https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/25/cyclists-collisions-pedestrians-government-data-transport/

Analysis shows some pensioners’ deaths are not logged as fatalities as
data excludes those killed in public spaces like cyclepaths and parks.

The true threat posed by cyclists who break the law is unknown because
the Government is failing to record accurate collision data, The
Telegraph can reveal.

Analysis of recent deaths of pensioners killed by cyclists has found
they are not being logged as fatalities in official Department for
Transport (DfT) and police statistics.

Since 1979, police have filed reports about people injured in traffic
collisions involving at least one vehicle, including cars, lorries and
bicycles, on roads and pavements.

The DfT publishes the data in its Stats 19 report which is used to
assess how well policymakers and politicians have tackled dangers posed
by transport issues, such as drink driving and speeding.

However, The Telegraph has uncovered glaring failings in how the data is
collected because it excludes those killed and seriously injured in
public spaces where bikes are often ridden at speed. Official statistics
also ignore those who take more than 30 days to succumb to catastrophic
injuries caused by being struck by a bike.

Polly Friedhoff, 82, was hit and killed by a cyclist as she was walking
along a canal towpath in Oxfordshire in 2022.

But the Stats 19 data states there were “no deaths” in 2022 caused by a
cyclist hitting a pedestrian. A DfT official has now confirmed that
towpaths are “not in the scope” of Stats 19 data.

Jim Blackwood, 91, was hit by an e-bike being ridden on the pavement in
Kent last year.

Because it took three months before he died from his severe injuries he
will not be recorded as “killed”, only seriously injured.

John Douglas, 75, suffered 15 broken ribs and two broken collarbones
after being hit by an e-bike ridden on the pavement near his Birmingham
home last year.

But because he died six weeks after the collision, official data will
only record him having suffered a serious injury.

The official statistics shows 462 pedestrians were injured by cyclists
in 2022, compared to 437 in 2021 when one person is recorded as dying,
and 308 in 2020, when four people were killed.

A 2011 DfT document lists the public places which need not be included
in the Stats 19 data.

The file shows a “footpath or bridleway with no lawful access for motor
vehicles” is exempt from being included in official data. A “cycle
path/track with no lawful access for motor vehicles” is also excluded.

Other excluded public areas include bus, railway and petrol stations,
picnic areas, service areas, municipal or private parks, private
industrial estates, pedestrian malls and private retail shopping parks,
private residential estates, harbours, unadopted roads which are not
maintained by public money and car parks and their access roads.

A recent DfT report warned how “under-reporting” of data could mean “the
true magnitude of road safety problems are unknown or could be
underestimated” and would “lead to less efficient or inappropriate
countermeasures” or “incorrect prioritising”.

However, the pro-cycling lobby often quotes Stats 19 data to insist that
there is no need to modernise laws so cyclists who kill face the same
punishment as motorists.

Cyclists who kill can be jailed for up to two years for “wanton and
furious” riding under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. In
theory a cyclist would be convicted of involuntary manslaughter, which
can result in a life sentence, but this is highly unlikely while the
lesser charge is available. However, motorists can be jailed for life
for dangerous or reckless driving if they kill someone.

Last year, Chris Boardman, the Active Travel Commissioner, refused to
back calls for updated laws because he said “there were more people
killed by lightning and cows than by cyclists”.

Matt Briggs, whose wife Kim was killed by a cyclist in 2016, said it was
“extraordinary” the DfT was not “accurately” collecting data meaning it
cannot “make effective policy decisions while it is ignoring countless
numbers of incidents involving cyclists and pedestrians”.

He added that he was “utterly shocked” by Mr Boardman’s “casual
flippancy and disregard for the pain and suffering of grieving families
who have lost loved ones” to cyclists who break the law.

Christine White, the daughter of Mr Blackwood, said it was “totally
unacceptable” that ministers promote cycling while publishing
“statistics which don’t tell the full story”.

“How does my father’s death not qualify as a cycling related fatality?”
she said. “It helps this Government avoid updating laws which could
prevent further deaths.”

A DfT spokeswoman said: “Safety remains our top priority, and our
casualty statistics are in line with rigorous international standards.

“We also continue to work closely with police to regularly review and
strengthen data around cycling, e-cycle and e-scooter incidents.”

Brian <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:

> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/25/cyclists-collisions-pedestrians-government-data-transport/

> Analysis shows some pensioners’ deaths are not logged as fatalities as
> data excludes those killed in public spaces like cyclepaths and parks.

So, we are seeing bent statistics…well, well.

> The true threat posed by cyclists who break the law is unknown because
> the Government is failing to record accurate collision data, The Telegraph can reveal.

> Analysis of recent deaths of pensioners killed by cyclists has found they
> are not being logged as fatalities in official Department for Transport
> (DfT) and police statistics.

