Odds of self-reported minor cycle crashes with conventional and electric assisted cycles adjusted for cycling frequency in Dutch and Belgian adults a retrospective study.

Background: Cycling for transportation and recreation is gaining in popularity, especially in older age groups. The rise in electric assisted cycles (EAC) may also have a role to play in this. With an increase in the number of cyclists comes an increase in the prevalence of cycle crashes. However, there is a lack of knowledge on EAC crashes and crash studies including cycle use data. An important question is also whether the high number of serious road injuries among older cyclists, is due to increased risk or more serious consequences in the event of a crash.

Study Aim: To compare the odds of reporting a cycle crash on a conventional (CC) against electrically assisted cycle (EAC), while controlling for age, gender, BMI, impairments while cycling, cycling frequency and region of residence.

Methods: A 12-month retrospective cross-sectional survey-based study, including male and female cyclists aged 40+ years, was conducted in Belgium and the Netherlands. Socio-demographics, physical and mental impairments while cycling (such as lower reaction time), crash details and cycling frequency data were collected. Cyclists were grouped into CC, EAC or both (CC + EAC) based on the type of cycle they used during the study period. Logistic regression models were used to calculate the odds of reporting a cycle crash. Main and interaction effects were studied.

Results: 1,919 cyclists were included in the data analysis (63.2 ± 11.1 years; 50% women). 319 (17% of the total sample) cyclists reported a crash in the previous 12 months, of which 36% were EAC crashes. Those reporting a crash were significantly younger compared to those not reporting a crash. The following significant main effects were observed: those cycling on an EAC had a higher odds of reporting a cycle crash compared to those cycling on a CC (OR = 1.41, 95% CI = 1.01-1.97); cyclists in the category average and high on mental impairments while cycling had a higher odds of reporting a cycle crash compared to those in the category low (OR = 1.72, 95% CI = 1.23-2.40 and OR = 3.49, 95% CI = 2.51-4.90, respectively); higher cycling frequency is related to higher odds of reporting a cycle crash (OR = 3.25, 95% CI = 2.25-4.90). A significant interaction effect was observed between age category and gender (OR = 1.93, 95% CI = 1.15-3.26). Post-hoc tests revealed that men in the younger age category (40-64 years) had the highest probability (18.95%) of reporting a cycle crash, whereas men in the oldest age category (65+ years) had the lowest probability (9.99%) of reporting a cycle crash. No significant difference between age categories in women was observed.

Conclusion: This study indicates that within a cohort of middle aged and older adults living in regions with high to low cycling modal shares, cycle type, mental impairments while cycling, cycling frequency and region of residence play a significant role in the odds of reporting a (minor) cycle crash. Men in the age category 40-64 years have a significantly higher probability of reporting a cycle crash compared to men of 65+ years. Safety campaigns and instructions should pay particular attention to men in the age category 40-64 years and those with a mental impairment while cycling.