- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Brake logoSafety fears deter kids and teens from cycling, survey finds
Concerns about the danger from traffic are often cited as the reason adults are reluctant to cycle. Road safety charity Brake says that safety concerns deter children and teenagers from cycling too — and their parents from letting them.
Brake surveyed 1,301 11-17 year olds in secondary schools and colleges across the UK, finding almost half (47%) said parental worries were preventing them from starting cycling or cycling more.
Brake also found:
- Two in five (38%) 11-17 year olds cite a lack of safe routes as a barrier to cycling
- Four in ten (41%) think traffic in their area is too fast for the safety of people on foot and bike
- Nearly four in ten (37%) think their area needs more pavements, paths and cycle paths
In 2013, 186 12-15 year olds were killed or seriously injured while cycling. Brake says that parents' and children's "concerns are understandable and must be addressed".
Brake is calling on the Government to ensure that the cycling and walking investment provision of the Infrastructure Bill is implemented. The charity says that a long term commitment to investing in more segregated routes to improve the safety – and perceived safety – of walking and cycling is critical.
Julie Townsend, deputy chief executive, Brake, said: “All parents want their children to be healthy and happy, and many would love to see them walking and cycling more to achieve that.
"Young people want this too: it’s crucial to their health, wellbeing, and social and economic lives that they can get around easily and cheaply. That so many teenagers are being held back from walking and cycling by safety fears, in spite of its great benefits, is a shocking indictment of our road infrastructure.
"With the car as king in transport planning, walkers and cyclists have been for too long treated as second-class citizens. The safety of people on foot and bike is hugely important, as is enabling more people to make sustainable, active travel choices without fear of traffic danger.
"It is vital that the government builds this into long term transport planning, through the Infrastructure Bill, investment in safe walking and cycling routes, and making 20mph limits the norm in towns, cities and villages.”
Cycling Minister Robert Goodwill told the BBC his department's "record £374m investment in cycling will help keep young cyclists safe".
He said: "By March 2015, 1.6m children will have received cycle training through the Bikeability scheme.
"We have also made it easier for local authorities to introduce 20mph zones which are designed to help increase safety as cycling becomes an increasingly popular transport option in Britain."
John has been writing about bikes and cycling for over 30 years since discovering that people were mug enough to pay him for it rather than expecting him to do an honest day's work.
He was heavily involved in the mountain bike boom of the late 1980s as a racer, team manager and race promoter, and that led to writing for Mountain Biking UK magazine shortly after its inception. He got the gig by phoning up the editor and telling him the magazine was rubbish and he could do better. Rather than telling him to get lost, MBUK editor Tym Manley called John’s bluff and the rest is history.
Since then he has worked on MTB Pro magazine and was editor of Maximum Mountain Bike and Australian Mountain Bike magazines, before switching to the web in 2000 to work for CyclingNews.com. Along with road.cc founder Tony Farrelly, John was on the launch team for BikeRadar.com and subsequently became editor in chief of Future Publishing’s group of cycling magazines and websites, including Cycling Plus, MBUK, What Mountain Bike and Procycling.
John has also written for Cyclist magazine, edited the BikeMagic website and was founding editor of TotalWomensCycling.com before handing over to someone far more representative of the site's main audience.
He joined road.cc in 2013. He lives in Cambridge where the lack of hills is more than made up for by the headwinds.
Latest Comments
- ktache 2 hours 24 min ago
Did house prices not rise as quicky?...
- ktache 2 hours 27 min ago
That looks wonderful. What the residents seem to want is longer dropped kerbs so the radius of turn can be larger, so they can drive it faster. Why...
- ktache 2 hours 35 min ago
I watched that video too, not as intriguing as the lever.
- mattsccm 5 hours 39 min ago
I have to assume that the cyclist wasn't thick enough to just change lanes without looking. Not a small puddle so I guess that they saw it and...
- Simon E 6 hours 33 min ago
Being a titchy lightweight I find the minimum pressures shown on bike tyres are considerably higher than I would use....
- Simon E 6 hours 47 min ago
Bruyneel saying publicly that Boonen "should shut up" is all you need to know about both Bruyneel and the doping regime at his team. Dirty in both...
