# Two-thirds of adults in England think cycling is dangerous!



## PaulB (10 Aug 2020)

It's here in today's Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...thirds-adults-england-cycling-dangerous-safer


----------



## Ian H (10 Aug 2020)

Two third of adults are quite possibly dangerous on a bike.


----------



## G3CWI (10 Aug 2020)

It is dangerous in that there is danger associated with it - like any activity. I suppose that the important thing is how that danger compares to other things that we do.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (10 Aug 2020)

Two thirds of people think car drivers are dangerous.


----------



## matticus (10 Aug 2020)

Infamous Family Fortunes question:
Q: name a dangerous race.


A: The Arabs!


----------



## Welsh wheels (10 Aug 2020)

PaulB said:


> It's here in today's Guardian.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...thirds-adults-england-cycling-dangerous-safer


People don't seem to realise how dangerous driving can be as well . I think I'd rather fall of my bike at 15mph (as long as I wasn't hit off by a car) than be involved in a 70 + mph motorway crash. Take away the traffic element of cycling, and driving would be inherently more dangerous.


----------



## steveindenmark (10 Aug 2020)

PaulB said:


> It's here in today's Guardian.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...thirds-adults-england-cycling-dangerous-safer


Its in a newspaper. It must be true


----------



## PeteXXX (10 Aug 2020)

⅔ of people don't click on Guardian links


----------



## slowmotion (10 Aug 2020)

Quite a few things that are dangerous are a lot of fun.


----------



## IanSmithCSE (10 Aug 2020)

Morning,

The survey that led to the article https://assets.publishing.service.g...lking-and-cycling-statistics-england-2019.pdf

*People without access to a car cycle more and further than those that have access to a car. *

Honestly I didn't make that up nor this

*When adults cycled for over 2 hours, they were far more likely to be cycling for leisure rather than travel. *

And I really don't want to know what *21% of walking trips are for education/ escort education*
is all about. :-)


----------



## mjr (10 Aug 2020)

Ian H said:


> Two third of adults are quite possibly dangerous on a bike.


Cyclists: dividing and conquering ourselves since 1884!


----------



## matticus (10 Aug 2020)

But again, "danger" is relative; a trained HGV driver is more dangerous than a very poor adult cyclist.

(so no need for dividing and conquering  )


----------



## icowden (10 Aug 2020)

A little imprecise for my money.

Two thirds of adults (66%) *who don't cycle* agreed with the statement that "it is too dangerous for me to cycle on the roads". 57% of adults *who do cycle *also agreed with this statement even though they cycled. Overall therefore 61% agreed with the statement.

*



In 2020, the third wave of the National Travel Attitudes Study (NTAS) showed that 66% of adults aged 18+ in England agreed that “it is too dangerous for me to cycle on the roads”. Women were more likely than men to agree (71% to 61%). Cyclists were less likely to believe that cycling was too dangerous for them than non-cyclists (57% to 70%).

Click to expand...

*
No analysis was done based on where people live or other factors that might cause them to be more apprehensive than others. This was not then broken down much further. A basic age based breakdown was done - for example the highest percentage of the people who felt it was too dangerous were over 60. Drivers felt it was more dangerous than non drivers.

The whole thing is based on percentages and makes no mention of the sample size or sample demographic breakdown. Who was more likely to complete the survey (for example)?


----------



## screenman (10 Aug 2020)

IanSmithCSE said:


> Morning,
> 
> The survey that led to the article https://assets.publishing.service.g...lking-and-cycling-statistics-england-2019.pdf
> 
> ...




I see quite a few people walking whilst escorting in this village, large special needs home and the residents are often taken for long walks.


----------



## mjr (10 Aug 2020)

icowden said:


> No analysis was done based on where people live or other factors that might cause them to be more apprehensive than others. [...]
> The whole thing is based on percentages and makes no mention of the sample size or sample demographic breakdown. Who was more likely to complete the survey (for example)?


2694 responses (so too small to break down geographically) of a subset drawn from the National Travel Survey. Within its limitations, it's one of the better surveys IMO. Better than the Mintel, CUK, Sustrans and AA surveys and far better than most insurance company silly-season SLOP surveys.


----------



## Drago (10 Aug 2020)

Two thirds or adults are simply wrong.

It's an inherently safe activity, mile for mile roughly 10 percent less likely to bring about your demise than walking.

Sadly, the Gruinard have failed to fully make that point.


----------



## dave r (10 Aug 2020)

slowmotion said:


> Quite a few things that are dangerous are a lot of fun.



Too true.


----------



## Ian H (10 Aug 2020)

Ian H said:


> Two third of adults are quite possibly dangerous on a bike.
> 
> 
> mjr said:
> ...


I should have added 'to themselves'.


----------



## icowden (10 Aug 2020)

mjr said:


> 2694 responses (so too small to break down geographically) of a subset drawn from the National Travel Survey. Within its limitations, it's one of the better surveys IMO. Better than the Mintel, CUK, Sustrans and AA surveys and far better than most insurance company silly-season SLOP surveys.



Wow. Seriously? 2694 responses represent the views of 66 million people. Incredible.


----------



## Chris S (10 Aug 2020)

Only two thirds? I had two near misses this morning. A car pulled out in front of me at a junction. I swerved but still left a scratch on it's bumper from my pannier rack. On the way home a car driver turned left in front of me and then slammed on the brakes when they noticed somebody on a mobility scooter on the dropped kerb.


----------



## mjr (10 Aug 2020)

icowden said:


> Wow. Seriously? 2694 responses represent the views of 66 million people. Incredible.


Why incredible? This is how surveys work. Pre election surveys (commonly called opinion polls) often have half that number of responses yet are fairly accurate, and they're trying to capture which of many distinct parties people will vote for, whereas most of these travel attitude questions are yes/no, Likert or quantitative, which are easier to handle, as well as I suspect less likely to be answered insincerely.


----------



## Drago (10 Aug 2020)

Unfortunately, over the last decade election surveys have failed to correctly predict the result of any general election or national referendum. Despite their dreadful track record in recent times people still seem to attach credence to their results, which seems bizarre.


