• Compared crash patterns of professional and regular riders in France and the UK. • Professional riders are predominantly younger males in both countries. • Professional riders more often use light motorized TWs, less often bicycles. • Professional riders more often sustain slight injuries, less severe than regulars. Two-wheeler (TW) use for delivery has expanded rapidly, yet the safety of these professional riders remains understudied. This study compared crash characteristics of professional and regular TW riders in France and the UK (2019–2023) using national crash databases, combining descriptive epidemiology and logistic regression. Professional riders were younger (median age: 31 vs. 33 and 34 for regular riders in France and the UK, respectively) and predominantly male (93.8% in France; 89.7% in the UK). They more often used light motorized TWs (59.1% in France; 56.0% in the UK) in urban, lower-speed environments. Crash timing reflected delivery activity, peaking on Fridays and during midday and evening hours in France, whereas patterns were more dispersed in the UK. Injury severity also differed: professional riders sustained slight injuries more often than regular riders (France: 74.7% vs. 54.5%; UK: 82.3% vs. 69.1%) and had higher odds of slight injury (France: 4.91; UK: 2.95). These patterns are likely related to younger age, lighter vehicle use, and greater protective gear adherence. Cross-country contrasts were also evident, with slight injuries more common in both rider groups in the UK, likely reflecting greater pedal cycle use and broader implementation of low-speed zones. Professional riders represent a distinct high-exposure group with specific crash patterns both relative to regular riders and across countries. Tailored safety measures are needed, including enforcement of protective equipment, safer management of 30–50 kph and 20–30 mph urban zones, and time-specific awareness campaigns around delivery peaks.
Wei et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: