Cycling UK Forum

I'm trying to find a reliable source of the number of pedestrians killed or seriously injured by cyclists riding on the footway. A comparison with the number KSI by motor vehicles on the footway would be useful too. I write a weekly cycling-related column for a local paper and I want to respond to claims from a noisy local anti-cyclist that 'cyclists kill more people than cars'.

I've searched the govt stats sites and can't find figures specific to footways. I do know that in Norfolk the figure for 2011 was nil and 24 respectively!

Any help would be welcome.

.

RRCGB 2012 numbers:

399 pedestrians hit by cycles
of which 2 were killed and 82 were seriously injured.

19,362 pedestrians hit by cars
of which 232 were killed and 4211 were seriously injured.
(This is anywhere on the road, including the carriageway and pavement.)
Source: RRCGB2012 table RAS 40004


Pedestrian casualties on footway or verge only, vehicle unspecified:
27 killed, 430 seriously injured, 2099 slightly injured.
Source: RRCGB2012 table RAS 30026


I don't have specific data on cyclist vs pedestrian on footways. But the above numbers show that motorists kill and injure far more people on just the footway than cyclists kill and injure anywhere.

In total, cyclists kill about 100 times as many pedestrians as motorists do, and seriously injure 50 times. [Oops -- see edit]

So we mustn't be complacent. If we say that one journey in 50 is by bike, then bikes seriously injure the same number of pedestrians per journey as motorists do.

And it is possible than for very minor (unreported) injuries, bikes are even worse.

EDIT: I can't believe I wrote that. What I meant was: In total, motorists kill about 100 times as many pedestrians as cyclists do, and seriously injure 50 times.

Those stats are pretty sobering.

If cyclists are responsible for broadly comparible KSIs per km travelled as are motors AND most of us are not capable of maintaining the speeds we are seeking to slow motors down to (thus cycle crashes are much less serious than motor crashes) - THEN it is likely that we are involved in very many more minor collisions causing slight injury to pedestrians per km travelled. It is also likely that many of these injuries go entirely unreported.

The stats are indeed sobering. Cyclists injure far fewer pedestrians, but only because far fewer journey are made by bike.

The stats ignore who was at fault. My closest encounters with pedestrians are with people stepping out into the road without looking. But an injury is an injury, whoever was at fault.

snibgo wrote:So we mustn't be complacent. If we say that one journey in 50 is by bike, then bikes seriously injure the same number of pedestrians per journey as motorists do.

There's a paper on the CTC website averaging the data over 10 years, which is sensible given the low numbers for cycle accidents, and compares the data per vehicle mile, which indicates motors about 30-50% more dangerous per mile.

But actually this similarity between the injury rates is not surprising, it is a common phenomenon called risk compensation. Basically because cars are so much more dangerous than bikes, peds take much more care to stay well away from them. Indeed peds are hardly to be found on motorways and other major roads where a lot of motor traffic occurs, so ped casualties are relatively rare on these roads. Essentially people compensate their behaviour roughly to get themselves to an acceptable level of risk.

iviehoff wrote:But actually this similarity between the injury rates is not surprising, it is a common phenomenon called risk compensation. Basically because cars are so much more dangerous than bikes, peds take much more care to stay well away from them. Indeed peds are hardly to be found on motorways and other major roads where a lot of motor traffic occurs, so ped casualties are relatively rare on these roads.

Conversely, many cycle facilities of the last 20 years are such awful designs that they almost cause ped-bike conflict leading to probable crashes and injuries if the route ever gets busy.

As an example, thinking about my off-road route to town (which I'm glad to have because riding on the single-carriageway A-roads at peak is even less fun, but you need to take more care on the cycle tracks than most people do), there are loads of unmarked pinch points where you can't pass oncoming people (one low black fence that juts out is a favourite pedal-catcher), there are narrow labelled-as-bike-only parts where people walk (because it's further from the dangerous noisy road than the footway), and at one point there's even a bus stop post installed slap bang in the middle of the cycle track when it could easily have gone at the edge. If you had unmarked pinch points on a road, pedestrians frequently walking on a motorway, or a bus stop in the middle of the traffic lane, Something Would Be Done very quickly indeed!