----------



## HMS_Dave (10 Aug 2020)

Coming in as a former 27 stone pillock i thought i was A. Too fat to cycle. B. Was probably too lazy and C. Thought i'd die immediately on the roads...

None of those things turned out to be true...


----------



## Ming the Merciless (10 Aug 2020)

icowden said:


> A little imprecise for my money.
> 
> Two thirds of adults (66%) *who don't cycle* agreed with the statement that "it is too dangerous for me to cycle on the roads". 57% of adults *who do cycle *also agreed with this statement even though they cycled. Overall therefore 61% agreed with the statement.



That is not how percentages work. Your statement above would only be true if the number who cycled was exactly 50% of the total respondents.


----------



## Cycleops (10 Aug 2020)

Drago said:


> Two thirds or adults are simply wrong.
> 
> It's an inherently safe activity, mile for mile roughly 10 percent less likely to bring about your demise than walking.
> 
> Sadly, the Gruinard have failed to fully make that point.


And you all thought the DM was bad


----------



## Ming the Merciless (10 Aug 2020)

Also if you do cycle and you do cycle on roads how on earth can you agree it’s too dangerous? It clearly not too dangerous as you are cycling on them! It’s almost saying 57% of cyclists hardly ever cycle on the roads. Which is patent nonsense.


----------



## BoldonLad (10 Aug 2020)

I would normally skip over any "Survey Thread", since IMHO, they are b*ll*cks.

But, it is raining, and, I am bored.

Perhaps, the more relevant question is: "How dangerous is NOT cycling", thinking lack of fitness and obesity and their associated health problems.


----------



## Archie_tect (10 Aug 2020)

Polls, surveys and statistics... unreliable and open to manipulation.


----------



## pawl (10 Aug 2020)

Probably these are the people who think it’s safe to crowd the beaches and pubs with no idea of social distancing.

I feel safer on my bike than any of the above.


----------



## the snail (10 Aug 2020)

icowden said:


> Wow. Seriously? 2694 responses represent the views of 66 million people. Incredible.


Do you really think the result would be different if they asked the other 66 million people? I don't - even if the accident stats don't support the view of cycling as particularly dangerous, no doubt it's a widely held view, and it does reflect the reality of UK where the car is king. If even 25% believe the roads are too dangerous, then something is badly wrong imo.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (10 Aug 2020)

There are plenty of people out there who avoid _driving _wherever possible because they consider the roads dangerous. Some people are just frightened of their own shadow.
Ever noticed how big a proportion of the obvious born-again coronacyclists always kit themselves out with helmets as a group, compared to the proportion of seasoned utility/touring cyclists who wear them? Different levels of risk perception and aversion.


----------



## rogerzilla (10 Aug 2020)

matticus said:


> Infamous Family Fortunes question:


My favourite was:

Name a famous TV soap?

Dove!


----------



## RichardB (10 Aug 2020)

The inevitable result of all the ooooh-it's-scary-don't-forget-to-wear-a-helmet-or-you'll-die publicity. Joe Public sees all that, and as he never cycles, takes it as gospel that cycling is a kind of minor version of motocycling, and therefore utterly hazardous.

Mind you, if you believe everything you read in the Grauniad, I have a bridge to sell you.


----------



## mjr (10 Aug 2020)

Drago said:


> Unfortunately, over the last decade election surveys have failed to correctly predict the result of any general election or national referendum.


2019 General Election surveys: Con - Lab - LD - SNP - PC - Green - BxP (all %)
Kantar's last poll: 44 - 32 - 13 - 4 - 0 - 3 - 3
Deltapoll: 45 - 35 - 10 - 4 - 0 - 3 - 4
Ipsos MORI: 44 - 33 - 12 - na - na - 3 - 2
Survation: 45 - 34 - 9 - 4 - 1 - 3 - 3
Actual result: 45 - 33 - 12 - 4 - 1 - 3 - 2

I'd say that was pretty close to the surveys.

So, unfortunately, over the last page, @Drago has failed to correctly summarise the accuracy of general election surveys!


----------



## mjr (10 Aug 2020)

pawl said:


> Probably these are the people who think it’s safe to crowd the beaches and pubs with no idea of social distancing.


Probably, but they're the people also currently gassing our families, crashing into shoot and generally being inactive burdens on healthcare who we need to get out of cars and onto bikes for everyone's benefit!


----------



## mjr (10 Aug 2020)

It has been pointed out to me that the WPA/Getty photo in the article linked in the Opening Post makes it look like Mr Johnson is one of those nobbers who rides on the far right on roads with no cars:


----------



## classic33 (10 Aug 2020)

Cyclists are shouting out for segregated, dedicated cycle lanes. Therefore it must be dangerous to cycle.

I'd be happy if they spent the money on bringing the roads up to scratch. Rather than perpetuate the myth that it's dangerous to cycle on open roads.


----------



## Drago (10 Aug 2020)

Most thinking cyclists don't want segregation. They want pothole free roads and for motor vehicle drivers to treat them with respect. If drivers could somehow be stopped from behaving like Ben Hur then not a single penny on cycling infrastructure would be needed.


----------



## DaveReading (10 Aug 2020)

IanSmithCSE said:


> And I really don't want to know what *21% of walking trips are for education/ escort education*
> is all about. :-)



If all else fails, you could read the definition supplied in the study that you quoted from:

"Escort education: Escorting or accompanying a child/children to school"

But where would be the fun in that ?


----------



## tyred (10 Aug 2020)

I thought an Escort walking trip was what you do when your Ford Escort breaks down and you have to walk home.


----------



## classic33 (10 Aug 2020)

mjr said:


> 2019 General Election surveys: Con - Lab - LD - SNP - PC - Green - BxP (all %)
> Kantar's last poll: 44 - 32 - 13 - 4 - 0 - 3 - 3
> Deltapoll: 45 - 35 - 10 - 4 - 0 - 3 - 4
> Ipsos MORI: 44 - 33 - 12 - na - na - 3 - 2
> ...


"Others" with 1.6% missing.

