Cleared of killing a cyclist

[dawesome]

It's about 30 times more dangerous per mile to cycle than to travel by car in the UK.

This is where the "vehciluar cycling" philosophy (i.e. that cyclists are basically vehicle users and must cycle among other motor vehicles) has left us after decades of fruitless campaigning by the UK cycle campaign establishment.

Only the application of the Dutch model will make London a safe, mass cycling city. That requires segregated cycle tracks on all major routes. Despite signing up up to "Going Dutch" Boris hasn't built a single centimetre of safe cycle track while mayor. Instead all we get is bluster.

Separating cyclists from motor vehicles isn't difficult. All it requires is the political will.

To go on expecting cycling to thrive in a city where innumerable drivers are talking on mobile phones, jumping red lights, speeding, and overtaking in a reckless and dangerous manner, is absurd. The sentences handed out to the worst kind of driver have been getting lighter, the government has removed the funding for speed cameras, and the police don't regard motoring crimes as "real" crimes. The Met has massively cut its traffic police and is a notoriously anti-cycling force, refusing to enforce cycle boxes at major junctions, turning a blind eye to road rage drivers even when caught on film, and treating cyclists generally with contempt. Road deaths also don't get anywhere near the same level of police resourcing as murders. The Met's poor record in tracking down hit and run killer drivers is another example of its car-centric agenda.

 

[dawesome]

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/tran...afer-says-family-of-dead-cyclist-7952577.html

 

[Accy cyclist]

A very reasonable response. I deleted much of it from this post simply because it is there for all to see and I don't want to fill the whole Internet.

You and I appear to disagree on the semantics of the meaning of the word 'accident', but that is not a big deal.

Certainly, the past few times I've been bowled off my bicycle, there was fault with one party or the other. All were accidents, but all would have been avoidable had the driver or I (or both of us) been paying a little more attention.

I'd thought you were suggesting some sort of malign intent on the part of many motorists who cause collisions with cyclists. That was what got my interest.

As you weren't, I think we're about a squillimetre away from having very similar views.

Ok!

 

[Kizibu]

The death reported in the OP is appalling and rightly makes us fearful and angry.

But reading this thread gives the impression that things are getting worse rather than better for cyclists on the road.

In fact the latest official figures are said to show fewer cyclist died on UK roads last year than the previous year though the opposite was true for pedestrians, drivers and passengers.


ROAD DEATHS IN 2010-11

• Car occupants: 883 (up 6%)
• Pedestrians: 453 (up 12%)
• Motorcyclists: 362 (down 10%)
• Cyclists: 107 (down 4%)

Source: Department of Transport

And if I read the stats correctly deaths and serious injuries to cyclists fell by over a quarter over the last decade:
111 cyclists were killed on GB roads in 2010 compared with an average of 146 a year between 1994 and 1998 ( a 40% decline)
And 2,660 were seriously injured in 2010 compared with 3,560 a year between 94 and 98 (25% drop - 26% overall for KSI)
See here

 

[dawesome]

You'd have to take into account cycling rates doubling in London over the last ten years. pedestrian and cyclist KSIs are sharply up in London.

 

[Kizibu]

You'd have to take into account cycling rates doubling in London over the last ten years. pedestrian and cyclist KSIs are sharply up in London.

I'd be interested to see the figures for the increased number of cyclists and the casualties that point to this.

If I understand them correctly, the official figures for reported accidents show cyclists killed or seriously injured in Greater London down from an average of 679 in the mid nineties to 490 in 2010. That's almost a 28% drop.

The figures for pedestrians killed or seriously injured in Greater London were 1,102 in 2010 compared with the mid nineties average of 2,728.

 

[snorri]

The death reported in the OP is appalling and rightly makes us fearful and angry.

But reading this thread gives the impression that things are getting worse rather than better for cyclists on the road.

Statistics can be interpreted in different ways, but both the IAM and CTC are expressing concerns.........
http://road.cc/content/news/61816-i...sts-calls-tougher-penalties-dangerous-drivers


and the CTC

CTC demands action following critical parliamentary report on cycle safety



CTC has called for concerted action after MPs have criticised Government policy on road safety, demanding stronger leadership on road safety and cycle safety in particular.



