How many pedestrians are killed by cyclists?

[swldx...@gmail.com]

Cyclists could soon face tougher restrictions on the roads, with speed limits and number plate requirements among the new ideas floated by Transport Secretary Grant Shapps.

In a shake-up of road laws, Mr Shapps has also pledged to create a new ‘death by dangerous cycling law’ that will see bike riders face as harsh penalties as motorists if they kill pedestrians or other road users through a lack of care or excessive speed.

It follows a government consultation in 2018 about whether new laws were needed to punish those who cycle irresponsibly.

In an interview with the Daily Mail, Mr Shapps cited cyclists running red lights or exceeding 20 mile per hour speed limits as examples of bad behaviour that must be curbed – although the measures are yet to be formally announced as government policy.

But how many pedestrians are killed or injured by cyclists in Britain each year - and how does it compare to the dangers faced by cyclists?

NationalWorld has crunched the numbers to find the answers – with the figures showing cyclists themselves are at increased risk on the nation’s roads, with fatalities soaring by more than 40% in the latest year.

Here’s everything you need to know.
How many pedestrians are killed by cyclists?

Between 2013 and 2020, fewer than four (3.8) pedestrians were killed in collisions with a cyclist each year on average, Department for Transport (DfT) figures on road traffic accidents in Great Britain show.

Annual peaks came in 2013 and 2019, when six fatalities were recorded each, compared to a low of one in 2018. In 2020, there were four deaths.

An annual average of 137 pedestrians were seriously injured during the same period. In total, there were 30 deaths and 1,093 serious injuries across the eight years.

The data does not specify whether an accident was the cyclist’s fault, however.

The Department also does not provide a count of fatalities or injuries suffered by cyclists during collisions with pedestrians.

The number of serious injuries is an estimate, as many police forces changed their definition of serious in 2016. The DfT has adjusted the figures to create a consistent series if all forces had been using the same definition all the time.
How often are pedestrians killed by motorists?

More than 100 times more pedestrians are killed by motorists every year on average compared to by cyclists.

Between 2013 and 2020, there were 3,324 fatalities recorded, and 49,608 serious injuries. The annual average was 416 deaths and 6,201 serious injuries.

Cars kill by far and away the most pedestrians (2,324 since 2013), followed by heavy goods vehicles (459) and light goods vehicles (250).

How many cyclists have been killed on UK roads?

Between 2013 and 2020, 865 cyclists were killed in road traffic accidents – an annual average of 108.

But in 2020, the total climbed by 41%, from 100 to 141.

An additional 35,301 cyclists were seriously injured during that eight-year period, with the total increasing by 2% year-on-year in 2020, from 4,120 to 4,215.

Earlier this year the Highway Code was overhauled to provide better protection for cyclists and pedestrians.

It introduced a hierarchy of road users based on a principle that those who can do the most harm have the greatest responsibility to avoid it.

Pedestrians were at the top of the list, as those who can do least harm, followed by cyclists then horse riders.

Drivers must now give cyclists a birth (sic)or at least 1.5 metres when overtaking, and more when they are driving at over 30mph.
What new rules could cyclists face?

Mr Shapps told the Daily Mail this week (16 August) that he supports extending speed limit restrictions to cyclists, particularly in 20 mile per hour zones.

Currently, speed limits do not apply to cyclists, although councils do have rarely-used powers to impose them.

The question of whether or not cyclists should be subject to speed restrictions raised further questions about whether they needed registration plates and insurance, Mr Shapps said.

There has been no official announcement about extending such regulations to cyclists, however.

https://www.nationalworld.com/news/politics/pedestrians-killed-dangerous-cyclists-road-deaths-3812845

[JNugent]

On 20/08/2022 05:20 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

[ ... ]

It's alright.

We already know that your answer is "not enough".

[swldx...@gmail.com]

QUOTE: Pedestrians were at the top of the list, as those who can do least harm, followed by cyclists then horse riders. ENDS

I am sure that a horse can give a car a serious twatting to any idiot drivers who pass too close to one.

[Spike]

A horse’s equivalent of the cyclist’s ‘decking with one punch’, perhaps.


