Safety review CONSULTATION

[Steady rider]

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultat ... ety-review

https://www.cyclinguk.org/cyclesafety

https://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default ... simple.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... t-2017.pdf

Between 2003 and 2016, fatalities decreased from 114 to 102 (11 per cent) during a period when cycle traffic has grown by 25 per cent. However, the number of serious injuries has grown faster than traffic. Between 2003 and 2016 serious injuries rose by 48 per cent.

One starting point of a review is to address why the 48% increase.
Another point is that Cycling UK is seeking advice on close passing and not seeking legislation.
Today I was riding on a newly surfaced cycle path with vegetation growing through, A64 about 10 miles from York on the east side.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.07869 ... 6656?hl=en the path shown is the old path, it has been resurfaced but within a few months vegetation is showing in many parts. It could cause a cyclist to fall off.

One housing development is near completion near to where I live, with each house having a drive access to the road, leaving a up and down pavement for cycling along, the development should have been based on a road access leading to the properties leaving a pavement outside without driveways every 8m. Lampposts have been installed set into the pavement.

I think Cycling UK should have asked for views on the proposals before submitting and allowed for discussions prior.
Several issues could have been discussed and potentially leading to improvements.

https://www.wired.com/2014/11/lowering- ... lot-lives/
My view is on many urban busy roads a 25 mph limit would be more suitable than a 30 mph limit. The government prevents 25 mph limits without obtaining special permission. The condition of the UK road network is falling behind on minor roads, 50 years ago they were better maintained.

[Vorpal]

So it doesn't get lost in the above discussion, this is a government consultation that is about Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy (CWIS) safety review

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultat ... ety-review

[Steady rider]

Trucks/lorries should be required to install cameras which may help in assessing why accidents occur and what needs to change. Legislation requiring all commercial vehicles to be fitted with cameras could result in savings.

[Mistik-ka]

Between 2003 and 2016, fatalities decreased from 114 to 102 (11 per cent) during a period when cycle traffic has grown by 25 per cent. However, the number of serious injuries has grown faster than traffic. Between 2003 and 2016 serious injuries rose by 48 per cent.

This is not intended to contribute significantly to the subject under discussion, but to suggest a possible confounding influence to the statistics quoted by Steady rider. Were there lives saved by recently improved emergency and acute trauma medical care … thereby transferring them from the "fatalities" list to "serious injuries"?

There were not enough cyclist injuries or fatalities seen in the hospital in which I worked to draw any statistical inference, but without question trauma cases in general have a far higher survival rate now than they did 25 years ago.

[Cyril Haearn]

Between 2003 and 2016, fatalities decreased from 114 to 102 (11 per cent) during a period when cycle traffic has grown by 25 per cent. However, the number of serious injuries has grown faster than traffic. Between 2003 and 2016 serious injuries rose by 48 per cent.

This is not intended to contribute significantly to the subject under discussion, but to suggest a possible confounding influence to the statistics quoted by Steady rider. Were there lives saved by recently improved emergency and acute trauma medical care … thereby transferring them from the "fatalities" list to "serious injuries"?

There were not enough cyclist injuries or fatalities seen in the hospital in which I worked to draw any statistical inference, but without question trauma cases in general have a far higher survival rate now than they did 25 years ago.

Maybe some of the 'lucky' survivors who are only 'seriously injured' live several decades more in great pain, permanently disabled, unable to cycle or work, maybe they are even unable to express their wish to be put to sleep

[atlas_shrugged]

@Steady rider

+1 Great post and completely agree with you.

A long time ago I learnt that cycle paths are constructed to a lower standard than roads (at least in Cambridgeshire). This happened during a conversation with a road surveyor working on a new cycle path. He said to me something like:

"I do not understand why the county council has such a poor specification for the cycle path. This will have cracks and weeds within two years"

He was exactly right and the path had to have expensive repairs. Recently I wrote an 8-page specification for Greenways and was hoping to get Cambridgeshire CC to adopt this (or at least some form of specification for cycleway construction). Imagine my surprise when Cycling UK (or at least the 1 officer I spoke to) would not support this initiative on the basis that they wanted to adopt national standards! Even more strange was a recent call from cycling UK to support a safety initiative that called for cycle ways to be constructed according to a specification. A good idea. But where is the specification???????

Now praise where it is due Oxfordshire (and some other local authorities) have published cycling and walking standards.

But we need a set of high quality standards that construction crews can work to.

It is crackers to make a cycle path bounce up and down when cars driving across are fitted with suspension.

[pjclinch]

But we need a set of high quality standards that construction crews can work to.

I think perhaps you mean "must" rather than "can"...

[Vorpal]

But we need a set of high quality standards that construction crews can work to.

I think perhaps you mean "must" rather than "can"...

This.

The problem now is not lack of decent standards (which do exist), but that no one is held to good standards. They are treated as guidelines. Even the old standards were better than what was built.