- Barraob1 6 hours 59 min ago
I like it because it's a bit different, but it's way out of my price range. Wonder if it will take off, or will we be talking about in 15 years...
- kingleo 7 hours 8 min ago
Cyclists used the roads before cars - it was cyclists who petitioned the government to put a hard surface on our roads.
- wtjs 7 hours 4 min ago
I had a brief moment of déjà vu about established reds...
- hawkinspeter 12 hours 7 min ago
Who the fuck's that?
Add new comment
43 comments
You're *NOT ALLOWED* to use fact on this kind of discussion.
it is about perception back in the 80's you did not have the web and sites like this detailing every accident, every sad death. In that way lots of informatios becomes too much information and some are scared off by it.
It is like screaming there is a child abducter outside every school when the most damage to kids comes from the child's own family.
However when someone comments he is 40 and travelled for 25 years and still scared that is not the reality just a perception. I have never been scared on a bike but lets face if you do lots of miles not he roads you have to be an aggressive rider. I wonder if the contributor was scared does he still hug the kerb ?
No I don't hug the kerb. Riding in primary may make you a bit safer, which is why I do it, but the consequence is quite often a revving, beeping car behind you that gives you a punishment pass as soon as they can get by. Still doesn't feel that safe to me.
Ride on a national speed limit road and tell me it's safe when someone goes past you at 80mph at the distance of a yard or so. Ride around London and tell me it's safe when you have a tipper truck overtake you, or come up behind when you're waiting at the lights. It's not safe for me, and it's certainly not safe for kids.
What's the equivalent of Godwin's Law for an absolutely imbecilic analogy?
Leicester has two universities, which means that at key times of the day, there are packs of students travelling down main roads. Aside from providing 'safety in numbers' this forces motorists to change their behaviour and consciously look out for the next cyclist to whizz by. Achieving this sort of critical mass changes everything, and aside from the dedicated infrastructure, is a key reason imo for cities like Copenhagen and Amsterdam being able to bring about change.
Some of the contributors to this thread seem to believe that the number of dead road users is the complete and only valid measure of risk on the road.
By this measure the most dangerous animal in Australia is the horse. In the land of crocodiles (fresh and salt water), funnel web spiders, venomous jellyfish, lethal cone shells, various snakes which can kill, and the koala, which has poison on spurs, the creature which kills most people is the horse!
Whether these contributors like it not, a much higher proportion of parents (and people generally) think the roads are too dangerous for their children than did in past decades. They can tell me I was much more at risk cycling to school in the sixties in my early teens than my nephews are today, but I cannot accept this. My parents were not callous fools and it is quite insulting to tell today's parents that they are deluded, that the roads are much safer than they were, and getting safer.
The reason that fewer cyclists are killed on the road is precisely this belief that the roads are more dangerous. There are fewer cyclists out there to kill, fewer of them use main roads and more of them take more and more care.
Sorry but that is a ridiculous analogy. If people regularly rode crocodiles or funnel-web spiders then more people would be killed by them. You're not comparing like with like.
The comparison between deaths on the road today and in the past is valid. I cycled 10m a day to school in the early 70's and never felt unsafe, although I think our perception/acceptance of risk today is much lower. The only 'close thing' I remember was a couple of door-zone incidents.
I actually re-rode my old school route a couple of months ago ... for the first time since 1977 (nowadays I live 200 miles away from where I went to school). I was actually quite surprised how much safer it had become. Road junctions had been improved, there were painted cycle lanes on some roads, there were far fewer car parking spaces allowed on main roads, corner shops that used to be busy had either closed down or become different businesses with much less traffic, etc, etc. Most importantly of all was an entirely new off-road route through a country park (in the 70's the area had been overgrown wasteland) which eliminated the need to cycle on the busiest main road (it also made the journey shorter too).
I don't just 'think' the roads are safer for cycling now than they were in the 70's ... I know it. I'm not at all surprised that the statistics completely validate my own experiences.
My saltwater crocodiles were not used as an analogy. My point is that we take more care with things that are more dangerous and so keep the risk down to acceptable limits. As you go on to write, this is why horses kill more than crocs. It is also why traffic decades ago killed more than today. Modern traffic is not inherently safer, far from it. It is the reaction of vulnerable road users which keeps the death rate low in spite of the increased danger.
