The number of cyclists to die on UK roads has fallen once again from 87 in 2023 to 82 in 2024, the latest reported road casualty statistics published by the Department for Transport has shown.
The number of cyclist fatalities dropped by 6% since 2023, which marks the fourth time, since records began in 1979, that the annual death toll has fallen below 100.
According to the Department for Transport’s ‘Reported road casualties Great Britain’s annual report for 2024’, which outlines and analyses the casualty statistics of a range of road users, 82 cyclists were killed last year, while 3,822 were reported to be seriously injured, and 10,645 slightly injured.
The number of people seriously injured remains high, only a 1% decrease from 3,292 in 2023 to 3,822 recorded in 2024.
There was a slightly bigger decrease of 3% for slight injuries from 10,983 in 2023 to 14,549 in 2024. However, as the Department for Transport notes, non-fatal casualties for cyclists are amongst the most likely to be under-reported in road casualty data since cyclists have no obligation to inform the police of collisions.
Between 2020 and 2024, an average of two cyclists died and 78 were seriously injured per week in reported road casualties.
Almost half (45%) of cyclist fatalities were in two-vehicle collisions between a pedal cycle and a the driver of a car. However, the highest proportion of fatal casualties occurred in two-vehicle collisions involving an HGV, with 5.8 per cent of collisions between a cyclist and a lorry driver resulting in the cyclist’s death.
The peak time for cyclists to be killed or seriously injured coincides with commuter hours, from 7 am to 10 am and from 4 pm to 7 pm on weekdays. During the weekend, there is a single peak at around mid-morning for both cycling trips and cyclists killed or seriously injured.
Since 2004, the total number of casualties has decreased by 12%, whilst the miles travelled by bike have increased by 35% to 3.52 billion.
However, total miles travelled by bike continues to decrease since its peak of 5.30 billion cycle miles in 2020.
Overall, 82% of the cyclists killed or seriously injured were male, which is five times higher than the number of female casualties. For 12 to 15-year-olds, the number of male casualties was nine times higher than that of female casualties.
Men between the ages of 50 and 59 accounted for the highest number of cyclists killed or seriously injured, as they made up 15% of the casualties.
The number of cyclist fatalities occurring on roads in rural areas is higher than in urban areas, with 56% of cyclist fatalities occurring on rural roads. However, 82% of all cyclist casualties, and 75% of serious casualties, occurred on roads in urban areas.
A majority (62%) of cyclist fatalities did not occur at or within 20 meters of a junction. However, 37% of fatalities occur at a junction compared to 52% of serious injuries.
The three most common contributory factors for fatal or serious collisions involving cyclists were ineffective observation, the driver being aggressive or dangerous or reckless, or a vehicle entering the road from the pavement.
In response to this data, London Cycling Campaign said: “The government doesn’t talk about how no one but the fit, fast and fearless cycle. Doing something about enabling women, kids and the elderly to cycle also makes cycling safer.
“London has a Mayor who is delivering better cycling (by no means perfectly, but still). As a result of his and predecessors’ actions and the total inaction across too much of the rest of England, half of all cycling in England happens now in London.
“We have a lot more cyclists, and they’re a lot safer per journey than the rest of England. That makes the annual DfT statistics meaningless until the rest of the towns and cities across England catch up – not only because the data is so sparse and cycling so infrequent, but also because the rise in overall England cycling doesn’t apply there.
“The government has set itself a target that half of all journeys in England’s towns and cities will be walked, wheeled or cycled by 2030. Better get a shift on then, because taking that action rather than building more roads is what will make us all safer.”
37 thoughts on “Cycling fatalities fall by 6% to lowest ever recorded level, new government figures reveal”
This all comes down to
This all comes down to speeding and inattentive driving. I’ve been driving for or legally qualified since May. I have to drive to the limits of the road due to a box from the insurance, why can’t all cars have these on, so you get fined directly ? the tech exists, so why not ? It’d save lives and impose better driving!
While I don’t condone
While I don’t condone breaking the law, inattentive driving is undoubtedly a bigger issue than speeding. Some drivers’ reckless behaviour towards cyclists is likely worse than speeding, too.
Moreover, drivers aren’t taught how to overtake on rural roads (unless they take an advanced driving course). Overtaking on rural roads is one of the most dangerous driving activities, yet the DVLA leaves people to learn overtaking by making it up as they go along. What could possibly go wrong?
I highly recommend boosting your skills via a Young Driver (if you’re 17-26) or Advanced Driving course.
WHile the tech may not exist
While the tech may not exist to resolve all inattentive driving, the tech certainly exists to shut down phones – my partner’s “black box” is bluetoothed to her phone, and monitors phone activity whilever the car is being driven. While the police might not bother, it would certainly enable all insurers to hit phone-drivers in the wallet if that was rolled out universally.
