Government to crack down on “reckless” riders with causing death by dangerous cycling law

I think these come from here

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-...

2020 4, 346  (cyclist, all)

2019 4, 470

2018 1, 456

2017 3, 470

2016 3, 448

2015 2, 408

2014 5, 446

2013 6, 398

Do cyclists and peds have more interactions?

Thank you!  I'd seen a version of that but not this one.  An excellent read.  Particularly good on tackling the appropriate use of rate calculations, the importance of remembering absolute numbers also and the fallacy of "since lots of pedestrians and cyclists are dying active travel modal shift is a bad idea for safety".  Also a good note on details of the data e.g. noting pedestrian falls and things like e-scooters aren't (identifiably) recorded.

I am a little surprised by the numbers for cyclist - pedestrian fatalities.  However the actual numbers are very small, there are over twice as many "other" pedestrian deaths and also there was only 1 motor scooter incident - might have expected more?  In addition no "pedestrian-pedestrian" fatalities (jogger runs into child / vulnerable adult) or pedestrian-cyclist ones.  So I suspect there may be some issues with "coding" of the data and also maybe a "rare event" effect (maybe next year there were none).

However the UK's two choices of prioritising space for driving (leading to a dearth of pedestrian infrastructure or "subjectively safe" space) AND the more recent tendency to "create" cycling infrastructure through declaring the same space to be cycling space almost certainly increases the risk of collisions.  It'd be interesting to know where these collisions occurred e.g. junctions?  If so, road crossings or e.g. pavement / cycle track ones?

I was also very suprised by the data, which show that per billion miles travelled motorists only KSI slightly more pedestrians than cyclists do. That does need to be borne against many (most?) of car miles being driven on roads/motorways that avoid any sort of pedestrian interaction, whereas those cyclist miles are almost entirely in the same areas or riding immediately parallel to pedestrian areas.

Road traffic statistics

TRA0102

2020 Major Roads

Mway 52.7 Bn vehicle miles

A rural 76.6 Bn

A urban 38.8 Bn

Minor

rural 43.7 Bn

urban 68.7 Bn

Cycles TRA0402

Major

Rural A

Mways 2 deliveroo riders doing about 10km

Trunk 0.01 Bn

Principal 0.02 Bn

Urban A

Trunk 0.0 Bn

Principal 0.55 Bn

Minor

rutal 1.51 Bn

Urban 2.75 Bn

So, if I've interpreted this correctly...

Motorists complete: 68.7 + 38.8 = 107.5bn urban miles.
Cyclists complete: 2.75 + 0.55 = 3.3bn urban miles.

Assuming other vehicles make negligible contributions that gives us an urban modal share of:

3.3/(107.5+3.3) x100 = 3%

Still less than half the RLJ KSI % figures from 2015/16.

It's going to be more complex as there will be segregation of peds and motors on some roads or hardly any peds at all. Where peds are segrated by infrastructure, they are more likely to have a shared path with cyclists.

But these specific statistics relate to RLJing.

Unlikely to happen on a shared path and unlikely to be affected by segregation as this would be the point that the segregated paths actually cross.

I was replying to David W's question.

Anyway you need the relevant roads that peds use as the denominator not all roads that I used to reply to David W.

I don't think that information is available though.

Using all urban roads as a proxy isn't ideal but it's probably the closest we can get.

Rich_cb wrote:

So, if I've interpreted this correctly... Motorists complete: 68.7 + 38.8 = 107.5bn urban miles. Cyclists complete: 2.75 + 0.55 = 3.3bn urban miles. Assuming other vehicles make negligible contributions that gives us an urban modal share of: 3.3/(107.5+3.3) x100 = 3% Still less than half the RLJ KSI % figures from 2015/16.

Quoting percentages like that makes it look terrible, doesn't it? Why not quote the actual numbers, which are 0 pedestrian deaths and 7 pedestrians seriously injured across 2015 and 2016 (see screenshot below) by RLJ cyclists, so an average of 3.5 serious injuries per year (it's worth noting here that the government definition of a serious injury in an RTA can be as minor as a fractured finger). Thus a pedestrian is seriously injured by a red light jumping cyclist once in every 942,857,142 miles cycled. That's nearly a billion miles cycled for each serious (with the previous caveat about definition of serious) injury. It is a vanishingly small problem.