It's true that motorways, where cyclists and pedestrians are prohibited, skew the stats. But not by a large degree as motorways carry only 20% of Great Britain's motor vehicle traffic. (Source: Transport Statistics Great Britain 2011: Roads and Traffic Summary.) And pedestrians are still killed or injured there.

A similar statement might be made about rural A-roads or A-roads in general.

Table RAS30018 is interesting. It records the accident rate per billion vehicle miles:

29 pedestrians seriously injured per billion cycle miles.
19 pedestrians seriously injured per billion car miles.

Conclusion: cyclists are more likely than car drivers to injure pedestrians (per km).

On the other hand:

0.6 pedestrians killed per billion cycle miles.
1.1 pedestrians killed per billion car miles.

Conclusion: cyclists are less likely than car drivers to kill pedestrians (per km).

There's a big question of exposure as well. A much larger proportion of the annual cycling mileage will be on routes shared with pedestrians. Nevertheless, it does show people's complaints about cycling speed and cyclist attitude on shared use paths to be not as groundless as some would have us believe

mjr wrote:Conversely, many cycle facilities of the last 20 years are such awful designs that they almost cause ped-bike conflict leading to probable crashes and injuries if the route ever gets busy.

If we're going to use poor cycling infrastructure as the excuse for hitting peds then we might as well give motorists a free for all to hit us and let them continue to use poor road design, low setting sun and all the other cr*p they come out with as their excuse.
Everyone needs to slow down. Period.

...except a large number of these casualties have nothing to do with cyling infrastructure & are caused by people stepping into the road.

IrishBill76 wrote:If we're going to use poor cycling infrastructure as the excuse for hitting peds then we might as well give motorists a free for all to hit us and let them continue to use poor road design, low setting sun and all the other cr*p they come out with as their excuse.
Everyone needs to slow down. Period.

That's not at all the point that I was trying to make. I meant that roads are mainly designed in ways that discourage pedestrians (metal fences, marked crossing points and so on) whereas cycle tracks are often designed in ways that puts pedestrians and cycles in conflict (pinch points, crazy layouts and so on) so it's almost surprising that there aren't even more collisions.

And this is the second time in a day I've seen IrishBill76 suggesting people should go slower than necessary. If we're going to ride at walking pace, what's the point of riding? Just a glorified sit-on shopping trolley?

Same as driving a car. The speed you can drive down a road safely in the absence of others is not the same as the speed it's safe to pass a cyclist on the same road. Slow for pedestrians, pass slowly, speed up to a safe speed when the way is clear. It neither necessitates us travelling at walking pace all the time nor carrying on at our desired speed regardless

I think bicycler is making the same point from the other end: if they were safe, cycle tracks would not encourage pedestrians onto them so much.

mjr wrote:And this is the second time in a day I've seen IrishBill76 suggesting people should go slower than necessary. If we're going to ride at walking pace, what's the point of riding? Just a glorified sit-on shopping trolley?

I suggested nothing of the sort. What I said, was that people needed to slow down, not that we travel at a snails pace.
In the same way that we expect a driver to slow to a safe speed when negotiating a built up area, junction, pinch point or before an overtake to check its safe to do so, we as cyclists need to do the same on cycle ways and other designated routes where we come into contact with pedestrians. If you can't slow to a pace that gives you time to brake in a controlled manner and avoid collisions with or scaring pedestrians, then maybe you should indeed give up riding and take to walking. We get enough bad press as it is.
As for me suggesting 'twice' that we all go slower than necessary, when did that happen? If you're refering to the other thread regarding gearing, I only said that I thought high gearing on a touring bike was a stupid idea given the weight these things carry, the terrain they might encounter and the fact that I believe most people who go on a tour, are not doing so in a rush and don't need gearing that allows speeds of 40mph+.
Apologies to the op for taking the thread off topic.