Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Jeremy Vine slams ‘garbage’ Telegraph article that claimed cycling injuries have surged since bike lane installed

Newspaper criticises West London cycleway despite minimal casualty data being available

The broadcaster Jeremy Vine has described as “garbage” an article published on Telegraph.co.uk which claimed there had been a “surge” at the number of injuries to on a protected cycle route in west London that he regularly uses to commute to and from central London.

In a series of tweets about the article, which was published under the headline, “Injuries surge at cycle lane hailed by Jeremy Vine for road safety,” the Radio 2 and Channel 5 host highlighted that just three people had been injured on the section of Cycleway 9 on King Street in Hammersmith.

“This is such garbage,” Vine wrote, before listing three specific criticisms of the article.

First, he said, “Three incidents don't allow meaningful analysis.” He pointed out that “No-one was cycling in this area before, because it was so dangerous — that's why fewer cyclists were hurt.” He also said that “If the injuries were from collisions with cars, all the more reason for segregated space.”

The protected infrastructure – described by the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham – runs for around a mile along King Street, from its junction with Goldhawk Road at the boundary with Hounslow in the west, to Hammersmith Broadway in the East.

Citing Transport for London (TfL) data, the Telegraph says that from January to August 2022, three people were seriously injured while riding bikes on the segregated cycleway – two in collisions involving motor vehicles at junctions, and one in a crash involving three bikes.

That compares to one cyclist being seriously injured on the same stretch of road during the three years from 2019-21, and the news outlet also highlighted that during that same period, 10 cyclists had been slightly hurt in road traffic collisions, which it said was twice as high as the number in 2019, before the lane was built.

As Vine pointed out, however, besides the impossibility of attempting to analyse trends from such a small number of incidents, there is a “crucial missing fact” in the article – namely, “how many people are using the lane now, compared to the number who used it before? Without this, these ‘stats’ mean nothing.”

To put the numbers cited by the Telegraph into context, analysis of the same TfL data by road.cc shows that across the whole borough of Hammersmith & Fulham there were 535 cycling casualties of all severities from 2019-21.

According to a spokesperson for TfL, twice as many people are now cycling along King Street as there were in 2017, adding that there is “not yet enough data to draw reliable conclusions” and that a review of safety of cyclists along the route was “ongoing.”

As in the neighbouring London Borough of Hounslow, where Cycleway 9 continues west along Chiswick High Road towards Turnham Green, the council in Hammersmith & Fulham has been reviewing junctions along the two-way cycle track

A spokesman for Hammersmith & Fulham, quoted in the Telegraph, said: “The Safer Cycle Pathway provides shorter waiting times and greater space at junctions for cyclists.

“For junctions on King Street without traffic signals, the design aims to slow traffic and maximise visibility,” he added.

Posting a mock-up of a Telegraph front page on Twitter as well as footage of a near miss he suffered on King Street last year, Vine described the newspaper’s coverage as “biased” and added: “It looks like this incident — where I was nearly knocked off my bike by a van — will be chalked up as "another reason they should close the cycle lane." In fact it just shows how necessary it is.

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.

Add new comment

35 comments

Avatar
Rendel Harris | 1 year ago
3 likes

"Nobody ever swam across the river full of alligators, so we installed a bridge. Since opening the bridge, three people have tripped when walking across it and banged their knees. Thius we can conclusively state that walking over a bridge is more dangerous than swimming across a river full of alligators."

Avatar
wtjs | 1 year ago
5 likes

Jeremy Vine and Cycling Mikey are doing a great job!

Avatar
perce | 1 year ago
5 likes

Been for a medical today. My height was measured at 178.5cm which translates as 5 feet ten and a quarter. I'm chuffed to bits, I thought I was only 5 feet nine.

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to perce | 1 year ago
5 likes

Just shows what a bit of gumption and a can do attitude can achieve. Keep plugging away and you'll be a six footer before you know it.

Avatar
perce replied to Rendel Harris | 1 year ago
3 likes

Thanks, that's the target. Or I could get a big hat.

Avatar
rjfrussell | 1 year ago
1 like

I really can't help but feel that the tribalisation of road use is a really bad thing, and will lead to more deaths and injuries on the part of road uses on bicycles, because we are soft and unprotected, whereas road users in cars are, plainly, not.  Well, they are still soft, but they are very well protected.

The twitter thread throws up the usual irrelevant "helmets" and "road tax" canards.

BUT-  surely the real objective is to move away from tribalism and try to foster a culture where we are all users of a shared space.  Is it much easier to feel sympathetic to and be considerate towards "one of us" rather than "one of them", and  I feel these dramatic videos foster rather than discourage the dangerous "us and them" mentality. 

