# All these fatalities



## J4CKO (29 Sep 2009)

I sometimes dread looking on here, finding another two people killed whilst out on there bikes is very saddening, and also worrying, I have no desire to be dead just yet, plus I want my kids to start cycling more.

With all these terrible accidents, are there any stats collected to try and find out how and why it happened, I am sure the Police do a thorough job collecting evidence but do the contributory factors get published, I was thinking that we all go round doing our best to be safe but could do with actual data and guidelines of what causes these terrible incidents, down even to the equipment being used, lights, clothing, actual location, time of day and details of the individual, anonymous of course. Also, it needs to be honest, just because someone has died doesnt mean they werent doign something wrong.

I might get a flaming for this as it may sound insensitive or obtrusive, that isnt the intention and neither do I want to pigeonhole victims into groups and assume it wont happen to me but I want to know if there is anything I am doing wrong or could do better ? A lot of cycling is obvious and common sense but I do wonder whether there are more subtle things that could be drawn, Cyclecraft is great but I am not sure its everything you need to know.

Hope you see what I am getting at here, not trying to be ghoulish or anything.


----------



## Panter (29 Sep 2009)

Interesting post, and the point you're getting at is very clear, it's not insensetive at all.

I think it's important though to get things in perspective. Obviously, being a cycling forum you get to hear of pretty much every incident nationwide.

I don't know how many people are run over walking across the road every day but I bet the figures are shockingly high?


----------



## Twanger (29 Sep 2009)

Shazam!!!

So to speak...

http://londonroadsafety.tfl.gov.uk/data-research_publications-arc.php


----------



## rh100 (29 Sep 2009)

I find it interesting too. As a newcomer to the road on two wheels, I've been lurking and hoovering up advice from here to get a sense of the added dangers I'll be facing.

You make a good point about cycle craft, I don't yet have a copy but intend to get one, but I imagine that like the highway code it can only give you an idea how things 'should' work. As in a car, only experience helps you out when you do get in the sticky stuff. Correct me if I'm wrong as I havn't read it yet.

Also, as there are plenty of visitors/lurkers to this forum, many of whom I'm sure would be newbies looking in to starting commuting, how about some of the more experienced riders making a sticky thread for the commuting forum, maybe listing in bullet point the danger signs to look out for on the road, and what to avoid and common mistakes etc? or if no one is willing to do that and it may not be practical, maybe linking to any relevent web sites for more info?


----------



## Panter (29 Sep 2009)

So, just on a very brief flick through the link above (thank you)

​


> Of these, 216 were fatally injured





So, that's 0.6 FATALTIES per DAY, just in greater London 
With over 28,000 incidents, it just shows how safe cycling is.

Ok, it doesn't account for miles/incident or anything but even so.....


----------



## garrilla (29 Sep 2009)

J4CKO said:


> With all these terrible accidents, are there any stats collected to try and find out how and why it happened, I am sure the Police do a thorough job collecting evidence but do the contributory factors get published, I was thinking that we all go round doing our best to be safe but could do with actual data and guidelines of what causes these terrible incidents, down even to the equipment being used, lights, clothing, actual location, time of day and details of the individual, anonymous of course. Also, it needs to be honest, just because someone has died doesnt mean they werent doign something wrong.



I'm not an expert, so I might get corrected, but from what I know the police collect some of this information but it rarely gets collated into stats. However, the police have a growing interest in 'geo-spatial' analytics as part of the 'intelligence-led policing' and this is likely to lead to better understanding of the chracteristics of accidents by place and time just as they are now starting understand how crime clusters in the same way. 

I do a lot of spatial analytics in my work and we encounter more and more police officers (and civilian statff) at industry events and they are now are regularly quoted in best practice litrature. So they are really getting into this type of research.

As this field grows I'm sure we'll start to see more 'evidence' of contributory factors and hopefully some useful solutions as a results.


----------



## Crankarm (29 Sep 2009)

I had three very close passes coming home this evening, well close for me. The reason was because the wind was back today and I was going into it so couldn't hear cars approaching on one busy stretch. I had to concentrate on other vehicles approaching and attempting to emerge from junctions. One of them a white fiat punto I managed to put in a rearward look just as he was squeezing by so shouted something at him. The other two were a Mondeo private hire taxi with the driver on the phone and the first a bogey slime green coloured Volvo saloon that turned left about 20 feet in front of me without any indication .

Normally this doesn't happen as I can hear them and turn to eye ball them but on these occasions they took me totally by surprise. I dread to think how many close passes and near death experiences muppets wearing hedphones and listening to music have .


----------



## BentMikey (29 Sep 2009)

Surely you need to look back more often? Shouldn't be relying on hearing to discover overtaking cars.


----------



## Crankarm (29 Sep 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Surely you need to look back more often? Shouldn't be relying on hearing to discover overtaking cars.



Hahaaa...... you a comedian?

Do you frquently look behind on your cart?


----------



## BentMikey (29 Sep 2009)

No, I was being absolutely serious. This is CTUK instructor training advice.

What do you mean by cart? I don't have a cart, although I look behind every few seconds when riding my bike.


----------



## mattybain (30 Sep 2009)

Crankarm said:


> Normally this doesn't happen as I can hear them and turn to eye ball them but on these occasions they took me totally by surprise. I dread to think how many close passes and near death experiences muppets wearing hedphones and listening to music have .



Hardly any because

1) My music is so low I can still hear cars
2) I frequently look behind, especially when moving out from my position
3) I try and take an early primary to avoid having to move out suddenly

And what are you going to do when silent electric cars are more prevalent? the first pedestrian deaths have already been accounted to the fact the pedestrian didn't hear the car and stepped out.


----------



## Paul Narramore (30 Sep 2009)

I think the answer is far simpler than many would imagine. In addition the fear of accidents (and fatalities) is far, far greater than the reality. As a former Advanced Police Driver I know that almost all crashes are as a result of failing to concentrate and not 'reading the road'. Timidity also comes into it. In twenty years of service, always out on the road, I went to very very few crashes (we gave up calling them 'accidents a few years ago) involving bikes although I do remember two fatals. One was at night. A young cyclist properly dressed and with good lights was riding home along an unlit country lane having finished work at the local paper mill at 10pm. At the same time a middle aged man was driving up the same lane also having left the same workplace at the same time. Now whether he was blinded by oncoming vehicles we don't know but he collided with the back of the cyclist who had no chance. The driver drove a further 1/2 mile with the remains of one of the bike wheels wrapped around his suspension before suffering from a heart attack. A very sad case.

Another incident involved a cyclist riding up a (painted on) cycle lane alongside a fast dual carriageway. With traffic speeding along at over 70mph inches from his right shoulder, it was a gamble which failed to come off.

There is a tremendous lack of awareness and a lack of concentration on the part of ALL road users - drivers, motorcyclists, riders and pedestrians. Drivers seem to like to chat to their passengers as well as looking at them. They like to waive their hands around when talking. Motorcyclists often ride far too fast for the road conditions. Cyclists often blatently ignore traffic lights and weave between cars. Pedestrians are often in a world of their own. My wife moans at me for regularly pointing out bad driving and it's because she also talks too much/looks at her passenger/waives her hands about whilst driving. She thinks that's normal. Me? I concentrate. I don't speak much, my hands are on the wheel, I mirror check every few seconds. Driving (and riding) can be a dangerous time so we must all concentrate more. And expect the unexpected.


----------



## BentMikey (30 Sep 2009)

IMO the muppets are those not looking back to interact with car drivers, not necessarily those wearing headphones. I'll admit that the two often go together though.

Car drivers hate it when we don't look back, and even more so when we don't look back before manouvering. It's so important to establish that sense of communication, to negotiate and to appear to be more human than a lycra lout. Look back, and often drivers will leave you more space and or back off a little more than they otherwise would.


----------



## summerdays (30 Sep 2009)

BentMikey said:


> It's so important to establish that sense of communication, to negotiate and to appear to be more human than a lycra lout. Look back, and often drivers will leave you more space and or back off a little more than they otherwise would.



I agree totally - that's why I hate full face helmets on the road - I think they remove a method of communication and make you appear less human. Sometimes I've looked behind in preparation for moving right ... only to find that the driver then hangs back anticipating the move, even though it was perhaps slightly earlier than I intended.


----------



## summerdays (30 Sep 2009)

As for the stats I know the council collects figures which it publishes and I think they also try to collect more information too but I don't think that is published.


----------



## jonny jeez (30 Sep 2009)

BentMikey said:


> IMO the muppets are those not looking back to interact with car drivers, not necessarily those wearing headphones. I'll admit that the two often go together though.
> 
> Car drivers hate it when we don't look back, and even more so when we don't look back before manouvering. It's so important to establish that sense of communication, to negotiate and to appear to be more human than a lycra lout. Look back, and often drivers will leave you more space and or back off a little more than they otherwise would.



+10 on that point…communication (good and bad) is vital!

Back to the thread tho.

I am also very interested to understand these facts as I want to ensure that I am doing all I can to NOT fall into any particular category that my be more inclined to accidents (if this exists).

I am reading cyclecraft as well as other bike stuff but do find that real experience (that is particular to my location and journey) is invaluable.

I really like the idea of a sticky of advice/pointers from the more experienced riders…that's a great plan.

So who would like to volunteer? Don’t be shy, If you've been riding for years you have accumulated a vast deposit of experience that we could all benefit from.


----------



## BentMikey (30 Sep 2009)

Whilst internet advice is good, I think there's nothing to beat training from an experienced instructor in real life.


----------



## 007fair (30 Sep 2009)

Paul Narramore said:


> I think the answer is far simpler than many would imagine. In addition the fear of accidents (and fatalities) is far, far greater than the reality. As a former Advanced Police Driver I know that almost all crashes are as a result of failing to concentrate .



I agree with you Paul but the problem is out of the cyclists hands in that no matter how well a cyclist behaves or concentrates it just takes one careless moment from a passing driver and its all over. Any accident on the road that does NOT involve car is highly unlikely to result in a fatality - obviously 
So are we not talking about stricter punishments for careless driving due to the fact that a car is so dangerous. I have heard it (car) being called a lethal 'weapon'...not that people use it as a weapon but it is just as dangerous if used carelessly (not just the young speed freaks but the mobile phone users etc).
Are current driving tests pushing the fact that the new driver is _responsible_ for how they drive and the consequences of not concentrating 
And in court other countries (Netherlands I believe) do come down hard on careless drivers. 

Also .. how come you are _junior_ member with 20 years experience on the police force


----------



## BentMikey (30 Sep 2009)

Can we not call collisions accidents please? It's pretty offensive, though I know you didn't intend to be.


