A recent claim made by a transport watchdog’s former streets policy officer that cycling in the UK is now safer than in the Netherlands, a development that apparently contradicts cycling activists’ desire to ‘go Dutch’, has been criticised as “statistical cherry-picking”, “gibberish”, and “evidential gymnastics” by a member of the London Cycling Campaign.
In an opinion piece for Local Transport Today, retired Hackney councillor Vincent Stops argued that recent “pressure” from UK cycling campaigners to emulate the Netherlands’ approach to road safety has been misguided and flawed.
> “Good to see those who don’t pay road tax getting priority”: New “unsafe” Dutch-style roundabout will create “chaos” and add 45 minutes to journeys in hilly city where “most people can’t cycle”, confused drivers say
Stops claimed that instead of copying the Dutch method, which he says has seen a rapid rise in cycling injuries and fatalities in recent years, and which has led to “all manner of confusing road layouts appearing across Great Britain”, the UK’s transport authorities should revert to “data-led road safety interventions we know work”.
Stops, you may recall, is a retired Hackney councillor and the local authority’s former lead member for transport, who worked on streets policy for London TravelWatch, the capital’s statutory transport watchdog, for over 20 years.
In a blog post in 2022, he labelled cycling in the capital a “ruthless and well-resourced minority interest” that has “been allowed to ruin London’s bus service” (despite claiming that he “cycles everywhere”), and last year also argued that protests held in the wake of fatal collisions were “distasteful” and “putting people off cycling”.
> Cycling campaigners slammed for organising “deeply distasteful” protest demanding safer streets following two fatal collisions
In his latest post on Local Transport Today, the former streets policy officer said: “The surge in cycle activism during the 2010s was driven by blogging and social media campaigning, at the heart of which was the belief that in the Netherlands there was much more cycling, and that it was safer, per kilometre cycled.
“The London Cycling Campaign adopted the strap line ‘Love London, Go-Dutch’, which meant, essentially, inserting cycle tracks into London’s streets. However, 15 years on, Dutch cycle safety does not seem to support their thesis. In fact, the scale of cyclist fatalities in the Netherlands is staggeringly high and particularly so in the last two years reported.”
In what he called a “forensic examination” of the evidence Stops noted that cycling fatalities last year in the famously bike-friendly Netherlands (270, compared to 87 in the UK) were “12 times the fatalities per million population!”
However, he did also note the Netherlands’ much higher cycling mode share – though pointed to recent stats that suggest fewer people are killed in Britain per billion kilometres cycled than in the Netherlands (15.0 compared to 15.6). This rising mortality rate, Stops said, could be linked to the increasing use of e-bikes, especially by older people.
> Dutch government and neurologists call on cyclists to wear helmets – but cyclists’ union says “too much emphasis” on helmets discourages cycling and “has an air of victim blaming”
“The health benefits of cycling outweigh many times the statistically small chance of death and injury to individuals, therefore public policy rightly aspires to more and safer cycling. But the assumptions that are made by the new cycle activism should be challenged, and in particular suggesting that the Netherlands has all the solutions,” Stops continued.
“As you see, the Netherlands is grappling with cycle safety too. A question for us is whether GB should carry on as we have been, trying to emulate the Netherlands? We see e-bikes being heavily promoted in the UK these days. Should we carry on regardless under pressure from cycling activism? Or should we revert to data-led road safety interventions we know work?
“We see all manner of confusing road layouts appearing across GB, whereas we know that safer road layouts should be intuitive, understandable, and self-explaining.
“I welcome the new Transport Secretary Louise Haigh embarking on a fresh road safety strategy. A forensic examination of how we are doing would be helpful.”
> British cyclists feel less safe and more dissatisfied with their cycle lanes compared to European riders, research finds
However, in a rebuttal piece penned this week by the London Cycling Campaign’s head of campaigns and community development Simon Munk, who’ll be appearing on the road.cc Podcast this week to discuss all things culture wars, branded Stops’ “forensic examination” of the evidence “gibberish” and “statistical cherry-picking” designed to stop the introduction of cycling infrastructure.
