- 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
Cheltenham New Flyer - tori and skardy 2Cyclists 46 times more likely to be killed or seriously injured than car drivers, according to Brake
New analysis by Brake, the road safety charity, released to coincide with Road Safety Week, shows that per mile travelled, cyclists are 46 times more likely to be killed or seriously injured (KSI) than car drivers.
According to Department for Transport figures, cyclists and motorcyclists account for nearly four in ten deaths and serious injuries on British roads.
Cyclists are 14 times more likely to be killed and 46 times more likely to be killed or seriously injured than car drivers, while motorcyclists are 55 times more likely to be killed, and 81 times more likely to be killed or seriously injured.
A survey of more than a thousand drivers, commissioned by Brake, found that the majority of drivers (52 per cent) feel cyclists and motorcyclists are most vulnerable on urban roads. However, two-thirds (301) of bike deaths (meaning both cyclists and motorcyclists) in 2017 took place on rural roads – the highest number for more than five years.
Joshua Harris, director of campaigns for Brake, said: “Every hour, a cyclist or motorcyclist is killed or seriously injured on a British road – each a tragedy that will devastate innumerable lives.
“Raising awareness about the safety of those on two wheels, who face much higher risk of death and serious injury than those in cars, is absolutely vital. We support the Government’s announcement of a review of the Highway Code to help keep cyclists safe and its stated focus on motorcyclists in the forthcoming road safety action plan.
“Rural roads, with their high speeds, blind bends and few cycle routes, pose particular danger to those on two wheels, with the risk of a fatal rural road bike crash now at its highest since 2010. The Government’s announced focus on rural road user safety is welcome and we encourage the consideration of rural road speed and bike-safe infrastructure, such as segregated cycle lanes, in its plans.”
Duncan Dollimore, head of campaigns at Cycling UK, added: “In recent years progress on road safety for the most vulnerable road users has stagnated, so we welcome Brake’s decision to focus on the safety of those on two wheels during Road Safety Week.
“But we need road safety to be a key priority for Governments across the UK every day of the year, not just in November, and would echo Brake’s call for consideration of rural speed limits and safer infrastructure for cyclists.”
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- chrisonabike 6 min 56 sec ago
Tier scooters - When visiting Keynsham I found several apparently dumped (not all at once - could have been the same ones? )...
- mdavidford 11 min 29 sec ago
The answer to this is to have no friends.
- mdavidford 17 min 31 sec ago
To be fair to Attenborough, he doesn't appear to actually have any involvement in or have offered any particular support for the campaign. A child...
- hawkinspeter 1 hour 32 min ago
What's that? A mobile home for squirrels?
- Backladder 2 hours 5 min ago
While original sash windows are nice they make it very hard to keep the house warm, we eventually went for upvc double glazed sash window...
- Andrewbanshee 3 hours 28 min ago
As you said the pedals will be hidden anyway. My shoes, 3 pairs of them, have reflective strips on the heel and my winter trousers do too on the...
- Steve K 3 hours 29 min ago
Other drivers only care about disabled people when it gives them a way to object to cycling infrastructure.
- mark1a 11 hours 32 min ago
I'll put you down as a no then.
- chrisonabike 16 hours 58 min ago
Well if you *can* interview the original riders at all surely they worked, at least?...
Add new comment
28 comments
I hope that no squirrels were harmed during the making of said Fight Club.
Unfortunately, they now use boxing gloves, so the chance of injury is much higher than when they bare-knuckle boxed.
KellyCol0409041396545783.jpg
Is that a rabbit punch?
You can clearly see that it's a squirrel punch.
"A survey of more than a thousand drivers, commissioned by Brake, found that the majority of drivers (52 per cent) feel cyclists and motorcyclists are most vulnerable on urban roads".
If this is nationally representative then there's about 18 million cars on the road in Britain being driven by people who don't think bikes are vulnerable. This explains a lot!
I'm not against anger at the matter in hand, don't get me wrong. However, it's anger at quite literally EVERYTHING on this board! Remember when he actually wanted to fight me when I disagreed with him on a subject? Pure lol-fest. I'm sure BTBS has some views worthy of debate but they're often lost in the diatribe that surrounds them.
We do. First rule is no one talks about it though.
Was late to my first Fight Club last night so missed the intro rules. Still, Fight Club was brilliant and I'd highly recommend Fight Club.
If BRAKE had their way we'd all be driving around at 10mph even on the motorway. Road safety isn't just about crawling about at flat cap and a Jazz speeds.
I always get the impressions these bodies are staffed with people who's main beef is that there are incompetent at said activity and so seek to bring it down to their level. They can't do 60 safely so you can't either.
Bit of a no **** Sherlock moment.
1. Cars are four wheeled and generally stable. Bikes are two wheeled and inheritently unstable.
2. Drivers are surrounded by safety cages and airbags. Cyclists have a bit of polystyrene on their heads.
Without wishing to start yet another helmet debate, no we don't. Well, not the ones who have read the research anyway.
Gotta correct you there.
Some cyclists do have a bit of polystyrene on their heads.
Some have read the research
These are 2 distinct groups, with some members in common.
