It would be interesting to see a breakdown between on-road and off-road accidents for bikes. That would give a truer picture of whether cycling on roads is safe or not. Fear of traffic puts people off taking up commuting as has been said many times before but if we could show that it really isn't any more dangerous than travelling by car more people might take it up. I know of people who openly admit to riding on pavements for "safety reasons". Personally I think you're more likely to have some kind of accident on the pavement than on the road.

It is very interesting that you are less likely to die in a cycling accident. Is that because of all those idiots driving way too fast and writing their cars and themselves off when they do crash?

Lastly I take issue with the "Key findings" assertion that December is the safest month. Without knowing the number of journeys in each month it is impossible to come to a conclusion about which is safest or most dangerous.

"The team add that injury rates among cyclists are far higher in the UK than in the Netherlands and Denmark"

Anyone who's been to the Netherlands will know that cyclists there are treated exceptionally well. There are cycle lanes EVERYWHERE - in the cities they're normally well away from the road and shared with pedestrians and out on main roads there are almost always cycle paths (physically seperated from the main roads) running alongside.

I don't think the government here wants to do anything about improving cycling facilities to be honest (especially as long as there are Labour MP's AGAINST cycling) and even if they did they'd not be able to do much about it - our infrastructure just isn't geared up to support it. And can you imagine how well it'd go down with the public as a whole if they began a program of major roadworks nationwide to build seperate cycle lanes whilst the roads remained in their current dreadful condition?!

"Accidents peak in summertime". Of course they do. A high number of fair weather riders who have no aptitude for cycling, hit the roads with the idea that they have the right to take to the highway irrespective of how they ride, believe that it's up to everybody else to look out for them (picture the scene, traffic lights on Cheapside in London, lady in heels riding straight over on red without looking, slowing or even registering the lights, while talking on her mobile - but phew, thank f#ck she was wearing a helmet), which is why they end up squashed by buses, knocked off by pedestrians or other cyclists or just falling off for no reason. Cycling isn't overly risky, it's cycling like a twat that's risky.

What would be interesting to know is the percentage of those injured were not wearing helmets. I know the roads are dangerous at the best of times, particularly in London in winter, but even as a cyclist who has had his fair share of rough dances with cars and roads, I have absolutely no sympathy for anyone injured whilst not wearing a helmet. Although I guess if they don't wear a helmet there's probably nothing worth protecting anyway, win win :)

There is certainly something be said about vigilant cycling. I have cycled in London for over 7 years, and in that time have had a few collisions, all but one was my fault.

A fellow cyclist told me of how much abuse they get on a daily basis from other motorist, namely black cabs and van drivers and as this is not the case in my riding experience I could only conclude this was due to their lack of cycling skills/ability.

Having a bike that works properly is as important as putting lights on the thing. So often I encounter bikes that have faulty brakes, tubes need inflating etc.

On the helmet issue; I see so may people not 'wearing' helmets properly, i.e. secured on the head and all that. What is the point in that? Absolute idiots. They have this false sense of belief that they've taken the right measures. Idiots.

A regular, experienced adult commuter rider is far less lightly than average to suffer injury because the average includes:

children learning to ride

people who cant ride but use a bike once a year

sport and adventure riders who are trying to ride dangerously.

"I have absolutely no sympathy for anyone injured whilst not wearing a helmet. "

Does that include pedestrians, car occupants, ramblers or someone who fell down the stairs at home?

As daccordimark states, I'd be interested to see the road/offroad breakdown before jumping to conclusions as to the relative risk. And even if it IS more dangerous shouldn't that prompt the government to actually do something positive? If only....

In summary, duh?

News! Report proves what is obvious to the naked eye.

What is surprising is that the evidence for this wasn't already available from previous studies.

Frankly some of the drivel that has been appearing in the media these last few weeks is disheartenig. This is not a story, it's just tabloid pichfork-waving and grunting.

