# Death Statistics 2014



## jefmcg (9 Nov 2015)

You can have a look at the full document here Mortality Statistics: Deaths Registered in England and Wales (Series DR), 2014 but the Guardian has a summary of cycling related data here.

Highlights (all direct quotes from G)

In 2014, 88 cyclists were killed riding their bikes on roads in England and Wales. That’s 73 men and 15 women

20 male cyclists (and two female cyclists) died in a “non-collision transport incident”. 
15 cyclists (nine men, six women) killed after “collision with heavy transport vehicle or bus”.
One man was killed on his bike when hit by a train; 
two men, both aged 65+, after “collision with pedestrian or animal”. 
Five men and one woman died following “collision with fixed or stationary object”.
Four pedestrians, all aged 70 or over, were killed after being hit by a cyclist
Fewer cyclists died in 2014 than 2013, according to the ONS, when 100 people died (89 men and 11 women) were killed while out on their bikes.

Serious injuries increased by 8.2% among cyclists

the number of seriously injured cyclists has increased every year since a low of 2,174 in 2004, according to the pressure group CTC.


----------



## slowmotion (9 Nov 2015)

Is the rise in serious injuries and deaths tracking the increased popularity? It could actually be getting safer per mile ridden.


----------



## jefmcg (9 Nov 2015)

slowmotion said:


> Is the rise in serious injuries and deaths tracking the increased popularity? It could actually be getting safer per mile ridden.



Oh, this is depressing. No, it's going up apparently.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/359311/rrcgb-2013.pdf


----------



## ANT 666 (9 Nov 2015)

jefmcg said:


> One man was killed on his bike when hit by a train


That will always be a lose. Unless he was pushed its got to be his own fault, Doh!


----------



## summerdays (9 Nov 2015)

There were more pedestrians killed than I expected, I thought the figure was under 1 per year, is it a blip or is my hazy recollection incorrect?


----------



## slowmotion (9 Nov 2015)

Thanks for the graph @jefmcg. Much appreciated.


----------



## slowmotion (9 Nov 2015)

I'm actually quite heartened by that graph in a strange way. It seems to be indicating that you have a fifty percent greater chance (per mile) of a KSI riding a bike than if travelling in a car. The general public seem to believe that cycling is vastly more dangerous than that.


----------



## srw (9 Nov 2015)

Let me reframe the statistics - and I'm only using the OP rather than the original source because it's only 3 minutes to quizzy Monday on BBC2 and BBC4.

The number of cycling deaths is down 12% year on year. Of the deaths, fully 25% didn't involve a collision, so the risk of cycling with traffic is over-stated by 33%. Men are over-represented in the death stats compared with their presence in cyclists, suggesting that women are really safe.

Only 88 people died because of cycling. That's significantly fewer than the number of people whose lives were extended because of cycling.


----------



## jefmcg (9 Nov 2015)

User said:


> I think the statistic is somewhat misleading and rather selective. It's 'people over the age of 70 who have died after being in collision with a bicycle'.... it doesn't mean that the collision was necessarily directly the cause of death.


I just had a look at the data, and it's "underlying cause of death" That's the same way as the 88 cyclists are described as being caused in a car crash. It's what is written on the death certificate.

Even those these people must have been old and probably frail, they were hearty enough to get out and about in harms way, so an active life was cut off. 

@summerdays I thought it was < 1/year. Hopefully last year was just a blimp.


----------



## srw (9 Nov 2015)

jefmcg said:


> I just had a look at the data, and it's "underlying cause of death" That's the same way as the 88 cyclists are *described as being caused in a car crash*. It's what is written on the death certificate.



Point of order. Assuming your OP is correct - the bit I've bolded is incorrect. As I've posted, fully 25% of the deaths didn't involve a collision of any kind, let alone a car crash. What I didn't point out is that 8 deaths - 9% - were called by crashes with objects other than motorised vehicles. That means that only 63% of the 88 deaths were caused by crashes with motorised vehicles.


