Cycling deaths and serious injuries down in 2013, says DfT

Road Justice wrote:

John, I think the reason there's a perception that women make up a large portion of KSIs is because in London they do represent a high proportion of fatalities, and this seems to have been extrapolated to the rest of the UK. I don't know figures off the top of my head though unfortunately. Why this is the case in London would be interesting to know. Perhaps the proportion of female cyclists there is higher than the rest of the UK.

My perception is that the roads in London require a lot more concentration and awareness. I don't think that women give it any more or any less (I think the level of road awareness is generally woeful). But that men exert themselves on the road more - whether it be breaking a red light or accelerating away from a junction.

What scares me about the women on bikes is that lack of road awareness is usually coupled with a grossley inappropriate bike which is over geared and heavy. Hardly the thing that enables you to escape a trucks blind spot if inadvertently and dangerously caught in there. To be fair though, the impetuous actions of men probably put them in as much danger, but more through their own idiocy. I have no idea if men or women are more at risk in London though.

ChairRDRF wrote:

In fact it was NOT much more dangerous to cycle in the mid 1930s.

The reasons for the decline in cycling deaths since then is (as referred to) a cut by about 60 -80% in the amount of cycling, and abopve all a massive increase in the quality of trauma care.

On top of that cyclists were far less careful - because you didn't have to be. People always adapt to the conditions they find themselves in, depending on their perception of risk (risk compensation). people cycled on all kinds of roads which nowadays they are too scared to ride on. Similarly, the smaller numbers of motorists were less vigilant because there was far less danger.

Add that all up and the supposed progress we have looks less impressive. See this about how we can actually measure danger: http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/11/15/if-we-want-safer-roads-for-cycling-we-have...

You're probably right about that. I do get a bit irritated by people complaining how cycling seems to be getting more dangerous - the statistics show otherwise. More improvement could be achieved for sure but it's important to recognise that peak fatality levels on the UK network, for cyclists included, happened in the 1970s.

Data from the 30s didn't specifically identify particular road user groups. But the death rate on the UK network is now lower than it was in 1926 when records began. Bear in mind motor vehicles in the 30s had terrible brakes, many heavy vehicles still used solid tyres with even worse braking, plus there was no driving test, no restrictions on drink driving and vehicle condition could be extremely poor. Horse drawn transport was also very dangerous, with drays in poor condition, minimal brakes and often the horse had more sense than the drunk supposedly in charge.

The good old days were actually pretty bad.

OldRidgeback wrote:

You're probably right about that. I do get a bit irritated by people complaining how cycling seems to be getting more dangerous - the statistics show otherwise. More improvement could be achieved for sure but it's important to recognise that peak fatality levels on the UK network, for cyclists included, happened in the 1970s.

The good old days were actually pretty bad.

And yet I was allowed to cycle freely in my early teens in the early 60s. I regularly rode to school on an A road, which is now intimidating to me, and I would hesitate to allow an eleven year old to do this nowadays. By all reports children had more freedom again in the thirties. You may be irritated by people who think cycling is getting more dangerous, but you should consider the possibilty that they are right, and it is precisely that estimate of danger which keeps the cycling death rate down. The idea that the roads are getting more dangerous is very widespread and often expressed. Unless the number of deaths can be relared to exposure it is not a good measure of danger.

The Brake/Churchill survey also reported here shows that most people don't think the roads are very safe these days. Things must have been terrible if they really were much more dangerous in the thirties.

felixcat wrote:

OldRidgeback wrote:

You're probably right about that. I do get a bit irritated by people complaining how cycling seems to be getting more dangerous - the statistics show otherwise. More improvement could be achieved for sure but it's important to recognise that peak fatality levels on the UK network, for cyclists included, happened in the 1970s.

The good old days were actually pretty bad.

And yet I was allowed to cycle freely in my early teens in the early 60s. I regularly rode to school on an A road, which is now intimidating to me, and I would hesitate to allow an eleven year old to do this nowadays. By all reports children had more freedom again in the thirties. You may be irritated by people who think cycling is getting more dangerous, but you should consider the possibilty that they are right, and it is precisely that estimate of danger which keeps the cycling death rate down. The idea that the roads are getting more dangerous is very widespread and often expressed. Unless the number of deaths can be relared to exposure it is not a good measure of danger.

And I was allowed to cycle to school in the 70s. One road I had to cross was particularly dangerous. There was a serious incident involving a child on that stretch of road at least once/year, including several fatalities. Most were pedestrian deaths.

The statistics on cycle fatalities simply don't bear out the feeling that cycling is getting more dangerous. I've got comparable statistics for Germany and the death rate amongst cyclists was in the thousands in the 70s compared with now. Yes, more people cycled then but the data also shows the risk/km travelled was significantly higher.

Awareness of risk is far greater now than it ever was, while reporting of serious traffic incidents is more effective and widespread. In the bad old days, road deaths were rarely reported on simply because there were so many.

RobD wrote:

wow, 1,500+ deaths in 1934, I know there were a lot more people on bikes, but there were a lot fewer cars, and a lot less road users in general, that's a pretty scary figure (not that the current figures are exactly great reading)

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/history-of-road-safety-and-the-driving-test

Now you see why the highway code and driving tests were introduced in the 30's. Have a look at Belgium to see what happens if you don't have driving tests. They only introduced compulsory tests in 1977! which means plenty of people driving who have never sat a test.

mrmo wrote:

RobD wrote:

wow, 1,500+ deaths in 1934, I know there were a lot more people on bikes, but there were a lot fewer cars, and a lot less road users in general, that's a pretty scary figure (not that the current figures are exactly great reading)

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/history-of-road-safety-and-the-driving-test

Now you see why the highway code and driving tests were introduced in the 30's. Have a look at Belgium to see what happens if you don't have driving tests. They only introduced compulsory tests in 1977! which means plenty of people driving who have never sat a test.

And there is an increasing number of people in Britain who have never passed a test either. I worked with a guy who was fond of telling us how he bought his license in a different country and exchanged it for one here.

mrmo wrote:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/history-of-road-safety-and-the-driving-test

Now you see why the highway code and driving tests were introduced in the 30's. Have a look at Belgium to see what happens if you don't have driving tests. They only introduced compulsory tests in 1977! which means plenty of people driving who have never sat a test.

A family friend got a driving licence without having to pass a test, because she was required to drive to support the war effort in the 40s.

However, she decided that it was important to be properly qualified to drive, so took (and passed) her advanced driving test a couple of times over the years. She continued driving (safely) well into her 80s before deciding for herself that it was time to stop (while still in very good health and in full possession of all her faculties).

Would be quite a different world if all road users maintained this kind of perspective.

I recently trained to ride a motorcycle, over 20 years after I had passed my driving test. I found the process of being taught again to think about road conditions, and from the perspective of a different kind of road user, really very interesting and useful. Makes me think about the road situations in a fresh way when I am back in the car or on my (pedal) bike.

Whilst a nightmare to put into practice, I can certainly see the benefit of drivers having to undergo some form of training/testing every 1-2 decades.

Tjuice wrote:

Whilst a nightmare to put into practice, I can certainly see the benefit of drivers having to undergo some form of training/testing every 1-2 decades.

I would suggest that even every 10 years would be too infrequent, but would be a step in the right direction. Driving is not a right, and should never be seen as one. Problem we have is that driving is seen as a right and too many complain when they get caught breaking the law, the common refrain, "why aren't you catching real criminals."

That speeding, illegal parking, dangerous driving, do have consequences, do impact on the quality of life, well that is ignored.