Half of Britons say local roads too dangerous for cycling in BBC poll

GrahamSt wrote:

There are only a couple of data points that far back so the swings are much more pronounced.

I'd speculate that with more granularity it would show a fairly smooth rise up to the early forties as more and more people got access to cars, followed by a pretty sharp drop as the war progressed due to factors like the number of young men overseas, people selling cars to buy rations, and curfews on driving at night etc. (But I'm just guessing really)

The evidence is all there though - if we want to reduce road casualties further all we need is another World War.

Who's with me?

That makes more sense, I focussed on the top point of the graph, rather than the large drop after.

True, but I was really thinking that if drivers' attitudes towards drink driving can be changed so dramatically can their attitudes towards cyclists be changed as well? Trouble is, that may also take a long time.

GrahamSt wrote:

I suspect it is a multitude of factors, mostly massive improvements in car safety and much tighter traffic laws.

Here's a different graph that I annotated with a few of the major changes:

I believe the most significant factor is actually improved road engineering. Accident black spots have been identified and the issue has been engineered out with changes to the roads or junctions.

That's why motorways are much safer to travel on, per mile driven, than any other road for example __ because they've been *designed* to allow traffic to flow at high speeds. The standards for motorway construction have also been massively improved in recent decades too with much more stringent limits on the radius of bends (for visibility) and gradients of climbs.

That's also why your graph doesn't show any significant step-changes from the various changes in laws regarding safety features. The truth is that individually they didn't make much difference. What has made the difference has been the gradual improvement in road engineering and hundreds of improvements in the design of cars. Cars nowadays are much easier to drive than they were even 30 years ago. Brakes are better, handling is better, wider tyres, etc, etc.

Improvements in road safety are essentially down to what Brailsford would describe as 'marginal gains'. Thousands of tiny changes that collectively add up to measurably increased performance.

GrahamSt wrote:

I suspect it is a multitude of factors, mostly massive improvements in car safety and much tighter traffic laws.

Here's a different graph that I annotated with a few of the major changes:

I could be missing something blindingly obvious here but how has the biggest spike in road traffic accidents happened in the middle of World War 2?

It's harder to see during a blackout. Must have been a lot of black market petrol going around though.

Airzound wrote:

Cycling on UK roads is dangerous - 3 knock downs in 15 years, 2 of which were hospital trips and one a hit and run plus scores and scores of near certain death experiences plus several instances where drivers have threatened and been prepared to use extreme violence which could have resulted in very serious injury or death had I not got away. Thousands of close passes, hundreds of which were imho deliberate. Cycling on UK roads is not safe and definitely NOT for the faint hearted. Period.

Sorry but maybe you need to examine *how* you ride and maybe where you ride too.

I've had plenty of *potential* serious incidents but there's always been enough 'tells' to make me back off and avoid them.

It's a bit like it seems that everyone who advocates the wearing of helmets has invariably had millions of near-death experiences from which "the helmet saved their lives". In contrast those of us who have *never* worn helmets (because I'd been cycling for 20 years before they were invented) have remained disappointingly impervious to such drama.

The fact remains that British roads are actually incredibly safe for cyclists. There's about 100 deaths per year on British roads out of what, about 10-15M cyclists? From what I read in the news at least half of those killed are unfortunately down to the cyclist's own fault through being drunk, texting, racing, inexperienced, etc.

Joeinpoole wrote:

From what I read in the news at least half of those killed are unfortunately down to the cyclist's own fault through being drunk, texting, racing, inexperienced, etc.

Really?

Joeinpoole wrote:

Airzound wrote:

Cycling on UK roads is dangerous - 3 knock downs in 15 years, 2 of which were hospital trips and one a hit and run plus scores and scores of near certain death experiences plus several instances where drivers have threatened and been prepared to use extreme violence which could have resulted in very serious injury or death had I not got away. Thousands of close passes, hundreds of which were imho deliberate. Cycling on UK roads is not safe and definitely NOT for the faint hearted. Period.

Sorry but maybe you need to examine *how* you ride and maybe where you ride too.

I've had plenty of *potential* serious incidents but there's always been enough 'tells' to make me back off and avoid them.

It's a bit like it seems that everyone who advocates the wearing of helmets has invariably had millions of near-death experiences from which "the helmet saved their lives". In contrast those of us who have *never* worn helmets (because I'd been cycling for 20 years before they were invented) have remained disappointingly impervious to such drama.

