# Cyclist deaths soar on rural roads in England



## steve292 (1 Dec 2021)

*https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-59477788*

This is shocking. I don't know what we can do as a society to promote a bit more empathy towards the rest of the human race.
What I do know is that it's about time we started to remove the privilege of driving completly and forever for some.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (1 Dec 2021)

steve292 said:


> *https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-59477788*
> 
> This is shocking. I don't know what we can do as a society to promote a bit more empathy towards the rest of the human race.
> What I do know is that it's about time we started to remove the privilege of driving completly and forever for some.




We need to make it prohibitively expensive to use motor cars for unnecessary trips. This figure isn't rural but shows the massive increase in motor vehicle use that is choking everything. Between 2009 and 2019, the number of miles driven on roads just within London increased by 3.6 BILLION.

Yes, billion.


----------



## mjr (1 Dec 2021)

1. It is a shame they report deaths only by victim type and not by killer type.

2. Will deaths have still "soared" if they actually increased less than the amount of cycling? Government was publishing estimates of cycling increase more quickly during covid, so that data should be available, but none of the BBC, NFU or British Cycling (the latter two having put out the press release) seem to have checked.


----------



## byegad (1 Dec 2021)

I have a local alerts email which comes up with all kinds of useless guff, but also never fails to mention road deaths of all kinds. 

Starting in March 2020 I've ted a very worrying rise in road deaths in general, and solo motor vehicle* crashes and deaths in particular. It appears to be a true rise, this despite lockdown #1 seeing a huge reduction in journeys. My guess, from direct experience, is that a number of drivers were, and maybe still are, treating the quiet roads as race tracks. As traffic numbers have returned to somewhere near normal these drivers have not slowed down.

*On one particular evening no less than 4 local roads were closed, 3 briefly to recover cars 'on their roofs' and one longer closure, for a fatality.


----------



## PK99 (1 Dec 2021)

mjr said:


> 2. *Will deaths have still "soared" if they actually increased less than the amount of cycling?* Government was publishing estimates of cycling increase more quickly during covid, so that data should be available, but none of the BBC, NFU or British Cycling (the latter two having put out the press release) seem to have checked.




_Cycling during the pandemic lock-down reached its high point between mid-April and mid-June, regularly exceeding 250% of normal pre-COVID levels, according to Government data analysed in the report. 
https://www.bicycleassociation.org....-record-extent-of-covid-cycling-sales-growth/_


----------



## T4tomo (1 Dec 2021)

steve292 said:


> This is shocking. I don't know what we can do as a society to promote a bit more empathy towards the rest of the human race.
> What I do know is that it's about time we started to remove the privilege of driving completly and forever for some.



It really isnt shocking, Its probably proportionate to the increase in the number of cycle journeys made. People hopped off public transport onto their bikes (or cars).



glasgowcyclist said:


> We need to make it prohibitively expensive to use motor cars for unnecessary trips.


and how / who judges what is necessary??
Make public transport better and cheaper and car use will drop or at least level off. Make cycling infrastructure better and people will use that. outside of London its rubbish and the CS# routes aren't that great themselves but at least its something.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (1 Dec 2021)

T4tomo said:


> and how / who judges what is necessary??
> Make public transport better and cheaper and car use will drop or at least level off. Make cycling infrastructure better and people will use that. outside of London its rubbish and the CS# routes aren't that great themselves but at least its something.



Well, one method would be to introduce pay per mile road pricing and dissuade at least 40% of drivers (those who use a car for trips under 2 miles) from clogging up the roads.

I agree about public transport and cycling infra.


----------



## T4tomo (1 Dec 2021)

Giving parents a choice of schools was a backward step, in every town across the land thousands of kids are being driven to & from school that isnt the closest to their house. If they were allocated the nearest school most could actually walk to.


----------



## Electric_Andy (1 Dec 2021)

I'm not sure that pricing car drivers off the road will work. As we've seen with fuel, nearly double the price it was 10 years ago and very few have given up their cars or driven any less (it seems). I think the only way to make a difference is education. Having an entire module in the theory and practical test about vulnerable road users. And much harsher penalties for anyone who has an at-fault collision with a ped or cyclist, no matter what the outcome. Maybe 3 year ban even if the ped or cyclist is not seriously hurt?


----------



## Gillstay (1 Dec 2021)

T4tomo said:


> Giving parents a choice of schools was a backward step, in every town across the land thousands of kids are being driven to & from school that isnt the closest to their house. If they were allocated the nearest school most could actually walk to.


