How many cyclists are killed each year?

[Steady rider]

https://fullfact.org/health/cyclist-deaths/

not sure if covered previously?

[The utility cyclist]

More bothered about the factually incorrect line "Very few pedestrian fatalities involve cyclists. Of the 448 pedestrians killed by a vehicle in 2016, three were caused by bicycles".
For one it's not the bicycle doing the killing, it's the person, but importantly going by the governments own report in March 2018 into new laws to demonise cyclists with it clearly stated albeit in a footnote, that only 4 deaths in the previous 6 years were attributed to at fault cyclists, fewer than at fault pedestrians. so far including 2019 that makes it 4 in 7.5 years.

And again"In 2016, 108 pedestrians were seriously injured by a bicycle", again, statement that is actually false, this distorts the truth in terms of who is at fault when a pedestrian gets hurt, there's no mention of at fault pedestrians when a cyclist gets hurt, why not?

[MikeF]

More bothered about the factually incorrect line "Very few pedestrian fatalities involve cyclists. Of the 448 pedestrians killed by a vehicle in 2016, three were caused by bicycles".
For one it's not the bicycle doing the killing, it's the person, but importantly going by the governments own report in March 2018 into new laws to demonise cyclists with it clearly stated albeit in a footnote, that only 4 deaths in the previous 6 years were attributed to at fault cyclists, fewer than at fault pedestrians. so far including 2019 that makes it 4 in 7.5 years.

And again"In 2016, 108 pedestrians were seriously injured by a bicycle", again, statement that is actually false, this distorts the truth in terms of who is at fault when a pedestrian gets hurt, there's no mention of at fault pedestrians when a cyclist gets hurt, why not?

Where does it mention "faults"?

[hemo]

One already this year in London.

[The utility cyclist]

More bothered about the factually incorrect line "Very few pedestrian fatalities involve cyclists. Of the 448 pedestrians killed by a vehicle in 2016, three were caused by bicycles".
For one it's not the bicycle doing the killing, it's the person, but importantly going by the governments own report in March 2018 into new laws to demonise cyclists with it clearly stated albeit in a footnote, that only 4 deaths in the previous 6 years were attributed to at fault cyclists, fewer than at fault pedestrians. so far including 2019 that makes it 4 in 7.5 years.

And again"In 2016, 108 pedestrians were seriously injured by a bicycle", again, statement that is actually false, this distorts the truth in terms of who is at fault when a pedestrian gets hurt, there's no mention of at fault pedestrians when a cyclist gets hurt, why not?

Where does it mention "faults"?

It states that three edestrians were killed by bicycle, that implies the cycle or as I pointed out the cyclist killed the pedestrian, this is false. A pedestrian killed themselves by stepping into the path of a person on a bike, this was determined by the police and the justice system, the cyclist nor the bike killed them except on 4 occasions over the period I mentioned, we know that 3 pedestrians were not killed by cyclists in 2016, so the statement is factually incorrect.

[visionset]

And again"In 2016, 108 pedestrians were seriously injured by a bicycle", again, statement that is actually false, this distorts the truth in terms of who is at fault when a pedestrian gets hurt, there's no mention of at fault pedestrians when a cyclist gets hurt, why not?

Where does it mention "faults"?

You tread a dangerous line when you want to blame pedestrians. We should definitely give a lot of leeway to the folk engaging in slower more vulnerable forms of transport. It amazes me how many cyclists don't take this view. If you weave around a pothole, or child wobbles in the road, you expect a driver to make the necessary allowances to avoid hitting them! Same applies to pedestrians, yet more so.
You really should be able to wander about more or less with your head in the clouds, it is the nature of the mode. They might even be walking as they feel too infirm for other modes. I regularly suffer from decrepit drivers, but I wouldn't want to have the same effect on that same person walking.
It just isn't the same. Look after the lesser mode! All cyclists should be championing this philosophy!

I think that is why the stats are reported in such away

[mattsccm]

To say that we should not demonise the vulnerable is not always safe. They are often to blame. I can't remember my source, on line somewhere , but it stated that way over 90% of all car/pedestrian deaths were the results of pedestrian errors. To my mind that means that we can't lay the blame at the feet of the driver. A silly side effect of this is making cars less likely to hurt a pedestrian. Its not the drivers fault and thus they shouldn't be penalised. That doesn't apply to cyclists as even a shunt by a feather pillow will knock them off.
Of course it may be said that the above shouldn't apply but it equally isn't safe to always sides with the injured party.

[PH]

It states that three edestrians were killed by bicycle, that implies the cycle or as I pointed out the cyclist killed the pedestrian,

It doesn't imply that to me, it just states the fact. I don't know what other language you'd use, what would you do if you read that someone had been killed by a falling tree
https://metro.co.uk/2019/11/24/tributes ... -11211943/
or killed by lightening
https://www.itv.com/news/2019-10-01/run ... 50km-race/

I don't think you'd say that implies anything about the tree or lightening.

[mattheus]

I also think that pedestrians are NOT universally more vulnerable than riders.

Even assuming a healthy adult cyclist, a ped could easily cause a painful/serious accident for the rider, just through bad luck.

There are then a host of variations possible - imagine teenagers running thru a park, and an old lady riding at 6mph, watching the birds and bees …. CRASH!!!