As warraxe said It would be interesting to see helmet/injury statistics but suspect that you would find the opposite of "common sense" and that helmet-wearers have more serious injuries and accidents, not less...

these comparisons are misleading as the cycling stats include children, who account for almost half of accidents

how many children drive cars?

why not compare adults with adults?

and as previously said, how many of these bike accidents were off road? probably loads. and how many of the car accidents were off road? probably very few

I find cycling down urban cyclepaths more dangerous, simply due to the groups of Chav Scum who hang around waiting to jump people on nice bikes.

Comparing kids on bikes accident rates to drivers is a stupid thing to do.

Still, let's take the stats at face value rather than what they appear to be, an opportunity for lazy, dishonest hacks to file a story without doing anything more than copying and pasting a press release.

One in ten cars is uninsured in East London.

Hit and runs are becoming more common, where an uninsured driver smashes into a cyclist or pedestrian and flees the scene. In a random survey by City Of London police, every single HGV lorry stopped in central London was found to be unroadworthy, the driver was uninsured, had exceeded the safe working hours or was driving a dangerous vehicle.

On my cycle commute I will see several drivers on mobiles, they don't care because they won't be caught. Drivers flout the Advanced Stop Lines designed to increase safety for cyclists, not one single London driver has ever been fined for encroaching an ASL.

Emma Foa was killed by a lorry driver who admitted filling in his paperwork as he was driving, the driver did not even get a driving ban, he's still trundling around London.

From direct personal experience the police do not follow up reports of dangerous driving.

Cycling is safe and getting safer- accidents in London have halved whilst cycling journeys have doubled, but the roads are largely lawless.

Drivers ignore the speed limit and have little chance of getting caught. Lorry drivers kill with impunity, a £300 fine for killing someone is easily absorbed. Kill a cyclist and lose less than a week's wages.

In London, if you want to kill someone and get a way with a slapped wrist, use a vehicle.

Warraxe

No sympathy for those injured whilst not wearing a helmet.

A bit severe on someone with a broken leg isn't it? A helmet can only offer protection (and not a lot) to the head. There is no indication in the figures quoted from the report to show how many head injuries are involved. As they are taking all admissions I suspect that the majority surveyed are not head injuries.

I'm afraid you are in danger of offering support to those who would like to see us all wearing helmets in the mistaken belief that they are a panacea.

I agree wiith Round in that to get what protection a helmet can offer one has to wear it rather than simply carry it round on the head - and many don't.

Helmet weariing also seems to give people licence for poor riding. A workmate has smashed three helmets in the past year or so in falls which have been entirely his fault. Frankly I would have given up on the basis that I simply was not up to it.

The main problem is that there is no context to the accidents to enable people to understand risk. Most injuries happen in the home. Go to any Fracture Clinic and you will see trip injuries and falls in the home being the largest number.

Also it may be useful to consider the long term health and compare the health of cyclists with drivers. Most long term health problems are associated with obesity and that has reached epidemic proportions.

There are many points that make this report a waste of money and time. Fancy - more accidents happening when more people are cycling in summer, who would have guessed it. It also highlighted that more accidents happen to children in August - i.e. when they are on holiday and cycling. It didn't compare with the general increase in accidents to children in this period due to increased play activity.

Most headlines have concentrated on the cycling but the report makes many comments about pedestrians which have been grouped together and are being ignored.

The danger is that potential cyclists will be frightened off the road. Fight it, ride, ride safe and visible and let's turn the tide.

Tom

Arghhhh....

I just had a quick look at the report and noted that in the report they assume the average number of cyclist journeys per year is 15 per annum and that this compares with 637 journeys per car! The investigators did not ask the cyclists involved what there average was and look at the range of these figures. The core of the reports assertions are based on these figures!

Also it is of note that the total number of adult pedestrian injuries = 25,756 (13,728 serious) compared with cyclists (18,257 (5,686 serious) i.e. a 53% chance of a serious injury for pedestrians compared with 31% for a cyclist.

