12 year olds

[Mike Sales]

While I sympathise and I sort of feel the same way myself, is that not largely because when we were that young we felt immortal and invincible?

I think traffic density has a huge impact on safe roads feel, and that has increased hugely since then. I'm sure that I felt safer when I was invincible, though

How my parents felt about my safety on the road was crucial at that age, not my feelings of invincibilty. They, like other parents, did not seem to worry overmuch. At least they did not try to restrict my cycling.
I remember being scared when I was in the middle of the road, about to turn right, when a driver overtook and brushed my front wheel.

Edited to make it clear that I am talking about the early sixties when I was ten to twelve years old.
In 1960 6970 people died on the roads. In 2016 the figure was 1792.
In 1962 my parents let me ride 4 miles to school on an A class road, and through town to the school.

[GarethF]

I thought of a question that I'd like to ask more or less any motorist. I think most average 12 year olds would be able to answer it too. So if you're ready, here it is....

How difficult is it to drive a car along a road without a)colliding with anything (moving or stationary) or b)endangering another by your actions in some other way?

To me it doesn't seem difficult at all, and those who find it so should really consider whether they merit the privilege of their driving license. I've reached the point where I much prefer riding after dark because the roads are quieter and here in Durham I have yet to see any sign of the police making any use of the close pass mats which were so kindly presented to them by CUK, are forces elsewhere in the country doing any better?

[The utility cyclist]

While I sympathise and I sort of feel the same way myself, is that not largely because when we were that young we felt immortal and invincible?

I think traffic density has a huge impact on safe roads feel, and that has increased hugely since then. I'm sure that I felt safer when I was invincible, though

How my parents felt about my safety on the road was crucial at that age, not my feelings of invincibilty. They, like other parents, did not seem to worry overmuch. At least they did not try to restrict my cycling.
I remember being scared when I was in the middle of the road, about to turn right, when a driver overtook and brushed my front wheel.

Edited to make it clear that I am talking about the early sixties when I was ten to twelve years old.
In 1960 6970 people died on the roads. In 2016 the figure was 1792.
In 1962 my parents let me ride 4 miles to school on an A class road, and through town to the school.

What is the kill ratio for people on bikes from back then to now? When you look at peak cycling it dwarfs what we have now, even when I was starting to get into cycling on the roads in the mid 80s it was still massively popular in my home city for commuting, 22% when the national average was 7%, now only circa 1%!
I too felt a lot safer as a mid teen cycling on the roads and like many others cycled on major trunk roads without any problem, when I first started commuting I was 17, 4.5 miles from home through the heart of a major industrial area to the city centre with lots of HGVs at peak time and still today I feel far less safe with far fewer larger vehicles to contend with, I do the same route from my folks on when I visit and 30+ years later it feels horrible.
Despite the numbers of deaths coming down substantially I don't feel this is on any way related to driving standard or courtesy, a combination of improvements in medical treatment at the scene and afterwards plus obvious improvements in the last 20-25 years of cars, plus indeed the lower levels of cycling as a % traffic, it certainly isn't a function of how the roads are policed nor the judicial system.

[Mike Sales]

What is the kill ratio for people on bikes from back then to now? When you look at peak cycling it dwarfs what we have now, even when I was starting to get into cycling on the roads in the mid 80s it was still massively popular in my home city for commuting, 22% when the national average was 7%, now only circa 1%!
I too felt a lot safer as a mid teen cycling on the roads and like many others cycled on major trunk roads without any problem, when I first started commuting I was 17, 4.5 miles from home through the heart of a major industrial area to the city centre with lots of HGVs at peak time and still today I feel far less safe with far fewer larger vehicles to contend with, I do the same route from my folks on when I visit and 30+ years later it feels horrible.
Despite the numbers of deaths coming down substantially I don't feel this is on any way related to driving standard or courtesy, a combination of improvements in medical treatment at the scene and afterwards plus obvious improvements in the last 20-25 years of cars, plus indeed the lower levels of cycling as a % traffic, it certainly isn't a function of how the roads are policed nor the judicial system.