Yep when I rented out the house in Brighton I was told it would go very easily as the best school was just down the road and I was not to be surprised if they just rented it but never lived in it. So they would still be commuting. Crazy world.


----------



## Sterlo (1 Dec 2021)

If you read the report, it's specifically stating rural roads, not London. I live rurally, the amount of traffic has increased only slightly around us but we're on roads going to nowhere in particular. Whilst I agree reducing the number of unnecessary journeys is good, public transport in the country is patchy at best, we have a bus every 2 hours, so can see why people use/need cars (myself included. 
What this needs is driver standards education. Because they are on an open road with little or no perceivable other traffic, it's a good excuse to put the foot down. Most of our local roads are officially 60 but you struggle to do 40 if you drive correctly. If they reduced the limits slightly (even down to 50), as long as people stick to them, they would have more time to see/react to others.


----------



## Electric_Andy (1 Dec 2021)

Sterlo said:


> Most of our local roads are officially 60 but you struggle to do 40 if you drive correctly.


 Good point, it's the same where my parents live. National speed limit sign for about 3 miles, but some places it's only just wide enough for 2 cars and nothing else. Add to that, poor surfaces, no street lighting, deceiving bends...you never know what's round the corner. 
There is a stretch in town where there are average speed cameras for about 3 miles; everyone goes 30 even though it's 2 lanes and very wide, well lit and straight. I don't know how much average speed cameras cost to maintain but pehaps that is a better idea? I have seen them before in rural areas


----------



## Sterlo (1 Dec 2021)

Electric_Andy said:


> Good point, it's the same where my parents live. National speed limit sign for about 3 miles, but some places it's only just wide enough for 2 cars and nothing else. Add to that, poor surfaces, no street lighting, deceiving bends...you never know what's round the corner.
> There is a stretch in town where there are average speed cameras for about 3 miles; everyone goes 30 even though it's 2 lanes and very wide, well lit and straight. I don't know how much average speed cameras cost to maintain but pehaps that is a better idea? I have seen them before in rural areas


In principal I would agree, but there are so many small roads, many around us are small enough to have passing places, that I don't think it would be economically viable. Then again, how much is a persons life worth?


----------



## slowmotion (1 Dec 2021)

Although traffic volume may have reduced during lockdown, the boy racers came out in force. Relatively empty roads were too much of a temptation.


----------



## Brandane (1 Dec 2021)

glasgowcyclist said:


> We need to make it prohibitively expensive to use motor cars for unnecessary trips. This figure isn't rural but shows the massive increase in motor vehicle use that is choking everything. Between 2009 and 2019, the number of miles driven on roads just within London increased by 3.6 BILLION.


Except that, according to the OP, it seems that clogged roads are safer than quieter rural roads. Which makes sense in a way; a lot of slow moving cars are probably less dangerous than one whizzing past at 60 mph..

Edit to add.... It would also tend to indicate that despite all their attempts to line their pockets price drivers off the road with congestion zones, ULEZ, and whatever other schemes they may have in that there London, they don't appear to be working. Up here in the wilds of Scotland, the near 50% increase in petrol prices in a year hasn't led to any reduction in traffic. Most people have no practical alternative to the private car. It's the way society has been set up over a long period with out of town shopping, longer work commutes, centralised everything (schools, hospitals etc.). People will just have to suck it up when it comes to fuel prices, and something else will need to be sacrificed. Maybe they will forsake eating/drinking out, and pubs/restaurants will suffer. Less holidays; whatever. People only have so much money to go round, and most probably regard the car as a high priority, which it is, whether us smug cyclists like it or not.


----------



## BoldonLad (1 Dec 2021)

T4tomo said:


> Giving parents a choice of schools was a backward step, in every town across the land thousands of kids are being driven to & from school that isnt the closest to their house. If they were allocated the nearest school most could actually walk to.



Could walk to does not equal will walk to. 

We live near a school, there is one parent Neighbour at least who drives their child to school, every day, a distance of less than 1 mile!


----------



## glasgowcyclist (1 Dec 2021)

Brandane said:


> Except that, according to the OP, it seems that clogged roads are safer than quieter rural roads. Which makes sense in a way; a lot of slow moving cars are probably less dangerous than one whizzing past at 60 mph..



Yes, I acknowledged that my reference was not to rural but city roads. However, my intent was to underline just how many motor vehicles are now on the roads. I should have used a different reference and I am very, very sorry.


