# 'Cyclists kill or maim two pedestrians every week, according to statistics'



## youngoldbloke (8 Oct 2017)

Sunday Express stirring the excrement in today's paper - unfortunately mentioned on Radio 4 Sunday Papers after the 8am news this morning. Disgraceful misrepresentation of statistics.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/863550/cyclist-killed-bicycle-accident-two-pedestrians-every-week


----------



## CanucksTraveller (8 Oct 2017)

Did they mention the number of vehicle drivers that do the same?

Honestly, a tipper drives over and kills another human (again) and it struggles to make the local news. A woman dies after being hit by a cyclist in a rare case and the country loses its collective mind along with all sense of perspective.


----------



## jefmcg (8 Oct 2017)

It seems to be true.

http://road.cc/content/news/230427-number-pedestrians-killed-or-maimed-cyclists-doubles-decade

It's dwarfed by the 9 that are killed by other vehicles each week, and the 100 maimed, of course.

Edited for accuracy


----------



## Welsh wheels (8 Oct 2017)

Whilst the death of a cyclist in my city on Friday is no longer on the BBC, having been replaced with worthy stories such as the plight of Wales's wine industry and who is to attend the Bafta Cymru awards.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (8 Oct 2017)

> Mr Norman said: “We already have strict laws to ensure drivers who put people’s lives at risk are punished..."


I wonder if he said that with a straight face? From what I've read on CC, motorists can get away with murder in the UK just like they can in Australia, because the motoring culture is so entrenched that hundreds of deaths a year from collisions with motor vehicles is somehow seen as acceptable. So what use are these "strict laws" if they're not properly enforced?


----------



## youngoldbloke (8 Oct 2017)

CanucksTraveller said:


> Did they mention the number of vehicle drivers that do the same?
> 
> Honestly, a tipper drives over and kills another human (again) and it struggles to make the local news. A woman dies after being hit by a cyclist in a rare case and the country loses its collective mind along with all sense of perspective.


Of course not! I


jefmcg said:


> It seems to be true.
> 
> http://road.cc/content/news/230427-number-pedestrians-killed-or-maimed-cyclists-doubles-decade
> 
> It's dwarfed by the 40 something that are killed by other vehicles each week, and the thousands maimed, of course.


It may be true but the way it is presented is designed to give the impression at a quick reading that one or two persons are killed each week (or maimed)


----------



## Drago (8 Oct 2017)

Is it true? Or is it fake news?

I don't mind papers highlighting lunatic cyclists, so long as they also highlight lunatic car and truck pilots.

Alas, lunatic car and truck pilots form the bulk of their readership, so it is financially expedient to them to concentrate upon and misrepresent the former.


----------



## youngoldbloke (8 Oct 2017)

The statistics are well known - I just don't trust the average Sunday Express reader to be able to divide 25 by 7 to get the actual numbers killed each year. The headline gives a very different impression, and yes, obviously the article should give the equivalent figures for other forms of transport.


----------



## jefmcg (8 Oct 2017)

youngoldbloke said:


> It may be true but the way it is presented is designed to give the impression at a quick reading that one or two persons are killed each week (or maimed)


Not seeing the problem. The statistic is KSI (killed or seriously injured) so I don't see you can criticise the Express for listing it in that order.

Calling the stats "alarming" is a problem though.


----------



## Vantage (8 Oct 2017)

“These figures demonstrate the urgent need for the current gap in the law to be filled and for cycling offences to be brought into line with those of other road users"

Does that then mean that we're basically free to ride like brainless zombies killing and maiming even more of those pesky peds who dare to walk on the pavements that we wish to park on, speed, jump lights and break every single road law that has ever been introduced without fear of legal punishment?
Awesome.


----------



## youngoldbloke (8 Oct 2017)

I part heard the R4 review - and gained the impression that 2 pedestrians were killed a week. I wasn't concentrating. I wouldn't be surprised if others heard the same, if Express readers skimming the paper gained the '2 a week killed' impression, will be having a drink down the local later, will be telling their mates 'bloody cyclists, kill two a week ......' etc etc


----------



## Drago (8 Oct 2017)

Another absent statistic which could paint the matter in an entirely different light - how may of those incidents were the demonstrable fault of the cyclists?