----------



## jefmcg (9 Nov 2015)

srw said:


> Point of order. Assuming your OP is correct - the bit I've bolded is incorrect. As I've posted, fully 25% of the deaths didn't involve a collision of any kind, let alone a car crash. What I didn't point out is that 8 deaths - 9% - were called by crashes with objects other than motorised vehicles. That means that only 63% of the 88 deaths were caused by crashes with motorised vehicles.


Yeah, you're right. I meant in a bicycle crash. Must be more careful. My point was that the 4 elderly died as a result of an incident with a cycle, in the same way as the 88 had a cycle crash as a cause of death.

And while I am here


User said:


> 'Being hit by a bicycle' would not be a cause of death on a death certificate. It may be the circumstances leading up to someone's death recorded by a coroner on a Pink Form 100A or 100B, which would also go into the GRO statistics.



You are probably right about that, too. I've never seen a UK death certificate. 

These statistics statistics are all about "underlying cause of death" which is apparently collected by the Office of National Statistics, so it must be written down somewhere, to end up in their database.


----------



## srw (9 Nov 2015)

I've now had a chance to flick through the stats - the stats for deaths caused by accidents [their term, not mine] only, because there's a comparison with bike deaths. I've identified two really dangerous things which we should be really alarmed by. These are things we use every day, and each kills more young and middle-aged adults than bikes do. Who's going to join me in a publicity campaign? Who's going to write the Guardian article on them?

The first is steps and stairs - 730 deaths a year. We should be building bungalows! And the second is that noxious chemical - dihydrogen oxide (which goes under the street name of "water"). No fewer than 240 drownings and submersions. Let's drain our lakes and rivers!

And don't get me started on alcohol and other drugs - legal and illegal...


----------



## rualexander (9 Nov 2015)

I recently read an interesting statistic on the danger of cycling, in the UK there are 0.4 fatalities for every million person-hours of cycling and that it would take one cyclist more than 2000 years of cycling non stop to clock up that many hours. Therefore cycle for 5000 years non stop and you will be killed!


----------



## glenn forger (9 Nov 2015)

> 0.4 fatalities for every million person-hours of cycling



Less that the fatality rate per person-hours of gardening.


----------



## Pale Rider (9 Nov 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Less that the fatality rate per person-hours of gardening.



Perhaps they were digging their own graves.


----------



## slowmotion (9 Nov 2015)

This classic's always good for a giggle....

Edit: Ooops, I'll try and find a bigger version.


----------



## davidallenxyz (10 Nov 2015)

Although the risk of death or serious injury is low, it's a concern that the rate is increasing. Gut feeling is that the cycling "boom" is among riders who aren't taking as much care on the roads as those that were cycling before the boom. Hopefully the stats will start to decrease again over time.


----------



## slowmotion (10 Nov 2015)

davidallenxyz said:


> Although the risk of death or serious injury is low, it's a concern that the rate is increasing. Gut feeling is that the cycling "boom" is among riders who aren't taking as much care on the roads as those that were cycling before the boom. Hopefully the stats will start to decrease again over time.


With the uptake in helmet use, it's bound to......












........


----------



## glenn forger (10 Nov 2015)

davidallenxyz said:


> Although the risk of death or serious injury is low, it's a concern that the rate is increasing.



The rate isn't increasing. You need to assess risk per mile, otherwise stupid people would think more people die cycling in Amsterdam so it must be more dangerous to cycle in Amsterdam.


----------



## srw (10 Nov 2015)

davidallenxyz said:


> Although the risk of death or serious injury is low, it's a concern that the rate is increasing. Gut feeling is that the cycling "boom" is among riders who aren't taking as much care on the roads as those that were cycling before the boom. Hopefully the stats will start to decrease again over time.



How does anyone know that the rate is increasing and we're not just seeing a statistical blip or a dodgy denominator?


