Cyclist collision database could save lives & reduce injuries, says medical charity - but it needs funding

It is a good idea, especially if it helps lower the rate of injuries and deaths.

Came across an interesting visual from Cycle Claims yesterday giving some pretty shocking stats on cycling accidents from last year.

Link is here if you're interested...

http://visual.ly/cycling-accident-uk-facts-figures

sounds like a great idea, keep up the good work

A V Lowe, in relation to the Police officer, was he / she part of the investigation team or an officer that was called to give evidence at the coroners ?

It makes a big difference as, for example the Criminal Justice Act, has 339 sections and 38 schedules with a total of 1,169 paragraphs - do you expect every Police officer to know every aspect of just this one law never mind the thousands of other laws that are currently in force ?

If they were part of the investigation team then i admit its not very good but after 27years in the job i've never heard of a class 6 mirror either.

In the end it does not matter what people say or do about collecting data its the numpties who drive and cycle dangerously that are the problem and to be honest the database will be a complete waste of time.

WHILST most Law Enforcement Personnel take the attitude

“you cyclists take your lives into your own hands”.

NO amount of Stats will change this WOEFUL ATTITUDE !

This story says it ALL , wherever YOU Cycle in the World , comment posted in :

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Vision-ZERO-Worldwide/540123632761709

" ANIMAL by the name of Axel Inostroza ( 27yo drunk?) with a COWARD PASS , worse than that , he carried the LIVING VICTIM out of the Car and tossed him into the scrub near his house and left Craig Camlin to Die :

http://www.wsvn.com/story/24666967/family-of-cyclist-left-for-dead-speak...

Camlin, who does not have insurance, has nearly a $1 million hospital bill and his family is reaching out to the public for help. "There's a wonderful organization, helphopelive.org, which is a non-profit organization that just helps patients and families," said his sister.

For those who want to help, they can visit the following website:

www.helphopelive.org.

WHY does Craig's Family have to PAY for the actions of an UNFEELING ANIMAL who deserves LIFE without payroll ?
Photos can be found on the link !

We might ask TfL if they are actually delivering on their statutory duty (RTA 1988 s.39) by investigating road crashes, and taking action to prevent repeat events from the same causes.

Given the 3 deaths in 2 years from essentially the same causes at Bow, and 2 deaths in 5 years at Vernon Place/Southampton Row also through same causes, there would appear to be a clear case that they are failing to comply with the law. Not that most other roads authorities deliver this either. Some, along with their local Police forces fail to deliver crash reporting for STATS 19 data as laid out in the STATS 20 instruction manual - often ignoring cyclist single vehicle crashes.

On the rail network it is unusual to actually have a passenger killed in any one year, and every serious incident is investigated with a PUBLISHED report from an independent investigating body, which makes recommendations to prevent a repeat event. All we have of toad is a rather weak Prevention of Future Deaths report that the coroner can issue, but no great pressure to act timeously to eliminate the hazards, or control the level of risk.

Publication of the reports might also show the lack of competence of some of the investigators and evidence collection that informs them. At a recent inquest the Police officer reporting on the fatal crash was asked why no Class 6 mirror (required by law) was visible in the photographs of the truck "What is a Class 6 mirror?" was his response.

With this and other examples of Police ignorance of key legal details relating to safety and cycling, a publication of the Police reports might see a tightening up on competence of investigators, and the data on which they can draw.

So a couple of local challenges to those reading this far. First ask your local roads authority what Section 39 reports have been completed per RTA 1988 over the past 10 years, and whether they might publish these on their website. Second why not check on recent STATS 19 reports and see how this aligns with known cycle crashes, and if known, A&E attendance by cyclists.

In general terms more data is better than less but what are they going to do with it ?
A 10 second google comes up with this http://www.cycleinjury.co.uk/map
Lots of data but not much use if no one acts on it.
The trouble is no one is accountable and until this changes nothing else will follow. Take an example, the coroner in the recent superhighway death inquests has been highly critical of them. Can anyone tell me if anyone has been held to account ? I am not aware of anyone getting so much as a reprimand for pissing millions of taxpayers money up the wall on some blue paint.
Another example, I have contacted TfL several times about one particular junction highlighting the dangers in its current structure and I have received acknowledgement of them - nothing has changed and there have been several more accidents there - anyone at TfL accountable ? They can't say they weren't aware....