----------



## Flying Dodo (8 Oct 2017)

A car is the ideal murder weapon, as you are unlikely to incur much of a sanction, compared with using any other lump of metal.

The problem is that cars are so deeply entrenched in our society, that in a similar way that Americans accept their regular gun massacres, so collectively, the effects of cars are also accepted.

It's not just car crashes and the 1,800 deaths that are seen as a normal thing. As a society, why is it acceptable to leave your personal property in the road which is a public space. If I plonked a big metal storage cabinet outside my house and left it there, I'm sure that fairly soon the council would ask me to remove my rubbish. But leave a car? Not a problem. Yes, in some places you have to pay a small amount but I'm allowed to restrict road width legally with my metal box on wheels.

Madness.


----------



## mjr (8 Oct 2017)

jefmcg said:


> It seems to be true.
> 
> http://road.cc/content/news/230427-number-pedestrians-killed-or-maimed-cyclists-doubles-decade
> 
> It's dwarfed by the 40 something that are killed by other vehicles each week, and the thousands maimed, of course.


Thousands killed and maimed each week? I thought it was about 75 killed and seriously injured each week, but that's from memory.


----------



## Lonestar (8 Oct 2017)

[QUOTE 4989028, member: 259"]It's the Sunday Excess, so I sincerely doubt it.[/QUOTE]

It's no Daily Mail.


----------



## jefmcg (8 Oct 2017)

mjr said:


> Thousands killed and maimed each week? I thought it was about 75 killed and seriously injured each week, but that's from memory.


Something went wrong with my arithmetic 

Should be 9 killed and 100 seriously injured.


----------



## growingvegetables (8 Oct 2017)

Sheeyit.

The number of pedestrians fatally or seriously injured by cyclists has doubled since 2006. Jeeze.

Field day for headline writers and their agendas.


----------



## steveindenmark (9 Oct 2017)

It does not say who is responsible for the accidents, but it is safe to say it is not all down to the pedestrians.

The law is obviously outdated and needs revising. I cannot see a problem in that.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (9 Oct 2017)

I keep getting tempted to put comments on this garbage. But all that will do is generate junk mail for me and give a load of ranting tossers someone else to insult and repeat their 0% fact mantras at.


----------



## mjr (9 Oct 2017)

jefmcg said:


> Something went wrong with my arithmetic
> 
> Should be 9 killed and 100 seriously injured.
> 
> View attachment 377673


Thanks for the screenshot, which I've recycled elsewhere.


----------



## mustang1 (9 Oct 2017)

CanucksTraveller said:


> Did they mention the number of vehicle drivers that do the same?
> 
> Honestly, a tipper drives over and kills another human (again) and it struggles to make the local news. A woman dies after being hit by a cyclist in a rare case and the country loses its collective mind along with all sense of perspective.



Are you a Muppet or something? When cars and trucks kill people, that is normal. They pay taxes which pay for the police and ambulances to take the dead people away. 

The cyclists do pay nothing and so if on the off chance, they kill some moron crossing the road while checking out Facebook, what do you think the outcome will be?

I am a daily express reader and I am expressing my outrage at people like you. 

(Of course, I'm kidding with you -in case not obvs, or more likely, a real daily express reader comes across this thread).


----------



## MichaelW2 (10 Oct 2017)

How seriously injured to you need to be to make the SI of KSI? Is it a visit to a hospital A&E, an overnight stay, some kind of life-changing effect?
According to wiki:

_The definition is less clear-cut and may vary more over time and in different places. The UK definition covers injury resulting in a person being detained in hospital as an in-patient, in addition all injuries causing: fractures, concussion, internal injuries, crushings, burns (excluding friction burns), severe cuts, severe general shock which require medical treatment even if this does not result in a stay in hospital as an in-patient.[4]_


----------



## Drago (10 Oct 2017)

The headline is confusing. Does it mean that each cyclist maims or kills two people a week?