PARTICULARLY, where a highly produced video makes a big thing, and demonises a driver, over something that was (in the scheme of things) not that bad. The van driver was, at least, indicating.   He continued to move, and turned across in front of JV.  I can't help but think that if I had been on the bike (with no camera) in this situation, I would have anticipated the left turn, slowed down a bit, and then carried on, mildly irritated, but no real harm done.  It happens all the time, whether one is on foot, on a bike or in the car-  you can see someone, on foot, or on a bike, or in a car, and anticipate they are going to do something daft.  It is just part and parcel of being a road user.

yes, road users in cars should be more careful, because they can do the most damage-  but we are all in it together.

I do feel that the regular video-ers such as JV and Cycling Mickey and others would gain much more useful traction- and improve matters for cyclists (and other road users) more, if the posted footage of bad road use from all road users.

It is, frankly, a disgrace, the number of road users on bikes who in London completly ignore the law.  It makes it more dangerous for me, when i am riding my bike in London, precisely because it engenderst the tribal, us and them, culture.

Bad road use from all users should be "named and shamed" in the same way.  Ascribring some road users to a tribe "the antis" is not at all helpful.  it puts my life more at risk.  It should stop.

 

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to rjfrussell | 1 year ago
3 likes

With you!  When will all the cyclists - whose companies and industry bodies have deep ties to the government and all parties, who run adverts before every movie, who have a lot of influence over the media...  I say, when will this hugely influential group wake up to the fact that we're all in it together and stop forcing this "tribal" thing?  Everyone's being radicalised by road.cc posters, Cycling Mikey or Jeremy Vine!

Apologies - I've calmed down now.  I don't know London but it would seem that cyclists are now particularly visible there.  It may even be that that particular population of cyclists is less keen to obey some laws.  Apart from "because people" it would be worth to investigate that further.

As you've noted - there are a lot of asymmetries here  Main one "the convenience of someone driving  vs. the wellbeing of someone cycling / walking / wheeling".  I'm not aware that fear of death and serious injury is a common experience for people when driving.  I'd bet approximately zero people driving have experienced the same from cyclists or pedestrians.

This idea that somehow it's on an inoffensive minority* - not a union by the way - and many of whom drive quite a bit too! - to abase themselves into respect I find... troubling.

Meanwhile just a couple of hundred miles away this is much rarer...

* Many cyclists are making some life choices which effectively make things better for the majority of people.  They and their vehicles take up much less public space.  If they pay tax and drive less or not at all they're effectively subsidising other drivers (everyone who pays tax is in part paying for the costs of driving).

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to rjfrussell | 1 year ago
5 likes

Oh - and if you're bothered by footage criticising people's driving you might also be interested in the the large motoring dash-cam footage groups and channels.  (You may already be aware of them).  I don't know but I'd suspect they may outnumber cyclists posting footage by quite a lot!

Avatar
ShutTheFrontDawes | 1 year ago
0 likes

Do cyclists get seriously injured without a motor vehicle involved?

I can't think of many feasible scenarios where it could happen.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to ShutTheFrontDawes | 1 year ago
3 likes

Define "seriously"?  Examples on this very forum of various deaths and injuries not involving large motor vehicles.

Here's a road defect leading to a death (reported road.cc).

There have been injuries from crashes due to the Edinburgh tramlines enough for some millions in compensation to be payed by the council (cumulatively).  (The cyclist death at the West End was the result of someone going under a minibus though, however most likely due to a fall caused by the hazards of the tramlines).

People come off and then hit stuff - there are certainly more "recreational" examples reported here where people have lost it on descents / brakes "failed" and e.g. hit walls and died.

People can hit other cycles (and probably die in collision with pedestrian).  Example: Head on collision between bike and e-bike leads to death (road.cc again).

Was that what you were looking for?

Avatar
ShutTheFrontDawes replied to chrisonabike | 1 year ago
0 likes
chrisonatrike wrote:

Define "seriously"?  Examples on this very forum of various deaths and injuries not involving large motor vehicles.

Here's a road defect leading to a death (reported road.cc).

There have been injuries from crashes due to the Edinburgh tramlines enough for some millions in compensation to be payed by the council (cumulatively).  (The cyclist death at the West End was the result of someone going under a minibus though, however most likely due to a fall caused by the hazards of the tramlines).

People come off and then hit stuff - there are certainly more "recreational" examples reported here where people have lost it on descents / brakes "failed" and e.g. hit walls and died.

People can hit other cycles (and probably die in collision with pedestrian).  Example: Head on collision between bike and e-bike leads to death (road.cc again).

Was that what you were looking for?

Those are some great examples, thank you. Any idea if there are statistics available?

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to ShutTheFrontDawes | 1 year ago
2 likes

The only ones I'm aware of are ones you're almost certainly familiar with.  Depending on your purpose these may very well not be fine-grained enough - all sets I've seen are rather coarse in that they're not much better than the favourites with the unhelpful "involved in" text.