----------



## Crankarm (1 Oct 2009)

Paul Narramore said:


> I think the answer is far simpler than many would imagine. In addition the fear of accidents (and fatalities) is far, far greater than the reality. As a former Advanced Police Driver I know that almost all crashes are as a result of failing to concentrate and not 'reading the road'. Timidity also comes into it. In twenty years of service, always out on the road, I went to very very few crashes (we gave up calling them 'accidents a few years ago) involving bikes although I do remember two fatals. One was at night. A young cyclist properly dressed and with good lights was riding home along an unlit country lane having finished work at the local paper mill at 10pm. At the same time a middle aged man was driving up the same lane also having left the same workplace at the same time. Now whether he was blinded by oncoming vehicles we don't know but he collided with the back of the cyclist who had no chance. The driver drove a further 1/2 mile with the remains of one of the bike wheels wrapped around his suspension before suffering from a heart attack. A very sad case.
> 
> Another incident involved a cyclist riding up a (painted on) cycle lane alongside a fast dual carriageway. With traffic speeding along at over 70mph inches from his right shoulder, it was a gamble which failed to come off.
> 
> There is a tremendous lack of awareness and a lack of concentration on the part of ALL road users - drivers, motorcyclists, riders and pedestrians. Drivers seem to like to chat to their passengers as well as looking at them. They like to waive their hands around when talking. Motorcyclists often ride far too fast for the road conditions. Cyclists often blatently ignore traffic lights and weave between cars. Pedestrians are often in a world of their own. My wife moans at me for regularly pointing out bad driving and it's because she also talks too much/looks at her passenger/waives her hands about whilst driving. She thinks that's normal. Me? I concentrate. I don't speak much, my hands are on the wheel, I mirror check every few seconds. Driving (and riding) can be a dangerous time so we must all concentrate more. And expect the unexpected.



You must be a whole bundle of laughs with your missus on a nice day out to the seaside .........


----------



## Crankarm (1 Oct 2009)

mattybain said:


> Hardly any because
> 
> 1) My music is so low I can still hear cars
> 2) I frequently look behind, especially when moving out from my position
> ...



So what fatalities are these then? Were they electrocuted or did they die from the shock of seeing an electric car ?


----------



## peanut (1 Oct 2009)

Paul Narramore said:


> I think the answer is far simpler than many would imagine.



very good post Paul. I would agree 100% . Most poor driving and cycling manoevers seem to stem from a lack of awareness of other road users. 

In a car I hang well back from the car in front. It gives me plenty of time to react to anything happening up front. I dodn't understand how some drivers can drive at 70mph+ on someones bumper? they must enjoy living on the 'ragged edge' of their nerves.

I would very much like to see some analysis of some of the most recent accidents involving cyclists particulary with HGV.

My own view is that a large number of cyclists have no driving licence and therfore little appreciation of 'road awareness' and the ability to predict the likely manoevers of other road users.

It seems inexplicable to me that cyclists cycle down the inside of a HGV when approaching a left turn or roundabout  even in a car I hang well back of HGV on a RaB (especially if I am on the inside lane.) I generally hang back and flash my lights to show the driver he has the whole RaB .
It gives the HGV driver the room to negotiate the RaB without having to worry about squeezing vehicles on their inside lane.


----------



## BentMikey (1 Oct 2009)

I agree, it's incredible how many cyclists try to scoot up the inside of large vehicles, or do other stupid manouvers.



peanut said:


> My own view is that *a large number of cyclists have no driving licence* and therfore little appreciation of 'road awareness' and the ability to predict the likely manoevers of other road users.



I think the bold bit is probably wrong, given that cyclists are apparently over-represented by younger relatively wealthy males. It's the common misconception amongst non-cyclists.

Having a driving license doesn't seem to help some drivers look even two seconds into the future, or drive well, so it won't help those same people when cycling either.


----------



## srw (1 Oct 2009)

Crankarm said:


> So what fatalities are these then? Were they electrocuted or did they die from the shock of seeing an electric car ?



You are being an arse today, aren't you?

For what it's worth, in response to the OP, my best guess is that the growth of the internet means that we're now far more aware of cyclists dying on the roads than we ever were before. Ten years ago most wouldn't have made it further than the pages of the local newspaper. Now they're all over places like this within an hour or two.


----------



## jonny jeez (1 Oct 2009)

BentMikey said:


> I agree, it's incredible how many cyclists try to scoot up the inside of large vehicles, or do other stupid manouvers.
> 
> 
> 
> Having a driving license doesn't seem to help some drivers look even two seconds into the future, or drive well, so it won't help those same people when cycling either.



Although, I wonder how many of those cyclist involved in serious acc…collisions are not holders of a drivers license.

It would be interesting to understand that, it may have great bearing on this point.


----------



## 007fair (1 Oct 2009)

Crankarm said:


> You must be a whole bundle of laughs with your missus on a nice day out to the seaside .........



oh yeah .. regular comedian me!


----------



## Paul Narramore (1 Oct 2009)

Crankarm said:


> You must be a whole bundle of laughs with your missus on a nice day out to the seaside .........



Ah but that is the point. Driving isn't meant to be a 'whole barrel of laughs', it's meant to be taken seriously and that requires concentration. I know for certain if I begin to get involved in a conversation in the car, small errors in my driving will start to occur. With our congested roads, there's so much information to take in, we need that concentration. There'll be enough time at the seaside to engage in chat and laughter, not when driving down the M2 at 70mph being overtaken by the Beemers and Audis all doing 95mph.

I'll give you an example of something I witnessed yesterday. I was driving down a duel carriageway into town and in the far distance 1/2 a mile away, was one of those large veicles in the nearside lane with a humungous illuminated and flashing arrow telling approaching vehicles to overtake and move into the offside lane. Some on seeing it, moved across early. Others drove right up behind this lorry, braked and almost came to a halt. A few then indicated (well that's something) and started to move across in the path of the overtaking vehicles which had to brake heavily. No bloody awareness of the road or what's ahead of them.

And cycling is the same. 'Read the road' is a term frequently used during Police driving courses. Be aware of what is around you. Look around you and over your shoulder frequently. There's no need to become a nervous wreck, but by looking around yourself often and anticipating what is happening with other traffic, riding (and driving) will become more nature rather than a life-threatening experience.

There, I'm off my soapbox for the time being.


----------



## Davidc (1 Oct 2009)

Be careful with these numbers. They need a context.

Firstly the figure given above, of 0.6 a day, equates to 220 a year.
The last national figure for road deaths was 2500. That puts cyclists at just under 1 in 10 of those.

The total for road deaths in the 1960s when I cycled to school was around 8000 a year. I recall (correct me if I'm wrong) that the policeman from Croydon who tried to frighten those of us who regularly cycled to school into riding safely told us that 600 cyclists a year died on the roads (of the UK or England -?-). Thats very roughly the same proportion of total deaths (even though seat belts in cars were then a rarity).

I think our road death figures are a disgrace now let alone then, BUT when the numbers are in their historical context it says that we're all safer on the roads than ever before during our lifetimes, whether on a bike or anything else.

It won't happen, but I'd like to see severe and draconian measures taken to quickly reduce death and injury on the roads. That should include what's been said above, the investigation of all collisions followed by evidence based *actions* to prevent recurrences. That's what has reduced rail and air accidents to a tiny level. Back to the numbers - when there is an accident on either of these it's headline news for a week. As a result three people I know hate air travel and give as a reason that it's too dangerous, airoplanes are always crashing. They've looked at the numbers but not considered the context. Another acquaintance won't travel by train since the Paddington crash. Same problem. All four drive cars. (Neither can any of the four understand me riding a bike because it's so dangerous!)

In general statistics without context are dangerous. A good example recently was when a national newspaper commissioned research into an aspect of literacy and got the best result ever measured. It wasn't what they wanted to see. Their feature article said "National Disgrace. [Measured Parameter] only 50%. [Digital Media] to blame". Followed by a slagging off of the government for "allowing" this dreadful situation to arise and demanding a campaign to ban e-books!


----------



## jonny jeez (1 Oct 2009)

Paul Narramore said:


> Ah but that is the point. Driving isn't meant to be a 'whole barrel of laughs', it's meant to be taken seriously and that requires concentration. .





And If anyone doubts this then try and undertake this test of concentration, taught to me by my father (another advanced Police motorist)

- _Take a normal drive along any given road, as you go,__ verbalise everything that you see…every risk, every opportunity of risk, every potential danger every potential safety point, exit point…etc_

_-Actually drive along talking through all of these, you'll be amazed just how much there is to see and to concentrate on._

_-Then look at your speed…you WILL have slowed down, without even realizing it_

Then remember that when you next get in the car and start driving whilst putting on the seatbelt and selecting your fav track on the MP3 and putting your phone into its cradle…or when you are having a lively debate with your pal's in the car…its impossible to do all of this and still concentrate that much.

That said, Driving can be one of the most enjoyable experiences ever…just keep some respect for the level of concentration required to do it properly.


----------



## Amanda P (1 Oct 2009)

peanut said:


> I dodn't understand how some drivers can drive at 70mph+ on someones bumper? they must enjoy living on the 'ragged edge' of their nerves.



I don't think they are on the edge of their nerves - most have no idea that what they are doing could have serious consequences.

The problem is that 999 times out of 1000, we do something risky on the road and we get away with it (whatever it is - tailgating, failing to observe something, a dodgy overtake, jumping a red light, you name it). We get away with it by good luck, because another driver _is _concentrating and has allowed for our error, because the ABS kicks in, etc. 

So our bad behaviour goes unpunished. So we do it again. And again.

Years ago I worked with a woman who routinely tailgated. As we did a lot of driving together, it wound me up and became a routine topic of conversation. This went on for a couple of years.

Then one day she bought her first brand new car. Two days later, she rear-ended someone she'd been tailgating. Her precious new car was off the road for weeks being repaired, she had to pay a hefty excess, and paying the next year's insurance premium really hurt her.

She stopped tailgating after that.

Paul's right - some advanced training (driving or cycling) makes you much more aware of what _might_ go wrong. Usually it doesn't, but concentration makes the difference between crashing or not crashing when something _does_ go wrong.


----------



## Crankarm (1 Oct 2009)

Uncle Phil said:


> I don't think they are on the edge of their nerves - most have no idea that what they are doing could have serious consequences.
> 
> The problem is that 999 times out of 1000, we do something risky on the road and we get away with it (whatever it is - tailgating, failing to observe something, a dodgy overtake, jumping a red light, you name it). We get away with it by good luck, because another driver _is _concentrating and has allowed for our error, because the ABS kicks in, etc.
> 
> ...



Nooooo.......... the reason she stopped tailgating was not because of any training course, but as you clearly state because her previous bad driving cost her a lot of money. Simples.


----------



## Crankarm (1 Oct 2009)

srw said:


> You are being an arse today, aren't you?



Nice to see you haven't lost any of your nasty hostility with an enforced days rest yesterday .


----------



## Amanda P (1 Oct 2009)

I was trying to make two points (badly) and mixed them up.

She stopped tailgating because it cost her a lot of money.

Many people get through a liftetime of (bad) driving, because they never suffer any consequences from it. If we all received better/advanced training, we might not suffer any consequences, but we'd be made much more aware of what they might be.


