Is cycling getting safer in Britain ?

[jonesy]

Also sad to see the largely meaningless use of casualties per km to compare cycling and driving:

"Compared with driving, cycling now has a risk 12.7 times as large per km travelled, when it was just 9.3 times as risky in 1981."

It shouldn't need to be pointed out, but a substantial part of the car km that make up this statistic are driven on roads where there is little or no cycling (e.g. motorways) and for journeys where cycling isn't a direct alternative. Thus a change in relative 'risk' could be entirely caused by an increase in total car travel, without any change whatsoever in the number of casualties in either mode.

 

[Davidc]

He's just wrong. Dellzeqq has summed up most of it in his response.

The numbers quoted are relative to journeys by car. All they mean is that car safety has improved faster than cycling safety. If it was converted to fatalities per hour it would give a different result.

UK wide statistics aren't always useful, but in raw numbers of deaths cycling was safer last year than at any time since the 1900s (I think) and certainly much safer than when I started cycling properly in the 1960s, when the death rate was, I believe, more than double its present figure.

Cycling in The Netherlands is much better than in the UK, I've done a fair bit of it and couldn't suggest otherwise. More people do it there too. This guy lives there and knows that.

That said, in the mid 1990s I thought I was in danger of being the last adult still cycling. Since then there are people back cycling, and almost everywhere I'm familiar with now has more people cycling than 15 years ago, London in particular. Bristol appears to have more cyclists than when I was there in the early '70s cycling everywhere.

Overall score for that blog for accuracy and usefulness, 1/10

 

[MacB]

Is it just me, or did anyone else find it strange that an article titled "Is cycling getting safer in Britain?" should have a picture of 6 cyclists with not a single helmet amongst them?

Not being negative nor do I want to start a big discussion about the merits of helmets, but my kids aren't even allowed onto a bike without a helmet.

As to cycling getting safer, what's your starting pointing or criteria? Compared to when I cycled as a kid in the stoneage, the traffic now is horrendous and many drivers far less considerate to cyclists, increasing the risks enormously. On the other hand high viz clothing, helmets, cycle lanes are all a positive developments.

I was most upset with a member of staff at my youngests school two weeks ago. He arrived as usual on his bike, as he's been doing for months and she told him he had to wear a helmet. He came home pretty worried about this so I went to check it out. This was not a school policy it was just the view of one of the ladies on reception. No she doesn't cycle, no she wasn't aware of the law, yes she drives her children to school. But she still wanted to stick to her guns as she knew that helmets were necessary. I gave up on her but my son's back to cycling helmet free.

All 3 of them have helmets, that fit, and can choose to wear or not wear. All three attended this school and all 3 have cycled to it, helmetless. The roads around all the schools here are generally quiet except for during school run times. The irony of this is lost on most of the parents.

 

[al78]

In your view.

And one that is contradicted by real world data.

 

[Bman]

The problem with statistics is, nobody wants to become one.

 

[BentMikey]

In your view.

+1

Hiviz and helmets are no help to overall cycling safety across a country, IMO.

 

[BentMikey]

...anyway, back on topic. I'm with dellzeq on this chap.

FWIW, in my own experience I think cycling is up hugely in London going by numbers of cyclists I'm seeing out and about along my whole commute. It's not just central London, either. Only an anecdote, but it seems to be confirmed by the stats.