Cyclist fatalities are on the rise

[dellzeqq]

sorry for the plug, but I think it's worthwhile

Safety in Numbers

CTC President and Channel 4 broadcaster Jon Snow launched CTC’s new ‘Safety in Numbers’ campaign in Parliament yesterday see video. MPs from all 3 main parties attended the launch. After a presentation from Chris Watts of the Department for Transport outlining the Government’s draft Road Safety Strategy, CTC’s Roger Geffen unveiled New CTC research showing that cycling gets safer the more cyclists there are - see our map of how different places in England compare for cycle use and cyclists’ safety. CTC urges all members to contact their MPs asking them to sign an Early Day Motion which has been tabled in support of CTC’s “Safety in Numbers” campaign. You can do this automatically with just a couple of clicks.

Basically you're a lot safer on a bike in London (and if we could do something about left turning lorries you'd be very, very safe). The increase in cycling has come in London - almost everywhere else it's flat or declining. The national figures are distorted, but in a way that you wouldn't neccessarily expect.

20mph zones, backed up by humps, decrease cycling deaths by 27% - and pedestrian deaths by 67%

 

[theboytaylor]

Also, here's another article that highlights the cherry-picking of the stats:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/08/cycling

And a fairly well-balanced comments section as well, for a change - don'tcha just love us thoroughly reasonable sandal-wearers.

 

[summerdays]

OK I've emailed my MP who is retiring at the next election I think. I'm not into politics to any depth... exactly what is an early day motion (simple version for thickies)?

Is the CTC going to repeat the same survey and see if there are any differences over time?

 

[semislickstick]

sorry for the plug, but I think it's worthwhile

Safety in Numbers

CTC President and Channel 4 broadcaster Jon Snow launched CTC’s new ‘Safety in Numbers’ campaign in Parliament yesterday see video. MPs from all 3 main parties attended the launch. After a presentation from Chris Watts of the Department for Transport outlining the Government’s draft Road Safety Strategy, CTC’s Roger Geffen unveiled New CTC research showing that cycling gets safer the more cyclists there are - see our map of how different places in England compare for cycle use and cyclists’ safety. CTC urges all members to contact their MPs asking them to sign an Early Day Motion which has been tabled in support of CTC’s “Safety in Numbers” campaign. You can do this automatically with just a couple of clicks.

Basically you're a lot safer on a bike in London (and if we could do something about left turning lorries you'd be very, very safe). The increase in cycling has come in London - almost everywhere else it's flat or declining. The national figures are distorted, but in a way that you wouldn't neccessarily expect.

20mph zones, backed up by humps, decrease cycling deaths by 27% - and pedestrian deaths by 67%

Apparently that video is set to private.

 

[buggi]

most all of the cyclists i meet don't like cycle lanes because of what i've said above (the imaginery protection that drivers think white lines gives us and the fact that they then don't pull out to overtake) so why does the CTC campaign for more cycle lanes, rather than tighter legislation about how to treat cyclists on the road??

 

[very-near]

most all of the cyclists i meet don't like cycle lanes because of what i've said above (the imaginery protection that drivers think white lines gives us and the fact that they then don't pull out to overtake) so why does the CTC campaign for more cycle lanes, rather than tighter legislation about how to treat cyclists on the road??

Perhaps because they feel that any empathy shown to cyclists must be good even if the efforts to improve the lot are misguided - right ?

I've given days over in the bin arguing that better driver training would improve safety for all but have been consistently been shouted down by those who don't understand that better driving standards through training covers all areas of driving, and not out in the arse end of nowhere.

+1 about your earlier post anyway. It made perfect sense to someone who previously thought cycle paths were a good move rather than a 'right on' way of treating those who have to use them.

 

[Pip]

I suspect if you got rid of cycle lanes you'd lose cyclists. Several of my collegues don't ride into work because 'there's no cycle lane and I don't want to ride on the road.' If there were cycle lanes there then they say they would. How true that is I don't know, but while I agree that current cycle lanes are far from ideal, I think the solution is improving them rather than doing away with them

However well trained and polite drivers become, to a nervous cyclist it's still a ton of metal on the same road space as them. That white line between them gives a (sometimes false) sense of security to some new cyclists.

