Cycling UK has claimed that an increasing number of road safety measures, including the introduction of liveable neighbourhoods, 20mph zones, and last year’s updates to the Highway Code, are behind the recent fall in cyclist fatalities on British roads.

According to provisional road casualty figures published by the Department for Transport, 85 people were killed while riding their bikes in Great Britain in 2022, the lowest number of fatalities since 1993, a drop attributed by the active travel charity to measures introduced since the Covid-19 pandemic to make the UK’s roads safer.

However, Cycling UK has insisted that more government action and investment is needed to ensure that the 2022 statistics “mark the beginning of a longer-term trend in road casualties for people cycling” and don’t simply become a “statistical anomaly”.

New analysis from the cycling charity has found that the number of people killed while cycling in England, Scotland, and Wales, per billion miles, also fell by almost a quarter compared to the immediate pre-pandemic years.

Published yesterday, the Department for Transport’s road traffic estimates (link is external) show that the number of miles travelled by people cycling in 2022 totalled 3.9 billion, a 12 percent increase from the average of 3.5 billion miles a year recorded between 2015 and 2019.

Meanwhile, the 85 cyclists killed in 2022 also represent a 15 percent reduction from an average of 100 fatalities a year during that same pre-pandemic period.

Cycling UK has used these statistics to calculate the rate of people killed while cycling per billion miles travelled – the best method, it says, of ascertaining whether the roads are becoming safer. According to this analysis, 22 cyclists were killed per billion miles cycled in 2022, compared to an average of 29 in 2015-2019 (a 24 percent reduction), and 27 and 26 in 2020 and 2021, respectively.

Notably, the DfT’s figures also show that the number of cyclists killed or seriously injured on Britain’s roads fell considerably in 2022. While over 4,400 people were killed or seriously injured while cycling every year between 2015 and 2021, this number dropped to 4,146 in 2022.

Cycling UK believes that road safety measures introduced throughout 2021 and 2022 are part of the reason for the “significant decline” in cyclists killed or injured in Great Britain.

“These figures prove the tragic death toll on our roads isn’t inevitable,” Cycling UK’s chief executive Sarah Mitchell says. “They show the government could save hundreds of lives and prevent thousands of devastating injuries by taking more action to reduce road danger.

“Proving cause and effect is always difficult, but over the last two years a number of measures have been introduced to make roads safer, such as an updated Highway Code, wider roll out of 20mph zones, and interventions to reduce through traffic in residential areas. It is likely a combination of these contributed to last year’s reduction in cyclist deaths.”

However, with the Department for Transport currently under scrutiny for its failure to deliver its active travel targets, and with cycling and walking schemes threatened by proposed government cuts, Mitchell argues that more needs to be done to protect cycling infrastructure and save lives.

“Despite making up less than two percent of all non-motorway traffic on our roads, people cycling are still over-represented in the fatalities and injuries on our roads,” she says.

“Action can make a difference, which is why Cycling UK wants to see the government reverse cuts to cycling and walking infrastructure investment. This infrastructure keeps people safe and saves lives, but the cuts threaten to do exactly the opposite.”

Last month, we reported that the government is facing a legal challenge from a campaign group over its decision to slash investment in walking and cycling in England, with lawyers acting on behalf of the Transport Action Network (TAN) writing to the DfT seeking a judicial review into the cuts.

TAN claims that the active travel budget cuts bypassed legal processes and risk undermining commitments related to air pollution and the climate emergency.

The cuts, announced in March, were slammed at the time as “a backward move” by the Walking and Cycling Alliance (WACA), who estimated that two thirds of previously promised funding would be lost, making it “impossible” to meet Net Zero and active travel targets.

As pointed out in Parliament by SNP MP Gavin Newlands a month later, the slash to the active travel budget means that less than £1 per head will be spent in England outside of London, compared to £50 per head in Scotland.

Meanwhile, a damning report published in early June by the National Audit Office found that the Department for Transport is highly unlikely to achieve any of its four goals for active travel by 2025, prompting campaign groups to claim that the government’s plans to boost cycling and walking in England are “in tatters” thanks to years of “stop-start” funding.

https://road.cc/content/news/highway-code-and-ltns-behind-cyclist-fatalities-falling-302553

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> Cycling UK has claimed that an increasing number of road safety measures,
> including the introduction of liveable neighbourhoods, 20mph zones, and
> last year’s updates to the Highway Code, are behind the recent fall in
> cyclist fatalities on British roads.

Never mind that ‘correlation is not causation’, Cycling UK loses no time in
using partial information to push its agenda.

> According to provisional road casualty figures published by the
> Department for Transport, 85 people were killed while riding their bikes
> in Great Britain in 2022, the lowest number of fatalities since 1993, a
> drop attributed by the active travel charity to measures introduced since
> the Covid-19 pandemic to make the UK’s roads safer.

Unfortunately, Cycling UK are going to have to wait for the detail that
will be in the publication ‘Reported road casualties in Great Britain:
pedal cycle factsheet, 2022’, due in August, to see if their claims have
any foundation.