----------



## J4CKO (1 Oct 2009)

I am all for a do's and dont's section, I thought I was ok on the road when I started having driven for years and cycled occasionally but doing it every day, the advice on here, cyclecraft and watchign other cyclists has helped massively, there is loads of excellent advice in these pages but it needs to be searched for and pages of chaff to be sorted through, perhaps pointers could be distilled and listed bullet point style.

Heres the first one,

1/ Dont go anywhere near HGV's or other very large vehicles you will get squashed, they cant see you, or at least assume they cant, if in doubt stop (where safe to do so) and think of another way around, if it slows you down its better than being dead.


----------



## peanut (1 Oct 2009)

I believe it would be an excellent safety improvement for all cyclists to have to attend and pass a safe cycling course and possibly hold public indeminity insurance.

I realise that insurance would hit those on a tight budget hard but I see no reason why the rest of us drivers should subsidise cyclists who contribute nothing to their use of the highways.

I really like the idea of a Cycling safety Course. Its crazy to expect new cyclists to share busy roads with vehicles and yet have no cycling experience and often have no appreciation of the highway code, or legal and safe use of the roads.


----------



## rh100 (1 Oct 2009)

peanut said:


> I realise that insurance would hit those on a tight budget hard but I see no reason why the rest of us drivers should subsidise cyclists *who contribute nothing to their use of the highways.*



 Did you mean to put a 

Personally, I wouldn't mind paying insurance, but I may already be insured on my household one - will have to check. But it's probably unenforceable if people are getting away with no car insurance already.


----------



## J4CKO (1 Oct 2009)

Peanut, yes, like the CBT for motor cycles.

The insurance thing is also a good idea but Drivers arent the cyclsits sugar daddy paying for our every silly whim, I pay VED on two cars I also pay vast ammounts of personal tax, it all goes into a big pot called central government and spent where they see fit, the VED probably doesnt go on roads anyway and pales ito insignificance compared to most peoples actual tax liability so it pisses me off when some tit in a scratty old car lords it over me like he is personally paying for my every need yet probably contributes much less to the economy than I do.

VED needs scrapping, stick it all on petrol


----------



## MartinC (1 Oct 2009)

peanut said:


> I believe it would be an excellent safety improvement for all cyclists to have to attend and pass a safe cycling course and possibly hold public indeminity insurance.
> 
> I realise that insurance would hit those on a tight budget hard but I see no reason why the rest of us drivers should subsidise cyclists who contribute nothing to their use of the highways.
> 
> I really like the idea of a Cycling safety Course. Its crazy to expect new cyclists to share busy roads with vehicles and yet have no cycling experience and often have no appreciation of the highway code, or legal and safe use of the roads.



Peanut. I don't think you're right with this but one of the sentiments I agree with. Any training for cyclists has to be a good idea. 

Obligatory training and insurance are disproportionate to the risk that cyclist face and create. Cycling is far more akin to walking than driving (for example children do it as well as adults). To me it's a big part of the problem that people think all road space should be mediated by the rules that are convenient for cars.

The point about subsidies is wrong. Road costs p.a. are far more than is collected in VED and the total costs of motoring to the country far exceed the total tax take. Last time I saw the official figures (Government Department figures for the tax take and the cost) for this each car is being subsidised to the tune of about £2000 p.a. Many cyclists pay tax. The question is why does everyone have to subsidise drivers not the other way round.

For all the licencing and testing that happens my experience is that many drivers often have no appreciation of the highway code, or legal and safe use of the roads. Recommending the same system for cyclists, pedestrians, people pushing prams or whatever doesn't seem to have much merit.


----------



## peanut (1 Oct 2009)

MartinC said:


> Obligatory training and insurance are disproportionate to the risk that cyclist face and create.



try telling that to the families of those cyclists that have been killed on the roads this year. 

Any measure that will significantly reduce the risk of injury or fatality to cyclists is worthwhile.


----------



## ttcycle (1 Oct 2009)

I have to agree with Jonny and Paul - whether you're on a bike or in the car it's about riding/driving assertively as well as defensively. I've used that technique for advanced driving where you state in the car (maybe people can have a go at it on the next ride in) all the hazards you see ahead that will cause you to slow or change course potentially - really opens your eyes up to looking ahead and having good road awareness. Sometimes it's easy to get pissed off with someone when they pull out suddenly but the assumption is to be aware of potential hazards early on and only you as a cyclist, driver, ped etc can take responsibility for your actions in that part of the equation. It's a fine balance between maintaining a good speed so you don't annoy other road users but also being aware ahead of time when to slow down for upcoming hazards. I no longer feel the need to go super fast all the time on the bike or in the car as ultimately it achieves very little.


----------



## andyfromotley (1 Oct 2009)

Paul Narramore said:


> My wife moans at me for regularly pointing out bad driving and it's because she also talks too much/looks at her passenger/waives her hands about whilst driving. She thinks that's normal. Me? I concentrate. I don't speak much, my hands are on the wheel, I mirror check every few seconds. Driving (and riding) can be a dangerous time so we must all concentrate more. And expect the unexpected.



Pretty much since i passed my advance course 7 years ago i just cant bear to let my other half drive. It terrifies me.

Having benefitted from a 4 week standard 4 week advanced and 2 week advanced refresher in the last 15 years i have an extremely poor opinion of the standard of drivers (and driver training) in this country. 

To be fair tho, as i have said in this forum before as a regular cycle commuter i personally find Leeds to be a very safe place to cycle. Considerate drivers and very few incidents of not in the 2 years since i took it up.


----------



## MartinC (2 Oct 2009)

peanut said:


> try telling that to the families of those cyclists that have been killed on the roads this year.
> 
> Any measure that will significantly reduce the risk of injury or fatality to cyclists is worthwhile.



Hyperbole, you can substitute the participant in any activity for "cycling" in your statement and make the same emotional argument e.g. pedestrian. You need to show that there are significant extra risks in cycling compared to the other ones you ignore for your argument to carry weight. Bear in mind that cycling covers a vast range of activity, a 3 year old toddler on the pavement and a messenger in London are both cycling.

Remember, too, that I agreed with you that training was a good idea. I thought it was the idea of making it mandatory that was disproportionate so this post seems to be an overreaction anyway.

Also bear in mind that some of the unfortunate cyclists killed this (or any) year were highly trained anyway so conscripting all their families to your cause seems a bit presumptious.


----------



## BentMikey (2 Oct 2009)

Crikey Peanut, you can really sprout some utter boll0cks.


----------



## peanut (2 Oct 2009)

BM you are a thoroughly rude and obnoxious person but I understand that you have a need to be obnoxious and post rubbish in order to elicit a response and propagate an argument so I just ignore your type.

However I make an exception in this instance as your rude and ignorant response shows a complete insensitivity and utter disregard for those people viewing whether guests or members who have lost a friend or relative due to a road fatility.


----------



## Origamist (2 Oct 2009)

MartinC said:


> Also bear in mind that some of the unfortunate cyclists killed this (or any) year were highly trained anyway so conscripting all their families to your cause seems a bit presumptious.



And offensive.


----------



## BentMikey (2 Oct 2009)

Only obnoxious because I called out your nonsense? Hopefully you'll have learnt from your mistake and won't ever claim again that drivers subsidise cyclists, when in fact it's the other way around - everyone subsidises drivers.


----------



## mattybain (2 Oct 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Crikey Peanut, you can really sprout some utter boll0cks.



Wow that's incredibly rude and unlike you. What bits did you think was boll0cks?

He seems to be making a valid point and you and others are shooting him down.

It's clear from reading about all these deaths that in *some* cases training would have helped the situation. Especially the left hook by lorries where the cyclist seems to have scooted down the side of a HGV.

From cyclists and non-cyclists I have spoken it seems they are just not aware of the danger of HGV's.

So IMO some saying that additional training would help is clearly not boll0cks and not offensive.

I had some rudimentary training when I was 9, I feel like I am a careful cyclist now because of reading forums like this. If I hadn't I wouldn't know about primary and certainly wouldn't be aware about the dangers of HGV's.

Now there are many more people who haven't had any training at all.


----------



## BentMikey (2 Oct 2009)

It's extremely offensive because in 4 out of 5 collisions with cyclists, it's the driver's fault. Sure, training helps all of us, but it's not legally required, and probably would have made no difference anyway in the fatalities. Peanut's approach is pure and simple victim blaming, and that's contemptible.

In any event, I was referring mostly to the stupidity of the claim that drivers subsidise cyclists, when it's the other way around.


----------



## mattybain (2 Oct 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Only obnoxious because I called out your nonsense? Hopefully you'll have learnt from your mistake and won't ever claim again that drivers subsidise cyclists, when in fact it's the other way around - everyone subsidises drivers.



Really is that true? do you have a cite or link that proves that?

I think that overall drivers pay more than the total cost of roads, so surely that statement is correct?

It's hard to get accurate figures but total fuel duty in 2008 is around £25.7bn http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldhansrd/text/80709w0001.htm

Total road building costs and maintenance costs for 2005/6 are £8.8bn http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080501/text/80501w0006.htm

There seems to be a difference between true costs i.e. the amount actually spent and the "environmental cost" which is a made up amount including all sorts of spurious costs.

So you appear to be wrong, yes drivers do subidise cyclists. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary?


----------



## mattybain (2 Oct 2009)

BentMikey said:


> It's extremely offensive because in 4 out of 5 collisions with cyclists, it's the driver's fault. Sure, training helps all of us, but it's not legally required, and probably would have made no difference anyway in the fatalities. Peanut's approach is pure and simple victim blaming, and that's contemptible.
> 
> In any event, I was referring mostly to the stupidity of the claim that drivers subsidise cyclists, when it's the other way around.



4 out of 5? where do you get that number from?

To say he is contemptible for suggesting that training might save *some* lives is crazy?

Unless I have missed some heavily edited or removed posts I just don't get this anger?


----------



## peanut (2 Oct 2009)

matty please don't waste your time discussing this with bentmikey he is simply trolling. He posts any rubbish, rudeness or nonsense he can to elicit a response then he'll embroil you in a useless and unproductive argument because these weird people get a kick out of upsetting others .?

They should imo be thrown off the site for being disruptive but this site seems to be more tolerant than most 

Just put him on your 'ignore' list and you'll not need to read any of his rubbish again


----------



## BentMikey (2 Oct 2009)

mattybain said:


> Really is that true? do you have a cite or link that proves that?
> 
> I think that overall drivers pay more than the total cost of roads, so surely that statement is correct?
> 
> ...




I believe that it's not so simple, and people whom I respect have shown the contrary, conclusively enough that there's no point in going back into the debate. Try googling on uk.rec.cycling, ISTR there were some very good posts on the topic.


----------



## rh100 (2 Oct 2009)

mattybain said:


> Really is that true? do you have a cite or link that proves that?
> 
> I think that overall drivers pay more than the total cost of roads, so surely that statement is correct?
> 
> ...



