Read 'em and weep - 2011 Road Casualty Stats from DoT
- Thread starter GrumpyGregry
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
srw
It's a bit more complicated than that...
Well... No. Being on the road, in whatever capacity, is still incredibly safe. When you think that last week we managed 25,000 person-miles and probably 200,000 vehicle interactions without more than a handful of incidents - none of them more than an annoyance - that's a pretty good safety record.
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images...95014011796/Mortality-statistics-grap-001.jpg
Cycling is on a par with childbirth as a mortality source.
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images...95014011796/Mortality-statistics-grap-001.jpg
Cycling is on a par with childbirth as a mortality source.
OP
OP
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
There were 453 pedestrian deaths, 12 per cent more than in 2010. Seriously injured pedestrian casualties in accidents reported to the police also increased, by 5 per cent, to 5,454. These increases are set against a generally downward trend in the number of pedestrian casualties and fatalities since the 1970s.
The number of pedal cyclists killed fell by 4 per cent from 111 in 2010 to 107 in 2011. However, the number of casualties reported to the police as seriously injured in a road accident increased by 16 per cent to 3,085. Total reported casualties among pedal cyclists also rose, by 12 per cent, compared to 2010. Pedal cyclist traffic levels are estimated to have risen by 2.2 per cent over the same period.
Now three of those Seriously Injured are friends of mine, and two of them have life changing injuries as a result. I don't think we should be complacent even if cycling is still relatively safe. If Paris can manage zero deaths with a decent level of cycling taking place why can't London?
The number of pedal cyclists killed fell by 4 per cent from 111 in 2010 to 107 in 2011. However, the number of casualties reported to the police as seriously injured in a road accident increased by 16 per cent to 3,085. Total reported casualties among pedal cyclists also rose, by 12 per cent, compared to 2010. Pedal cyclist traffic levels are estimated to have risen by 2.2 per cent over the same period.
Now three of those Seriously Injured are friends of mine, and two of them have life changing injuries as a result. I don't think we should be complacent even if cycling is still relatively safe. If Paris can manage zero deaths with a decent level of cycling taking place why can't London?
srw
It's a bit more complicated than that...
I'm not advocating complacency, I'm advocating a proportionate response to the level of risk.
The Parisian comparison is misleading, because the cities are very different.
As far as I can tell, the original source for the statistic of no cycling deaths in Paris in 2011 is http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/artic...un-nouveau-remede-anticrise_1633390_3224.html, which also reports a 24% increase in cycling accidents during 2011.
The official stats for Parisian cycling deaths and serious injuries up to 2010 are here:
http://www.paris.fr/pratique/Portal...et_id=20649&multileveldocument_sheet_id=11125. The number of deaths has wandered around between 2 and 6 per year.
For London, the figure is in the very low double figures. BUT "London" in this context is a city of 8,000,000 inhabitants which is about 70 miles across. "Paris" in this context is a city of 2,000,000 which is about 5 miles across. "Paris" is much more like our zone 1 than like our "London".
The Parisian comparison is misleading, because the cities are very different.
As far as I can tell, the original source for the statistic of no cycling deaths in Paris in 2011 is http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/artic...un-nouveau-remede-anticrise_1633390_3224.html, which also reports a 24% increase in cycling accidents during 2011.
The official stats for Parisian cycling deaths and serious injuries up to 2010 are here:
http://www.paris.fr/pratique/Portal...et_id=20649&multileveldocument_sheet_id=11125. The number of deaths has wandered around between 2 and 6 per year.
For London, the figure is in the very low double figures. BUT "London" in this context is a city of 8,000,000 inhabitants which is about 70 miles across. "Paris" in this context is a city of 2,000,000 which is about 5 miles across. "Paris" is much more like our zone 1 than like our "London".
Electric_Andy
Heavy Metal Fan
- Location
- Plymouth
The same reason France does not have the same problems with Alcohol in the 15-40 year old bracket. It's a culture thing.
Boris Bajic
Guest
This is not strictly accurate. Out here in the sticks, I cycle past squidged badgers regularly. In this weather, cyclists smell them before seeing them. I realise the point is figurative and the KSI figures are high, but the comparison is inaccurate.
Certainly the DoT figures are not what one would choose, but does anyone really find them alarming, surprising or absolutely unacceptable?
'Unacceptable' is the sort of word we sometimes use when we mean something else. I do find the figures deeply unfortunate and I do find them regrettable, but I do not find them unacceptable. I accept them and find I can live with them and sleep at night.
They have been in that ball park for most of my cycling life. I find them acceptable in the same way that I find the figures for deaths and injuries among air passengers, motorists, train passengers and hot-air balloonists acceptable.
I was riding in the Malverns this evening with my youngest (13). He's developed an unhealthy zeal for fast descending. While he was whipping down a hill with me behind him, I thought a couple of cars passed closer than they ought to have done. It has ever been so. I wish they hadn't. I will not tell him to descend with less speed and I will not expect drivers to suddenly learn that their cars are scary. I've been getting close passes all my cycling life. Some have hurt.
