What will kill you on the road (it’s not bikes) – new report highlights road deaths by vehicles involved

OnYerBike wrote:

Interesting, if concerning, report. I was particularly surprised by Figure 4 (p14) which appears to suggest that per mile travelled a cyclist is MORE likely to kill someone else than a car driver.

Which does tend to pull the rug from the argument constantly rehearsed of "never mind the cyclists' infractions, focus on the major culprits."

Of course there are caveats - motorists contribution per mile is heavily diluted by their high motorway mileage where they are unlikely to kill any non-motorists. And I'd also like to see the figures based on time in motion rather than distance - as a vulnerable road user my risk of death from others is a function of the time over which the threat is at large rather than the distance it travels.

I've got a few more thoughts:

The big one is that these data take no account of fault, and they simply look at "road users involved in collisions". I think this is most evidently a problem when we get statements like "There were 3 people in motorised vehicles killed in collisions with pedestrians and cyclists in 2019". It is possible that the pedestrians/cyclist caused the collision (by e.g. stepping out and causing a driver to swerve) but it seems far more likely that the pedestrians/cyclists "involved" were simply caught up in a fatal car crash by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It certainly seems unavoidable that the speed/kinetic energy of one or more motor vehicle would be necessary to kill someone protected within said motor vehicle - I don't think anyone has ever cycled, let alone walked, into a stationary car with enough force to kill the occupants.

Although I think that highlights the issue most clearly, failure to attribute fault is of course relevant to whichever combination you look at. As a cyclist, I have had a couple of near misses with pedestrians as a result of the pedestrian stepping out without looking/seeing (and bicycles are also much quieter than motor vehicles!). Of course, cyclists can be at fault too - my point is that we just don't know from these data.

Then there are all the issues which will bias the data - like the fact the cars travel many miles on motorways, while bicycles are much more likely to be used in urban areas with lots of pedestrians around (and indeed often encouraged to share space with pedestrians).

Sriracha wrote:

OnYerBike wrote:

Interesting, if concerning, report. I was particularly surprised by Figure 4 (p14) which appears to suggest that per mile travelled a cyclist is MORE likely to kill someone else than a car driver.

Which does tend to pull the rug from the argument constantly rehearsed of "never mind the cyclists' infractions, focus on the major culprits."

No it doesn't.

Cyclists' infractions very rarely cause death or injury to others, as you surely know already. And excess speed is implicated in a significant number of collisions causing death or injury yet most cyclists don't trouble the speed limit even when they're trying.

One of the problems of a broad dataset like this is that there are so many variables, as OnYerBike has mentioned.

And here is an anecdote on the seriousness of cyclists' infractions. Yesterday evening I witnessed a lightless plonker cyclist pulling onto a roundabout from a side road in front of a car. 30mph zone, the driver had to brake. Some observations: the plonker cycling only put his own life in danger, no-one else was at risk. The driver had plenty of time to lean on the horn so an emergency stop / avoiding manoeuvre was not necessary. He was more or less side-on to the approaching vehicle so, even if he had used lights, it's possible they may not even have made him much easier to see (I'm thinking of legal minimum style £5 blinkies, not a pair of Exposures on full beam). And even though I was 50 metres or so behind the car I had no difficulty spotting the black-clad pedalling plonker.

Simon E wrote:

Cyclists' infractions very rarely cause death or injury to others, as you surely know already.

Um, I think you've lost the thread. The figures in the report say that - on a per mile basis - bicycles are just as dangerous as cars to other road users. You need to reassess what you think you surely aleady know.

Sriracha wrote:

Simon E wrote:

Cyclists' infractions very rarely cause death or injury to others, as you surely know already.

Um, I think you've lost the thread. The figures in the report say that - on a per mile basis - bicycles are just as dangerous as cars to other road users. You need to reassess what you think you surely aleady know.

As has already been said, that graph does not ascribe blame.  There are many recorded incidents of pedestrians walking out in front of cyclists, it's certainly happened to me, where the entire fault is that of the pedestrian, but it is recorded as a collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian, with the assumption that it was the cyclist's fault.

All statistics have limitations, and this is one; who was at fault?  I'm betting that at least 50% of the time, it was the pedestrian.

The obsession with blame is a very British thing, to the delight of our lawyers. Undertakers are less bothered. We see the same obsession blighting the NHS. Time and again issues get swept under the carpet because the people involved know that for anything to get fixed first some one must be blamed.

If I go into the jungle I must take account of the dangers if I don't want to die. So that includes taking account of dangerous beasts that might kill me - its not their fault. Same in the urban jungle. This data identifies those dangers.

You are looking for blame, largely so you can say, as a cyclist, not my fault - but what about them.

I can't work out how  the numbers are reached.

The DfT tables say

bikes 3.45 Bn miles 4 peds killed

cars 278.2 Bn miles 262 peds killed

giving about the same rate

But the 278.2 Bn includes motorways and major A roads where there will be no or a tiny number of pedestrians, so to say they are the same is not correct.

278.2 Bn

51.1 Mway

31 Trunk A Rural

47 Principal A Rural

40 Urban A

169.1 All types Major roads

OnYerBike wrote:

Interesting, if concerning, report. I was particularly surprised by Figure 4 (p14) which appears to suggest that per mile travelled a cyclist is MORE likely to kill someone else than a car driver.

I'd like to see that graphic with error bars. I'd be willing to bet that the total bicycle passenger miles traveled per year has much higher uncertainty than the other modes, and in the direction of being underestimated.

I'd also like to see the report on the one car driver or passenger killed by a cyclist. HOW?!

andystow wrote:

I'd also like to see the report on the one car driver or passenger killed by a cyclist. HOW?!

