[Closed] BBC Breakfast: Should helmets for cyclists be made compulsory

and drivers staring at the speedo for fear of getting a ticket

andytherocketeer - Member

and drivers staring at the speedo for fear of getting a ticket

i'm not very good at driving, sticking to speed limits is not hard.

Merely an observation that interested me

I for one am glad I always wear a helmet, being sideswiped passing a junction and landing head-first in the middle of the road could have resulted in far more than a broken leg. Funnily enough the father-in-law popped out and bought a helmet soon after the incident.

What gets my goat is kids (see what I did there 😆 ) hanging them off the handlebars- even worse- parents putting lids on their little darlings and not bothering themselves, what message is that sending?!?

Cheers,
Jamie

3 month ban for using a hand held mobile. 3 month ban for speeding.

one rule I have tho if you take your pads in the car to the start of a ride don't leave them there, make sure you put them on or sods law states you will crash.

I think I'll adopt that rule 🙂

even worse- parents putting lids on their little darlings and not bothering themselves, what message is that sending

that people have choices in their lives & the risk assessment of adults pootling along with their kids is that the adults are much less likely to fall off & bump their heads whilst out riding bikes perhaps*

* alternative conclusions are available

What gets my goat is kids (see what I did there ) hanging them off the handlebars- even worse- parents putting lids on their little darlings and not bothering themselves, what message is that sending?!?

The message that children are less steady on two wheels than adults? I made my kids wear nappies when small, but didn't myself. I also don't allow them to drink alcohol.

Or are you worried that they're sending the message that cycling is dangerous, when it really isn't? Because that's probably a valid worry.

[quoteI think ratherbeintobago tried to make a bullet point list

Sorry 😳

So they don't want the little darlings to have a little bump to the head when going for a pottle on the footpath. Would they be happy for them to be knocked over and potentially suffer head injury as teenagers because they looked at mum and dad not wearing a lid so did the same?

Cheers,
Jamie

even worse- parents putting lids on their little darlings and not bothering themselves, what message is that sending

Tricky one that.

Kids have much softer heads (skull not fused yet), and are way more likely to manage to hurt themselves while doing 5mph along a completely flat traffic-free path.

But explaining that to a grumpy 3 year old is tricky.

One of the main reasons I recently got a helmet, after not bothering with one for ages, was to avoid the [i]"but you don't wear one daddy"[/i] discussion. 😀

cycling is dangerous, when it really isn't

Cheers,
Jamie

Would they be happy for them to be knocked over and potentially suffer head injury as teenagers because they looked at mum and dad not wearing a lid so did the same?

Emotive as always. 😕

Would you be happy for your teenagers to break their neck because you never wore a neck brace?

Or not be seen by a car because you never wore a fluoro high-viz vest and helmet cover?

Dunno about you, but when I was a teenager (about 25 years ago) no one wore helmets.

to avoid the "but you don't wear one daddy" discussion

The same with lifejackets in boats, IMHO.

I want Little Miss CFH to grow up thinking it's just normal to wear a helmet on a bike or skis. Not to compel her to wear one, or to legislate for that, but more to just make it a perfectly normal thing to do.

(previous page is fixed now by the way)

So they don't want the little darlings to have a little bump to the head when going for a pottle on the footpath.

Very sensible. Little kids are prone to falling over, their skulls are soft, and they will be travelling at the sorts of speeds helmets are effective at. They're also not old enough to make their own risk assessment.

Would they be happy for them to be knocked over and potentially suffer head injury as teenagers because they looked at mum and dad not wearing a lid so did the same?

see above. 99% of the time cycling is safe- it just takes one old duffer not looking for you to be spread on the tarmac and be on crutches for 5 months. I'm glad didn't have to recover from major head trauma as well.

problem is that you don't know that the helmet did anything, you can guess it did but you don't know. People have been falling out of trees for milenia and the human race is still around. Heads are stronger than you think.

In your case, should the "old duffer" have been driving? what punishment did he receive, what re-education, retesting, etc etc. If you take the recent case where a driver killed a second cyclist, if he had been banned after the first death there would not have been a second death. How many drivers squeeze by at pedestrian refuges? What would make cycling safer banning drivers form attempting stupid manouvres or making them where a helmet?

I, like most people, would rather not be hit in the first place than worry about whether i have a broken arm, jaw, skull etc, after being hit and whether i should have been wearing a neck brace, helmet, pressure suit, etc to reduce the injuries.

see above. 99% of the time cycling is safe- it just takes one old duffer not looking for you to be spread on the tarmac and be on crutches for 5 months. I'm glad didn't have to recover from major head trauma as well.