This seems such an obvious point that I hesitated before restating it.
What I am objecting to is the use of a falling cyclist death rate as evidence the roads are getting safer. This is indeed analagous to saying that the horse riding/ croc riding death rate proves that crocs are safer. This is evidently nonsense. You go on to explain why crocs kill fewer, which seems to show you go some distance towards understanding my point.
You may "know" that the roads are in reality safer. I "know" they are not. The decreasing number of parents prepared to allow their children to ride along trunk roads to school at the age of eleven shows that my estimate of the danger is the more widely shared.
Me too - on my old school commute in the 70s there was a busy and dangerous road to cross. The reason I knew it was dangerous was because there would be around one child/year knocked down and seriously injured or killed. This continued through my secondary schooling. There was another route into school crossing another dangerous road, which used to see around 1-2 children killed or seriously injured/year. Both routes have been vastly improved. There are proper crossings now for both routes to school which there weren't then, while some of the rat-runs used by motorists down back streets are no longer through routes. And the casualty rate? I checked, and it's now zero for both.
I wish everyone would remove their rose tinted eyewear, parents especially.
Instead of schools having "contracts" for people who cycle to school with ridiculous clauses about helmets etc, what is needed are permits for driving children to school with codes of conduct. Only allow people with permits to drop the children off.
Any inconsiderate driving or parking has the permit revoked.
There are issues with the way some people drive, which often scares the life out me with 30+ years cycling. People drive too quickly, are far too impatient and have a must get in front attitude.
Oh, and yes although fewer road deaths, most of the people saved are car passengers. Roads are getting more dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists.
Although there are fewer drink drivers caught, I suspect a decent minority are over the limit still when driving on a morning and though the day. It's only by the grace of god that they don;t hit anyone, and that's before we mention the phone users
Nice idea but-
Those who cycle tend to bring the bikes onto school property and are pupils or staff so the school has some sway on how they act. Sadly they seem to always pick compulsory helmets.
Those who drop off don't enter school premises, they are usually on the public highway. Hence it's difficult to try to enforce anything in relation to drivers near the school.
Actually not that difficult. You create 20 zones or no stopping zones outside schools. You make it an offence to pass a school bus that is decanting children. The States have these policies in place so why can't we do likewise. I do agree with you that it is sad that a school insists on you wearing a helmet to travel to school by bike even though it isn't a legal requirement to wear one. Mind you, if I was at school today I would carry the helmet on the bars and plonk it on as I approach the school gates. It's called playing the system
Why should they have sway. Are they as zealous with the cars in the car park? Are they on the case of the dangerous antcis of some parents dropping their kids off at the gate? Riding on school property? Fine that's their business. Like my school back in the 60s and 70s inside the gate was their business outside it was not.
I was caught riding inside the gate once and the deputy head banned me from cycling to school for a month. Wasn't going to happen. My mum didn't have a car and we weren't on a bus route so it was a 5 mile walk. So I rode my bike but locked it up to a lamppost outside the gate. The deputy head went ballistic, sent me in to the headmaster (that usually meant an award for something or the cane) but I argued that I hadn't brought my bike into school. And to my surprise he agreed. As long as I left it outside the gate it was none of their business how I got to school.
Now if only more public servants were more like Mr Barton and exercised proper control over what they are supposed to control, and concerned themselves less with trying to control things that are none of their business we'd be better off.
I think blanket comments about roads being safe or unsafe are a bit wide of the mark. I have been cycling on roads with my kids since they were about 5. You have to pick and choose suitable roads and times of the day, and keep a close eye on them.
On the other hand, Brake are (typically for them) way over the top. There is absolutely no reason why a teenager can't be safe on the roads. By creating a climate of fear you just put people off and they never bother to learn how to ride in traffic. Considerate, aware cyclists become considerate, aware drivers too so it is in no-one's interest to portray roads as a battle ground.
Really? I don't feel safe on the roads: I'm nearly 40, and I've been cycling almost every day on the roads for the last 25 years. Not sure how a teenager is going to fare any better.