----------



## slowmotion (10 Nov 2015)

glenn forger said:


> The rate isn't increasing. You need to assess risk per mile, otherwise stupid people would think more people die cycling in Amsterdam so it must be more dangerous to cycle in Amsterdam.


As a matter of general interest, who exactly synthesises the miles travelled stuff? I can see that it's quite easy for motorised travel because DVLA will have mileage figures from MOT certificates (but not illegal ones), but where does the cyclist data come from? Nobody has ever asked me how far I ride. How do these creative statistician types weave their magic?


----------



## glenn forger (10 Nov 2015)

The rate isn't increasing. 

Even our glorious transport minister made that schoolboy howler:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2012/may/25/cycling-governed-dimwits


----------



## srw (10 Nov 2015)

slowmotion said:


> As a matter of general interest, who exactly synthesises the miles travelled stuff? I can see that it's quite easy for motorised travel because DVLA will have mileage figures from MOT certificates (but not illegal ones), but where does the cyclist data come from? Nobody has ever asked me how far I ride. How do these creative statistician types weave their magic?


My memory is that for donkey's years the distances have been concocted in the same way as the miles driven for cars - by traffic-counting on main roads and making an assumption about additional uncounted miles. Spot the potential problem..... 

A few years ago National Statistics spotted that the results were getting very inconsistent with the output of a survey-based methodology (we asked a couple of thousand people and they said...) and started investigating the difference - so stopped reporting the other version until they'd sorted out the difference. Which they haven't yet.


----------



## glenn forger (10 Nov 2015)

TFL use those automatic traffic counters:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/bicycle_traffic_counts

94 all over London.


----------



## slowmotion (10 Nov 2015)

srw said:


> My memory is that for donkey's years the distances have been concocted in the same way as the miles driven for cars - by traffic-counting on main roads and making an assumption about additional uncounted miles. Spot the potential problem.....
> 
> A few years ago National Statistics spotted that the results were getting very inconsistent with the output of a survey-based methodology (we asked a couple of thousand people and they said...) and started investigating the difference - so stopped reporting the other version until they'd sorted out the difference. Which they haven't yet.


What sort of survey based method? If you asked a few thousand cyclists to tell you how far they had ridden in the last year, the data would probably be as reliable as asking them to self-report the size of their penises. You need a ruler, actually for some firm data.


----------



## davidallenxyz (10 Nov 2015)

glenn forger said:


> The rate isn't increasing.
> 
> Even our glorious transport minister made that schoolboy howler:
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2012/may/25/cycling-governed-dimwits



Could you explain why the graph on the previous page of this thread shows an increasing rate?


----------



## glenn forger (10 Nov 2015)

It doesn't.


----------



## slowmotion (10 Nov 2015)

glenn forger said:


> It doesn't.


Do share.


----------



## glenn forger (10 Nov 2015)

Oh, the graph does, further down, I thought you meant the OP which just said the TOTAL KSI RATE had increased without allowing for cycling rates, beg your pardon.


----------



## slowmotion (10 Nov 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Oh, the graph does, further down, I thought you meant the OP which just said the TOTAL KSI RATE had increased without allowing for cycling rates, beg your pardon.


Misunderstanding, sorry.


----------



## srw (11 Nov 2015)

slowmotion said:


> What sort of survey based method? If you asked a few thousand cyclists to tell you how far they had ridden in the last year, the data would probably be as reliable as asking them to self-report the size of their penises. You need a ruler, actually for some firm data.


Again I'm going from memory, but I believe that it's a very long-tailed distribution, and the people who contribute the most to the data are the millions who ride 5 times a year, going 10 miles each time, rather than the few tens of thousands who ride every day. And the survey-based data is coming out so far adrift from the counter data that it's impossible that the methods used to collect and adjust the counter data are right. Looking at the list of locations in Central London you can see why....