--
Spike

[swldx...@gmail.com]

QUOTE: The question of whether or not cyclists should be subject to speed restrictions raised further questions about whether they needed registration plates and insurance, Mr Shapps said. There has been no official announcement about extending such regulations to cyclists, however. ENDS

That's because the House of Lords responded to Mr Arsehole's petition last year and stated that they had no intention of imposing any such laws.

[Spike]

Constitutionally, the House of Lords would be disbanded in a flash if they
tried to impose any law at all.

You’re just talking b*ll*cks.

--
Spike

[Spike]

swldx...@gmail.com <swldx...@gmail.com> wrote:

But how many pedestrians are killed or injured by cyclists in Britain each
year - and how does it compare to the dangers faced by cyclists?

NationalWorld has crunched the numbers to find the answers – with the
figures showing cyclists themselves are at increased risk on the nation’s
roads, with fatalities soaring by more than 40% in the latest year.

Here’s everything you need to know. How many pedestrians are killed by
cyclists?

Between 2013 and 2020, fewer than four (3.8) pedestrians were killed in
collisions with a cyclist each year on average, Department for Transport
(DfT) figures on road traffic accidents in Great Britain show.

> https://www.nationalworld.com/news/politics/pedestrians-killed-dangerous-cyclists-road-deaths-3812845
>

Note the statistical sleight of hand here:

Deaths due to cyclists are numbered

Deaths of cyclists have ‘soared’ by 40%

…making it impossible to compare the two, in this case to cover the weak
pro-cycling argument.

Plenty of simpletons will fall for it, of course.

--
Spike

[swldx...@gmail.com]

QUOTE: The data does not specify whether an accident was the cyclist’s fault, however. ENDS

Or due to pedestrians running out onto busy streets and getting hit by moving traffic.

[Spike]

swldx...@gmail.com <swldx...@gmail.com> wrote:

> QUOTE: The data does not specify whether an accident was the cyclist’s fault, however. ENDS

> Or due to pedestrians running out onto busy streets and getting hit by moving traffic.

Still struggling with the Highway Code’s awarding of absolute priority over
cyclists?

Total lack whatsoever of any empathy with the victims and families of those
slaughtered by cyclists?

And “It’s only a few killed by cyclists every year, why bother to do
anything about it?” - so prevalent in the cycling media - is the mindset of
the sociopath.

--
Spike

[swldx...@gmail.com]

QUOTE:
In an interview with the Daily Mail, Mr Shapps cited exceeding 20 mile per hour speed limits. ENDS

I love having to adhere to these non existent laws.
SPEED LIMITS DO NOT APPLY TO CYCLISTS.

[JNugent]

Bingo!

The stats are aimed at fairy-cyclists.

[Mike Collins]

So nothing to do with actual real world cyclists.
Thank you for pointing that out.

[JNugent]

Does my accurate description of them still rankle with you?

Have a little think about it...

[Mike Collins]

Please provide evidence from the peer reviewed literature for the existence of "Fairy-cyclists".

[JNugent]

:-)

*Think* about your own performance.

[swldx...@gmail.com]

I'd say that:

1 - Shapps is an ignorant tosspot (we all know that),
2 - he has just had previous work proving that his ideas are BS pointed out to him by a Civil Servant,
3 - he has been hit over the head with a cluebat containing a 6 inch nail long enough to penetrate his thick skull,
4 - he is now desperately back-pedalling to preserve a credibility that
5 - he is too stupid to realise that he does not possess.

[Spike]

swldx...@gmail.com <swldx...@gmail.com> wrote

I’d say that:

THE CRACKDOWN IS COMING

SUCK IT UP

--
Spike

[JNugent]

That is extract from Sociopath Mason's forthcoming book:

"How Not To Win Friends And Influence People - Fairy-Cyclists' Edition".

[swldx...@gmail.com]

I mean the fundamental point on cyclists speeding is surely one of physics.

Let's assume we're on the flat - the typical cyclist plus rider that can "easily" go faster than 20, might be 75kg and one a 10kg bike (so definitely not a climber of riding a top end bike, or even a carbon road bike but lets stick to these for round numbers), so 85kg.

20mph is 8.94 m/s (again lets say 9, this goes against the cyclist and makes the maths easier).