> However, Cycling UK has insisted that more government action and
> investment is needed to ensure that the 2022 statistics “mark the
> beginning of a longer-term trend in road casualties for people cycling”
> and don’t simply become a “statistical anomaly”.

Having made a case based on supposition, Cycling UK is unsurprisingly
pressing for yet more taxpayer money.

> New analysis from the cycling charity has found that the number of people
> killed while cycling in England, Scotland, and Wales, per billion miles,
> also fell by almost a quarter compared to the immediate pre-pandemic years.

> Published yesterday, the Department for Transport’s road traffic
> estimates (link is external) show that the number of miles travelled by
> people cycling in 2022 totalled 3.9 billion, a 12 percent increase from
> the average of 3.5 billion miles a year recorded between 2015 and 2019.

QUOTE Traffic in 2022 was impacted by the travel restrictions that were in
place across the country between March 2020 and March 2022 due to the
coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

Overall traffic levels in 2022 were higher than 2021 but remain below
pre-pandemic 2019 levels UNQUOTE

> Meanwhile, the 85 cyclists killed in 2022 also represent a 15 percent
> reduction from an average of 100 fatalities a year during that same pre-pandemic period.

> Cycling UK has used these statistics to calculate the rate of people
> killed while cycling per billion miles travelled – the best method, it
> says, of ascertaining whether the roads are becoming safer. According to
> this analysis, 22 cyclists were killed per billion miles cycled in 2022,
> compared to an average of 29 in 2015-2019 (a 24 percent reduction), and
> 27 and 26 in 2020 and 2021, respectively.
>
> Notably, the DfT’s figures also show that the number of cyclists killed
> or seriously injured on Britain’s roads fell considerably in 2022. While
> over 4,400 people were killed or seriously injured while cycling every
> year between 2015 and 2021, this number dropped to 4,146 in 2022.

A fall in cyclist KSI from 4400 to 4146 is some 6%, rather lower than the
15% reduction in deaths. The reasons for this should be investigated, but
will necessarily have to wait for the final data to be published.

> Cycling UK believes that road safety measures introduced throughout 2021
> and 2022 are part of the reason for the “significant decline” in cyclists
> killed or injured in Great Britain.

Oh! The fall in cyclists deaths might be significant, but the KSI figures
are far less convincing.

> “These figures prove the tragic death toll on our roads isn’t
> inevitable,” Cycling UK’s chief executive Sarah Mitchell says. “They show
> the government could save hundreds of lives and prevent thousands of
> devastating injuries by taking more action to reduce road danger.

Road danger? Try Holland as an exemplar of carnage.

> “Proving cause and effect is always difficult

That’s what I said above, in different words.

> but over the last two years a number of measures have been introduced to
> make roads safer, such as an updated Highway Code, wider roll out of
> 20mph zones, and interventions to reduce through traffic in residential
> areas. It is likely a combination of these contributed to last year’s
> reduction in cyclist deaths.”

Is it likely? Correlation is not causation…

> However, with the Department for Transport currently under scrutiny for
> its failure to deliver its active travel targets, and with cycling and
> walking schemes threatened by proposed government cuts, Mitchell argues
> that more needs to be done to protect cycling infrastructure and save lives.

> “Despite making up less than two percent of all non-motorway traffic on
> our roads, people cycling are still over-represented in the fatalities
> and injuries on our roads,” she says.

> “Action can make a difference, which is why Cycling UK wants to see the
> government reverse cuts to cycling and walking infrastructure investment.
> This infrastructure keeps people safe and saves lives, but the cuts
> threaten to do exactly the opposite.”

All quite predictable, of course.

> Last month, we reported that the government is facing a legal challenge
> from a campaign group over its decision to slash investment in walking
> and cycling in England, with lawyers acting on behalf of the Transport
> Action Network (TAN) writing to the DfT seeking a judicial review into the cuts.
>
> TAN claims that the active travel budget cuts bypassed legal processes
> and risk undermining commitments related to air pollution and the climate emergency.
>
> The cuts, announced in March, were slammed at the time as “a backward
> move” by the Walking and Cycling Alliance (WACA), who estimated that two
> thirds of previously promised funding would be lost, making it
> “impossible” to meet Net Zero and active travel targets.
>
> As pointed out in Parliament by SNP MP Gavin Newlands a month later, the
> slash to the active travel budget means that less than £1 per head will
> be spent in England outside of London, compared to £50 per head in Scotland.

Go and live in Scotland, if it’s that wonderful.

> Meanwhile, a damning report published in early June by the National Audit
> Office found that the Department for Transport is highly unlikely to
> achieve any of its four goals for active travel by 2025, prompting
> campaign groups to claim that the government’s plans to boost cycling and
> walking in England are “in tatters” thanks to years of “stop-start” funding.

> https://road.cc/content/news/highway-code-and-ltns-behind-cyclist-fatalities-falling-302553

--
Spike

QUOTE: Published yesterday, the Department for Transport’s road traffic estimates (link is external) show that the number of miles travelled by people cycling in 2022 totalled 3.9 billion, a 12 percent increase from the average of 3.5 billion miles a year recorded between 2015 and 2019.

