Safety review CONSULTATION

[reohn2]

......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.......

CUK(formerly CTC)is since acquiring charity status has to mind it's p's and q's where government is concerned as if it doesn't it may lose it's funding and it's top brass their salaries.
In short it's a toothless puppy dog of government IMO and will remain so until it gives up it government funding and bogus charitable status.
Fat chance of that happening.

[Steady rider]

RAS20004
Vehicles involved in reported accidents by vehicle type, built-up and non built-up roads, road class
and accident severity, Great Britain, 2016

shows some figures for pedal cyclists
fatal 110
fatal and serious 3737

Therefore if say 20 fewer were saved by improved medical attention, they may increase from the 3717 to 3737,
Between 2003 and 2016 serious injuries rose by 48 per cent.
I assume in 2003 there were 2525 serious injuries (2525 x 1.48 = 3737)
The increase being 1212 for serious injuries
In 2003 there were 114 deaths, in 2016 110 deaths, 4 fewer.
In practice it appears there was a substantial increase in serious injuries but it could also reflect a number higher than 4 being saved by improved medical treatments and by other aspects.

ps http://landor.co.uk/cyclecitymanchester/programme.php were is support from Cycling UK?

[The utility cyclist]

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/cycling-and-walking-investment-strategy-cwis-safety-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.

According to the fatalities page on Beyond the Kerb the number was 120 deaths for 2016, so there is no decrease. with supposedly 50% helmet wearing rate (many of these by sporting/serious mile cyclists) how can the SI be going up and no reduction in deaths, this yet again disproves the myth regarding noddy hats.
Funny how the numbers of cycling injuries started to rise around the same time that the UCI mandated helmet wearing
mileage travelled per person was 46 miles in 1995/97, it's still less than that now despite the supposed overall increase in cycling, how does that work out?
What are the comparable pedestrian stats for the same period?
IMO cycling has got more dangerous/less safe and the actions/inactions by government and police are unlawful from all angles.

[Pete Owens]

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.

And in order to be serious campaigning for high standards we need to call for the removal of cycle farcilities that fail to meet those standards (ie pretty much all of them). So long as they can find cyclists supporting the c**p then they will continue to expect us to be grateful.

[Pete Owens]

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"?

No - or at least not to any significant extent.

There is a pyramid of severity when it comes to traffic casualties so there is an order of magnitude more severe casualties that deaths. And an order of magnitude more slight injuries than serious injuries. Even if improved A&E managed to prevent every single road death then the difference to serious injury numbers would not be significant. The difference is very much more likely to reflect a difference in reporting on the slight/serious boundary where a small proportion of slight injuries classified as serious could have a big impact on the serious injury statistics.

If you want to make long term comparisons at a national level then counting fatalities is the most reliable statistic. Death is unambiguous, very likely to be recorded and not subject to changing definitions over time or between jurisdictions. And of course it needs to be a rate based measure so you need to collect a reliable figure for km cycled which is a very much trickier task.

[Cyril Haearn]

@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.

Oxfordshire vs Cambridgeshire?

It is the same in Germany, the cycle paths have a much thinner foundation and tree roots soon corrugate the surface so it is almost unlikeable even at 5 kmh

[Cyril Haearn]

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.

Did brake accept the donation from the driver who killed and wrote about it in the Guardian?

[Steady rider]

The utility cyclist » 23 Apr 2018, 8:40pm wrote

According to the fatalities page on Beyond the Kerb the number was 120 deaths for 2016,

I expect the 120 figure is probably correct. Looking again at the DfT 2016 publication it says 102 in 2016. These will be road accident deaths within 30 days. In addition there will be deaths not involving motor vehicles and I have seen a figure of 14 for 2016. So it looks likely a total of perhaps 116 to 120. In the DfT publication they do not seem to include deaths due to falls - not involving motor vehicles, a common practice in most countries perhaps.

In the submission by Cycling they say;

Cycling UK is not ‘anti-helmet’ or ‘anti-hi-viz’, but does not believe the evidence justifies their inclusion in the Highway Code. All this does is give drivers’ insurers a spurious basis for making financial and legal threats in an attempt to deprive injured cyclists or their bereaved families of compensation, a cause of immense distress to people who have already suffered the trauma of very serious or fatal injuries.

I am not sure about joining issues or their statement will be fully considered.

[Pete Owens]

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.

But why would you be riding on the pavement on a residential street?

[Steady rider]

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.93628 ... 6656?hl=en
The development is along a rural road with a 60 mph limit and some cyclists prefer to ride on a path alongside. It is actually on part of the coast to coast cycle route. I would most likely use the road but others would use a path. The google earth pictures do not yet show the developments.

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/departme ... 29?aff=es2
Department for Transport Cycle Safety Review: Four regional engagement even...

[mjr]

with supposedly 50% helmet wearing rate

Where's that from? I've only seen the Republic of Ireland manage that level without legal compulsion and then only briefly.

And in order to be serious campaigning for high standards we need to call for the removal of cycle farcilities that fail to meet those standards (ie pretty much all of them). So long as they can find cyclists supporting the c**p then they will continue to expect us to be grateful.

In order to be serious campaigners for high standards, we need to call for the rebuilding of cycle farcilities that fail to meet those standards (pretty much all of them in some districts) into ones that meet them. Calling for their removal is juvenile not serious - you don't find the motoring lobby calling for botched carriageway junction improvements to be removed rather than corrected!

[thirdcrank]

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

(My emphasis.)

A wise bit of anticipation but to little effect.

[Vorpal]

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.9362823,-0.786089,3a,75y,322.99h,106.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEvhfBnrfhXUg1kqUEF3F2Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
The development is along a rural road with a 60 mph limit and some cyclists prefer to ride on a path alongside. It is actually on part of the coast to coast cycle route. I would most likely use the road but others would use a path. The google earth pictures do not yet show the developments.

I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean this development http://www.yaphamroad.co.uk/about-the-scheme.html ??

That rural road is not suitable for residential drives to let out onto. The national speed limit needs to be moved out past any residential area.

If I were designing it, I would only put entry roads to the housing estate on the rural road, reduce the speed limit on approach to 30 mph, and make all of the roads inside the housing estate 20 mph & cycle friendly design.

A side path is okay on the main road (i.e. to get to & from Pocklington), but it needs to be well-designed with priority over driveways and side roads; not the typical pavement-conversion-shared-use thing. There does appear to be room for decent facilities, but what's there now doesn't qualify.

[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

(My emphasis.)

A wise bit of anticipation but to little effect.

Well, I didn't want the consultation to be missed. I hope that readers are going and looking at (or responding!) despite that the discussion has diverged soemwhat from that.

[Steady rider]

Vorpal wrote

If I were designing it, I would only put entry roads to the housing estate on the rural road, reduce the speed limit on approach to 30 mph, and make all of the roads inside the housing estate 20 mph & cycle friendly design.

A side path is okay on the main road (i.e. to get to & from Pocklington), but it needs to be well-designed with priority over driveways and side roads; not the typical pavement-conversion-shared-use thing. There does appear to be room for decent facilities, but what's there now doesn't qualify

This is what I think should have been provided but they have both access roads and houses facing the rural road. In this way you end up with the up and down pavement and side roads to cross.

Another development in the area is Saxon gate, this has two access roads without any individual properties directly onto the highway.
https://www.dwh.co.uk/new-homes/east-ri ... home-list/
The planning process could require developments to provide vehicular access to properties via entry roads.