14 yrs - Death by Careless Cycling

[Graveworm]

Julian Scott said:

Graveworm said:

Siao said:

carlo996 said:

Geffg said:

As you can tell it really annoys me the way cyclists think it’s fine to damage a car or smash someone’s mirror which can be £1000 and that’s ok.
Some cyclists break laws and so do some motorists. No one is above the law and I’m sure very few never break any rules.
We are all human and things will happen.

If the driver wasn't being a total dick, the mirrors would remain intact. It's only a mirror. Not a life.

One could also ask, why do you think that it is ok to risk a cyclist's life and damage to their equipment that nowadays is way more than £1000?

But don't fall for this post, no one thinks it is fine to damage something. I'd like to think that anyone who had his life stupidly put in danger and reacted to that, it was just red mist, not a premeditated act of aggression that all cyclists collectively think it is right.

I really do think that drivers need to be educated properly on the danger to bikes, maybe even trained like the bus drivers in Mexico!

I think everyone could benefit from everyone being better educated and trained.

Cycling casualty rates have fallen by 37% and fatalities by 55% over the past 20 years yet fewer people are cycling than ever, despite incentives, highway code changes and record infrastructure investment. 20 percent of fatalities, on the road, don't involve motor vehicles at all and per km driven/ridden a cyclist is more that twice as likely to be killed or seriously injured, colliding with another cyclist than with a car.

Fewer people cycling than ever? Are you sure?

According to Gov figures, looking at commuters only, Cycling traffic levels have increased by 15.5% since December 2013 (to Dec 2023). Plus with leisure cycling at an all time high (except the blip of Covid/lockdown), I find it hard to believe that fewer people are cycling than ever?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64ee10386bc96d000d4ed24f/cw0302-proportion-of-adults-that-cycle-by-frequency-purpose-and-local-authority.ods
They started collecting data on how many people cycle in 2016 11.9% of people cycled once a week and 17.1 once a month back then it's fallen to 9.3 and 11.1 percent receptively so yes fewer people than ever are cycling.

[Julian Scott]

Graveworm said:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64e...
They started collecting data on how many people cycle in 2016 11.9% of people cycled once a week and 17.1 once a month back then it's fallen to 9.3 and 11.1 percent receptively so yes fewer people than ever are cycling.

So that's a Sport England survey (no reference as to sample size/how data collected/etc) that is at odds with the other link you posted which starts with:

Main findings
Between 2004 and 2022:

fatalities were down 32% from 134 to 91
serious injuries (adjusted) increased by 21%
pedal cycle traffic increased by 50%

[Siao]

Graveworm said:

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-...

Thank you

[funkstar1]

The obvious answer is to put the Tufty club on the school curriculum.

[Graveworm]

Julian Scott said:

So that's a Sport England survey (no reference as to sample size/how data collected/etc) that is at odds with the other link you posted which starts with:

Main findings
Between 2004 and 2022:

fatalities were down 32% from 134 to 91
serious injuries (adjusted) increased by 21%
pedal cycle traffic increased by 50%

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/walking-and-cycling-statistics-cw
It's the DFT as above with links to the collection methods and accreditation of the stats
Pedal cycle traffic isn't more people cycling.

Edited by Graveworm on Monday 20th May 17:30

[Julian Scott]

Graveworm said:

Julian Scott said:

So that's a Sport England survey (no reference as to sample size/how data collected/etc) that is at odds with the other link you posted which starts with:

Main findings
Between 2004 and 2022:

fatalities were down 32% from 134 to 91
serious injuries (adjusted) increased by 21%
pedal cycle traffic increased by 50%

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/walking-and-cycling-statistics-cw
It's the DFT as above with links to the collection methods and accreditation of the stats
Pedal cycle traffic isn't more people cycling.

Edited by Graveworm on Monday 20th May 17:30

Yes, thats the Active Life survey by Sport England, looking at walking and cycling.

Survey running from 2016 to 2022.

They surveyed 196,000 people in 2016 and 177,000 in 2022 (so 0.3% and 0.25% of the population respectively).

The link above shows this for national figures:



So, using your data, "at least once per month" has decreased.
"at least once per month" and "at least 3 times per week" has increased.
"at least five times per week" has stayed the same.

But no matter how you chose to extrapolate the data, the cycle traffic (number of miles/hours cycled) has gone up by 50%, so even IF the number of people cycling has held steady, the average cyclist now rides 50% more?