Another_MAMIL wrote:
What about when it’s both?
Agreed – which is why at least one place has simply banned it on some types of infra (many rural roads). (Yes – it’s NL again – this applies to much of of their single carriageway primary road network. Not a problem for cyclists, because it’s also mandatory to have a separate cycle path on such infra – or there will be an alternative route which doesn’t interact with the motor one).
As an anecdotal aside, I was
As an anecdotal aside, I was cycling in the Netherlands last week and saw a nasty road rage incident between two drivers, one of whom I took to be annoyed at the slow progress of the driver in front. It was on such a road, with the dashed white line either side delineating the non-mandatorycycle path, and one car width of tarmac between. ( I assume overtaking was prohibited.)
I wonder if, in some circumstances, not being allowed to overtake (safely) might lead to more angry drivers than otherwise. Although the situation in UK where drivers will overtake anywhere and everywhere, safely or not, is definitely the greater of two evils.
TLDR: Where bikes and cars mix in the Netherlands, it can be a scary experience. I had plenty of close passes on roads like these, from behind and oncoming.
Interesting – but also not
Interesting – but also not surprising, humans I guess? I don’t think they’re much different over there.
As you suggest, harm minimisation. And at the same time making it possible for mass cycling to exist.
It does seem (at least from eg. articles on new or updated infra by the likes of BicycleDutch ) that while they are actually increasing mixing in a particular sense in urban areas * when countryside infra is redone it may well result in separate facilities (eg. as part of a long distance cycle route). Of course even “densely populated” NL has a lot of countryside.
* More “cycle streets” – though i believe that is generally done where motor traffic has been seriously reduced first. Of course that also relies on ensuring that eg. delivery drivers are driving safely and considerately – schemes to reduce the number of large vehicles may help?
I don’t buy this excuse. This
I don’t buy this excuse. This is the same excuse as “I don’t know how to cook” when explaining why you don’t eat a remotely healthy diet. Google it. Think about it.
“Hmm, should I overtake on a blind corner or wait until its clear?”
“Do all the normal rules of overtaking and road safety completely evaporate once I hit rural roads?”
You could probably ask a 10 year old to say whether somewhere is safe to overtake and they would get it right most of the time so why do we give qualified drivers the benefit of the doubt. So much of driving in the UK isn’t about people not knowing, its about the lack of consequences for breaking the rules and the behaviour that encourages. When you overtake on blind corners dozens of times you don’t even think about it. When you close pass a cyclist dozens of times and never hit them you don’t even think about it (other than to think “fucking cyclists”).
There are roads near me that
There are roads near me that are nsl but no way am I driving at 60 all the way !
leedorney wrote:
No, the bad drivers would stop speeding but would likely be more insistent on getting ahead of any cyclists that they see as blocking their way so you would likely get more close/punishment passes and other bad behavior such as tailgating that cannot be detected by the black box.
Why are you driving to the
Why are you driving to the limits of the road?
You, as every driver should be doing, should be driving in a safe and considerate manner not at the limits of a road.
I think they meant within the
I think they meant within the limits, as that is what a black box requires.
I might have heard that some
I might have heard that some of them can measure g, and rev increases.
Whilst there some idiots
Whilst there some idiots still out there, hopefully the trend reflects increased awareness by drivers and some councils (lower speed limits, sympathetic designs etc) and the trend continues and more authorities follow 🤞
Unfortunately I think the
Unfortunately I think the main reason for the trend can be found in the article:
It would appear to be the familiar “safety by removing the vulnerable road users” (and ideally persuading them not to bother / get a motor vehicle).
I think in this instance,
I think in this instance, there is some cause for positivity.
Whilst the total miles cycled in 2024 was far lower than a covid-related peak in 2020, the overall trend since 2004 has been for more cycling miles (line labelled “traffic” in Chart 1).
In addition, the “deaths per billion vehicle miles” has also fallen over time, and indeed is lower than it was in 2020. This is the dark green “Killed” line shown in Chart 2 (it’s converted to an Index, but the underlying rate is available via the link).
Yep was going to say the same
Yep was going to say the same you can drop the figure to 0…if nobody cycles.
I had 10 reportable close passes in the space of 20mins this morning. And this is with a passpixi.
Including some idiot in a Range rover overtaking me on a roundabout.
All the drivers who did those close passes also had time to swear, beep their horn or raise various digits of their hands to me when I pointed out they were close passing.
Except that, looking at the
Except that, looking at the top chart, traffic is roughly back to the levels it was at before the Covid spike, while incidents are somewhat below where they were then.