Much like walking, then.

Dunno about you, but when I was a teenager (about 25 years ago) no one wore helmets.

[img] [/img]

Much like walking, then.

Cheers,
Jamie

Not quite, no. You don't tend to share the same space as traffic traveling upto 60/70mph.

Because cars never mount the pavement? And pedestrians never cross the road?

Instead of legislating for the compulsory wearing of helmets, I wonder if a more gentle tack would work- would supplying a helmet with every new bike, by law, encourage more people to use them?

Cheers,
Jamie

Would they be happy for them to be knocked over and potentially suffer head injury as teenagers because they looked at mum and dad not wearing a lid so did the same?

I spent a lot of time & effort making sure that my kids were properly trained & they did a lot of cycling with me before I let them ride their bikes around on their own*, at no time did I insist that they wore helmets - my choice & no emotive judgement statements necessary thanks.

* as all teenage boys they still did effing stupid stuff that could have killed or seriously wounded them

I want Little Miss CFH to grow up thinking it's just normal to wear a helmet on a bike or skis. Not to compel her to wear one, or to legislate for that, but more to just make it a perfectly normal thing to do.

Good idea. That's the approach we take.

Most sports don't have this kind of hangups about safety equippment. Only cycling and rock climbing seem to do it. Does anyone really complain about life jackets when doing water sports?

Not quite, no. You don't tend to share the same space as traffic traveling upto 60/70mph.

And yet the risk of death per mile is [url= http://road.cc/content/news/68212-dft-casualty-statistics-rank-driving-cycling-walking-and-motorcycling-risk ]roughly the same for walking[/url] as it is for cycling.

(With a large proportion of deaths caused by cars on the pavement!)

Not quite anicdotal, however im sure i read a report from NZ that said that there was no drop in the loss of life regards cycling with complusary helmets. However they could not say what % had been saved from brain damage as a result due to it being so hard to quantify.
As previously pointed out generally if you get hit over a certain speed its gonna cause damage to all parts of the body.
I personally have had an off on the road and my helmet saved me from a nasty head injury. Also had many off road spills where the helmet has taken the brunt.
Off road i'm taking measures to protect myself from myself. On road i'm taking measures to protect me from others.
My kids think its great wearing helmets as its part of the gear Daddy wears!
I dont buy the making helmets complusary will reduce cycling numbers either.

I want Little Miss CFH to grow up thinking it's just normal to wear a helmet on a bike or skis.

I think this is a good plan. If they've only ever worn a helmet then in theory they shouldn't suffer from the same risk compensation that we do.

(Of course they still face risk compensation by drivers etc but there isn't much you can do about that)

Because cars never mount the pavement? And pedestrians never cross the road?

Cheers,
Jamie

Most sports don't have this kind of hangups about safety equippment. Only cycling and rock climbing seem to do it. Does anyone really complain about life jackets when doing water sports?

We're not really talking about 'sports' cycling in general though are we. We want cycling to be part of everyday life surely - occasional sports participation isn't the same thing.

I was watching one of those 'fail' compilations with some friends the other day - they showed various people doing all sorts of stupid stuff, but it was only when they were on bikes and not wearing helmets that they would get called 'idiots'.

Jumping off a building with no helmet = fine. Jumping off a building on a bike with no helmet = idiot.

Makes no sense whatsoever but that's how we've been conditioned to think.

If they've only ever worn a helmet then in theory they shouldn't suffer from the same risk compensation that we do.

(Of course they still face risk compensation by drivers etc but there isn't much you can do about that)

The other point which seems to be based on the fact that drivers aim for cyclists with helmets on despite not seeing cyclists most of the time.

We're not really talking about 'sports' cycling in general though are we. We want cycling to be part of everyday life - occasional sports participation isn't the same thing.

+1 exactly & I don't want to have to put a helmet on & carry it round the shop when I cycle down to the local co op

I wonder if a more gentle tack would work- would supplying a helmet with every new bike, by law, encourage more people to use them?

Do the same with cars, and I'll agree completely.

Of course cars mount the pavement sometimes near pedestrians, just very rarely. And of course you cross the road, but it's not that same as riding for miles and miles in exactly the same space as as cars! The point is you've far more exposure to idiots in cars on a bike in the road than pedestrians.

