20,000 cycle deaths and injuries on the road every year!

Home Forum Bike Forum 20,000 cycle deaths and injuries on the road every year!

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 76 total)
  • 20,000 cycle deaths and injuries on the road every year!
  • b r
    Member

    Anyone else see the slighty hysterical BBC Breakfast news story?

    Seems someone/group is out to reduce rural road speeds, not sure who, maybe Sustrans. But it tried to link the Bradley Wiggins crash with rural road speeds.

    Actual numbers…
    Cyclist Casualties, 2011
    Killed 107
    Seriously Injured 3,085
    Slightly Injured 16,023
    Total 19,215

    With the best will in the world you’ll have cycling deaths, even the Dutch do.

    http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/04/netherlands-traffic-deaths-down-again.html

    Yep, between 6 and 7 times here!

    mrmo
    Member

    there will always be accidents, but as i read that report at least the dutch numbers are falling, ours aren’t.

    Premier Icon DezB
    Subscriber

    Slightly Injured 16,023

    And thats just the reported ones!

    fourbanger
    Member

    Brake, the fake “road safety” organisation are driving this. They mistakenly think that speed is the key to road safety. I can see why, it’s easy to sell to the Dailyfail readers. I’m sure someone is doing well, but it’s not the road users, pedestrians, motorised, or cyclists.
    We should fight these liars, I’m just working out how.

    Premier Icon mikewsmith
    Subscriber

    I guess those trying to reduce rural road limits have either never left London or do 20mph round the Cotswolds. 40Mph probably terrifies them. We need better cyclists better drivers not more people plodding round getting ******* off

    Premier Icon DezB
    Subscriber

    We need better cyclists better drivers

    Maybe they know that just isn’t possible in this country, so they are looking at other avenues. Driving is getting worse.

    jonba
    Member

    If my googling is correct 179 soldiers died in Iraq. They were there for many years fighting a war with people trying to kill them.

    Compare that to one year on the roads and cycling seems to have a fairly high death rate.

    The idea that 107 people should die just trying to get somewhere or out for a fun ride is horrific. These aren’t statistics these are mothers, fathers, children etc.

    http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.nl/2009/11/cycling-against-car-culture.html

    carbon337
    Member

    If we can solve the problem of the motorist thinking they have more right to the road then cyclists then we have it solved. Also get them to realise they have no right to be past cyclists.

    From my experience the main problem seems to be cars trying to squeeze through between a cyclist on their side and an oncoming car. This is on rural roads. Cities tend to have wider roads in a lot of circumstances.

    Dont ride in the gutter – it encourages it.

    Papa_Lazarou
    Member

    I support reductions in speed limits on the basis that if shit drivers are moving more slowly, both them and other road users have more time to react, plus the consequences of any accidents are less significant.

    I had a near miss this weekend when a driver pulled straight of the local supermarket onto the traffic island I was turning right on. She missed by an inch.

    Me: Use your eyes for **** sake.
    She: Sorry I couldn’t see the sun was in my eyes.
    Me: Stop and have a look then. Why did you pull out if you couldn’t see what was coming.?

    Folks need to take a few more seconds at junctions.

    Premier Icon zbonty
    Subscriber

    Re the primary position/not in the gutter approach. I find there is an unhealthy number of drivers which find this antagonistic to the point where they ‘must’ squeeze by/pass even closer regardless. Its the old cyclist has less of a right to be there mentality which is at the heart of the problem.
    I feel in greater danger when in that primary position from being mown down tbh.

    zangolin
    Member

    With the best will in the world you’ll have cycling deaths, even the Dutch do.
    http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/04/netherlands-traffic-deaths-down-again.html
    Yep, between 6 and 7 times here!

    br – did you mean there were 6 or 7 times more cyclists killed in Holland? Then if yes – you misread the article.
    Holland stats from that article
    2009 – 185 cyclists killed
    2010 – 162 cyclists killed

    I suspect that if these figures were matched to thousands of miles ridden by cyclists or total number of cyclists etc, then the overall proportion or ratio of deaths might well me lower than here in the UK?

    Still 2 many though.

    Premier Icon DezB
    Subscriber

    Me: Stop and have a look then. Why did you pull out if you couldn’t see what was coming.?

    Her: Well the law says it’s not my fault if the sun’s in my eyes, so it doesn’t matter if you’re in my way.

    Premier Icon Mr Agreeable
    Subscriber

    between 6 and 7 times here!

    Not when you adjust for the number of journeys made by bike in NL. Or the number of elderly people riding bikes. Or the fact that they’re very hot on counting solo accidents in traffic stats.

    There’s also the small matter of the overall health of the population. Even in the UK, not cycling (or doing some other regular form of exercise) is pretty much guaranteed to affect when you die, whereas getting knocked off by a car is a much more remote possibility.

    sbob
    Member

    I support reductions in speed limits on the basis that if shit drivers are moving more slowly, both them and other road users have more time to react, plus the consequences of any accidents are less significant.

