Cycling accidents on Today programme this morning

emdeef

Accidents involving death or serious injury to cyclists rose by a fifth this spring according to an item on radio 4 this morning. There is a discussion with someone from Rospa at 0720 on today's programme:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/ne ... 345892.stm

dilemna

emdeef wrote:

Accidents involving death or serious injury to cyclists rose by a fifth this spring according to an item on radio 4 this morning. There is a discussion with someone from Rospa at 0720 on today's programme:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/ne ... 345892.stm

Thanks for the link. The great cover up and inaction surrounding cycling fatalities and serious injuries on the roads .

BentMikey

I'm willing to bet that there are two possible causes - one that cycling has gone up considerably more than the increase in injuries, and two that this might well just be a stochastic variation.

Safety in numbers is an extremely powerful effect for us cyclists.

dilemna

BentMikey wrote:

I'm willing to bet that there are two possible causes - one that cycling has gone up considerably more than the increase in injuries, and two that this might well just be a stochastic variation.

Safety in numbers is an extremely powerful effect for us cyclists.

Just the logic the First World War Generals used sending millions of men over the top of trenches to their deaths. Their strategy was to bombard the Jerries with soldiers then we are bound to win, no matter if we lose 50,000 - 150,000 men here or there ..................

So cycling facilites remain crap and you say one good way to get the level of cycling fatalities and serious injuries down is to get more people cycling but NOT BY IMPROVING FACILITIES, CATCHING, PROSECUTING OR PUNISHING DRIVERS PROPERLY WHO KNOCK DOWN CYCLISTS EITHER ACCIDENTLALLY OR DELIBERATELY. I find this strategy of SAFETY IN NUMBERS deeply disturbing as it more or less says we can lose a few cyclists in the quest to get more people cycling. This stratgey which originates from the CTC is deeply misguided and WRONG. Try telling the families of all the cyclists killed or seriously injured by dangerous drivers whether, the killing was accidental or deliberate, that their loved one died for the greater cause, hey, really cycling isn't that dangerous as more people are cycling therefore in percentage terms fatalities and serious injuries are down :evil: .

asprilla

Surely safety in numbers doesn't proclude other options?

For facilities it's chicken and egg; funds won't be invested until there is sufficient demand and many won't cycle because of the poor facilities. If you can get more people enjoying cycling then that is more pressue for improved facilities and legal enforcement.

I also have to point out that the driver isn't necessarily always at fault in accidents, and given a lot of the cycling you see on a daily commute though London it's hardly surprising a lot of bikists get knocked over.

wgwarburton

dilemna wrote:

.... I find this strategy of SAFETY IN NUMBERS deeply disturbing as it more or less says we can lose a few cyclists in the quest to get more people cycling. This stratgey which originates from the CTC is deeply misguided and WRONG. ... .

Can you support this contention? It goes against my understanding of the situation, and I believe that the CTC's position is based on credible evidence.

Why do you think the safety in numbers argument is wrong?

Cheers,
W.

ride_whenever

Statistically not relevant, fatalities + injuries up 6% cycing up 12%...

Roads twice as safe for cyclists. There is greater safety in numbers, because people expect more cyclists so deal with them better. Plus it reduces number of cars.

By your logic we should all drive because that's safer than cycling. As the number of cyclists increase the injuries per bicycle mile drop. That's a pretty well documented phenomenon, hence safety in numbers.

dilemna

You are all wrong. I fundamentally disagree with a strategy for cycling that does not directly address issues of safety. Simply saying the more that cycle therefore there are fewer fatalities and serious injuries by percentage is disengenuous.

Purely hypothetically if there are 16,000 serious and fatal injuries involving bicycles each year that's 16,000 with say 1.6 million people cycling each year then even with 1.6 million cycling that's 16,000 too many in my view. Ok there there will be fatalities connected with any activity you say but simply saying we'll adopt a strategy to get more people doing the activity in this case - increasing cycling up to say 10 million and if the level of fatalities increases to say a hypothetical 43,000 casualities then in percentage terms the number of cyclists seriously injured and killed has fallen from 1% of people who cycle to 0.43%. So in purely percentage terms those who cycle who end up dead or maimed has halved according to the figures :evil: !!!!!! Also for fatalities and serious injuries to rise from 16,000 to 43,000 that's over a 2.5 fold or 250% increase! Thus the great cycling fatality and injury cover up.