 

[jonesy]

...
I've given days over in the bin arguing that better driver training would improve safety for all but have been consistently been shouted down by those who don't understand that better driving standards through training covers all areas of driving, and not out in the arse end of nowhere.

....

A complete misrepresentation of the argument in the bin. No-one has argued against the need for improved driving standards. No-one has disputed that additional training can provide some benefits (for all road users- hence CTC's support for Bikeability training). Nonetheless, there are limits as what training can achieve, indeed there is a risk that, done badly, training can lead people to over-estimate their skills and so take more risks; and the most aggressive drivers are going to be the most resistant to it anyway. What you have been shouted down for is your refusal to acknowledge that speed reduction also has an important role to play in both reducing the causation of accidents and their severity once they've occurred.

 

[very-near]

A complete misrepresentation of the argument in the bin. No-one has argued against the need for improved driving standards. No-one has disputed that additional training can provide some benefits (for all road users- hence CTC's support for Bikeability training). Nonetheless, there are limits as what training can achieve, indeed there is a risk that, done badly, training can lead people to over-estimate their skills and so take more risks; and the most aggressive drivers are going to be the most resistant to it anyway. What you have been shouted down for is your refusal to acknowledge that speed reduction also has an important role to play in both reducing the causation of accidents and their severity once they've occurred.

What you show is your ignorance of what the training involves. It is not about teaching people to drive or ride around a corner faster with more panache or gusto, it is about getting the driver/rider to acknowledge hazards, adjust their position and speed, and thus avoid having to take an emergency maneuver to avoid the two parties trying to share the same road space at the same time.

 

[very-near]

Lifted from the RoSPA website

Cycling Accidents - Facts and Figures - March 2009

ACCIDENT PATTERNS ( PDF format 102kb)

Every year in this country over 16,000 cyclists are killed or injured in reported road accidents, including around 2,500 who are killed or seriously injured.

Cyclist Casualties, 2007

Killed 136
Seriously Injured 2,428
Slightly Injured 13,631
Total 16,195
These are reported road accidents only. Between 60% to 90% of cyclist casualties are not reported, especially if the victim is a child and it is a bicycle-only accident. The above figures also exclude cycling accidents that occur away from the road, which could number as many as 150,000 per year.

About one quarter of the cyclists killed and injured are children. Cycling accidents increase as children grow older and peak at around 16 years. To some extent, this reflects increased cycling as children grow older followed by a switch to motorised transport from the late teens onwards. It also co-incides with the age when children attend Secondary school, and may indicate riskier behaviour by this age group.

Most cycling accidents happen in urban areas where most cycling takes place. Nearly three quarters happen at, or near, a road junction with T-junctions being the most commonly involved. Roundabouts are particularly dangerous junctions for cyclists.

Males are more likely to be involved in cycling accidents than females; four out of five cyclist casualties are male.

Around 80% of cycling accidents occur in daylight - which is when most cycling takes place. For child cyclists, 90% of their accidents occur during the day. The most dangerous hours for cyclists are 3.00 to 6.00 p.m. and 8.00 to 9.00 a.m. on weekdays.

More cycle accidents occur during the Spring and Summer months (May to September) than the Autumn and Winter months (October to April). However, the casualty rate in terms of miles travelled is higher over the Autumn and Winter period.

CYCLING ACCIDENTS

90% occur in urban areas
75% happen at, or near, a road junction
80% occur in daylight
80% of cyclist casualties are male
About one quarter of the cyclists killed or injured are children
Around three quarters of cyclists killed have major head injuries.
TYPES OF ACCIDENT

Accidents involving child cyclists are often the result of the child playing, doing tricks, riding too fast or losing. For teenage and adult cyclists, accidents are more likely to involve collisions with motor vehicles.

