NHS says "cyclists are slightly more to blame for fatal collisions"

[hubner]

I don't know where to start with this NHS "News analysis: Cycling safety special report ":

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/02february/pages/cycling-safety-a-special-report.aspx

it talks about absolute numbers of cyclists KSI (killed or seriously injured), and concludes "It is possible that cycling has become more dangerous".

And I don't know how they managed to come up with "cyclists are slightly more to blame for fatal collisions" in the following:

Can I lower my risk?

To understand the contributory causes to fatal cycle accidents, the Transport Research Laboratory has analysed data from 2005 to 2007.

For cyclists, the most common factors associated with fatal collisions were:

    Failure to look properly – 31%
    Cyclists entering road from the pavement – 17% (children are particularly prone to these types of incidents)
    Loss of control – 17%
    Failure to judge other person’s path or speed – 15%
    Poor turning or manoeuvring – 11%
    Cyclist wearing dark clothes at night – 10%
    Not displaying lights at night or in poor visibility – 5%
    Disobeying road signs and markings – 5%

In motorists (both cars and goods vehicles) most common contributing factors associated with fatal collisions with cyclists were:

    Failure to look properly – 44%
    Passing too close to cyclist – 19%
    Careless or reckless driving – 12%
    Poor turning or manoeuvring – 11%
    Failure to judge other person’s path or speed – 11%
    Disobeying road signs and markings – 4%

On average, there were 1.82 contributory factors associated with cyclists involved in a fatal collision and 1.60 contributory factors for drivers.

This suggests that cyclists are slightly more to blame for fatal collisions. However, this is just one set of figures. Whatever the true extent of “blame” (if any can or should be laid), it is important to note that cyclists are likely to come off worse from a collision. Even the safest cyclist cannot avoid all possibility of an accident, and these figures would suggest that greater vigilance on the part of all road users would reduce the chances of a collision.

[P Walsh]

That extract looks interesting, and I will have a look at the rest of it when I have time. The statistics are treated with caution in the closing comments, so I don't see this as an unfair attack on cyclists.

What I cannot work out is what proportion of cycling fatalities would have been avoided if cyclists had made no mistakes. I try to take care of myself on the road and I would like to think that makes me less at risk that the "average" cyclist, but I don't know if that is true. I don't ride on the streets of London, and I think that puts me in a "less at risk" category.

On the whole I don't feel very threatened on the road. I went for a two hour spin yesterday (mainly rural) and had no problems at all. And that is my usual experience. No cars pulling out in front of me, no close shaves from HGVs, no impatient drivers squeezing past.

We all see crap cycling putting cyclists at risk, so I would not be surprised if cyclists' mistakes contribute to the fatality statistics. We see mtb riders emerging from side roads without looking, bmx riders alternating between road and footpath, and even the occasional inexperienced rider trying to squeeze down the left of an HGV at traffic lights. I would not like to guess what proportion of cycling deaths are partly caused by these sorts of errors.

[mrcharly-YHT]

If the result of the accident is fatal, how do they know the cyclist didn't look properly?

Sure, there will be obvious cases with witnesses, but that will only be some of them. The rest will be based on statements from the other party in the accident.

WEARING DARK CLOTHING AT NIGHT! WTF!
Oh, I forgot, hi-viz clothing has majik powers that stop the artic from crushing your organs.

[L CC]

Wearing dark clothing at night flew out at me, too.

I guess we need to hi vis up all the deer that are killed too?

So, Suffolk County Council will work with The Deer Initiative and put in Deer Protection Zones... but if you're on a bike and a car hits you, it's still your fault?

[P Walsh]

I strongly agree that these figures imply greater certainty about accidents that can be justified. In the end, each death is investigated by someone with a clipboard, asking questions, taking measurements and making judgements. They will probably try their best, but some of their information will be duff or incomplete.

As for wearing dark clothing at night, I would feel much more at risk without my hi-viz stuff and I am unable to understand others choosing to ride in dark clothing at night. Bike lights are not always great at helping drivers pick out cyclists, and a bit of reflective / hi-viz clothing does help. Like most of us I drive as well as cycle, so as a cyclist I look at other cyclists and note what makes them stand out for me when I am driving. Blinding rear lights, not helpful when you are trying to overtake safely. Weak rear lights, even worse. Reflective stuff that shows the body shape, great for judging position and distance, and very helpful for safe overtaking, or for abandoning an overtaking manoeuvre if the cyclist's right arm is raised to indicate a right turn. I know motorists should be looking where they are going and should try to see and respond to event the most camouflaged and unlit night cyclist, but if there is something I can reasonably do to make it less likely that a motorist will fail to see me I will do it. I have kids and they like to see their dad come home after a night ride.

[PhilO]

They've clearly just added up the contributary factors numerically to get the 1.82:1.60 figure. Even if you could do that, which you can't, there would have to be some sort of scaling factor included regarding the size of the risk factor.

For instance, leaving aside whether 'dark clothing at night' can reasonably be considered a fault, their analysis would hold that a dark-clothed cyclist* flattened by a driver looking back over his shoulder would be equally to blame for his demise. 1 error from the cyclist, 1 error from the driver.