----------



## Brandane (1 Dec 2021)

BoldonLad said:


> We live near a school, there is one parent Neighbour at least who drives their child to school, every day, a distance of less than 1 mile!


Yebbut; it will be too dangerous to let little Johnny/Johnette walk to school with all that dangerous traffic to negotiate .


----------



## derrick (1 Dec 2021)

The standard of driving dropped a lot since we came out of lockdown, The lack of police does not help.


----------



## mjr (1 Dec 2021)

Electric_Andy said:


> I'm not sure that pricing car drivers off the road will work. As we've seen with fuel, nearly double the price it was 10 years ago and very few have given up their cars or driven any less (it seems).


Who told you that? On 25th May 2012, petrol was 135.44p/l and diesel 141.26p/l, according to the RAC Foundation. Yesterday they were 147.4p and 150.73p. That's not even keeping up with inflation. I don't remember when petrol was 74p/l, but it can't have been this century because tax and duty was 76.2p/l in 2000 and it hasn't been cut!

There are so many myths about how hard-done-by we motorists are, when the reality is we don't pay our way and we're paying less and less ever passing year, yet still the motoring lobby wants more more more. Just like with road space, motoring always wants more of the pie, no matter how big a slice it has already.

So should we at least try pricing drivers off the road before dismissing it?



> I think the only way to make a difference is education. Having an entire module in the theory and practical test about vulnerable road users. And much harsher penalties for anyone who has an at-fault collision with a ped or cyclist, no matter what the outcome. Maybe 3 year ban even if the ped or cyclist is not seriously hurt?


I'm not sure about that length of ban for minor injury collisions, but I'd favour some automatic minimums, as well as a much greater use of bans and retests generally. And lots more cameras to catch the likes of the daffodil last night who reacted to a red light at a carriageway/cycleway crossroads by accelerating, presumably because all the cyclists will get out of the way of a revving car, it won't hurt him much if they don't and there are no cameras near there to prove he had a red.


----------



## Milzy (1 Dec 2021)

Promoting empathy won’t work. Some humans are heartless & selfish. However if they had real punishing consequences like long term prison sentences & 10 year driving bans I believe the driving would become a lot more careful.


----------



## BoldonLad (1 Dec 2021)

Brandane said:


> Yebbut; it will be too dangerous to let little Johnny/Johnette walk to school with all that dangerous traffic to negotiate .



In this particular instance, because I live there, I know it is possible to walk the route, on a pavement, along a street, with a light controlled crossing at the school. The “driving route” is actually longer, I would guess, if you factor in loading child in car, reversing off drive etc, it is actually quicker to walk, it is such a short distance. 

You are however right to a degree about the traffic. There are so many parents/grand parents dropping of children at the school gates, that there is significant congestion. Solution, Council occasionally sends round a “camera car” to spot cars causing an obstruction. So, yet another car added to the mess.


----------



## Cycleops (1 Dec 2021)

glasgowcyclist said:


> We need to make it prohibitively expensive to use motor cars for unnecessary trips. This figure isn't rural but shows the massive increase in motor vehicle use that is choking everything. Between 2009 and 2019, the number of miles driven on roads just within London increased by 3.6 BILLION.
> 
> Yes, billion.


The trouble is motoring is now viewed as an 'uman right. Any measure to make it more expensive or restrict it in any way will be met with a huge outcry and will be a vote loser for any political party.


----------



## oldwheels (1 Dec 2021)

Centralising lots of services like hospitals certainly leads to more car use where I live.
I was recently invited to attend a hearing test at our local hospital which is 21 miles each way and possibly up to 35 minutes each way. Bus is possible but would be nearly a whole day and in tourist season impossible as any buses passing for return home would probably be full.
Next week I have an optician appointment in Oban for which a car is essential and if further investigation is required it would be a referral to Paisley about 100 miles each way and take 2 days. Again there could be public transport but a long tortuous journey and probably 3 days.
These services used to be available locally but everything is centralised now.


----------



## MontyVeda (1 Dec 2021)

glasgowcyclist said:


> We need to make it prohibitively expensive to use motor cars for unnecessary trips. This figure isn't rural but shows the massive increase in motor vehicle use that is choking everything. Between 2009 and 2019, the number of miles driven on roads just within London increased by 3.6 BILLION.
> 
> Yes, billion.
> 
> View attachment 620159


I was wondering the other day after a news report mentioned introducing congestion charges to cities outside of London, if the congestion charge has actually deterred people from driving, or if it simply raises lots and lots of revenue. Looking at the graph, there's a decline from 2007 to 2009 (when the charge was introduced)... then it just steadily rises for the next decade. So it appears that congestion charges don't actually relieve congestion in the long term, but do make a lot of money.


