Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Eight per cent of all 2015 EU road deaths were cyclists

UK has EU's third-lowest road fatality rate per million inhabitants...

A new report from the European Commission has revealed that cyclists accounted for eight per cent of road deaths in the EU last year. Figures also reveal that while the total decrease in road fatalities between 2010 and 2014 was 18 per cent, cyclist fatalities have dropped by just four per cent in the same period.

Despite Europe having the lowest fatality rate for any region in the world, the change in fatality figures was close to zero from 2013 to 2014 with the story similar again in 2015. According to the report: “The current slowdown means that efforts must be stepped up, especially at national level, if the strategic target of halving the number of road deaths by 2020 is to be reached.”

In trying to explain the slowdown, the report lists a number of contributory factors.

“Some of them are evident, based on statistics: a higher interaction between unprotected and motorised road users in our cities, and an ever growing number of elderly people in road traffic.

“Some other causes commonly referred to are urbanisation with a growing number of vulnerable road users; an increase of traffic during milder winters in Europe; less resources dedicated to road maintenance and vehicles following the economic crises; and last but not least the appearance of new trends in users’ behaviour, such as distraction mainly by mobile phones.”

As you would expect, there is significant differences between Member States with the share of cyclist deaths especially high in the Netherlands (25 per cent), as well as in Denmark and Hungary (16 per cent).

Otto van Boggelen, who works on government cycling policy in the Netherlands, told the Telegraaf:

“If you look at the bare facts, then of course you think cycling here is an issue. But luckily the commission points out that more people cycle here than anywhere else, so the chance of being a victim is higher.

“If your population does not cycle, you don’t run much of a risk of being a victim. It would have been far better if the commission had coupled the number of deaths with the distance actually covered by bike. Then we would have been by far the safest.”

In 2015, the Netherlands could boast the second lowest road fatality rate per million inhabitants with 28, sandwiched between Sweden (27) and the UK (29). Those with the weakest road safety records were Romania (95), Bulgaria (95), Latvia (94), with the EU average 51.5.

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

12 comments

Avatar
ChrisB200SX | 7 years ago
0 likes

Presumably cycling doesn't cover 8% of miles travelled overall?

Avatar
brooksby replied to ChrisB200SX | 7 years ago
0 likes

ChrisB200SX wrote:

Presumably cycling doesn't cover 8% of miles travelled overall?

Is that a figure stored somewhere by Big Data?  I wonder what percentage of miles travelled is by bike, in the countries mentioned.

Avatar
wycombewheeler | 7 years ago
9 likes

So according to the government, motorways are the safest place for cyclists as there are no cyclist KSIs there?

Why are the police so keen to remove them and make such a noise about it?

Avatar
ChairRDRF | 7 years ago
2 likes

Just to offer a posiitve solution, here's a piece I write for Local Transport Today on how to measure danger to cyclists:

http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/11/15/if-we-want-safer-roads-for-cycling-we-have...

Avatar
ChairRDRF | 7 years ago
7 likes

The figures are completely meaningless without looking at how much cycling there is. Of course the Netherlands appear worse - until you remember that they have far more people cycling per head of the population.

 

And of course people in cars are less likely to be hurt or killed because they are so well protected.

 

Meaningless...

Avatar
Dnnnnnn replied to ChairRDRF | 7 years ago
1 like

ChairRDRF wrote:

The figures are completely meaningless without looking at how much cycling there is. Of course the Netherlands appear worse - until you remember that they have far more people cycling per head of the population.

And of course people in cars are less likely to be hurt or killed because they are so well protected.

Meaningless...

Lots more people cycling - and still they have the second lowest rate of overall road user fatalities!

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to Dnnnnnn | 7 years ago
3 likes
Duncann wrote:

ChairRDRF wrote:

The figures are completely meaningless without looking at how much cycling there is. Of course the Netherlands appear worse - until you remember that they have far more people cycling per head of the population.

And of course people in cars are less likely to be hurt or killed because they are so well protected.

Meaningless...

Lots more people cycling - and still they have the second lowest rate of overall road user fatalities!

Fewer cars = fewer deaths. Simples. Bikes don't kill people.

Avatar
fukawitribe replied to wycombewheeler | 7 years ago
2 likes

wycombewheeler wrote:

Fewer cars = fewer deaths. Simples. Bikes don't kill people.

Well they do - it's just astonishingly less common. Agree wholeheartedly with the jist though.

Avatar
congokid replied to wycombewheeler | 7 years ago
1 like

wycombewheeler][quote=Duncann wrote:

Fewer cars = fewer deaths. Simples. Bikes don't kill people.

 

Fewer cars, but the rate of car ownership in the Netherlands is on a par with that in the UK.

Motor vehicles per 1,000 people (2010 figures)

Netherlands 528
UK 519

Avatar
fukawitribe replied to ChairRDRF | 7 years ago
0 likes

ChairRDRF wrote:

The figures are completely meaningless without looking at how much cycling there is. Of course the Netherlands appear worse - until you remember that they have far more people cycling per head of the population.

 

And of course people in cars are less likely to be hurt or killed because they are so well protected.

 

Meaningless...

That's exactly what is mentioned in the article.

Avatar
ChairRDRF replied to fukawitribe | 7 years ago
0 likes

fukawitribe wrote:

ChairRDRF wrote:

The figures are completely meaningless without looking at how much cycling there is. Of course the Netherlands appear worse - until you remember that they have far more people cycling per head of the population.

 

And of course people in cars are less likely to be hurt or killed because they are so well protected.

 

Meaningless...

That's exactly what is mentioned in the article.

Mentioned, but  the headline gives the other impression. Context is all.

Avatar
fukawitribe replied to ChairRDRF | 7 years ago
0 likes

ChairRDRF wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

That's exactly what is mentioned in the article.

Mentioned, but  the headline gives the other impression. Context is all.

The headline is a fact, and also done to bring people into the article presumably (and bear in mind the audience). The text of the article is gives context and detail - and that doesn't need apeing immediately after end of it IMO.

Latest Comments