I've put another more detailed comment above, but in short it's not "a car driver/passenger was killed by a cyclist" but rather "a cyclist was involved in a collision in which a a car driver/passenger died".

The number of pedestrians killed in a collision with a cyclist in the data used for the chart was 5 -- so the error bars will be wide.

That said, it's always worth remembering that when cycling you can be lethal to others.

BMJ disagree; they conclude that cars are more of a threat to Other Road Users (ORUs) than bikes.

https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/injuryprev/early/2020/03/09/inj...

Thanks for finding this. Interesting data - because they did specifically exclude motorways, which levels the field somewhat, and answers the critique of cyclists about the data in the main article.

I'm intrigued that the danger posed by bikes, according to this data, is most acute on major rural roads, exceeding the danger of cars.

I can only guess that this could be because this is where cyclists are travelling at their fastest and pedestrians do not hear them nor expect them. But I have yet to read the whole report.

mpdouglas wrote:

"The typical car driver is not going to switch 5,000 miles a year by car for 5,000 miles on a bike or on foot. "

Why not? This is exactly the sort of myth that needs to be de-bunked. And exactly the scale of change that is needed to make any kind of meaningful difference. I'm in my mid-50s, 10 years ago I was 15 and a half stone and didn't own a bike. I now routinely do 5,000-6,000 miles per year on a bicycle. And I'm not a car hater! I love cars. My last 6+ have all been high performance models, but I use them sparingly and where a bicycle isn't a viable option (e.g. hard to go shopping at Costco on a bike!). Before I got into cycling, I shared many of the "beliefs" of most car drivers - can't cover x distance on a bike, that hill is too steep to be part of my commute, cycling in bad/cold weather isn't feasible etc etc. We need an effective educational campaign!

I started cycling (again) in 2010. I was early 40s back then and I did about 12k miles a year in my car. I now do 6k miles a year in my car and coincidentally 6k miles a year on my pushbike. I'm way down on car mileage this year because of Covid and furlough etc, so that is an outlier, but plan to do less than 6k next year, by reducing my commuting by car even further. I ONLY commute using my car as a bicycle really isn't an option as I need to take a suitcase and briefcase every time I go to work, plus travel at some ungodly hours of the night. However, by changing my work pattern I will be commuting to my workplace on many fewer days a week.

I never set out in 2010 to reduce my driving, it's just what has happened. But now my attitude has changed and I am actively pursuing reducing my driving even further.

So how has it come about? Well, I cycle for sport, leisure and fitness. My mileage and time spent cycling has gone up and up and I am now finding that I prefer long, 100 mile + rides best in summer. With limited days off work per week (like most people) that means I spend a lot of time on days off cycling.

My kids are now grown up and the school run has ceased (5 mile drive twice a day with no public transport alternative, no school bus service, and no quiet cycling route). When they were split between primary and secondary it was a 15 mile round trip (a triangle of 5 miles each side!), twice a day. So that mileage (shared between me and my wife) has ceased. This allows me more time out on my bike and not being tied to school run timings too. Doing big rides means I'm not driving at all during the day, and often the car remains undriven all day on days that I cycle. I do occasionally drive it into town after a ride, only because a mile and a half walk each way with knackered legs doesn't appeal, especially the uphill return! But, I've got a cunning plan...

Which is to get an e-bike next year (great news that Sunak is looking at subsidising them by some 30% in spring '21!) so that I can reduce my driving into town and bike there instead. I don't currently use a bike to do that because I'm not leaving a £10k bike locked unattended in the town centre! Plus, Speedplay Pave pedals aren't exactly ideal for use without a dedicated shoe/ cleat!!!

So there you go. It is more than possible for your driving mileage to be reduced significantly with a little effort. Mine started accidentally and has now become a bit of a mission, so others can do similar. My lifestyle has changed and there are plenty of other options that I will be looking at over the coming years to reduce driven mileage even further.

For example, I'm wondering if we can go down to one car. Presently both I and my wife need cars, as mine will sit at work in the car park for a number of days whilst I'm working, but I can't expect her to drop me and pick me up at odd hours of the day/ night when she has a job of her own, that requires a car. But, if I get my mileage down low enough, it could work out cheaper to sell my car and just pay for a taxi to and from work when I go...sounds weird, but if I'm only commuting in the car there and back once in a week then a taxi may work out cheaper than all the running costs of a car.

I'm not some loony left leaning Green Party climate activist or tree hugger either - far from it, but I do get it and do have concerns for the future that we are leaving for our kids and grandkids. I suspect that is pretty typical of most family guys of my age - we have changed our views significantly over the decades as it has become more and more evident that our actions are affecting the climate negatively. I have only made small changes which are having a significant impact at little or no real cost/ imposition to myself.

So it's not as far fetched as some people may think.

PP

If your commute to and from work is too long to consider cycling and you need a motor, why not get a small motorcycle? You can ride a 125 on your car licence with L plates and a modern four stroke will top 100mpg easily. If you get a motorcycle licence, something like a Honda CRF250 will get 90mpg and still have enough stomp for the occasional motorway blast. If you're an experienced driver and cyclist, you'll have enough road sense to be safe on a motorbike most likely.

agreed with the 125.  Theyre superb machines and most will hold 50 plus mph, take a passenger, top box, 80 mpg upwards. Tax is only 20 quid a year. Tyres arent that much either, nor is insurance.  I have a 17 mile commute atm so ride either my sv650, my kawasaki er5 there. When i move closer, i will cycle the ten miles to work instead.  

my sv

pp needs suitcase and briefcase - is that possible on a m/c bearing in mind rain and surface water?

"Cyclist found unsconscious" crops up some times.

interesting symettry  in the cars bar

Are you hinting at 'hit and run'.