More than 32,000 people have died on British roads in the past 10 years

[StuartG]

In London - fatalities have dropped markedly over the period. Particulary for motorists - in better protected cars. Pedestrians have fallen too - better protected behind those steel barriers? Bikers/Cyclists are taking increased hits (or at least propotionately - the maps don't give actual numbers). So cars are getting safer, pavements are getting safer - despite pavement cyclists. But roads paradoxically are getting more dangerous for anyone without some sheet steel between them and the next guy?

 

[dellzeqq]

it only tells a portion of the story. Your chances of getting killed while cycling per thousand miles are lower in London than anywhere else in the country. (And that is a crap sentence, but hopefully it can be understood...)

 

[dellzeqq]

I don't think they are. The death rate/mileage for cyclists is lower in London than in the rest of the country. You run a far higher risk cycling 1000 miles on rural roads than in London.

The really striking thing is that cycling deaths in London are almost all attributable to lorries, and particular types of lorries at that.

 

[dellzeqq]

I go through Newdigate frequently - some of you will have been through it on the FNRttC to Bognor. I doubt that cars exceed 30mph there because the road is too narrow. I also doubt that a 20mph speed limit will be introduced unless the people of Newdigate ask for it. If they do ask for it then it seems reasonable to apply it.

 

[ComedyPilot]

it only tells a portion of the story. Your chances of getting killed while cycling per thousand miles are lower in London than anywhere else in the country. (And that is a crap sentence, but hopefully it can be understood...)

Is that because in London you're not likely to ride thousands of miles, like out here in the sticks?

 

[dellzeqq]

no

 

[very-near]

You're missing the point. This is a cycling forum. The risk we're worried about is the risk of death or injury from *other* road users, who may choose to impose it on us. We choose for ourselves whether to eat a bacon buttie.

If you look at the interactive road map and the associated stats, you will see that the very vast majority of KSI's are not cyclists or Pedestrians, but the car drivers themselves -http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=50698

As being hit from behind on a cycle is actually a fairly rare occurence, I'd suggest you consider using the primary position more to skew the odds if you are that worried about a car hitting you off at either 50mph or 60mph - either one is going to hurt if they do.

 

[very-near]

In London - fatalities have dropped markedly over the period. Particulary for motorists - in better protected cars. Pedestrians have fallen too - better protected behind those steel barriers? Bikers/Cyclists are taking increased hits (or at least propotionately - the maps don't give actual numbers). So cars are getting safer, pavements are getting safer - despite pavement cyclists. But roads paradoxically are getting more dangerous for anyone without some sheet steel between them and the next guy?

I think that the reduction in deaths for pedestrian is down to the improvements in car safety, and nothing to do with what goes on on the pavements.

 

[StuartG]

The death rate/mileage for cyclists is lower in London than in the rest of the country. You run a far higher risk cycling 1000 miles on rural roads than in London.

With respect that is not relevant. In London what is the direction of travel on road incidents? That is when two or more vehicles/people come in serious contact. I would read these figures to say upward with the consequences becoming more concentrated on two wheel riders. Two wheeled rider/miles is increasing so that has to be discounted. Bottom line is risk of death and (IMHO more importantly) serious injury per mile increasing/decreasing?

Same for rural roads. Safer or less safe for cyclists than 10 years ago? Comparing the two is not that helpful as you admit the nature of who causes what to whom is rather different in all areas.

We should surely concentrate on making things (relatively) better.

 

[dellzeqq]

if I understood that I'd respond. But I don't

Except for the last sentence. Knowing that it's construction traffic that kills London cyclists is a step on the way to doing something about it

 

[StuartG]

Apologies Del. I'll rephrase my question as I am hoping you will save me hours of Googling by having the answer.

Is the the fatality & injury rates of cyclists and bikers measured per mile travelled in London rising or falling? Same for rural roads?

Sorry I find English difficult.

 

[yenrod]

From what I could see for my area - the highest times for fatalities are 10-11pm and subsequently 5-6pm..

 

[dellzeqq]

the apologies should be mine - I was being lazy.

Casualties per bike mile in London have dropped. That's the very good news. The better news is that the more people cycle the more the casualties per bike mile drop. The really fantastically wonderful news is that if you strip out one particular type of incident the casualties per bike mile don't so much drop as fall off a cliff.

The bad news is that, collectively, we lack the political will to do anything about that one particular type of accident - and there is plenty that we could do.

 

[StuartG]

To continue the lazy theme Del - could you kindly point me to the statistics on the construction traffic issue. I can then be out of everybody's hair as I really do prefer crunching numbers to putting words together.

TIA

 

[very-near]

From what I could see for my area - the highest times for fatalities are 10-11pm and subsequently 5-6pm..

Pub kicking out time, or when people are thinking about their stomachs