The risk to pedestrians is about the same as the risk to cyclists. So yes, it is the same.

Most sports don't have this kind of hangups about safety equippment

Is cycling a sport though?

If your racing, training etc then i agree it is a sport, and as most governing bodies expect you to use helmets in competition it makes sense in training.

But

Is riding to the shops sport? If it is, then is walking a sport afterall there are walk races. Is driving a sport, look how much car racing appears on TV and those rally cars and touring cars look very much like the cars you and i drive everyday? So it must be a dangerous activity???

I dont buy the making helmets complusary will reduce cycling numbers either.

Look at the experience in Australia:

"I believe we'd be better off without it [compulsory helmet laws]"

"I think we should trial repealing the legislation to see what happens if we don't have to wear helmets all the time, and I don't think you'll get the massive increases in adverse events that people fear"

"We saw [b]a drop in ridership when the legislation was introduced of about 30 per cent[/b] and this actually makes it less safe for the rest of the cyclists, because there's this safety in numbers phenomenon."

-- [url= http://road.cc/content/news/21503-strewth-aussie-academic-calls-repeal-countrys-compulsory-bike-helmet-laws ]Associate Professor Dr Chris Rissel, School of Public Health at Sydney University[/url]

We're not really talking about 'sports' cycling in general though are we. We want cycling to be part of everyday life surely - occasional sports participation isn't the same thing.

Which is what they do in Denmark and Holland... cycling is just the default mode of transport.

In your case, should the "old duffer" have been driving? what punishment did he receive

Cheers,
Jamie

(snip) not all of us go in for risk compensation though. Just prefer to protect the brain if something bad happens..

Is that not the risk compensation that you don't go in for?

Is riding to the shops sport?

I grew up taking a boat to the shops, instead of a car/bike/walk. I know that as a kid, I saw my parents not wearing lifejackets for that same journey, and just assumed that they were obviously something that onlychildren wore. Hence, when I got a little older, I wanted to [i]not [/i]wear one when I was blatting the Dory across to the shops. Pretty much the same as Graham's point earlier, "Why don't you wear one, Daddy?".

Always worn one for sailing, though. Never any desire not to!

The risk to pedestrians is about the same as the risk to cyclists.

Cheers,
Jamie

Does anyone really complain about life jackets when doing water sports?

Depending on the watersport, yes. I was quite happy with the small amount of floatation offered by my windsurfing harness instead of the bulky lifejacket I had, even knowing it wasn't going to be as effective. If I was sailing a yacht I may not bother with a lifejacket at all, but I wouldn't canoe without one.

Therein lies the problem: "cycling" covers all manner of activities from racing down the Fort William course to riding in a large peloton to pootling along a canal towpath. There lies a HUGE difference in risk along that spectrum of activities.

I wonder how many of those pedestrians are kids running out into traffic, rather than cycling safely on a cycle lane to and from school

Why don't you find out and tell us, rather than constructing hypothetical scenarios to mask the lack of evidence for your position?

The other point which seems to be based on the fact that drivers aim for cyclists with helmets on despite not seeing cyclists most of the time.

There is [url= http://www.drianwalker.com/overtaking/ ]good evidence[/url] that drivers do pass more closely to cyclists wearing helmets.

This strongly [i]suggests[/i] that drivers treat cyclists differently if they are wearing a helmet.

Common sense really - if you were driving and had to pass someone on a bike who was casually dressed, looked a bit wobbly, and didn't have a helmet on then you'd probably be more cautious than when passing a head-down lycra'd up roadie. I know I would.
That's third-party risk compensation right there.

Why don't you find out and tell us, rather than constructing hypothetical scenarios to mask the lack of evidence for your position?

Cheers,
Jamie

GrahamS.

I take you point with the AUZ stats, However i'm more thinking of it in a different cultural mentality. I dont think that 30% of cyclist hit the roads without helmets in this country. On my weekend road rides probably 5% on my commute 10% off road cant remember seeing any one without a helmet. (Personal expirence not fact. no flaming required)
Also same in germany and denmark. Cycling is not perceived as dangerous as there are so many cyclists. Drivers are more likely to be cyclists themselves so have more patience and have more awareness. We have a problem in this country with the perception of cyclists and lack of regard most drivers have for the space and speed.
I do feel like i've got a massive target on me when i put my hi vis gear on. That i dont understand! And bus drivers!