BUT.... This chart from Statista [https://www.statista.com/statistics/899206/cycling-participation-uk/] show the number of people who cycle has increased from just over 5m to almost 7.5m....which correlates with the 50% increase in cycle traffic.

[Graveworm]

Julian Scott said:

Graveworm said:

Julian Scott said:

So that's a Sport England survey (no reference as to sample size/how data collected/etc) that is at odds with the other link you posted which starts with:

Main findings
Between 2004 and 2022:

fatalities were down 32% from 134 to 91
serious injuries (adjusted) increased by 21%
pedal cycle traffic increased by 50%

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/walking-and-cycling-statistics-cw
It's the DFT as above with links to the collection methods and accreditation of the stats
Pedal cycle traffic isn't more people cycling.

Edited by Graveworm on Monday 20th May 17:30

Yes, thats the Active Life survey by Sport England, looking at walking and cycling.

Survey running from 2016 to 2022.

They surveyed 196,000 people in 2016 and 177,000 in 2022 (so 0.3% and 0.25% of the population respectively).

The link above shows this for national figures:



So, using your data, "at least once per month" has decreased.
"at least once per month" and "at least 3 times per week" has increased.
"at least five times per week" has stayed the same.

But no matter how you chose to extrapolate the data, the cycle traffic (number of miles/hours cycled) has gone up by 50%, so even IF the number of people cycling has held steady, the average cyclist now rides 50% more?

BUT.... This chart from Statista [https://www.statista.com/statistics/899206/cycling-participation-uk/] show the number of people who cycle has increased from just over 5m to almost 7.5m....which correlates with the 50% increase in cycle traffic.

You are quoting the numbers of people walking or cycling for some reason.
Cycling only has fallen. I wish that wasn't the case more than anyone but I would rather find out why than hope it's not the case.
Fewer people are cycling. Yes they may be cycling further than they did in 2004 but it's about the same as 1984 and more relevant it's still 2% of journeys for the average person and only 1% of the total distance they travel. Cycling is a great thing it should be encouraged. More cycling would be nothing but a good thing. But as it's stands not an important thing in terms of journeys. If the distance cycled increased by 300% - and all of that replaced car use, then car use would fall by less than 3%.
Now I don't know the source of the Statista data but the DOT data and methodology has been accredited twice. Sample sizes of way less than 0.3% can give very accurate data. The reason they have such a large sample set, wasn't to get a more accurate national figure, it's so they can break it down into boroughs. If you think it's too small a sample to be accurate for the national picture, you are off by an order of magnitude.
https://www.cloudresearch.com/resources/guides/sta...

Edited by Graveworm on Monday 20th May 20:23

[Julian Scott]

Graveworm said:

Julian Scott said:

Graveworm said:

Julian Scott said:

So that's a Sport England survey (no reference as to sample size/how data collected/etc) that is at odds with the other link you posted which starts with:

Main findings
Between 2004 and 2022:

fatalities were down 32% from 134 to 91
serious injuries (adjusted) increased by 21%
pedal cycle traffic increased by 50%

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/walking-and-cycling-statistics-cw
It's the DFT as above with links to the collection methods and accreditation of the stats
Pedal cycle traffic isn't more people cycling.

Edited by Graveworm on Monday 20th May 17:30

Yes, thats the Active Life survey by Sport England, looking at walking and cycling.

Survey running from 2016 to 2022.

They surveyed 196,000 people in 2016 and 177,000 in 2022 (so 0.3% and 0.25% of the population respectively).

The link above shows this for national figures:



So, using your data, "at least once per month" has decreased.
"at least once per month" and "at least 3 times per week" has increased.
"at least five times per week" has stayed the same.

But no matter how you chose to extrapolate the data, the cycle traffic (number of miles/hours cycled) has gone up by 50%, so even IF the number of people cycling has held steady, the average cyclist now rides 50% more?

BUT.... This chart from Statista [https://www.statista.com/statistics/899206/cycling-participation-uk/] show the number of people who cycle has increased from just over 5m to almost 7.5m....which correlates with the 50% increase in cycle traffic.