In the same way I, as a general tax payer, subsidize everything else. My tax, however paid, directly and through stealth, is used to pay for whatever the government decides to spend it on. Tax collected in one name - eg fuel tax isn't set aside just for building and fixing roads, maybe some council tax is, maybe a LOT of that investment goes on motorways and traffic police when I cant (quite rightly) take my bike on there. I'd quite happily ride to work on a dirt track, except all the dirt tracks got built over when cars needed the infrastructure to support them. What I'm trying to say is that roads are there to support the motor vehicles, not bikes, but bikes have nowhere else to use so have to use the roads. I find it offensive to say that drivers support me using a bike - I pay tax on everything I buy or pay for - which is used to fund everything else that a driver uses. I still drive by the way, so this isn't a go at motorists - just that point of view.


----------



## Origamist (2 Oct 2009)

Peanut are you the same "Peanut" who was banned from the CTC forum for abuse? I think we should be told?!


----------



## palinurus (2 Oct 2009)

Uncle Phil said:


> Many people get through a liftetime of (bad) driving, because they never suffer any consequences from it. If we all received better/advanced training, we might not suffer any consequences, but we'd be made much more aware of what they might be.



Yup. It's not a few drivers taking really big risks, it's a large number taking an even larger number of regular small risks, only very few have any consequences.


----------



## humptygocart (2 Oct 2009)

Some people may be shocked, appalled, outraged and disgusted by bent mikey but I'm afraid he is correct.

Cyclists have the lowest "at fault" rating of any road user. They have, after all, a natural disincentive toward collisions with anything because they flipping hurt.

Drivers, too, are subsidised by the rest of the population. That this fact is little known demonstrates the sway held by the motoring lobby who complain about the over-taxed motorist when in fact the average urban motor vehicle is subsidised to the tune of around £2000 a year.


There is nothing "spurious" about the ten children killed or seriously injured on our roads every day, nor the cost of policing, or the cost to the NHS, or the pollution costs, noise pollution, damage to the infrastructure, rises in asthma and lung disease, global warming, disposal of vehicles etc etc etc.


Proposals to licence or have compulsory insurance on bicycles are unworkable and would cost far more to administer than any potential benefit.


----------



## mattybain (2 Oct 2009)

BentMikey said:


> I believe that it's not so simple, and people whom I respect have shown the contrary, conclusively enough that there's no point in going back into the debate. Try googling on uk.rec.cycling, ISTR there were some very good posts on the topic.



What you are disagreeing with Hansard? that it is pretty solid evidence in my mind. 

How could it possibly be wrong, when you look at hard numbers money coming into the treasury from drivers is vastly more than is spent on the roads.

Okay so there may be some additional costs of policing but the revenue figure I quoted is just fuel duty, this doesn't include road tax, congestion charging, revenue from speed cameras etc 

The numbers are so vastly different that I am not going to waste my time trawling through old threads.

Also the £8.8bn includes £4.4bn of road construction, which can be argued is a benefit from the country economically so there is an argument for taking this number out of the occasion.

Just cut to the chase and show me a link (like I have) which definitely shows that cyclists subsidies motorists or take back your comments and aplogise for this post "Hopefully you'll have learnt from your mistake and won't ever claim again that drivers subsidise cyclists, when in fact it's the other way around - everyone subsidises drivers. "

If it's not clear cut to you whey would you post something like that?

And what about the 4 out 5, do you have anything to back that up?


----------



## rh100 (2 Oct 2009)

humptygocart said:


> Some people may be shocked, appalled, outraged and disgusted by bent mikey but I'm afraid he is correct.
> 
> Cyclists have the lowest "at fault" rating of any road user. They have, after all, a natural disincentive toward collisions with anything because they flipping hurt.
> 
> ...



Some good points

(by the way - welcome to the forum)


----------



## MartinC (2 Oct 2009)

mattybain said:


> There seems to be a difference between true costs i.e. the amount actually spent and the "environmental cost" which is a made up amount including all sorts of spurious costs.



"Environmental" cost include things like the £1.5 million average (at 1980's figures IIRC) total cost to the country of each fatal accident. If you're going to selectively eliminate figures from the equation that you don't like because they're "made up" then anyone can prove anything.


----------



## ttcycle (2 Oct 2009)

I think the issue that I'm picking up is that the deaths caused by HGV (a few of us are working on raising awareness by a campaign- check out the pages) are preventable by simple training. Training in my view can help all road users become more aware of hazards and poor driving/cycling- it is not however, simply an answer for some of the HGV deaths. It has not always been a case of people undertaking, what I think BM and others are annoyed about it the perpetuation of the attitude of 'blaming' the cyclist- there are so many factors involved in these situations - I had an email from a relative of a woman killed by a HGV - she DID NOT UNDERTAKE and was a confident cyclist. If you read media reports on this issue - it's often biased as to 'oh the cyclist was to blame' etc etc in subtle use of language-sometimes so subtle it may not even be purposeful.

Training raises awareness but just simply saying cyclists all have a blanket skills shortage does not in my opinion address the issues around the HGV/cyclist interations.


----------



## humptygocart (2 Oct 2009)

The external costs of motoring have been calculated by Government appointed economists like David Pearce *as well below* the amount of the taxes that they pay. In 1994, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution published a report which concluded by saying the price of petrol *would have to double* to reflect roughly the true cost of motoring.

The British Medical Association publication _"Road Transport & Health",_ Sept '97 noted that a reduction in motor traffic _"could lead to a broad range of health benefits"_. The health problems associated with the lack of exercise with which motoring is implicated - stroke, heart disease, obesity - are far greater problems in terms of life years lost than those from "road traffic accidents". Putting these costs on to the balance sheet would increase the estimate for 2000 to *above the £2,000 per year deficit* of the average motorist.

http://www.rdrf.org/freepubs/pumpup.htm


----------



## mattybain (2 Oct 2009)

humptygocart said:


> Some people may be shocked, appalled, outraged and disgusted by bent mikey but I'm afraid he is correct.



No one was shocked, appalled or disgusted at BM, it was the other way around.



humptygocart said:


> There is nothing "spurious" about the ten children killed or seriously injured on our roads every day, nor the cost of policing, or the cost to the NHS, or the pollution costs, noise pollution, damage to the infrastructure, rises in asthma and lung disease, global warming, disposal of vehicles etc etc etc.



Don't get me wrong I think car's should be taxed much higher and that pollution / global warming is a real problem that should be addressed.

However to suggest that drivers are not contributing enough to counter the cost of provding roads is crazy. We are talking about an excess of £40bn from revenue to actual cost.

And yes all those things you mention are spurious when you try and attach a £ value to them as it's subjective and impossible.


----------



## ttcycle (2 Oct 2009)

In relation to the road tax debate- are we really going into that one here as it's really well OT. I'm not even going get caught up in that old chestnut again!


----------



## humptygocart (2 Oct 2009)

_And yes all those things you mention are spurious when you try and attach a £ value to them as it's subjective and impossible. _

Nonsense. You are picking and choosing which stats to believe or discard, depending on whether they support your stance.

The external costs of private motoring are clear.


About twice as many people are killed each year in Europe by air pollution as die in road traffic accidents, according to research sponsored by the world health organisation published today in the Lancet. 

Analysis of deaths in France, Austria and Switzerland shows 6% of all deaths - around 40,000 a year - stem from air pollution, around half due to tiny particles in vehicle exhausts, particularly diesel. In addition, traffic causes 25,000 new cases of chronic bronchitis in adults, 290,000 cases in children and more than 500,000 asthma attacks. 

The research says motorists do not pay for the true cost that driving imposes on society. 

The Lancet says in an editorial that if the cost of motoring on the health service was taken into account, spending on better public transport would appear far more reasonable, with taxes and laws to reduce driving more publicly acceptable.


----------



## Davidc (2 Oct 2009)

The OP was about fatalities, and they tie in with public attitudes not with money.

However

I have never seen a figure for total road building and repair costs.

The problem is that the trunk roads and motorways are built and maintained by central government, the lower classification roads by various tiers of local government.

The last press article I read on this suggested that if you total the whole lot and add in signalling and NHS costs it just about breaks even against taxes paid by motorists and vehicle operators, but I don't trust anything that doesn't contain references and sources - it's probably wrong. To get a meaningful figure the cost of lost productivity, the total economic costs of randomly killing 2500 people a year, the cost of benefits support etc. for those maimed and injured and so on need to be included in items to be paid from taxes.

Cycles hardly contribute to road wear. They're too light. As a result it's cyclists who don't own cars who, through their taxes, subsidise heavier vehicles. The relationship between weight and wear has been shown to be a 4th power law by TRL and others. Motor cycles don't cause significant wear either, and to be fair cars don't do very much either, when it comes to wear and tear they subsidise LGVs, busses, etc.

Again, the OP was about deaths. The fastest way to reduce these, and serious injuries, (not specifically cycling ones) would be to reduce speeds. That would also reduce the overall road repair bill.

Road building, apart from genuine safety improvements has always been a waste of money. All research that I've seen referenced or have read shows that all extra roads do is increase traffic. Even bypasses only give temporary relief unless flow restricting measures are put in place when they open.

Edit: Meant to also say that to reduce car use there's probably no need to increase fuel duty, the price of oil will rocket as soon as the recession ends. An increase in excise duty however, IMO, to reflect the real total costs of motor cars to the economy, is sorely needed. £2500 a year would be about right, but politically impossible. I don't expect many to agree at present, but given time .....


----------



## mattybain (2 Oct 2009)

humptygocart said:


> The external costs of motoring have been calculated by Government appointed economists like David Pearce *as well below* the amount of the taxes that they pay. In 1994, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution published a report which concluded by saying the price of petrol *would have to double* to reflect roughly the true cost of motoring.
> 
> The British Medical Association publication _"Road Transport & Health",_ Sept '97 noted that a reduction in motor traffic _"could lead to a broad range of health benefits"_. The health problems associated with the lack of exercise with which motoring is implicated - stroke, heart disease, obesity - are far greater problems in terms of life years lost than those from "road traffic accidents". Putting these costs on to the balance sheet would increase the estimate for 2000 to *above the £2,000 per year deficit* of the average motorist.
> 
> http://www.rdrf.org/freepubs/pumpup.htm



Well to say that site is biased would be an under reaction!!

However to pick those numbers apart.

Firstly they disagree with the governements own figures as provided by HANSARD (and you could argue the govt would wan to claim the opposite to justify tax increases). That's a difference of £13bn for a start.

Then the rest of the numbers are just made up, there is no justification for them.

How can you value congestion? where is the acutal money flow here? there is none. People do their jobs and get on with their lives.

And as for noise and pollution, what actual costs do they relate to?

However it is clear that you don't want to deal with facts so best leave it there.


----------



## mattybain (2 Oct 2009)

Davidc said:


> However
> 
> I have never seen a figure for total road building and repair costs.



Read the links I provided, from official government numbers.


----------



## humptygocart (2 Oct 2009)

We are talking about an excess of £40bn from revenue to actual cost.

Wrong again:

The costs of motoring are the same as they were in the 1970s. They went down in the 1980s - their rise is simply up to the level it was at some 25 years ago. In that time average incomes have gone up by 2 to 3 times. In terms of the average income, motoring has become *very much cheaper*.