Brake are annoying helmet-pushers. May not be _all_ they are, organisations, like people, can have many sides, but that's a strike against them.
Actually I'm not a huge fan of charities in general - loads of them are massively-flawed, many of them do more harm than good, and people often work for them for dodgy reasons (known many people who work for charities who were obnoxious, either motivated only by money or just enjoyed getting to boss the unfortunate supplicants around), yet they enjoy this undeserved reputation as being 'on the side of the angels' by definition.
Also I've been informed (by a Mr Rotten) that 'anger is an energy'. Apparently. So presumably it helps you cycle faster.
i - I've driven far more miles in a car than I've ridden on a bicycle.
ii- I have never been hit by another vehicle whilst cycling. I have been hit by other vehicles whilst driving my car.
iii - However, I've been injured several times whilst riding (or rather falling from) my bike, but I've never been injured whilst driving a car.
Was I acting unlawfully because I've never been hurt whilst driving a car?
BTBS? BacktoTheBullshit.
And you wonder why people think you're angry
Yyou and Dave think I'm angry at everything, just angry at organisations , government or police that endanger us through actions/inactions.
But then foil hat fools like you will never grasp such adult concepts..
No mate, you are just angry at everything full stop. Must be extremely tiring.
If you're not then you could do with some lessons in how to coherently get across your point.
Not just him and Dave. If you use angry language and invective, and abusive language, people reading it, in the absence of other clues are going to take you as being angry. And you invariably do.
Adult concept: being able to conceive and concede that someone can have a differing opinion to you, and still be
(i) a decent person and
(ii) just as right as you are.
BTBS's first post on here was railing against organisations and authorities that are coming up with figures as to the dangers of cycling, and then faffing around when it comes to resolving them.
If that doesn't make you angry, great. As someone who rides a lot on UK roads and likes getting home to his family, personally I'm pretty fucked off by it - occasionally I even swear about it on t'interweb.
His first post (here) wasn't aimed at any individual either. Unlike the response.
Nice of you to stick up for him Davel. The reference to angry was made after he had (in the same time period) been pouring invective at other commentors on other threads, as is his wont. His posts are invariably aggressive, and almost instantly regress into personal comments and invitations to "fuck off" as soon as questioned or challenged. His writing, taken as a complete unit, is that of an angry man.
Pretty much.
I get that, and I also get that it's a question of taste (some posters on here really seem to grind others' gears and don't particularly bother me).
But:
- I agree with anger about this topic. It's a shit situation.
- One of the digs at BTBS is for pulling a topic out of shape via personal attacks, but I reckon (bias alert) that more threads are now being pulled out of shape by ad-hom attacks as soon as BTBS posts something, which I find pretty boring.
Can we try to resolve stuff in-thread rather than crashing through others, Blazing Saddles-style, with personal digs?
So this tells us that the twats in motors are acting unlawfully, something we've know for a very long time, and still the focus is on new cycling laws not curbing the actions of those that kill and maim.
That said, just like RoSPA, BRAKE back helmet wearing as a major part of their solution when it comes to 'safety' which is a crock of shit, they actually hand out awards for those that design useless victim blaming 'safety aids' and as we've seen, don't mention anything with regards wearing helmets for children on foot or in motorvehicles who suffer far more when it comes to head injuries!
Why is that, why don't they actually look at the numbers regarding things like head injuries, why don't they make focused efforts in the area that has by far the greatest effect and not one that actually makes either zero difference at best or has a detrimental effect in many facets?
Why are Brake still using the debunked figures by Riveira & Thompson(s), why are they making pot luck guess at head injury rates (using words like 'suggest' and ignoring 160,000 hosptialisations of unhelmetted people and 1.3 million reported head inuries and focus on the 800-1200 serious head injuries of cyclists, most of which come from criminal actions of motorists? Why do Brake back a compulsary helmets for children under threat of punishment and a financial fine?
Basically, BRAKE are a load of shit who don't really do anything worthwhile for road safey and certainly not for cycling safety, just create more victim blaming and pushes the onus of safety onto the victims of crime whilst yet again making out that cycling is a ridiculously dangerous activity!
They can go fuck themselves!
Capture.JPG
Virtually meaningless statistic. If you hit a wall on a bike you are quite likely to suffer a worse outcome than if you are in a car. This doesn’t mean we should get rid of walls. Bikes are intrinsically less safe, so addressing specific places or behaviours that lead to bad outcomes is more useful. For example is one roundabout design safer than another for cyclists.
also, rural roads might be involved in more fatalities because they tend to be further from hospitals.
While it is true that cyclists are vulnerable on country roads, last time I checked, most of the motorcycle deaths on those roads were single vehicle accidents, no car involved, so it might be a bit misleading to lump them with cyclists.
I'm not sure about that statistic on motorcyclist deaths. Where did you get it from?
I do remember that 65% of motorcyclist crashes are not the fault of the rider. Other road users not looking properly is the single largest cause of motorcycle crashes.
I suppose speed is a major differentiator for cyclist vs motorcyclist deaths. I know that the risk factor for drivers and motorcyclists aged 17-24 is significantly higher than for older people.
In general, the UKs two lane country A roads have the highest risk factor for all road users.