You are quoting the numbers of people walking or cycling for some reason.
Cycling only has fallen. I wish that wasn't the case more than anyone but I would rather find out why than hope it's not the case.
Fewer people are cycling. Yes they may be cycling further than they did in 2004 but it's about the same as 1984 and more relevant it's still 2% of journeys for the average person and only 1% of the total distance they travel. Cycling is a great thing it should be encouraged. More cycling would be nothing but a good thing. But as it's stands not an important thing in terms of journeys. If the distance cycled increased by 300% - and all of that replaced car use, then car use would fall by less than 3%.
Now I don't know the source of the Statista data but the DOT data and methodology has been accredited twice. Sample sizes of way less than 0.3% can give very accurate data. The reason they have such a large sample set, wasn't to get a more accurate national figure, it's so they can break it down into boroughs. If you think it's too small a sample to be accurate for the national picture, you are off by an order of magnitude.
https://www.cloudresearch.com/resources/guides/sta...

Edited by Graveworm on Monday 20th May 20:23

Because, as I said, that is the link you shared.

The DOT (DFT?) data, as I said, is a Sport England survey.

The Statista figures are a cross-reference of multiple sources of data, including surveys, from governments and academia.

The fact they show a 50% increase, which correlates with DFT traffic data (which is unquestioned), and backed up by UK Govt data showing the number of miles per person per year has remained static (aside from lockdown) - graph below

That merely shows your claim that cycling popularity is at its lowest ever is at best flawed (you've shown 7 years of data, not really 'ever') and subjective.

[Graveworm]

Julian Scott said:

Graveworm said:

Julian Scott said:

Graveworm said:

Julian Scott said:

So that's a Sport England survey (no reference as to sample size/how data collected/etc) that is at odds with the other link you posted which starts with:

Main findings
Between 2004 and 2022:

fatalities were down 32% from 134 to 91
serious injuries (adjusted) increased by 21%
pedal cycle traffic increased by 50%

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/walking-and-cycling-statistics-cw
It's the DFT as above with links to the collection methods and accreditation of the stats
Pedal cycle traffic isn't more people cycling.

Edited by Graveworm on Monday 20th May 17:30

Yes, thats the Active Life survey by Sport England, looking at walking and cycling.

Survey running from 2016 to 2022.

They surveyed 196,000 people in 2016 and 177,000 in 2022 (so 0.3% and 0.25% of the population respectively).

The link above shows this for national figures:



So, using your data, "at least once per month" has decreased.
"at least once per month" and "at least 3 times per week" has increased.
"at least five times per week" has stayed the same.

But no matter how you chose to extrapolate the data, the cycle traffic (number of miles/hours cycled) has gone up by 50%, so even IF the number of people cycling has held steady, the average cyclist now rides 50% more?

BUT.... This chart from Statista [https://www.statista.com/statistics/899206/cycling-participation-uk/] show the number of people who cycle has increased from just over 5m to almost 7.5m....which correlates with the 50% increase in cycle traffic.

You are quoting the numbers of people walking or cycling for some reason.
Cycling only has fallen. I wish that wasn't the case more than anyone but I would rather find out why than hope it's not the case.
Fewer people are cycling. Yes they may be cycling further than they did in 2004 but it's about the same as 1984 and more relevant it's still 2% of journeys for the average person and only 1% of the total distance they travel. Cycling is a great thing it should be encouraged. More cycling would be nothing but a good thing. But as it's stands not an important thing in terms of journeys. If the distance cycled increased by 300% - and all of that replaced car use, then car use would fall by less than 3%.
Now I don't know the source of the Statista data but the DOT data and methodology has been accredited twice. Sample sizes of way less than 0.3% can give very accurate data. The reason they have such a large sample set, wasn't to get a more accurate national figure, it's so they can break it down into boroughs. If you think it's too small a sample to be accurate for the national picture, you are off by an order of magnitude.
https://www.cloudresearch.com/resources/guides/sta...

Edited by Graveworm on Monday 20th May 20:23

Because, as I said, that is the link you shared.

The DOT (DFT?) data, as I said, is a Sport England survey.

The Statista figures are a cross-reference of multiple sources of data, including surveys, from governments and academia.

The fact they show a 50% increase, which correlates with DFT traffic data (which is unquestioned), and backed up by UK Govt data showing the number of miles per person per year has remained static (aside from lockdown) - graph below

That merely shows your claim that cycling popularity is at its lowest ever is at best flawed (you've shown 7 years of data, not really 'ever') and subjective.

The link I shared also has the cycling figures for people cycling. That seven years of data is all they have apart from 2010 and 2011 both higher and 2011 down from 2010 the official audited and verified data, with sample sizes over 100 times larger than are needed to be accurate at a national level shows fewer people are cycling than at any time since records began.
Feel free to have the last word.