(Oh, and we can be very sure that about half of cyclists won't mis-estimate their penis length. Breast size, though, I gather is a different matter - some horrifically large proportion are wearing the wrong size bra if you believe lingerie sellers.)


----------



## Mugshot (11 Nov 2015)

User said:


> Have they thought of using Strava?


Indeed.
A link which may be of interest to some.


----------



## Fab Foodie (11 Nov 2015)

srw said:


> (Oh, and we can be very sure that about half of cyclists won't mis-estimate their penis length. Breast size, though, I gather is a different matter - some horrifically large proportion are wearing the wrong size bra if you believe lingerie sellers.)



I'm bound to be overestimating one and underestimating the other ....


----------



## Mugshot (11 Nov 2015)

User said:


> The consequence may be that our transport policies are determined by the needs and wants of Strava users. That would be like only taking Corsa and Saxo drivers in to account.


You made me laugh but I think you're being a little unfair.


----------



## srw (11 Nov 2015)

Mugshot said:


> You made me laugh but I think you're being a little unfair.


Not every cyclist has a smartphone; many other tracking apps are available. Strava's primary appeal _is_ to boy racers, of either sex. And there are many good reasons why uploading commuting rides (which start at your front door) to a public site isn't the _brightest_ thing to do.


----------



## Mugshot (11 Nov 2015)

srw said:


> many other tracking apps are available.


There are indeed, it appears that the majority of people who chose to have an issue with strava like to pick on the segments. They could use Garmin or Map My Ride maybe but they both have segments too of course.



srw said:


> And there are many good reasons why uploading commuting rides (which start at your front door) to a public site isn't the _brightest_ thing to do.


It's not difficult to use the privacy settings or to start and finish an app away from your house, the same applies to every other cycling app.



srw said:


> Strava's primary appeal _is_ to boy racers, of either sex.


This is what the article says;
_This information has been used to construct heat maps of the most frequently used cycling routes—including commutes, which make up 50 to 70 percent of rides uploaded to Strava. _
Now it doesn't say how they came to that figure and it could of course be the case that it is the boy racer commuters that are using strava, I just thought that as the thread was considering the accuracy of data that Adrians (tongue in cheek) suggestion could be considered a little more closely, if the article is to be believed then that is precisely what some cities are doing.


----------



## glenn forger (11 Nov 2015)

"Per hour, gardening is more dangerous than cycling" should be used in PIFs.


----------



## jefmcg (11 Nov 2015)

jefmcg said:


> Oh, this is depressing. No, it's going up apparently.
> 
> https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/359311/rrcgb-2013.pdf



I think I should point out that this data is for "Reported Road Casualties" and thus excludes cycle-only accidents. 


(I came off my bike and broke my clavicle, which would be a "Serious injure", except that even though the police attended, it wasn't recorded as a road casualty as there was no car involved.)


----------



## summerdays (11 Nov 2015)

User said:


> The consequence may be that our transport policies are determined by the needs and wants of Strava users. That would be like only taking Corsa and Saxo drivers in to account.


My friends say they aren't into racing and wearing lycra so why should they use Strava, and I point out that the data collected is used by some and I want my cycling represented. Even so there will always be a skew towards the more sportier element when using Strava data.


----------



## summerdays (11 Nov 2015)

User said:


> I want my cycling represented as well. I am not signing up for Strava though.


Well I make sure I pass over those counter things on my route but then they don't know if it was one long journey going over 10 counters or 10 shorts journeys. I'm not sure how else they can collect the information. The traffic counters always pick busy roads the sort of places that some cyclists might avoid. I usually reply to the work annual survey (on one day you have to say your modes of transport and the start and end destination I think) or how many miles.


----------



## Berk on a Bike (11 Nov 2015)

I don't suppose it adds to the debate in any way, shape or form, but here's the Strava heat map of the UK and parts of northern Europe. I think it looks rather lovely.