    I believe that drumming the mantra “speed kills” into people has had the effect that people now equate speed above the posted limit with danger, and conversely, speed below the limit with safety.
    I’ve heard it more than once after an accident:
    “Ooh, but I wasn’t speeding”
    as if that is the only metric with which we can measure safe driving.

    If you remove the need for people to be responsible for their actions, then they will stop being responsible for their actions.
    💡

    Scrap speed limits.
    Scrap cycle lanes.
    Scrap all the paint on the roads.
    Scrap traffic lights.
    Scrap pedestrian crossings.
    Start prosecuting when RTCs do occur.

    Make it so people have to think about their road use, and they will think about their road use, not creep along, blinkers on, with the sound of cyclists being clipped off the wing drowned out by the incessant tones of Jeremy “No you’re not a serious **** journalist” Vine.

    ti_pin_man
    Member

    theres really no avoiding it… cycling is coming into the news, cycling has now reached levels where friction occurs and is news, world champions are knocked off bikes, TdF winners are knocked off bikes, we’re winning olympic medals, the debate on safety is inevitable, the debate amongs the public and now politicians is happening… on balance I think this is good thing. Fingers crossed.

    Premier Icon DezB
    Subscriber

    Make it so people have to think about their road use

    Yeah, like that’d work. Most of the drivers I see can’t even get it right even when there are rules to follow FFS

    sbob
    Member

    Yeah, like that’d work. Most of the drivers I see can’t even get it right even when there are rules to follow FFS

    Ignoring the fact that we have some of the safest roads in the world already, it does work and has been shown to work.
    💡

    Premier Icon DezB
    Subscriber

    Where?
    Anyway, I won’t be able to prove you wrong because your nice theory will never become reality. But it wouldn’t work IN REALITY.

    abductee
    Member


    London Cycle Campaign

    This doesn’t really sell the speed limit solution to me but if people drove more slowly then maybe they would have more time to make the necessary observations? Also collisions would be less likely to be fatal.

    I think it’s fear of prosecution or an insurance claim that’s most likely to get people to modify their behaviour.

    As both a cyclist and a car driver but putting my car driver hat on for a moment. I would find strict liability a more paletable solution than lower speed limits.

    Premier Icon irc
    Subscriber

    With the best will in the world you’ll have cycling deaths, even the Dutch do.

    About a third of the UK rate per KM though.

    the Netherlands has 1.1 cycle deaths per 100m kilometres cycled, whereas the UK has three times as many: 3.6 fatalities per 100m kilometres cycled.

    From this Times article

    Premier Icon Mr Agreeable
    Subscriber

    Scrap speed limits.
    Scrap cycle lanes.
    Scrap all the paint on the roads.
    Scrap traffic lights.
    Scrap pedestrian crossings.
    Start prosecuting when RTCs do occur.

    So we’ll be pretty much back in the situation we were in the 1930s then?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reported_Road_Casualties_Great_Britain#Annual_summary

    And no, I don’t think drivers have become noticeably less reluctant to prosecute other drivers in that time. The cultural attitude to motoring is still to treat it as a fundamental human right, rather than being in control of a scary bit of machinery.

    sbob
    Member

    Where?
    Anyway, I won’t be able to prove you wrong because your nice theory will never become reality. But it wouldn’t work IN REALITY.

    Shouting doesn’t make you less wrong, it just makes you more obviously so.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space

    sbob
    Member

    So we’ll be pretty much back in the situation we were in the 1930s then?

    No, and I’m really not sure how you can come to that conclusion.

    And no, I don’t think drivers have become noticeably less reluctant to prosecute other drivers

    We need the police to start prosecuting when someone’s driving falls so far below standard that an accident occurs, not prosecuting drivers who are driving safely without incident.

    I’m not sure where private prosecutions come into this.

    So the guy who drives at high speed down my road every single morning, causing people to take evasive action, should be left alone.

    FIFY –
    We need the police to start prosecuting when someone’s driving falls below standard as a matter of course. When an accident occurs a prosecution and points on licence should be the norm even for minor incidents, rather than an exception, so that people who are repeatedly causing danger to others are banned from driving.

    joao3v16
    Member

    If anything else was responsible for a fraction of the deaths and injuries caused by motoring there would be massive public outcry and it’d be banned … but somehow road deaths/injuries seem to have become almost acceptable, just part of normal daily life

    Just one of the items on my “why people are stupid” list 😀

    aP
    Member

    A road I cross every day is notorious for speeding. It’s a 30 but drivers regularly do 40-45. It makes it hard to walk across the road safely, it’s hard to come out from a side road on a bike safely and it’s hard to pull out in a car safely because you find some arsehole tooling round the corner at 45. What it means is that every user of this road HAS to be aggressive because you can’t rely on any other user to be abiding by the speed limit. This moronic notion that driver’s (and I’m constantly amazed by the number of cyclists on here that **** [edit – refers to onanism] off constantly about it) are able to determine a safe speed to drive at is patently untrue because by driving at 10-15 mph over the limit they cause a total and complete change in the way every other road user acts on those roads.

    Premier Icon Mr Agreeable
    Subscriber

    putting my car driver hat on for a moment. I would find strict liability a more paletable solution than lower speed limits.

