Cyclist deaths up by 20%


Re:Cyclist deaths up by 20%

Postby CJ » 14 Sep 2005, 3:31pm

Getting back to the topic: I clearly recall a spate of anti-cyclist articles last year by the usual motoring journalist suspects.

Some of the things these people write do more than verge upon incitement to hatred and violence. Substitute "muslim" for "cyclist" and I reckon we'd have grounds for prosection! At the very least they give comfort to those who like to play fast and loose with our safety. It's impossible to prove, but I reckon they have our blood on their hands.

Increased levels of cycling don't explain the increase in fatalities, since in places where cycling has shown a dramatic increase, such as London, there has actually been a reduction due to the "safety in numbers" effect. And that increase is very patchy, with large increases in those places partly offset by a small decline elsewhere. The feeling on the streets is that in places where cyclists are a tiny threatened minority, we have become more acutely threatened.


Re:Cyclist deaths up by 20%

Postby B » 14 Sep 2005, 4:04pm

I'd be interested to know what the definition of an 'anti-cycling' article is. I know that a lot of spleen has been vented at Jeremy Clarkson for his 'killing cyclists' article in 'The Sun' a couple of months ago and would agree this fits the definition.

However I am not sure that a report on a rise in cycling deaths or (as recently) the report on increased health dangers if cycling close to diesel emissions are 'anti-cycling' any more than reports of a motorway pile-up or the dangers of of sedentary lifestyle are 'anti-car'. I'd like to read what the 'anti-cycling' lobby is saying though so please highlight an article next time one appears!


Re:Cyclist deaths up by 20%

Postby gar » 15 Sep 2005, 8:45am

Is gar serious about not using 'A' roads? This would mean I could not cycle to my local town, even the longer 'small roads' route involves two limited stretches on the 'A' road.

Furthermore more deaths on 'A' roads wouldn't necessarily mean they were more dangerous if more miles were clocked up on them. It is often quoted that motorways are the safest roads in Britain in terms of miles travelled per person injured killed.

B's first comment is the kind I am looking for.
Is there really NO other way of getting to his local town without going on the "A" road?

M ways would probably not be as safe if Cyclists were allowed to use them! Or would they be safer for cyclists than "A" roads?

Don't get me wrong.... with the surface of the Motorways and levels I would be able to get to London (120mls) in about 6 hours ON MY BIKE, but without any cars on it!

Baffles me why the Chinese don't build the Mways but stick to cycling!


Re:Cyclist deaths up by 20%

Postby somersetbiker » 18 Sep 2005, 7:34pm

Depends what you mean by "A" road. The only way in and out of the road in which I live is onto an "A" road. It's an ordinary single carriageway road with houses down each side. If you mean "Trunk Roads", then you *might* have a point.


Re:Cyclist deaths up by 20%

Postby gar » 19 Sep 2005, 7:00am

I am not quite sure what the difference is between the two "trunk" road and "A" road for the moment.
"Trunk" ..long distance?
"A"... busy main?


Re:Cyclist deaths up by 20%

Postby bovlomov » 28 Sep 2005, 6:57pm

Hello. I'm new to this forum....and..

...Blimey! How are we supposed to keep off the 'A'roads? It seems that much cycling policy, including by local authorities, and even Sustrans, is geared towards 'leisure' cycling; i.e pootling about during the hols etc.

It is not much use for those of us who actually want to go somewhere. We don't want to end up like, for instance, Hungary, where cycling is forbidden on most of the direct roads.

'A' roads are usually more direct, less hilly, and better surfaced than minor roads. I feel safer on them, not least because the car drivers behave in a more logical way. I prefer to have cars whizzing past at 60mph in one direction than contend with opening doors, potholes, reversing cars etc.


Re:Cyclist deaths up by 20%

Postby gar » 28 Sep 2005, 7:27pm

If you mean "Trunk Roads", then you *might* have a point. somersetbiker. thank you for clarifying I think I probably do.

bovlomov; I may be the only one saying keep off "A" roads for the sake of cycling safety stats.

How would one keep Andy Tallis off the Trunk roads which seem to be his speciality?
If he has 3 close calls in 3,000 miles as reported in another thread...... that is one hell of a lot.

This year I shall have done about 2000 on my recumbent..... no close calls and the last close one five years ago from a lorry on a road I did NOT want to be on, in Costa Spain. That is one too many!


Re:Cyclist deaths up by 20%

Postby bovlomov » 29 Sep 2005, 12:41am

Spain? They are terrible drivers. The worst in Europe, I think. The funny thing is that cycle helmets are compulsory there. Did you notice whether it was ever enforced?

Here's a thing! There's carnage on the Spanish roads every week. They drive like maniacs about three inches from the car in front (especially in the rain), and overtake on mountain bends, as all the roadside memorials indicate. Drinking and driving is acceptable and speed regulations are only for those with foreign numberplates, or hirecar plates. Yet, their government thinks that making cycle helmets mandatory is an effective safety measure.

I suppose that doing anything worthwhile wouldn't be politically popular. Sorry, it's a bit off topic.


Re:Cyclist deaths up by 20%

Postby gar » 29 Sep 2005, 6:43am

Spanish road system was suddenly pulled into the 20thC kicking and screaming and the bite marks show; chunks of road to link up old and new just missing, not there.

Andy Tallis

Re:Cyclist deaths up by 20%

Postby Andy Tallis » 3 Oct 2005, 8:46am

OK, so I have had problems on A roads. However, that's the same as on any roads, whether in a car or on a bicycle. It's due to idiots with b*llocs for brains and not the nature of the road. Note that I've also reported zero falls or injuries on A roads or B roads. In fewewr miles on a traffic free cycle track I came off about twice every 1500 miles, if not more. Why? Because I was only a kid and my riding skills and equipment weren't as good, but also because I was beaten up, pushed off, threatened and had things thrown at me by Yobs, and because certain parts had disproportionately slippy surfaces when wet. Oh yes, and it was never gritted when icy, and my school insisted I wore my cumbersome blazer etc to ride in, and the track wasn't even com,plete-deteriorating into a muddy path at the end, and my parents wouldn't give me adequate lights to ride at night. I think I'll stay on the roads, whichever ones I like, for now.


Re:Cyclist deaths up by 20%

Postby belgiangoth » 21 Oct 2005, 3:19pm

It would be interesting to also have a sub statistic, how many of the cyclists killed were cycling at night without proper lights?

Even defining proper lights as any front and real light combination, how many cycling deaths would that leave us with?