I have something of myself invested in the 'road safety' debate, as all my children ride on the road. I keep an eye on the stats and on trends and I have to say that I do not find them anywhere near the figure that would put me off riding or alarm me. Not even close.
I am keenly aware that a serious injury to one I loved would very likely change my thinking, but my experience of life, love and loss tells me that the last of these tends to affect our thinking on many fronts.
There are worse things than these stats. I stood and sang over months outside South Africa House on Tafalgar Square because I found the situation in RSA in the 80s unacceptable. I protested outside King Charles Street for intervention in the Bosnian conflict because I found the situation unacceptable.
These stats I find acceptable. If anyone finds them otherwise, I recommend action. They released Mandela (eventually) and UNPROFOR went in to Bosnia (eventually).
the trouble with statistics is 1 death is a tragedy , 107 deaths is a statistic
- actually 107 deaths is a 107 tragadies.
other people on this site think its a Myth that cycling is dangerous , - driving is dangerous, being a pedestrian is dangerous - people seam to forget this.
It unfortunately takes an accident, to themselves or a friend or they kill or injure someone to make them beleive in the danger.
I don,t think many drivers want to kill you (though I have my doubts about the woman on the roundabout - it was get out my way or I run you down)
the roads - and many of the cycle paths - are not cycle safe , you really do take your life in your hands going into traffic - be it on a bike or a motorbike (my stock and trade when I volenteered in A&E in the 80s - busted bikers )
- actually 107 deaths is a 107 tragadies.
other people on this site think its a Myth that cycling is dangerous , - driving is dangerous, being a pedestrian is dangerous - people seam to forget this.
It unfortunately takes an accident, to themselves or a friend or they kill or injure someone to make them beleive in the danger.
I don,t think many drivers want to kill you (though I have my doubts about the woman on the roundabout - it was get out my way or I run you down)
the roads - and many of the cycle paths - are not cycle safe , you really do take your life in your hands going into traffic - be it on a bike or a motorbike (my stock and trade when I volenteered in A&E in the 80s - busted bikers )
srw
It's a bit more complicated than that...
I see I've already posted last year's version of this graphic:
http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/484-367-deaths.117172/
If cycling is dangerous, then so are buildings. And alcohol and staircases are positively lethal.
http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/484-367-deaths.117172/
If cycling is dangerous, then so are buildings. And alcohol and staircases are positively lethal.
what makes things safe - is being aware of the danger.
accidents happen because people forget how dangerous what they are doing is and don,t prepare or act accordingly.
parachuting and rock climbing I know have risks but they are an environment I can by and large control
cycling in traffic is an environment you have very little control over - and you loose every time in an accident.
I changed my route after the round about incident, I go an extra couple of miles to come into the village a different way, I don,t cycle in the dark , its not worth the risk.
its your choice what risk you take , some cyclists I see (black bike,black cloths,no lights - at night in unlit country lanes) are just plain suicidal.
accidents happen because people forget how dangerous what they are doing is and don,t prepare or act accordingly.
parachuting and rock climbing I know have risks but they are an environment I can by and large control
cycling in traffic is an environment you have very little control over - and you loose every time in an accident.
I changed my route after the round about incident, I go an extra couple of miles to come into the village a different way, I don,t cycle in the dark , its not worth the risk.
its your choice what risk you take , some cyclists I see (black bike,black cloths,no lights - at night in unlit country lanes) are just plain suicidal.
IMO there is still scope for improvement - in cyclists and motorists.
I'm a confident cyclist but I still get freaked out by close passes. Some of them are due to lapses in driver attention but a fair percentage are caused by impatience and driver distraction (mobile phone etc.).
As cyclists we are perceived as being a law unto ourselves by pedestrians and other road users, with RLJ'ing and pavement cycling heading the list of offences. I know that this perception smacks of hypocrisy but there is a distinct lack of public empathy when cycle casualties are mentioned, and its created a safe breeding ground for anti-cyclist trolls. That's damaging. Too many people think we are the chief cause of our own predicament and I suspect it's an obstacle in bringing about changes that would favour cyclists. I would support measures that brings motorist and cyclist behaviour into line (although I see red when cyclists are targeted in isolation).
I'm a confident cyclist but I still get freaked out by close passes. Some of them are due to lapses in driver attention but a fair percentage are caused by impatience and driver distraction (mobile phone etc.).
As cyclists we are perceived as being a law unto ourselves by pedestrians and other road users, with RLJ'ing and pavement cycling heading the list of offences. I know that this perception smacks of hypocrisy but there is a distinct lack of public empathy when cycle casualties are mentioned, and its created a safe breeding ground for anti-cyclist trolls. That's damaging. Too many people think we are the chief cause of our own predicament and I suspect it's an obstacle in bringing about changes that would favour cyclists. I would support measures that brings motorist and cyclist behaviour into line (although I see red when cyclists are targeted in isolation).
