It wasn't.
I'm a cyclist.
- Thread starter artie
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
That was.
Interesting comment, I know that you were active in the other post, where not only I provided the link but also posted the relevant graphs.
The introduction to the report states:-
This short report presents data on those killed in reported road accidents in Great Britain, both in terms of the number of fatalities and fatality rates, for different road user types. This includes the road users themselves, as well as other parties in collisions with them.
It is not about London, it’s the UK. The link to the report is:
https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...alties-great-britain-road-user-risk-2020-data
doctor Bob
Established Member
- Joined
- 22 Jun 2011
- Messages
- 5,171
- Reaction score
- 1,881
Congratulations but statistically you are a lucky one. R4 reckon 1 in 5 cyclists have experience erectile issues due cyclingActually completely the opposite. Fitter and stronger so can go longer, on the bike as well. That makes me very happy
It used to be, in the UK, that schools had a catchment area, where pupils from the immediate area would go to school. This facilitated children walking and as they became older cycling to school. However, with school league tables starting to be published, properties around the better schools quickly increased in value pushing those of lower means into poor underperforming schools. Deprivation and low achievement were as a consequence a trap that couldn’t be escaped. The rules therefore changed to give every family and equal chance as far as possible to attend a good school. The consequence being that children have on average further to travel. This makes walking and cycling more difficult and the propensity for car travel more likely.
We should also be very cognisant for safety that most schools require parents to hand over children under a certain age to the schools. The rise of both parents working means that not only is it less feasible to walk children distances to school and then to get to work means that it is impractical.
Last edited:
It’s been mentioned about using trailers with pedal bikes, something I’d not really considered before and a really interesting suggestion. Pedal bikes can pull trailers, as can Electrically Assisted pedal bikes. However, any form of pedal bike where the motor acts without you peddling cant!
A push Bike can pull a trailer up to 7 meters long and 1.5 meters wide. However, from the legislation, these I believe if used on the public highway must be type approved. A quick check of bike trailers would suggest those you can buy are not, so not legal on the public highway.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/part/II/made
The requirement to carry loads safely also applies to bikes and their trailers, so I suspect that as suggested using one to carrying 8x4 sheet material on a bike trailer is although feasible impossible to carry safely as its centre if mass would be too high and too heavy making it easily topple over / get blown over. An accident or injury caused would be the cyclists liability. I don’t think this is a solution to carrying building materials.
A push Bike can pull a trailer up to 7 meters long and 1.5 meters wide. However, from the legislation, these I believe if used on the public highway must be type approved. A quick check of bike trailers would suggest those you can buy are not, so not legal on the public highway.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/part/II/made
The requirement to carry loads safely also applies to bikes and their trailers, so I suspect that as suggested using one to carrying 8x4 sheet material on a bike trailer is although feasible impossible to carry safely as its centre if mass would be too high and too heavy making it easily topple over / get blown over. An accident or injury caused would be the cyclists liability. I don’t think this is a solution to carrying building materials.
Last edited:
I missed the link in the other thread. The same observations apply and indeed this report states
“most vulnerable road users fatalities are killed in collisions with cars (in 2020, 68% of pedestrian and 48% of pedal cyclist fatalities were hit by a car). Again, this is perhaps unsurprising given that cars account for the majority of traffic.”
Your statement on relative risk is true at a superficial level but the main issue is the source of the risk to cyclists is not the act of cycling it is the drivers of big metal boxes. That is the entire point of the new Highway Code changes.
Perhaps my explanation isn’t very good. The numbers show that If we reduce car usage and increase cycling the number of oriole KSI will reduce as a consequence of cars and increase due to pedal bikes. You at the moment are only 60% more likely to be KSI by a car than a pedal bike based on miles of transport each provide. What isn’t highlighted, is that Car safety is increasing, and with advances in autonomous driving will become far less dangerous than pedal bikes. The same will apply to LGB and HGV.
Sporky McGuffin
Light entertainer
But bicycles don't do the same mileage as cars, so that's not a valid conclusion.
In the actual world you're far more likely to be killed or seriously injured by a car than by a bicycle - more than a hundred and eleven times as likely from the report you linked to.
Of course as a percentage if you reduce one group the other group becomes more significant but look at the absolute numbers. You also need look at all motorised vehicles, not cherry pick the least damaging group.
I'm still not convinced you are reading the stats right. The stats seem to be for incidents including a bike not for incidents of being killed by a bike.
This is a pictorial view of who is killed by what and cycling does not look like a significant contributor of danger to other road users.
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2003
- Messages
- 7,590
- Reaction score
- 1,011
No need to worry Artie, the changes don't apply to NI as it has it's own version of the Highway Code.
artie
Sawdust manufacturer.