(If you start to include possible malicious intent then the odds change quite rapidly ... )

[[XAP]Bob]

To say that we should not demonise the vulnerable is not always safe. They are often to blame. I can't remember my source, on line somewhere , but it stated that way over 90% of all car/pedestrian deaths were the results of pedestrian errors. To my mind that means that we can't lay the blame at the feet of the driver. A silly side effect of this is making cars less likely to hurt a pedestrian. Its not the drivers fault and thus they shouldn't be penalised. That doesn't apply to cyclists as even a shunt by a feather pillow will knock them off.
Of course it may be said that the above shouldn't apply but it equally isn't safe to always sides with the injured party.

Erm - since when were pedestrians licensed and controlled. Pedestrian errors do not cause death, driver errors do... That includes failing to make sure that the space in front of you is going to remain clear.


We should, as motorists or cyclists, expect pedestrians to make moves which only pedestrians can make. When I pass by pedestrians who are on the pavement I will "overtake" the space next to them, or if that isn't possible I'll have lifted off and have my foot over the brake. This means I am very fractionally slower to get to the next traffic light, and so I spend less time waiting at them.

[MikeF]

And again"In 2016, 108 pedestrians were seriously injured by a bicycle", again, statement that is actually false, this distorts the truth in terms of who is at fault when a pedestrian gets hurt, there's no mention of at fault pedestrians when a cyclist gets hurt, why not?

Where does it mention "faults"?

You tread a dangerous line when you want to blame pedestrians. We should definitely give a lot of leeway to the folk engaging in slower more vulnerable forms of transport. It amazes me how many cyclists don't take this view. If you weave around a pothole, or child wobbles in the road, you expect a driver to make the necessary allowances to avoid hitting them! Same applies to pedestrians, yet more so.
You really should be able to wander about more or less with your head in the clouds, it is the nature of the mode. They might even be walking as they feel too infirm for other modes. I regularly suffer from decrepit drivers, but I wouldn't want to have the same effect on that same person walking.
It just isn't the same. Look after the lesser mode! All cyclists should be championing this philosophy!

I think that is why the stats are reported in such away

I wasn't blaming anyone. I merely asked a question. I think your reply should be for The utility cyclist.

[Pete Owens]

And again"In 2016, 108 pedestrians were seriously injured by a bicycle", again, statement that is actually false, this distorts the truth in terms of who is at fault when a pedestrian gets hurt, there's no mention of at fault pedestrians when a cyclist gets hurt, why not?

Where does it mention "faults"?

You tread a dangerous line when you want to blame pedestrians. We should definitely give a lot of leeway to the folk engaging in slower more vulnerable forms of transport. It amazes me how many cyclists don't take this view. If you weave around a pothole, or child wobbles in the road, you expect a driver to make the necessary allowances to avoid hitting them! Same applies to pedestrians, yet more so.
You really should be able to wander about more or less with your head in the clouds, it is the nature of the mode. They might even be walking as they feel too infirm for other modes. I regularly suffer from decrepit drivers, but I wouldn't want to have the same effect on that same person walking.
It just isn't the same. Look after the lesser mode! All cyclists should be championing this philosophy!

I think that is why the stats are reported in such away

^^^ THIS ^^^

The late unlamented Paul Smith used to argue that there was no need for speed limits since virtually all pedestrian vs motor vehicle deaths were the fault of the pedestrians for no looking. It is dispiriting to see the same victim blaming attitudes being expressed by cyclists.

[Icsunonove]

Given the physics involved I would imagine it is quite possible for a cyclist to be killed if in collision with a pedestrian*. In such a case, for the purposes of such a report, the cyclist's death will have been caused by a pedestrian.
This brings to mind the report in one of our esteemed newspapers which stated that in the Netherlands bicycles were the "cause" of more deaths than cars. This was based on the fact that cyclist deaths now outnumbered drivers.
You need to be very careful with the use of language.

(I do hope that this post can in no way can be interpreted as victim blaming)

*Self preservation is a very good reason to always pass pedestrians with utmost caution!

[cotswolds]

Given the physics involved I would imagine it is quite possible for a cyclist to be killed if in collision with a pedestrian*. In such a case, for the purposes of such a report, the cyclist's death will have been caused by a pedestrian.

An example here: https://road.cc/content/news/228969-reading-cyclist-died-after-pedestrian-stepped-out-front-him-finds-inquest. Note the date, a few weeks after the Charlie Alliston incident, yet I don't think it got any national press coverage at that time.

I have read that (slightly) more cyclists are "killed" by pedestrians than vice versa, it just gets very little coverage.

[The utility cyclist]

It states that three edestrians were killed by bicycle, that implies the cycle or as I pointed out the cyclist killed the pedestrian,

It doesn't imply that to me, it just states the fact. I don't know what other language you'd use, what would you do if you read that someone had been killed by a falling tree
https://metro.co.uk/2019/11/24/tributes ... -11211943/
or killed by lightening
https://www.itv.com/news/2019-10-01/run ... 50km-race/

I don't think you'd say that implies anything about the tree or lightening.

The way it is described it clearly infers that the cyclists killed the pedestrians, three in one year, this is false. Not all the cyclists for 2016, by legal and lawful definition were not the killers of a pedestrian.

I would use, three pedestrians died when there was a collision (note not when they collided WITH as per the usual media BS) involving a person on a cycle, STATS 19 attributes fault to xx and xx in these collisions.

That makes it absolutely clear who is at fault, without which the higher number can be used against cyclists and actually misrepresents how little harm people who ride bikes do within our society, even compared to pedestrians who are legally found to be at fault for their deaths with people on bikes 50% more.
It is a fact as defined by the document compiled for the government by someone who had an agenda against cycling/cyclists and tried to hide the actual figures in the smallest font.