Edited by Graveworm on Tuesday 21st May 15:17

[heebeegeetee]

Hi all. I'm not interested in bandying stats about but I will say this:

One day last week, in that very nice weather, I helped a mate with a job at his premises in North Birmingham, after which he took me home in Sutton Coldfield.

My forays into Europe in recent years have taught me that on any nice, warm, sunny day like that you would expect to see cyclists, there would be plenty out and about.

On our journey though that day, we saw NONE, not a single one. What we endured instead was wall to wall traffic, the vast majority being cars, and it was all at a near standstill. We were towing a big trailer, which impacted our ability to duck and dive, however it took us 45 mins to do 5 miles.

I maintain that to see no cyclists whatsoever in a European city on a day like is completely unusual, completely not normal. Something is very wrong. I mean, you wouldn't want to cycle in that traffic, but of course, like the majority of UK there is almost no cycling infra whatsoever, or none that wasn't already full of cars.

The next two journeys that I drove (over the next couple of days) were also averages of 7mph and 11mph. I've been out and about today so have just been and checked, 30 miles @ 18mph average. (Some of the journey was on the Sutton by-pass, so sped it up a bit).

Our lack of provision for people to cycle is now, as I say, totally not normal and must make us a complete outlier, and it must be really harming the economy.

And on another note, apropos nothing, I saw this on Twitter: People are more bothered about being delayed by seconds than they are by phone use at the wheel. (I rarely visit Twitter, it does your head in. )

https://x.com/AvonandsomerRob/status/1792077665995...

[Forester1965]

Are cyclists not allowed or able to cycle on the road?

[heebeegeetee]

Forester1965 said:

Are cyclists not allowed or able to cycle on the road?

I don't know about cyclists, but clearly people didn't want to cycle that day, for whatever reason, so they sit in cars instead and grind the roads to a halt.

I think for people not to want to cycle on an ideal day like that weatherwise, is completely and totally unusual now.

I reckon our travel and transport infrastructure is 50 years behind, it's now getting really seriously obvious that we are doing things the wrong way.

[Siao]

heebeegeetee said:

Forester1965 said:

Are cyclists not allowed or able to cycle on the road?

I don't know about cyclists, but clearly people didn't want to cycle that day, for whatever reason, so they sit in cars instead and grind the roads to a halt.

I think for people not to want to cycle on an ideal day like that weatherwise, is completely and totally unusual now.

I reckon our travel and transport infrastructure is 50 years behind, it's now getting really seriously obvious that we are doing things the wrong way.

Was it a weekday? And at a time that most people are at work or something? Maybe it was a coincidence, but yes, it does sound bizarre.

[heebeegeetee]

Siao said:

Was it a weekday? And at a time that most people are at work or something? Maybe it was a coincidence, but yes, it does sound bizarre.

Yes it was a weekday, mid afternoon, and if people were at work I can't understand the sheer amount of traffic and cars on the road, such that nothing was moving.

I mean, in everywhere I've been in Europe in recent times, plenty of people would have opted for a bicycle as possibly the quicker and more viable method of getting about.

[dontlookdown]

I wouldn't be surprised if the rise in numbers of people cycling (rather than miles cycled) hasn't risen all that much, and that most of the extra miles is a few people cycling more.

There is also the question of how people use their bikes, and what for. Spent some time in the Lincolnshire wolds recently. Lovely weather, great cycling roads. At the weekend there were plenty of leisure cyclists out for a ride, but during the week only saw one or two people on bikes going to work, school or shopping etc. Really surprising lack of them given the ideal environment and conditions.

So it seems bikes are mostly seen as weekend toys there, not an alternative means of transport. That kind of usage isn't going to do anything to reduce car journeys at all.

[Siao]

heebeegeetee said:

Siao said:

Was it a weekday? And at a time that most people are at work or something? Maybe it was a coincidence, but yes, it does sound bizarre.

Yes it was a weekday, mid afternoon, and if people were at work I can't understand the sheer amount of traffic and cars on the road, such that nothing was moving.

I mean, in everywhere I've been in Europe in recent times, plenty of people would have opted for a bicycle as possibly the quicker and more viable method of getting about.

Thanks. As I said, bizarre!

But maybe a coincidence, a one off, who knows.