I wasn't aware I had to cite references for every post on here

Really? On a helmet debate? Are you new here or something? 😉 😆

Oh, I am sorry, I wasn't aware I had to cite references for every post on here. I suppose you want a bibliography for every conversation in you have in the pub do you?!?

Ok, so it's just something you made up. We'll dispense with it then.

Been having the same argument on the Spokes facebook page. Think this is one of these situations where peoples personal experience (in their own minds) will always trump any analytical, evidence based approach. I've given up arguing the point.

That's third-party risk compensation right there.

So, is it enough to take off my helmet to be safer? Or do I need to weave about all over the road too? In the interests of safety, of course.

This point got my attention on the 1st page (before the maelstrom of bullshit and statistical ****tery):

hjghg5 - Member
I'm not in favour of compulsion, but I'd see some merit in a compromise - compulsory helmets on roads with higher speed limits (maybe kicking in above 40?) With the flip side being more 20mph limits (ie reducing the limit on the roads where helmets aren't required). No helmets required onoff road cycle paths/bridleways/anywhere with no cars.

I see where you are going and I think ultimately, agreed compromises probably makes sense but the set of compromises above is perhaps skewed slightly the wrong way, @40Mph+ helmets will be of diminishing protective benefit, in a collision with a car obeying the limit in a 20Mph zone a helmet has a better chance of being effective...

I don't think compulsory wearing of a helmet should be brought in, perhaps a good compromise would be compulsory inclusion of a [U]basic[/U] helmet (compliant with BS EN 1078) in the sale of any bicycle as well as including appropriate literature (supplied by DFT?) providing some basic pointers for "safe cycling on the road", correct fitting and adjustment of a helmet, sources for further information, and contact information for organisations that provide training, this does push some of the responsibility off onto bike shops, but their role is only to supply equipment and information allowing the cyclist to make an informed decision on their own PPE.

edit - beat me to it:

Instead of legislating for the compulsory wearing of helmets, I wonder if a more gentle tack would work- would supplying a helmet with every new bike, by law, encourage more people to use them?

Cheers,
Jamie

I'm sure there are issues with that suggestion but it seems more reasonable and Compulsion / conditional compulsion would be unenforcable, and simply used as a diversionary tactic for dangerous drivers trying to dodge a harsher sentence...

[I]"Yes M'lud I was traveling at twice the speed limit, Yapping on my phone and half pissed, but he wasn't wearing a Helmet..."[/I]

As soon as cycle helmets become compulsory then abscence of one on a cyclist involved in an RTA will be seen as a possible mitigation for crap driving, and "Victim blaming" ensues...

there are better compromises to be struck IMO...

[i]Also same in germany and denmark. Cycling is not perceived as dangerous as there are so many cyclists[/i]

Cheers,
Jamie

molgrips - Member

That's third-party risk compensation right there.

So, is it enough to take off my helmet to be safer? Or do I need to weave about all over the road too? In the interests of safety, of course.

there's a tricky pinch-point on my route home, i started off riding over to the left, but learned quickly about being 'doored', i've tried calmly riding in the primary position, but get abuse followed by 'punishment passes' so have settled on wobbling around eratically* - i get loads more space, and no abuse, result! 🙂

(*it's easy, just ride around the many potholes)

GrahamS - Member

There is good evidence that drivers do pass more closely to cyclists wearing helmets.

There is [url= http://www.drianwalker.com/overtaking/ ]good evidence[/url] that riding primary also makes drivers pass more closely.

😉

I dont think that 30% of cyclist hit the roads without helmets in this country. On my weekend road rides probably 5% on my commute 10% off road cant remember seeing any one without a helmet.

Yeah that roughly fits with what I see, though it is about 50/50 on my traffic-free commute.

So why would legal compulsion help if we already have such high rates of voluntary usage?

I think there is a very common misconception that damage to cycling numbers happens because helmet compulsion comes in and silly shallow people say [i]"Screw you if I have to wear a helmet then I'm not doing it"[/i].

I don't think that is what really happens.

More realistically the compulsion law comes in, with an associated gritty shock-and-awe advertising campaign showing how [i]terribly incredibly dangerous[/i] it is to ride a bike, even if you are just pootling down to the shops. There's lots of media coverage of how many cyclists are killed etc (with no attempt to put it in the context of total road deaths).

And as a result people say [i]"Screw that, cycling is dangerous, I'm taking the car"[/i] or worse, [i]"No kids, you can't have a bike, cycling is dangerous. Go play on the Xbox."[/i]

Ok, so it's just something you made up. We'll dispense with it then.