Which means the figures given aren't correct


----------



## mjr (11 Aug 2020)

Drago said:


> Most thinking cyclists don't want segregation.


They want protection.



> They want pothole free roads


That's easy: build roads that the pothole-causing heavy vehicles are not allowed to use.



> and for motor vehicle drivers to treat them with respect. If drivers could somehow be stopped from behaving like Ben Hur then not a single penny on cycling infrastructure would be needed.


Indeed, but it's not happened in 100 years, so why think it will happen now? The imperfect possible of infrastructure improvement is better than that perfect impossible.


----------



## matticus (11 Aug 2020)

mjr said:


> _Most thinking cyclists don't want segregation. _
> 
> They want protection.


My view is that all cyclists are the same - they want to _feel safe_.

We differ a little in what makes us feel safe. I know that I feel safe most of the time - and "safe enough" the rest of the time - riding on public roads. Except for the very rare bad choices!

I'd say vv few people could _never_ feel safe with cars around them.


----------



## mjr (11 Aug 2020)

matticus said:


> We differ a little in what makes us feel safe. I know that I feel safe most of the time - and "safe enough" the rest of the time - riding on public roads. Except for the very rare bad choices!
> 
> I'd say vv few people could _never_ feel safe with cars around them.


Never say never, but if the A10 and A149 didn't have half-decent cycle tracks to the town 20mph area, I'd cycle a lot less than I do.

To be fair, I can understand @Drago's disdain because I grew up near where he lives and the motor-free cycleways there range from substandard to hazardous and there seems little prospect of the bankrupt Northants council or its successors seeing reforming highways practice as a priority. Most places are better, although neighbouring Warks seems worse!


----------



## Milkfloat (11 Aug 2020)

Warks is certainly terrible for cycling infrastructure, but the road surfaces are far better than Northants, when I cross the border it is immediately obvious as the surface goes from pretty good (for the UK) to something akin to Aleppo after Assad and the Russians have been lobbing their munitions out.


----------



## Solocle (11 Aug 2020)

mjr said:


> 2019 General Election surveys: Con - Lab - LD - SNP - PC - Green - BxP (all %)
> Kantar's last poll: 44 - 32 - 13 - 4 - 0 - 3 - 3
> Deltapoll: 45 - 35 - 10 - 4 - 0 - 3 - 4
> Ipsos MORI: 44 - 33 - 12 - na - na - 3 - 2
> ...


But, I thought Labour won the 2017 General Election?? Weren't they claiming that it was a victory?


classic33 said:


> "Others" with 1.6% missing.
> 
> Which means the figures given aren't correct


That's just rounding that's responsible.
51.4%, 24.3%, 24.3%
(24.3% + 24.3% = 48.6%)

51 + 24 + 24 = 99%


----------



## classic33 (11 Aug 2020)

Solocle said:


> But, I thought Labour won the 2017 General Election?? Weren't they claiming that it was a victory?
> 
> That's just rounding that's responsible.
> 51.4%, 24.3%, 24.3%
> ...


Just pointing out that the illustration used to demonstrate that someone else is/was wrong is also wrong. 

Also not the complete picture(result), which in surveys is misleading. Almost as though it's been cherry picked to suit.


----------



## classic33 (11 Aug 2020)

mjr said:


> They want protection.


segregation and protection are not the same. Doing the first doesn't guarantee the second. It also "proves" that cycling must be dangerous, because it's cyclist demanding it.


> That's easy: build roads that the pothole-causing heavy vehicles are not allowed to use.


Are more roads really the answer? 
Don't more roads lead to more traffic.


> Indeed, but it's not happened in 100 years, so why think it will happen now? The imperfect possible of infrastructure improvement is better than that perfect impossible.


How about we actually catch them early, so to speak. When they(drivers) are having lessons and taking their test. Reinforcing it via their pocket if they can't remember to do so.


----------



## BoldonLad (11 Aug 2020)

classic33 said:


> How about we actually catch them early, so to speak. *When they(drivers) are having lessons and taking their test.* Reinforcing it via their pocket if they can't remember to do so.



IMHO, driving lessons and test, should include a few hours cycling on the roads.


----------



## mjr (11 Aug 2020)

classic33 said:


> Just pointing out that the illustration used to demonstrate that someone else is/was wrong is also wrong.


Except it wasn't. The result was within the stated survey variances.



> Also not the complete picture(result), which in surveys is misleading. Almost as though it's been cherry picked to suit.


The claim was "over the last decade election surveys have failed to correctly predict the result of any general election" so it's valid to start with the most recent and work back until a correctly-predicted election is found, which just happened to be the first one I checked. Feel free to start with 2010 and work forwards if you like doing more work, but the claim is already shown to be incorrect.


----------



## mjr (11 Aug 2020)

classic33 said:


> segregation and protection are not the same. Doing the first doesn't guarantee the second.


I agree. I think no-one made either of those claims, so I'm not sure why you argued against them.



> It also "proves" that cycling must be dangerous, because it's cyclist demanding it.


Rather, it suggests that motoring must be dangerous because cyclists don't want to be among it.



> Are more roads really the answer?
> Don't more roads lead to more traffic.


I'm comfortable with the idea of more cycle traffic, but closing existing roads to motorists is also fine. If that's not possible, limiting their access, numbers and/or speeds are also good moves.



> How about we actually catch them early, so to speak. When they(drivers) are having lessons and taking their test. Reinforcing it via their pocket if they can't remember to do so.


Like others, I'd love to see a cycling qualification or medical exemption as a requirement of a provisional driving licence, and I agree there should be more driving licence conditions enforcement in general, not only during lessons and testing, but neither of those are arguments against improving road designs or allocations as ways to improve how cycling feels.


----------



## slowmotion (11 Aug 2020)

Leaving aside lobbying by organisations who claim to represent cyclists, is there any reliable data about the percentage of cyclists who actually want more segregation?


----------



## mjr (11 Aug 2020)

slowmotion said:


> Leaving aside lobbying by organisations who claim to represent cyclists, is there any reliable data about the percentage of cyclists who actually want more segregation?