> Since 1979, police have filed reports about people injured in traffic
> collisions involving at least one vehicle, including cars, lorries and
> bicycles, on roads and pavements.

> The DfT publishes the data in its Stats 19 report which is used to assess
> how well policymakers and politicians have tackled dangers posed by
> transport issues, such as drink driving and speeding.

> However, The Telegraph has uncovered glaring failings in how the data is
> collected because it excludes those killed and seriously injured in
> public spaces where bikes are often ridden at speed. Official statistics
> also ignore those who take more than 30 days to succumb to catastrophic
> injuries caused by being struck by a bike.

> Polly Friedhoff, 82, was hit and killed by a cyclist as she was walking
> along a canal towpath in Oxfordshire in 2022.

> But the Stats 19 data states there were “no deaths” in 2022 caused by a
> cyclist hitting a pedestrian. A DfT official has now confirmed that
> towpaths are “not in the scope” of Stats 19 data.

> Jim Blackwood, 91, was hit by an e-bike being ridden on the pavement in Kent last year.

> Because it took three months before he died from his severe injuries he
> will not be recorded as “killed”, only seriously injured.

> John Douglas, 75, suffered 15 broken ribs and two broken collarbones
> after being hit by an e-bike ridden on the pavement near his Birmingham home last year.

> But because he died six weeks after the collision, official data will
> only record him having suffered a serious injury.

> The official statistics shows 462 pedestrians were injured by cyclists in
> 2022, compared to 437 in 2021 when one person is recorded as dying, and
> 308 in 2020, when four people were killed.

> A 2011 DfT document lists the public places which need not be included in
> the Stats 19 data.

> The file shows a “footpath or bridleway with no lawful access for motor
> vehicles” is exempt from being included in official data. A “cycle
> path/track with no lawful access for motor vehicles” is also excluded.

> Other excluded public areas include bus, railway and petrol stations,
> picnic areas, service areas, municipal or private parks, private
> industrial estates, pedestrian malls and private retail shopping parks,
private residential estates, harbours, unadopted roads which are not
maintained by public money and car parks and their access roads.

> A recent DfT report warned how “under-reporting” of data could mean “the
> true magnitude of road safety problems are unknown or could be
> underestimated” and would “lead to less efficient or inappropriate
> countermeasures” or “incorrect prioritising”.

Really! There’s a surprise…not…

> However, the pro-cycling lobby often quotes Stats 19 data to insist that
> there is no need to modernise laws so cyclists who kill face the same
> punishment as motorists.

> Cyclists who kill can be jailed for up to two years for “wanton and
> furious” riding under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. In theory
> a cyclist would be convicted of involuntary manslaughter, which can
> result in a life sentence, but this is highly unlikely while the lesser
> charge is available. However, motorists can be jailed for life for
> dangerous or reckless driving if they kill someone.

> Last year, Chris Boardman, the Active Travel Commissioner, refused to
> back calls for updated laws because he said “there were more people
> killed by lightning and cows than by cyclists”.

But if the data was artificially restricted to counting people killed in
pedestrian precincts by cows, ditto for lightning strikes, then the cyclist
slaughter would look awful.

> Matt Briggs, whose wife Kim was killed by a cyclist in 2016, said it was
> “extraordinary” the DfT was not “accurately” collecting data meaning it
> cannot “make effective policy decisions while it is ignoring countless
> numbers of incidents involving cyclists and pedestrians”.

Well, if you don’t ask the question - such as ‘how many people each year
are actually killed by cyclists?’ - you don’t have to deal with the answer,
or suffer hoards of ‘offended’ cyclists demonstrating their desire to kill
with impunity should it look like ‘something will be done’ about the issue.

> He added that he was “utterly shocked” by Mr Boardman’s “casual flippancy
> and disregard for the pain and suffering of grieving families who have
> lost loved ones” to cyclists who break the law.

Boardman’s remarks, along with his pronouncements on cycling saving the
planet (paraphrasing), in my view, are disgraceful.

[…]

> A DfT spokeswoman said: “Safety remains our top priority, and our
> casualty statistics are in line with rigorous international standards.

> “We also continue to work closely with police to regularly review and
> strengthen data around cycling, e-cycle and e-scooter incidents.”

They would say that, wouldn’t they!

Thanks for posting.

At the time of writing this, Road.cc is silent on the report.
Unsurprisingly.