Meanwhile, the 85 cyclists killed in 2022 also represent a 15 percent reduction from an average of 100 fatalities a year during that same pre-pandemic period. ENDS

AKA "SAFETY IN NUMBERS".

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> QUOTE: Published yesterday, the Department for Transport’s road traffic
> estimates (link is external) show that the number of miles travelled by
> people cycling in 2022 totalled 3.9 billion, a 12 percent increase from
> the average of 3.5 billion miles a year recorded between 2015 and 2019.
>
> Meanwhile, the 85 cyclists killed in 2022 also represent a 15 percent
> reduction from an average of 100 fatalities a year during that same
> pre-pandemic period. ENDS
>
> AKA "SAFETY IN NUMBERS".

Always go for evidence-based conclusions.

A quick search will reveal that cyclists KSI has fallen every year since
2014, apart from a tiny rise during lockdown, when 141 cyclists were killed
during the 2020 surge in cycling at a time when motor traffic was
significantly reduced. So the question is, why should this current figure
be due to ‘safety in numbers’, because it did not apply during 2020?

--
Spike

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> Cycling UK has claimed that an increasing number of road safety measures,
> including the introduction of liveable neighbourhoods, 20mph zones, and
> last year’s updates to the Highway Code, are behind the recent fall in
> cyclist fatalities on British roads.

A point to consider, which seems to have been missed by Cycling UK as they
don’t refer to it here, is that during 2020, when motor-vehicle mileage was
considerably reduced, cycling deaths increased by over 30% to 141. What was
the reason for that?

> https://road.cc/content/news/highway-code-and-ltns-behind-cyclist-fatalities-falling-302553

--
Spike

Objective: To examine the relationship between the numbers of people walking or bicycling and the
frequency of collisions between motorists and walkers or bicyclists. The common wisdom holds that the
number of collisions varies directly with the amount of walking and bicycling. However, three published
analyses of collision rates at specific intersections found a non-linear relationship, such that collisions
rates declined with increases in the numbers of people walking or bicycling.

Data: This paper uses five additional data sets (three population level and two time series) to compare
the amount of walking or bicycling and the injuries incurring in collisions with motor vehicles.

Results: The likelihood that a given person walking or bicycling will be struck by a motorist varies
inversely with the amount of walking or bicycling. This pattern is consistent across communities of vary-
ing size, from specific intersections to cities and countries, and across time periods.

Discussion: This result is unexpected. Since it is unlikely that the people walking and bicycling become
more cautious if their numbers are larger, it indicates that the behavior of motorists controls the likeli-
hood of collisions with people walking and bicycling. It appears that motorists adjust their behavior in
the presence of people walking and bicycling. There is an urgent need for further exploration of the
human factors controlling motorist behavior in the presence of people walking and bicycling.

Conclusion: A motorist is less likely to collide with a person walking and bicycling if more people walk
or bicycle. Policies that increase the numbers of people walking and bicycling appear to be an effec-
tive route to improving the safety of people walking and bicycling.

https://ecf.com/sites/ecf.com/files/Safety_in_Numbers_JacobsenPaper.pdf

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> Objective: To examine the relationship between the numbers of people
> walking or bicycling and the
> frequency of collisions between motorists and walkers or bicyclists.

> The common wisdom holds that the
> number of collisions varies directly with the amount of walking and bicycling.

What defines ‘common wisdom’?

> However, three published
> analyses of collision rates at specific intersections found a non-linear
> relationship, such that collisions
> rates declined with increases in the numbers of people walking or bicycling.

Therefore ‘common wisdom’ is worthless.

> Data: This paper uses five additional data sets (three population level
> and two time series) to compare
> the amount of walking or bicycling and the injuries incurring in
> collisions with motor vehicles.

> Results: The likelihood that a given person walking or bicycling will be
> struck by a motorist varies
> inversely with the amount of walking or bicycling. This pattern is
> consistent across communities of vary-
> ing size, from specific intersections to cities and countries, and across time periods.

So the more that I, as a ‘given person’, walk, the less chance there is
that I will be struck by a motor-vehicle?

That’s absurd. It implies that staying at home and not going out at all is
the most dangerous.

> Discussion: This result is unexpected. Since it is unlikely that the
> people walking and bicycling become
> more cautious if their numbers are larger, it indicates that the behavior
> of motorists controls the likeli-
> hood of collisions with people walking and bicycling.

Have you ever heard of piling supposition upon supposition, to arrive at
the answer you want?

> It appears that motorists adjust their behavior in
> the presence of people walking and bicycling. There is an urgent need for
> further exploration of the
> human factors controlling motorist behavior in the presence of people
> walking and bicycling.

There is a need to perform a proper analysis, and one that doesn’t use
terms such as ‘unlikely’.

> Conclusion: A motorist is less likely to collide with a person walking
> and bicycling if more people walk
> or bicycle. Policies that increase the numbers of people walking and
> bicycling appear to be an effec-
> tive route to improving the safety of people walking and bicycling.

> https://ecf.com/sites/ecf.com/files/Safety_in_Numbers_JacobsenPaper.pdf

To draw two curves through the hugely scattered points on the ‘Danish
Cities’ is laughable.