When motorcyclists were being killed left right and centre in the 1980s and 1990s the bike groups and DoT launched a high profile hard hitting - Think! Bike - campaign. Nothing of the sort is being done for cyclists, just saddle more up and send them to the slaughter.

Not a day goes by without several cyclists reporting cases of road rage being committed against them and local papers carrying tragic stories of cyclists either being accidentally knocked off or shockingly being deliberately run down. Cycling is dangerous when on the roads. It is a disgrace that facilities are on whole woeful and those drivers that commit aggressive acts against cyclists frequently escape detection or are not investigated or not prosecuted or not given suitably stiff sentences. If these issues were addressed then I think the up take of cycling in this country would be so much better. Until that happens and while the Government remains wedded to the car, supporting and appeasing the motorist lobby then NOTHING WILL CHANGE. Cyclists will continue to be killed.

I have no association with the CTC. Perhaps others who post could declare whether they have any interest with the CTC.

BentMikey

Asprilla wrote:

I also have to point out that the driver isn't necessarily always at fault in accidents, and given a lot of the cycling you see on a daily commute though London it's hardly surprising a lot of bikists get knocked over.

Although in fairness, most are the fault of the driver. An RAC study found that the driver was to blame in 4 out of 5 collisions in the subset of those involving cyclist/motor vehicle. Another leftpondian one found that it was more like 9 in 10.

biondino

dilemna wrote:

You are all wrong. I fundamentally disagree with a strategy for cycling that does not directly address issues of safety. Simply saying the more that cycle therefore there are fewer fatalities and serious injuries by percentage is disengenuous.

Purely hypothetically if there are 16,000 serious and fatal injuries involving bicycles each year that's 16,000 with say 1.6 million people cycling each year then even with 1.6 million cycling that's 16,000 too many in my view. Ok there there will be fatalities connected with any activity you say but simply saying we'll adopt a strategy to get more people doing the activity in this case - increasing cycling up to say 10 million and if the level of fatalities increases to say a hypothetical 43,000 casualities then in percentage terms the number of cyclists seriously injured and killed has fallen from 1% of people who cycle to 0.43%. So in purely percentage terms those who cycle who end up dead or maimed has halved according to the figures :evil: !!!!!! Also for fatalities and serious injuries to rise from 16,000 to 43,000 that's over a 2.5 fold or 250% increase! Thus the great cycling fatality and injury cover up.

When morotcyclists were being killed left right and centre in the 1980s and 1990s the bike groups and Dot launched a high profile hard hiting Think! Bike campaign. Nothing of the sort is being done for cyclists, just saddle more up and send them to the slaughter.

Not a day goes by without several cyclists reporting cases of road rage being committed against them and local papers carrying tragic stories of cyclists either being accidentally knocked off or shockingly being deliberately run down. Cycling is dangerous when on the roads. It is a disgrace that facilities are on whole woeful and those drivers that commit aggressive acts against cyclists frequently escape detection or are not investigated or not proesecuted or not given suitably stiff sentecnes. If these issues were addressed then I think the up take of cycling in this country would be so much better. Until that happens and the Government remians wedded to the car, supporting and appeasing the motorist lobby then NOTHING WILL CHANGE. Cyclists will continue to be killed.

I have no association with the CTC. Perhaps others who post could declare whether they have any interest with the CTC.

tl;dr

BentMikey

Cycle facilities? Don't make me laugh, they are not only a complete joke here in London, but even if well implemented the best they can do is decrease your perception of danger, whilst actively increasing the actual danger.

More cyclists on the roads equals a lower rate of accidents because drivers learn better behaviour around us all. It's the strongest effect on our safety that there is, significantly more than training and good cyclecraft, and far far more than helmets and hiviz.

As for actually changing things, I ride with a video camera all the time, and I report badly behaved drivers to their companies all the time. I've had many successful responses from said companies. I do this not for myself, but for all the other cyclists those drivers are likely to encounter in the future. How about you?

dilemna

biondino wrote:

dilemna wrote:

You are all wrong. I fundamentally disagree with a strategy for cycling that does not directly address issues of safety. Simply saying the more that cycle therefore there are fewer fatalities and serious injuries by percentage is disengenuous.