Not exactly and not even from cycling lobby organisations. I think there are such big flaws in that question that it wouldn't be worth asking: for example, "segregation" is a very loaded term and asking only cyclists would be questionable because you don't improve bridge design by asking only the few who swim or walk tightropes across a wild river: you need to ask those who would, at least.

The closest useful current independent data is probably Mintel's Cycling survey reports which last time it was reported (2018) said "69% of those who currently cycle or would consider cycling agree with the statement ‘I’d cycle more often/start cycling if the roads were made safer (eg more protected cycle lanes)’." (yeah, I know that statement isn't great...)

An update on that might be included in the 2020 report, but most of the news coverage is about Covid's effects on cycling and I'm not spending £1500-1995 to buy the full report.

Anyway, it really doesn't matter how we improve roads, as long as they're improved, but it will probably sometimes mean creating cycleways alongside quasimotorways, whether taken from the carriageway or not.


----------



## Alex H (11 Aug 2020)

icowden said:


> Wow. Seriously? 2694 responses represent the views of 66 million people. Incredible.



Not seriously - the end of the pdf says

National Travel Survey

The National Travel Survey (NTS) is administered by the Department for Transport (DfT) and is a household survey designed to provide a rich source of data on personal travel. In 2019, the sample size was around 6,000 households and 14,000 individuals. 

Active Lives Survey

The Active Lives Survey (ALS) is a push-to-web survey administered by Sport England and is used to derive official estimates of participation in sport and physical activity. The ALS had a sample size of around 182 thousand adults in England in mid-November 2018 to mid-November 2019, thus enabling analysis at local authority level.

2694 does not appear anywhere in that document


----------



## classic33 (11 Aug 2020)

mjr said:


> Except it wasn't. The result was within the stated survey variances.


But the final(actual) result, the piece you put in, is wrong and incomplete/not a true representation of the full facts. Cherry picked to suit.



> The claim was "over the last decade election surveys have failed to correctly predict the result of any general election" so it's valid to start with the most recent and work back until a correctly-predicted election is found, which just happened to be the first one I checked. Feel free to start with 2010 and work forwards if you like doing more work, but the claim is already shown to be incorrect.


I queried the cherry picked figures used, to illustrate how not giving the answers in full, skews the final outcome. Whereby bits that are felt to be irrelevant/counter productive are left out. Happens more than you might think in surveys.


----------



## Son Of Anarchy (11 Aug 2020)

The Guardian!? I didn't know anyone cared what they published?


----------



## mjr (11 Aug 2020)

Son Of Anarchy said:


> The Guardian!? I didn't know anyone cared what they published?


It's based on a gov.uk survey, so I'm sure it's reported elsewhere if you'd like it with more rants about garotting cyclists with piano wire...


----------



## mjr (11 Aug 2020)

Alex H said:


> 2694 does not appear anywhere in that document


No, it appears on the source material for the news report, which is NTAS not NTS or ALS, at https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/national-travel-attitudes-study-wave-3


----------



## mjr (11 Aug 2020)

classic33 said:


> But the final(actual) result, the piece you put in, is wrong and incomplete/not a true representation of the full facts. Cherry picked to suit.


The result was correct, but I'll grant you it's incomplete, as that's inevitable with surveys of that resolution. I'm not sure whether the higher-resolution surveys (I think YouGov did some 100,000+ sample size ones, for example) predicted the fine detail correctly.



> I queried the cherry picked figures used, to illustrate how not giving the answers in full, skews the final outcome. Whereby bits that are felt to be irrelevant/counter productive are left out. Happens more than you might think in surveys.


Whether the 1.6% "other" are relevant or productive depends on what you think the result of an election is. Some even say that the 33% (or whatever) Labour vote was basically irrelevant in our system.

But attitudes to cycling and travel aren't elections and broad-brush information is probably good enough to act upon: do the correct actions differ whether it's 66% or 68% of adults who don't feel safe cycling in England?


----------



## davidphilips (12 Aug 2020)

Cycling in my view is as dangerous as eating an egg?


----------



## mustang1 (12 Aug 2020)

Well, as far as exercise goes, it seems more dagnerous compared to fast-walking, jogging/running, swimming, at-the-gym.

And as far as getting-somewhere goes, I guess it's more dangerous than public transport or cars/uber etc.

Then there are those statistics which show that the chances of getting hit on a bike are low compared to the amount of longevity you would get for you life of exercise on the bike. But that rounds back to point 1 where fast-walking/ jogging/running or gym is also healthy and less dangerous.

But I ride coz I enjoy riding. The exercise and getting-somewhere benefits are secondary side-effects.


----------



## mjr (12 Aug 2020)

mustang1 said:


> Well, as far as exercise goes, it seems more dagnerous compared to fast-walking, jogging/running, swimming, at-the-gym.
> 
> And as far as getting-somewhere goes, I guess it's more dangerous than public transport or cars/uber etc.


1. It seems it, but is it really? That's been discussed long and hard whenever Reported Road Casualties of GB are updated and a little bit when the Active Lives Survey and its predecessors give us new estimates of how many people cycle.

2. Need it be? Need it feel like it is? Those are political questions, I guess.



> Then there are those statistics which show that the chances of getting hit on a bike are low compared to the amount of longevity you would get for you life of exercise on the bike. But that rounds back to point 1 where fast-walking/ jogging/running or gym is also healthy and less dangerous.


It's easy to slip from "it seems more/less dangerous" to "is more/less dangerous", isn't it?



> But I ride coz I enjoy riding. The exercise and getting-somewhere benefits are secondary side-effects.


How do we communicate that, though? Past attempts haven't really cut it.


----------



## mustang1 (12 Aug 2020)

mjr said:


> 1. It seems it, but is it really? That's been discussed long and hard whenever Reported Road Casualties of GB are updated and a little bit when the Active Lives Survey and its predecessors give us new estimates of how many people cycle.
> 
> 2. Need it be? Need it feel like it is? Those are political questions, I guess.
> 
> ...



This is what I feel, and I think probably most people do too: if i get hit by a car while i@m on the bike, I'll be far worse off.