----------



## simongt (1 Dec 2021)

On the way back from a festival at Skeggy on Monday after the snow and ice, saw three cars and one van in ditches before we'd even got to Boston. 
Nuff said about attitudes like 'I'm the world's best driver in the world's safest car.'


----------



## Milzy (1 Dec 2021)

simongt said:


> On the way back from a festival at Skeggy on Monday after the snow and ice, saw three cars and one van in ditches before we'd even got to Boston.
> Nuff said about attitudes like 'I'm the world's best driver in the world's safest car.'


We came across a young lad climbing out of his wreck. He tried to turn too fast and gone to the wrong side of the road & hit a tree on a field edge. If we had been 20 seconds in front he’d have wiped us all out. He was very shaken up & made a genuine daft mistake of speed turning on a gravely patch.


----------



## Drago (2 Dec 2021)

We need to establish who is responsible for these extra deaths before we get too excited. For the period in question cycling numbers are up, but car road miles are down so any correlation is not immediately clear.


----------



## cyberknight (2 Dec 2021)

it was a click bait article
cyclists deaths up 50 % overall up 66%


----------



## Dogtrousers (2 Dec 2021)

mjr said:


> I don't remember when petrol was 74p/l, but it can't have been this century


Useless fact: it was 1979 when petrol went over £1/gallon. I know that because I was working at a petrol station and we had to change some of the older pumps. I got my hand crushed and it swelled up like a balloon (nothing broken). By my calculation that would have been about 26p / litre.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (2 Dec 2021)

cyberknight said:


> it was a click bait article
> cyclists deaths up 50 % overall up 66%



With cyclists numbers doubled on rural roads. Risk of death unchanged.


----------



## mjr (2 Dec 2021)

Ming the Merciless said:


> With cyclists numbers doubled on rural roads. Risk of death unchanged.


How do you work that out?


----------



## Alex321 (2 Dec 2021)

mjr said:


> So should we at least try pricing drivers off the road before dismissing it?


Absolutely not.

Almost any scheme which makes driving more expensive will hurt those least able to afford it.

Whether it would "work" or not (I'm not convinced it would), it should not be considered.


----------



## Milkfloat (2 Dec 2021)

Drago said:


> We need to establish who is responsible for these extra deaths before we get too excited. For the period in question cycling numbers are up, but car road miles are down so any correlation is not immediately clear.


During this period I distinctly remember lots of new wobbly cyclists and the massively reduced traffic. However, there were many, many times I experienced that the reduced traffic was driving like absolute lunatics. Lockdown cycling for me was not all sweetness and flowers. It is interesting that the big increase in deaths were on rural A roads, typically the roads an experinced cyclist will avoid.

However, all that is just based on my observations, no hard evidence at all.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (2 Dec 2021)

Alex321 said:


> Absolutely not.
> 
> Almost any scheme which makes driving more expensive will hurt those least able to afford it.



Making it expensive for those who can run a car means getting them to be much more selective about how they use their vehicle and when. It needn't mean that their annual costs necessarily increase unless they fail to adjust their usage.

There are simply far too many on the roads we have and building more roads only brings more cars.


----------



## Dogtrousers (2 Dec 2021)

Alex321 said:


> Absolutely not.
> 
> Almost any scheme which makes driving more expensive will hurt those least able to afford it.
> 
> Whether it would "work" or not (I'm not convinced it would), it should not be considered.


We're going OT I know, but a scheme that charges to drive can be effective, but only if it is accompanied by other measures. The London Congestion Charge _has_ been effective, but it's focused on a small, dense area that is well served by public transport, and IIRC there was a boost given to bus services when it was introduced. Just charging to drive alone is unlikely to have much effect apart from making driving more expensive. It might deter frivolous short journeys, like 1 mile to take the kids to school, but it might not - as people might just carry on as before but just complain more.


----------



## Alex321 (2 Dec 2021)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Making it expensive for those who can run a car means getting them to be much more selective about how they use their vehicle and when. It needn't mean that their annual costs necessarily increase unless they fail to adjust their usage.
> 
> There are simply far too many on the roads we have and building more roads only brings more cars.