(A sad note that Bez isn't keeping up the major labour of "beyondthekerb" and recording some of this...)

It'd be really interesting (to me at least...) if the Dutch / Danes had some stats - you'd expect them to be better resourced for that and they've the largest "population".  I'm not aware of anything much more detailed than we have though.  From this "overview" from 2018 (nicely summarised by BicycleDutch here) I did find this research paper (older - 2014 and before):

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1369847816300699

For the UK PACTS (2020) is probably the one I'm thinking of (source DfT stats 2019):

https://www.pacts.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/PACTS-What-kills-most-on-the...

Dunno if anyone has anything better?

In particular the "what kills whom" - again it's not clear how "cyclist dies after hitting a pedestrian" would be classed (I've not dug the original data...), but all the "non-large motor vehicle" ones noted.  (Also note the "other" column at the end has some significant numbers with it - any careful dive into this would need to grapple with what that is about):

Avatar
ShutTheFrontDawes replied to chrisonabike | 1 year ago
1 like

This is really interesting and scratches my itch very nicely. So from that report, it seems that for every cyclist killed by a car, 0.29 cyclists are killed without any other vehicle involved.

I would have thought it would be much lower, but I stand corrected.

Thank you for sharing  1

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to ShutTheFrontDawes | 1 year ago
1 like

Maybe surprising.  Next question then: who is cycling in the UK?  Definitely a different population than "pedestrians" or "drivers / passengers" (even though people cycling are very likely to use both those modes).

Next question again: what type of cycling?  Note that according to this zero pedestrians died on the streets with no other vehicle involved.  (Unless this is in the "Other" column).  Presumably a few of the pedestrians were out for a run?  None of them had medical issues?  For the purposes of *these* numbers it looks a lot like they've just taken this as zero - so no "trips and slips" either.

So I'd want to know whether / how they've screened out all the heart attacks, strokes, seizures etc. (and crashes resulting from these) from the "Cyclist" column. I suspect they haven't tried.  Cycling is physical activity carried out by humans and it may even be vigorous apparently!  So some of the "death on bike" could well be "and would have died if walking / out for a run".  Even more with "trips and slips" - pedestrians die from falling but - apparently - that's not in the table either (again - unless in "Other"?)

So more comparitive data might be interesting e.g. from NL or indeed Sark!  How all that is "coded" (like the "involved in ..." table) is important.

Avatar
OnYerBike replied to chrisonabike | 1 year ago
3 likes

To answer a couple of your questions:

The underlying data are police reports using the STATS19 reporting system for "road accidents". So medical incidents that occur whilst (or even as a result) of walking/running would simply not make it in to the statistics because a police officer would not normally be called, or would not normally record it as a "road accident". This does leave open a grey area - if a cyclist has a medical incident whilst cycling and crashes as a result, that is more likely to be recorded as a road accident. (I suppose it's fair to say "drop down dead" medical incidents are rare, and I can imagine various medical episodes that are not especially serious in and of themselves are far more likely to lead to serious injury or death if they occur to a cyclist travelling at speed and/or on a road with traffic around).

Where a cyclist hits a pedestrian, and the cyclist themselves is killed (but the pedestrian is unharmed), as far as I can tell that would be coded as a cyclist casualty with no other vehicle involved. I think this is a quirk of the way the data is collected and analysed. The STATS19 form essentially collects three pieces of information: casualties (which can include pedestrians); vehicles involved (which cannot include pedestrians); and other relevant factors. This analysis only considers the casualties and vehicles involved. Where an incident occurs involving a pedestrian, but that pedestrian is not themselves a casualty, then the involvement of the pedestrian would not be picked up by the analysis. (The STATS19 form does have an option for a pedestrian to be a hazard relevant to an incident, but that would not be picked up by the analysis carried out).

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to OnYerBike | 1 year ago
1 like

Thanks for taking the time!  It is very useful to know some details of how figures were collected and categorised.

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to ShutTheFrontDawes | 1 year ago
3 likes

I did see four cyclists crash simultaneously last winter where a leaked water main had formed a film of black ice on a bend at the bottom of a downhill: one broken arm, one broken collarbone, one concussion and one heavy bruising (all suspected, once I'd helped pick their bikes up and the paramedics had come I left them to it).

Avatar
qwerty360 replied to ShutTheFrontDawes | 1 year ago
2 likes

Off road riding has a fair few.

 

NL has stats showing e-bikes in particular are horrifically dangerous - because 70+ year olds are still able to ride them when frail (and no longer capable of riding normal bikes), with the same problem they have when walking -  a minor fall for a 20 year old can break bones at 70+ and is far more common. (Of course this ignores that there is evidence that transport cycling is one of the reasons they have both a long average lifespan and high quality of life in old age (because they retain mobility/fitness longer))

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to qwerty360 | 1 year ago
0 likes

Indeed - I'd say this is effectively a "problem of success".  Although we have heard recently of some older cyclists dying we're a long way from most younger, fitter people considering this a "mode of transport", never mind older people.

