Cyclists in the South of England are far less likely to be injured by cars, thanks to what researchers say is a ‘safety in numbers’ effect.
In areas where cycling is popular, just one in 500 cyclists are likely to be injured in a year, rising steeply to one in 20 where few choose to cycle.
Road Safety Analysis carried out a study which found that the North of England was the riskiest place to cycle, with dangerous drivers being pinpointed in places including Rotherham, Chesterfield, Bolton, Leeds, Liverpool and Mansfield.
In the South and Midlands, safer areas included Wellingborough, Lincoln, Oxford, Cambridge and Winchester.
The findings will be presented at a safety conference in Bristol next week.
Road Safety Analysis sad: “more cyclists on the roads reduce collision rates”, and called for better cycle infrastructure in areas with fewest cyclists – a message contrary to the spending in major cities like London, where many people commute by bike.
Richard Owen, of Road Safety Analysis, told the Times that having more cyclists in a town forced motorists to adapt. “They learn how to drive safely around cyclists and expect to encounter them at junctions and adapt their behaviour accordingly.
“Another possibility is that more drivers are also likely to be cyclists and are much more sympathetic to the safety concerns of fellow road users.”
The research was based on Department for Transport data on road collisions and the number of people in each area who cycled at least once a week. This was set against the postcodes of injured cyclists.
The study found that Rotherham in South Yorkshire had the highest accident rate at almost 198 per 1,000 cyclists — almost 20 per cent — although the researchers said that the figure could be skewed by “anomalously low” reports of the number of cyclists in the town.
The next highest rate was in Chesterfield, where only 247 residents cycle regularly. About one in 20 are involved in accidents each year.
13 thoughts on “Cyclists in the South far less likely to be injured by drivers”
What I find interesting is
What I find interesting is that the South would include London too!
I wonder what the difference is between town and countryside? Here in Suffolk the countryside and small towns seem to be getting worse and the larger towns safer? Or perhaps it is because they are usually in gridlock so you can filter through and around them! Moving traffic and narrow lanes seems to be where I experience the worst drivers, so perhaps the amount f countryside affects the north/south too?
Is there any evidence that
Is there any evidence that could determine which is cause and which is effect?
To definitely say its ‘safety in numbers’ (in the sense of drivers getting used to being around cyclists) you’d have to prove which way the causation runs, no?
From the data presented it seems it could equally-well be that in areas where cycling is safer, more people choose to cycle. It could also be that where more people cycle there’s more political pressure to create safer infrastructure.
I think just as likely is
I think just as likely is that roads are more crowded in the south, therefore everything is moving slower
balmybaldwin wrote:
this holds true for utility cyclists (commuting on towns)
but recreational cycling atill takes place on non crowded country lanes. No one sets out for a club run into a traffic jam.
Still if we are looking only at total numbers of cyclists, and not injuries per mile travelled, then this should be biased to people cylcling in towns were traffic is slower. Porbably another driver for more cycling. If it takes 25 minutes to drive to work, but you can cycle in 15, and not have to park 400m away then cycling becomes more attractive.
Wellingborough is a
Wellingborough is a questionable one given that there’s been at least a couple of fatal collisions near there in the last 12 months. In my experience most towns in Northamptonshire are best avoided on a bike.
Did they first adjust for
Did they first adjust for average traffic speeds in each of those areas. Just a thought.
Portsmouth has been named as
Portsmouth has been named as the most dangerous place to cycle in the UK outside of London. Not sure if it’s the case for 2016 but portsmouth was followed by Bournemouth
Taff wrote:
Named by whom?
If you mean that more people cycle in Portsmouth, and as a result, more cyclists are involved in collisions, that isn’t the same thing as being the most dangerous place, it could be the safest place.
burtthebike wrote:
Named by whom?— Taff
Department of Transport figures say 888 per million of population in 2015, and is actually worse than London as a whole if you average out across all boroughs.
It was a small decrease on 2014 figures but not outside a margin of error.
Was also worst outside London in 2014, 2012 & 2011.
http://www.pompeybug.co.uk/2016/10/cycle-casualties-2015/
The results fit with my
The results fit with my experience (FWIW), having moved from oop North to London a few years back. The only trouble I had before was when drivers didn’t see you because they didn’t expect a cyclist (it’s amazing how people can look almost straight at you but not see you because they’re looking only for big metal boxes).
In inner city London at least, drivers are used to cyclists and expect to see them. Traffic may be moving more slowly too as someone mentioned.
Safety in numbers is not a
Safety in numbers is not a scientific concept: there is no evidence for it anywhere in the world.
Ramz wrote:
There’s evidence of correlation regarding ‘more cyclists = lower KSI rate’ from all over the world.
Is your point that cause and effect hasn’t been established?
davel wrote:
I would assume that is precisely the point the poster is making. They said there’s no evidence for ‘safety in numbers’. Which seems a defensible statement – the correlation you refer to could be a case of ‘numbers in safety’.
Personally, I’m sure its complicated. I bet different factors interact in complicated ways and don’t always work out the same way, and while safety in numbers might exist, its a marginal factor and not to be relied on.
What for some might be “Safety-in-numbers”, might, for certain types of motorist be more “a target-rich environment” !