Britain’s roads “aren’t safe enough” says Sustrans as cyclist casualties climb 10 per cent

A Myth is Born: cycling in the UK is as safe as in the NL. What a relief, all is well!

Repeating untruths no necessarily maketh Truth.

In 2012, 200 cyclists died in the NL, out of whom 61 were 70-79 and 46 over 80. The stats do no report of what these older people died whilst cycling. But Dutch authorities would like to know if they should be worried about the increase in deaths amongst very old cyclists. A far cry from the UK situation.

Comparing deaths by cycled km's (based on 2006 stats in the UK), the NL are between 4 to10 times safer than the UK. Hence the number of cyclists on the road in the NL, where the cycle of chicken and egg has been broken without anyone getting egg in the face, the NL having also one of the highest ratios of cars to inhabitants in Europe (much to my chagrin). I would not dream of sending my children to school by bike in the UK, yet that is the most natural thing to do in the NL.

Finally, there is NO causal relation WHATSOEVER between the number of motorists on the road, the number of cyclists on the road and the number of cycling fatalities. As elsewhere in Europe, the number of cyclists in the NL plummeted by 75% between 1950 and 1975, the number of motorists increased inversely whilst the number of cycling fatalities INCREASED dramatically. From the 1980s until today, the number of motorists continued increasing but at a more moderate pace, the number of cyclists increased drammatically (now about 50% of what it was in the 1950s) whilst the number of cycling fatalities DECREASED dramatically. Hand of God or Will of the People?

Cyclists of the World, Unite! The World is for you to Grab! (and solve congestion/ pollution/ obesity/ green house gas problems at the stroke of a magic spoke).

You have to be very careful when quoting statistics and particularly percentages because it's very easy to manipulate these figures for a "sensational" headline. Having said that, the absolute figure of 3, 530 cyclist KSIs with an increasing trend is worrying,II'd want to see how this relates to the significant increase in the number of cyclists.

All inccidents involving vunerable road users are unacceptable, and the only target that makes sense is ZERO.

The emphasis of car advertisment needs to shift from performance and on to safety (of other road users not just the person driving the car). The performance of modern cars is far more than needed to drive within the current traffic laws. What is the point of a car that can easily do 100mph plus when the maximum speed limit is 70? I think this says a lot about societies attitude towards road safety, and how far public perception has to change.

As others have said, if there are more cycling miles being done, the deaths will go up too. Probably not that common knowledge but the actual death figure in the Netherlands is higher than the UK, despite having what is perceived as being the holy grail of infrastructure - they have way more cyclists of course, but also fewer cars, people will die on roads when using bikes as it is inherently dangerous.

As for cycling numbers/miles unlikely to go up 10% in a year, I dunno... the Barclays bike scheme usage has increased massively since it's first full year (7m rides up to what looks to be over ~10m this year) at close to 10% per year average. With the success of Wiggins, Froome, Ride London and the Tour in Yorkshire I wouldn't be surprised if bike use has gone up by that much. Wiggle & Halfords both reported big sales increases over the past year just recently.

I think a lot of the safety issues in London (can't speak for outside of it, don't have enough experience) are down to road user ability, rather than infrastructure, that includes cyclists. There are too many cyclists ignorant to what motorists can/can't be expected to see/react to, and too many motorists who don't have the required skills/attitude to drive in such a busy environment. Personally I think a big campaign to improve road user awareness & skills would be far more beneficial to throwing money at bike lanes, junctions and yet more traffic lights. A starting step would be to make the driving test far more thorough, there seems to be an awful lot of people with licenses who lack even some of the basic knowledge of how to drive a car safely.

We have the technology to fix this, what is lacking is the political will to enforce it's adoption:

http://www.kbb.com/car-news/all-the-latest/2014-volvos-will-offer-new-cy...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLMh1uwQWPw&list=PLcNF6Ihx2JoXY_e4dpRnAw...

