Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Back to news
news
Crime & Legal
Mirror claims number of 'smartphone zombies' killed or injured by cyclists has 'soared' – BUT …Pedestrian lookinng at phone (licensed CC BY 2.0 by Sonny Abesamis on Flickr)

Mirror claims number of 'smartphone zombies' killed or injured by cyclists has 'soared' – BUT …

Newspaper's article is short on facts ... and ignore the greater dangers posed by motor vehicles...
by Simon_MacMichael
Mon, Oct 07, 2019 15:37
14

An article on the Mirror’s website claims that the number of pedestrians using mobile phones being killed or injured by cyclists in Great Britain “is soaring” – but provides no evidence in support.

The brief article – it runs to just 160 words – asserts that “‘Smartphone zombies’ who fail to look before crossing the road are believed to be responsible for a surge in accidents’.”

It cites government figures that show that during the past five years, 16 pedestrians have died as a result of collisions involving cyclists and 590 have been seriously injured.

It also highlights a rise in pedestrian casualties in collisions involving cyclists in the past year – one in which there was just one fatality.

But as the newspaper itself points out, the data – published by the Department for Transport and collated from STATS19 collision records compiled by police – does not state who is at fault.

Nor do the forms capture information relating to whether the victim may have been distracted by a mobile phone at the time.

Anecdotal evidence does suggest a growing road safety issue surrounding people stepping into the road without looking because they are engrossed by their smartphones.

And for anyone cycling in an urban environment, anticipating people distracted by their phones stepping out into your both has become an essential skill for riders.

Of course, other road users besides cyclists pose a far greater risk to pedestrians who walk into the road without looking – buses, lorries, cars, vans, and the growing numbers of scooter and motorbike riders in busy cities.

Again, distraction through smartphone use – whether by a pedestrian or, as regular court reports highlight, motorists – is not recorded as a factor in such collisions.

It is worth underlining, however, that from 2012-16, 2,120 some pedestrians were killed in road traffic incidents – with cyclists involved in less than 1 per cent of those.

The comparative rarity of collisions in which a pedestrian is killed or seriously injured is of course one reason why they tend to make the headlines.

Indeed, the Mirror highlights a recent court case in which cyclist Robert Hazeldean was found partly liable for injuries sustained by Gemma Brushett when they collided after she stepped out into the road in the City of London while looking at the screen of her mobile phone.

On the subject generally of collisions between pedestrians and cyclists, Duncan Dollimore, head of campaigns at Cycling UK, said: “Last year 456 pedestrians died on Britain’s roads, every one a tragedy. One of those involved a cyclist.

“This reflects the pattern for the last ten years where 99.4% of pedestrian deaths have resulted from a collision with a motor vehicle.

“Also, while it’s true the number of reported serious injuries to pedestrians from collisions with cyclists has been higher in the last two years, the DfT’s own reports explain that serious injury figures for the last two years aren’t comparable with earlier years.

“Nor do the DfT statistics apportion blame, so it’s inaccurate to imply that the cyclist was at fault in every case and the reality is that cyclists do little harm to other road users, including pedestrians,” he added.

Smartphones
collisions with pedestrians
Simon MacMichael

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

14 comments

Avatar
thereverent | 5 years ago
2 likes

Tabloid newspaper unable to use statistics properly shocker!

Avatar
growingvegtables | 5 years ago
3 likes

Mirror "Daily-Mail-baying-at-the-moon" to attract the "SUV-buying/driving (?)" market.  F***ers.

Avatar
CyclingInBeastMode | 5 years ago
2 likes

facts speak for themselves, this is now over a 7 year period as no 'at fault' cyclist has caused the death of a pedestrian  since Alliston AFAIK.

 

Avatar
Eton Rifle replied to CyclingInBeastMode | 5 years ago
1 like
CyclingInBeastMode wrote:

facts speak for themselves, this is now over a 7 year period as no 'at fault' death of a ped has occured since Alliston AFAIK.

 

Ah, that well-known quote from the Government's so-called independent review of cycling law. The one that confirmed that when one party is solely to blame for a fatal collision, that party is FAR more likely to be the pedestrian than the cyclist.