[b]I wonder [/b]how many...

Cheers,
Jamie

more people cycle and you get a critical mass where it's deemed normal and thus safer.

How do you get a critical mass? I don't believe that making people believe that cycling is dangerous and you must always wear a helmet will encourage people to cycle?

And that's the root of the issue. Cycling is deemed as safe in those counties because for the most part cycle lanes are separated from cars, more people cycle and you get a critical mass where it's deemed normal and thus safer.

My experience of Denmark is that there are also lots of people cycling on-road. Segregated paths are only part of the story.

Think this is one of these situations where peoples personal experience (in their own minds) will always trump any analytical, evidence based approach.

I woke up in a ditch with a broken collarbone and a sore head last year. I am quite content being too stubborn to let evidence trump my experiences. Or have I misunderstood?

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

I was simply musing on the makeup of stats with regard to the point you brought up about pedestrians being about the same as cyclists. I made no claim to knowing any facts about the figures at all.

Fair do's. We'll dispense with it because it's pointless speculation.

So, is it enough to take off my helmet to be safer? Or do I need to weave about all over the road too? In the interests of safety, of course.

*sigh*

stilltortoise - Member

Or have I misunderstood?

hugely.

we're debating whether helmets should be required by law, there's lots of good arguments in the 'no' camp.

all of the arguments in the 'yes' camp seem to miss that point that you are ALREADY allowed to wear a helmet if you want to.

or have i missed the point?

So, is it enough to take off my helmet to be safer? Or do I need to weave about all over the road too? In the interests of safety, of course.

Apparently the best approach is to be helmetless, wobble and wear a long blonde wig and high heels. 😆

There is good evidence that riding primary also makes drivers pass more closely.

Yep. That's an issue too.

But [i]personally[/i] (anecdotally) it is outweighed by the fact they actually see you and have to make a conscious effort to pass. And that in some situations you can prevent them from passing at all till it is safe (e.g. pinch points).

stupid double post.

I woke up in a ditch with a broken collarbone and a sore head last year. I am quite content being too stubborn to let evidence trump my experiences. Or have I misunderstood?

Yes you have.

You're conflating what may be beneficial at a personal level (which depends on many variable factors) with what is beneficial to society overall.

You also seem to be suggesting that those who are anti-compulsion do not believe that there are any benefits to helmet wearing. That suggestion is false.

Cycling is deemed as safe in those counties because for the most part cycle lanes are separated from cars

Hmm, but I have read German studies that drew strong conclusions that the cyclepaths were actually more dangerous than the roads. Having cycled around Munich, it's easy to see why. The cyclepaths are right up against the walls of properties alongside the roads, so anyone trying to get a car out of an entrance has no visibility of cyclists.

I can't find the stuff I read, but:

http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregated_cycle_facilities

From the wiki link, this seems to back up the problems I had with recessed cycle paths. You really do have to look around far more than when you are on the road, because you are unsighted.

Research presented at a conference at Lund University in 1990 found that "crash risk" for cycle users crossing the intersection on a set-back path are up to 11.9 times higher than when cycling on the roadway in a bike lane

My experience of Denmark is that there are also lots of people cycling on-road. Segregated paths are only part of the story.

I'd love for there to be a cycling element in the driving test but can't see it ever happening!

Cheers,
Jamie

Or have I misunderstood?

hugely

Since my rhetorical question resulted in an answer, explain how so? Someone up there ^ was having a dig about people's experiences trumping evidence. I was merely demonstrating how that is perfectly understandable.

Apparently the best approach is to be helmetless, wobble and wear a long blonde wig and high heels

I can't find the stuff I read

Can't find mine either, but I have read a nice rebuttal that tears apart the "11.9 times higher". IIRC the statistics don't add up and they didn't consider injury severity. On the segregated paths cyclist-on-cyclist was the biggest issue, but on road it was cyclist-on-car/truck which naturally ends badly for the cyclist.

I'll try to find mine.

Granted, but would you agree the critical mass is the key, no?

Absolutely. And that is best achieved (amongst other things) by making cycling seem normal, not by making it seem risky.

ahwiles - Member

or have i missed the point?

stilltortoise - Member

Since my rhetorical question resulted in an answer, explain how so? Someone up there ^ was having a dig about people's experiences trumping evidence. I was merely demonstrating how that is perfectly understandable.

it seems i have, apologies...