Why respond to my post with something that just totally ignores what I said?


----------



## byegad (2 Dec 2021)

BoldonLad said:


> Could walk to does not equal will walk to.
> 
> We live near a school, there is one parent Neighbour at least who drives their child to school, every day, a distance of less than 1 mile!


We had one of them. School was < 400 metres walking, but nearer 1.5 miles if you drive, don't ask a really 'imaginative' traffic calming system. He drove them to school in the Morning, at Lunch time back to the house and return to school and afternoon home. With his return home* it was about12 miles a day to save the little darlings walking about a mile a day. Then he complained they didn't want to go to bed.

* In his early 30s fit and idle, never showing any sign of working, he owned a nice motorbike, a succession of 6-7 yr old cars and never seemed short of a bob.


----------



## Brandane (2 Dec 2021)

glasgowcyclist said:


> There are simply far too many on the roads


Keeping the population down might be a better idea then. Now, how can we possibly do that? . Remember, politics not allowed...


----------



## MichaelW2 (2 Dec 2021)

When it comes to rural roads, there are many kinds.
Some have grass growing down the middle. Some are heavily used B roads from villiages to town. The drivers know the road well and can drive too fast.
Rural A roads are something to avoid where possible.

I wonder if lot of new or returning lockdown cyclists aporoach rural cycling too naively. There are dangers just as there are in the city and you have to be aware what may be ahead and behind you on blind corners with banked verges and no escape route.


----------



## mjr (2 Dec 2021)

Alex321 said:


> Absolutely not.
> 
> Almost any scheme which makes driving more expensive will hurt those least able to afford it.
> 
> Whether it would "work" or not (I'm not convinced it would), it should not be considered.


Most schemes to reduce driving will hurt those drivers who can barely afford it, who have structured their life around it. Of course we should have a transitional scheme to support them stopping driving.

But continuing to make driving cheap will hurt those least able to survive it (asthmatics living in cheap leaky housing in pollution zones, for example), so should a bit of financial pain for the misguided on the financial borderline really stop us helping vulnerable people on the borderline?



Brandane said:


> Keeping the population down might be a better idea then. Now, how can we possibly do that? . Remember, politics not allowed...


Cycling politics is still allowed in the advocacy forum. Party politics probably not. But I don't agree with those who advocate so-called "human population planning" when it amounts to coercion and state regulation of births.


----------



## swee'pea99 (2 Dec 2021)

Have to say every time I leave The Hellhole That Is London for the leafy glades of Herts/Essex, it's really noticeable just how much worse/more dangerous the driving becomes. 100% pointless high speed close passes, eg - all but unknown in the big smoke, regular occurrence out in the sticks.


----------



## Brandane (2 Dec 2021)

....


mjr said:


> But I don't agree with those who advocate so-called "human population planning" when it amounts to coercion and state regulation of births.


That's not what I was meaning. It was a wee dig at @glasgowcyclist and a previous political thread. About Glasgow... and, well, politics!


----------



## glasgowcyclist (2 Dec 2021)

Alex321 said:


> Why respond to my post with something that just totally ignores what I said?



I'm not sure how I've done that. What do you mean?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (2 Dec 2021)

Brandane said:


> ....
> 
> That's not what I was meaning. It was a wee dig at @glasgowcyclist and a previous political thread. About Glasgow... and, well, politics!


I can't remember which one that was (I'm not asking to re-ignite it either!).

I thought you were on about birth control or something...


----------



## Dogtrousers (2 Dec 2021)

swee'pea99 said:


> Have to say every time I leave The Hellhole That Is London for the leafy glades of Herts/Essex, it's really noticeable just how much worse/more dangerous the driving becomes. 100% pointless high speed close passes, eg - all but unknown in the big smoke, regular occurrence out in the sticks.


My experience in a southerly direction into Kent is similar re close passes. But there's a reason why you don't get high speed close passes nearer the centre. You don't get high speed anything!

It's interesting that probably the quieter rural roads that I ride out to enjoy are probably just as dangerous, if not more so, than the busier roads that I hate cycling on that I'm escaping.


----------



## mjr (2 Dec 2021)

swee'pea99 said:


> Have to say every time I leave The Hellhole That Is London for the leafy glades of Herts/Essex, it's really noticeable just how much worse/more dangerous the driving becomes. 100% pointless high speed close passes, eg - all but unknown in the big smoke, regular occurrence out in the sticks.