The fact remains that British roads are actually incredibly safe for cyclists. There's about 100 deaths per year on British roads out of what, about 10-15M cyclists? From what I read in the news at least half of those killed are unfortunately down to the cyclist's own fault through being drunk, texting, racing, inexperienced, etc.

So you'd be happy for an 8 year old child from your family to cycle along the roads with you? If not then they aren't safe. As I said, five out of five of my flatmates have been knocked off by cars. It's almost inevitable if you ride regularly round London, and that can't be acceptable for a child.

Bikebikebike wrote:

Joeinpoole wrote:

Airzound wrote:

Cycling on UK roads is dangerous - 3 knock downs in 15 years, 2 of which were hospital trips and one a hit and run plus scores and scores of near certain death experiences plus several instances where drivers have threatened and been prepared to use extreme violence which could have resulted in very serious injury or death had I not got away. Thousands of close passes, hundreds of which were imho deliberate. Cycling on UK roads is not safe and definitely NOT for the faint hearted. Period.

Sorry but maybe you need to examine *how* you ride and maybe where you ride too.

I've had plenty of *potential* serious incidents but there's always been enough 'tells' to make me back off and avoid them.

It's a bit like it seems that everyone who advocates the wearing of helmets has invariably had millions of near-death experiences from which "the helmet saved their lives". In contrast those of us who have *never* worn helmets (because I'd been cycling for 20 years before they were invented) have remained disappointingly impervious to such drama.

The fact remains that British roads are actually incredibly safe for cyclists. There's about 100 deaths per year on British roads out of what, about 10-15M cyclists? From what I read in the news at least half of those killed are unfortunately down to the cyclist's own fault through being drunk, texting, racing, inexperienced, etc.

So you'd be happy for an 8 year old child from your family to cycle along the roads with you? If not then they aren't safe. As I said, five out of five of my flatmates have been knocked off by cars. It's almost inevitable if you ride regularly round London, and that can't be acceptable for a child.

I go riding with my kids on London roads. It depends where you ride and at what time. I've been cycling in London for over 20 years.

I don't like the idea of tempting fate, but I've never been knocked off my bike by a car and believe me, I've racked up a lot of miles commuting up to 20 miles/day at rush hour along some of the busiest stretches of road in London. I've had close calls but that's it. I was doored once and that hurt my hand, but I didn't hit the deck.

The only time I've ever been knocked off my bike during my commute has been by a Danish couple who looked the wrong way before stepping off the kerb. I hauled on the brakes and while we all ended up hitting the deck, no-one was hurt.

When I've crashed my bike this has been when I've been racing/training on a track or messing about on my 20" BMX at the local skatepark.

Things are not as bad in London for cyclists as they were in the late 1980s when I first started pedalling my way round the city. For most of the 1990s I was clocking about 100miles/week commuting at peak periods right through the city 10miles from south to north in the morning and then 10 miles from north to south back again in the evening.

OldRidgeback wrote:

Bikebikebike wrote:

Joeinpoole wrote:

Airzound wrote:

Cycling on UK roads is dangerous - 3 knock downs in 15 years, 2 of which were hospital trips and one a hit and run plus scores and scores of near certain death experiences plus several instances where drivers have threatened and been prepared to use extreme violence which could have resulted in very serious injury or death had I not got away. Thousands of close passes, hundreds of which were imho deliberate. Cycling on UK roads is not safe and definitely NOT for the faint hearted. Period.

Sorry but maybe you need to examine *how* you ride and maybe where you ride too.

I've had plenty of *potential* serious incidents but there's always been enough 'tells' to make me back off and avoid them.

It's a bit like it seems that everyone who advocates the wearing of helmets has invariably had millions of near-death experiences from which "the helmet saved their lives". In contrast those of us who have *never* worn helmets (because I'd been cycling for 20 years before they were invented) have remained disappointingly impervious to such drama.

The fact remains that British roads are actually incredibly safe for cyclists. There's about 100 deaths per year on British roads out of what, about 10-15M cyclists? From what I read in the news at least half of those killed are unfortunately down to the cyclist's own fault through being drunk, texting, racing, inexperienced, etc.

So you'd be happy for an 8 year old child from your family to cycle along the roads with you? If not then they aren't safe. As I said, five out of five of my flatmates have been knocked off by cars. It's almost inevitable if you ride regularly round London, and that can't be acceptable for a child.

I go riding with my kids on London roads. It depends where you ride and at what time.