Munk argued that Stops’ stats ignore “the hugely different demographic profiles of cycling in these countries, the differing reasons why fatalities occur in both countries, and that tying risk of cycling to very rare fatalities is not a good idea, statistically”.
Pointing out that when comparing actual fatality rates for cyclists, there are double the number killed per kilometre on UK roads compared to the Netherlands, he continued: “Using serious collisions as well would result again in a different result, and one that Stops has clearly chosen not to provide. The simple reality is cycling in the Netherlands is far safer than it is here.
“Stops throws in more stats but, ultimately, his evidential gymnastics just aren’t right. The Netherlands is far safer to cycle in than the UK, in part because, as international studies have shown repeatedly, cycle tracks work and not just for safety, but also to enable a far higher number of people and wider range to cycle for a wider range of journeys.”
> Conservative government “pursued poisonous culture wars” between cyclists and drivers, says new transport secretary – as Labour vows to “take back streets” for all road users
However, Munk also noted that “sadly, the views expressed by Stops are all too common in the transport industry. My concern is that his standpoint finds at least some sympathetic ears among those who still seem to view bicycles as toys in a grown-up world of big choo-choo machines.
“The transport industry cannot legitimately keep insisting that of course we all want more cycling as we face crises of climate, inactivity, road danger, congestion, pollution, community severance, and more, if every scheme comes down to an argument about whether cycle tracks are safe and how to even design them. That’s not to mention the behind-the-scenes bunfight every scheme faces for capacity.”
Finally, he concluded: “The one thing I agree with Stops on is that I also welcome the Government ‘embarking on a fresh road safety strategy. A forensic examination of how we are doing would be helpful’.
“I can only hope any government ‘grown-ups in the room’ involved in that examination won’t use cherry-picked stats to make a hackneyed anti-cycling case, but instead seek to find ways to deliver on pressing issues we all face, using evidence and best practice.”
Add new comment
17 comments
Lime Supremacy, was that starring Matt Damon?
Dear Cllr Stops - I am definitely not ruthless or well-financed (but I might be in a minority)
Really? Did you not buy your own bike (and perhaps you even have more than one)? Also ruthless (well, determined): don't you cycle despite the fact that in some places it doesn't feel safe, it's inconvenient etc? And in fact it involves a bit of physical effort, and it can rain outside, be cold, hot ...
Very well - full discloure: I own three bikes.
One is a cheap hybrid I bought thirteen years ago. Two is a not so cheap thirty years old hybrid that I gave a friend £10 for when they were clearing out their garage. And three is an very (for me) expensive city/hybrid type bike that I can only afford to buy because my boss joined a CTW scheme.
Still don't think I count as well-financed…
But but that is all entirely discretionary spending as you don't have to cycle! (Of course you have to pay for a car, or several...)
<slaps forehead> Of course! Cllr Stops was right after all…
Only three bikes - definitely qualifies you as underprivileged.
Well, no - only road cycling.
As a certain Mr P. may have noted.
One more comment on Stops comments..." we see ebikes being promoted heavily in the UK"...um, do we? Where would that be?
Don't leave your cycle boots unattended !
(Came back later for the other one !)
If Vincent Stops is so convinced of the UK being safer for cyclists, presumably he promotes the same to his nearest and dearest and actively encourages them to cycle on public roads and mix with drivers...?
I won't hold my breath.
“still view bikes as toys in a grown-up world of big choo-choo machines”
Brmm-brmm machines, surely?
"A forensic examination of how we are doing would be helpful.”
It would Mr Stops, but conducted by someone who is unbiased and objective i.e. not you.
"...branded Stops’ “forensic examination” of the evidence “gibberish” and “statistical cherry-picking”
Far too kind.
Brmm-brmm machines, surely?
