2009 Cycle casualty figures

[Access Legal Guy]

I'm just looking at the Department for Transports 2009 reported road casualties. I think published 24th June 2010.

Cyclists are the only road using group that have seen in increase in total casulaties. With the planned/anticipated year on year increase in bicycle use what are your thoughts?


The number of pedal cyclists killed fell by 10 per cent from 115 in 2008 to 104 in 2009. The number of seriously injured rose by 6 per cent to 2,606. The total casualties among pedal cyclists rose by 5 per cent to 17,064.

Reported Road Casualties Great Britain Main Results: 2009

[citoyen]

I would like to see the figures put in the context of the relative number of cyclists on the road/miles cycled compared to the previous year before making a comment.

d.

[pdm]

Indeed, context, recording methods, population sizes and sampling are key.

All major studies to date indicate that increasing cyclist numbers DECREASE the incidence of cyclist death and injury and that no other factor (helmets, cycle "facilities", etc) has any significant effect.

If, as is often mooted, cyclist numbers in, for example, London have doubled in the last 10 years then it seems the incidence has decreased significantly...

[citoyen]

Are cyclist deaths really increasing? | News | guardian.co.uk

[Access Legal Guy]

I agree that clear context and reporting needs to be evaluated, and even then statistics can be looked at however one wishes. The interest in these figures is that they are incidents reported to the police (I presume either by the injured party or a representative of theirs).

For cyclists therefore, the figures may well be under reported, despite the numbers going up. If this is true what is the real position in respect of cycling casualties?

With relatively few cyclists having insurance covering them, are cyclists more likely than other motorists to simply get up and get on with it if they have been knocked from their bike and injured, without taking it further?

[citoyen]

For cyclists therefore, the figures may well be under reported, despite the numbers going up. If this is true what is the real position in respect of cycling casualties?

Have you considered the possibility that the true number is static but a higher proportion of injuries are being reported?

With relatively few cyclists having insurance covering them, are cyclists more likely than other motorists to simply get up and get on with it if they have been knocked from their bike and injured, without taking it further?

The only relevant point of reference for me is the time I was pushed off my bike by an idiot leaning out of a car window. The extent of my "injury" was slight tenderness where I'd been hit - not even a visible bruise - but I reported it to the police immediately.

Last winter, I fell off due to ice and damaged my wrist. I'd say the injury was more severe than when I was pushed off but I didn't report it to the police. The point being that it's not necessarily the severity of the injury per se that determines whether or not it's worth reporting.

d.

[nuttycyclist]

....
With relatively few cyclists having insurance covering them, are cyclists more likely than other motorists to simply get up and get on with it if they have been knocked from their bike and injured, without taking it further?

I think that many cyclists do have insurance.  The CTC (CTC Homepage - CTC the UK's national cyclists' organisation) has 60,000 members, and 3rd party insurance is included in the membership package.  The LCC (London Cycle Campaign?) I believe offers free insurance as membership package.  From memory AUK (Audax UK) also covers cyclists, but possibly only for the duration of an event.  I'm not interested in racing, but again I think that many of those groups also offer 3rd party insurance.


Now, let's look at the comment "simply get up and get on with it if they have been knocked from their bike and injured, without taking it further?".  If the cyclist has been "knocked off" then the other party (motorist?) was at fault; so the cyclist can make a claim even if uninsured since it was not their fault.

Why?   Is it because the motoring lobby makes it so difficult to claim?  I've had a couple of incidents and it took 18 months or more to settle including medical examinations.  When the car got driven into we made one phone call and the guilty party's insurance dealt with everything within a couple of weeks.


This is a big argument for the introduction of "presumed liability" as in use in Europe.  Onus on motorist to prove they were not at fault in the event of an incident with cyclist, instead of as at now for the cyclist to fight the insurance companies and lawyers to try to get their costs recovered.



But, there's also a bit of a split here.  These stats are from incident reporting, nothing to do with insurance or claims.

[Access Legal Guy]

For cyclists therefore, the figures may well be under reported, despite the numbers going up. If this is true what is the real position in respect of cycling casualties?

Have you considered the possibility that the true number is static but a higher proportion of injuries are being reported?

With relatively few cyclists having insurance covering them, are cyclists more likely than other motorists to simply get up and get on with it if they have been knocked from their bike and injured, without taking it further?

The only relevant point of reference for me is the time I was pushed off my bike by an idiot leaning out of a car window. The extent of my "injury" was slight tenderness where I'd been hit - not even a visible bruise - but I reported it to the police immediately.

Last winter, I fell off due to ice and damaged my wrist. I'd say the injury was more severe than when I was pushed off but I didn't report it to the police. The point being that it's not necessarily the severity of the injury per se that determines whether or not it's worth reporting.

d.

so, a 50% ratio = under reported

[citoyen]

so, a 50% ratio = under reported

I reported 100% of injuries that were reportable.

d.