Utterly, utterly, utterly $%&*^%( ridiculous. 

*And this would apply even if the cyclist was lit up like the proverbial Christmas tree, presumably, given that 'lack of lights' is a seperate factor.

[TimC]

Wearing dark clothing at night flew out at me, too.

I guess we need to hi vis up all the deer that are killed too?

So, Suffolk County Council will work with The Deer Initiative and put in Deer Protection Zones... but if you're on a bike and a car hits you, it's still your fault?

Hmmm. Deer aren't known for their ability to understand, accept and implement advice to improve their safety, so systems may need to be put in place to protect them while they go about their lives without adapting to the realities of dangerous traffic. People, on the other hand - despite their best efforts to prove otherwise - are able, if somewhat unwilling, to take measures which reduce their likelihood of being unseen by dozy drivers. Taking responsibility for your own safety doesn't remove responsibility from others; safety is a team effort. Wearing dark clothing at night, either as a pedestrian or a cyclist, may be a right, but it's not one that signifies any great intelligence.

[Jaded]

Deal with the dozy drivers properly first.

Then look at the things they hit, if they still hit them.

[TimC]

In your dreams. You'll die of old age (or by getting hit by a dozy driver) long before anything meaningful is done to 'educate' them. In the meantime, looking after yourself is the best plan.

[Si_Co]

<Snip>

Wearing dark clothing at night, either as a pedestrian or a cyclist, may be a right, but it's not one that signifies any great intelligence.

The problem is at some point everyone is a pedestrian, are we really saying that if I've driven to the supermarket at night wearing black jeans and a dark t-shirt I need to don hi-vis before walking across the car park?
 
I think we've been here before, views are pretty much as entrenched as the h*lm*t thing.

[Ruthie]

I agree with Tim.

When I was learning to drive, my dad told me: assume every other driver is an incompetent blind idiot.  The same applies to cyclists, surely?

You can't stop people being imcompetent but you can do everything possible to compensate for others' stupidity.  It's just looking out for yourself.

Just because people should look properly, doesn't mean they do look properly.  I braked at a roundabout the other night because I saw a cyclist's wheel reflector come into my field of vision, in my lights.  I then realised he was part of a peloton crossing in front of me, and they may have had good lights, but they didn't show from the side, that's for sure.  I could only see them close up, whether it was a trick of the street lights or what, I'm not sure.  It's changed my view of those reflectors on the wheels you get on a new bike, I'll leave them on if I ever get a new bike.

I fully expect to be torn to shreds for that admission but the fact is I'm a primate like any other, hardwired to respond to input at <8mph.  I miss things.  So does everyone else.

[Pancho]

Si - that's what the Highway Code tells peds to do - don Hi Viz. I'd imagine in a car park, doubly so.

And, yeah, we've been here loads of times before.

[Kim]

As for wearing dark clothing at night, I would feel much more at risk without my hi-viz stuff and I am unable to understand others choosing to ride in dark clothing at night. Bike lights are not always great at helping drivers pick out cyclists, and a bit of reflective / hi-viz clothing does help. Like most of us I drive as well as cycle, so as a cyclist I look at other cyclists and note what makes them stand out for me when I am driving. Blinding rear lights, not helpful when you are trying to overtake safely. Weak rear lights, even worse. Reflective stuff that shows the body shape, great for judging position and distance, and very helpful for safe overtaking, or for abandoning an overtaking manoeuvre if the cyclist's right arm is raised to indicate a right turn. I know motorists should be looking where they are going and should try to see and respond to event the most camouflaged and unlit night cyclist, but if there is something I can reasonably do to make it less likely that a motorist will fail to see me I will do it. I have kids and they like to see their dad come home after a night ride.

Hi-vis clothing (or, as I tend to prefer for practicality, copious reflectives on the bike) undoubtedly makes you more visible at night.  But that visibility doesn't necessarily translate into being seen in the situations where collisions take place.  Sure it lets drivers spot a cyclist up ahead from a great distance, but it does nothing for cyclists crossing at a junction where they're outside the beam of the driver's headlights until the last second (you need lights with plenty of sideways spill for that, and the driver still has to see them and understand what they represent).

I'm not saying that reflectives are a bad idea - they're cheap, lightweight, reliable and might help in some situations - but I doubt that their absence has a role in many fatal collisions.  Not least because (AIUI) the vast majority of such collisions occur during daylight.

I've had near-misses when literally lit up like a christmas tree (bike covered in fairy lights, as well as the usual commuter-level^[1] lights and its assortment of reflectives), so while they may count in your favour when attributing blame, I'm sceptical that they actually do much to prevent collisions.


_{[1] By which I mean the YACF definition of 'obnoxious and redundant', rather than the general population's 'poundshop-quality with a flat battery'.}

[Si_Co]

Si - that's what the Highway Code tells peds to do - don Hi Viz. I'd imagine in a car park, doubly so.

And, yeah, we've been here loads of times before.