KE = 1/2 MV^2

KE = 0.5*85*81 = 3.44 kilojoules.

Now for the car, lets run it for a '22 mini (curb weight 1275kg) - lets all the fuel passengers etc. are freakisly light and call in 1300kg all-in (it has a gross weight of 1640kg which is far more likely to reflect the rolling weight of this bad body in the real world).

So applying the same maths:

KE = 0.5*1300*81 = 52.65 kilojoules

So at the same speed the car (even a relatively small one) in a 20 would have roughly 15.3 times the energy of the cyclist. To put that into context - comparing the car doing 20 to the bike doing 20 is about the same as comparing a car doing 76 to a bike doing 20... or finally a bike doing 20mph has about the same kinetic energy as a car doing 5mph...

Now look - I'm not saying that we should base everything on physics as that would create an incredibly fiddly set of speed limits and road traffic laws based on total vehicle mass (including occupants and load) but you know what - lets be serious - to have the same energy as a small car going 20, an 85kg bike + rider would need to be going 78.5 mph - and if people were doing that then we wouldn't have to put up with all this bollocks about cyclists being slow and getting in the way!

[JNugent]

On 22/08/2022 11:13 am, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> I mean the fundamental point on cyclists speeding is surely one of physics.

A peculiar first sentence.

Keep whistling.

It makes the dark seem less profound.

[swldx...@gmail.com]

The crucial word you've left out here is "sometimes". I'd guess that *while moving* mopeds will be expected to have higher average speed. Because of the motor. That would make their average kinetic energy higher as the velocity is the dominant term, no? (Through an urban area they could end up with similar average speed if the bike took the same path eg. waiting at same traffic lights; there might be faster routes for bikes via cycle infra).

Where I stay there are plenty of places at the bottom of hills where planners / designers certainly should note that bikes could be moving fast. Overall though - even with motor assistance up the hills - I'd expect a lower average K.E. Other factors are also important here for safe operation eg. braking, stability, turning circle. And asuming that the bikes are legal of course! (I'd suggest that for commercial freight cycles - if enough get used - we might even consider a mini-MOT).

Otherwise we need to take account of the terminal velocity of bikes falling off bridges in the argument!

[Spike]

A 20mph impact is a 20mph impact, whether from a bicycle, horse, car, or
HGV. What point is it that you’re failing to make ?



--
Spike

[JNugent]

As well as the terminal velocity of fairy-cyclists falling off bridges?
>

[swldx...@gmail.com]

Rendel Harris | 3092 posts | 3 hours ago
0 likes

One point in the argument about speed limits for bicycles that I haven't seen made is that it could actually encourage cyclists to put themselves in more danger to make sure they don't break the speed limit. We all know that the average cyclist doesn't tend to carry a speedometer, and so the temptation will be to slow down well below the speed limit to ensure that they don't get a ticket. This in turn will inevitably lead to more frustration and close passing from drivers who will be able to see what speed they're doing. I hate to think how the snarling, hooting drivers I sometimes have following me when I'm riding at the 20 mph speed limit on my local roads (where due to parked cars both sides it is often impossible to pass) would react if I started carefully dawdling along at 15 mph or lower to make sure that I was within the limit.

[Mike Collins]

Which part of 1/2 MV^2 do you not understand?

[Spike]

What part of 20mph=20mph are you having difficulty with?


--
Spike

[JNugent]

Fit a speedometer.

Or carry one in a pocket.

Shouldn't be a problem. After all, fairy-cyclists are all Considerably
Richer Than The Average Citizen, aren't they?

Problem sorted.

Next.

[swldx...@gmail.com]

Although if cyclists did have limits, then they would also be forced into buying and fitting a calibrated and accurate speed measuring device

These, of course, already exist and are highly accurate when calibrated against GPS, and are more accurate than car speedos even when simple measurement of the tyre circumference is performed. However, it is axiomatic for the police that cyclists are always travelling at less than 10 mph, which is why it is always legal to cross unbroken white lines to overtake them. Therefore, the police will be forced to simultaneously decry cyclist rev/counter or GPS speedos as worthless junk and therefore legitimising DWL crossing motorists, while simultaneously approving them for the purpose of prosecuting cyclists. These double standards come naturally to the police