Yes – and a slight increase
Yes – and a slight increase in cycling over the last 20 years. From a very low baseline of course.
I wonder how much is due to changes in London? Or is it really more ultra-cyclists?
chrisonabike wrote:
It would be interesting to see a breakdown of findings for different parts of the country, and times of the year, to better evaluate what is making things better or worse, but I don’t think there’s enough data to make that meaningful, except perhaps for London for the impact of investment in cycling infrastructure or Wales for the impact of 20mph, and for London you’d need to consider long-term data as change didn’t happen overnight.
I wonder how much things like improved light technology will help? LEDs rechargable by USB at your desk makes it possible for people to have better and more lights for commuter travel, but will that mean people over-estimate how visible they are?
I was driving along a gently winding country road towards a beautiful sunset with massive, orange setting sun at the horizon over the summer and my cyslist passenger noted that he could hardly see the cyclists coming towards us (safely on the other side) until the last minute, despite them having front lights. The cyclists themselves being in shadow and their lights not being able to compete with the low sun. This prompted a discussion on the best lights to have to be visible in different conditions, but we didn’t actually know what settings they were using, so a bit academic, except I do plan to have two front lights over winter – one steady and one flashing in the hope of maximising visibility while lighting my own path.
FionaJJ wrote:
The annual stats also include numbers by county and police force. But the frustrating part of analysing the data is those huge differences – time of year, level of ambient lighting, the type of road and speed limit, volume of traffic, number of junctions etc etc… and even consider that a ‘cyclist’ could be a Lime bike first-timer, a teenager in a hoodie or a Rapha-clad racer on their way back from a group ride. The possible factors are far too complex.
— FionaJJThis may work in urban areas, where both your front and rear lights are competing with many other light sources and distractions, but away from town streets it probably won’t help; if anything a bright flashing light can make it harder for other road users to judge distance and a bike’s trajectory, though I do use a rear flasher on days when I might be riding in places where I may be less obvious, like towards a low sun or under a line of trees.
Unlike others here, I’ve found driver behaviour has improved somewhat in recent times. I get far fewer close passes than I used to years ago; some drivers see me in the mirror (shocking, I know) and may move slightly or leave a gap to facilitate passing in slow moving traffic or a stationary queue. Good lights and reflectives are important but unless you’re on dedicated infrastructure vigilance and anticipation are as important as ever.
I think generally monitoring
I think generally monitoring is much observed in the breach – especially after having made a decision to change something significant. The only information that seems to be wanted afterwards is “you made the right choice”! Again this goes double with active travel infra…
We do have have provision for experimental TROs and trials and some places make good use of them. Although no doubt their implementation isn’t perfect either something like the part of the Dutch “Sustainable Safety” which says feeding back information to improve the system is important would at least provide extra rationale for this – if not the people or cash…
I think it’s less “cyclists having to compete with low sun” and more “cyclists (in fact all road users) always bring exposed to the risk of people driving where they simply can see well enough.”
As you point out, they were safe where they were. And we also know that motorists choose to overtake “blind” (into the sun, into rain or fog, at night at high speed, where it’s obvious they can’t see round a bend…) and hit not just cyclists but other motor vehicles with all the power they can put through their lights… To their own detriment also.
I don’t want to deny technology improves (especially cycle lights, which compared to the ones when i started riding are night and day, ha). And at some point even things which had wildly impractical prototypes can become easy to use (see cars)…
All that said one area I don’t think which is changed by vehicle technology (without basically making “bikes” mini cars) is getting more people riding (neither applied to bikes or even cars).
That seems to require changing the conditions – for both cycling and driving (eg. the latter becomes significantly less attractive for some trips than now, and *less attractive compared to cycling that trip*).
Hmm, I reckon it might be a
Hmm, I reckon it might be a bit of both. Perhaps more drivers are waking up to the fact that helmet or dashcam footage is admissable in court.
My new helmet mount for my son’s GoPro (which I’ve appropriated from him) is coming next week. I’m getting fed up with the close passes I get when I’m on my motorbike when I’m trundling along in South london’s 20mph limits. I’ll use the GoPro on my MTB too.
None of the drivers ive
None of the drivers ive encountered today remotely considered that point, and i even have a flipping sign telling them !!!
One window cleaner today who beeped me for daring to ride in prime through a section ive been nearly hit before, I pointed at the sign, got punish passed as a result.
I’d love to see his face if a NIP turned up, but the police won’t action it.
Whilst the cause of a
Please amend the following for clarity:
“The three most common contributory factors for fatal or serious collisions involving cyclists were ineffective observation, the driver being aggressive or dangerous or reckless, or a vehicle entering the road from the pavement. “
Ineffective observation by whom?
(Usually it is the driver.)