I know Pancho, and I just think its a sad reflection of society, boom-tish

[Jaded]

Si - that's what the Highway Code tells peds to do - don Hi Viz. I'd imagine in a car park, doubly so.

And, yeah, we've been here loads of times before.

The HC tells drivers to do things too...

[Pancho]

All my cycling clothes are black!

Even my poncho is black (I look like a bat).

My bike, however, has reflective everything and half a dozen v bright LED lights.

[hubner]

Can we not not get side tracked on dark vs bright clothing?

They've clearly just added up the contributary factors numerically to get the 1.82:1.60 figure. Even if you could do that, which you can't, there would have to be some sort of scaling factor included regarding the size of the risk factor.

For instance, leaving aside whether 'dark clothing at night' can reasonably be considered a fault, their analysis would hold that a dark-clothed cyclist* flattened by a driver looking back over his shoulder would be equally to blame for his demise. 1 error from the cyclist, 1 error from the driver.

Utterly, utterly, utterly $%&*^%( ridiculous. 

*And this would apply even if the cyclist was lit up like the proverbial Christmas tree, presumably, given that 'lack of lights' is a seperate factor.

I suppose it's true you can use statistics to "prove" anything you like. Eg:

A surprising number of cyclists endanger themselves unnecessarily. In 2012, there were 248 KSIs with no other vehicles involved. Instead, cyclists were injured or killed for reasons such as falling off or hitting the kerb.

The fact there were 248 KSIs with no other vehicles involved in 2012 means "a surprising number of cyclists endanger themselves unnecessarily"!

[Kim]

Well, I've always thought that cyclists are more at risk (of incident, if not fatality) from surface conditions and their own incompetence than from drivers of motor vehicles.

What about drivers KSIed with no other vehicles involved?

[Pickled Onion]

What about drivers KSIed with no other vehicles involved?

Would anyone find that "surprising"?

[contango]

I've had near-misses when literally lit up like a christmas tree (bike covered in fairy lights, as well as the usual commuter-level^[1] lights and its assortment of reflectives), so while they may count in your favour when attributing blame, I'm sceptical that they actually do much to prevent collisions.

A few times in London when my wife and I went to see friends I took the bike because I hated the bus, while she took the bus because she wasn't comfortable cycling in London. So getting home after dark I'd walk with her to the bus stop, put her on the bus, then race the bus back home. Usually I beat it, simply because it had to stop every 100 yards and I didn't. She said the combination of a hi-vis vest with reflective stripes and my LED lights meant she could see me from some huge distance. So on that basis it obviously makes it easier to see us if we are very visible, and for that reason alone it seems daft at best not to take basic precautions to stand out against the darkness.

That said, like you, I've had people pull out close enough in front of me that I could (and did) thump their car when I had two Hope Vision One lights on the handlebars. Perhaps the drivers were blinded by a bright light and decided that meant it was safe to pull out in front of it.

[Jaded]

Perhaps the drivers were blinded by a bright light and decided that meant it was safe to pull out in front of it.

Or there is very little, if any, societal pressure to behave properly towards vulnerable users of our transport network.

[Kim]

I think that's usually the "Sorry Mate, I Did See You - I Just Didn't Give A Fuck" manoeuvre, and I find their frequency is more about the choice of bike (I find the Brompton attracts them chronically) than lighting or hi-vis.

Not to be confused with "Cyclist?  What Cyclist?", when they're too busy concentrating on traffic from some other direction; the red light they're busy jumping; their phone; etc; etc.  There's effectively nothing you can do about those, other than not be in their path in the first place.

[Kim]

Or there is very little, if any, societal pressure to behave properly towards vulnerable users of our transport network.

It's the unofficial hierarchy of the road:  People who think they're more important than you, as determined by your respective vehicles, expect you to give way in response to bullying.  This goes both ways, as I discovered the first time I drove a Man Car™ rather than a little hatchback, and found people being unexpectedly nice at roundabouts.

While the actual rankings are a somewhat fuzzy function of expensiveness and overall size, the one thing that everyone can agree on is that cyclist scum are at the bottom.

[drossall]

The more interesting aspect of this thread is that the NHS report is at odds with almost every other report that there has ever been, at least as far as I know. I believe the usual conclusion is that drivers are two to three times more likely than cyclists to be at fault (which is interesting because most cyclists are, I would suggest, drivers as well, so we are saying that drivers are several times more likely than drivers to be at fault, and that is hard to understand in terms of any discussion on levels of training or road competence).

The more general stuff about how to behave on the road, I would suggest, is just repeating other threads.

[Karla]

Or there is very little, if any, societal pressure to behave properly towards vulnerable users of our transport network.

It's the unofficial hierarchy of the road:  People who think they're more important than you, as determined by your respective vehicles, expect you to give way in response to bullying.  This goes both ways, as I discovered the first time I drove a Man Car™ rather than a little hatchback, and found people being unexpectedly nice at roundabouts.

While the actual rankings are a somewhat fuzzy function of expensiveness and overall size, the one thing that everyone can agree on is that cyclist scum are at the bottom.

Perhaps it's time to regurgitate ...

The Theory of BIG