Purely hypothetically if there are 16,000 serious and fatal injuries involving bicycles each year that's 16,000 with say 1.6 million people cycling each year then even with 1.6 million cycling that's 16,000 too many in my view. Ok there there will be fatalities connected with any activity you say but simply saying we'll adopt a strategy to get more people doing the activity in this case - increasing cycling up to say 10 million and if the level of fatalities increases to say a hypothetical 43,000 casualities then in percentage terms the number of cyclists seriously injured and killed has fallen from 1% of people who cycle to 0.43%. So in purely percentage terms those who cycle who end up dead or maimed has halved according to the figures :evil: !!!!!! Also for fatalities and serious injuries to rise from 16,000 to 43,000 that's over a 2.5 fold or 250% increase! Thus the great cycling fatality and injury cover up.

When morotcyclists were being killed left right and centre in the 1980s and 1990s the bike groups and Dot launched a high profile hard hiting Think! Bike campaign. Nothing of the sort is being done for cyclists, just saddle more up and send them to the slaughter.

Not a day goes by without several cyclists reporting cases of road rage being committed against them and local papers carrying tragic stories of cyclists either being accidentally knocked off or shockingly being deliberately run down. Cycling is dangerous when on the roads. It is a disgrace that facilities are on whole woeful and those drivers that commit aggressive acts against cyclists frequently escape detection or are not investigated or not proesecuted or not given suitably stiff sentecnes. If these issues were addressed then I think the up take of cycling in this country would be so much better. Until that happens and the Government remians wedded to the car, supporting and appeasing the motorist lobby then NOTHING WILL CHANGE. Cyclists will continue to be killed.

I have no association with the CTC. Perhaps others who post could declare whether they have any interest with the CTC.

tl;dr

And pray what does your attempt at typing mean?

number9

dilemna, you're quite wrong, the Virtuous Cycle is a noted effect- more cyclists equals safer roads.

Nobody's being "sacrificed"- don't be daft.

Gazzaputt

Commuted for about 12 years now.

In the first 11 I had 1 minor off.

The last year I have 3 cars hit me that caused injury and damage.

Reading this forum I think there has also been a marked increase in accidents.

dilemna

number9 wrote:

dilemna, you're quite wrong, the Virtuous Cycle is a noted effect- more cyclists equals safer roads.

Nobody's being "sacrificed"- don't be daft.

You are all sheep. Probably the said same people who would have had Gallileo put to death for heresy.

BentMikey

MMMMMmmooooooo!

number9

dilemna wrote:

number9 wrote:

dilemna, you're quite wrong, the Virtuous Cycle is a noted effect- more cyclists equals safer roads.

Nobody's being "sacrificed"- don't be daft.

You are all sheep. Probably the said same people who would have had Gallileo put to death for heresy.

dilemna, here's the evidence:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 112034.htm

dilemna

BentMikey wrote:

Cycle facilities? Don't make me laugh, they are not only a complete joke here in London, but even if well implemented the best they can do is decrease your perception of danger, whilst actively increasing the actual danger.

More cyclists on the roads equals a lower rate of accidents because drivers learn better behaviour around us all. It's the strongest effect on our safety that there is, significantly more than training and good cyclecraft, and far far more than helmets and hiviz.

As for actually changing things, I ride with a video camera all the time, and I report badly behaved drivers to their companies all the time. I've had many successful responses from said companies. I do this not for myself, but for all the other cyclists those drivers are likely to encounter in the future. How about you?

And why do you feel the need to ride with a video camera all the time? Because cycling is dangerous as the recent figures for those killed show. They vindicate my argument as does your wearing of a video camera :roll: .

simple_salmon

dilemna - before I signed the papers to burn Galileo I would have asked him for evidence to back up his claims/opinions

Your argument seems to be that if people get killed cycling then an increase in cyclists that leads to an increase in fatalities is a bad thing regardless of whether it's a smaller %age of people dying.

Since there will always be some people who die on the roads - it's unavoidable - then the only logical conclusion to your argument is to stop cycling altogether.

To me this does not make sense - more people dying at a lower rate is worth it because of all the benefits that come from more people cycling including to the cyclists themselves. We're all going to die sometime, stopping doing what you love and what is good for you is a silly thing to do when the risks are small and getting smaller.

As someone else pointed out, safety in numbers does not preclude other safety measures, it supports them. The argument that not enough is being done elsewhere is a different thing totally UNLESS you can show evidence that someone is refusing to take other safety measures BECAUSE of a safety in numbers effect.

deptfordmarmoset

Dilemna, would you agree with a policy of matching prosecutions and cycle awareness to increased injuries? So that, regardless of the number of cyclists on the road, a 6% increase in injuries (where it's the drivers' fault) should be met with a 6% increase in the number of drivers actually being chased up, prosecuted, retrained, banned? This might give the safety in numbers approach an added impetus while aiming to keep overall injuries and fatalities down.