Clearly this does not tell us anything about risk and how many pedestrians do journeys equivalent to a cyclist or vehicle. What we need to have is a measure of risk per mile or journey and this was not done. To me this still points out that being a pedestrian has quite a risk.

But for context let's compare this with staying at home where 400,000 people are admitted to A&E after a fall in the home and 14,000 die as a result. see:

http://www.fallsprevention.co.uk/Falls-Strategy-040102.pdf

Had I had to review this document I would have asked the authors to reflect on pedestrian risks and add a look at the significant risks to health of not doing exercise. Except the reviewers of this work were happy to promote the cycling is 'very risky' attitude that pervades society. Most science has some spin in the work.

Should I have time I will be writing to the journal with a separate analysis using the reports numbers.

Tom

waraxe what the hell does wearing a helmet have to do with beeing hit by a car!!! you muppet.

i wear a lid but i dont have a self rightious attitude towards anyone who doesn't.

"I have absolutely no sympathy for anyone injured whilst not wearing a helmet. Although I guess if they don't wear a helmet there's probably nothing worth protecting anyway, win win :)"

Does this reasoning apply to head injuries only ? And then only those head injuries which may otherwise have been absorbed by a cycle helmet ? When the helmetless cyclist is black and blue in the road would there be some sympathies - maybe some for his legs and back but not the head. Oh, what about the nose ? Lost a few teeth perhaps...

Self righteous conditional sympathies you can keep them mate.

@TomBombadil

agree re estimates of cycle usage. this is a massive pain in all research that I've looked at. DoT do have an annual report into injuries by transport type, based on police reports (I think its the one they mention in the article, most probably) and they do draw conclusions on risk per km travelled. Off the top of my head they concluded that cycling is 10 times as likely to result in a KSI incident per km travelled than car driving but they are completely unclear from where they get the km travelled by bicycles. Again, from memory; it seemed that they assumed that everyone in the UK owns one and they travel an average of 60 km per year on them, which is so general as to be useless. I have no idea where you would farm reliable data on this from though, with cars it's a lot easier; they have mileometers which afaik are read during MoT

That said +1 for the comment about Holland etc. I commute in Flanders by bike and have no problems whatsoever on bike paths, but they're a lot better separated from the traffic than most afterthought bike paths that I have seen and ridden on in the UK.

@TomBombadil and bomberesque The report looked at injuries per type of journey. According to the report, the average person (not 'cyclist') makes 15 trips/year by bike and 637 by car. Thus for an average person, it's riskier to cycle than drive.

There was no obvious data for the number of pedestrian trips/year, but one would assume that figure is higher than the number of car trips and much higher than the number of cycle trips. So the average person is less likely to suffer an accident as a pedestrian.

How many people stay at home per year? Nearly everyone, I'd say.

The report focuses on a narrow area, it's true. It doesn't say whether on the whole (taking into account other health factors) it's riskier to ride a bike than drive a car or walk or be a couch potato or a combination thereof.

I have to say, the general level of skill and awareness shown by a lot of bike riders who often treat bikes as toys on the road is appalling. Cycling popularity is at levels not seen since the 'fifties and therefore accident rates have gone up. Because of this these figures inevitably show a disproportionate emphasis on accidents occuring to new riders who lack skill and confidence. Also, as cyclist numbers grow, so drivers and car manufacturers, who, in Britain particularly, are very politicised and powerful are actively attempting to 'take back the road'. This has been very noticeable in recent years and has led to increased dangers for bike riders.

In Britain and unlike virtually any other country in Europe, cycling has always been treated as a threat and with ridicule and suspicion by the majority of non-cycling car-owners who generally covet and fetishize their cars and who still see cylists that are on the road as people too poor to afford a car.