In _"The Real Costs of Motoring"_ (August 1996) published by The Environmental Transport Association, (01932 828882, 10 Church Street, Weybridge, KT13 8RS. www.eta.co.uk) the costs (in £billions) of road damage and congestion, the impact of air pollution on health, climate change (global warming), noise, and of accidents not paid for by those involved are calculated as follows: 

http://www.rdrf.org/freepubs/pumpup.htm

You see, average drivers receive a massive public subsidy! HGV drivers receive even more.


----------



## humptygocart (2 Oct 2009)

mattybain said:


> Well to say that site is biased would be an under reaction!!
> 
> However to pick those numbers apart.
> 
> ...



The source is The Lancet. If you have evidence that the research is biased and corrupt then please post it.

Or explain why you think they "made up" the figures?

Those notorious tree-huggers, errr, the CBI estimated the costs of congestion, again if you have evidence the research is flawed then feel free to post it.


----------



## mattybain (2 Oct 2009)

humptygocart said:


> _And yes all those things you mention are spurious when you try and attach a £ value to them as it's subjective and impossible. _
> 
> Nonsense. You are picking and choosing which stats to believe or discard, depending on whether they support your stance.
> 
> The external costs of private motoring are clear.



Actually I am not, I am choosing to disagree with BM's statement that Drivers do not subsidise Cyclists.

I was not talking about accidents or pollution just looking at the inflows and outflows of actual money which is what a subsidy refers to.

On this point it is clear drivers subsidise general taxation.

Yes I agree there are lot's of other things wrong with driving such as pollution, accidents, people's health but as there is no direct finanical impact they shouldn't be included in the financial calculation.

The definition of subisdy "A *subsidy* (also known as a subvention) is a form of financial assistance paid to a business or economic sector." so that pretty much excludes all other non finanical costs.


----------



## mattybain (2 Oct 2009)

humptygocart said:


> The source is The Lancet. If you have evidence that the research is biased and corrupt then please post it.
> 
> Or explain why you think they "made up" the figures?
> 
> Those notorious tree-huggers, errr, the CBI estimated the costs of congestion, again if you have evidence the research is flawed then feel free to post it.



The Lancet (a medical journal) researched into congestion costs? I find that hard to believe.

Send me the direct link to the Lancet journal and I may believe the numbers.


----------



## humptygocart (2 Oct 2009)

_Yes I agree there are lot's of other things wrong with driving such as pollution, accidents, people's health but as there is no direct finanical impact they shouldn't be included in the financial calculation._

Barking mad.


----------



## mattybain (2 Oct 2009)

humptygocart said:


> We are talking about an excess of £40bn from revenue to actual cost.
> 
> Wrong again:
> 
> ...



OMG what are you talking about, that makes no sense whatsoever. Who cares about the "Real costs of motoring".

I am talking about actual £ figures from the government.

Another link to that site, do you have any proper proof that isn't biased?


----------



## humptygocart (2 Oct 2009)

mattybain said:


> The Lancet (a medical journal) researched into congestion costs? I find that hard to believe.
> 
> Send me the direct link to the Lancet journal and I may believe the numbers.



The Lancet study was into pollution, The _Lancet_ (Vol 369), the CBI assessed congestion, according to the _CBI_, _congestion_ is estimated to cost the UK economy as much as £20 billion per year in resources and lost time . You ARE reading what I'm posting?


----------



## humptygocart (2 Oct 2009)

_Who cares about the "Real costs of motoring"._

Me.

Environmentalists.

Parents.

Doctors, specialists in lung disease and asthma.

People who live near roads. Bereaved husbands and wives, fathers and mothers.


Those sort of people.


----------



## mattybain (2 Oct 2009)

humptygocart said:


> _Yes I agree there are lot's of other things wrong with driving such as pollution, accidents, people's health but as there is no direct finanical impact they shouldn't be included in the financial calculation._
> 
> Barking mad.



How are you going to value pollution? clean up costs maybe, how else would you do it.

Accidents okay, maybe there will be some costs but not that much, most of it is paid for by drivers and their insurance.

People's health, not buying this one, in fact you could argue there is a benefit from people dying earlier i.e. lower pensions costs, lower long term health costs. I bet that isn't factored in.

I see you have resulted into personal insults, knew that wouldn't take long.


----------



## mattybain (2 Oct 2009)

humptygocart said:


> _Who cares about the "Real costs of motoring"._
> 
> Me.
> 
> ...



Yes I guess you are right, probably got carried away. I am actually pretty green and am strongly against road building and increased car use.

BTW I do agree with you on many of these points.

The point is that you can't argue that drivers don't subsidise general taxation, that is just wrong.


----------



## humptygocart (2 Oct 2009)

_I am talking about actual £ figures from the government._

Okey dokey:

There is a widespread perception that motorists are already unfairly taxed. This is simply not true(1). In the year 2002-03 £26.5 billion was raised from fuel and road tax(2). Around £6bn went toward roadbuilding and maintenance that year(3). The cost of policing the roads and the expense incurred by the judicial system is estimated to be between £1bn and £3bn(4), while congestion costs businesses and other drivers £20bn in delay(5).
The costs of the effects of air pollution and accidents due to road transport were estimated at £12.3bn(6) and £16bn(7) respectively. Then add global warming, the potential effects of which dwarf our entire economic system(8). Clearly all of us, motorists and non-motorists alike, are paying for motorists to sit in their cars and pollute the environment, and paying heavily(9).


1.
This point was most definitively made in an audit of transport revenues and costs in the the year 1993, called "The True Costs of Road Transport" (Maddison, Pearce, Johanson, Calthrop, Litman and Verhoef, 1996, Earthscan Books). Maddison reviews and updates his figures for air pollution in a 1998 report composed for the ETA. Results of this work demonstrate a total subsidy to the road network of between £11.2bn and £17.2bn per year. I do not quote the figures in full in the leaflet as a significant proportion of them is based on highly theoretical economic valuations of the value of human life and health. My intention here is only to demonstrate that the roads are heavily subsidised in both monetary terms and human terms - this is incontrovertible.
2.
From Department for Transport figures "Transport Statistics for Great Britain" (DfT, 2004) Section 7.15 pg. 20.
3.
£6bn is an average per-year spend over the 10 year investment programme announced by the Government in July 2000, which earmarked £59bn for road infrastructure. The figure is corroborated by figures of £5.47bn spent on roads in England (from "Transport Statistics for Great Britain" (Dft, 2004) Section 7 pg. 18), £266 million spent on roads in Wales (from "Welsh Transport Statistics 2004" Table 12.1), plus £356 million in Scotland (from Scottish Transport Statistics No 23: 2004 Edition, Table 11.1), making a total of £6.09bn.
4.
No authoritative figures are available for this. In Transport Trends and Transport Policies - Myths and Facts (Transport 2000) the figure of £400m is quoted for police costs directly related to road traffic, based on 1996 information. This equates to £445 million in 2003 (adjusted according to the Retail Prices Index - as with all prices quoted on this page). According to Road Safety Spending in Great Britain: Who stands to gain? (PACTS, 1996), the road safety budget of the Home Office, Departments of Transport and Health in 1995 amounted to £835m. A figure of £3bn is estimated for all police and judicial costs by Norman Bradbury, Peter Hayman and Graham Nalty in "The Great Road Transport Subsidy" (I-Greens, 1996). This figure is almost certainly a high-side estimate. It only seems safe therefore to put the figure in the range of £1bn to £3bn.
5.
This is the 'standard' figure widely quoted for the public cost of traffic congestion, based on research originally carried out in the 1980s by the British Road Federation and the Confederation of British Industry. See "Utilities' street works and the cost of Traffic Congestion" (Phil Goodwin, 2005). A more complete description of what this figure means is given and discussed on the next page.
6.
Figure calculated in "Air Pollution- A Fair Payment from Road Users" (David Maddison, Environmental Transport Association, 1998) as £11.1bn and adjusted to 2003 figures.
7.
Quoted in a Royal Society for the Provention of Accidents document on road safety. No year is given for this figure, so I have not adjusted it, however the rest of the document refers to 1999/2000.
8.
Many attempts have been made to calculate an economic cost of climate change, often in terms of the marginal cost incurred by the addition of a particular amount of CO2 to the atmosphere. The paper "The Environmental Benefits from road pricing" (Santos, Rojey and Newbery, 2000) quotes a range varying from £4.6 per tonne of Carbon(tC) to £68.5/tC. In fact any figure quoted will be highly disputable.
The massive uncertainties both in the predicted effects and the economic cost of the damage and suffering make me unwilling to quote any figure for this. This complexity is a significant problem for economists, as estimates of the cost form a significant part of deducing appropriate levels of Pigouvian taxation to activities, like transportation, which have climate effects.
The Royal Society made this point in their submission to the Stern Report in February 2006: "Standard economic models inadequate to cost long term climate change impacts"
When the factor you are examining has the ability to change over decades the value of the currency unit, and the value of anything else you might use to compare it with, not to mention the structure of the economy itself, arriving at a meaningful figure is a Sysphian task. Edward Goldsmith, in "The economic cost of climate change" concludes "Whatever may happen to the economy, what is absolutely certain is that we cannot live without a relatively stable climate".
9.
If you are still in any doubt, consider these less well studied costs not mentioned in the leaflet:


*Water pollution*, in the form of run-off into rivers and drainage of leaking oil, break fluid, exhaust and soot from vehicles, rubber particulates from tyres and salt used in winter. Estimated at between £500m and £1bn in 1993 in "Charging transport users for environmental and social costs" (David Newbery, Cambridge University, 1997). Compare with estimates of 6600 million DM (£3.13bn in 2003 prices) per year for Germany in 1992, quoted in "Transport for a sustainable future - the case for Europe" (John Whitelegg, Belhaven Press, 1993), and $29bn (£16.2bn) per year for the US in 2004, quoted in "Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis" by Todd Litman (Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2005).
*Noise pollution*, in the form of lowered house prices, spoilt natural areas, ill-health and disturbed sleep. Estimates include £3.9bn from "The True Costs of Road Transport" (Maddison, Pearce, Johanson, Calthrop, Litman and Verhoef, 1996, Earthscan Books), and £3.1bn (both at 2003 prices) from "The Real Costs of Motoring" (Chris Bowers, Environmental Transport Association, 1996).
*Safety*, in the form of fencing, footbridges and other structures used to separate pedestrians from traffic. This includes costs paid by local councils and private landowners.
*Vibration damage*, to buildings and utilities such as gas and water mains. The costs are born by users of the utilties and owners of the properties and probably also easily run into billions of pounds. An estimates for vibration damage in New York City alone came to $869 million in a year - see "The hidden costs of car and truck use in New York estimated for the year 2000" (Konheim & Ketcham, 1996).
*Cost to health* due to lack of exercise. In the current obesity epidemic it is worth noting that motorised road transport demands less activity than almost any other form of transport.
*Insurance*. Car insurance is a competitive business. Figures released by the Association of British Insurers show that the payouts to road users were not covered by the premiums. The average shortfall for the five years from 1988 to 1992 was £626 million per year. In other words, insurance companies are charging more on other kinds of insurance to subsidise motorists.