But then again, statistically flying is the safest form of transport but in the event of a crash, you're more likely to die (hasn't stopped anyone flying though). I think a similar analogy could be used on bikes: if you're careful, ride sensibly, then you're unlikely to have a crash. But if you do, then you won't fare too well out of it.

And yes, looking to the future, the political questions should focus on properly segregating cyclists from those pesky drivers. Having said that, i know people who have started cycling during this covid lockdown who never did before and now, while driving, give incredible amounts of space to all other cyclists so good news right there. A lot more improvements required in drivers mindsets though.


----------



## mjr (12 Aug 2020)

mustang1 said:


> This is what I feel, and I think probably most people do too: if i get hit by a car while i@m on the bike, I'll be far worse off.
> 
> But then again, statistically flying is the safest form of transport but in the event of a crash, you're more likely to die (hasn't stopped anyone flying though). I think a similar analogy could be used on bikes: if you're careful, ride sensibly, then you're unlikely to have a crash. But if you do, then you won't fare too well out of it.


I'm not sure even that's what happens. From personal experience and what I've seen riding with groups, I suspect the vast majority of cycle crashes are without much consequence and so go unreported (especially as cyclists have no motorist-style legal duty to report), giving a false impression from the stats. Even some crashes that worry our local campaign go unreported, such as people clipping evil narrow barriers, damaging their bike or themselves and sometimes giving up cycling as a result. Maybe it's better to say if you have a crash worth reporting, it's more likely to be bad for you... but does that tell anyone much anyway? Hmm...

Being hit by a car is a bit different, but I'm not sure that incompetent motorists care how careful or sensible the cyclist is  but I agree in that good road designs can help careful cyclists see crap drivers coming and avoid them, such as by having junctions at right angles (or nearly) rather than fast V-shaped merges and forks.


> And yes, looking to the future, the political questions should focus on properly segregating cyclists from those pesky drivers. Having said that, i know people who have started cycling during this covid lockdown who never did before and now, while driving, give incredible amounts of space to all other cyclists so good news right there. A lot more improvements required in drivers mindsets though.


If we are up to 40% of adults cycling, as some reports have claimed, then we might be close to reaching a critical mass of good drivers which might make the merely careless ones copy them, much as I suspect they previously copied close-passers - but that's a lot of "mights"s there!


----------



## glasgowcyclist (12 Aug 2020)

slowmotion said:


> Leaving aside lobbying by organisations who claim to represent cyclists, is there any reliable data about the percentage of cyclists who actually want more segregation?


There might not be specific data but the past few months of Covid-related measures to install pop-up cycle lanes in across many cities, together with the reduced level of motorised traffic, has provided huge increases in levels of cycling up and down the country. This must mostly be coming from those who would otherwise not have considered cycling but have found those conditions to be sufficiently reassuring. And even if they forego the bike once roads return to normal, hopefully they'll be better at driving around cyclists they come across.

The general perception among non-riders is that cycling is dangerous when the truth is it's only bad driving and bad road design that make it so.

Give people safer routes and they'll cycle.


----------



## mjr (12 Aug 2020)

glasgowcyclist said:


> There might not be specific data but the past few months of Covid-related measures to install pop-up cycle lanes in across many cities, together with the reduced level of motorised traffic, has provided huge increases in levels of cycling up and down the country. This must mostly be coming from those who would otherwise not have considered cycling but have found those conditions to be sufficiently reassuring.


Must it? The Exercise or Die messages may have also motivated some people to overcome their fears, especially with gyms and swimming pools and so on closed.

I share your belief that the reduced motoring and increased design support probably helped, though, as well as your hopes that it makes people better drivers and encourages better routes in the longer term.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (12 Aug 2020)

When people in my office say to me, "I wouldn't cycle to work, it's too dangerous", I ask them where the danger comes from. 
The answer is always: motorised transport.

We already know that over the past hundred years there's been precious little progress through educating drivers so it's a waste of time to rely on that. We need to reduce motor vehicle usage and provide safe, segregated routes for people from 8 to 80.


----------



## mjr (12 Aug 2020)

Dogtrousers said:


> Useless anecdata: I've never been to hospital as a result of a cycling incident. However I did end up in A&E with concussion after slipping and falling at a swimming baths once.


And if we're on that theme, I've ended up visiting A&E twice due to falling while running and once due to eating fish badly. Never yet due to cycling.


----------



## icowden (13 Aug 2020)

Dogtrousers said:


> I personally avoid cycling inside London zone 1 because I find it so stressful. Neither of those is entirely rational



Whereas I actually find that some of my safest cycling is in zone 1 because of back roads, slow traffic speeds, segregated cycle lanes and volume of cyclists. I'm much more wary in Surrey.


----------



## mjr (13 Aug 2020)

Relatedly, https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/gear-change.265671/ about a new "vision for cycling and walking" published by gov.uk


----------



## Drago (14 Aug 2020)

In the USA between 45,000 - 50,000 people a year require hospital treatment due to cycling injuries.

However, about 100,000 people a year seek hospital treatment for toothpick injuries. Maintaining good oral health is more dangerous than cycling, at least in the States.


----------



## david k (26 Aug 2020)

Danger of any activity is down to context
Cycling slowly on a trail isn't as dangerous as flying down a duel carriageway at night without lights


----------



## Drago (26 Aug 2020)

The dual carriageway if liable to be fairly quiet at night. 

Look at the chumps that never have lights on their bikes at night - very few actually come a cropper. I would expect more trail riders have ended up in an air ambulance that lightless riders on public roads.


----------



## Punkawallah (2 Aug 2021)

Cycling may be dangerous, but if we stopped doing everything dangerous, we’d do nothing?


----------



## Oldhippy (2 Aug 2021)

Cycling is not dangerous unless you are exceeding what you are capable of!


----------



## fossyant (2 Aug 2021)

Oldhippy said:


> Cycling is not dangerous unless you are exceeding what you are capable of!


----------



## GuyBoden (2 Aug 2021)

It's them youngsters who are to blame, doing tricks on their bikes.


----------



## Arrowfoot (2 Aug 2021)

Its bit dangerous, no?