BentMikey

dilemna wrote:

And why do you feel the need to ride with a video camera all the time? Because cycling is dangerous as the recent figures for those killed show. They vindicate my argument as does your wearing of a video camera :roll: .

No it doesn't. It vindicates the point that there is quite a lot of anti-social driving out there and bullying of cyclists, but no actual danger beyond what is considered normal in the rest of everyday life.

BentMikey

Cycling is so dangerous that the average cyclist can expect to live 2 years longer than the national average.

I'm still chuckling at dilemna's ignorance.

dilemna

!

number9 wrote:

dilemna wrote:

number9 wrote:

dilemna, you're quite wrong, the Virtuous Cycle is a noted effect- more cyclists equals safer roads.

Nobody's being "sacrificed"- don't be daft.

You are all sheep. Probably the said same people who would have had Gallileo put to death for heresy.

dilemna, here's the evidence:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 112034.htm

Ha! A totally misleading piece of research not even covering the UK.

A piece from New South Wales principally Sydney from 2008.

The picture used is one of families on what appears to be like a safe wide cycle path!!!!!!! LoL

They mention cycling internationally, guess which countries - Denmark and Holland which have a well developed cycling infrastructure and laws which support cyclists and pedestrians against dangerous drivers who automatically face a presumption of liability if they collide with a cyclist. So they are going to have fewer cycling fatalities and serious injuries. LoL . No mention of crappy old UK. Australia has a whole lot more space then the UK to design and incorporate cycling facilities.

You'll have to do better than that at choosing your research material.

OldSkoolKona

dilemna wrote:

You are all wrong.

Hilarious - the internet message board stereotype comment. Nothing like a good reasoned argument and being open to other evidence end points of view. :roll:

simple_salmon

Dilemna - research from similar countries abroad is often used by the scientific community to back up claims - it's not unusual.

Your post does not explain WHY you are against the safety in numbers argument it just gives (good) examples of OTHER safety features. As I stated before - one does not preclude the other so what's the problem?

biondino

dilemna wrote:

biondino wrote:

dilemna wrote:

You are all wrong. I fundamentally disagree with a strategy for cycling that does not directly address issues of safety. Simply saying the more that cycle therefore there are fewer fatalities and serious injuries by percentage is disengenuous.

Purely hypothetically if there are 16,000 serious and fatal injuries involving bicycles each year that's 16,000 with say 1.6 million people cycling each year then even with 1.6 million cycling that's 16,000 too many in my view. Ok there there will be fatalities connected with any activity you say but simply saying we'll adopt a strategy to get more people doing the activity in this case - increasing cycling up to say 10 million and if the level of fatalities increases to say a hypothetical 43,000 casualities then in percentage terms the number of cyclists seriously injured and killed has fallen from 1% of people who cycle to 0.43%. So in purely percentage terms those who cycle who end up dead or maimed has halved according to the figures :evil: !!!!!! Also for fatalities and serious injuries to rise from 16,000 to 43,000 that's over a 2.5 fold or 250% increase! Thus the great cycling fatality and injury cover up.

When morotcyclists were being killed left right and centre in the 1980s and 1990s the bike groups and Dot launched a high profile hard hiting Think! Bike campaign. Nothing of the sort is being done for cyclists, just saddle more up and send them to the slaughter.

Not a day goes by without several cyclists reporting cases of road rage being committed against them and local papers carrying tragic stories of cyclists either being accidentally knocked off or shockingly being deliberately run down. Cycling is dangerous when on the roads. It is a disgrace that facilities are on whole woeful and those drivers that commit aggressive acts against cyclists frequently escape detection or are not investigated or not proesecuted or not given suitably stiff sentecnes. If these issues were addressed then I think the up take of cycling in this country would be so much better. Until that happens and the Government remians wedded to the car, supporting and appeasing the motorist lobby then NOTHING WILL CHANGE. Cyclists will continue to be killed.

I have no association with the CTC. Perhaps others who post could declare whether they have any interest with the CTC.

tl;dr

And pray what does your attempt at typing mean?

tl;dr

msw

dilemna wrote:

You are all wrong. You are all sheep.

Learn some manners.

dilemna wrote:

And pray what does your attempt at typing mean?

See http://tinyurl.com/c8lrbb

wgwarburton

dilemna wrote:

You are all wrong. I fundamentally disagree with a strategy for cycling that does not directly address issues of safety. ....