Well I'd like to cycle where I want to go, at the time I want to go there. It's not really acceptable to have no-go areas and prohibited times if the bike is going to be a practical method of transport.

Bikebikebike wrote:

OldRidgeback wrote:

Bikebikebike wrote:

Joeinpoole wrote:

Airzound wrote:

Cycling on UK roads is dangerous - 3 knock downs in 15 years, 2 of which were hospital trips and one a hit and run plus scores and scores of near certain death experiences plus several instances where drivers have threatened and been prepared to use extreme violence which could have resulted in very serious injury or death had I not got away. Thousands of close passes, hundreds of which were imho deliberate. Cycling on UK roads is not safe and definitely NOT for the faint hearted. Period.

Sorry but maybe you need to examine *how* you ride and maybe where you ride too.

I've had plenty of *potential* serious incidents but there's always been enough 'tells' to make me back off and avoid them.

It's a bit like it seems that everyone who advocates the wearing of helmets has invariably had millions of near-death experiences from which "the helmet saved their lives". In contrast those of us who have *never* worn helmets (because I'd been cycling for 20 years before they were invented) have remained disappointingly impervious to such drama.

The fact remains that British roads are actually incredibly safe for cyclists. There's about 100 deaths per year on British roads out of what, about 10-15M cyclists? From what I read in the news at least half of those killed are unfortunately down to the cyclist's own fault through being drunk, texting, racing, inexperienced, etc.

So you'd be happy for an 8 year old child from your family to cycle along the roads with you? If not then they aren't safe. As I said, five out of five of my flatmates have been knocked off by cars. It's almost inevitable if you ride regularly round London, and that can't be acceptable for a child.

I go riding with my kids on London roads. It depends where you ride and at what time.

Well I'd like to cycle where I want to go, at the time I want to go there. It's not really acceptable to have no-go areas and prohibited times if the bike is going to be a practical method of transport.

Read my comment about how much commuting I've done in London at peak periods. That's 25 years of city riding with one dooring that resulted in a bruised hand but no actual spill and only one incident where I hit the deck, caused by a Danish couple who didn't look properly before stepping out.

I'm not saying I haven't had close calls at times and I've certainly seen some very poor driving. But I ride with my kids in London, which was your original comment.

The fatality rate now is a fraction of what it was in the bad old days of the late 70s.

OldRidgeback wrote:

The fatality rate now is a fraction of what it was in the bad old days of the late 70s.

It's has dropped significantly but can't really be considered a huge drop given that over the same period the number of fatalities for all road users was doing this:

I wonder how much of the reduction in deaths is related to the change in attitudes to drink-driving over that period.

Bikebikebike wrote:

Joeinpoole wrote:

Airzound wrote:

Cycling on UK roads is dangerous - 3 knock downs in 15 years, 2 of which were hospital trips and one a hit and run plus scores and scores of near certain death experiences plus several instances where drivers have threatened and been prepared to use extreme violence which could have resulted in very serious injury or death had I not got away. Thousands of close passes, hundreds of which were imho deliberate. Cycling on UK roads is not safe and definitely NOT for the faint hearted. Period.

Sorry but maybe you need to examine *how* you ride and maybe where you ride too.

I've had plenty of *potential* serious incidents but there's always been enough 'tells' to make me back off and avoid them.

It's a bit like it seems that everyone who advocates the wearing of helmets has invariably had millions of near-death experiences from which "the helmet saved their lives". In contrast those of us who have *never* worn helmets (because I'd been cycling for 20 years before they were invented) have remained disappointingly impervious to such drama.

The fact remains that British roads are actually incredibly safe for cyclists. There's about 100 deaths per year on British roads out of what, about 10-15M cyclists? From what I read in the news at least half of those killed are unfortunately down to the cyclist's own fault through being drunk, texting, racing, inexperienced, etc.

So you'd be happy for an 8 year old child from your family to cycle along the roads with you? If not then they aren't safe. As I said, five out of five of my flatmates have been knocked off by cars. It's almost inevitable if you ride regularly round London, and that can't be acceptable for a child.

When I was a child (in the 1960s/70s) the normal practice was that kids below 11 were 'allowed' to ride on the pavement __ you generally wouldn't have had 8-year olds riding on the road without the close supervision of an adult but that would have depended on where and when. Once the kid was big enough to handle a bike with 26" wheels or more, if I remember correctly, then they graduated to the road. Is that still the case today?