--
Spike

Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
> Brian <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/25/cyclists-collisions-pedestrians-government-data-transport/
>
>> Analysis shows some pensioners’ deaths are not logged as fatalities as
>> data excludes those killed in public spaces like cyclepaths and parks.
>
> So, we are seeing bent statistics…well, well.
>
>> The true threat posed by cyclists who break the law is unknown because
>> the Government is failing to record accurate collision data, The Telegraph can reveal.
>
>> Analysis of recent deaths of pensioners killed by cyclists has found they
>> are not being logged as fatalities in official Department for Transport
>> (DfT) and police statistics.
>
>> Since 1979, police have filed reports about people injured in traffic
>> collisions involving at least one vehicle, including cars, lorries and
>> bicycles, on roads and pavements.
>
>> The DfT publishes the data in its Stats 19 report which is used to assess
>> how well policymakers and politicians have tackled dangers posed by
>> transport issues, such as drink driving and speeding.
>
>> However, The Telegraph has uncovered glaring failings in how the data is
>> collected because it excludes those killed and seriously injured in
>> public spaces where bikes are often ridden at speed. Official statistics
>> also ignore those who take more than 30 days to succumb to catastrophic
>> injuries caused by being struck by a bike.
>
>> Polly Friedhoff, 82, was hit and killed by a cyclist as she was walking
>> along a canal towpath in Oxfordshire in 2022.
>
>> But the Stats 19 data states there were “no deaths” in 2022 caused by a
>> cyclist hitting a pedestrian. A DfT official has now confirmed that
>> towpaths are “not in the scope” of Stats 19 data.
>
>> Jim Blackwood, 91, was hit by an e-bike being ridden on the pavement in Kent last year.
>
>> Because it took three months before he died from his severe injuries he
>> will not be recorded as “killed”, only seriously injured.
>
>> John Douglas, 75, suffered 15 broken ribs and two broken collarbones
>> after being hit by an e-bike ridden on the pavement near his Birmingham home last year.
>
>> But because he died six weeks after the collision, official data will
>> only record him having suffered a serious injury.
>
>> The official statistics shows 462 pedestrians were injured by cyclists in
>> 2022, compared to 437 in 2021 when one person is recorded as dying, and
>> 308 in 2020, when four people were killed.
>
>> A 2011 DfT document lists the public places which need not be included in
>> the Stats 19 data.
>
>> The file shows a “footpath or bridleway with no lawful access for motor
>> vehicles” is exempt from being included in official data. A “cycle
>> path/track with no lawful access for motor vehicles” is also excluded.
>
>> Other excluded public areas include bus, railway and petrol stations,
>> picnic areas, service areas, municipal or private parks, private
>> industrial estates, pedestrian malls and private retail shopping parks,
> private residential estates, harbours, unadopted roads which are not
> maintained by public money and car parks and their access roads.
>
>> A recent DfT report warned how “under-reporting” of data could mean “the
>> true magnitude of road safety problems are unknown or could be
>> underestimated” and would “lead to less efficient or inappropriate
>> countermeasures” or “incorrect prioritising”.
>
> Really! There’s a surprise…not…
>
>> However, the pro-cycling lobby often quotes Stats 19 data to insist that
>> there is no need to modernise laws so cyclists who kill face the same
>> punishment as motorists.
>
>> Cyclists who kill can be jailed for up to two years for “wanton and
>> furious” riding under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. In theory
>> a cyclist would be convicted of involuntary manslaughter, which can
>> result in a life sentence, but this is highly unlikely while the lesser
>> charge is available. However, motorists can be jailed for life for
>> dangerous or reckless driving if they kill someone.
>
>> Last year, Chris Boardman, the Active Travel Commissioner, refused to
>> back calls for updated laws because he said “there were more people
>> killed by lightning and cows than by cyclists”.
>
> But if the data was artificially restricted to counting people killed in
> pedestrian precincts by cows, ditto for lightning strikes, then the cyclist
> slaughter would look awful.
>
>> Matt Briggs, whose wife Kim was killed by a cyclist in 2016, said it was
>> “extraordinary” the DfT was not “accurately” collecting data meaning it
>> cannot “make effective policy decisions while it is ignoring countless
>> numbers of incidents involving cyclists and pedestrians”.
>
> Well, if you don’t ask the question - such as ‘how many people each year
> are actually killed by cyclists?’ - you don’t have to deal with the answer,
> or suffer hoards of ‘offended’ cyclists demonstrating their desire to kill
> with impunity should it look like ‘something will be done’ about the issue.
>
>> He added that he was “utterly shocked” by Mr Boardman’s “casual flippancy
>> and disregard for the pain and suffering of grieving families who have
>> lost loved ones” to cyclists who break the law.
>
> Boardman’s remarks, along with his pronouncements on cycling saving the
> planet (paraphrasing), in my view, are disgraceful.
>
> […]

Saving the planet but killing people.

>
>> A DfT spokeswoman said: “Safety remains our top priority, and our
>> casualty statistics are in line with rigorous international standards.
>
>> “We also continue to work closely with police to regularly review and
>> strengthen data around cycling, e-cycle and e-scooter incidents.”
>
> They would say that, wouldn’t they!
>
> Thanks for posting.
>
> At the time of writing this, Road.cc is silent on the report.
> Unsurprisingly.
>
>

It is obvious the real numbers have been suppressed. They don’t fit with
the anti car / Net Zero nonsense.