- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Big Ben © Simon MacMichaelChris Boardman urges government to protect all road users as deaths hit five-year high
British Cycling policy advisor Chris Boardman says that a 5 per cent annual rise in the number of cyclists killed or seriously injured on Britain’s roads is “concerning” and has urged the government to do more to improve the safety of all road users.
His comments come as the Conservative Party stands accused of having failed to continue the momentum in reducing casualties among all road users since targets were abolished in 2010, with AA president Edmund King describing five fatalities a day as “totally unacceptable.”
The targets, introduced nearly three decades earlier, were scrapped by former secretary of state for transport Philip Hammond after the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties formed their coalition government.
Charts accompanying the publication today of the Department for Transport’s Reported road casualties in Great Britain – Annual report 2016 show that across all road user groups, there were sharp declines in the number of people killed between 2006 and 2010.
But in the years since, again across all road users – car occupants, pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and children – the number of fatalities each year has fluctuated around the 2010 level.
Factors other than the abolition of the targets in play, such as cuts to roads policing and funding for speed cameras as well as the rise in ownership of smartphones and consequent use at the wheel despite tougher penalties.
But the fact remains that 1,792 people in Great Britain lost their lives in road traffic collisions in 2016, and while the DfT highlights that the number is 4 per cent down on the previous year, it is the highest death toll since 2011.
Boardman, quoted on Britishcycling.org.uk, said that the data “shows that more needs to be done to make Britain’s roads safe, not just for cyclists, but for drivers and pedestrians.
“The number of people being killed and seriously injured is increasing, showing a lack of resources focusing on the real cause of dangers on the road,” he added.
Meanwhile, King urged the government to bring back targets and aim for a “vision zero” for road deaths and serious injuries.
“It is of great concern that road deaths in Great Britain seem to have plateaued out over the last five years. Five deaths per day is totally unacceptable.”
He continued: “There is definitely more we can do to educate via speed awareness and other corrective courses.
“Re-introducing targets and aiming for towards vision zero would be a step in the right direction,” King added.
“Changes can be made,”insisted Boardman, who is now combing his new role of Greater Manchester Cycling & Walking Commissioner with his existing one at British Cycling.
“Countries like the Netherlands and Denmark faced the same issues 40 years ago and decided to make a commitment to cycling as a proper, viable, form of transport.
"The evidence for this working is clear. The changes made in the Netherlands saw the number of child deaths from either walking, cycling or car accidents, drop from 400 in the 1970s to just 10 by 2010," he pointed out.
“We now need our government to do the same.”
Last year, 102 cyclists, two more than in 2015, lost their lives in Great Britain – among them, Boardman’s mother, Carol.
Meanwhile, 3,397 cyclists were killed or seriously injured in 2016, up 5 per cent on the previous year and 9 per cent on the 2010-14 average.
The increases are roughly in line, according to the DfT, with growth in the total distance cycled in Britain in each year, and it warns that the figures should be treated with caution due to changes in the way some police forces collect casualty data.
What the numbers don’t suggest though, is that Britain’s roads are getting any safer for people on bikes, although there are hopes that may finally be changing.
Last week, it was revealed that West Midland’s Operation Close Pass, introduced in September 2016, has led to a 20 per cent reduction in the number of cycling KSIs there in the past 12 months.
However, it will be at least a year until we see how it impacts on the national figures as other forces have adopted it, and longer still to be able to judge whether any downward trend is maintained.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- rjfrussell 49 min 12 sec ago
If every arse is unique, how do they know which saddle will be "right" for an arse they have never seen before?...
- Pub bike 51 min 6 sec ago
Similar issue with e-bikes: Judging by the machines I see on the road it would appear to be easier to buy an illegal electric motorbike or e...
- Secret_squirrel 2 hours 56 min ago
Thanks Neil!
- slc 3 hours 2 min ago
All arguments I am hopeful to see validated, especially (a) and (b) combined....
- hawkinspeter 3 hours 35 min ago
Well, on Lundy the only predators are the humans, and they're far more likely to buy some farmed non-Soay lamb from the pub than try to chase a...
- mdavidford 3 hours 36 min ago
"Just a little bit off the sides"
- mdavidford 3 hours 37 min ago
Given that one of the Oxfordshire councillors took the time to drop into the comments section of the previous article on this story to deny, at...
- Secret_squirrel 4 hours 59 min ago
What you believe doesn't matter. Only physics and engineering does. An undamped steel spring is frikkin lousy for steering where precise tracking...
- wtjs 5 hours 22 min ago
We're approaching half way through December 24 now- any progress on the Met's hopefully will be live in December 2024, where you will be able to...
- hawkinspeter 5 hours 33 min ago
I reckon they stopped using this for the bonding:
Add new comment
52 comments
If you follow the link I provided you can find the data going back much further.
With small numbers there will obviously be fluctuations but the trend is very clear.
There has been a massive decrease in cycling fatalities over the past 20 years or so.
reported-fatalities.png
Fair enough. I looked briefly but didn't see that graph (or that time-scale of data) on the page linked to. The data you previously cited though suggests the line has ticked upward again since the final point on that graph, no? So if you extended that graph up to 2016 it would not look as good, having gone back up to where it was around 2006.
