- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
London:cyclist in traffic (copyright Simon MacMichael).jpgHelmets, hi-vis and "showing some love" the key to safe cycling in London, says Britain's biggest insurer
Aviva, Britain’s biggest general insurance company, says London’s cyclists should wear helmets and high-visibility clothing to avoid falling victim to ‘accidents.’ In a video accompanying the findings of research published by the company, one rider featured says “showing some love” is the key to keeping safe.
The company analysed sources including Department for Transport figures for 2009-13 and claims during that period 80 cyclists in the area encompassed by the M25 were killed, with bike riders involved in 22,988 road traffic incidents reported to or attended by the police.
That area differs from Greater London, including parts of counties such as Kent and Surrey, and according to data from Transport for London (TfL), which has disputed Aviva’s interpretation of the figures, 67 cyclists were killed in the capital from 2009-13, with total casualties standing at 21,409.
The insurance company also produced a list of what it says are London’s 10 most dangerous junctions for bike riders, based again mainly on DfT data, the list topped by Elephant & Castle, with 80 recorded incidents.
Junction and number of incidents
Elephant and Castle roundabout - 80
Trafalgar Square - 46
Waterloo Road roundabout - 45
Lambeth Bridge/Millbank roundabout - 38
Upper Tooting Road/Lessingham Ave, Ansell Road/Derinton Road - 34
Grove Road/Mile End Road - 32
Vauxhall Bridge/ Wandsworth Road - 31
Monument Tube station junction - 29
Camberwell New Road/Brixton Road - 28
Camberwell New Road/Kennington Road/Harleyford Street - 28
While it’s noticeable that most of the locations are south of the River Thames, even more striking is the absence from the list of junctions such as Bow Roundabout, where since October 2011 three cyclists have lost their lives.
That’s most likely because the figures appear to be based on casualties of all severities, not just incidents in which cyclists have been killed or seriously injured – although it is the latter that provide a more accurate picture of the relative danger of different locations.
In a statement quoted on BBC News London, a TfL spokesman said: "While we don't recognise the interpretation of these figures, we entirely agree that any accident on London's roads is one too many.
"That is why we are investing nearly £1bn in upgrading the existing Cycle Superhighways with greater segregation, introducing major new segregated cycle routes and backstreet Quietways, and overhauling dozens of junctions on both our roads and on borough roads."
The video accompanying Aviva’s press release features three cyclists – all white, middle-aged men – speaking about their experience of riding in the city and how people can stay safe.
One warns cyclists not to undertake or go up the inside of vehicles, saying “remember, you are in someone’s blind spot there” – curiously, the footage that accompanies those words is of a motorist pulling out of a side road right into a cyclist’s path.
Another urges bike riders not to get angry, that they should apologise for things “even if I didn’t think it’s my fault,” and that they should “show a bit of love” to other road users, “be a bit more gracious, and don’t get so angry.”
If any of the cyclists did mention the danger posed to people on bikes by careless or dangerous driving, it was edited out.
The video also highlights some statistics derived from claims handled by Aviva itself, although as Peter Walker on the Guardian Bike Blog points out, the sample size is too small to be meaningful and the issue of infrastructure such as the forthcoming East-West and North-South Cycle Superhighways is not discussed at all in the video or the press release.
That’s despite the film showing a number of instances of cyclists having near misses not because of anything they have done but due to poor and sometimes dangerous driving, such as passing too closely or pulling out without looking.
The company’s chief underwriting officer, Simon Warsop – speaking on a street that passing buses reveal to be in Norwich, rather than London – said “a number of these accidents are preventable.”
He then focused specifically on bike riders, adding, “for instance if you’re a cyclist, please make sure you wear a helmet, please make sure you’re wearing high-visibility clothing, protect yourself while out there on these busy roads.”
Last year, British Cycling policy adviser Chris Boardman said: “I think the helmet issue is a massive red herring. It’s not even in the top 10 of things you need to do to keep cycling safe or more widely, save the most lives.”
He added that the debate over wearing helmets and hi-viz gear distracted from issues he believes would make a greater difference to the safety of cyclists such as segregated infrastructure and lower speed limits.
Rosie Downes, campaigns manager at the London Cycling Campaign, said: “It’s frustrating to see this missed opportunity to highlight the real measures that will reduce road danger, and instead yet more guidance issued to cyclists on how they should ‘protect themselves’ on our roads.