To conflate Californian cities and European countries is highly
questionable.

There is no UK data after 1999.

Paper published 2003. Have there been any changes in the pedestrian,
cycling, or motor-vehicle worlds in the last 20 years? [Rhetorical
question]

--
Spike

There are many studies, facts and figures that seem to support the concept of SIN. Impressive
figures from Copenhagen between 1995 and 2006 (where cycling increased by 44%), show a 60%
drop in the number of cyclists killed or seriously injured. Similarly, in The Netherlands between 1980
and 2005, where cycling increased by 45%, cycling fatalities decreased by 58%.

These results are notable because they show a real fall in the number of cyclists killed and injured, not just the rate.
CyclingUK state, in their Safety in Numbers report, ‘research suggests that a doubling of cycling
would lead to a reduction in the risk of cycling by around a third’.. The same report also presents a chart (Figure 1) with cycling levels and cyclists killed across EU countries. It clearly indicates that countries with high cycling levels pose a lower risk to
cyclists.

SEE FIG NR ONE:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F1E3O9MXoAEuUbO?format=jpg&name=medium

On 15/07/2023 09:05 am, Spike wrote:
> swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Cycling UK has claimed that an increasing number of road safety measures,
>> including the introduction of liveable neighbourhoods, 20mph zones, and
>> last year’s updates to the Highway Code, are behind the recent fall in
>> cyclist fatalities on British roads.
>
> A point to consider, which seems to have been missed by Cycling UK as they
> don’t refer to it here, is that during 2020, when motor-vehicle mileage was
> considerably reduced, cycling deaths increased by over 30% to 141. What was
> the reason for that?
>
>> https://road.cc/content/news/highway-code-and-ltns-behind-cyclist-fatalities-falling-302553

"A point to consider, which seems to have been missed by Cycling UK as
they don’t refer to it here, is that during 2020, when motor-vehicle
mileage was considerably reduced, cycling deaths increased by over 30%
to 141. What was the reason for that?"

<FX: Tumbleweeds rolling by on a just-audible breeze>

On 15/07/2023 12:58 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> There are many studies, facts and figures that seem to support the concept of SIN.

Indeed.

And far too many of them are committed by chav-cyclists against other
road-users, especially against pedestrians.

They need to confess their sins and ask for forgiveness.

JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
> On 15/07/2023 09:05 am, Spike wrote:
>> swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Cycling UK has claimed that an increasing number of road safety measures,
>>> including the introduction of liveable neighbourhoods, 20mph zones, and
>>> last year’s updates to the Highway Code, are behind the recent fall in
>>> cyclist fatalities on British roads.
>>
>> A point to consider, which seems to have been missed by Cycling UK as they
>> don’t refer to it here, is that during 2020, when motor-vehicle mileage was
>> considerably reduced, cycling deaths increased by over 30% to 141. What was
>> the reason for that?
>>
>>> https://road.cc/content/news/highway-code-and-ltns-behind-cyclist-fatalities-falling-302553

> "A point to consider, which seems to have been missed by Cycling UK as
> they don’t refer to it here, is that during 2020, when motor-vehicle
> mileage was considerably reduced, cycling deaths increased by over 30%
> to 141. What was the reason for that?"

> <FX: Tumbleweeds rolling by on a just-audible breeze>

Exactly. BTW, the rise in cyclist deaths was 40%, from 101 the year before
to 141.

--
Spike

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> CyclingUK state, in their Safety in Numbers report, ‘research suggests
> that a doubling of cycling would lead to a reduction in the risk of
> cycling by around a third’.

Another way of presenting that data is to say that ‘the more cyclists there
are, the more cyclist deaths there will be’.

Note that 1 in 6 of cyclist deaths are single-vehicle accidents, and the
herd approach to cycling dies not suggest that will change.

> SEE FIG NR ONE:
>
> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F1E3O9MXoAEuUbO?format=jpg&name=medium

So how does that align with the recent report from Cycling UK, that in
effect states that the UK’s per-bn death rate is the same as that of the
Netherlands, at 22/bn miles. Are you claiming that Cycling UK is fibbing?

UK 85 deaths in 3.9bn miles
Netherlands 200 deaths in 9.3bn miles

Always go for the *evidence*.

--
Spike

Since 2009, further research (by Bhatia et al, Road Safety Analysis, Aldred et al, Fyhri et al and Elvik et al) has broadly re-affirmed the Safety in numbers theory, namely that the number of people cycling and the safety of cycle use are correlated.

Indeed, the results of a large Ipsos survey conducted in 28 countries around the globe in 2022 suggest that the safer people feel, the more they cycle..

The Netherlands did far better than any other country – only 14% of respondents agreed that cycling from one place to another in their area was too dangerous, while 45% used their bikes as their primary mode of transport for a 2km/1 mile distance. The results for Great Britain were very different: 57% and 6% respectively.

It is unclear from the statistical analyses, however, whether increased cycle use results in improved cycle safety, or the other way round. Questions therefore remain about whether this is a causal relationship and, if so, in which direction.

Cycling UK suspects that the relationship probably works in both directions, though we recognise that this isn’t yet proven.