----------



## slowmotion (11 Nov 2015)

Very few people seem to cycle in Denmark.


----------



## srw (11 Nov 2015)

slowmotion said:


> Very few people seem to cycle in Denmark.


Or in France outside of Paris, or indeed in the flattest bits of the UK.


----------



## Berk on a Bike (11 Nov 2015)

slowmotion said:


> Very few people seem to cycle in Denmark.


Copenhagen is just off that screenshot, to the right. Highest density appears to be there.


----------



## slowmotion (11 Nov 2015)

User said:


> Or it may just indicate that people in those areas aren't that bothered about Strava, which does seem to be something of an urban phenomena...


That was my (faintly light-hearted) point. I don't thing that Strava is a very good indicator of the behaviour of the population of cyclists as a whole. Personally, I think it's a rubbish one.


----------



## Thomk (11 Nov 2015)

I'm sitting eating a biscuit while reading this thread. Given that my chances of dying in a cycling accident last year was pretty close to zero (for the pendants yes it was zero as I'm alive and munching), and the stats are broadly the same as the previous few years i.e. close to zero, I'm going to finish eating my biscuit.


----------



## fimm (11 Nov 2015)

What you can see on the Strava heatmap are people cycling to John O'Groats, the Bealach na Ba loop, and what I think is the route of the Etape Caledonia.


----------



## glenn forger (11 Nov 2015)

_for the pendants_


----------



## glenn forger (11 Nov 2015)

slowmotion said:


> Very few people seem to cycle in Denmark.



The residents of Copenhagen cycle to the moon and back 31 times every day.


The equivalent of, I should say.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 Nov 2015)

slowmotion said:


> Very few people seem to cycle in Denmark.


Very few people in Denmark
-&-
Very few people in Denmark ride wearing lycra (and helmets)
-&-
Very few people in Denmark use Strava generally.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 Nov 2015)

User said:


> Or it may just indicate that people in those areas aren't that bothered about Strava, which does seem to be something of an urban phenomena...


Leans on gate, chews straw "is them townies as roid boiks in this un"


----------



## srw (11 Nov 2015)

User said:


> Or it may just indicate that people in those areas aren't that bothered about Strava, which does seem to be something of an urban phenomena...


ASJT


----------



## srw (11 Nov 2015)

fimm said:


> What you can see on the Strava heatmap are people cycling to John O'Groats, the Bealach na Ba loop, and what I think is the route of the Etape Caledonia.


Interesting that more Strava users use the long Sustrans route up the middle rather than the direct route up the A9.

If anyone's interested, here's the link to the heatmap.
http://labs.strava.com/heatmap/#6/-2.95684/58.98156/blue/bike


----------



## Milkfloat (11 Nov 2015)

User said:


> I wonder, but only in a casual way so don't expect me to do the necessary work here, whether that heat map differs from others for energy use, internet traffic etc.



I deal with data just like this for a living and can tell you that it is broadly similar to the data seen in tracking mobile phones at cycling speeds (where the trace never goes as fast as a vehicle). My data is likely to be more representative of cyclists as more cyclists will travel with a gps enabled phone (not necessarily using a sports app) than use Strava. However, Strava will have a lot more information about the type of cyclist, bike model, age etc than I can ever hope to get. Plus Strava will know for sure it is a cyclist, where I have to deduce it.


----------



## summerdays (11 Nov 2015)

Milkfloat said:


> I deal with data just like this for a living and can tell you that it is broadly similar to the data seen in tracking mobile phones at cycling speeds (where the trace never goes as fast as a vehicle). My data is likely to be more representative of cyclists as more cyclists will travel with a gps enabled phone (not necessarily using a sports app) than use Strava. However, Strava will have a lot more information about the type of cyclist, bike model, age etc than I can ever hope to get. Plus Strava will know for sure it is a cyclist, where I have to deduce it.


Can you identify electric bikes? Do they have a different profile that you can identify?


