Is cycling getting more dangerous?

[Stevek76]

In other words, if the fatality rate per mile reduced only because of more leisure cycling miles being ridden, then cycling has not become safer.

Depends on the leisure though, my impression is that road enthusiasts are relatively higher risk (a factor of both attitude and that rural single carriageways are higher risk) so that can work both ways.

I'd agree that it would be rash to draw conclusions, I was being somewhat flippant in my statement partly as the initial reporting was poor. On top of the behavioural oddities of 2020, I suspect there is also significant uncertainty over the distance estimate that is unlikely to ever be resolved. Cycle counts are limited and patchy and the NTS does not include circular journeys that have no purpose other than the journey itself.

My view is that there is no objective measure of danger, and therefore the answer to the question can only be answered at a personal level

Danger is the possibility of harm etc, there are absolutely ways to objectively measure that though when it comes to transport I'm open to quibbling and/or context on whether the rate part of casualty rates should be time or distance.

Of course, perceived danger is a related but separate issue and is entirely subjective. We already know that most people vastly overestimate the dangers of cycling in relation to many other activities (hence the h-word debate) and I doubt that sensationalised headlines and low quality statistical journalism as demonstrated by the guardian above are much help with that.

It's also perceived danger which is the relevant one when it comes to peoples' transport choices and why the dutch approach works and the vehicularist one does not.

[Cowsham]

I treat this the same way I treat financial professional reports. You have to remember these guys have to justify their salt. They have to get a write up done probably for some deadline as they're lively Hood depends on getting something out to fill an article.

I'll read it but if it doesn't tally with what I know to be true or it's not making complete sense and when it starts to loose credibility my reading stops and it goes straight in the bin.

[Pebble]

A rather alarming report in today’s Guardian based on data showing a 40% increase in 2020 of cyclists killed in road accidents.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... gures-show

without reading any of the other replys (so just answering the question "is cycling getting more dangerous") - I think it is better now than it has ever been - still too many close passes and still too much abuse/bad feeling, but overall I thing more drivers take more care than ever before.

A very very long way to go, but certainly don't think it is getting worse.

[axel_knutt]

"dangerous driving could have cancelled out the safety dividend from fewer cars on the roads amid lockdown"

There is no safety dividend from fewer cars on the roads, it's been known for decades that the death rate goes up as traffic density goes down.

http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uplo ... %20law.pdf
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2012 ... -accidents

[JohnW]

It's not cycling that's getting dangerous - it's motorists who are getting more dangerous - this always was the case, but in the last 12 months motorists have become significantly more dangerous............more numerous and individually more dangerous. I'm located in West Yorkshire.

When I refer to motorists I include white-vans,. but there's an increasing trend for young-ish males to drive around together (one behind the other) at high speeds. There's a general tendency to drive faster, and to accelerate aggressively - including as they approach a Pelikan crossing at amber.

[PhilD28]

I don’t know if it’s any more dangerous than pre pandemic, but it was already far more dangerous than it should be in the UK. Compared to Holland and France cycling in the uk is far more intimidating than it ought to be.

[De Sisti]

`My impression is that there a lot more inexperienced (and often ignorant) cyclists on the UK roads, with the sport enjoying huge growth as it becomes the "new golf" for many.

Cycling isn't a sport for millions of people, it's just a form of transport for getting around without competing.

[thirdcrank]

AIUI, the accident stats are not National Statistics - ie the Office for National Statistics does not recognise them.

Also AIUI, the annual variations are not statistically significant in that they may not be evidence of a trend. Off the top of my head, I can think of a couple of possible changes which might affect the data (just possibilities. During the pandemic, road traffic casualties may waited long for an ambulance. Then, there may now be a tendency to remove life support more quickly in hopeless cases. (Unless counting has changed, those who survive 30 days are not treated as "killed" in these stats.)

In any case, crossing the "killed" threshold hardly paints the full picture but the numbers of "seriously injured" seem to have been massaged down.

Looking for a trend seems also to suggest that a certain death rate is a given when it isn't: IMO it's only what our society will tolerate. IMO the only thing that is given is that in collisions with motor vehicles, cyclists (and pedestrians) will tend to come off worse. This is why pedestrians and cyclists have been referred to as vulnerable road users. Unfortunately, the police inspectorate no longer takes that approach and applies the description to inexperienced drivers and motorcyclists.

[PhilD28]

`My impression is that there a lot more inexperienced (and often ignorant) cyclists on the UK roads, with the sport enjoying huge growth as it becomes the "new golf" for many.

Cycling isn't a sport for millions of people, it's just a form of transport for getting around without competing.

Of course it’s transport for many and has been ever since the bike became affordable for the many. I’m pretty sure Merlin fully understands that, and it doesn’t make his observation any less accurate, my own observation is pretty much aligned with his too.

That’s not to decry that so many are taking up cycling instead of golf or other activities, it means that they at least experience the roads from the cyclists point of view and it may make them more empathetic drivers. It also increases the cycling lobby and may help normalise cycling. There will always be downsides to unleashing 1000’s more inexperienced cyclists onto the roads, but hopefully they will quickly gain the skills needed to stay safe… becoming considerate cyclists may take a bit longer.

[Oldjohnw]

If people newly taken up cycling they will inevitably be less experienced (possibly ignorant?) and therefore more at risk. Like the rest of us, they have to start somewhere.

I know of some very experienced cyclist who are also greatly lacking in courtesy and consideration. Age has not always brought wisdom.

[thirdcrank]

Being ignorant, or even pig ignorant doesn't merit being killed.

[Jdsk]

I'm not sure that this has been mentioned this time around... the benefits to health of cycling outweigh the harms by quite a large factor.

Jonathan

[geomannie]

Consider absolute vs realtive risk.

Even if the 40% increase in deaths is statistically real, what does that mean in terms of you, as an individual, being more likely to killed? A 40% increase on a low risk still leaves you with a low risk.

[thirdcrank]

I think we are long past the stage of having to make the case for cycling as a good thing. Cycling is not, in itself, dangerous in any logical sense. Ditto walking. Human beings are vulnerable to injury in collisions with motor vehicles. We seem to have let the the authorities - in the form of the police inspectorate - get away with a change in this definition of "vulnerable" without so much as a murmur of dissent.

[JohnW]

..........I know of some very experienced cyclist who are also greatly lacking in courtesy and consideration. Age has not always brought wisdom.

Do you mean 'cyclists' John, or do you mean motorists on bikes? (MOABs)