Davidc
Guru
- Location
- Somerset UK
There is always room for improvement, but these figures are massively better than in past decades, especially when adjusted for population size.
I was cycling in 1965, so were some others on this forum, when deaths were 5 times higher than now, and serious injuries also much higher. Cycle use at the time was higher, about +50% on 2011 (+75% on 2007 and the adjustment is from that). Even at 1965 figures cycling was a very safe activity.
SOURCE DOCUMENT
It's getting better, but not nearly fast enough.
Those pedestrian figures are awful. A minority cycle but nearly everyone has to walk sometimes.
Zero fatalities isn't feasible, a 90% reduction on the numbers in Greg's link should be possible.
The dangers for cyclists are road hazards, and cycling would cease to be safe if all cyclists ignored them. Nonetheless the danger to cyclists is statistically very low.
I've never done parachuting but used to do a lot of rock climbing. That is only safe because of high training and operational standards. There is no way it can be like for like compared with cycling. I disagree about control over cycling in traffic. Done correctly (see Cyclecraft for example) you have a great deal of control, particularly of hazards from vehicles. Where there is less control is on rural roads.
If the design of the roundabout is such that you can't retain control of the risks from the traffic then that's good sense.
Strange, I find cycling after dark similar to during daylight, but with different specific hazards. If you'd said that around dusk and dawn there is more risk I'd have agreed, but it's still very low. I know plenty of people who avoid driving at night because they feel they can't handle the risks well. If you aren't comfortable, again it's good sense.
I wouldn't argue with anything in that (part of) sentence. I have little sympathy for any cyclist of the sort you describe who comes to grief. Fortunately most cyclists I see out at night in unlit placesare lit up well and very easily visible.
I was cycling in 1965, so were some others on this forum, when deaths were 5 times higher than now, and serious injuries also much higher. Cycle use at the time was higher, about +50% on 2011 (+75% on 2007 and the adjustment is from that). Even at 1965 figures cycling was a very safe activity.
SOURCE DOCUMENT
It's getting better, but not nearly fast enough.
Those pedestrian figures are awful. A minority cycle but nearly everyone has to walk sometimes.
Zero fatalities isn't feasible, a 90% reduction on the numbers in Greg's link should be possible.
The dangers for cyclists are road hazards, and cycling would cease to be safe if all cyclists ignored them. Nonetheless the danger to cyclists is statistically very low.
I've never done parachuting but used to do a lot of rock climbing. That is only safe because of high training and operational standards. There is no way it can be like for like compared with cycling. I disagree about control over cycling in traffic. Done correctly (see Cyclecraft for example) you have a great deal of control, particularly of hazards from vehicles. Where there is less control is on rural roads.
If the design of the roundabout is such that you can't retain control of the risks from the traffic then that's good sense.
Strange, I find cycling after dark similar to during daylight, but with different specific hazards. If you'd said that around dusk and dawn there is more risk I'd have agreed, but it's still very low. I know plenty of people who avoid driving at night because they feel they can't handle the risks well. If you aren't comfortable, again it's good sense.
I wouldn't argue with anything in that (part of) sentence. I have little sympathy for any cyclist of the sort you describe who comes to grief. Fortunately most cyclists I see out at night in unlit placesare lit up well and very easily visible.
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
Anyone kills me on the road, and I swear ill come back and haunt them!
I'm going to have to re-think this whole atheist thing. It's restricting my options.
I confess my rock climbing experience is mostly ab-sailing and assent scaling than proper mountain climbing , but its you and the rock
cycling apart from bad roads its other drivers who are the danger and they may not aim to kill you but will do it through carelessness or lack of awareness. impatience , to much speed.
you can be the best cyclist in the world and still be got by a stupid driver. I prefer mountain biking as I regard it as safer, I come off more but i,m landing in soft stuff generally and I'm not competing with a ton of steel.
I accept the risks are relatively low in the great scheme of things when cycling in traffic - but the consequences can be very high. and the more you do it , doesn't lessen the odds.
although you don,t see it much in this country the arm that sticks out from the bike with a reflector on is a very effective safety device, cars go round it giving you a greater area
you see them allot in Holland.
cycling apart from bad roads its other drivers who are the danger and they may not aim to kill you but will do it through carelessness or lack of awareness. impatience , to much speed.
you can be the best cyclist in the world and still be got by a stupid driver. I prefer mountain biking as I regard it as safer, I come off more but i,m landing in soft stuff generally and I'm not competing with a ton of steel.
I accept the risks are relatively low in the great scheme of things when cycling in traffic - but the consequences can be very high. and the more you do it , doesn't lessen the odds.
although you don,t see it much in this country the arm that sticks out from the bike with a reflector on is a very effective safety device, cars go round it giving you a greater area
you see them allot in Holland.
Similar threads
