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

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Injury Prevention
Published
2025-04-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1136/ip-2024-045518
Primary Topic
Traffic and Road Safety
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

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

Julie Hatfield, Andrew R. Novak, Soufiane Boufous
Injury Prevention
Traffic and Road Safety
article

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

Julie Hatfield, Andrew R. Novak, Soufiane Boufous
article en

Abstract

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.

Injury Prevention
UNSW Sydney (AU), Life Cycle Engineering (United States) (US)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 92%
Traffic and Road Safety
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.