[Access Legal Guy]

Now, let's look at the comment "simply get up and get on with it if they have been knocked from their bike and injured, without taking it further?".  If the cyclist has been "knocked off" then the other party (motorist?) was at fault; so the cyclist can make a claim even if uninsured since it was not their fault.

Why?   Is it because the motoring lobby makes it so difficult to claim?  I've had a couple of incidents and it took 18 months or more to settle including medical examinations.  When the car got driven into we made one phone call and the guilty party's insurance dealt with everything within a couple of weeks.

Of course any 'guilty' parties insurers will want to deal direct as soon as is possible. It's in their best interests to settle on a full and final basis direct and quickly.

It will always take a little longer if a claim is made because I would hope ones legal people will be ensuring that any settlement offer is reasonable and covers all losses (including possible future losses). There is no way that one will know if any settlement offer is reasonable if you are injured if a direct settlement is made soon after the event. The likelyhood is that if any future treatment or assistance is needed, it can no then be claimed.

[nuttycyclist]

Now, let's look at the comment "simply get up and get on with it if they have been knocked from their bike and injured, without taking it further?".  If the cyclist has been "knocked off" then the other party (motorist?) was at fault; so the cyclist can make a claim even if uninsured since it was not their fault.

Why?   Is it because the motoring lobby makes it so difficult to claim?  I've had a couple of incidents and it took 18 months or more to settle including medical examinations.  When the car got driven into we made one phone call and the guilty party's insurance dealt with everything within a couple of weeks.

Of course any 'guilty' parties insurers will want to deal direct as soon as is possible. It's in their best interests to settle on a full and final basis direct and quickly.

It will always take a little longer if a claim is made because I would hope ones legal people will be ensuring that any settlement offer is reasonable and covers all losses (including possible future losses). There is no way that one will know if any settlement offer is reasonable if you are injured if a direct settlement is made soon after the event. The likelyhood is that if any future treatment or assistance is needed, it can no then be claimed.

Not my experience.

Bump between vehicles, quickly and easily sorted despite injury claim.

Bump between vehicle and cyclist, long and drawn out negotiations leading to reduced payouts because of the length of time between incident and medical report (medical report requested by guilty party a considerable time period after the incident).  Even a non-injury claim (damage to bike only) took months to resolve.


The current situation in the UK appears to be weighted in the favour of the motorist.  From the bottom (minor shunt resulting in buckled wheel) right up to the top (head on collision between motorist on wrong side of road and cyclist - motorist found "not guilty" on all counts in court.)

Due to this attitude, I suspect that's why many "minor" incidents aren't reported to the police and so don't appear on the stats.

Person drove into me the other month and dented their door.  They didn't stop, I couldn't be bothered to report the "hit and run".  I wasn't injured, the bike wasn't damaged, the driver's wallet would be hit though when they try to repair the dent.

[Access Legal Guy]

Your experiances are unfotunate and precisely why I made the point.

It is true to say that insurance companies are at no rush at all to settle and will work off of a post backlog of weeks if they are not dealing direct. Just try calling them to see how long you're on hold for, only to get through to the wrong people in any event.

I see no reason why there should be reduced payouts, or a poor perception of claim success from cyclists.

I am convinced that if cyclists picked their own solicitor, one who specialised in cycling injuries (the injuries themselves, the affects of said injuries, the bicycles and issues of contrib) and had empathy with cyclists, their rights and concerns, with the ability and capacity to use the law in their favour, rather than a local high street firm or one on an insurance panel who may deal in general RTA claims, then the perception that all is gear up to support motorists will soon fade.

The take no crap stance from those confident enough to do so, works.

[phil d]

....
With relatively few cyclists having insurance covering them, are cyclists more likely than other motorists to simply get up and get on with it if they have been knocked from their bike and injured, without taking it further?

I think that many cyclists do have insurance.  The CTC (CTC Homepage - CTC the UK's national cyclists' organisation) has 60,000 members, and 3rd party insurance is included in the membership package.  The LCC (London Cycle Campaign?) I believe offers free insurance as membership package.  From memory AUK (Audax UK) also covers cyclists, but possibly only for the duration of an event.  I'm not interested in racing, but again I think that many of those groups also offer 3rd party insurance.

The CTC, LCC, AUK etc insurance is 3rd party insurance, so doesn't come into the equation - ALG appears to be referring to personal injury insurance.  Even those of us that have this will (hopefully) rarely claim as it covers things like loss of limb rather than breakages.

Turning to Nutty's other point, I suspect that the reason motorists' claims are settled more quickly is that it is insurance company dealing with insurance company, rather than cyclist talking to insurance company.  Size matters.