----------



## Milkfloat (11 Nov 2015)

summerdays said:


> Can you identify electric bikes? Do they have a different profile that you can identify?



I am afraid not, same for bents. I guess for electric I could look for a minimal differences in speed uphill compared to downhill. For bents, very slow uphill and fast on flats and downhill. Not sure how relabel it will be though.


----------



## slowmotion (11 Nov 2015)

What percentage of UK cyclists carry trackable phones when riding? Does anybody know? I own an extremely dumb phone and I don't take it of the kitchen drawer except for organised rides when it's a requirement/courtesy.


----------



## fimm (12 Nov 2015)

srw said:


> Interesting that more Strava users use the long Sustrans route up the middle rather than the direct route up the A9.
> 
> If anyone's interested, here's the link to the heatmap.
> http://labs.strava.com/heatmap/#6/-2.95684/58.98156/blue/bike


Aaarrrggghhh, that's the rest of my afternoon wasted! 
(It was quite fun going onto the run map and spotting some local races I know the routes of. And in bike mode one you start zooming in, you start seeing all the mountain biking centres.) 
WRT the route to John O'Groats, if you are cycling all that way then I think the route up the middle is nicer and quieter than the A9. I've cycled a bit of it (in a loop, not LeJoG).


----------



## mjr (13 Nov 2015)

User said:


> Have they thought of using Strava?


Planning cycling improvements on the basis of one private racing company's clients seems a bit flawed.



jefmcg said:


> I think I should point out that this data is for "Reported Road Casualties" and thus excludes cycle-only accidents.
> 
> (I came off my bike and broke my clavicle, which would be a "Serious injure", except that even though the police attended, it wasn't recorded as a road casualty as there was no car involved.)


Your experience seems contrary to the official guidance that it should be recorded as such: "2.1 All road accidents involving human death or personal injury occurring on the Highway ('road' in Scotland) and notified to the police within 30 days of occurrence, and in which one or more vehicles are involved, are to be reported. This is a wider definition of road accidents than that used in Road Traffic Acts.
2.2 Examples of accidents to be reported include: ...
(c) accidents to pedal cyclists or horse riders, where they injure themselves or a pedestrian;"

Police are human, sometimes make mistakes and probably don't enjoy filling out reports.



Berk on a Bike said:


> I don't suppose it adds to the debate in any way, shape or form, but here's the Strava heat map of the UK and parts of northern Europe. I think it looks rather lovely./QUOTE]
> I think it's a great demonstration of Strava's distortion: bright blobs south-west of London (out as far as Box Hill? hard to tell from the snapshot), very little in the cycling cities of Cambridge, York and Norwich, with even Bristol not showing up quite as bright as it should.


----------



## jefmcg (13 Nov 2015)

mjray said:


> Your experience seems contrary to the official guidance that it should be recorded as such: "2.1 All road accidents involving human death or personal injury occurring on the Highway ('road' in Scotland) and notified to the police within 30 days of occurrence, and in which one or more vehicles are involved, are to be reported. This is a wider definition of road accidents than that used in Road Traffic Acts.
> 2.2 Examples of accidents to be reported include: ...
> (c) accidents to pedal cyclists or horse riders, where they injure themselves or a pedestrian;"
> 
> Police are human, sometimes make mistakes and probably don't enjoy filling out reports.


Thanks. I wonder if I should take this up with anyone. FWIW, it was Hounslow police, and back in January. They were called because there was a car following me, so it looked to the people who came running out like I'd been hit by a car. The police did ask me two questions, which were clearly for statistics "were you wearing a helmet?" and "were you riding a boris bike?" I was a monosyllabic ball of white hot pain, though I remember feeling vaguely miffed my accident didn't count.

Oddly the police also said they were allowed to drive me home, but not to hospital. My understanding is that if I needed medical care, then the transport should be in an ambulance and there were insurance issues. If I was going home, then there was no problem.


----------