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bAngbr4O-I


----------



## mjr (2 Aug 2021)

Arrowfoot said:


> Its bit dangerous, no?


Easy to remove that danger: don't alley-cat race.


----------



## DCBassman (2 Aug 2021)

mjr said:


> Easy to remove that danger: don't alley-cat race.


Indeed, that's nobbery of the highest order, and on an unbraked fixie. Too many viewings of _Premium Rush..._


----------



## fossyant (2 Aug 2021)

When you are watching Redbull Hardline on the TV and your wife is in there shaking her head. No, darling, I don't do stuff like that.


----------



## sheddy (2 Aug 2021)

Shirley it’s the (bad) motorists who make it dangerous.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (2 Aug 2021)

GuyBoden said:


> It's them youngsters who are to blame, doing tricks on their bikes.
> View attachment 602214



To be fair that was a new cycle lane in London. Bloody cycle infrastructure


----------



## matticus (2 Aug 2021)

fossyant said:


> When you are watching Redbull Hardline on the TV and your wife is in there shaking her head. No, darling, I don't do stuff like that.


I get that when I watch Fast-n-Furious before driving to work.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (4 Aug 2021)

sheddy said:


> Shirley it’s the (bad) motorists who make it dangerous.



No, it's all sorts of idiots on the roads that make it dangerous. I've witnessed just as many cyclist/cyclist crashes in central London as I have cyclist/motorist crashes. Some have been quite nasty with riders really taking a hard spill not just a little low speed bump and topple off. Not forgetting about a few cyclist/pedestrian crashes, either muppet pedestrians walking out in front of bikes or muppet cyclists riding on the pavement or not giving way.


----------



## DCBassman (4 Aug 2021)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> No, it's all sorts of idiots on the roads that make it dangerous. I've witnessed just as many cyclist/cyclist crashes in central London as I have cyclist/motorist crashes. Some have been quite nasty with riders really taking a hard spill not just a little low speed bump and topple off. Not forgetting about a few cyclist/pedestrian crashes, either muppet pedestrians walking out in front of bikes or muppet cyclists riding on the pavement or not giving way.



Agreed. Never forget that the overall population of cyclists contains the same proportion of morons as does the car driving population.


----------



## matticus (4 Aug 2021)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> No, it's all sorts of idiots on the roads that make it dangerous. I've witnessed just as many cyclist/cyclist crashes in central London as I have cyclist/motorist crashes. Some have been quite nasty with riders really taking a hard spill not just a little low speed bump and topple off. Not forgetting about a few cyclist/pedestrian crashes, either muppet pedestrians walking out in front of bikes or muppet cyclists riding on the pavement or not giving way.


This is wrong; the cyclists and pedestrians may in some cases be morons, but they aren't very dangerous. Look how often the pro peleton crash into one-another (and street furniture) at 35-40mph or more. Yet even in that extreme situation, they almost never suffer life-changing injuries.
Now look at what car-drivers achieve, week-in, week-out. (go on - google the number of deaths in a year. Any year.)

I don't know how you can say the pedestrians are just as dangerous as the drivers.


----------



## Oldhippy (4 Aug 2021)

Have you seen the phone zombies?


----------



## matticus (4 Aug 2021)

Oldhippy said:


> Have you seen the phone zombies?


The ones driving Audis?


----------



## Oldhippy (4 Aug 2021)

The pavement variety.


----------



## matticus (4 Aug 2021)

Oldhippy said:


> The pavement variety.


Are they as dangerous as the ones driving Audis? (or in HGVs - thankfully rarer in my experience)

Or did you mean the drivers on pavements?? Quite a few of those, if you care to check the statistics!


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (4 Aug 2021)

matticus said:


> The ones driving Audis?



The ones who wander around in a little world of their own, staring at the phone screen, and bump into other people or walk out into the road completely oblivious of the traffic.


----------



## matticus (4 Aug 2021)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> The ones who wander around in a little world of their own, staring at the phone screen, and bump into other people or walk out into the road completely oblivious of the traffic.


How dangerous are these people?

You said they were as dangerous as the drivers who kill people. Do you stand by that?


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (4 Aug 2021)

They cause entirely avoidable accidents, so they are a menace. People have died as a result of being knocked over by another pedestrian, or a cyclist. I don't regard pedestrian or cycling phone zombies as any better than motorised phone zombies. None of them are in proper control of themselves or any vehicle they are piloting.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (4 Aug 2021)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> No, it's all sorts of idiots on the roads that make it dangerous. I've witnessed just as many cyclist/cyclist crashes in central London as I have cyclist/motorist crashes. Some have been quite nasty with riders really taking a hard spill not just a little low speed bump and topple off. Not forgetting about a few cyclist/pedestrian crashes, either muppet pedestrians walking out in front of bikes or muppet cyclists riding on the pavement or not giving way.



Let’s bring some facts to the discussion @matticus . I’m sure John would like that.


----------



## matticus (4 Aug 2021)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> They cause entirely avoidable accidents,* so they are a menace*. People have died as a result of being knocked over by another pedestrian, or a cyclist. I don't regard pedestrian or cycling phone zombies as any better than motorised phone zombies. None of them are in proper control of themselves or any vehicle they are piloting.


" a menace" you say. I'd rather be hit by the fastest runner in town out training (with earbuds in), than by a speeding van.

You may think differently - but I know which group are killing the most people. Every year.


----------



## Dogtrousers (4 Aug 2021)

Just thought I'd let you know that I did a bit of blatant pavement riding this morning. Despite the danger I caused, the good people of Croydon survived. And the drivers on the A23 Purley Way were probably grateful that some lump on a Brompton wasn't getting in their way.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (4 Aug 2021)

As to muppets on the pavement


----------



## Ming the Merciless (4 Aug 2021)

Shrinking space on the roads


----------



## Oldhippy (4 Aug 2021)

Utter d*ckheads!


----------



## Ming the Merciless (4 Aug 2021)

Thank you for driving carefully


----------



## MontyVeda (4 Aug 2021)

I wonder what the results of the survey in the OP would be if conducted in say... 1980?


