Julie Hatfield, Soufiane Boufous, Andrew Roman Novak
{"title":"横断面调查，调查澳大利亚自行车骑行者对自行车结构缺陷的认识和体验。","authors":"Julie Hatfield, Soufiane Boufous, Andrew Roman Novak","doi":"10.1136/ip-2024-045518","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An online cross-section survey of 298 bicycle riders was conducted to address these knowledge gaps.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":13682,"journal":{"name":"Injury Prevention","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cross-sectional survey to investigate bicycle riders' knowledge and experience of structural weakness in bicycles in Australia.\",\"authors\":\"Julie Hatfield, Soufiane Boufous, Andrew Roman Novak\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/ip-2024-045518\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An online cross-section survey of 298 bicycle riders was conducted to address these knowledge gaps.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusions: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13682,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Injury Prevention\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Injury Prevention\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/ip-2024-045518\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Injury Prevention","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/ip-2024-045518","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
Cross-sectional survey to investigate bicycle riders' knowledge and experience of structural weakness in bicycles in Australia.
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.
期刊介绍：
Since its inception in 1995, Injury Prevention has been the pre-eminent repository of original research and compelling commentary relevant to this increasingly important field. An international peer reviewed journal, it offers the best in science, policy, and public health practice to reduce the burden of injury in all age groups around the world. The journal publishes original research, opinion, debate and special features on the prevention of unintentional, occupational and intentional (violence-related) injuries. Injury Prevention is online only.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