"Of course people cycling at night should be using lights, but Aviva’s ‘headline finding’ – based on claims rather than police data, and a sample size too small to be meaningful - suggests an assumption that the cyclists’ lack of lights was the cause of the incident, rather than considering any unlawful behaviour by the driver.
"More instructions about helmets and high-viz clothing are an unhelpful distraction from the concrete measures needed to tackle road danger: redesigning our streets to provide safe and inviting space for cycling, reducing risk from lorries, and improving road user behaviour.
"In the majority of cycle casualties, the fault lies with the driver, so law enforcement and preventing bad driving occurring in the first place must be the priority."
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- IanMK 1 sec ago
It makes me wonder what he thinks Cafe and street culture look like.
- Simon E 15 min 9 sec ago
"It is difficult for drivers to see cyclists in the dark if their headlights are faulty" says Dan Brothwell....
- Spangly Shiny 29 min 47 sec ago
Sorry, no idea what you are on about.
- ktache 33 min 18 sec ago
For double that you can' get a Pedro's vise whip Ii. Or half, the reportedly excellent decathlon thingy. And Sigma has the Silca for only £150.
- KDee 39 min 7 sec ago
I'm no detective, but the "NOAHFAST" decal vertically stickered on the headtube is a little bit of a clue.
- Spangly Shiny 58 min 39 sec ago
I remember my driving test examiner, straight after congratulating me for having passed the test said, "Don't be a twat and have that as your best...
- Spangly Shiny 1 hour 26 min ago
Even when you are able to ram the real stats down their throats the NIMBY's will still whine.
- Bigfoz 3 hours 6 min ago
Did they think it was a drive thru?
- Rendel Harris 3 hours 16 min ago
As a teacher's husband, I'm allowed to watch up to 50km out (unless it's a big mountain stage when I can only watch up to the start of the first HC...
- PoorInRichfield 5 hours 51 min ago
I thought wide rims and tires were marketing hype until I bought a bike in 2019 that had both... 700x32C tires on a 25mm internal width rim. Now I...
Add new comment
40 comments
Driver: "Sorry mate, I didn't see you."
Bloody Cyclist: "No problems mate. I love you, you're awesome"
Police officer: "Ello ello ello. What have we got here then? Some sort of road accident?"
Bloody Cyclist: "Hiya copper. I love you. I like your hat."
Police officer [into radio]: "We've got a live one here Bob. Get the drug testing kit ready."
Show some love.
What does the dude from Aviva think about this then?
2% of drivers (3% of van drivers) observed using a mobile phone whilst driving.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31634425
This week I had a car pull out of a junction directly in front of me. He hadn't seen me, he was on his mobile phone.
Puts me in mind of this piece of crap PR from an insurer http://road.cc/content/news/1654-ctc-slams-%E2%80%9Ccheap-pr-stunt-demon...
You would have thought the evidence from the much acclaimed Aviva app would have shown that they were talking b*ll*cks or is that just another b*llsh*t ploy to push up premiums. Still we can't hold careless drivers responsible for their actions, that would just be another "tax on motorists" wouldn't it.
Maybe if one of their customers hits a cyclist, they should make that customer take a course before re-insuring them.
In fact all the insurance companies should get together and do this, and if the driver refuses then load the premiums.
While it's great that an insurance company is concerned about the safety of cyclists, presumably because they have to keep paying out so much on behalf of their idiot customers, one might have hoped that they would have actually examined the causes of the collisions, which is primarily their idiot customers.
Have they produced a similar vid exhorting drivers to actually look where they are going and to take care around cyclists?
No? thought not.
I'm so glad I don't insure with these cowboys.
Yeah, victim blaming bollocks from an enabler of the mass motorised slaughter on the roads.
I don't like them, but my new commute takes me into London City again - think I will buy a helmet cam after stories above...
To show a bit of Love? My arse!
During my usual commute - bit more than 10 miles - I usually have about 3 close calls in many shape and form but the most prominent is when the impatient driver overtakes forcing me onto the kerb / not leaving enough space.
Honestly, if I would retaliate all these close calls most probably I would be serving about a few life sentences in a prison.
My personal favourite is when I am braking to come to a halt behind the cars queing at traffic lights, and when I'm a car length or so behind the last queuing car, taking the lane, someone decides that they will just slot themselves into that gap. Meaning I have to brake extremely hard to not end up on their back seat.