At 40, I feel utterly safe on the roads, but I would be nervous about my kids riding on them without the experience that I have.
The fact that you have cycled every day for 25 years and are still alive demonstrates that you are safe on the road.
If you FEEL unsafe that just speaks about your perception of the risk, rather than the actual risk.
But that feeling unsafe is exactly what stops people even trying.
But that feeling unsafe is exactly what stops people even trying.
Can I hold a knife to your throat? I've been holding a knife to my throat every day for 25 years and I'm still alive. I might kill you, but it'll probably be ok unless I make a tiny mistake.
If you feel that the cycling is similar to being threatened by a knife then I suggest you stop cycling as you evidently have no sense of proportion.
That is one of the most laughably stupid sentences I have ever heard. Good effort.
Every day for 25 years = over 9000 times.
If I did something 9000 times without incident I would view that as pretty safe.
Perhaps you could expand why you would do something that you feel is unsafe more than 9000 times? I'd be a nervous wreck in your shoes.
1. You cannot infer anything from the experience of one person about the probablility of being killed in general whilst cycling. Just because one person has survived something does not make it safe, nor has any noticeable effect on the overall probability except a tiny proportion of the exposure to the risk.
2. Just because I'm not dead doesn't mean that there have not been incidents nor near death experiences; nor does it mean that I don't know people who've been killed or injured cycling.
3. Someone was killed on a bike a few streets away from me last week.
People aren't put off cycling by what Brake (or anyone else) says - they can see for themselves that the environment is not pleasant for riding. No amount of telling them to 'take the lane - it'll be fine' is going to make that feel like something they might enjoy doing. Build high quality infrastructure that EVERYONE can use without fear and people will cycle. Continue to suggest they ride with the traffic and people won't.
Are people being put off cycling? The last Sport England survey I can find showed an annual increase in cycling participation by over 16s of 4.6% from 2012-13 to over 2 million people taking part once a week, making it the third most popular sport after athletics and swimming.
Perhaps it depends where you live? I wouldn't fancy cycling around the centre of a large city due to traffic and fumes, but then again I live in the Pennines and lots of people around here are put off cycling because it is very hilly.
Exactly my point - and I live and cycle in London by the way. My wife and kids are also regular cyclists. When we go somewhere a short distance away, we usually go by bike rather than bothering with the car.
If I had kids of Primary school age, I wouldn't want them cycling solo around the streets of North London.
I live on a quiet, leafy, residential, parked cars both sides, speed bumps and people are doing 40+ down it. It's disgusting.
Even taking cycling out of the equation, it's mental. It's worse for that sort of thing in this country than any western euro country I've been to.
Even the mums who have just dropped their kids off at the primary school on the road are accelerating between the speed bumps..
Gut-feel says that roads are now more dangerous from a cyclists perspective... safety improvements aside, it's the increase in traffic volumes and the speed/acceleration of modern cars that lifts the risks. Not to mention that drivers now tend to have less cycle experience in their past - they're being driven around when they're kids, they rarely cycle, so they're less aware of the danger they pose to cyclists when they do start to drive their own cars.
From a parents perspective, we all know that kids initially lack the experience of being on the road to protect themselves as well as (most) grown-ups, but that's all part of the learning and maturing process. This combined with a less understanding driver is a lethal combination... a car accelerating too fast and not indicating for a turn, plus a child who assumes that the car is going straight on can only end one way.
If you look at the fatality statistics for the 1970s and 1980s you seen realise your gut feeling is far wide of the mark. Yes there is a lot of aggression amongst motorists now. But in reality, the fatality rate/year for cyclists is a fraction of what it was. It's probably about 1/6th of what it was at its peak in the early 70s.
The real issue is one of perceived risk against actual risk, and I'm as guilty of that as a parent as anyone else. But unlike those parents ferrying their overweight kids a distance of 1km to school in a 4x4, I'm also aware of the real risk factors. The 1970s were a terrible time to be a child, with mortality rates far higher than now.
Yes, we should as parents be concerned for the well being of our children, and yes as cyclsits we should be looking for continued improvements in cycle safety and provision. But please do not be fooled into looking back at the past with rose tinted eyewear, because the reality then was that things were far, far worse than today.
Pages