“… a vehicle entering the road from the pavement.”
should be
“… a DRIVER entering the road from the pavement.”
(Unless, of course, the vehicle was self-driving/autonomous…)
There’s a bit more detail on
There’s a bit more detail on the full report linked, but (as I understand it), the “road safety factor” (RSF) is assigned to a specific road user, but the wording is the same hence a bit clunky.
So I think the way Table 5 is to be intepreted is:
Of incidents which led to a fatal or serious injury of a cyclist, in 51% of them a pedal cyclist was assigned the RSF “Ineffective observation by either the driver or rider or pedestrian” (NB – not necessarily the same pedal cyclist as the one that was killed/injured).
Of incidents which led to a fatal or serious injury of a cyclist, in 64% of them another road user (maybe a driver, maybe a pedestrian) was assigned the RSF “Ineffective observation by either the driver or rider or pedestrian”.
Etc.
Percentages add up to over 100% because in any given collision, multiple RSFs may be assigned to multiple road users.
Regarding “Vehicle entering road from pavement”, if the above interpretation is correct, then this is on the Top 3 list because in 13% of incidents which led to a fatal or serious injury of a cyclist, a pedal cyclist was assigned the RSF “Vehicle entering road from pavement”.
Mmmm, do you ever look at
Mmmm, do you ever look at data like this and think “that can’t right”?
During the lockdown, there was a spike in deaths, but no change in the rate for serious or slightly injured. 🤔
Being slightly pedantic, the
Being slightly pedantic, the number of deaths spiked whilst the number of injuries did not change much. But given this was accompanied by a spike in miles cycled, the rate of deaths did not change much, whilst the rates of injuries dropped.
My best guess is reporting bias – maybe in lockdown police were less likely to attend non-fatal RTCs, or less likely to complete the paperwork.
The other possibility is that it reflects overall quieter roads, but as a result drivers were more likely to speed (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52370352). So it’s possible the overall probability of a cyclist being hit went down, but when a cyclist was hit, it was more likely to be fatal. This could lead to the pattern observed.
Is this correct? (Chart 1)
.
Meanwhile the number of
Meanwhile the number of pedestrians killed by cyclists remains stubbornly low hovering perilously near or at zero. This outrage demonstrates that you can prove anything with statistics, even the truth. What are the Torygraph and the Daily Heil going to do?
There is what I charitably
There is what I charitably call “fiddling the figures” in these statistics as presented. The cycling distances travelled refer to a base date of 2004, whilst the number of deaths is compared to 2023. What matters is the change in death rate per distance travelled over time. That rate is not clear from the numbers here but it looks to me it’s close to static or a slight rise in deaths per km since 2023. That’s going in the wrong direction……
danhopgood wrote:
Where’d you get that idea? So far as I can see, everything is indexed on 2004.
Road.cc has then reported various comparisons to 2004, 2020, and 2023 (deaths / serious / slight to 2023; total casualties to 2004; distance to both 2004 and 2020) but that’s not a limitation of the original figures.
Although it’s not obvious from the title or the way road.cc have presented it, I believe Chart 2 above is what you’re looking for. If you click through to the source you’ll see that this is a per mile rate. And after a sharp fall in the late 00s, it’s been steadily falling since.
So there has been a 6% fall
So there has been a 6% fall in fatalities since 2023.
But there has been a large fall in miles cycled since 2020.
So maybe the deaths per mile cycled hasn’t changed much? Or has increased?
The mid morning weekend peak is interesting. Drivers getting up a bit later and rushing to McDonald’s or retail parks after having several beers or other substances the night before? More cyclist groups on the roads, with impatient motorists tempted to make stupid overtaking manoeuvres?
The bottom line for me, do I
The bottom line for me, do I feel safer cycling on the roads, compared with 20+ years ago? The emphatic answer = No. I think the reduction in casualty rates per mile cycled could be influenced by more cycling infra, and more cyclists using this instead. There is little cycling infra where I live, my experiences of cycling on the road have resulted in concluding it is now more dangerous.
I have only been cycling for
I have only been cycling for about 12 years.
However it seems to me that in recent years, there are more impatient drivers, who make dangerous manoeuvres.
As a driver I notice increased numbers of those who make no allowance for the unexpected or for weather conditions.
Maybe people are more impatient, or angered by the right wing press stance against cyclists?
Perhaps there are more drivers who had helicopter parents and who didn’t develop an awareness of danger?
If they’d grown up around
If they’d grown up around helicopters you’d think they would have had more of a sense of danger instilled in them.
Mr Blackbird wrote:
Bloody foreign weather, coming over ‘ere and making cycling dangerous!
Good spot. Bloody predictive
Good spot. Bloody predictive texting🙂