The Transport Select Committee report – published on Wednesday – comes after evidence sessions given by CTC earlier this year, and then by CTC President, Jon Snow, and Vice-President Josie Dew following the launch of The Times’s ‘Cities fit for cycling’ campaign. The report has highlighted the weaknesses in leadership from the Government on road safety in general, and on cycle safety in particular. Jon Snow told the Committee in May: “There is no leadership in Government in cycling at all. It is a completely neglected area.” [1]



CTC welcomes the Committee’s call for the Government to show stronger leadership on cycling, after recent evidence showed that the risk of cycling was rising. In one year alone there has been a 16% increase in serious injuries to cyclists - a far higher increase than the 2% increase in cycle use. Casualties also increased amongst other road user groups, with a 6% increase in car occupant serious injuries and a 12% increase in pedestrian fatalities. CTC has attributed the deterioration in road safety for all transport modes to a decline in road traffic policing and the consequence of the Government’s rhetoric of ‘ending the war on the motorist.’ [2]



CTC’s Campaigns Director Roger Geffen said: “With cycle casualties now increasing faster than cycle use and with worsening safety for other road users too, it is clear that the Government needs to show far stronger leadership on reducing danger on our roads. It is all very well asking local authorities to consider more 20mph limits, and providing the occasional spurt of funding for a few cycle-friendly junction improvements.”



He continued: “What is really needed is a concerted, properly funded action plan to get councils, police forces and the freight industry pulling together to reduce traffic speeds, ensure cycle-friendly design for all roads and junctions and reduce the threats from lorries. Police forces must give the safety of pedestrians and cyclists the priority it deserves.”

 

[Kizibu]

Statistics can be interpreted in different ways, but both the IAM and CTC are expressing concerns.........

CTC’s Campaigns Director Roger Geffen said:

He continued: “What is really needed is a concerted, properly funded action plan to get councils, police forces and the freight industry pulling together to reduce traffic speeds, ensure cycle-friendly design for all roads and junctions and reduce the threats from lorries. Police forces must give the safety of pedestrians and cyclists the priority it deserves.”

I agree that statistics are open to interpretation. But I'd be interested to see an explanation for how a 25% reduction is the numbers of cyclists recorded as killed and seriously injured over almost a decade when bike use is increasing actually represents an increase in the casualty rate.

But even if fewer cyclists really are being killed its still too many. So I fully support everything Roger Geffen says is needed - particularly if bikers and pedestrians are to play their part in reducing carbon emissions, road congestion and obesity. But I'm not in favour of distorting the facts, making out cycling to be more hazardous than it is or demonising car drivers. There is already enough rage about on the road without adding to it.

I am a cyclist and a car driver and I know I could benefit from better skills and concentration in both activities (and better designed roads). We all know some cyclists act stupidly or thoughtlessly just as some drivers do. ROSPA even put a figure on that:

"In collisions involving a bicycle and another vehicle, the most common key contributory
factor recorded by the police is failed to look properly by either the driver or rider, especially
at junctions. Failed to look properly was attributed to the car driver in 57% of serious
collisions and to the cyclist in 43% of serious collisions at junctions. "

 

[dawesome]

ROSPA even put a figure on that:

That gets quoted a fair bit. It's a flase conclusion, ROSPA use Stats 19 data- not designed to apportion blame.

Worldwide studies confirm cyclists are to blame for less than 20% of accidents involving a vehicle. Usually, it's the driver who is to blame. Makes sense when you think about it- cyclists don't want to collide with anything because the consequences willbe more serious than a scratched bumper.