Every time there is any sort of injury accident, the police close the road for hours while they "conduct their investigation and collect evidence".

How difficult would it be to have a checklist of the required data identified above? It could be an A4 sheet of paper (ideally an app on a tablet) and would cost almost nothing.

What exactly are the doing if they can't even record such basic information?

And let's be honest - plenty of cyclists are injured due to no one else's fault, so any accident/injury data is already skewed

ChairRDRF wrote:

However, this is looking at types of injury AFTER COLLISIONS - it is not looking at the source of danger. As a number of commenters have said, it doesn't look at the near hits, the places where there is excessive danger (e.g. large gyratories) where there are few collisions because potential cyclists are put off from cycling there. Nor does it look at danger which is a problem for cyclists but which may be manifested in injured pedestrians.

In Portland we have an online form where we can contact the city's department of transportation with concerns we have about specific intersections/traffic areas. There's an intersection near my house where there are stops signs for the north/south street while the east/west street has none. Drivers (and bicyclists) often go straight through the intersection going N/S without stopping to see if there's E/W traffic including pedestrians going E/W or they assume it's a 4-way stop and E/W has stop signs too. I've seen many near misses and nearly been struck while crossing E/W. I filled out the online form recommending that they put up a sign below the stop signs stating "Cross Traffic Does Not Stop." Someone from the city came out and physically looked at the intersection as well as looked up accident accounts for that intersection (this would only be ones that were either called in to police or car insurance companies). They didn't place the sign but they did at least cut back the greenery around the stop signs to make them more visible and sent me a detailed email response that the sign was unnecessary as they were few accidents logged there. True or false, the more data/reports they get filed about the intersection, the more likely they will be to act upon it if only for litigation/liability concerns. Does London DfT have something similar for people to report near misses which could help them keep track of how hairy some traffic areas are? In the same vein, the Barts' biking app could act in the same manner, logging info about near misses at the same spots where they have trauma patients thus increasing the level of need for intervention at that traffic spot.

its additional data but there could be some danger that it could mean that the road authorities would use the data to deny cycle friendly road improvements as not being warranted by the accident data - this is what used to (and to some extent still does) happen with low ksi data being used to maintain high speed limits on main roads in urban environments - ignoring the fact that injury rates will be low when people's perception of a road is such that it is too dangerous to cross/the footway too narrow to walk with more than one child/ the lanes too narrow to safely cycle - so it is safe in terms of accident data but dislocates local communities and maintains the car as the favoured means of transport and contributes nothing to developing an environment in which walking or cycling are the norm for short journeys

used to live in Sheffield and now in Melbourne Aus and in both these cities active cyclist groups regularly input to road authorities on local blackspots and more importantly opportunities to change infrastructure to encourage more cycle use

problem isn't lack of data its lack of political will

As a long term researcher and transport professional I generally welcome new data.

However, this is looking at types of injury AFTER COLLISIONS - it is not looking at the source of danger. As a number of commenters have said, it doesn't look at the near hits, the places where there is excessive danger (e.g. large gyratories) where there are few collisions because potential cyclists are put off from cycling there. Nor does it look at danger which is a problem for cyclists but which may be manifested in injured pedestrians.

I wrote at length about this in the transport professionals fortnightly Local Transport Today recently here: http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/11/15/if-we-want-safer-roads-for-cycling-we-have...

I do hope that funding is achieved for this database because, if the wearing of hi-viz clothing is indeed to be recorded, it might help people to understand that the wearing of dark clothing places cyclists at considerably greater risk when riding in urban environments.

There are already websites out there listing KSI incidents. Instead of a brand new website duplicating data and then adding a few bells & whistles why doesn't Bart's and London Charity look to collaborating with one of these?

Also. Why cycling specific? Why not include pedestrians as their injuries are often similar if not identical? Is it a money thing? Is it because cycling in London is 'dangerous' and walking in London is so 'safe'? And yes I'm being facetious!

More data is a good idea.

Perhaps every new bike sold should come with a 'How to stay safe' guide for cyclists that concentrates on collision avoidance rather than pretending a helmet makes a big difference.

Anyway, I fully support the collection of crash data, I think having read a lot of statistics and reports on the subject has affected my riding style.

I had a close call this afternoon... a lorry (HGV) overtook me and came back into the lane while his rear wheels were still alongside me... I had to hit my brakes hard to avoid being knocked off... bet that won't feature in the stats because I was awake enough to take avoiding action...