In other words, it seems very likely to us that creating safer cycling conditions will result in more people cycling, or doing so for more of their journeys, and that this increase can also be expected to improve cycle safety for the reasons we put forward in the report:

The more people there are cycling in a given town, region or country, the more accustomed drivers are to interacting safely with cyclists
The drivers themselves are also more likely to cycle for some of their journeys, and thus to understand the cyclists’ perspective
Finally, increased cycle use will create greater pressure for increased investment in safe cycling conditions, as the ‘cycling vote’ gets stronger

Hence the relationship between ‘more’ and ‘safer’ cycling may well become self-reinforcing, as the safety in numbers effect grows stronger.

Cycling UK is still urging public bodies to measure the risk of a cycling casualty (or a serious or fatal casualty) per 100,000 trips or per million km, or similar (that is, a rate-based indicator).

When public bodies aim merely to reduce the number of cyclist casualties, this creates a perverse incentive simply to reduce cycle use, instead of increasing it – this makes no sense at all, given the health and environmental benefits of higher levels of cycling.

More and safer cycling can, and should, go hand in hand.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> Since 2009, further research (by Bhatia et al, Road Safety
> Analysis, Aldred et al, Fyhri et al and Elvik et al) has broadly
> re-affirmed the Safety in numbers theory, namely that the number of
> people cycling and the safety of cycle use are correlated.

‘Broadly reaffirmed’ means that the two things (‘numbers of people cycling’
and ‘safety of cycle use’ are in fact not that well correlated
statistically.

> Indeed, the results of a large Ipsos survey conducted in 28 countries
> around the globe in 2022 suggest that the safer people feel, the more they cycle.

Note, however, that the use of the word ‘suggests’ might indicate a poor
correlation.

> The Netherlands did far better than any other country – only 14% of
> respondents agreed that cycling from one place to another in their area
> was too dangerous, while 45% used their bikes as their primary mode of
> transport for a 2km/1 mile distance. The results for Great Britain were
> very different: 57% and 6% respectively.

And yet on a deaths per-billion-mile basis, the UK and the Netherlands are
equal!

So it’s down to individual perception.

> It is unclear from the statistical analyses, however, whether increased
> cycle use results in improved cycle safety, or the other way round.
> Questions therefore remain about whether this is a causal relationship
> and, if so, in which direction.

Which is pretty much what I have been saying.

> Cycling UK suspects that the relationship probably works in both
> directions, though we recognise that this isn’t yet proven.

Winding their necks in a bit?

> In other words, it seems very likely to us that creating safer cycling
> conditions will result in more people cycling, or doing so for more of
> their journeys, and that this increase can also be expected to improve
> cycle safety for the reasons we put forward in the report:

Considering the caveats concerning the correlation, described above as
‘broadly reaffirmed’ and ‘suggests’, implies that Cycling UK are now being
more cautious, after their initial enthusiasm and subsequent plea for more
taxpayer money to be spent.

> The more people there are cycling in a given town, region or country,
> the more accustomed drivers are to interacting safely with cyclists
> The drivers themselves are also more likely to cycle for some of
> their journeys, and thus to understand the cyclists’ perspective
> Finally, increased cycle use will create greater pressure for
> increased investment in safe cycling conditions, as the ‘cycling vote’ gets stronger
>
> Hence the relationship between ‘more’ and ‘safer’ cycling may well become
> self-reinforcing, as the safety in numbers effect grows stronger.

Perhaps the cavalier, brusque, rude, self-centred, grasping exhibitionism
of cyclists might make things worse rather than better.

> Cycling UK is still urging public bodies to measure the risk of a cycling
> casualty (or a serious or fatal casualty) per 100,000 trips or per
> million km, or similar (that is, a rate-based indicator).

As I keep saying, follow the evidence.

> When public bodies aim merely to reduce the number of cyclist casualties,
> this creates a perverse incentive simply to reduce cycle use, instead of
> increasing it – this makes no sense at all, given the health and
> environmental benefits of higher levels of cycling.

But public bodies are only doing what cyclists demand!

See a vigil near you, and note the strident demands that accompany it.

> More and safer cycling can, and should, go hand in hand.

--
Spike

If you have ever done a group bike ride or just ridden a city street where bikes outnumber cars, you know the feeling of safety and increased visibility from sharing the road with lots of bikes. A new study from the Department of Safety and the Environment Institute of Transport Economics in Oslo, Norway, gives us the data to back that up.

Unlike other studies of the correlation between increases in biking and bike safety, this research was able to control for other factors affecting safety. It used seasonal variations in bike ridership at fixed locations to determine safety in numbers. Notably, the study counted instances of car drivers failing to see bike riders and near-misses that didn’t result in collisions. This is critical because, while collisions between bikes and cars may be infrequent, daily near-misses create a justifiable sense of danger among bike riders.

The study found that, as the cycling season progressed and other road users expected to encounter bikes on the road, there were fewer near-misses. The more bikes there were, the more drivers saw bikes and were able to coexist safely with riders.