----------



## kayakerles (4 Aug 2021)

Ming the Merciless said:


> Thank you for driving carefully
> 
> View attachment 602591


Proof that “a picture is worth a thousand words.” Even if the driver of the pictured vehicle was driving safely, apparently SOMEBODY wasn't Did you take that pic? (By the way, Ming, how do I put an @Ming or however it is done to let you know I responded to a comment of yours?) Also, very visually cool looking graph you put up before (whether you created it or not.)


----------



## kayakerles (4 Aug 2021)

I recently came upon this in front of me on an early morning ride. Don't know what happened, but it was right around a curve after a stoplight. How could this happen there so quickly? The first few drivers that had stopped to assist were just getting out of their vehicles. I heard the sounds of sirens approaching in the distance. This is on a parkway that I ride on almost every day. 25mph speed limit. I don't even know how a vehicle could tip going that slow. It wasn't deer that caused it either. They're smart enough to not hang around stoplight intersections.


----------



## Milzy (4 Aug 2021)

So what? Millions of people hoover up Cocaine every weekend & drink/smoke but think it’s less dangerous.


----------



## kayakerles (4 Aug 2021)

Here in the US, or in Maryland at least, the law for auto drivers is that they must give 1m clearance rear, side & front when passing. I estimate that this is courteously given MAYBE 1/3 of the time. On rides with double yellow lines (NO passing allowed) cars usually pass around 6 inches from my shoulder. Yeah, bike riding is risky no matter how you cut the cake, but the pleasure I derive from it is greater than my worries. Having grown up riding bikes in NYC my entire youth, I am a VERY careful, defensive rider/driver. As I have told my wife, if I die by being struck by a vehicle while riding, at least I went doing something I enjoy. I’m sticking with that. We only have so much control in our lives.


----------



## kayakerles (4 Aug 2021)

Milzy said:


> So what? Millions of people hoover up Cocaine every weekend & drink/smoke but think it’s less dangerous.


True. Perhaps it's only the deer that are smart enough to consider the dangers. From the side of the road they watch people carelessly drive and crash all the time. In which case you might be right there, lots of people don’t think about the consequences of their actions, and simply hoover, guzzle & toke on... Or play with their phone. But if the deer had phones, would they put them down to cross the road? 🤔


----------



## lazybloke (4 Aug 2021)

Ming the Merciless said:


> Let’s bring some facts to the discussion @matticus . I’m sure John would like that.
> 
> View attachment 602585


No argument that cars cause much more death, injury, noise, pollution and congestion than other forms of transport.

BUT... wasn't there an analysis that bikes cause more deaths than cars, once you adjust for distance travelled?
Think it was on a Charlie Alliston thread, but haven't got time to search...


----------



## Dogtrousers (4 Aug 2021)

lazybloke said:


> BUT... wasn't there an analysis that bikes cause more deaths than cars, once you adjust for distance travelled?
> Think it was on a Charlie Alliston thread, but haven't got time to search...


A back of fag packet analysis...

According to the DfT ...
The number of vehicle miles per year is about 300-350bn (I know you specified "cars", but I'm doing "vehicles")
The number of cycle miles per year is about 3-5bn

So roughly 100 times more vehicle miles than bike miles. (I'd have thought it would be more, maybe I have it wrong)

So if bikes/cyclists cause more than 1% of the number of deaths due to vehicles/drivers they will be more deadly per unit distance travelled.

Annual road deaths are around 1,700

So if more than 17 of these are caused by cyclists, and the rest are due to vehicle drivers then bikes are more deadly per unit distance travelled.

I think we can cap the number of pedestrians killed by cyclists per year at about 1. Each time it happens it is headline news. Let's be generous and say 5. I'll set motorists killed by cyclists at 0. Meaning that the balance of 12 fatalities would have to be cyclists killed either by themselves, or by other cyclists.

It's not impossible - it could even be true. But even if it was true it wouldn't be terribly meaningful. After all many vehicles accrue lots of distance on long uneventful motorway stretches.

Maybe per unit travelling time would be more meaningful? Lets assume that cars go at 4 times the speed of bikes on average (10mph vs 40mph average) So that would mean that bikes/riders would need to kill more than 4% of the number of deaths due to vehicles/drivers to be more deadly per unit travelling time. Which I think highly unlikely.

All my base figures and logic are guaranteed to be flawed.







https://assets.publishing.service.g...d-traffic-estimates-in-great-britain-2020.pdf


----------



## lazybloke (4 Aug 2021)

Dogtrousers said:


> A back of fag packet analysis...
> 
> According to the DfT ...
> The number of vehicle miles per year is about 300-350bn (I know you specified "cars", but I'm doing "vehicles")
> ...


Thanks Dogtrousers; I don't feel a need to check your arithmetic because there would have be a be a very large multiplication factor before "KSIs caused by cyclists" became significant in comparison with vehicles. Hmm, that does sound slightly complacent; any KSI is bad...

Back to the original question: No, I don't think cycling is dangerous; at least not inherently so. Of course some people can and do cycle in a dangerous manner, and even the most careful of cyclists can lose concentration at a critical moment or make a mistake of observation; but I'm confident that the overwhelming majority of danger faced on the roads is from drivers of motor vehicles.


----------



## RichardB (10 Aug 2021)

kayakerles said:


> As I have told my wife, if I die by being struck by a vehicle while riding, at least I went doing something I enjoy. I’m sticking with that. We only have so much control in our lives.


Good attitude.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (10 Aug 2021)

lazybloke said:


> No argument that cars cause much more death, injury, noise, pollution and congestion than other forms of transport.
> 
> BUT... wasn't there an analysis that bikes cause more deaths than cars, once you adjust for distance travelled?
> Think it was on a Charlie Alliston thread, but haven't got time to search...



Not even close. Most years zero deaths from pedestrian crashes with bikes. Unless motorists are driving infinite distances every year. That assertion doesn’t compute.

Plus upwards of 18,000 serious injuries a year caused by motorists hitting pedestrians.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (10 Aug 2021)

Got breakdown in front of me now.