----------



## garrilla (2 Oct 2009)

mattybain said:


> The point is that you can't argue that drivers don't subsidise general taxation, that is just wrong.



No body was arguing with that. The issue was do motorists subsidise cyclists.

Now you've come to your senses, answer that again.


----------



## mattybain (2 Oct 2009)

humptygocart said:


> _I am talking about actual £ figures from the government._
> 
> Okey dokey:
> 
> ...



Kudos to you, that was just what I was after some direct links to actual research.

I admit it isn't as simple as it first seems.


----------



## Origamist (2 Oct 2009)

mattybain said:


> Accidents okay, maybe there will be some costs but not that much, most of it is paid for by drivers and their insurance.



Matty, road deaths and injuries cost the UK economy billions each year.


----------



## mattybain (2 Oct 2009)

garrilla said:


> No body was arguing with that. The issue was do motorists subsidise cyclists.
> 
> Now you've come to your senses, answer that again.



Don't know what you were arguing about but I said 

"I think that overall drivers pay more than the total cost of roads, so surely that statement is correct?"

And that is all I am arguing about.


----------



## Davidc (2 Oct 2009)

humptygocart said:


> _I am talking about actual £ figures from the government._
> 
> Okey dokey:
> 
> Not filling up the server with it again - go read it!



+1

Unfortunately humptygocart many on this forum reflect many in the rest of the population. They really haven't understood the general environmental crisis we're all facing. 


The real economic, environmental, and human costs of our crazy transport policies are becoming apparent to more and more people, but it will take some time for that to turn into a clamour for action.


----------



## garrilla (2 Oct 2009)

mattybain said:


> Don't know what you were arguing about but I said
> 
> "I think that overall drivers pay more than the total cost of roads, so surely that statement is correct?"
> 
> And that is all I am arguing about.



Talk about selective quoting!

from the same post...



mattybain said:


> Really is that true? do you have a cite or link that proves that?
> 
> I think that overall drivers pay more than the total cost of roads, so surely that statement is correct?
> 
> ...


----------



## Davidc (2 Oct 2009)

mattybain said:


> Don't know what you were arguing about but I said
> 
> "I think that overall drivers pay more than the total cost of roads, so surely that statement is correct?"
> 
> And that is all I am arguing about.



Yes, but those are only a very tiny proportion of the total real costs caused by drivers.


----------



## mattybain (2 Oct 2009)

garrilla said:


> Talk about selective quoting!
> 
> from the same post...



Err I don't think so, I was talking about a subsidy being that drivers pay more into general taxation therefore susbidising cyclist with lower taxes. I still agree with that.

I agree there are additional issues with car driving, I have never said that I didn't agree with this.


----------



## Davidc (2 Oct 2009)

mattybain said:


> Err I don't think so, I was talking about a subsidy being that drivers pay more into general taxation therefore *susbidising cyclist* with lower taxes. I still agree with that.
> 
> I agree there are additional issues with car driving, I have never said that I didn't agree with this.



Unless you include the costs of builing and marking cycle 'facilities' cyclists don't actually cost anything. Their wear and tear on roads is negligible. How then can they possibly be subsidised?


----------



## garrilla (2 Oct 2009)

mattybain said:


> Err I don't think so, I was talking about a subsidy being that drivers pay more into general taxation therefore susbidising cyclist with lower taxes. I still agree with that.
> 
> I agree there are additional issues with car driving, I have never said that I didn't agree with this.



OK, I'm not goiing argue with you logic and say you can't contradict what _you_ wrote.

But please tell me how I as a cyclist pay lower taxes because of drivers paying VED?


----------



## mattybain (2 Oct 2009)

garrilla said:


> OK, I'm not goiing argue with you logic and say you can't contradict what _you_ wrote.
> 
> But please tell me how I as a cyclist pay lower taxes because of drivers paying VED?



Because (in theory) the government are supposed to balance the books money in = money out.

Therefore with less money in they would have to look elsewhere i.e. VAT increase, Income tax increases. 

And it's not just VED we are talking about the most amount of money is on Fuel Duty.


----------



## mattybain (2 Oct 2009)

Davidc said:


> Unless you include the costs of builing and marking cycle 'facilities' cyclists don't actually cost anything. Their wear and tear on roads is negligible. How then can they possibly be subsidised?



Through lower taxes.

However using your argument as cyclists aren't actually paying anything (no VED or fuel duty) then cyclists can't actually be subsiding motorists either.


----------



## theclaud (2 Oct 2009)

mattybain said:


> Through lower taxes.
> 
> However using your argument as cyclists aren't actually paying anything (no VED or fuel duty) then cyclists can't actually be subsiding motorists either.



The point is that just about everyone, including cyclists, is subsidising motorists. It's called general taxation.


----------



## humptygocart (2 Oct 2009)

_cyclists aren't actually paying anything_

I don't have to pay tax any more?

Woo!!!


----------



## BentMikey (2 Oct 2009)

Respect to you mattybain, at least you're willing to see the mistake in your assumptions. I'm not really into the green thing, not as much as I should be, but humpty is right on the very real cost of each road fatality - some place the figure much higher than the £1.5 million per death. 

The 4 out of 5 figure comes from an RAC study, which one might argue is biased towards motorists. I saw a recent reference to a US study, that showed cyclists could be found at fault in only 1 in 10 collisions with a motorvehicle. Of course neither of those stats relate to the fact that cyclists have a lot of crashes all on their own, with no involvement of any other vehicle/person. That's not what we're discussing here though.


----------



## BentMikey (2 Oct 2009)

So matty, no selective anything now. Do you agree, on a net basis, that everybody subsidises motorists, based on all the revenues raised by driving, and all the costs to society, including road building and maintenance, pollution, NHS costs, deaths, policing, etc.?


----------



## sadjack (2 Oct 2009)

*humptygocart*

I have found your posts very thought provoking. Thanks for taking the time and trouble to post #78.


----------



## mattybain (2 Oct 2009)

theclaud said:


> The point is that just about everyone, including cyclists, is subsidising motorists. It's called general taxation.



This is the point, that isn't true.

Look at it from a financial perspective and real costs only i.e. money in or out to the governement.

It is clear from the figures that drivers pay much more into the government then is paid out.

Again let me stress I am only talking about acutal money flows, I don't think anyone is arguing with that.

If there wan't this excess then everyone would pay more in tax.

I accept there are lots of other things that have no financial costs just that we aren't paying out for them.

I guess if we looking at longterm costs we would factor these costs in as well (environmental clean up) but that would be a radical shift in current government thinking.


----------



## humptygocart (2 Oct 2009)

"Whenever we write about bike/car "interactions" we get a lot of 
complaints that cyclists bring much of this upon themselves by blowing 
through red lights and stop signs, and generally cycling aggressively. 

While convalescing after being hit by a truck, Dr. Chris Cavacuiti of 
the University of Toronto had some time to study the statistics and 
concluded otherwise. He is interviewed by Bet McIlroy in the U of T's 
Experience Research: 

Who causes accidents—cyclists or drivers? 

While there is a public perception that cyclists are usually the cause 
of accidents between cars and bikes, an analysis of Toronto police 
collision reports shows otherwise: The most common type of crash in 
this study involved a motorist entering an intersection and either 
failing to stop properly or proceeding before it was safe to do so. 
The second most common crash type involved a motorist overtaking 
unsafely. The third involved a motorist opening a door onto an 
oncoming cyclist.






*The study concluded that cyclists are the cause of 
less than 10 per cent of bike-car accidents in this study. *




The available evidence suggests that collisions have far more to do 
with aggressive driving than aggressive cycling..." 

More: 
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/08/cyclists-cause-10-percent-of-...


----------



## garrilla (2 Oct 2009)

WHilst it is true to say driver's pay a greater share of their income in duties than none drivers does not mean they are subsidising the rest as it has been shown that this is set off against greater benefits. By the way, I suspect that I pay more as a cyclist on cycling related-VAT each year than my wife pays VED on her car and VAT on maintenance. I pay nothing for Fuel Duty, its true, but then I get my fuel from food.


----------



## Davidc (2 Oct 2009)

mattybain said:


> Through lower taxes.
> 
> However using your argument as cyclists aren't actually paying anything (no VED or fuel duty) then cyclists can't actually be subsiding motorists either.



Those cyclists (and others) without cars pay taxes which help provide the (at least) £2000 per year indirect subsidy per private car, including mine, with real money.

I pay about £600 a year in taxes on my car. It would be a lot more if I didn't use my bike for most local journeys. I have a car partly because I need it for work, and partly as a result of the Beeching cuts. £600 is hugely less than the cost to the country of me using that car for 5000 miles a year.

I pay about £100 a year in taxes on my bikes (all VAT). That is hugely more than the cost to the country of me using the bikes for 2000 miles a year.

Using my bikes is subsidising my use of my car.


----------



## BentMikey (2 Oct 2009)

""The AQS 2007 stated simply 'estimated to reduce life expectancy of every person in the UK by an average of 7-8 months with an equivalent health cost of up to £20 billion each year'," he wrote."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/apr/20/premature-deaths-london-pollution


----------



## humptygocart (2 Oct 2009)

_It is clear from the figures that drivers pay much more into the government then is paid out._

Only if you discard the external costs, claim they are "spurious" with no explanation and make allegations of corrupt research with no real evidence, as you have done Matty.

Once you factor in the real, tangible external costs of motoring then you realise drivers receive a huge public subsidy.


----------



## theclaud (2 Oct 2009)

mattybain said:


> Look at it from a financial perspective and *real costs only* i.e. money in or out to the governement.
> 
> It is clear from the figures that drivers pay much more into the government then is paid out.
> 
> Again let me stress I am only talking about acutal money flows, I don't think anyone is arguing with that.



There's nothing unreal or abstract about the social and environmental costs of motoring. It's your distinctions that are arbitrary.


----------



## mattybain (2 Oct 2009)

BentMikey said:


> So matty, no selective anything now. Do you agree, on a net basis, that everybody subsidises motorists, based on all the revenues raised by driving, and all the costs to society, including road building and maintenance, pollution, NHS costs, deaths, policing, etc.?



I have learnt a lot from this interesting discussion. Hats off to humpty for his thought provoking posts and for actually posting some credible evidence.

However the point is that we are not paying for environmental damage at the moment so you can't factor it in. 

As I keep saying based on the acutal inflows and outflows of cash as it stands drivers are keeping other taxation lower than it should be.

I now agree that drivers should probably pay more but then we should be spending more on recitfying the damage we are causing to the environment.


----------



## mattybain (2 Oct 2009)

garrilla said:


> WHilst it is true to say driver's pay a greater share of their income in duties than none drivers does not mean they are subsidising the rest as it has been shown that this is set off against greater benefits. By the way, I suspect that I pay more as a cyclist on VAT each year than my wife pays VED on her car. I pay nothing for Fuel Duty, its true, but then I get my fuel from food.