I think it did tick up post 2008 then began to fall again, as the overall numbers drop then the fluctuations will inevitably get more pronounced as you pointed out earlier.
In 5 years or so once the serious injury data sorts itself out hopefully the trend will be more obvious.
At the moment we can definitely say that long term cycling is getting safer, short term we can say it's definitely not getting more dangerous but we need to wait for more data to draw more detailed conclusions.
Without knowing what happened to participation levels over that period, what happened to in- vehicle deaths, and how many K converted to SI I have no real idea how you interpret this picture.
But here's another FACT for you. I have many friends who will not cycle on road because they believe it unsafe. I know of no one who refuses to drive for this reason ( except down the A9 in summer, but special case). I suspect everyone on here could say the same. Feel free to tell them they are being irrational, but surely governments faced with obesity, congestion and pollution crises should want to respond to this?
The figures are for deaths per billion miles cycled so they account for changes in participation levels.
My colleagues at work were literally speechless when I pointed out that walking was more dangerous (in fatality terms) per mile than cycling. (2015 stats).
The perception that cycling is very dangerous definitely puts people off, given the benefits of regular cycling that misperception is something the government should definitely be addressing.
But I don't think it's just a 'misconception' that can be corrected with statistical 'facts'. It's a matter of how cycling on roads actually _feels_. And I'd say the raw statistics don't tell you about the mental and emotional work that is demanded of those cycling in order to keep those stats as they are.
If the demographics of cycling were the same as those of walking, and if people cycled in the same state-of-mind as they walked, the casualty stats would not look so good.
I think the answer is more segregation, people who are not confident cyclists are far more likely to start cycling regularly if they feel safer.
As their confidence grows they are more likely to cycle on the roads.
Aside from safety fears more emphasis needs to be put on quite how dangerous driving is for your overall health.
Commute by car and you are far more likely to develop heart disease or cancer than your cycling peers.
I don't think the answer is segregation, I think it's getting more and more people on the roads, until the non-cyclist becomes the minority, and people (and the law) realise that when driving several tonnes of machinery around squishy humans, they should be taking a lot more care.
At the moment, we're in the middle of a vicious circle where only the brave are on the roads, and cyclists are having to defend themselves all the time, therefore get accused of being aggressive, etc. It will only calm down once there's been a modal shift, and politicians and the media stop inflaming the situation. I don't see this happening any time soon.
How are you going to achieve a modal shift without getting people on to their bikes in the first place?
In my experience segregated paths are far more popular with casual/beginner cyclists.
More segregation means more cyclists.
Some of those cyclists will then get the bug and join the modal shift revolution!
Pleasantly surprised by the comments I've read from Edmund King. I haven't seen the usual divisive or victim-blaming stuff - just a lament at the overall state of road deaths and some stuff about him being a cyclist too.
Contrasts with just about every other car lobbyist ready to jump on cyclists being their own worst enemy etc.
King is a cyclist, definitely not pro-car.
Bigger population = more accidents.
The population of the UK was falling until 2010??????!!!
No it wasn't (http://bit.ly/2x1EioQ). Where did you get that idea?
I assumed sarcasm.
Ah... it's the end of the week...
Because of the inherent logic in yorkshirewallets post. He is suggesting that the recent rise in road deaths is due to the increase in population. Therefore it follows that either the population before the rise was stable (and other factors led to a reduction in road deaths) or falling.
We all know this is not the case, so his comment is obviously untrue. Hence the multiple exclamation marks and question marks which I thought would make it clear I was being facetious to make a rhetorical point.
But obviously not clear enough. I hope this explanation helps?
Edited - sorry, I didn't catch your post above. It is the end of the week. Yay for being Friday though!
Only if you accept that "accidents" are unavoidable; they aren't. Most of them are the result of human error, and in other countries they are taking a rather more radical, pro-active approach and are changing roads and behaviour to prevent collisions, especially to vulnerable road users.
In this country we have a rather different system of blaming the victims and protecting the cause of the problem, and then shaking our heads and saying "but it was an accident" as if nothing can be done.
Frankly, I think we should be suing the government for crass incompetence for every death.
Not so. Accidents are the function of lots of factors. Population is one but lots of other things are important too - number of trips and distance travelled, road and vehicle design, driving standards, laws and enforcement, mix of road users, etc.
Road deaths (not the same as accidents admittedly - but the most important potential consequence of them) have been decreasing for most of the past 50 years, during which the population has usually been increasing.
I have a great deal of time for Mr Boardman (though I met him yesterday - smaller than he looks on t'elly) but he may as well be shouting into his underpants.
"Meanwhile, 3,397 cyclists were killed or seriously injured in 2016, up 5 per cent on the previous year and 9 per cent on the 2010-14 average."
Those figures say all that needs to be said, and yet no one is listening. But it's OK - figures for car deaths have fallen and continue to be at an all-time low; all is good with the world.
This is a direct result of several things: austerity cutting the number of traffic police, unfit for purpose cycling "facilities" and increasing motorised traffic. The figures for last year show that driving increased yet again, and we have a government which can always find the money for more roads, but the magic money tree doesn't produce any fruit for cycling, walking or public transport. Austerity seems to be strangely selective.
The Transport minister couldn't give a shit.
They are more worried about bicycles without brakes
Pages