact) and may result in sudden failure and serious injuries. While some indicators of structural weakness may be detected by visual inspection, others require more advanced non-destructive tests. Available research is yet to adequately examine bicycle riders’ awareness and experience of the structural weakness in bicycles, or their knowledge and use of testing methods.

    Methods An online cross-section survey of 298 bicycle riders was conducted to address these knowledge gaps.

    Results 11.4% of respondents had experienced at least one crash that they suspected was due partly to structural weakness, with just over half resulting in injury and just under half involving costs greater than $A500. About 25% of respondents had a component replaced because of ‘failure during normal use’. More than one third did not think it was necessary to test for indicators or weaknesses when buying a used bicycle, or after a crash. Testing was most likely following motor vehicle collisions and for bicycles with carbon components. Visual inspection was the most reported form of testing and only 42% of respondents reported being aware of any non-destructive methods of testing.

    Discussion and conclusions 11.4% of respondents had experienced at least one crash that they suspected was due partly to structural weakness, with just over half resulting in injury and just under half involving costs greater than $A500. About 25% of respondents had a component replaced because of ‘failure during normal use’. More than one-third did not think it was necessary to test for indicators or weaknesses when buying a used bicycle or after a crash. Testing was most likely following motor vehicle collisions and for bicycles with carbon components. Visual inspection was the most reported form of testing, and only 42% of respondents reported being aware of any non-destructive methods of testing.

    Results suggest that structural weakness in bicycles is fairly common while awareness of the issue, and methods of testing for it, is limited. Public education about when and how to test for weakness (eg, after any crash), and improvement in production standards and quality assurance, may reduce injuries due to bicycle failure.