I think cyclists need to do two things if they want to remain able to stay using roads (assuming they understand why it's important that roads and the freedom of travel should not be owned entirely by cars): first learn to tell the difference between the bike as a toy and the bike as an important and highly accessible means of transport both for health and social reasons. Loads of people don't get this. And second, actually learn to ride a bloody bike on the road! That way it reduces the excuses people who disapprove of bikes on roads have for promoting their arguments.

I know a lot of people who ride up to two hundred miles a week all on road. Year after year. I only know one who has had a significant accident.

The road lobby, including the truckers, just love this stuff.

I will say it time and time again cycling in the UK his a minority sport and motorist dont give a shit about us cyclists, other countries like France italy love us, in uk we just get shit all the time, re a helmet? it wont stop a tractor or wagon rolling over you head and killing you, i ware one. To motorists we cyclists are a pain on the road, i have at least 3 encounters with cars vans etc, on a 3 hour ride most days. iI sometimes think his this going to be my last ride on our roads here in York because of the maniac drivers. Yes we have cycle paths but people use them for walking there dogs off the leads running in to the front wheel!! I dont use none of the A64 A19 or other main roads out of york there too dangerous, a few cyclists have been killed on theses roads.

As many comments have noted there are huge problems with the data in this research. The hospital reporting system classifies all cycle related injuries as traffic related whereas most of them are not. The resulting comparisons with car injuries and pedestrian injuries are totally false. Officials from the Department for Transport have admitted that their information on this in RCGB2007, as referenced by this research, hugely overstates the risk to cyclists.

Much of the press comment refers to the quote from American research comparing us to Europe. That research shows strong support to the "safety in numbers" explanation for decreasing road danger. http://tinyurl.com/yf7j92d

"Deaths per year. 725, 629, 665, 732, and 693 cyclists died per year in 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, and 2000 respectively, and were about 89% male. (National Highway Traffic Saftey Administration, and Insurance Institute for Highway Saftey)

Health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks. "The gain of 'life years' through improved fitness among regular cyclists, and thus their increased longevity exceeds the loss of 'life years' in cycle fatalities. (British Medical Association, 1992) An analysis based on the life expectancy of each cyclist killed in road accidents using actuarial data, and the increased longevity of those engaging in exercise regimes several times a week compared with those leading relatively sedentary lives, has shown that, even in the current cycle hostile environment, the benefits in terms of life years gained, outweigh life years lost in cycling fatalities by a factor of around 20 to 1." -- Mayer Hillman, Senior Fellow Emeritus, Policy Studies Institute, and British Medical Association researcher (7, 8)

Cyclists are 2% of road deaths & injuries. The 761 cyclists killed in 1996 accounted for 2% of traffic fatalities, and the 59,000 cyclists injured made up 2% of all traffic injuries. (5)

Cyclists accounted for 12% of all nonmotorist traffic fatalities in 1996. Pedestrians accounted for 86 percent, and the remaining 2 percent were skateboard riders, roller skaters, etc. (5)

Cycling deaths higher in 70's & 80's. The number of cyclist fatalities in 1996 was 19% lower than the 941 fatalities reported in 1986. The highest number of cyclist fatalities ever recorded was 1,003 in 1975. (5)

Cyclists killed since 1932. Nearly 44,000 cyclists have died in traffic crashes in the United States since 1932 &emdash; the first year in which estimates of cyclist fatalities were recorded. (5)

Cyclists killed IN 1932. The 350 cyclists killed in 1932 accounted for 1.3% of the 27,979 persons who died in traffic crashes that year. (5)

The above info from http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/almanac-safety.html

There is a lot more statistics in this sight and very interesting.

Yes, the analysis of the data does seem skewed.

As an adult cyclist, I'm saddened by the ridicule & contempt that I sometimes experience all because I choose to ride. Call it small town mentality (quite common in Thetford, Norfolk), I'm not sure, but there is stil somel stigma attached that you're either, backwards, or just plain poor & shouldn't show your face in 'society'.

Denmark, here I come!!!