It's happened before with seatbelts, side-impact beams, crumple-zones. From an insurer's point of view adding collision mitigation tech to your car minimises the risk of a payout.

I share the criticism that others have made, that this figures for casualties is useless without knowing the number of cyclists exposed. This is a frequent failing in this sort of statistic.
However, an increase in the number of cyclists of 10% in a year seems unlikely.

Bad maths. I want to see incidence not simple numbers. I want to know how many more people are now cycling and the amount of casualties in relation to that. Saying there is a "ten percent rise" means nothing on it's own.

What is the increase in journeys cycled, or better still miles cycled, as without that information all we have here is a meaningless number. If the increase in miles cycled is more than 10% that means the increase in the finite figure of cyclist casualties is actually a proportional decrease.

I'm not saying we should settle for how things are, but we shouldn't get on our high horse about a set of stats which are meaningless in isolation. Without a corresponding set of stats to tell us how many people are on the road for how long the number of casualties is purely that, a number, which could indicate each cycle journey being safer than it was 12 months ago.

What is the increase in journeys cycled, or better still miles cycled, as without that information all we have here is a meaningless number. If the increase in miles cycled is more than 10% that means the increase in the finite figure of cyclist casualties is actually a proportional decrease.

I'm not saying we should settle for how things are, but we shouldn't get on our high horse about a set of stats which are meaningless in isolation. Without a corresponding set of stats to tell us how many people are on the road for how long the number of casualties is purely that, a number, which could indicate each cycle journey being safer than it was 12 months ago.

What is the increase in journeys cycled, or better still miles cycled, as without that information all we have here is a meaningless number. If the increase in miles cycled is more than 10% that means the increase in the finite figure of cyclist casualties is actually a proportional decrease.

I'm not saying we should settle for how things are, but we shouldn't get on our high horse about a set of stats which are meaningless in isolation. Without a corresponding set of stats to tell us how many people are on the road for how long the number of casualties is purely that, a number, which could indicate each cycle journey being safer than it was 12 months ago.

The Government doesn't give a fuck. Many hundreds, thousands of cyclists and pedestrians have yet to die or to be seriously injured. The UK is a horrible place to ride a bike.

Every day i see people on their phones while driving since they know the likelihood of getting caught is near zero; people speeding excessively and dangerously; people passing me within inches that make me want to rip them out of their cars and beat the living crap out of them when i catch them at the next stop light; people eating their breakfast or putting on their makeup; next to no police presence on the road.

Am i surprised that there are more deaths this year? No. It will take a few more years of deaths to finally start the ball rolling.

Its not just safer road networks though. The rise in casualties is also down to the complacency shown by most motorists that has become shocking over the last decade, partly due in fact over the last few years to the decrease in roads policing and lack of enforcement.

When drivers think it is socially acceptable to travel at 40+mph in 30mph built up zones, where traffic lights have become just guides, where ASL's are optional for motorists too, the agressive and selfish mind-set of drivers makes them think they own the bit of road beneath their 4 tyres....

Attitudes and behaviours have to change but I fear it will take many more years of casualties before a government will sit up and say, gee, we have a problem here. So much could be achieved right now that will positively affect the obesity problem, ease conjestion, ease the strain on the NHS and above all else make our next generation fitter and healthier than they are now, but like every damn useless government before the current useless government they fail to act at the right time then they'll leave it too late to make a difference, or recovery will long and painful.

These figures aren't a surprise. On a daily basis, I see people driving too fast, driving through lights which have turned red, not leaving enough space when passing cyclists, and talking on the phone and texting while driving.

For too many people, the overriding consideration is going as fast as possible, without enough thought about the damage they can do. Policing is close to non-existent here.

I hope the authorities will listen to Sustrans, and act.

Safer cars, risk compensation, more cyclist injuries.

"“With 3,380 child pedestrian causalities already this year, we are failing to enable our children to get to school safely. It’s no wonder that more and more children are being ferried to school by car."

I suspect awful number of these is precisely because they are being ferried to school by car?