COMMON CYCLING ACCIDENTS

Child cyclist playing or riding too fast
Cyclist and motorist going straight ahead
Cyclist turning right from a major road and from a minor road
Motorist emerging into path of cyclist
Motorist turning across path of cyclist
Cyclist riding into the path of a motor vehicle, often riding off a pavement
Cyclist overtaking
INJURY PATTERNS

Limb Injuries
Over half of cyclist casualties suffer arm injuries and around 40% receive leg injuries. Serious leg injuries often require long stays in hospital.

Chest/Abdomen Injuries
Chest and abdomen injuries occur much less frequently (5%), but are often serious. When they do occur they are often accompanied by head injuries.

Head Injuries
Head injuries, ranging from fatal skull fractures and brain damage to minor concussion and cuts, are very common injuries to cyclists. Around half of the cyclists who go to hospital following an accident have head injuries.

Protecting Cyclists
A wide variety of measures can help to reduce the risk to cyclists:-

Cycle Route Networks
Traffic Calming Schemes
Improved Driver Awareness and Training
Cyclist Training
Conspicuity for Cyclists
Cycle Helmets

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/advice/cycling/cycling_accidents.htm

 

[MacB]

hmmm, I'd like to see the cycling accident stats broken out correctly when reported. There are certain types that will never apply to me and so the overall No's are misleading. I'm never going to suffer an accident from doing tricks etc.

I'd go so far as to say that trick cycling accidents should be a seperate category. Having watched some of the youtube footage of the guy in Scotland, this is more acrobatics with a bike than cycling. If the stats include folks that try these things it gives a very false image of cycling.

 

[buggi]

I suspect if you got rid of cycle lanes you'd lose cyclists. Several of my collegues don't ride into work because 'there's no cycle lane and I don't want to ride on the road.' If there were cycle lanes there then they say they would. How true that is I don't know, but while I agree that current cycle lanes are far from ideal, I think the solution is improving them rather than doing away with them

However well trained and polite drivers become, to a nervous cyclist it's still a ton of metal on the same road space as them. That white line between them gives a (sometimes false) sense of security to some new cyclists.

Such a shame isn't it, that people are under the impression that a cycle lane somehow protects you??? when it seems the exact opposite is true. I suspect that these colleagues would be more likely to ride to work if laws were imposed about the distance drivers need to overtake and drivers started to treat cyclists properly on the road, and then they wouldn't feel like they needed a lane to feel safe. A sentiment that i strongly stand by after riding to Paris and not having one near miss all the way through northern france (shame i couldn't say the same about southern england on the way).

on an up side ... i rode out to Stratford today and was SO impressed by a bus driver who waited patiently and passed me with loads of room when it was safe to do so. i am seriously considering writing to the company to point out what a great driver they have.

 

[jonesy]

What you show is your ignorance of what the training involves. It is not about teaching people to drive or ride around a corner faster with more panache or gusto, it is about getting the driver/rider to acknowledge hazards, adjust their position and speed, and thus avoid having to take an emergency maneuver to avoid the two parties trying to share the same road space at the same time.

Actually some training is all about how to control skids, how to corner etc, which is why there are concerns about risk compensation, which you'd know more about if you read that link to Injury Prevention article I posted yesterday.

As has been pointed out to you ad neaseum, no-one here is opposed to improved driver or cyclist training, but training is not mutually incompatible with other measures like speed reduction. But please let's have some hard evidence for the effectiveness of training and how it might be implemented on a large scale, especially on unwilling drivers. I don't know what you think you've proved with the RosPA link; no-where there does it tell us what percentage of those casualties might have been prevented with better training. You seem to assume that if an accident occurred because someone made a mistake then it follows automatically that better training could have prevented it. Why should this be the case? Dangerous driving isn't just about skill, it is also about attitude. Risk takers aren't necessarily going to take fewer risks just because they've been trained. Indeed, with risk compensation they might take more. And the worst risk takers are unlikely to be receptive to training in the first place.

 

[hackbike 666]

I like cycle lanes.Personal choice isn't it?

 

[Crankarm]

I like cycle lanes.Personal choice isn't it?

I like cycle lanes so much I'm a cyclepath .