Good argument but food is zero rated.


----------



## mattybain (2 Oct 2009)

humptygocart said:


> _It is clear from the figures that drivers pay much more into the government then is paid out._
> 
> Only if you discard the external costs, claim they are "spurious" with no explanation and make allegations of corrupt research with no real evidence, as you have done Matty.



Yes well as I keep saying we are not actually paying out these costs so yes the are "supurious" when it comes to looking at REAL inflows and outflows.

Can you not accept that?

You can argue they should be included when looking at how much drivers pay but that is not what we are discussing. In fact as I said in an earlier post I am all for increased fuel duty.


----------



## garrilla (2 Oct 2009)

mattybain said:


> Good argument but food is zero rated.



I wasn't suggesting the VAT from food, but the VAT on cycling related items - bike, compenents, accessories, etc. If there were fewre cars on the road and the roads weren't so shoot I'd have buy fewer things too.


----------



## humptygocart (2 Oct 2009)

_However the point is that we are not paying for environmental damage at the moment so you can't factor it in._

I've no idea how you can make this claim.

Poor air quality affects the poorest sections of society. The UK is facing a £300m fine from the EU for not meeting pollution targets. Lung disease and respiratory illness causes heartbreak for families. Noise pollution has been found to affect childrens' IQ. PM10 particulates bury deep in developing lungs and cause numerous illnesses, these all have a very real cost via the NHS and real lives lost.


----------



## mattybain (2 Oct 2009)

garrilla said:


> I wasn't suggesting the VAT from food, but the VAT on cycling related items - bike, compenents, accessories, etc. If there were fewre cars on the road and the roads weren't so shoot I'd have buy fewer things too.



Sorry when you said "I pay nothing for Fuel Duty, its true, but then I get my fuel from food. " I thought you implied that it was the VAT on food fuel you were paying. My bad.


----------



## humptygocart (2 Oct 2009)

_as I keep saying we are not actually paying out these costs

_As I keep repeating, WE ARE!

Sorry for shouting:

The cost of treating illness associated with traffic pollution across the three countries amounted to 1.7% of their gross domestic product, exceeding the costs arising from traffic accidents. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/905016.stm


----------



## garrilla (2 Oct 2009)

mattybain said:


> Yes well as I keep saying we are not actually paying out these costs so yes the are "supurious" when it comes to looking at REAL inflows and outflows.
> 
> Can you not accept that?




I don't believe that you have demonstrated this yet. You've presented a simple set of accounts that have been widely refuted.

You haven't given us a break down of how much fuel duty is paid by companies and not by individual drivers, for example. You haven't offset the capital allowance and various tax breaks that fleet drivers get. Etc, etc.


----------



## Davidc (2 Oct 2009)

mattybain said:


> I have learnt a lot from this interesting discussion. Hats off to humpty for his through provoking posts and for actually posting some credible evidence.
> 
> However the point is that we are not paying for environmental damage at the moment so you can't factor it in.
> 
> ...



What about the quantifiable costs of lost productivity, benefits to those injured, support to those injured, the real and well known costs of fatalities, and a host of other real and known costs. (see various lnks above for numbers and more details.)

Taking known real costs into account and excluding unquantified environmental costs shows that motorists are already heavily subsidised from general taxation. Again, see links above for more details.

Motorists ARE subsidised, from REAL QUANTIFIABLE TAXATION.

*As a number of us keep saying based on the acutal inflows and outflows of cash as it stands drivers are making other taxation higher than it should be.*

You'd be better off trying to justify this in terms of the huge social, economic, environmental and health benefit we all gain from using private cars, and how much more pleasant our towns and cities are for being full of cars!


----------



## mattybain (2 Oct 2009)

humptygocart said:


> _as I keep saying we are not actually paying out these costs_
> 
> As I keep repeating, WE ARE!
> 
> ...



An interesting article, it was based in Europe which have a much higher diesel usage than the UK.

However lets say you are right

1.7% of the UK GDP (£2.3Tn) = £36bn for 2008

Total NHS budget for 2008 is around £92bn, are you really suggesting that more than 1/3 of NHS costs are related to pollution from road vehicles?

Or what it be that these numbers include some non money flows in them?

I must say I am really impressed with the depth of your knowledge, I have learnt an awful lot from you. Don't agree with you 100% but you have some very good / strong arguments.


----------



## humptygocart (2 Oct 2009)

1996 figures - the costs (in £billions) of road damage and congestion, the impact of air pollution on :health, climate change (global warming), noise, and of accidents not paid for by those involved are calculated as follows: 
Income £ 

Vehicle excise duty
Fuel taxes 3.6
12.5



External costs £

Road damage
Congestion 
Air pollution 
Climate change
Noise
Accidents 1.5
17.5 
19.7
0.1
2.6
9.4






TOTALS 16.1 Income


50.8 Deficit.

The formatting's screwed, sorry!


----------



## BentMikey (2 Oct 2009)

mattybain said:


> I have learnt a lot from this interesting discussion. Hats off to humpty for his thought provoking posts and for actually posting some credible evidence.
> 
> However the point is that we are not paying for environmental damage at the moment so you can't factor it in.
> 
> ...



I've crossed out the bits that are wrong. Even just talking real cost to society, drivers are subsidised. When I mention pollution, I'm not talking about some random damage that doesn't have an actual cost. We're talking about the real cost to society, in terms of things like the NHS, and all the associated costs that are counted for every death caused by driving. Actual inflows and outflows of money.

I'm not anti-driver, far from it. I wouldn't willingly give up driving, and I love my car dearly.


----------



## mattybain (2 Oct 2009)

humptygocart said:


> 1996 figures - the costs (in £billions) of road damage and congestion, the impact of air pollution on :health, climate change (global warming), noise, and of accidents not paid for by those involved are calculated as follows:
> Income £
> 
> Vehicle excise duty
> ...



Yes I know I had that problem and gave up 

That table is interesting however the revenue side is not correct as the fuel duty number is too low.

Also most of the costs numbers below the road repairs are very subjective especially congestion costs.

And just out of interest how much of the actual cost of the NHS would you say related to motor vehicle emissions?

It's just to hard to do a simple calculation when you are talking about things like this.

There are 100's of factors like for example the additional costs of longterm healthcare and state pensions for someone who gives up driving to cycle and then doesn't die of a heart attack at 65!

I am going to call it a day but leave it at this.

Respect to you for educating me, as I said I don't agree with you 100% but you have some very good points. 

I will say that the better side won the argument with a barrage of facts and numbers and clearly showed that the other person was wrong.

And I clearly wasn't the winner


----------



## humptygocart (2 Oct 2009)

_
And I clearly wasn't the winner_

People on the Interweb admitting they may have been wrong is as rare as rocking horse poo.

You are a gentleman.

I love you.


----------



## mattybain (2 Oct 2009)

And my googling skills have got a boost from all this!!


----------



## Origamist (2 Oct 2009)

mattybain said:


> And my googling skills have got a boost from all this!!




It'll take a long until you get as proficient as Humpty though...!


----------



## mattybain (2 Oct 2009)

Origamist said:


> It'll take a long until you get as proficient as Humpty though...!



Tell me about it, that guy is a fiend  how the hell did he get all those facts so quickly.

Utter respect the man is a genius


----------



## rh100 (2 Oct 2009)

sadjack said:


> *humptygocart*
> 
> I have found your posts very thought provoking. Thanks for taking the time and trouble to post #78.



+1

to matty and others too - It's opened my eyes even more, really makes you think.


----------



## MartinC (2 Oct 2009)

Completely off topic but illuminating. Congrats to Matty and Humpty.


----------



## HJ (2 Oct 2009)

J4CKO said:


> I sometimes dread looking on here, finding another two people killed whilst out on there bikes is very saddening, and also worrying, I have no desire to be dead just yet, plus I want my kids to start cycling more.
> 
> With all these terrible accidents, are there any stats collected to try and find out how and why it happened, I am sure the Police do a thorough job collecting evidence but do the contributory factors get published, I was thinking that we all go round doing our best to be safe but could do with actual data and guidelines of what causes these terrible incidents, down even to the equipment being used, lights, clothing, actual location, time of day and details of the individual, anonymous of course. Also, it needs to be honest, just because someone has died doesnt mean they werent doign something wrong.
> 
> ...



The thing to remember is, per mile traveled you are more at risk in a car than on a bicycle! The risk level is about the same as being a pedestrian and we are all pedestrians at some point in the day. Another thing to understand is that it is getting safer, the rates of fatality among cyclist and pedestrians has dropped dramatically since the 1970's, which were the high point, it is now 60% safer than when I first learnt to ride...


----------



## humptygocart (2 Oct 2009)

HJ said:


> The thing to remember is, per mile traveled you are more at risk in a car than on a bicycle! The risk level is about the same as being a pedestrian and we are all pedestrians at some point in the day. Another thing to understand is that it is getting safer, the rates of fatality among cyclist and pedestrians has dropped dramatically since the 1970's, which were the high point, it is now 60% safer than when I first learnt to ride...



Quite right. 

I think it's terribly important too to remember this.

Cycling makes the roads safer.

The more cyclists there are, the safer the roads become.

It's a noted phenomenon, referred to as "The Virtuous Cycle"- counter-intuitively, more cyclists mean fewer accidents.

Drivers get used to cyclists and may even cycle themselves so are more aware of the potential hazards.

Cycling's up 83% in London. In the same period casualties have halved.


----------



## Davidc (2 Oct 2009)

humptygocart said:


> Quite right.
> 
> I think it's terribly important too to remember this.
> 
> ...



I got onto this earlier in the thread. It's not just the numbers. You have some context which is unusual, but none of that helps with perception.

The basis of the OP is fine - we should be aiming to reduce the horrendous injury and death toll on the roads. Its implication is however that things are getting worse. They aren't.

I had an interesting discussion with a friend at the start of the present school term.

His daughter wanted to cycle to school two days a week so that she can get to a sports club in time for a practice in the afternoon.

He had said "No" on the basis that it was "far too dangerous on the roads nowadays compared to when he and mum had cycled to school in the '80s"

I (politely I hope) suggested that he ought to find another reason, as the number of cyclists killed and injured was about double in the 80s compared to now, and that in addition walking, the alternative in this case, is statistically much more dangerous.

Independently his daughter had web searched the same information when he got home, and he gave in.

His first question to me next time we met was "If cycling's safer now than 25 years ago why do the kids have to wear helmets?" to which I don't have an answer.

The perception, not the reality, is what informs people's decisions and views, and that virtuous circle is hampered by the general perception being false.


----------



## ComedyPilot (2 Oct 2009)

Davidc said:


> His first question to me next time we met was "*If cycling's safer now than 25 years ago why do the kids have to wear helmets*?" to which I don't have an answer.



Answer, they don't. 

They can if they/their parents want them too, but it's not compulsary.