----------



## numbnuts (10 Oct 2017)

Another one with no brakes sorry it's in the Mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4966080/Cyclist-rode-bike-without-brakes-jailed.html


----------



## Drago (10 Oct 2017)

To be fair I'd expect a car driver with no brakes to be jailed in such circumstances, but the Daily Mail aren't known for their balanced perspective.


----------



## bozmandb9 (10 Oct 2017)

growingvegetables said:


> Sheeyit.
> 
> The number of pedestrians fatally or seriously injured by cyclists has doubled since 2006. Jeeze.
> 
> Field day for headline writers and their agendas.



Hhhhmmm. Since the invention of the iPhone basically...coincidence? I think not.


----------



## PK99 (10 Oct 2017)

Drago said:


> To be fair I'd expect a car driver with no brakes to be jailed in such circumstances, but the Daily Mail aren't known for their balanced perspective.



https://goo.gl/XaHdGm

that's the only street view available as it is embedded in pedestrian zones.


----------



## bozmandb9 (10 Oct 2017)

numbnuts said:


> Another one with no brakes sorry it's in the Mail
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4966080/Cyclist-rode-bike-without-brakes-jailed.html



This trend for using track bikes on public roads is concerning. I'd like to see the Police stopping cyclists on track bikes, and confiscating the bikes. Looking at that bike, it's exactly the same as the one my son is currently using at Newport velodrome, for it's intended purpose.


----------



## User269 (10 Oct 2017)

I don't see what there is to keep debating about here. Others have already posted the facts about this situation, and here's another summary, albeit out of date, but the figures haven't changed significantly;

*Pedestrian casualties 2001-09*

Killed by cycles: 18
Seriously injured by cycles: 434
Killed by cars: 3,495
Seriously injured by cars: 46,245
Figures apply to Great Britain. Source: Department for Transport


And this;

*Key facts:*
·Mile for mile in urban areas in the UK from 2009-13, motor vehicles were more likely than a cycle to seriously injure a pedestrian, and over twice as likely to kill them.

·In London (1998-2007), just 4% of reported pedestrian injuries due to red-light-jumping involved cyclists - the other 96% were hit by red-light-jumping motor vehicles. 

·Even on London’s pavements, just 2% of reported pedestrian collisions in the 1998-2007 period involved cyclists, the other 98% involved motor vehicles.




It's quite clear which problem needs looking at as a high priority, and worrying about 'track bikes' or the hysterical anti cycling ranting of sections of the press is completely missing where the problem lies, and where something needs to be done.


----------



## benb (11 Oct 2017)

Or this.


----------



## jefmcg (11 Oct 2017)

benb said:


> Or this.


Um......


----------



## benb (11 Oct 2017)

jefmcg said:


> Um......



Thanks.
Here it is again.


----------



## MontyVeda (11 Oct 2017)

jefmcg said:


> It seems to be true.
> 
> http://road.cc/content/news/230427-number-pedestrians-killed-or-maimed-cyclists-doubles-decade
> 
> ...


Could it be that the shared use paths that've been appearing in recent decades, putting bicycles and peds in close proximity isn't really working? Maybe it's time to revise the initiative and consider putting wheeled vehicles back on the roads where they belong... and clamp down on inconsiderate road use to make the space safer for all, leaving the pavements for peds and kids on scooters.


----------



## derrick (11 Oct 2017)

youngoldbloke said:


> Sunday Express stirring the excrement in today's paper - unfortunately mentioned on Radio 4 Sunday Papers after the 8am news this morning. Disgraceful misrepresentation of statistics.
> http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/863550/cyclist-killed-bicycle-accident-two-pedestrians-every-week


Who actually buys papers today.


----------



## benb (11 Oct 2017)

More recent data.


----------



## mjr (11 Oct 2017)

MontyVeda said:


> Could it be that the shared use paths that've been appearing in recent decades, putting bicycles and peds in close proximity isn't really working?