Next time you’re in a local planning meeting and someone says that creating facilities that encourage biking will endanger people who bike, you can cite this study. It’s great to have concrete evidence that the more people ride bikes, the safer all bike riders are on the streets.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you have ever done a group bike ride or just ridden a city street
> where bikes outnumber cars, you know the feeling of safety and increased
> visibility from sharing the road with lots of bikes. A new study from the
> Department of Safety and the Environment Institute of Transport Economics
> in Oslo, Norway, gives us the data to back that up.
>
> Unlike other studies of the correlation between increases in biking and
> bike safety, this research was able to control for other factors
> affecting safety. It used seasonal variations in bike ridership at fixed
> locations to determine safety in numbers. Notably, the study counted
> instances of car drivers failing to see bike riders and near-misses that
> didn’t result in collisions. This is critical because, while collisions
> between bikes and cars may be infrequent, daily near-misses create a
> justifiable sense of danger among bike riders.

As the report found that “…collisions between bikes and cars may be
infrequent”, this whole issue can be kicked into touch by deploying the
cyclist’s favourite argument that “it’s only a handful, why bother”.

> The study found that, as the cycling season progressed and other road
> users expected to encounter bikes on the road, there were fewer
> near-misses. The more bikes there were, the more drivers saw bikes and
> were able to coexist safely with riders.
>
> Next time you’re in a local planning meeting and someone says that
> creating facilities that encourage biking will endanger people who bike,
> you can cite this study. It’s great to have concrete evidence that the
> more people ride bikes, the safer all bike riders are on the streets.
>

--
Spike

It may also be the case that safety and the number of kilometers ridden are linked in a causal loop. The safer cycling is, the more people are likely to cycle, and the more people cycle, the more opportunity there is for awareness, expectancy, collective vigilance or knowledgeable leaders to have an effect in reducing fatal accidents.

The Hovenring in the Netherlands is the world’s first suspension bridge designed to allow cyclists and pedestrians to safely cross a busy highway intersection.

Another factor that almost certainly plays a role in both increasing the number of kilometers ridden and in reducing fatalities is the presence of a well-developed cycling infrastructure. The Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany, the three countries with the best fatalities to kilometers ridden ratios shown in the graph, also have exceptionally well developed cycling infrastructures. The Netherlands and Denmark are especially notable in this regard.. The United States, on the other hand, has generally lagged behind the rest of the developed world in building well-designed and well-maintained cycling infrastructure. The better the infrastructure, the more people are likely to use it to cycle safely.

There is an additional factor to consider that is highlighted by the Netherlands which has by far the lowest ratio of fatalities to kilometers traveled of any of the countries shown in the graph. In addition to having an excellent cycling infrastructure, the Netherlands has a long-established cycling culture. As early as 1911 the Netherlands had more bicycles per capita than any other European country. When privately-owned cars became more affordable after Word War II, cycling became less popular as a means of transportation. As the safety in numbers effect would lead you to expect, this was accompanied by an increase in cycling fatalities. During the 1970s widespread demonstrations took place in the Netherlands protesting the number of child cyclists who were killed on the road.

The government responded by restricting the use of motorized vehicles in cities and towns, building cycling infrastructure, and embarking on a program of safety education for both cyclists and drivers that placed the Netherlands at the forefront of countries that make serious efforts to incorporate cycling into people’s daily lives. Children in the Netherlands are taught how to cycle safely from a very young age; adults are tested on their ability to share the road with cyclists as part of the process of getting a Dutch driver’s license.

According to a press release from the Netherlands Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, in 2004 the Netherlands was the only European country in which there were more bikes than people, and in 2007 26% of all trips made in the Netherlands were made by bike. As a society the Netherlands has embraced a culture of cycling and this has played an important role in producing both the very large number of kilometers traveled by bike per inhabitant and the very low number of cycling fatalities shown in the graph.

Any or all of these factors – a strong social and cultural history of cycling, the presence of an excellent cycling infrastructure, driver awareness and expectation, cyclist vigilance and leadership – may have a role to play in explaining the safety in numbers effect. The negative correlation between fatalities and the number of kilometers ridden is simple and easy to see, the causal factors that produce this correlation are complex and difficult to tease apart.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> It may also be the case that safety and the number of kilometers ridden
> are linked in a causal loop. The safer cycling is, the more people are
> likely to cycle, and the more people cycle, the more opportunity there is
> for awareness, expectancy, collective vigilance or knowledgeable leaders
> to have an effect in reducing fatal accidents.
>
> The Hovenring in the Netherlands is the world’s first suspension bridge
> designed to allow cyclists and pedestrians to safely cross a busy highway intersection.

With an annual toll if 200 cyclists killed each year on Holland’s roads, in
a population of only 17 million, holding them up as an example of how to do
things could be counter-productive.

> Another factor that almost certainly plays a role in both increasing the
> number of kilometers ridden and in reducing fatalities is the presence of
> a well-developed cycling infrastructure. The Netherlands, Denmark, and
> Germany, the three countries with the best fatalities to kilometers
> ridden ratios shown in the graph, also have exceptionally well developed
> cycling infrastructures. The Netherlands and Denmark are especially
> notable in this regard. The United States, on the other hand, has
> generally lagged behind the rest of the developed world in building
> well-designed and well-maintained cycling infrastructure. The better the
> infrastructure, the more people are likely to use it to cycle safely.

