DfT statistics show alarming rise in number of cyclists killed or seriously injured on Britain's roads

I think that "alarming" is a good word to use. The times we live in are auspicious for very large increases in cycling. But if infrastructure changes do not move ahead much more quickly and more deaths are being reported the benefits of further radical growth will also die. I don't think that the obvious point about more cyclists per death is a vote winner. Any deaths at all are unwelcome and we have the means and the knowledge to start reducing them right now, even as cycling continues to grow.

The target should be zero deaths, not a better deaths per 100,000 miles ratio.

Thgibdog - that's why I posted it. The piece itself says it's hard to draw conclusions because the data is questionable.

A rise in the number of cycling casualties was reported sometime before but I'm not really sure we can read too much into these quarterly figures. Citing an 8% rise in fatalities sounds a lot but when the annual death toll among cyclists is barely above 100 then a single death can look like a trend.

That's not to say that any increase in KSI should be ignored, far from it! If it prompts people into appropriate action (by which I mean a change in attitude among drivers, tougher penalties and more driving bans) then it won't be entirely in vain. However, if it means the DfT trots out more utter crap like their criminally awful Be Safe Be Seen campaign then I'd prefer it if they didn't bother.

Previous stories:
http://road.cc/12065 - cyclists not to blame in 93 per cent of cases, December 2009
http://road.cc/19311 - serious injuries down but minor injuries up, June 2010
http://road.cc/20977 - travel stats indicate cycling boom, July 2010
http://road.cc/30654 - CTC says cycling may be getting safer despite rise in stats
http://road.cc/35917 - Cycling deaths down, May 2011
http://road.cc/38100 - Cycling much safer than two decades ago, June 2011
http://road.cc/48413 - Slowing motorists down best way to increase safety for cyclists
(easily found thanks to road.cc tags)

missed it - may check it out on iPlayer at lunchtime.

BBC breakfast are about to cover this story... Stay tuned.

OldRidgeback, the paragraph you quote makes John's point perfectly. It admits that it's hard to draw any conclusions from the figures before talking about an increase in perceived danger for cyclists.

There is a massive difference between roads actually becoming more dangerous for cyclists and them apparently being perceived to be more dangerous. If the increase in cycling is greater than the increase in casualties then the roads aren't becoming more dangerous for cyclists at all.

Making any inference about how dangerous the roads are for cyclists from these figures, which are only part of the story, is wrong. And that's before you consider that the increase of four cycling casualties is from a comparison of actual figures to estimates rounded off to the nearest 10. The "alarming" 7% variation between the two quarters is also based on estimates.

Read this bit John:

While increased numbers of people cycling may partly explain the rise, the absence of up-to-date statistics on cycle usage and difficulty of establishing precise trends at national level makes it impossible to say with any certainty, and there does seem to be a general perception that the roads are becoming more dangerous for cyclists.

These figures would be more useful if they were compared to the numbers of cyclists on the road. For example, has London seen a huge % increase in cycling in recent years, but with a smaller % increase in injuries?