[thirdcrank]

... This is not intended to contribute significantly to the subject under discussion, but to suggest a possible confounding influence to the statistics quoted by Steady rider. Were there lives saved by recently improved emergency and acute trauma medical care … thereby transferring them from the "fatalities" list to "serious injuries"?

There were not enough cyclist injuries or fatalities seen in the hospital in which I worked to draw any statistical inference, but without question trauma cases in general have a far higher survival rate now than they did 25 years ago.

I think that this is particularly significant in relation to fatalities, given that the survival period for accident stats has always been 30 days. (The old definition of murder, which required death to occur within a year and a day was scrapped in recognition of the medical advances which can sometimes prolong a form of life almost indefinitely.) Another thing is that as the police concentrate resources on the investigation of fatal/potentially fatal crashes, there's the potential for some injuries which are "serious" within the Stats 19 definition to be shuffled down into "minor." The only thing I can point to here is that IIRC somebody (Brake?) did a limited study comparing police stats with hospital A&E records and found quite a discrepancy.

In any case, casualty counts are improved by increased protection for the occupants of motor vehicles, while casualties among vulnerable users point to their being the problem at a common sense level. (By "common sense" I mean at a shallow level of analysis not considering the underlying factors.) Casualty reduction by scaring vulnerable road users of the road has enabled a series of Transport Secretaries to crow that our roads are among the safest in the World.

[mjr]

The only thing I can point to here is that IIRC somebody (Brake?) did a limited study comparing police stats with hospital A&E records and found quite a discrepancy.

Gill, Goldacre and Yeates "Changes in safety on England’s roads: analysis of hospital statistics" https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/early/2 ... F.full.pdf BMJ, doi:10.1136/bmj.38883.593831.4F (published 23 June 2006)

I wouldn't trust anything produced by bike-bashing Brake as far as I could spit a rat.

[Steady rider]

Thanks for the kind words. A cycle path about 150m from where I live was built in about 2002, nearly all of the path is still good, one section passing through woodlands is now cracking up due to tree roots. Where trees are close by perhaps some change in standard may be needed.

It seems like a change in driving culture, to be more considerate, by a minority of drivers is needed. Some drivers are hostile to cyclists and this is where a passing law rather than advice could be most useful. Cycling UK should focus on how such a law could be progressed.

Some average fatality data is shown below
Years - 85/ 89 - 15/16
Cyclists - C 272 - 101
Pedestrians - P 1758 - 428
C/P% , 15.4 - 23.6


The accident rate per billion miles cycled increased from 2002/2003 to 2014/2015

Years 2002/03 - 2014/15
Average rate 938 - 1095

[thirdcrank]

MJR

Thanks for that. I can see a couple of things related to "hospital admission" which might affect Stats 19 data. I don't ever remember checking if somebody who had left the scene of a crash by ambulance had been admitted to hospital, as opposed to receiving A&E treatment before discharge. I disposed of my supervisors' guide to Stats 19 completion on retirement in 1997 so I cannot refer to it now, even assuming nothing has changed. (The only hospital updates I remember were if a casualty died some time later ie not pronounced dead on arrival.) On reflection, I'm not even sure that in those days I'd have appreciated a difference between "going to hospital by emergency ambulance" and being admitted to hospital.

If two data sets were recording different things about the same events - in this case injury traffic crashes - then I presume the trends would still be similar unless there were to be a shift in recording criteria. My suspicion - nothing more than that - is that a policy of concentration on only KSI is likely to have a tendency to see the boundaries between serious and minor shifting.

All the controversy over crises in A&E suggest a possibility that fewer casualties may be admitted quickly enough to get in a Stats 19 booklet, even if checks are made.
==============================================================================================
PS So busy typing I forgot to include the following, which seems to support what I said in my earlier post:-

Conclusions The overall fall seen in police statistics for non-fatal road traffic injuries probably represents a fall in completeness of reporting of these injuries.

[dobbo800]

@Steady rider

"I do not understand why the county council has such a poor specification for the cycle path. This will have cracks and weeds within two years".

Because it is much cheaper and they can get away with it.

[brooksby]

@Steady rider

"I do not understand why the county council has such a poor specification for the cycle path. This will have cracks and weeds within two years".

Because it is much cheaper and they can get away with it.

And its intended only for cyclists, not for any "real" people/modes of transport. Its rubbish because its just ticking the box so the council can say they've done it (they don't have to say that they did it *well*).

[Wanlock Dod]

... Were there lives saved by recently improved emergency and acute trauma medical care … thereby transferring them from the "fatalities" list to "serious injuries"?...

There ought to be a similar effect for both pedestrians and motons, although there will be differences in the injuries that kill and main motons compared to cyclists and pedestrians, so it ought to be possible to make some kind of normalisation based on pedestrian data. I think that the approach has been used to look at the effectiveness of some safety aids that are commonly used by cyclists but rarely used by pedestrians.