But 200 Dutch cyclists die each year! In a population of 17 million!

> There is an additional factor to consider that is highlighted by the
> Netherlands which has by far the lowest ratio of fatalities to kilometers
> traveled of any of the countries shown in the graph. In addition to
> having an excellent cycling infrastructure, the Netherlands has a
> long-established cycling culture. As early as 1911 the Netherlands had
> more bicycles per capita than any other European country. When
> privately-owned cars became more affordable after Word War II, cycling
> became less popular as a means of transportation. As the safety in
> numbers effect would lead you to expect, this was accompanied by an
> increase in cycling fatalities. During the 1970s widespread
> demonstrations took place in the Netherlands protesting the number of
> child cyclists who were killed on the road.
>
> The government responded by restricting the use of motorized vehicles in
> cities and towns, building cycling infrastructure, and embarking on a
> program of safety education for both cyclists and drivers that placed the
> Netherlands at the forefront of countries that make serious efforts to
> incorporate cycling into people’s daily lives. Children in the
> Netherlands are taught how to cycle safely from a very young age; adults
> are tested on their ability to share the road with cyclists as part of
> the process of getting a Dutch driver’s license.

Would that cyclists were tested on their ability to share the road as part
of cyclist testing and training.

> According to a press release from the Netherlands Ministry of Transport,
> Public Works and Water Management, in 2004 the Netherlands was the only
> European country in which there were more bikes than people, and in 2007
> 26% of all trips made in the Netherlands were made by bike. As a society
> the Netherlands has embraced a culture of cycling and this has played an
> important role in producing both the very large number of kilometers
> traveled by bike per inhabitant and the very low number of cycling
> fatalities shown in the graph.

22 per billion miles, same as the UK.

> Any or all of these factors – a strong social and cultural history of
> cycling, the presence of an excellent cycling infrastructure, driver
> awareness and expectation, cyclist vigilance and leadership – may have a
> role to play in explaining the safety in numbers effect. The negative
> correlation between fatalities and the number of kilometers ridden is
> simple and easy to see, the causal factors that produce this correlation
> are complex and difficult to tease apart.

UK: 22 cyclist deaths per billion miles
Holland: 22 cyclist deaths per billion miles

Where is this negative correlation? It’s a pipe dream.

--
Spike

That this House acknowledges the evidence that cyclists gain from safety in numbers, in other words cycling gets safer the more cyclists there are; welcomes the target in the Government's draft Road Safety Strategy to halve the risks of cycling within 10 years; believes that this target can best be met by also aiming for substantial increases in cycle use in order to maximise the safety in numbers effect, thereby also benefiting health, communities, the economy and the environment; urges that the Road Safety Strategy should tackle the fears which deter people from cycling, such as traffic speeds, irresponsible driving, hostile roads and junctions and lorries; and calls for cycle training to be made available to people of all ages so as to achieve more as well as safer cycling.

https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/38595/safety-in-numbers-for-cyclists

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

Stand by for some virtue signalling from someone not working from the
evidence…

The suggestion of safety training for cyclists is a very good idea.

> That this House acknowledges the evidence that cyclists gain from safety
> in numbers, in other words cycling gets safer the more cyclists there
> are; welcomes the target in the Government's draft Road Safety Strategy
> to halve the risks of cycling within 10 years; believes that this target
> can best be met by also aiming for substantial increases in cycle use in
> order to maximise the safety in numbers effect, thereby also benefiting
> health, communities, the economy and the environment; urges that the Road
> Safety Strategy should tackle the fears which deter people from cycling,
> such as traffic speeds, irresponsible driving, hostile roads and
> junctions and lorries; and calls for cycle training to be made available
> to people of all ages so as to achieve more as well as safer cycling.
>
> https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/38595/safety-in-numbers-for-cyclists
>

--
Spike

The number of cyclists on the road quadrupled in San Jose California between 2005 and 2008. You'd maybe expect a quadrupling in the number of cyclist fatalities as well, especially since all of those new cyclists are inexperienced and maybe tend to crash more. We see about two to six cyclist fatalities each year in all of Santa Clara County (which encompasses sevens time the area of the city of San Jose) In spite of the huge and visible increase in bikes in San Jose and environs.... there wasn't a corresponding increase in cyclist fatalities.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> The number of cyclists on the road quadrupled in San Jose California
> between 2005 and 2008. You'd maybe expect a quadrupling in the number of
> cyclist fatalities as well, especially since all of those new cyclists
> are inexperienced and maybe tend to crash more. We see about two to six
> cyclist fatalities each year in all of Santa Clara County (which
> encompasses sevens time the area of the city of San Jose) In spite of the
> huge and visible increase in bikes in San Jose and environs.... there
> wasn't a corresponding increase in cyclist fatalities.

It would be interesting to know how many of those two to six cyclist
fatalities were single-vehicle accidents.

Also, what happened to the numbers of cyclists between 2008 and whenever
this undated and unattributed item was written?