Lots of effects factor in here.  Quality of life is a massive one - more social engagement - feeds in to health!  That is definitely aided by (local) mobility.  Which is of course in NL is much improved by provision not just for "cycling" but "social cycling".

There is the effect of having more older drivers.  IIRC the UK figures show that they are not too bad?  Of course with age people are less likely to be equipped to notice serious decline in their ability.  Also if people have a "medical event" in their car they're at more risk to others than on a bike.  Of course it can be argued they're personally much more likely to then have worse outcome when they crash their bike / fall than in their car...

Few of these things could be applied in the UK yet sadly.  We simply don't have networks of convenient, accessible cycle routes which feel safe.  It's not even about the quality (although that is woeful in the UK); connected networks scarcely exist here yet.  Traffic volumes and speeds where modes interact are both too high.  Our current design goal is "maximum motor traffic throughput".  Cycling will inevitably share with cars at some points.  Finally social cycling is so much the exception that this is seen as a problem rather than people recognising that humans naturally travel side-by-side and this needs to be accommodated, just like walking, driving, taking the bus, the train, flying...

Avatar
Pyro Tim replied to ShutTheFrontDawes | 1 year ago
2 likes

I broke my wrist, damaged my rotator cuff, and did my ligaments in my ankle, and achilles crashing without motor vehicles. Addmittedly I was on th eBMX track, but yeah, pretty seriously injured. Off all excercise for 6 months

Avatar
IanMSpencer | 1 year ago
2 likes

Much though I appreciate Vine for efforts on the cycling cause, he is on thin ice bemoaning garbage journalism. We even fast forward his link on the Ken Bruce show to avoid deleterious health effects of accidentally listening to his Radio 2 show.

Avatar
ShutTheFrontDawes replied to IanMSpencer | 1 year ago
1 like
IanMSpencer wrote:

Much though I appreciate Vine for efforts on the cycling cause, he is on thin ice bemoaning garbage journalism. We even fast forward his link on the Ken Bruce show to avoid deleterious health effects of accidentally listening to his Radio 2 show.

I agree. I can't stand listening to him on the radio. Even when he seems to be trying to be sympathetic/considerate, he sounds (to my ears at least) argumentative and contentious.

Avatar
Jippily | 1 year ago
0 likes

there had been a “surge” at the number of injuries to on a protected cycle route

Great job, Simon.

Avatar
eburtthebike | 1 year ago
6 likes

Expecting the truth from the Telegraph is like betting on a dead horse.

Avatar
Awavey | 1 year ago
3 likes

having actually read the "offending" article, I think its quite a mild take from the Telegraphs anti cycling champion.

they dont overegg the numbers, they are what they are, they quote John Franklin (author of Cyclecraft) as saying he thinks there are sightline issues on this route, and Simon Munk of LCC asking the local councils to fix the issues causing the collisions. Its hardly a collection of anti cycling soundbites and gripes, just people asking sensible things.

Ive walked alongside the route and I do think there are issues with it, its barely wide enough for two way cycling, and the part especially where the photo above is from surprised me when I saw someone ride it, and Im used to all manner of wacky cycling infra, plus theres no way youd convince me to ride around the Hammersmith gyratory still.

as Jeremy seems to admit on his twitter, its not the content of the article so much as they quoted his name in a headline and didnt ask for his comment...

Avatar
ubercurmudgeon | 1 year ago
18 likes

'In the past week, the Telegraph has published front page headlines claiming a photo of two people fitting in a bath "clears Duke over bath sex" and, even more ludicrously, that Liz Truss was "brought down by the left-wing economic establishment". I think we can safely dismiss anything they print as garbage. They're really no different from the Mail and Express these days.'

Avatar
brooksby replied to ubercurmudgeon | 1 year ago
4 likes

I think Liz Truss herself claimed that the economic establishment is left-wing...

Avatar
ubercurmudgeon replied to brooksby | 1 year ago
9 likes

I've just edited my original post to put quote marks around the entire thing, thus making it not my opinion, but just something I am reporting.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to brooksby | 1 year ago
8 likes

Poor Truss ... brought down by those blasted woke right-wing Tories hand-in-glove with the communist bankers and the shadow-nanny-state of the capitalist system.  Crypto-remainers, the lot of 'em.  It wouldn't have happened in Thatcher's day...

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to brooksby | 1 year ago
4 likes
brooksby wrote:

I think Liz Truss herself claimed that the economic establishment is left-wing...

So Liz, is the left-wing economic establishment in the room with us now?

Pages

Latest Comments