It used to be the case that most pedestrians KSId by cycles were in the road (where cycling speeds are generally higher even when pedestrians are around) so your point is baseless, although I've not checked the 2016 data (if it's available in sufficient detail yet) so there's a tiny chance that's changed but I'd be surprised.


----------



## MontyVeda (12 Oct 2017)

mjr said:


> It used to be the case that most pedestrians KSId by cycles were in the road (where cycling speeds are generally higher even when pedestrians are around) so* your point is baseless*, although I've not checked the 2016 data (if it's available in sufficient detail yet) so there's a tiny chance that's changed but I'd be surprised.


I wasn't making a point... i was just throwing ideas around.


----------



## benb (12 Oct 2017)

[QUOTE 4994709, member: 9609"]clearly the menace of cycling needs to be stamped out.

where does the chart come from ? I need to send it to my MP[/QUOTE]
Saw it on Twitter. 
View: https://twitter.com/AsEasyAsRiding/status/917762833676472321

Source will be ONS road casualty stats. Available online.


----------



## Buddfox (12 Oct 2017)

Should this analysis also consider the greater number of miles travelled by cars over cyclists? Does that change the conclusions?


----------



## benb (12 Oct 2017)

Buddfox said:


> Should this analysis also consider the greater number of miles travelled by cars over cyclists? Does that change the conclusions?



Even if you take that into account drivers are many times more likely to KSI.
But even if that wasn't the case, when looking where to expend resources on harm reduction you would use absolute risk not relative risk to decide.


----------



## User269 (12 Oct 2017)

MontyVeda said:


> I wasn't making a point... i was just throwing ideas around.


 Well don't just 'throw ideas around'. Look at the facts.
You state; "Could it be that the shared use paths that've been appearing in recent decades, putting bicycles and peds in close proximity isn't really working? "
No, it couldn't be. There is no evidence supporting your question. Leave such rhetoric to the hysterical anti-cycling, bigoted, and hate promoting sections of the press.


----------



## growingvegetables (12 Oct 2017)

Buddfox said:


> ... *the greater number of miles* travelled by cars over cyclists? Does that change the conclusions?


Red herring.

Or at least - it's a nasty, underhand piece of spin. Not by you personally. It comes, I suspect, from the anti-cycling brigade. And we mustn't fall for it, or accept it.

Cut out the miles travelled by cars on motorways, cut out the intercity journeys, cut out the caravan-towing and holiday journeys, cut out the miles travelled by cars on journeys over ... say 10 miles (?), cut out the miles cars transport families, cut out ... any number of journeys made by cars which are entirely different from, and impractical as, cycling journeys. Then we might be able to think about conclusions.


----------



## jefmcg (12 Oct 2017)

From another thread, it seems per mile we are deadlier than cars.

(working is mine)


jefmcg said:


> View attachment 377298
> 
> That's rather worrying. According to the Dft, bicycles travel a little over 1% of the annual distance travelled by cars, yet the relative fatality rate is 1.7% of cars. I'd hope it to be much smaller not 70% greater.
> 
> Obviously the total is pretty small, so presumably could be represent an anomaly, but maybe we are a greater hazard than we think to other vulnerable road users.


----------



## growingvegetables (12 Oct 2017)

jefmcg said:


> From another thread, it seems per mile we are deadlier than cars.
> 
> (working is mine)


Once again - a straight "per mile" calculation is such a gross over-simplification. As relevant as comparing the fatalities-by-mile of the Apollo space missions.


----------



## Buddfox (13 Oct 2017)

growingvegetables said:


> Red herring.
> 
> Or at least - it's a nasty, underhand piece of spin. Not by you personally. It comes, I suspect, from the anti-cycling brigade. And we mustn't fall for it, or accept it.
> 
> Cut out the miles travelled by cars on motorways, cut out the intercity journeys, cut out the caravan-towing and holiday journeys, cut out the miles travelled by cars on journeys over ... say 10 miles (?), cut out the miles cars transport families, cut out ... any number of journeys made by cars which are entirely different from, and impractical as, cycling journeys. Then we might be able to think about conclusions.