And when that doesn't happen, or I'm not in primary, I get the car deciding that of course there's plenty of room next to me for them to stop in the queue rather than waiting behind me, and if there isn't room, well then they're sure I'll just budge over (onto the paveent, maybe?).
Share the love? Ha-ha!
They can go and poke it. I dont have a policy through them and i dont cycle in London so it makes no difference to me what crap they come out with.
Sigh. Another largely pointless video based on dodgy research to push self serving agenda...
Usual story. Non-cyclists pontificating their opinion on what makes cycling safer. Who needs evidence when you can rely on gut feel and produce a report that closely resembles the end product of the gut?
Pah! You don't want to let the facts get in the way of a press release.
Try this:
http://road.cc/content/news/12065-report-dft-casualty-stats-says-cyclist...
and this:
http://road.cc/content/news/83104-two-thirds-cyclist-injuries-following-...
I went over the bonnet of an Aviva policyholders car after he pulled out in front of me last year. Despite that fact that I had on a helmet & was lit up like a proverbial xmas tree.
Good to see one of the biggest & worst insurers is paying attention to data found via claims information.
However, saying that, they did pay for the significant bike & kit damage within a week. Claiming for the injury is another matter for another time though.
This 'avoid blind spot' thing annoys me.
Yes, we should avoid blind spots, that's just good sense.
But how about making vehicles with blind spots illegal? It's not beyond the wit of man to eliminate them entirely, surely?
it's beyond the interests of truck manufacturers, though. Some progress is being made - but even until effective warning buzzers become universal, remember that a driver can't check all mirrors/angles at once.
I tweeted them to get them to explain the mechanics of how a helmet prevents the ACCIDENT. Fair play, they got straight on it and are happy to talk me through the research.
I haven't given them my number yet.................
Yep. Not quite sure how I could have prevented the driver reversing into me on a brightly lit sunny morning. The fact that I was stood right in the middle of the lane, astride my bike and directly in line with his rear view mirror didn't stop him from abruptly banging it into gear and reversing so hard into me that the entire front end of the bike was buried up to the bumper in the rear of his car.
The Policeman who arrived at the scene (driver refused to give me his details) actually laughed at him when he suggested it was somehow my fault.
I guess Aviva would call that an "accident"...
If they are going to argue we should wear helmets, they should at least make sure people in the video are wearing them properly (e.g. guy in the orange jacket)
I don't hear anybody saying that there is contributory negligence when drivers don't wear helmets, why is that?
The last cycling 'initiative' Aviva were proudly behind was the "Cyclists - Fuck off and get away from our roads" stickers:
https://broker.aviva.co.uk/news/article/27139/weve-launched-a-new-cyclin...
What a joke. Apologise even if it is not your fault, helmets prevent accidents... I'm from Denmark so maybe my English isn't that good and maybe I'm not understanding everything correctly... I would like to see the advice to car and van drivers that they will surely release any day now. Oh, that report is not coming... How surprising.
And yet the advice I was always given by my insurers was if in a car collision do not under any circumstances ever say 'Sorry' as that is seen to be admitting liability and the insurance company won't pay out. Hmm - conspiracy theory to make sure cyclists lose out...?
The trouble with this road safety thing (as the Advertising Standards Authority thhing proved) is that lots of people think they are experts on cycling because well... they drive a car.
I doubt that Aviva spent more than 15 minutes coming up with this "advice" and just brainstormed some things they thought they could add. Then added them. Then went to lunch.
Whoa, before anyone does anything hasty, remember - They've got Paul Whitehouse's family. They must have, why else would he continue to churn out those awful adverts? Look at the sadness behind his eyes. That's not just a massive gas bill he's working off, they're psychos.
Number of incidents at a junction is not a measure of dangerousness. It might be if it were divided by an estimate of the total number of movements through each junction.
Right, I'm going to have to double check but I'm pretty sure my home insurance is with Aviva.
Time for them to get binned off I reckon.
+1 and make sure you tell them why. Money is the only thing corporations understand.
yes, cyclists apologise even when it isn't your fault, that way we can dispute any claim on the grounds YOU were responsible, you must be you apologised.
Pretty sure insurance companies advise their customers never to admit liability.
Pages