OK, I think I see your point. Realistically, what do you think an acceptable level of cycliist fatalities is? Ten a year? A hundred?
It's necessary to have a reference point to decide how to address the issue, how much should we spend to reduce the death rate and how low should we be trying to go.

Taking 2007 as an example, there were about 150 cyclists killed on UK roads. How much should we aim to reduce that by, and how much should we be prepared to spend to do so?
We can then ponder the most effective approach, given the budget we have to work with, and perhaps speculate on whether there might be a better way to spend the money?

I have no association with the CTC. Perhaps others who post could declare whether they have any interest with the CTC.

I don't either, though I probably should have.

Cheers,
W.

number9

dilemna wrote:

!

number9 wrote:

dilemna wrote:

number9 wrote:

dilemna, you're quite wrong, the Virtuous Cycle is a noted effect- more cyclists equals safer roads.

Nobody's being "sacrificed"- don't be daft.

You are all sheep. Probably the said same people who would have had Gallileo put to death for heresy.

dilemna, here's the evidence:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 112034.htm

Ha! A totally misleading piece of research not even covering the UK.

A piece from New South Wales principally Sydney from 2008.

The picture used is one of families on what appears to be like a safe wide cycle path!!!!!!! LoL

They mention cycling internationally, guess which countries - Denmark and Holland which have a well developed cycling infrastructure and laws which support cyclists and pedestrians against dangerous drivers who automatically face a presumption of liability if they collide with a cyclist. So they are going to have fewer cycling fatalities and serious injuries. LoL . No mention of crappy old UK. Australia has a whole lot more space then the UK to design and incorporate cycling facilities.

You'll have to do better than that at choosing your research material.

Sorry, what exactly do you think is wrong with the research? Why is it "misleading"?

Or this research:

Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and bicycling
P L Jacobsen

Conclusion: A motorist is less likely to collide with a person walking and bicycling if more people walk or bicycle. Policies that increase the numbers of people walking and bicycling appear to be an effective route to improving the safety of people walking and bicycling.

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/con ... rt/9/3/205

More cycling is making UK roads safer
Oct 20th
CTC has welcomed news that an increase in cycling has made it safer to cycle on UK roads.
Basing its figures on Department for Transport statistics, CTC estimates that cycle use in the UK has increased by 10 per cent since 1993, and that the rate of reported pedal casualties has decreased by more than 34
per cent over the same period.

Roger Geffen, CTC campaigns and policy manager, said:

"The relationship between increased cycle use and reduced cycle casualties found in mainland Europe also holds for Britain - the more people that cycle, the safer it is to cycle."

http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/news/22045/Mor ... oads-safer

The more people cycle, the more aware drivers become and the safer the roads are for cyclists.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/n ... /4188.aspx

CYCLING MAKES ROADS SAFER!

Recent statistics gathered throughout the UK confirm that an increase in cycle use leads to safer roads. Apart from the fact that drivers who also cycle tend to be more aware of other road users, more cyclists on the road ensures that even drivers who don't cycle are more likely to expect the presence of cyclists, motorcyclists and pedestrians.

http://www.cyclingscotland.org/didyouknow.aspx


After all, the more people who take up cycling, the safer it will be for all road users, not just for cyclists – hence the conference title:

“Safer Cycling = More Cycling = Safer Cycling = More Cycling = Safer Cycling = More Cycling .....”

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4802

Perception is a big problem here," says Wilson. "Unsurprisingly, many people think cycling is dangerous but it has been proved that the more cyclists there are on the road, the safer it is per cyclist. Drivers get used to them."

http://motoring.independent.co.uk/featu ... 088929.ece

number9

Cycle journeys in the capital have risen by 100 per cent since 2000 and have met the Mayor Ken Livingstone's cycling targets five years early.

http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_rel ... aseid=5944

So a doubling in eight years.

And the accident rate?

In cities where cycling levels are very buoyant such as York and London, cycling is getting safer. Cycling in London has doubled in 5 years, and the numbers killed have dropped by almost 50 per cent since the mid-90s.

A statement from CTC said: "It is important not to take single years in isolation as fluctuations can happen when small numbers are concerned. Since the mid 90s the number of cyclists who have been killed or seriously injured has fallen by 37 per cent - from 3,732 to 2,360 per year."

http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/news/19243/Adu ... ities-down

BentMikey

So dilemna, what are you doing to improve matters?