[phil d]

I am convinced that if cyclists picked their own solicitor, one who specialised in cycling injuries (the injuries themselves, the affects of said injuries, the bicycles and issues of contrib) and had empathy with cyclists, their rights and concerns, with the ability and capacity to use the law in their favour, rather than a local high street firm or one on an insurance panel who may deal in general RTA claims, then the perception that all is gear up to support motorists will soon fade.

The take no crap stance from those confident enough to do so, works.

While I have no personal experience, anecdotal evidence from those that have used the CTC-recommended solicitors, Russell Jones and Walker, would seem to support this view.  It would be nice to see other names on a CTC list, I  think.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Turning to Nutty's other point, I suspect that the reason motorists' claims are settled more quickly is that it is insurance company dealing with insurance company, rather than cyclist talking to insurance company.  Size matters.

Just what I was about to say.

[Access Legal Guy]

I am convinced that if cyclists picked their own solicitor, one who specialised in cycling injuries (the injuries themselves, the affects of said injuries, the bicycles and issues of contrib) and had empathy with cyclists, their rights and concerns, with the ability and capacity to use the law in their favour, rather than a local high street firm or one on an insurance panel who may deal in general RTA claims, then the perception that all is gear up to support motorists will soon fade.

The take no crap stance from those confident enough to do so, works.

While I have no personal experience, anecdotal evidence from those that have used the CTC-recommended solicitors, Russell Jones and Walker, would seem to support this view.  It would be nice to see other names on a CTC list, I  think.

The CTC panel is the holy grail that we aspire to join (if it were not a sole panel). In the meantime, there are thousands of other cyclists out there who through no fault of their own are not represented to such a high standard.

[nuttycyclist]

Your experiances are unfotunate and precisely why I made the point.

It is true to say that insurance companies are at no rush at all to settle and will work off of a post backlog of weeks if they are not dealing direct. Just try calling them to see how long you're on hold for, only to get through to the wrong people in any event.

I see no reason why there should be reduced payouts, or a poor perception of claim success from cyclists.

I am convinced that if cyclists picked their own solicitor, one who specialised in cycling injuries (the injuries themselves, the affects of said injuries, the bicycles and issues of contrib) and had empathy with cyclists, their rights and concerns, with the ability and capacity to use the law in their favour, rather than a local high street firm or one on an insurance panel who may deal in general RTA claims, then the perception that all is gear up to support motorists will soon fade.

The take no crap stance from those confident enough to do so, works.

In my case it was the Russell Jones and Walker cycling specialist solicitors, and they did get a good deal (pushed back on several of the attempts to reduce payout).  The delay was the lack of response from the other party.  One of the reasons for reduced payout was the fact that the medical report they called for 6 months after the shunt showed "minor injuries" - yeah - they'd had 6 months so far to heal!


Look at my other comment though - motorist taken to court on 3 charges (on wrong side of road overtaking parked cars and driving headlong into oncoming cyclist).  Magistrates found him not guilty on all counts.

The law, as with everything else, is on the side of the motorist.

[alexb]

Now, let's look at the comment "simply get up and get on with it if they have been knocked from their bike and injured, without taking it further?".  If the cyclist has been "knocked off" then the other party (motorist?) was at fault; so the cyclist can make a claim even if uninsured since it was not their fault.

Why?   Is it because the motoring lobby makes it so difficult to claim?  I've had a couple of incidents and it took 18 months or more to settle including medical examinations.  When the car got driven into we made one phone call and the guilty party's insurance dealt with everything within a couple of weeks.

Of course any 'guilty' parties insurers will want to deal direct as soon as is possible. It's in their best interests to settle on a full and final basis direct and quickly.

It will always take a little longer if a claim is made because I would hope ones legal people will be ensuring that any settlement offer is reasonable and covers all losses (including possible future losses). There is no way that one will know if any settlement offer is reasonable if you are injured if a direct settlement is made soon after the event. The likelyhood is that if any future treatment or assistance is needed, it can no then be claimed.

Not my experience.

Bump between vehicles, quickly and easily sorted despite injury claim.

Bump between vehicle and cyclist, long and drawn out negotiations leading to reduced payouts because of the length of time between incident and medical report (medical report requested by guilty party a considerable time period after the incident).  Even a non-injury claim (damage to bike only) took months to resolve.


The current situation in the UK appears to be weighted in the favour of the motorist.  From the bottom (minor shunt resulting in buckled wheel) right up to the top (head on collision between motorist on wrong side of road and cyclist - motorist found "not guilty" on all counts in court.)

Due to this attitude, I suspect that's why many "minor" incidents aren't reported to the police and so don't appear on the stats.

Person drove into me the other month and dented their door.  They didn't stop, I couldn't be bothered to report the "hit and run".  I wasn't injured, the bike wasn't damaged, the driver's wallet would be hit though when they try to repair the dent.