(for the avoidance of any doubt I abhor red light jumping and never do it myself)

The RLJ KSI figure is even lower per mile for motorists.

The only reason the raw numbers are low for cyclists is because we constitute such a low percentage of road users.

When you consider the relative masses involved a cyclist colliding with a pedestrian is far less likely to cause an injury than a motorist so the actual collision numbers are likely even more skewed towards cyclists.

We shouldn't therefore be surprised that RLJing cyclists are so often cited by pedestrians as a major concern.

I also abhor RLJing hence my keenness to correctly measure its effects.

Rich_cb wrote:

The RLJ KSI figure is even lower per mile for motorists.

It is slightly lower, but when you're talking about the difference between about one KSI every 1.1 billion miles or every .95 billion miles, it's fairly academic. In both cases it's a very small number, but I can't recall anyone ever ranting and raving in the national press or elsewhere about the terrible danger posed by red light jumping motorists, can you? 

Rich_cb wrote:

The only reason the raw numbers are low for cyclists is because we constitute such a low percentage of road users.

You've lost me there, are you suggesting that if cyclist numbers increase then the KSI numbers would increase exponentially? One would presume that if cycling numbers doubled, RLJ KSIs involving cyclists would also double, no?

Rich_cb wrote:

We shouldn't therefore be surprised that RLJing cyclists are so often cited by pedestrians as a major concern.

Well I am quite surprised, to be honest, because it's quite clear from the figures that the concern is far greater than the actual reality. Any time you see a discussion on social media or a newspaper website about cycling, literally hundreds of people will be telling their stories of how their friend/granny/child was seriously injured by a RLJ cyclist and yet as we can see from the official figures, a tiny handful of people are actually seriously injured each year, an average of 3.5 per annum in the years we are looking at, and that is using a definition of seriously injured which includes any minor fracture, any cut that requires stitches, etc. I abhor RLJ because it's plain bad manners, it frightens people, it gives cyclists a bad reputation and I won't do anything that might injure a pedestrian, however low the risk, but the figures do show with that the public perception of cyclist RLJ and the actual risk are very far apart.

Rendel Harris wrote:

One would presume that if cycling numbers doubled, RLJ KSIs involving cyclists would also double, no?

Personally, I'd expect it to grow slower than that, as pedestrians adapt their behaviour to the increased number of cycles - much the same way that many people already work on the assumption that drivers are quite likely to ignore the signals, and so won't step into the road until they've confirmed to a good degree of certainty that they are actually stopping.

In any case, I'd say that 7 cases across two years is pretty much useless as a basis for saying anything meaningful - too much potential for distortion by statistical noise.

mdavidford wrote:

Personally, I'd expect it to grow slower than that, as pedestrians adapt their behaviour to the increased number of cycles - much the same way that many people already work on the assumption that drivers are quite likely to ignore the signals, and so won't step into the road until they've confirmed to a good degree of certainty that they are actually stopping.

Something in that I would say, yes, although in my experience the problem with red light jumping cyclists is not the ones who just run a red that has just changed as cars do; as you say, regrettably, pedestrians have got pretty used to having to wait five seconds or more after the red to ensure that no car is going to drive through. The ones who really cause fear are the idiots who come shooting up the inside once all the cars have stopped and the pedestrians have started to cross and zoom through the gaps. I generally try to prevent this when I can by blocking the channel when I get to the front of the queue, it's surprising how often one will get abuse for that!

Yes if cycling numbers doubled, you would expect, all else being equal, that KSIs related to cycling would double.

The disconcerting part is that if cycling replaced driving entirely and cyclists continued to behave exactly as they do now then the number of pedestrian KSIs due to RLJ would increase. When you consider that cyclists make up 25% of traffic at certain times of the day in London it's not surprising that there are also a lot of pedestrians with negative experiences. Given the London-centric nature of the media, it's not surprising such voices get amplified.