 

[dawesome]

Why focusing just on Casualty Stats is giving the wrong picture;

Road safety: narrow focus on casualty statistics is misleading

Recording public perceptions of risk would give society a more holistic view on whether our roads are getting safer or not


Of course reducing the number of crashes and casualties is important. But the narrow focus on "crash remedial measures" and the quantifiable cost of serious accidents is highly misleading. There are many roads where I live where no cyclists dare venture because they are simply too dangerous. So the A25 across Kent is statistically "safe" for cyclists – but only because they all avoid it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2012/jul/18/road-safety-casualty-statistics

 

[Kizibu]

Why focusing just on Casualty Stats is giving the wrong picture;

I don't think focusing on actual casualty statistics would be as misleading as focusing upon a false premise that cycling casualties are rising if in fact they are falling.

If it is true that cycling deaths and serious injuries have gone down by a quarter in a decade, as the official statistics seem to indicate ( I say ' if ' since some seem to regard this as spurious though no contrary evidence has so far been produced here)... if it is true then surely the interesting question is why has this happened? And could that cause be replicated to save even more biker's lives?

Why has there been a drop in reported cycling casualties? I don't know and so far have yet to find anyone who has seriously acknowledged that it has happened let alone addressed the question why.

Dawesome's point about the A25 might be part of the answer. Maybe more cyclists have been intimidated off the main roads (or off the roads altogether) by road improvements aimed at allowing higher traffic speeds?

Or maybe the growth of cycling means more of those behind the steering wheeel know what its like to be behind the handlebars?

Or maybe it's the result of creating more cycle lanes or better road layouts?

Or maybe the greater use of hi-viz jackets and cycling helmets has contributed?

Or maybe it's greater safety awareness or improved road skills on the part of cyclists?

Maybe it's because more women are riding (80 per cent of bike casualties are men)?

Or maybe parents are restricting their children's bike riding more (20 per cent of casualties are children)?

Or maybe its not something anyone has done on purpose at all: could it be a result of increased congestion reducing urban traffic speeds (75% of bike accidents happen in urban areas but most cycling deaths occur on rural roads where collision speeds are higher on average).

Or maybe its the impact of flexi-time working on the hours of commuter riders (most bike accidents happen beween 8am and 9am or 3pm and 6pm)?

Who knows: but I suspect trying to find out would save more lives of cyclists than villifying motorists or rubbishing the stats. .

 

[snorri]

I don't think focusing on actual casualty statistics would be as misleading as focusing upon a false premise that cycling casualties are rising if in fact they are falling.
Who knows: but I suspect trying to find out would save more lives of cyclists than villifying motorists or rubbishing the stats. .

I don't believe anyone is rubbishing the statistics, if you look at the KSI figures for cycling you will see a steady increase over the last 4 years from 2428 in 2007 to 3085 in 2011.

 

[Kizibu]

I don't believe anyone is rubbishing the statistics, if you look at the KSI figures for cycling you will see a steady increase over the last 4 years from 2428 in 2007 to 3085 in 2011.

Thank you Snorri. Those figures are a more up to date set than the ones I was using and give a fuller picture..

There does appear to have been a steady decline in cycling deaths and serious injuries on the roads for a decade from the mid nineties. Then an apalling rise in serious injuries again (up 26% since 2005) cancelling the improvements since the mid nineties though cycling deaths continued to fall (down 16% from 130 in 2005 to 107 in 2011). All other road casualty categories without exception since 2005 showed a decline suggesting this is a very cycling specific phenomenon.

Given the increase is in serious injuries (most of which happen in urban areas) rather than cycling deaths (most of which happen on rural roads),is this a result of more people commuting by bike due to increased fuel costs over the past four years?

 

[snorri]

is this a result of more people commuting by bike due to increased fuel costs over the past four years?

IMV it's due to UK law and roads infrastructure offering poor protection to cyclists.

 

[dawesome]

Since I was a child brought up in a rural are there has been a massive reduction in pedstrians and cyclists using roads for getting around on. So the self-evident reason there has been this apparent drop in casualties, is not because roads have really become safer, but because most of the vulnerable road users are now too terrified to use them. Being terrified to use a road because it is perceived as being so dangerous is self-evidently not consistent with it being a safe road.

Guardian link upthread.

Biggest con ever, terrify people off the roads then cite lower ped/cyclist KSI rates as "proof" roads are safer.