And yet the government, and others, tells us that the roads are getting safer and safer, and justify this with the dwindling number of deaths on the road.
There seems to be a gulf between this claim and people's feelings about cycling on the roads. If the roads really are safer, how come so many people feel less safe, cyclists and non-cyclists alike?
This paradox needs resolving.
My feeling is that the roads designed for stress free, rapid motoring make cycling more difficult to do safely. High speed roundabouts and slip roads for instance, push cyclists into manoeuvres not in the H.C., unless they are skilled, fast and on full red alert.
We are being designed off the road.
Motorists are led to drive in a fashion which works well amongst other motor traffic. They can move swiftly, with the vehicles around them behaving in a familiar, understood pattern, a pattern in accord with the characteristics of motor vehicles.
We are grit in this smooth functioning mill. We necessarily move differently, and unpredictably. They often resent having to drive differently around us, and see the tactics we use as deviant. We feel this, we feel that we are trying to adapt to a road environment which does not really have a place for us. This does not feel very secure.
I still use the Cycling Proficiency techniques I was taught in primary school, or rather I use techniques developed from them, and from the belief I was taught, that those techniques gave me a place on the road and should keep me safe.

[The utility cyclist]

ALL motors can accelerate much faster, they can go round bends like they were on rails, even 'small' cars, the suspension allows them to go over kerbs and road cushions like they aren't there, driving is too easy and 50mph feels like 30mph due to such.
It's all so messed up and government do nothing, quite the opposite, and still you have ministers saying it's not safety that's keeping people from cycling, yet it's pretty much the main reason, particularly women.
The intimidation/fear factor is off the scale.

[pwa]

Against all this I have to say that my own experience has been one of improving conditions on the road over the last twenty five years. It feels to me that the proportion of drivers who give me enough room when they pass has increased over that period. I feel more secure on the road than I did in the early 1990s. And I also feel less like an endangered species. There are far more cyclists on our local roads than there were in the early 90s. Seeing a cyclist feels more normal. Being a cyclist feels more normal.

[Vorpal]

And yet the government, and others, tells us that the roads are getting safer and safer, and justify this with the dwindling number of deaths on the road.
There seems to be a gulf between this claim and people's feelings about cycling on the roads. If the roads really are safer, how come so many people feel less safe, cyclists and non-cyclists alike?
This paradox needs resolving.
My feeling is that the roads designed for stress free, rapid motoring make cycling more difficult to do safely. High speed roundabouts and slip roads for instance, push cyclists into manoeuvres not in the H.C., unless they are skilled, fast and on full red alert.
We are being designed off the road.

The government measure safety by the number of deaths on the roads. Nothing more than that. They don't include the number of deaths due to inactivity, pollution, etc. I think the comparison would look rather different if they did.

Yes, road design makes a big difference. And the road design today is intended to make things safer for motorists (not necessarily other users). Highways engineers use simulation software to minimise the number of crashes. The most common type of crash is a shunt, so if they can keep motor vehicles moving along at mostly the same speed, job done

But traffic density also makes a big difference. This can be observed practically anywhere by going from town roads to a busy B road to a quiet rural lane. Almost all of my near misses have been on roads in towns. The lower speeds may mean that a crash is less likely to result in serious injury or death, but traffic density makes conflict much more likely.

The UK has very high traffic density. People on here often report good experiences with cycling in other countries. IMO, that is mostly down to differences in traffic density. Not only does one encounter more cars, but if the proportion of idiots is similar, one encounters more idiots :p

1966 was in the middle of one of the worst periods in UK history for road traffic deaths. But perceived safety is important, and traffic density has a big impact on that.

This shows us that prior to mass car ownership, death rates of cyclists were similar to today. Assuming that records were reasonably accurate, given the improvements in rescue and medical care, it seems there were many fewer crashes (involving cyclists). The increase into the 70s reflects the increase in car ownership. The following decrease is a combination of improved safety and a steep decline in the numbers of cyclists.

from http://researchbriefings.files.parliame ... N06224.pdf