As I explained in my previous post, collisions with pedestrians by RLJing cyclists are likely far higher than the injury statistics as the relative low weight and speed of cyclists almost certainly produce fewer injuries per collision than other vehicles.

I'm sure there is an element of exaggeration etc but I do genuinely think that RLJing by cyclists is a real concern for pedestrians.

Rich_cb wrote:

Yes if cycling numbers doubled, you would expect, all else being equal, that KSIs related to cycling would double. The disconcerting part is that if cycling replaced driving entirely and cyclists continued to behave exactly as they do now then the number of pedestrian KSIs due to RLJ would increase.

"If" and "all things being equal" almost certainly do not apply here.  That is because without some changes which will affect everything else I think it's extremely unlikely we will see a step change in the number of cyclists *.  On the other side flip side we can look at the countries with the safest pedestrian figures in Europe.  The top one (by some distance) also appears to be one well-known for lots of cycling.  Those above the UK are also ones that have moved further in the direction of proper active travel infrastructure than the UK.  I believe the UK has achieved a lot of its "safety" by excluding people from spaces (by design or simply because of traffic volumes) or otherwise reducing pedestrian travel.

* If it were possible to get more cyclists without "changing the landscape" I'd expect the UK would already have done it.  After all our governments have been talking about "prioritising active travel" (or whatever phrase was current) for decades.  So it seems that it takes more than tinkering, exhortation and wishes.  Basically massive changes to infra which is very likely to change the impact (no pun intended) of cycling on pedestrians.

I could see the kind of change you envisage if there was a step change in the ability to drive.  Or something leading to a drastic reduction in traffic volume.  But even then most people are wary of cycling with *fast* traffic.  Maybe if there was a sudden extremely drastic economic shift (far more than currently) or we had another Covid-style lockdown (but more severe)?  I guess if the tube network closed for a month or so in London that might do it.  But that would also change the driving!

Rich_cb wrote:

do genuinely think that RLJing by cyclists is a real concern for pedestrians.

I would agree it is a real concern for some.  However cycling safety is a real concern for most people.  So much so that they don't cycle at all.  Or only under very limited circumstances.  Yet cycling is a very safe activity.

Equally I suspect most people outside this forum would give wildly inaccurate assessments for the KSIs from cycling.  So the "concern" doesn't have much to do with the numbers.

I'd guess this is "subjective safety" and the "startle" effect.  That's my own anecdata.  Bicycles are fairly rare most places, they're very quiet, even when observed people misjudge their speed.  Bikes "appear from nowhere" (even when I've been ringing a bell sometimes)...  They appear where people on foot aren't expecting them (e.g. they've relaxed), they appear suddenly.  They may be closer than cars - we've learned to give cars a wide berth.

This is not pleasant.  I notice I don't enjoy walking along a moderately busy cycling route myself.  (It's much better in the very few which aren't "shared space" though).  Pedestrians are keen to find spaces where they can relax - away from the noise and threat of vehicles.  As are cyclists.  But we gave the lion's share to motoring.

In one sense surprising but it's comparing apples and tennis balls.  Lots of circumstances differ - the infrastructure, regulation, who's riding and why etc.  On the last I suspect people spending much time on bikes in the UK - never mind those colliding with pedestrians - are a statistically different demographic than drivers. For one I suspect that they're more likely to be male and younger.  Sorry, no actual data to hand to back that up!

Since I'm speculating already - the main culprit is the UK's forcing pedestrians and cyclists effectively to compete for rather limited space.  Add to that deliberate mixing of pedestrians and cyclists and some bad design.

Cyclists are still uncommon in most places so pedestrians aren't expecting them.  Where people feel safe to walk (and indeed people feel safe to cycle) they may be more likely to be relaxed / distracted.  So they may be looking at phones, in conversation, wearing headphones etc.  Bikes are pretty quiet and I think pedestrians rely on hearing for cues about the environment to a degree we maybe don't acknowledge enough.