It depends where. When you get out in the real sticks, far enough from That London, drivers calm down a bit except for during disruption (nobody told their Google or Waze or whatever there would be farmers using tractors to bring in the harvest, preventing them from achieving their target time) or tourist hotspots. No-one expects driving to be fast where even A roads are basically tarmacked bendy cart tracks.

The worst road for motorist behaviour that I've ridden was in Essex, near Harlow. I wonder if the work done to humanise That London has meant that the worst daffodil drivers have moved out of it but only to within "easy driving distance".


----------



## Alex321 (2 Dec 2021)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I'm not sure how I've done that. What do you mean?


I was making the point that making driving more expensive would hurt those leats able to afford it.

Your response didn't touch on that point at all.


----------



## mjr (2 Dec 2021)

Dogtrousers said:


> It's interesting that probably the quieter rural roads that I ride out to enjoy are probably just as dangerous, if not more so, than the busier roads that I hate cycling on that I'm escaping.


I've not checked the latest figures (and the cycling distance estimates to match the casualty figures in the above press release are not yet available), but it used to be that you were less likely to be injured riding rural roads, but if you were, it was more likely to be serious or fatal.

I suspect this reflects the frankly-inappropriate outdated speed limits on minor rural roads. It really ought to be 40mph limit on roads too minor or narrow to have painted lane lines IMO.


----------



## MichaelW2 (2 Dec 2021)

swee'pea99 said:


> Have to say every time I leave The Hellhole That Is London for the leafy glades of Herts/Essex, it's really noticeable just how much worse/more dangerous the driving becomes. 100% pointless high speed close passes, eg - all but unknown in the big smoke, regular occurrence out in the sticks.


I found the Guildford area to be to hazardous for cycling. These are Rural Shaped Roads.


----------



## Alex321 (2 Dec 2021)

MichaelW2 said:


> When it comes to rural roads, there are many kinds.
> Some have grass growing down the middle. Some are heavily used B roads from villiages to town. The drivers know the road well and can drive too fast.
> Rural A roads are something to avoid where possible.
> 
> I wonder if lot of new or returning lockdown cyclists aporoach rural cycling too naively. There are dangers just as there are in the city and you have to be aware what may be ahead and behind you on blind corners with banked verges and no escape route.



I would largely agree with that, except that rather than saying "rural A roads", I would say "Rural main roads". They are often B roads, but can still be rather busy and have fast traffic on them. A couple of examples near us being the Llantwit Major - Bridgend road (B4265) and Llantwit Major - Cowbridge road (B4270). I do sometimes use both of those, but nowadays prefer to avoid them if reasonably possible.

The roads I prefer riding on are the ones between those and the "grass growing down the middle" type. I do ride some of the latter as well, but they tend to have a worse surface, particularly near the edges.


----------



## Dogtrousers (2 Dec 2021)

mjr said:


> I've not checked the latest figures (and the cycling distance estimates to match the casualty figures in the above press release are not yet available), but it used to be that you were less likely to be injured riding rural roads, but if you were, it was more likely to be serious or fatal.
> 
> I suspect this reflects the frankly-inappropriate outdated speed limits on minor rural roads. It really ought to be 40mph limit on roads too minor or narrow to have painted lane lines IMO.


I wasn't making a fact based claim. Just that it's possible/probable that "gut feel" perception of the nicer roads as being safer is way off. And as you say they are different threats - I may get a bit banged up at low speed in SE London, but I could get killed in a high speed collision on a rural road.


----------



## Milkfloat (2 Dec 2021)

Road.cc have a better breakdown of figures https://road.cc/content/news/analysis-cyclists-most-risk-rural-roads-288301


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (2 Dec 2021)

glasgowcyclist said:


> We need to make it prohibitively expensive to use motor cars for unnecessary trips. This figure isn't rural but shows the massive increase in motor vehicle use that is choking everything. Between 2009 and 2019, the number of miles driven on roads just within London increased by 3.6 BILLION.
> 
> Yes, billion.
> 
> View attachment 620159


If I'm not mistaken, the 1999 - 2009 decline in London traffic numbers follow the governments of the day with a 2-year lag. It suggests that Labour public transport policies were rather more successful than the Conservatives'. Investigating that might be more useful than resorting to population control policies.


----------



## swee'pea99 (2 Dec 2021)

Dogtrousers said:


> My experience in a southerly direction into Kent is similar re close passes. But there's a reason why you don't get high speed close passes nearer the centre. You don't get high speed anything!


