Number of cyclists killed on British roads up 40% in 2020

I think they come out later, theres an update in September as some of these figures are currently only estimated.

I do think without understanding the context of each fatality its very difficult to have any conclusion that says what the causes for the rise were.

Cycling UK would do better IMO to try and present the picture differently, yes fatalities have gone up, which is obviously bad, but we dont know why that is yet, and overall injuries are down, whilst the numbers of people cycling and miles theyve covered went up greatly.

Because I guarantee the message youll read loud and clear in the MSM presentation of this is, cycling is dangerous & that more cyclists died because our roads are dangerous to ride on, which will obviously undermine any chance those first time cyclists on the roads last year will carry on cycling again, if it was that dangerous when the roads were quiet, what chance do they have now the roads are arguably busier than normal.

Thanks, will keep an eye out for them. My gut feeling is that we'll see a rise in single bicycle accidents but will have to wait and see what the facts are.

I agree that risk is poorly reported by the press in general. You see the same thing in health stories about 'doubling risk of x' with no context of the actual baseline rate of x.

Rich_cb wrote:

Thanks, will keep an eye out for them. My gut feeling is that we'll see a rise in single bicycle accidents but will have to wait and see what the facts are.

Single vehicle cycle incidents very rarely result in death, so it is unlikely that the increase in cyclist deaths is due to them.  Almost all cyclist deaths are due to collision with a motor vehicle.

Depending on the reporting period, there could be the odd one or two on Sportives or on serious declines like Hardknott.  Then there was the one reported last year where the very experienced cyclist apparently threw himself off the road for not apparrent reason in front of the transit van that had nothing to do with it, no sirree bob.

16% of cycling fatalities don't involve a motor vehicle.

Rich_cb wrote:

16% of cycling fatalities don't involve a motor vehicle.

...which suggests to me what our priority should be - if we want to do something about this! (And also if we want to tackle the 31,000 excess deaths from cardiac / circulatory issues related to obesity...)

But yes, it's interesting and we should find out more. We could do something about those 98 - when we've a moment when we're not addressing those other more significant issues.

Of course the normal way to fix this would be by reducing the number of cyclists on the roads. The best part is you don't need to do anything - indeed that's the way! Just encourage the drivers of cars. (You can even put in ASLs and other "optional cycling facilities"...) I would agree to the separation - for the high-speed roads and those with a high motor-vehicle numbers. And only if the cyclists have got a better space to travel through.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

I dont think

Enough said.

Unusually, you are partially correct.
More traffic does at least slow the loonies down.

I'm not sure I agree

In busy urban areas - more traffic results in more distraction, more passes and higher stress levels of drivers - all things likely to make things worse for cyclists

In quiet rural areas yes drivers will drive faster with fewer cars in their way to slow them down, but also with fewer cars o the road, a proper overtake is easier to achieve so there is no need for the squeeze past.

I think the increased risks from more traffic under these conditions outweighs the relatively rare occasion where someone drives round a blind bend to fast and hits a cyclist from behind.

Never mind the toal number of casualties - what is the rate per million miles cycled? has this gone up or down? we keep hearing that more cyclists are on the roads, is there a 40% uplift (seems unlikely)

Or is the rate 40% up on last year, but with last year being a relatively safe year? 

Eton Rifle wrote:

Unusually, you are partially correct. More traffic does at least slow the loonies down.

I'm with wycomewheeler on this one. More people driving simply means more people to hit things. Ergo more things hit. Distraction / cognitive overload dealing with all the other traffic will likely be a factor. Also even in heavy traffic the nature of motor vehicle movements is often being static, then being able to accellerate to enough speed to injure and kill before having to brake again (to join the next queue).

Yes, if everywhere was at inner city traffic density this might mean drivers hit things at a lower average speed. But hit things they will.

iandusud wrote:

"The number of cyclists killed on Great Britain’s roads rose by 40 per cent during 2020, according to figures released today by the Department for Transport (DfT). It attributes the rise to greater distances being cycled" 

Oh well that's all right then. For a moment I thought there was something to worry about 

Also "Cyclists were the only category of road user to see an increase in fatalities during 2020, which the DfT attributed to lower levels of motor traffic during lockdown." 

Surely if fewer cars are on the road and more cyclists, cycling ought to get safer, not more dangerous?  Unless those vehicles still on the road are being driven faster and more dangerously.

When lockdown hit and people were supposed to be driving for essential purposes only, all the selfish cunts who routinely speed and drive like arseholes just carried on as usual. Without the moderating influence of traffic congestion, they were even more of a pain in the arse.