MarkAW
Established Member
I think the main point everyone is missing here is that we're not 'cyclists' and 'drivers'. We're all people with families trying to go about our day, travelling about. You get some stupid people. That happens no matter what vehicle they use.
We've all experienced stupid people. Don't let them become the stereotype for that road user, assume all cyclists are lyrca wearing, red light jumping nutters. And that all drivers are engine revving speed nutters with no regards for anyone else's safety.
The change in law is trying to make the roads safer. I personally don't think it's going to help much except in the courtroom.
We've all experienced stupid people. Don't let them become the stereotype for that road user, assume all cyclists are lyrca wearing, red light jumping nutters. And that all drivers are engine revving speed nutters with no regards for anyone else's safety.
The change in law is trying to make the roads safer. I personally don't think it's going to help much except in the courtroom.
Droogs
Not the Sharpest Moderator in the box
Brexit in'it, they got to keep all the old rules and live in a normal world, lucky sods
JobandKnock
Amateur curmudgeon
Only in recent times. For more well over 30 years I was a shop and interior fit-out joiner, which means I have travelled way too many miles doing the job (and too many late nights in the shop building it first). But having been brought-up in the country I had the opportunity as a teenager and yoiung man to see the depopulation of the countryside first hand in the 1960s and 70s. I believe (and the social geography I studied at school sort of confirmd that) the majority of countryside depopulation in the UK has been caused by increased mechanisation in farming combined with the locals having been largely priced out of the housing market by people from the bigger towns and cities who want a slice of the country life. Those are the people who then think it acceptable to have 2 and 3 car households where one car is used for overly long commuter runs whilst a second is used for the school run, shopping run (not local, of course), etc. As to bus services in these places now - there are non, just as there are no shops, post offices, local schools, and sometimes even garages or pubs, because the incomers all drive, they don't use the local services and the locals have been pushed out.
I wasn't railing against people who absolutely need a means of transport to do their jobs, but rather trying to point out that the vast majority of people who say they need a car, don't. But I also think it is high time for people, and especially some sectors of the middle classes, to consider the environmental impact of their lifestyle on the planet. Going meat-free isn't going to balance out a cruse every 2 years, frequent flights, a 60-mile (or more) commute every day, buying shopping wrapped in far too much plastic, and local car mileage to shuttle the kids to and from school every day. It is now time for individuals to take a look at what they have done to the environment. Or don't people want their grandkids to be able to live past 40 on a planet that isn't dying?
When I fitted kitchens (something we all do a bit of, I was on it for three or so years) the kitchen units, worktops, etc were all delivered to site by the supplier. My kit went in the van on day 1, was stored on site in a lockbox during the install, and on the last day it was returned to my lock-up in the van. On the intermediate days I often travelled by public transport, motorbike or cycle. To reduce your dependence on driving everywhere takes a lot more organisation and planning as well as trying to reduce one's tool kit. This is not always that easy
BTW one employer (shop fitter/exhibition stand fitter) in the past had an environmental policy which stated that wherever possible the lads all travelled together in a minibus and the truck(s) carrying the first part of a fit-out, or for a smaller 2 man team they'd hire-in a van and trunk the fit to the job on a lorry. You were not normally allowed to drive to site unless there were special circumstances. Nor was there ever much need to.
Last edited:
I know exactly what you mean......almost got me arrested!
It's quite simple Deema, the ksi statistics you showed were per mile. Cars and vans spend a lot of their milage on motorways and dual carriage ways where there's no pedestrians or cyclists to kill, this makes the figures look good for them. If you used urban milage only where car/ cyclist / pedestrian interactions are most likely the numbers would reflect what really happens when a ton of fast moving metal hits a soft body.
If you can highlight the data / report that supports your suggestion that would be appreciated and facilitates a useful discussion.
I do find it interesting that there is a complete focus on mechanised transport as being the main evil and no comment or interest in dealing with the rising levels of KSI caused by pedal cycles.
Sporky McGuffin
Light entertainer
Look at the numbers in the report you linked to. If I remember correctly, there were 5 from bicycles and 559 from cars. It is entirely right that the bigger killer - by two orders of magnitude - gets more focus.
As pointed out by sporky it's in the statistics that you showed . There's 5 killed or seriously injured by cyclists and 559 by cars. When expressed as a ratio of per miles travelled it is made to look a lot better for cars, I think it was 1 per million miles for bikes and 1.4 for cars. Cars do most of their high milage on roads without cyclists or pedestrians, dual carriage ways and motorways are particularly safe on a per mile basis as traffic flows are seperated. It would be best if all different types of travel were seperated. We already have pavements for pedestrians, railways for trains and should have developed more cycle routes, not just sections of widened pavement when cars took over our roads. In the meantime while we all have to share road space it's best to be considerate and understand the danger of life to others a car presents.