Fair point. But it does feel to me like London drivers have overwhelmingly kind of shrugged their shoulders and learned to live with The Cyclist. There are just too many of them not to. There doesn't seem the same actively hostile/aggressive mindset I find out in Essex, where people will overtake you within a foot at 60 mph though the other side of the road is clearly clear for the next half mile. 


deptfordmarmoset said:


> population control policies.


What, like a cull of Essex Subaru drivers? Excellent. I mean, it's only a start but every little helps, eh?


----------



## mjr (2 Dec 2021)

Milkfloat said:


> Road.cc have a better breakdown of figures https://road.cc/content/news/analysis-cyclists-most-risk-rural-roads-288301


Thanks for that. Yes, much better than most reporting.

And it quotes some horrible nonsense from British Cycling's Policy Manager (they only trust him with policies, not people?) like "Wear the right clothes – in the mixed light and weather conditions that are typically encountered during a daytime ride in the UK, there’s no one type of clothing that will ensure you’re seen at all times." Or in other words, it'll always be our fault for wearing the wrong clothes at some point during a ride.

He also opens with "Ride defensively but respectfully", then has "Be considerate of the needs of other road users" and finishes with "Consider the communities you are cycling through", which could be taken to imply that rural cyclists are being killed due to them being disrespectful and inconsiderate, which I really doubt. Has anyone heard of cyclists being loaded into wicker men recently? I strongly suspect more deaths are due to crap driving than cyclists dissing villagers.

British Cycling members, please make your thoughts on that known to your federation!


----------



## glasgowcyclist (2 Dec 2021)

Alex321 said:


> I was making the point that making driving more expensive would hurt those leats able to afford it.
> 
> Your response didn't touch on that point at all.



On the contrary; I said that car users (and that includes those on a tight car-owning budget) would need to adjust their usage to keep the costs affordable. I don't think there's any way around reduced usage to fix the problem, whether you run a Rolls or a banger.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (2 Dec 2021)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> If I'm not mistaken, the 1999 - 2009 decline in London traffic numbers follow the governments of the day with a 2-year lag. It suggests that Labour public transport policies were rather more successful than the Conservatives'. Investigating that might be more useful than resorting to population control policies.



I'm not in favour of population control policies, I think that was someone else's idea.


----------



## Alex321 (2 Dec 2021)

mjr said:


> I've not checked the latest figures (and the cycling distance estimates to match the casualty figures in the above press release are not yet available), but it used to be that you were less likely to be injured riding rural roads, but if you were, it was more likely to be serious or fatal.
> 
> I suspect this reflects the frankly-inappropriate outdated speed limits on minor rural roads. It really ought to be 40mph limit on roads too minor or narrow to have painted lane lines IMO.


While I take your point that the speed limits are too high on those roads, only a lunatic would drive at speeds approaching the limit on most of them.


----------



## Alex321 (2 Dec 2021)

glasgowcyclist said:


> On the contrary; I said that car users (and that includes those on a tight car-owning budget) would need to adjust their usage to keep the costs affordable. I don't think there's any way around reduced usage to fix the problem, whether you run a Rolls or a banger.


 Which does not address in any way the fact that increasing costs will most hurt those least able to afford it.

Those who can only just about afford to run a car at all but who find it essential aren't the problem, because they also can't afford to use their cars excessively. Making it more expensive would hurt them badly, while not affecting those who do use their cars excessively very much.

And separately from that, I also disagree strongly with your basic premise here - "I don't think there's any way around reduced usage to fix the problem". The problem here can be alleviated by better education, better enforcement and other measures without any need at all for reduction in usage.

There are other issues which may only be solvable by reduced usage, but this is not one of those.


----------



## mjr (2 Dec 2021)

Alex321 said:


> While I take your point that the speed limits are too high on those roads, only a lunatic would drive at speeds approaching the limit on most of them.


9% of cars measured were exceeding the speed limit on 60mph single carriageway roads, according to the gov.uk speed limit compliance report for July-September 2021. https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...tics-for-great-britain-july-to-september-2021

1 in 11 are lunatics out there, then!

The figures for motorways and 30mph are far worse, with about half of car drivers speeding.


----------



## Alex321 (2 Dec 2021)

mjr said:


> 9% of cars measured were exceeding the speed limit on 60mph single carriageway roads, according to the gov.uk speed limit compliance report for July-September 2021. https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...tics-for-great-britain-july-to-september-2021
> 
> 1 in 11 are lunatics out there, then!
> 
> The figures for motorways and 30mph are far worse, with about half of car drivers speeding.