In my experience, cycling during the first lockdown was an absolute joy with the vast majority of motorists driving slowly and giving plenty of room around me. Other cyclists and beginners I know had the same experience. I attribute this to the fear of having to justify their journey if anything happened. It was when the first lockdown easing up started that I noticed a huge reduction in driving standards around me. I put this down to still relatively empty roads and motorists able, and therefore feeling entitled, to drive faster than they could on the relatively congested roads that existed before lockdown. A cyclist would seriously impact on this new found freedom and were to be treated accordingly. The fear of having to justify their journey was gone.

There may have been a sense of getting their own back on the cyclists who had had it "their own way" during lockdown and could virtually carry on as normal with their cycling.

I fitted a camera and have not cycled without one since.

eburtthebike wrote:

Surely if fewer cars are on the road and more cyclists, cycling ought to get safer, not more dangerous?  Unless those vehicles still on the road are being driven faster and more dangerously.

You answered your own question in large part. It may also be that there were more inexperienced cyclists on the road. But there's not enough analysis of the data to draw very firm conclusions - beyond the tragedy behind each statistic.

eburtthebike wrote:

Surely if fewer cars are on the road and more cyclists, cycling ought to get safer, not more dangerous?  Unless those vehicles still on the road are being driven faster and more dangerously.

Supported by incident rates... Fewer injuries but more fatalities. So the incidents that did happen were more dangerous, suggesting higher speeds etc...

Significant increase in cycling including more inexperienced cyclists, but I would expect them to also have more minor incidents as well... (greater likelihood of mistakes resulting in falls and less practiced in correcting errors/impacts (potholes)/etc and travel slower so cyclist only incidents less severe)

It's a shame no one has carried on Bez Beyondthekerbs work at documenting the fatalities and likely causes each year, because that data gave you that missing piece of understanding we are struggling to piece together for this number and cuts down alot on the speculation.

this 140 cyclists will include medical episodes, crashes or falls due to terrain like potholes, rocks etc,failed equipment, gang violence, doorings, even drownings. Even when they are recorded as the more familiar road traffic collision that we are expecting, remember we had that heartbreaking article only a couple of weeks back of the 12 year old kid out riding with their Dad who collided with a van and tragically died, theyll be counted as one of those 140 recorded deaths.

The thing I'm struggling getting my head around if we settle on a cause that it's just because motorists were driving more recklessly in lockdowns,is why the collisions/deaths for pedestrians or other vehicles didnt similarly rise as it did with cyclists.

Awavey wrote:

It's a shame no one has carried on Bez Beyondthekerbs work at documenting the fatalities and likely causes each year, because that data gave you that missing piece of understanding we are struggling to piece together for this number and cuts down alot on the speculation.

+1 but I imagine it was serious labour to correlate all that information.

What does Bez do nowadays?  I used to read their blog (remember blogs, in typed out words that you had to read?) but that's been unmaintained for many a year...

Fishpastesarnie wrote:

Going by the news stories it would appear that there has been a marked increase in vehicles carrying out 'hit and runs'. 

I would love to see some figures on this as the numbers seem to be going up and the penalty, if caught, seems to be decreasing. 

Hit-and-run crashes rise by 45% in four years

"Recorded hit-and-run incidents increased from 19,239 in 2013 to 28,010 in 2017, according to Freedom of Information responses from 27 of the 44 police forces in England and Wales."

I haven't been able to find more recent figures.

Tom_77 wrote:

Fishpastesarnie wrote:

Going by the news stories it would appear that there has been a marked increase in vehicles carrying out 'hit and runs'. 

I would love to see some figures on this as the numbers seem to be going up and the penalty, if caught, seems to be decreasing. 

Hit-and-run crashes rise by 45% in four years

"Recorded hit-and-run incidents increased from 19,239 in 2013 to 28,010 in 2017, according to Freedom of Information responses from 27 of the 44 police forces in England and Wales."

I haven't been able to find more recent figures.

That's awful.

I think part of being allowed to drive on the roads should be acting responsibly when something goes wrong. What we need is for the penalties for hit-and-runs to be drastically harsher than e.g. drunk driving or not having insurance which would probably mean more-or-less guaranteed prison time for leaving the scene.

This means that whenever a driver hears a loud bump, they need to stop and investigate to see if it was a person, deer or squirrel otherwise they risk prison time. In return, there should be some extra leniency for drivers that do stop and render assistance.

Yes, BUT.... I always found the casualties-per-mile-cycled stat a bit misleading. After all, almost all cycling casualities (KSIs) involve another vehicle, rather than just involving the cyclist. So there needs to be an adjustment to take into account the relative volumes of other traffic. Until I see that, I reserve judgment on whether these are positive figures or not, or ones which are likely to be sustained. 

Yeah, I'm sure the relatives of the extra 40 dead cyclists are delighted