    They have strict liability in Italy, and it’s done nothing to reduce road deaths – in fact you can see it in that diagram you posted.

    If it was introduced (over the dead bodies of the motor lobby and the right-wing press) I don’t think it’d hurt, but it’s not going to solve anything by itself.

    Premier Icon Mr Agreeable
    Subscriber

    We need the police to start prosecuting when someone’s driving falls so far below standard that an accident occurs, not prosecuting drivers who are driving safely without incident.

    I’m not sure where private prosecutions come into this.

    Serious motoring offences are still tried by jury:

    http://road.cc/content/news/60396-coach-driver-cleared-causing-death-cumbrian-cycling-brothers

    Trial by jury for less serious motoring offences was abolished in 1977 due to the abysmal conviction rates even in clear-cut cases. When over 50% of a jury can place themselves in that situation and visualise themselves making the same mistakes, it drastically reduces the odds of conviction.

    Even after that step was taken, there’s still a big bias in favour of drivers throughout the entire judicial system. Read that article on the Cycling Silk blog linked above, it’s horrible.

    pingu66
    Member

    I think better driving standards are required. Additionally plans to alleviate driver frustration which leads to drivers making ill judged decisions. Wether thats making public transport a)viable and b)affordable is something that I fear will never happen.

    Also better cycling standards. How many of those injuries are from cyclists putting themselves in harms way? Running lights, poor position in the road or squeezing though gaps that are not there?

    Running lights

    The usual suspects. Strange that when you hear about cycling injuries this never seems to be the cause. SMIDSY, head on or sideswipe through bad overtaking, loss of control due to excessive speed, left turning lorries yes but I’ve never heard “the cyclist jumped the light into the path of an oncoming car”. The Dutch widely use ‘head start lights’ to let cyclists get away ahead of traffic to improve safety.

    Poor position

    Gutter or primary? A hard choice at the moment – take primary and you risk punishment passes or just outright aggression. I’ve had both in the last few weeks.

    Premier Icon Mr Agreeable
    Subscriber

    How many of those injuries are from cyclists putting themselves in harms way? Running lights, poor position in the road or squeezing though gaps that are not there?

    Surprisingly few, considering the poor standard of cycling that most people observe on their commutes. Boris got it badly wrong.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2012/oct/04/boris-johnson-cycling-accident-statistics-wrong

    Premier Icon bails
    Subscriber

    Gutter or primary? A hard choice at the moment – take primary and you risk punishment passes or just outright aggression. I’ve had both in the last few weeks.

    Quite. To blame cyclists for being run over because they weren’t riding far enough out to deter a driver from making a dangerous overtake is madness. The fact that we need to take primary through pinch points etc is a sign that driving standards are too low. It’s up to the driver not to start an overtaking move that can’t be completed safely.

    Premier Icon P7Pro
    Subscriber

    fourbanger – The Yorkshire version of Look North had reducing the speed limit to 20mph as their lead article earlier in the week. Brake wheeled out some poor woman whos daughter had been killed by someone driving at 40mph in a 30mph zone. They then used this as the reason to reduce the limit to 20mph.

    All organisations who are concerned with road safety should focus on improving driving standards, not just aim to reduce the speed limit.

    Premier Icon irc
    Subscriber

    If anything else was responsible for a fraction of the deaths and injuries caused by motoring there would be massive public outcry and it’d be banned .

    So how come smoking and alcohol are still legal then?

    kcr
    Member

    The approach of removing conventional road markings, signs and controls is an interesting one. In “Traffic” the author describes a Dutch experiment with this which improved both safety and traffic flow.
    I think Westminster reduced accident rates by taking away pedestrian barriers along the edge of pavements. The suggestion was that people drive more carelessly when they think there are safety measures in place to protect other road users. Anecdotally, I have experienced road junctions where the traffic lights failed, and everyone had to slow right down and work out what the other road users were doing, in order to negotiate the junction safely; it seemed to work quite well!

    This is not just about cyclists. About 10 people a day die on UK roads, so reducing that number benefits motorists and non motorists. Achieving that will involve lots of different changes. Personally, I think reducing speed is part of the solution. There is a general culture of driving as fast as you can get away with in this country, and too many people do not bother to drive at a speed that is appropriate for the conditions, so I think generic limits are inevitable.

    jonba
    Member

    Retesting after 10 years or after being caught doing anything you shouldn’t would be a good start.

    Premier Icon irc
    Subscriber

    This is not just about cyclists. About 10 people a day die on UK roads,

    Actually about 5 people are killed on the roads every day

    Yes there is room for improvement but the UK’s roads are among the safest in the world.

    FunkyDunc
    Member

    there will always be accidents, but as i read that report at least the dutch numbers are falling, ours aren’t.

    Fair enough, but I see more and more cyclist on the road, have the figures been adjusted accordingly?

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 76 total)

The topic ‘20,000 cycle deaths and injuries on the road every year!’ is closed to new replies.

Comments are closed, but trackbacks are open.

Skip to top