This is how I was thinking about it. I think the logic of considering, in some way, how much time each vehicle type is on the road, is worth doing, but taking the total doesn't make sense. To take just one of the examples you list, motorway miles should surely be excluded, because neither pedestrians nor bicycles use motorways.

But I also recognise the points made about absolute outcomes as well. It is the number of people (measured absolutely) that are being killed or seriously injured that should determine the start point of any mitigating action.


----------



## Drago (13 Oct 2017)

growingvegetables said:


> Once again - a straight "per mile" calculation is such a gross over-simplification. As relevant as comparing the fatalities-by-mile of the Apollo space missions.



Indeed! Three dead before the Apollo had moved a single inch.


----------



## MontyVeda (13 Oct 2017)

User269 said:


> Well don't just 'throw ideas around'. Look at the facts.
> You state; "Could it be that the shared use paths that've been appearing in recent decades, putting bicycles and peds in close proximity isn't really working? "
> No, it couldn't be. There is no evidence supporting your question. Leave such rhetoric to the hysterical anti-cycling, bigoted, and hate promoting sections of the press.


OK, since you're moderating this thread.. please explain why i can't just throw ideas around?
And as a quick tip, a sentence that starts with 'could' and ends with a question mark isn't a statement, it's question. Am i allowed to ask questions? And do i really need supporting evidence before a question is asked?


----------



## MacB (13 Oct 2017)

I don't think the per mile stats are a decent stat to look at here, far more accurate and much simpler is the sliding scale:-

Please place in order, from best to worst, the things that could strike you:-

a. pedestrian
b. jogger/runner
c. cyclist
d. motorbike
e. car
f. lorry/bus

Now if anyone is saying they'd rather be hit by a car than a bicycle then there is an argument for trying to compare the two.


----------



## jefmcg (13 Oct 2017)

User said:


> As pointed out elsewhere:


I can't be arsed to recalculate, but my numbers were cyclists vs cars. Yours were cyclists vs not-cyclists. So that at least partly explains the discrepancy.




growingvegetables said:


> Once again - a straight "per mile" calculation is such a gross over-simplification. As relevant as comparing the fatalities-by-mile of the Apollo space missions.



Well, ok. Do you feel keen to do the maths? 
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ment_data/file/514912/road-use-statistics.pdf








MacB said:


> Now if anyone is saying they'd rather be hit by a car than a bicycle then there is an argument for trying to compare the two.


Intuition says I'd much better off being hit by a bicycle than a car. My intuition also says I am less likely to sustain a head injury walking a mile than cycling a mile. Apparently my intuition is wrong about the latter, so shouldn't we at least question our assumptions about the former?

The result of a single collision is only a tiny part of the story. I'd much prefer to be stung by a bee than bitten by a funnel web spider. No surprises to which kill more people in Australia. (Hint: it's bees)



Spoiler: do not click if you are afraid of spiders


----------



## Dan B (13 Oct 2017)

Again, as a pedestrian i don't really care how far the driver has traveled before running into me


----------



## growingvegetables (13 Oct 2017)

jefmcg said:


> Do you feel keen to do the maths?


Me do the maths? 

No way of getting any maths that is logical, accurate, coherent, or intelligible from me!


----------



## mjr (16 Oct 2017)

[QUOTE 4997614, member: 9609"]So may be it is worth pointing out that if we are going to look at the stats then what we really need is more laws to stop cars killing pedestrians as the figures show motor vehicles are 3 x more dangerous to pedestrians.[/QUOTE]
Isn't what we really need more traffic police to enforce the current laws to stop motorists (not cars) killing?

But instead, it's cheaper just to turn the current laws up to 11 and ignore the policing cuts https://www.gov.uk/government/news/life-sentences-for-killer-drivers


----------



## boydj (16 Oct 2017)

The West Midlands Police Close Pass Op has shown dramatically how some active enforcement can reduce KSIs across the board.


----------