You're not quite quoting the same thing though.

If you were hit by another driver and injured, then you would see a similar delay for medical reports etc. as you would with a cycle claim.

Cycle claims often include injuries, hence they usually take longer to settle.
Most car accidents generally only involve damage to the vehicle, hence quickly and easily settled.

[Access Legal Guy]

Your experiances are unfotunate and precisely why I made the point.

It is true to say that insurance companies are at no rush at all to settle and will work off of a post backlog of weeks if they are not dealing direct. Just try calling them to see how long you're on hold for, only to get through to the wrong people in any event.

I see no reason why there should be reduced payouts, or a poor perception of claim success from cyclists.

I am convinced that if cyclists picked their own solicitor, one who specialised in cycling injuries (the injuries themselves, the affects of said injuries, the bicycles and issues of contrib) and had empathy with cyclists, their rights and concerns, with the ability and capacity to use the law in their favour, rather than a local high street firm or one on an insurance panel who may deal in general RTA claims, then the perception that all is gear up to support motorists will soon fade.

The take no crap stance from those confident enough to do so, works.

In my case it was the Russell Jones and Walker cycling specialist solicitors, and they did get a good deal (pushed back on several of the attempts to reduce payout).  The delay was the lack of response from the other party.  One of the reasons for reduced payout was the fact that the medical report they called for 6 months after the shunt showed "minor injuries" - yeah - they'd had 6 months so far to heal!


Look at my other comment though - motorist taken to court on 3 charges (on wrong side of road overtaking parked cars and driving headlong into oncoming cyclist).  Magistrates found him not guilty on all counts.

The law, as with everything else, is on the side of the motorist.

Well I'm sure RJW did all that they could.  I presume that if the other side were given leave to obtain their own medical evidence then the matter was litigated and then the options were considered on the contents of the two medical reports versus proceeding to a hearing.

I'm unable to comment on criminal law, which admittedly provides even more baffeling headlines

[nuttycyclist]

...
Not my experience.

Bump between vehicles, quickly and easily sorted despite injury claim.

...

You're not quite quoting the same thing though.

If you were hit by another driver and injured, then you would see a similar delay for medical reports etc. as you would with a cycle claim.

Cycle claims often include injuries, hence they usually take longer to settle.
Most car accidents generally only involve damage to the vehicle, hence quickly and easily settled.

Added bold to one phrase.

[mattc]

Turning to Nutty's other point, I suspect that the reason motorists' claims are settled more quickly is that it is insurance company dealing with insurance company, rather than cyclist talking to insurance company.  Size matters.

i also get the impression that motorist INsCos are happy to operate a knock-for-knock policy in most situations, because it all evens out in the end.

With cyclists involved, one side will tend to claim for much more than the other, so it's in their interests to fight for every penny. This is how free markets work

[SlowCoach]

Turning to Nutty's other point, I suspect that the reason motorists' claims are settled more quickly is that it is insurance company dealing with insurance company, rather than cyclist talking to insurance company.  Size matters.

I think there's a lot to do with insurance companies dealing with each other on a knock to knock basis. Some years ago I was involved in an incident where another driver drove both into the car I was driving and the camping trailer I was towing, damaging both. The other driver's insurers accepted liability for the car damage and settled within 3 weeks. However they then rejected the claim for the trailer even though the claim for both parts went in at the same time and in the same set of correspondence - they were aware from the start that the claim was in 2 parts. That took over a year to settle (including claiming at one point that the incident never occurred despite them previously agreeing circumstances in relation to the car and admitting they had a copy of the police report)

[hellymedic]

I think some under-reporting of cyclists' injuries is due to Police inaction/apathy.

[Access Legal Guy]

My understanding is that if an injury is reported to the police, they either have to attend the scene if the report is instant (and they are able to reasoonably do so) or take a full account if reported later.

Both scenarios should result in a police report of some sort.

If and how these figures are fed back centrally is anybodies guess!

If involved in a non fault accident resulting in injury my advice would be to always inform the police, preferably while you're still sat at the side of the road nursing said injuries. Then, ensure or insist that you are provided with feedback from the police as to what they may or may not be doing about the party at fault.  This way, not only will any police report be more comprehensive, but it'll actually make them do something more than simply file the report as soon as they step back into their car.

don't let your own apathy reinforce peoples (bad) attitudes to cyclists.

[hellymedic]

I spent quite a while over the winter just passed visiting a chap with a broken neck in the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, Stanmore.
His initial crash had occurred not far from his Sussex home.
Police attended crash, thought he had a 'minor shoulder injury' and did not arrange an interview for weeks as they didn't realise the gravity of the situation and he was off their patch.
It took much phoning and persistence to get anything.
This is an articulate, persistent chap who never lost consciousness.
If it takes that much effort to get a decent report in this sort of case, heaven help the rest!