Remind me of the conclusion of that piece of shit report?

Avatar
Hirsute | 5 years ago
1 like

Death/injuries

2018 145

2017 134

2016 115

2015 102

2014 110

2013 112

Pedal cycle traffic (vehicle miles / kilometres) in Great Britain*

2018  3.33

2017   3.27

2016   3.17

2015   3.25

2014   3.46

2013   3.13

 

Soaring ?

 

* Vehicle mile/kilometre: One vehicle times one mile/km travelled (vehicle miles/km are calculated by multiplying the AADF by the corresponding length of road). For example, 1 vehicle travelling 1 mile a day for a year would be 365 vehicle miles. This is sometimes known as the volume of traffic.

 

Avatar
Hirsute | 5 years ago
3 likes

Is that Trump above ?

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Hirsute | 5 years ago
6 likes

hirsute wrote:

Is that Trump above ?

Donald Rump

Avatar
ktache | 5 years ago
6 likes

I can pretty much deal with phone using pedestrians.  It's those addicted to the "smart" phones while driving that I truely fear, and I mean really fear, fully protected and ensconced in their huge vehicles, often moving at speed.  Even the (still properly illegal) ones in traffic are still not aware of anything going on around them.

Avatar
brooksby | 5 years ago
9 likes

I smell the groundwork being laid for a "jaywalking" type law in the UK... 

 

(also: I'm far more concerned about the 'smartphone zombies' who are driving cars, tbh)

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to brooksby | 5 years ago
10 likes

brooksby wrote:

I smell the groundwork being laid for a "jaywalking" type law in the UK... 

 

(also: I'm far more concerned about the 'smartphone zombies' who are driving cars, tbh)

I can't see that ever working in the UK - there's no police available, for starters.

It's incredible just how much that Mirror article is ignoring the elephant in the road. People using phones aren't dangerous, but they are more likely to ignorantly walk into danger.

Avatar
brooksby replied to hawkinspeter | 5 years ago
5 likes

hawkinspeter wrote:

brooksby wrote:

I smell the groundwork being laid for a "jaywalking" type law in the UK... 

 

(also: I'm far more concerned about the 'smartphone zombies' who are driving cars, tbh)

I can't see that ever working in the UK - there's no police available, for starters.

It's incredible just how much that Mirror article is ignoring the elephant in the road. People using phones aren't dangerous, but they are more likely to ignorantly walk into danger.

But the introduction of jaywalking was more about re-writing the narrative.

If a 'pedestian' was hit by the car, well then they were a person, a human being, and one could reasonably presume that the car's driver at least shared some of the blame/responsibility.

But a 'jaywalker', that foolish bumpkin, ill-educated and not suited to the Modern World, well clearly they weren't paying attention etc and all that blame and responsbility clearly falls on their own shoulders.

And that change of narrative could be how it could go, here.

Was the pedestrian holding a phone? Were they, godforbid, using it? Well, then clearly the responsibility is their's, isn't it...  Well, yes, maybe the car was speeding, but: Smartphone Zombie!  End of discussion.

Avatar
Rick_Rude replied to hawkinspeter | 5 years ago
2 likes
hawkinspeter wrote:

I can't see that ever working in the UK - there's no police available, for starters.

Don't worry mass use of face recognition cameras will sort that out.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Rick_Rude | 5 years ago
4 likes

Rick_Rude wrote:
hawkinspeter wrote:

I can't see that ever working in the UK - there's no police available, for starters.

Don't worry mass use of face recognition cameras will sort that out.

They can't even use automatic number plate readers to catch tax dodgers, so I'm sceptical that trying to match faces will work any better. Also, doppel gangers, twins and facial hair will throw a wrench into the works.

And masks...

 

Avatar
RoubaixCube replied to hawkinspeter | 5 years ago
2 likes

hawkinspeter wrote:

 

I can't see that ever working in the UK - there's no police available, for starters.

 

Sadly this... No good making more laws if the current force dont have the numbers to police it. Theyve already had to cut down a lot of things they would normally investigate and prioritise investigating other crimes over others.... 

 

Such as chasing down people who say bad words on social media.

Latest Comments