They won't have been measuring them on the type of roads we are talking about.

They will have been measuring them on rural A or B roads, not the minor roads where two cars can only just squeeze past each other.

In fact they say:
" Only sites where the road conditions are free flowing and there are no junctions, hills, sharp bends, speed enforcement cameras or other traffic calming measures. The statistics do not cover roads where the road layout or traffic calming measures are likely to constrain vehicle speeds. This includes smart motorways. "


----------



## mjr (2 Dec 2021)

Alex321 said:


> They won't have been measuring them on the type of roads we are talking about.
> 
> They will have been measuring them on rural A or B roads, not the minor roads where two cars can only just squeeze past each other.
> 
> ...


Some rural A&Bs are that narrow and I'm not seeing narrow as an exclusion. I also read the exclusion of sharp bends as being only those where it's physically impossible to break the limit. Part of the A10 has speed sensors on the entry/exit to bends because it's been used to justify an enforcement camera installation.

But if you know more, I defer to your knowledge.


----------



## Alex321 (2 Dec 2021)

mjr said:


> Some rural A&Bs are that narrow and I'm not seeing narrow as an exclusion. I also read the exclusion of sharp bends as being only those where it's physically impossible to break the limit. Part of the A10 has speed sensors on the entry/exit to bends because it's been used to justify an enforcement camera installation.
> 
> But if you know more, I defer to your knowledge.


I understood "where road conditions are free slowing" to exclude the sort of minor roads we are talking about.

I take the whole thing as meaning they only measure in places where there is no real reason apart from the 60 limit why you can't drive faster than that.

Of course, you may have meant rather better roads than I was thinking of when you said the limit should be reduced, but you did say " roads too minor or narrow to have painted lane lines IMO. "

Incidentally, I would agree that it would be much more reasonable to have a 40 limit on such roads, even though I also believe very few will even reach 60 on most of them. But presumably you would then need to add signs everywhere you went from a main road onto one with no lines, or change the signs when already present, unless you are now going to say the sign with the black bar now means 40 if there are no lines.


----------



## HMS_Dave (2 Dec 2021)

"As the temperature drops and the dark takes hold, NFU Mutual has joined forces with British Cycling and the British Horse Society to launch a campaign called Respect Rural Roads, urging those travelling around the countryside to take more care.
They believe that the number of fatalities and serious injuries can be reduced on rural roads if people "respect and understand the needs of all rural road users" and "make safety their priority".

I always question the viability and usefulness of organisations such as "Respect Rural Roads". We of course need more data, but it would be interesting to see how many fatalities and injuries are caused by speeding, driving without due care and attention, under the influence etc etc... Tackling rural road safety from a "pay more attention" aspect isn't going to appeal to those with fat exhausts, twatster users on mobile phones and those who like a tipple before their drive through the countryside... If anything, it proves that there is very little that is being done to tackle road safety...

But, as i say more data is required.


----------



## cyberknight (2 Dec 2021)

Ming the Merciless said:


> With cyclists numbers doubled on rural roads. Risk of death unchanged.


indeed i was merely pointing out the article headline was misleading


----------



## derrick (3 Dec 2021)

The only way to stop most of this is fines, but to make it fair on everyone the more you have the more you pay, as it is now the rich don't worry to much the odd hundred pound fine does not affect them like it does the poorer people. More bans would help a bit, but then you would have more uninsured drivers on the road. more policing would go a long way to help. To many people with not enough room for them all. What we really need is a culling system. That last remark was a joke before all the idiots start having a go.


----------



## Dogtrousers (3 Dec 2021)

Caught speeding? Off to the Soylent Green facility with you. Problem solved.


----------



## Drago (7 Dec 2021)

Caught speeding? Immediate 28 day ban, doubling for every extra 5 mph over the limit.

*!!! A VOTE FOR DRAGO IS A VOTE FOR ROAD SAFETY AND COMMON SENSE !!!*


----------



## steve292 (10 Dec 2021)

Drago said:


> Caught speeding? Immediate 28 day ban, doubling for every extra 5 mph over the limit.
> 
> *!!! A VOTE FOR DRAGO IS A VOTE FOR ROAD SAFETY AND COMMON SENSE !!!*


I agree with that. I would also remove the hardship escape loophole that many people use. If a car/van/truck is that essential for work learn to use it properly and legally.


----------