--
Spike

The more people cycle, the safer it is for each individual cyclist. In places with high levels of cycling, such as the Netherlands and Denmark, the risk for cyclists is reduced because drivers are more aware of cyclists and are more likely to be cyclists themselves. With that comes a greater drive to improve conditions for cyclists – through better infrastructure and lower speeds.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> The more people cycle, the safer it is for each individual cyclist. In
> places with high levels of cycling, such as the Netherlands and Denmark,
> the risk for cyclists is reduced because drivers are more aware of
> cyclists and are more likely to be cyclists themselves. With that comes a
> greater drive to improve conditions for cyclists – through better
> infrastructure and lower speeds.

Not so.

UK 22 cyclist deaths per bn miles
Holland 22 cyclist deaths per bn miles

Holland has a huge amount of cycling infra, harsh conditions for drivers,
huge numbers cycling, and the death rate is no better than the UK!

Explain that one…if you can.

--
Spike

During last year’s transit strike in Philadelphia, bike ridership boomed. That likely made streets safer for cyclists. In U.S. cities, there are a lot more people out bicycling than just a few years ago. You might reasonably think that the bicycle crash rate would skyrocket as more people, from wobbly new riders to the outright safety-averse, take to the streets on two wheels.

It’s a fine, common-sense assumption — that happens to be wrong.

Research has been steadily showing, actually, that the more people are out there riding bicycles, the safer bicycling becomes. As ridership goes up, crash rates stay flat. It’s happening in Portland (see page 11 of this report [PDF]). It’s happening in New York City.

Much of the ridership increase is due to cities’ investments in bicycle-specific infrastructure. But the efficacy of that infrastructure for safety is often questioned. And there’s one theory — based on a growing body of data — that suggests that a few painted lines on the road, bike racks, and traffic lights form only part of the safety equation. And maybe a smaller part than we tend to assume.

The phenomenon, dubbed “safety in numbers,” was first identified in 2003, in an academic paper by public health researcher Peter Jacobsen [PDF]. After being asked by officials in Pasadena, Calif., if their city “was a dangerous place to bicycle,” Jacobsen began looking at crash data from various communities where bicycle ridership had fluctuated over time.

What he found surprised him: The number of crashes involving bikes correlated with the number of riders in a community. As ridership fluctuated, so did the crash rate. More riders, fewer crashes; fewer riders, more crashes.

This happened too abruptly, Jacobsen decided, to be caused by slow-moving factors like infrastructure development and cultural change. Bicycling becomes safer when the number of riders increases, he concluded, at least in part because the number of riders increases.

The inverse happens, as well. One data set Jacobsen looked at covered 49 years of biking history in the United Kingdom. Those numbers showed that cycling became safer during the oil crisis of the 1970s, caused by the OPEC oil embargo. Once the crisis ended, both ridership and safety dropped.

This all must sound terribly wonky. Actually, it’s been revolutionary.

The idea of Safety in Numbers has slowly built up steam in traffic safety circles since Jacobsen introduced it. Supporting data continues to quietly (and sometimes dramatically) roll in from around the world, influencing mainly traffic engineers and planners who are trying to figure out how to improve bicycle safety.

Bicycle safety is often seen in a sort of vacuum. Helmets tend to dominate the conversation, with visibility — lights and bright clothing — taking a close second. More sophisticated conversations get deep into infrastructure: Which is better, sharrows, bike lanes, or separated cycle tracks? We discuss educating cyclists in defensive riding techniques and the rules of the road.

These are all good and important efforts. The problem is what’s missing. Here’s the core of Jacobsen’s analysis, from the 2003 “Safety in Numbers” report:

Whose behavior changes, the motorist’s or that of the people walking and bicycling? It seems unlikely that people walking or bicycling obey traffic laws more or defer to motorists more in societies or time periods with greater walking and bicycling. Indeed it seems less likely. … Adaptation in motorist behavior seems more plausible.

So why might this be the case?

When there is a serious bicycle crash, it almost always involves someone driving a car. There are any number of ways drivers become involved in these crashes, primarily involving speed, turning, and the myriad distractions that are common behind the wheel.

But when there are a lot of bicyclists on the road, according to this theory, drivers take notice. They become more attentive, slow down, pass more cautiously, double-check their blind spots, expect the unexpected. They sense that the road has become a more complicated place, and adjust their behavior accordingly. As a result, the road becomes safer, presumably for everyone.

Safety in numbers is an important idea that has shifted the way planners and engineers think about bicycle safety. But it won’t be the final word. We will doubtless see this idea bandied back and forth for some time, especially as academic interest in bicycling and walking increases. As data improves we’ll likely see a more complex relationship emerge among ridership, safety, infrastructure, laws, and culture.

Whatever the variables, as Jacobsen told me in a requisitely wonky email, “The bigger SIN story is that those cities /countries that have encouraged bicycling have been rewarded with more trips by bike, and not just a non-linear increase in injuries, but a decrease in injuries.”

That’s huge. Safety in numbers will prove over time, I suspect, to be the first major theory based on objective data that can break down the double standard we all pedal under. Jacobsen’s research calls into question the foundation of a system in which the convenience of driving is exalted above the basic safety and mobility of people walking and bicycling.