Cars are also on the roads outside of Birmingham.
It's very difficult to know how statitics are being formulated and chosen-from without attempting a generally impossible task of going back to all the relevant basic counts oneself. And even then, the choice of what to regard as the basics to count is itself problematic. For example, how to determine not just "the" cause but all the causes of a collision involving: a bike, an e-bike, a ped, a dog, a car, a van, on a shared path, on an urban street, on a country road, etcetera, etcetera.
For this and many other reasons, I tend to agree with the general opinion that a Blightyland copy of Netherlands cycling infrastructure is not necessarily a best solution for Blighterland.
************
On the other hand, it doesn't need a sophisticated statistical count and analysis to determine that the major contributor to serious traffic collisions everywhere is motorised transporters (their inherent designed nature) and the attitudes - with consequent behaviours - of many of those who drive them.
It therefore seems a very poor solution to build ghettoes for cyclists (so-called cycling infrastructure) when such ghettoes cost a fortune, do a lot of environmental damage added to that done with road contruction and introduce new problems of cyclist-pedestrian interactions. (The recent Dutch increase in cycling collisions and damages seems to be due in part to these). A solution with a far wider set of beneficial effects would be to make the roads far safer by limiting the opportunities and inclinations of motorised transport and their bad drivers to run amok.
E-bikes are limited in their assistance to speeds of 15.5 mph, on the grounds that higher assisted speeds will be more dangerous, especially for those who are "normal" rather than sporting cyclists. Why does the same approach not apply to cars? A limit of 50 mph maximum, with lesser speeds auto-applied via a computer chip in car, van or lorry in urban and other such areas is easy to design and implement .... apart from politically.
A driver is tested for competance before being let loose on the roads. Why is this not a continuous process rather than a one-off good for the next 50 years?
Laws exist to prevent dangerous, inattentive and otherwise incompetant driving. Why aren't they and the associated penalties applied, with a serious effort to catch the dangerous, inattentive and incompetant? Modern tech using cameras, face recognition and several other such facilties would be easy to arrange - except politically.
*************
How much has all of the various so-called cycling infrastructure, good and bad, improved the overall traffic murder & maiming rates? It may have saved a few cycists (may have) but its done nothing to save the thousands of deaths and millions of maimings over the years on Blighty roads. A much more serious root and branch change to governance of transport and traffic is needed or the murder and maiming will continue abated by only a percent or two by a few cycle paths, if that.
Well, you can go and check the stats for NL. And ... there are certainly quite a few cyclists dying! Is their system doing nothing? Don't make the mistake of failing to account for the vast numbers cycling (e.g. figures per head of population, or even figures per billion miles travelled or some other "exposure" metric). Or fail to note that - unlike the UK - over there extra-vulnerable old and young people are cycling in large numbers also - who the figures show are far more likely to suffer solo bike crashes than run-ins with motorists. (And old people will be disproportionately affected by any crash / just falling over...)
Difference with their (imperfect, still car-heavy) system is that they not only have a legal system but ALSO actually have an effective feedback loop looking at road safety more generally and feeding back improvements as part of the process. (That's why we can discuss their statistics - that's important to them; in the UK not so much...). The problem in the UK is it's always one driver at a time (and each event in isolation)...
Does this translate to the UK? Alas I can't give you figures but I'm pretty sure there have been no people run over by motor vehicles on the completely separated former railway paths in Edinburgh. (I'm not 100% certain as I do occasionally see motorbike-equipped yoof on them. However those people aren't obeying any laws - some of those bikes are clearly stolen as they get burned out - and the police struggle to deal with them anywhere). And those aren't even "best practice" ones, being "shared use" and not over-wide...
Since the danger goes up with the weight of the vehicle, if we apply the same approach, shouldn't the limit for cars be more like 2mph or something?
"Politician uses political tactics, to push his political opinion".
...now try saying that fast, 3-times afer a few beers.