I personally felt at far greater risk on the comprehensive cyclepath network, because I never knew when a car was going to suddenly stick its bonnet out from a wall. But then again, I was aiming to make progress at 20mph or more, which is another factor that doesn't seem to be mentioned in the stats.

I'm convinced the kids must be old enough to ride a bike by now and it's there just as a commuting safety feature

Even better if it has a dummy child in it 🙂

The cyclepaths are right up against the walls of properties alongside the roads, so anyone trying to get a car out of an entrance has no visibility of cyclists.

Cheers,
Jamie

stilltortoise, that you broke your collarbone suggests and the marks on your helmet actually suggest your shoulder took the impact not your head.

Your helmet may have helped a bit but i suspect if you crashed again with no helmet the only difference would be you would have cuts and grazes on your head.

Few years back i crashed, ended up in A&E having a brillo pad clean to my face, no marks at all on helmet i was wearing at the time???

The biggest problem cycling faces is that cyclists are seen as different - that's why drivers don't give cyclists room, that's why judges and juries let off killer drivers, that's why cars get billion-pound investments while cycling has to fight for the scraps.

And what makes cyclists be seen as different? The funny clothes and the plastic hats, for one.

Every time I see a normal person, in normal clothes, riding a bicycle it makes me feel a lot happier.

In fact, to my shame, I almost took out a cyclist when nosing out of an entrance in my car in Farnborough a few years back. Under trees, I was looking down the road crossing the pavement, as normal. However turns out that pavement is actually a shared use path, and the first I saw of the cyclist was when she was grumbling and complaining after stopping. I can only assume that she was up against the hedge and her neutral coloured clothes were not standing out - I have no idea though, as I didn't see a thing.

Compulsory helmets? What is the objective? To prevent minor head injuries? What peer reviewed data do we currently have showing how many cyclist's head injuries would be prevented by helmet wearing? Will users of quads and open tops cars have to wear helmets too? How about pedestrians? Mobility scooter users?

And that is best achieved (amongst other things) by making cycling seem normal, not by making it seem risky.

Cheers,
Jamie

Some good rebuttal of that figure here molgrips:

A Danish study on the safety of cycle tracks is commonly cited by those who oppose the construction of dedicated cycle infrastructure here in the UK, "Road Safety and the perceived risk of cycle facilities in Copenhagen." [b]This paper is often quoted with the eye-catching figure of cycle tracks resulting in a 24% increase in crashes involving cyclists at intersections[/b] where cycle tracks have been implemented. The study makes a few qualifying assertions, firstly in the introduction;

"Many studies of bicycle tracks have been undertaken in Northern Europe. A meta analysis of studies shows a reduction of 4 percent in crashes, and the crash reduction is almost the same for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists respectively."

...

However, reading the methodology used to generate that 24% figure reveals that previously cyclist injuries at junctions had been measured as 353. After the installation of cycle tracks, the number of cyclist injuries at intersections was measured as 285, a reduction of 19% in absolute figures. However, the 24% increase figure is calculated from a predicted number of crashes figure for the after period, based on the changes to the traffic volume and mode composition, which predicted that at unmodified intersections with the same increase in cyclists, decrease in motorists and subject to pre-existing crash trends seen at the intersections which had been modified with cycle tracks, there should be 230 cyclist crashes. This is the figure which is used to generate the eye-catching 24% increase in crashes figure.

Taking intersections and straight sections together gives a figure of a 10% increase in crashes involving cyclists overall versus the predicted figures on un-altered junctions for the same traffic mode/volume composition (broadly speaking, a 10% reduction in motor traffic and a 20% increase in cycle traffic), a composition which is realistically only achievable where segregation is applied. [b]The actual before and after numbers show a decrease in the absolute numbers of cyclist crashes of 29%.[/b] It is important to consider the effects of any pre-existing downward trend in crashes which could be contributing to this number, but also important to consider that this effect is seen contemporaneously with an increase in cyclists’ mileage of 20% on these facilities.

- http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/wiki/cycle-paths-are-unsafe

The biggest problem cycling faces is that cyclists are seen as different - that's why drivers don't give cyclists room, that's why judges and juries let off killer drivers, that's why cars get billion-pound investments while cycling has to fight for the scraps.

That and I see cyclists cowering in the gutter, putting themselves into stupid positions on the road and getting themselves into trouble, this is not blaming the victim but saying if your going to play with cars you need to be aware, you need to look after yourself. The primary person responsible for your safety is YOU. Cars might be at fault but thats not normally a consolation.