Cars is 116 billion miles estimated in urban areas. Cycles is estimated at 3.31 billion urban. Ratio is 35 to 1.

Pedestrians killed by car crash is 1778 between 2013 and 2019. Pedestrians hit by car is 123,327 over 2013 to 2019. Pedestrians seriously injured by car crash is 27,542

Pedestrians killed by cycle crash is 2 between 2013 and 2019. Pedestrians hit by cycle is 831. Pedestrians seriously injured by cycle crash is 122. over 2013 to 2019

Cars hitting pedestrians is 148 times greater. Taking into account the 35 to 1 ratio. It’s 4 times greater. But taking in account exposure time it’s nearer 8-10 times greater.


Dogtrousers said:


> A back of fag packet analysis...
> 
> According to the DfT ...
> The number of vehicle miles per year is about 300-350bn (I know you specified "cars", but I'm doing "vehicles")
> ...



You have 2450 pedestrian road deaths from motorised traffic between 2013-2019. Same period, 2 from cycling traffic.

Thats a ratio of

1225 : 1 motorised traffic killing pedestrians vs cycles killing pedestrians. Even using their crap km travel figures It’s still 122 times more likely a pedestrian will be hit and killed by motorised transport.

The argument well if we scale cycling up then … also doesn’t compute. At the moment cycles are forced close into the left side of road in close proximity with pedestrians and poor sign lines between the two because of driven cars and parked cars. Imagine all those parked cars and driven cars drastically reduced because switch the cycling as it scales. Suddenly the hazards which promote a lot of those collisions is gone.

Plus we have to look at how many motorists kill them selves or other motorists. The ratio of people killing themselves when driving is far higher than those killing themselves or others when cycling.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (10 Aug 2021)

In the Netherlands the road deaths per 100,000 population is 3.5. In the UK it is 24.7 per 100,000. We have a long way to go.


----------



## matticus (10 Aug 2021)

Here's another crazy stat - as in it's crazy that people aren't shouting about this:
_548 pedestrians were killed by drivers on pavements or verges in the last 13 years_ [between 2005 and 2018]


----------



## Dogtrousers (10 Aug 2021)

Thanks @Ming the Merciless for upgrading my back of fag packet figures to back of envelope.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (10 Aug 2021)

Dogtrousers said:


> Thanks @Ming the Merciless for upgrading my back of fag packet figures to back of envelope.



Well upgraded to actual figures from the Department for Transport and calculated in excel from their data.


----------



## Dogtrousers (10 Aug 2021)

Ming the Merciless said:


> Well upgraded to actual figures from the Department for Transport and calculated in excel from their data.


My fag packet was based on actual DfT figures too. Just different ones. But nothing as complex as excel, just lots of rounding and finger in the air.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (10 Aug 2021)

I did some more looking and found that the survey points where they count modes of traffic are often bizarre. For instance a traffic count going into an industrial estate or a count on a B road off a trunk road that no sane cyclist would touch.

Had a quick look at Hertfordshire and they don’t have a single traffic count with cycles that goes beyond single digits in an hour. Which is bizarre as I can see more than that pass by in minutes when stopped at side of road on a ride.

So I’d say that their methods of assessing how many billion miles of cycling are done is flawed. They clearly assumed all roads are equal in some way to assess traffic. Whilst this may be true for motorised. It’s certainly not for cycles where a minor road they choose will see bugger all people cycling as it doesn’t form a useful part of any route.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (10 Aug 2021)

Dogtrousers said:


> My fag packet was based on actual DfT figures too. Just different ones. But nothing as complex as excel, just lots of rounding and finger in the air.



As I was using the excel data you can download direct from dft.


----------



## Chap sur le velo (10 Aug 2021)

IanSmithCSE said:


> And I really don't want to know what *21% of walking trips are for education/ escort education*
> is all about. :-)



Reminds my of when Dorothy Parker was visiting a school and the Teacher explained they were playing a learning game. 
He would suggest a word and the class had to come up with a sentence using it.
He asked his famous guest to come up with a sentence including Horticulture.
Mrs Parker replied. "You can lead a Horticulture, but you can't force her to think." End of visit.


----------



## DCBassman (10 Aug 2021)

Chap sur le velo said:


> Reminds my of when Dorothy Parker was visiting a school and the Teacher explained they were playing a learning game.
> He would suggest a word and the class had to come up with a sentence using it.
> He asked his famous guest to come up with a sentence including Horticulture.
> Mrs Parker replied. "You can lead a Horticulture, but you can't force her to think." End of visit.


True or not, absolute genius.


----------



## Chap sur le velo (10 Aug 2021)

DCBassman said:


> True or not, absolute genius.


Someone standing near Oscar Wilde made a witty remark.
Oscar said "Oh I wish I'd said that."
originator of quip replied "You will, Oscar, you will".

Apologies for threadjack.


----------



## mjr (11 Aug 2021)

Ming the Merciless said:


> I did some more looking and found that the survey points where they count modes of traffic are often bizarre. For instance a traffic count going into an industrial estate or a count on a B road off a trunk road that no sane cyclist would touch.
> 
> Had a quick look at Hertfordshire and they don’t have a single traffic count with cycles that goes beyond single digits in an hour. Which is bizarre as I can see more than that pass by in minutes when stopped at side of road on a ride.
> 
> So I’d say that their methods of assessing how many billion miles of cycling are done is flawed. They clearly assumed all roads are equal in some way to assess traffic. Whilst this may be true for motorised. It’s certainly not for cycles where a minor road they choose will see bugger all people cycling as it doesn’t form a useful part of any route.


You don't know the half of it. Other scams include detectors that ignore non-steel bikes, cycleways being excluded from counts of the road (only the carriageway counts) and automatic cycleway counters being decommissioned without adding an equivalent manual count point to the town's annual "inner cordon" count.

So serious injuries and fatalities are fairly accurately reported but ridership is drastically underreported, which farks casualty rates.

Even in places with better ridership data, it's reported months after casualties, so the press mainly reports the scary casualty numbers out of context and don't revise it after ridership is known, which is a mixed bag.


----------