Oh no, I've just started another helmet argument....sorry.


----------



## HJ (2 Oct 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Whilst internet advice is good, I think there's nothing to beat training from an experienced instructor in real life.



+1








oh and by the way I am a qualified instructor, if anyone would like some training...


----------



## Davidc (2 Oct 2009)

ComedyPilot said:


> Answer, they don't.
> 
> They can if they/their parents want them too, but it's not compulsary.
> 
> ...



Sorry. Should have made clear - it's a school rule not the law!


----------



## humptygocart (2 Oct 2009)

I'd ask the school if they insist on staff wearing helmets when they visit pubs.

Head injuries being more common among pub-goers than cyclists.


----------



## ComedyPilot (2 Oct 2009)

Davidc said:


> Sorry. Should have made clear - it's a school rule not the law!



I am just aching for the first 'nanny-state', H&S-orientated risk-assessment obsessed idiot to tell me and my daughter how we must cycle to school, and they will be left in no doubt as to my thoughts on their opinions and rules.


----------



## ComedyPilot (2 Oct 2009)

humptygocart said:


> I'd ask the school if they insist on staff wearing helmets when they visit pubs.
> 
> Head injuries being more common among pub-goers than cyclists.



Wayhaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy


Yes, lord, there is hope, one of your disciples has seen the light, praise be.

My Man!!!!


----------



## garrilla (2 Oct 2009)

Davidc said:


> His first question to me next time we met was "If cycling's safer now than 25 years ago why do the kids have to wear helmets?" to which I don't have an answer.



This is simple, we understand more about safety. 

This best way to understand this, ironically, is with cars. Think about the different risks that are dealt with by Seat Belts, Air Bags, SIPS, ABS, Roll-bars and so on.

The tough nut to crack is the human mind. And so many of them too.


----------



## Davidc (2 Oct 2009)

ComedyPilot said:


> I am just aching for the first 'nanny-state', H&S-orientated risk-assessment obsessed idiot to tell me and my daughter how we must cycle to school, and they will be left in no doubt as to my thoughts on their opinions and rules.



Fortunately for the school I'm not involved!

Edit: but I don't dare argue with Mrs DC when she insists I use a helmet


----------



## HJ (2 Oct 2009)

jonny jeez said:


> Although, I wonder how many of those cyclist involved in serious acc…collisions are not holders of a drivers license.
> 
> It would be interesting to understand that, it may have great bearing on this point.



I can't remember the exact figures, but I do remember looking at the official "road accident" statistics for the UK and the group with the highest fatality rate was males the aged 11-16...


----------



## BentMikey (2 Oct 2009)

Respect to you matty, most impressed!


----------



## atbman (2 Oct 2009)

garrilla said:


> This is simple, we understand more about safety.
> 
> This best way to understand this, ironically, is with cars. Think about the different risks that are dealt with by Seat Belts, Air Bags, SIPS, ABS, Roll-bars and so on.
> 
> The tough nut to crack is the human mind. And so many of them too.



Not quite relevant, I'm afraid. Seatbelts stop you going thro' the windscreen or out of side of car or stop you slamming into the front seats and bursting the driver's or the passenger's aorta. As long as they're wearing seatbelts that is - ironic, or what?

Helmets provide relatively little protection (12mph collision with a flat surface) in the case of being hit by a motor vehicle. Dr. Mayer Hilman published a study a few years ago (which I had, but lost) which showed that approx 92% of all the riders he'd studied who had fatal head injuries would have died from other fatal injuries if their heads had been ok.

If wearing safety gear were truly about safety, then pedestrians would be forced to wear helmets and body armour, since that might save more lives and serious injuries - more of them are involved in serious collisions with m/vs that are cyclists.

It seems unlikely to me that the government's "WEAR A HELMET OR YOU WILL DIE!" campaign to encourage people to take up cycling as a healthy and safe activity is going to succeed


----------



## garrilla (2 Oct 2009)

atbman said:


> Not quite relevant, I'm afraid. Seatbelts stop you going thro' the windscreen or out of side of car or stop you slamming into the front seats and bursting the driver's or the passenger's aorta. As long as they're wearing seatbelts that is - ironic, or what?
> 
> Helmets provide relatively little protection (12mph collision with a flat surface) in the case of being hit by a motor vehicle. Dr. Mayer Hilman published a study a few years ago (which I had, but lost) which showed that approx 92% of all the riders he'd studied who had fatal head injuries would have died from other fatal injuries if their heads had been ok.



That is exactly my point. Seat-belts cover only one or two of the many risks a car passenger faces. Helmets only cover one or two risks a cyclist faces. But we are far more aware of the types of risk we face and can provide protection for some risks such that overall we have all become safer.


----------



## Vikeonabike (3 Oct 2009)

http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/Tributes-to-cyclist-killed-in.5697776.jp

Another one to add to the list. A life long cyclist killed in unfortunate circumstances!


----------



## rh100 (3 Oct 2009)

very sad


----------



## HJ (3 Oct 2009)

humptygocart said:


> "Whenever we write about bike/car "interactions" we get a lot of
> complaints that cyclists bring much of this upon themselves by blowing
> through red lights and stop signs, and generally cycling aggressively.
> 
> ...



[pedant mode]
Just one small point, Chris Cavacuiti didn't actually say that "cyclists are the cause of less than 10 per cent of bike-car accidents", that was taken from work done by Charles Komanoff.
[/pedant mode]

But the liability for the majority of crashes involving cyclist and motorists lays with the motorist....


----------



## HJ (3 Oct 2009)

mattybain said:


> ...
> 
> There are 100's of factors like for example the additional costs of long term healthcare and state pensions for someone who gives up driving to cycle and then doesn't die of a heart attack at 65!
> 
> ...



If you would like to know more about that then see the some of the work done by Malcolm Wardlaw...


----------



## HJ (3 Oct 2009)

atbman said:


> Not quite relevant, I'm afraid. Seatbelts stop you going thro' the windscreen or out of side of car or stop you slamming into the front seats and bursting the driver's or the passenger's aorta. As long as they're wearing seatbelts that is - ironic, or what?
> 
> Helmets provide relatively little protection (12mph collision with a flat surface) in the case of being hit by a motor vehicle. Dr. Mayer Hilman published a study a few years ago (which I had, but lost) which showed that approx 92% of all the riders he'd studied who had fatal head injuries would have died from other fatal injuries if their heads had been ok.
> 
> ...



It is also worth noting that one of the unintended effects of the laws requiring the wearing of seatbelts has been an increase in the fatality rates among cyclist and pedestrians, as drivers felt safer and drove faster...

Oh and the study by Mayer Hillman was probably this one, it is interesting reading...


----------



## Dilbert (3 Oct 2009)

Davidc said:


> Sorry. Should have made clear - it's a school rule not the law!


Trouble is most these rules are made by risk averse nonentities who's sole ambition in life is to keep collecting their overblown salary until they can collect their overblown pension. They will never get in trouble for creating new rules or banning things. They spend all day dreaming up increasingly unlikely 'what if' scenarios, while the nation turns into a gigantic heart attack case scared of moving off their sofas let alone out of the house. There was a bit in the CTC magazine about a school who had banned a boy from cycling there because the road outside was too dangerous. The local council changed the road layout and had risk assessments done but the school just stalled until the lad left for senior school. This seems to be getting worse not better - the lunatics have taken over the asylum.


----------



## HJ (4 Oct 2009)

No it's not the lunatics, it is the lawyers, everyone in authority is scared of getting sued so they come with ridiculous rules...


----------



## garrilla (5 Oct 2009)

HJ said:


> No it's not the lunatics, it is the lawyers, everyone in authority is scared of getting sued so they come with ridiculous rules...



Quite.

And in my subjective experience its the people who moan loudest and longest about H&S are also the quickest to resort to law for compensation for the slighest accident.


----------



## W2B (5 Oct 2009)

I don't come here often so forgive me if this is a repost.

Has anyone posted this link here yet? 

http://www.seemesaveme.com/blog/

The group originates fro LFGSS forum and was instigated by the sister of a lady killed earlier this year in Notting Hill.

also this petition is worth a signature.

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/LGV-Cycle-Safety/


----------



## HJ (5 Oct 2009)

W2B you contribution is welcome...


----------



## Origamist (5 Oct 2009)

W2B said:


> I don't come here often so forgive me if this is a repost.
> 
> Has anyone posted this link here yet?
> 
> ...



Thanks for the petition link, Woodford 2 Barbican, I'll cross post it on the HGV sub forum. How's BikeRadar?


----------



## W2B (5 Oct 2009)

Origamist said:


> Thanks for the petition link, Woodford 2 Barbican, I'll cross post it on the HGV sub forum. How's BikeRadar?



Bikeradar is fine - as cliquey and self righteous as always! 

I see a cyclechat devotee on my commute some mornings. He does my routes and a bit more I think. Coming down through Woodford, Leytonstone into Stratford and on through Whitechapel, sometime wears a cyclechat top, on a Condor (I think) with panniers.

I am on the brown langster with single pannier.

Who are you? Next time you go past I will say hello.


----------



## BentMikey (26 Oct 2009)

Remember this bit of cost of car ownership?



spindrift said:


> There is a widespread perception that motorists are already unfairly taxed. This is simply not true(1).
> 
> 
> In the year 2002-03 £26.5 billion was raised from fuel and road tax(2). Around £6bn went toward roadbuilding and maintenance that year(3). The cost of policing the roads and the expense incurred by the judicial system is estimated to be between £1bn and £3bn(4), while congestion costs businesses and other drivers £20bn in delay(5).
> ...


----------



## WeeE (26 Oct 2009)

The single commonest cause of cyclist injury is occupants of parked cars throwing open the car door in the path of the cyclist. (This is true of one or two continental studies as well as UK police statistics.)

Close in second and third place - vehicles turning left or right across a cyclist's path and simply ploughing into the cyclist who is continuing on.


----------



## WeeE (26 Oct 2009)

rh100 said:


> You make a good point about ycle craft, I don't yet have a copy but intend to get one, but I imagine that like the highway code it can only give you an idea how things 'should' work.



As a fairly inexperienced feartie, I can tell you that Cycle Craft is pretty good about warning you of the situations where things don't go the way they "should". 

Typically, the second paragraph begins with things like _"If a vehicle pulls out of a side road across your path..."_ or _"The greatest hazard _[at small roundabouts] _is that some drivers race a cyclist to the roundabout"_.

It doesn'tjust tell you where to position yourself for some given manouevre, but what typical driver-behaviour or (lack of) driver perception it is that makes the alternatives less safe.

And handy "hazard" tips in bold like _"Always keep away from the outside edge of a roundabout no matter what exit you are aiming to take!"_

For a non-driver like me, it's really, really good. I take it out with me so I can refer to it over a coffee or whatever, while something that I've noticed is still fresh in my mind.


----------



## rh100 (26 Oct 2009)

I've got a copy now 

I'd recommend it for anyone, good idea about referring to it when a situation is fresh in your mind though.


----------