Joeinpoole wrote:

The fact remains that British roads are actually incredibly safe for cyclists. There's about 100 deaths per year on British roads out of what, about 10-15M cyclists?

Not sure where you get the 10-15M cyclists estimate from, but the risk is better measured as a Casualty Rate (e.g. the risk of serious injury per mile on the road).

2012 figures were 118 cyclists killed, 3222 seriously injured.
The total road miles cycled was estimated as 3.11 billion.
So (118 + 3222) / 3.11 gives a Casualty Rate of:

1074 cyclists killed or seriously injured per billion vehicle miles.

To put that in context, 801 car users were killed and 8232 seriously injured.
Total miles driven was estimated at 240 billion.
So (801 + 8232) / 240 gives a Casualty Rate of:

38 car occupants killed or seriously injured per billion vehicle miles.

People feel that cycling is risky compared to taking the car. The accident stats show that this is unfortunately very true.

On the plus side, regular cycling has enormous health benefits so despite the occasional accidents it remains massively beneficial to overall public health and some would say, quality of life.

(Figures from RRCGB Annual Report 2012, Tables RAS30065 & RAS30067)

Joeinpoole wrote:

From what I read in the news at least half of those killed are unfortunately down to the cyclist's own fault through being drunk, texting, racing, inexperienced, etc.

The news does like to report that, yes.

But research suggests that cyclists are to blame for 20% motor vehicle vs cyclist collisions. Drivers were at fault in 68%.

And yes, some of those cyclists may have been "inexperienced" - but having roads that are only suitable for "experienced" cyclists is indicative of the problem!

Joeinpoole wrote:

Airzound wrote:

Cycling on UK roads is dangerous - 3 knock downs in 15 years, 2 of which were hospital trips and one a hit and run plus scores and scores of near certain death experiences plus several instances where drivers have threatened and been prepared to use extreme violence which could have resulted in very serious injury or death had I not got away. Thousands of close passes, hundreds of which were imho deliberate. Cycling on UK roads is not safe and definitely NOT for the faint hearted. Period.

Sorry but maybe you need to examine *how* you ride and maybe where you ride too.

I've had plenty of *potential* serious incidents but there's always been enough 'tells' to make me back off and avoid them.

It's a bit like it seems that everyone who advocates the wearing of helmets has invariably had millions of near-death experiences from which "the helmet saved their lives". In contrast those of us who have *never* worn helmets (because I'd been cycling for 20 years before they were invented) have remained disappointingly impervious to such drama.

The fact remains that British roads are actually incredibly safe for cyclists. There's about 100 deaths per year on British roads out of what, about 10-15M cyclists? From what I read in the news at least half of those killed are unfortunately down to the cyclist's own fault through being drunk, texting, racing, inexperienced, etc.

I have reported over 20 drivers just in the last 2-3 years, I was cycling in a safe manner, taking the lane when necessary etc. In nearly all cases I wasn't wearing a helmet.

It's only a couple of week since I was knocked off my bike, thankfully I wasn't hurt. It most certainly wasn't my fault and the statistic I have read is that 80% of cases where a cyclist is injured - the driver is at fault. Cyclists should be able to make mistakes without getting maimed, if drivers follow the rules, this can happen.

There may only be 100 deaths per year, it's the many thousands of serious injuries that worries me, and the fact that every other person that cycles a lot seems to have been knocked off their bike often resulting in serious injuries - I think that a lot of these injuries aren't being categorised properly.

Matt eaton wrote:

When comparing the UK to countries where utility cycling is more popular we should consider the length of the commute. We always talk about the Dutch but from visiting Holland I certainly don't get the impression that the guys and gals turning up at the office in smart dress on traditional town bikes have just completed a 15-20 commute. In the UK many regular cycle commuters cover these sort of distances. In the UK you would be very lucky to live within 5 miles of your place of work, which I would consider a resonable distance to cycle in office clothes.

Average UK commute: 9.3 miles. While is doable by bike, but you won't get mass cycling under those conditions.

BUT 43% have a commute under 5km. 58% of men and 70% of women travel less than 6.2 miles.

And that's before you consider bike + train and other multi-mode options.

So there's nothing lucky about it. We could have mass cycle commuting.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/10724224/...

Yennings wrote:

Love how this entire thread has degenerated into a debate about showers and personal hygiene!

The poll asked two questions, the headline has focused on the danger but the other one was "Employers don't do enough to encourage and facilitate cycling to work."

We also did the safety argument to death just the other day... and probably every week for something near to forever.