After that?  The "rare and unusual" effect may mean that the perception of cyclists as impatient / risk-taking / anti-social or criminal / bad youth may have some truth, right now in the UK.  I'd actually suggest that's a positive - think what damage they could do in vans / cars / scrambler bikes...

chrisonatrike wrote:

I suspect people spending much time on bikes in the UK - never mind those colliding with pedestrians - are a statistically different demographic than drivers. For one I suspect that they're more likely to be male and younger. Sorry, no actual data to hand to back that up!

<

My statistically insignificant experience of three years C2W in central London was two scenarios; weak and fearful cyclists who didn't want to stop due to the effort/risk of starting again, or fit anti-social cyclists who thought they would escape responsibility. The latter usually profane when called out. Complete lack of care for the cyclists correctly stopped in the ASL, too, which made me quite angry.

I'm with you - fix it so people have less incentive to jump red lights!  For motorists deterring this via much more consistent enforcement would probably be the way.  Enforcement for motorists would be certainly easier to implement than for cyclists.  At least until we bring in compulsory branding / tagging and registration!  For cyclists (as has been explored before on road.cc) there are some different motivations for jumping lights.  That suggests lower-cost solutions of which there are several (many on display at bicycledutch's channel / the Ranty Highwayman etc).  Examples - proper protected cycle tracks at junctions, roundabouts (not cargo cult designs), all-ways green cycle signals, grade separation at large junctions...

Bonus - found this 5 minute view of a busy Dutch roundabout.  Chaos, I tell you.  A lorry is help up for almost 2 minutes!  Impossible...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR5l48_h5Eo

Mungecrundle wrote:

I am actually pretty shocked that 1 in 100 pedestrian deaths involves a cyclist. I guess that this may be down to a number of factors but mostly around infrastructure decisions that force people walking and people riding bicycles into the same space. Regardless, it cannot be a bad thing if there is a better understanding that cycling in proximity with pedestrians needs to be done with utmost care.

The report makes no finding of responsibility in those collisions, so it would be unwise to assume that the cyclist is always at fault.  Having been knocked off three times by pedestrians, all of which were their fault, it seems likely to me that the pedestrians are just as much, if not more, responsible for these collisions.

Which isn't an acceptance that mixed spaces are a good idea, I am opposed to them.

I bet none of those pedestrians were wearing helmets either. And probably wearing black.

Time to bring in a new "dangerous walking" law? 

Sriracha wrote:

I had an eye opening experience journeying along motorways on the upper deck of a double-decker coach. One gets a privileged view into the cabs of HGVs. I genuinely was shocked at seeing HGV drivers happily texting on their mobiles. Obviously this is far from uncommon, but I guess few voters (and even fewer police?) see this happening around them.

A young friend of mine had a summer vacation cleaning job in an HGV depot last year, apparently it was common chat amongst the drivers as to which movies or box sets to watch on their iPads to while away the long hours on the road. Purely anecdotal I know, but on the rare occasions I'm in a car on the motorway there seem to be an awful lot of HGV drivers who aren't fixed on looking ahead.

earlier this year the local police borrowed a HGV cab for 5 days, and drove up and down the A14,A12 and A11 specifically to get that elevated view into other HGV cabs.

In total they stopped 123 HGVs, 86 smaller goods vehicles and recorded 339 separate offences. 46% of the drivers stopped were not wearing a seatbelt and 22% were using a mobile phone.

How many pedestrians were seriously injured by cyclists running red lights though?

I seem to remember from a previous thread that the number was worryingly high, and actually higher than cyclists' modal share of traffic.

Rich_cb wrote:

How many pedestrians were seriously injured by cyclists running red lights though? I seem to remember from a previous thread that the number was worryingly high, and actually higher than cyclists' modal share of traffic.

According to The Little Onion's post it was one death (don't know about serious injury, though):

The Little Onion wrote:

Also, can Mr Shapps tell us how many pedestrians are killed each decade by cyclists who go through red lights? Hint - there is only one on record! (Ermir Loka, who killed Peter McCombie). Was jailed for 2 years.