DfT Statistics: Number of cyclists killed or seriously injured in Britain up 8 per cent in year to September 2012

To PJ McNally:

Rest assured that CTC isn't "spinning" this news as a positive. We're merely pointing out that, contrary to what the Daily Mail is saying, it isn't necessarily a negative (I hope that makes sense!)

This week's stats merely tell us is that the number of cyclists killed and seriously injured (KSI) in Britain was 8% higher in the year to September 2012 than in the preceding year. What they don't tell us is whether cycle use increased by more or less than 8% in that time. So we don't know whether cycling has become more dangerous (as the tabloids are suggesting) or whether the opposite is true.

Now, of course we'd rather cyclist casualties were going down in absolute terms. And CTC absolutely does not believe that "if rates of cycling increase, injuries (absolute figures) must increase also". On the contrary, we have repeatedly pointed to plenty examples of the opposite happening, both in the UK and abroad, where cycle use has increased significantly and cyclist casualties have gone down in absolute terms. Please see CTC's road safety campaigns briefing.

So you certainly aren't a dreamer for wanting that to happen. CTC does too!

We also know that it can happen when politicians and planners take action to address the actual and perceived threats to cycling: high traffic volumes and speeds, bad driving, dangerous roads and junctions, lorries.

We are at last getting a serious hearing from politicians in Westminster. We have a hell of a long way to go, and progress to date has been glacial. Yet despite this I am more optimistic now about the political prospects for cycling than I have been for at least 15 years.

By contrast, the Daily Mail is not helping our cause in the slightest. Its emotive "dangerising" headlines are far more likely to scare people into not cycling. The Mail would probably prefer cycling to remain as a marginal activity for a battle-hardened minority, who they can then scapegoat. That's absolutely not what we need to persuade politians to take action to get more and safer cycling.

Finally, if your MP hasn't yet signed the parliamentary Early Day Motion to "Get Britain Cycling", please urge them to do so. You can do that automatically via this webpage.

Roger Geffen
Campaigns & Policy Director
CTC, the national cycling charity

So it's Wiggo's fault then? Have Churchill tried to sue him?

From today's CTC "cycleclips" newsletter:

"Media reports suggest the Wiggins effect could be responsible for an increase in cycle casualties. However, CTC believes that if cycling has increased by more than 8%, it would suggest that cycling has actually become safer."

Take a drink.

Is it as depressing to everyone else, that they are so predictable?

(Also, does this mean CTC believes that if rates of cycling increase, injuries (absolute figures) must increase also? Personally I'd rather see cycling rise 1000%, and numbers of injuries fall over the same period. Or am I some kind of dreamer?).

The more these dangers are publicised throughout the Media. Making people aware. Then maybe? we'll see safer practices by all road users...

Idea for a drinking game - drink whenever a supposedly reasonable organization tries to spin something like this as a positive. (CTC I'm looking to you).

Agreed. Like so many other systems under review right now: banks, hospitals, news gathering, there will have to be a pretty fundamental change of attitude as to who has right of way on our roads - or the government has to introduce and back the courts with very draconian penalties for accidents involving cars with pedestrians and bicycles.

I've always favoured a re-assessment of 'dangerous' versus 'careless' driving as the latter to me is the same as the former and should be met with automatic loss of licence for 2 years.

At the risk of remounting a favourite hobby horse...

“Safe cycling routes and lower speed limits could help prevent the increasing number of injuries and tragic deaths on our roads.” Yes, they could. But "safe cycling routes" shouldn't mean 'segregated lanes to keep out of the way'. It should mean 'roads are safe to use for cyclists as well as cars' - and that means fixing potholes, designing junctions properly, etc.

And as for changes to the driving test? Well, great. But everyone on the road today has passed the test as it was. There's no obligation to retake (unless you get disqualified) - even at 70, you just apply for a renewal and there's no test. Unless you implement periodic re-testing (and I'd support the introduction of a theory test every ten years), it's essentially pointless.