Forum Topic

This is really important to stress. Cycling is a safe way to travel even in urban London and, although it is not without risks, these are outweighed for most people by the health benefits particularly as you get older.None of us knows the factors behind the incident last week so it is pointless calling for change. It appears to have occurred at a junction and you can't segregate cyclists at junctions so a different road configuration wouldn't have helped.The numbers for Cycleway 9 are becoming increasingly encouraging and I think there has been some significant change in patterns of local cycling particularly the number of women on bikes. I believe it has achieved this by changing perceptions around safety by making cycling along the High Road less intimidating but not necessarily statistically safer.The early years of operation have not reduced collisions particular on the King Street stretch but, even there the number of injuries seems to have fallen. This can't be because of changes made to Hammersmith & Fulham to the most dangerous junctions because they have been superficial. Probably the two most important factors are increased driver and cyclist awareness of the accident hotspots and high numbers of cyclists conditioning drivers to be aware.Intitially when collisions spiked some claimed this was down to the increased number of cyclists but the rise was way beyond the percentage increase. Now cyclist numbers are going up more but the number of collisions seems to be falling. This suggests a safety in numbers factor and raises the hope that the more people take to their bikes the less risk there will be for everyone.

Mark Evans ● 583d

Paul, people have tried to explain to you how internally contradictory your argument is and failed so I won't waste time with that.It might be better to go back to why language matters in incidents like this although nothing of what I say is specific to the events this Wednesday. The police will always report such cases as a collision until they go to court. This is not because they are 'motornormatic' or are trying to excuse bad driving but because they seek to maximise the possibility of successful prosecutions by ruling out the chance of a prejudicial statement being made. I am slightly uncomfortable with the way this has been reported on this site i.e. 'the car hit the cyclist'. In the vast majority of cases this would be accurate and the more vulnerable road user would always be considered to be the object rather than the originator of the collision but it precludes a scenario in which the vehicle was static. Many of us will have seen the footage on social media recently of a lime bike user crashing into the back of a stationary bus. This was not a case of 'the bus hit the cyclist'.As for your assertion that it should be 'the driver hit the cyclist' this should be ruled out solely on the basis that it is confusing - did her or she get out of her car and strike a blow? However, the main reason it should be avoided is that it is clearly prejudicial. It suggests fault and perhaps intent. That in most cases the first is likely to be true does not change the fact that prosecutions can and have been frustrated by people speculating about what happened on social media and jumping to conclusions. By arguing this point you are potentially enabling dangerous drivers to escape conviction. My previous experience in discussions with you is that you will dig in and never accept a point made by others so all I can hope for is that others will avoid your mistake.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 587d

An extract from Cycling UK "How safe is cycling?Risk to people who cycleCycling is much safer than many people think it is, and research consistently shows that the health benefits are substantial and significantly outweigh the risks. To put the risks in perspective, over a distance equivalent to cycling 1,000 times round the globe at its widest point:one cyclist is killedabout 20-30 are seriously injuredfewer than 100 are slightly injured.In fact, the casualty rate for cyclists - number hurt per billion miles cycled on public roads - has been trending downwards for the past decade or so (note that the pandemic suppressed motor travel in 2020):*Figures adjusted by the DfT to take account of changes in the way the police report on road injuries.Note: the figure above are based on traffic estimates and incidents on public roads in GB that are reported to the police and included in the Department for Transport’s casualty statistics – please see Q16 of our statistics page for more.On top of this, while cyclists are among the most vulnerable road users (see below), there’s good evidence to suggest that the safety in numbers effect works for them. One reason for this may be that drivers encounter more cyclists, grow better accustomed to interacting with them safely and are more likely to have personal experience of cycling.  Of course, every fatality or injury on the roads is one too many. Although Great Britain has a good overall record on road safety in terms of road user (all) deaths per billion vehicle-km compared with other countries in Europe, cyclists are still over-represented in casualty statistics.From 2015-19 (pre-pandemic ‘normal’ years), cycling made up only about 1% of traffic and 2% of trips, but cyclists accounted for:6% of road fatalities14% of KSI (killed or seriously injured)11% of all casualties.(Again, these figures are based on road incidents reported to the police).Risk to other road usersImportantly, people who cycle cause negligible harm to other road users:Unlike driving, most cycling (85%) happens on minor roads and streets where people are most likely to be walking. Yet road casualty statistics show that cycles are involved in just 2% of pedestrian casualties reported to and by the police. The rest, 98%, are hit by motor vehicles, the bulk of whose mileage happens on motorways or A roads. For more on this, please see our briefing on pedestrians.In collisions involving one car and one cycle from 2012-2021, almost 500 cyclists died, compared to four car occupants.Also, as mentioned, more cycling makes for a safer, cleaner and more pleasant environment, so benefits everyone in that way too. "

Adrian Irving ● 587d

Anita, I hope your lack of further participation in this thread is not due to you being unsettled by Campbell's unhinged response to your very helpful post. He has targeted me in a similar way towards me being quite aggressive in related threads after I had posted something he didn't like elsewhere.I'm sure what you reported back on this incident will have been of comfort to everybody who might have been concerned that they knew the poor man who was hit by the car. I have had to report on road traffic collisions in a former life and there is no contradiction between what you said and what has been reported. The 'major trauma' centre that the ambulance took the man to is St. Mary's in Paddington. That he went there doesn't necessarily mean he was seriously injured but, particularly with head injuries, most road traffic victims are taken there. The presence of an air ambulance also doesn't necessarily signify a serious incident - it probably was dispatched due to the age of the victim and it wasn't used.Roads are closed by the police to protect the scene and the time that the road depends on two things, the time it takes specialist officers to get there and the seriousness of the injuries. I was on the High Road at about 5.30pm yesterday and traffic was moving along Heathfield Terrace although I only viewed it from across Turnham Green. If an officer on the scene said that it wasn't that serious then the apparently long time that it took to fully reopen may simply be due to the crime scene team being at another incident.

Felicity Caborn ● 588d