There are quite a lot of stats relating to roundabouts, pinchpoints and so on on my site at
http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/thebikezone/campaigning/campaign1.html
A full 50% of cycle/vehicle crashes at roundabouts are due to drivers failing to give way to a
cyclists who is already circulating...
Mayer Hillman's study 'Cycle helmets: the case for and gaints notes that between 1988 and 1983 984
cyclists died after being in collison with a car or lorry. In these collisions only 1 car driver
also lost their life.
Mills P. in 'Pedal Cycle Accidents: a hospital study. Transport and Road Reseach Laboratory Report
RR 220 (1989) found that cyclists were to blame in only 17% of cyclist/vehicle collisions.
I have been debating this point with a local 'road safety' officer. Below is my reply to his
suggestion that in most cycle crashes a vehicle driver is not at fault and that if the local
authority spent its time dealing with public concerns they would target cyclists...
Thanks a lot for your reply... Yes, I fully realise that 'the Great British Public' forever go on
about 'pavement cyclists' and so on. Strange thing is such behaviour results in very few casualties
compared with drivers speeding, ignoring pedestrian crossing and so on and yet everyone seems to
accept such behaviour without a second thought. Even 'hit and run' incidents and so on don't lead to
the sort of hysteria that pavement cyclists do. (Even my own comments in the local press regarding
the failure to give Carl Baxter a substantial driving ban were seized upon as another excuse to
attack cyclists...).. Needless to say there is a long history of there being an irrational dislike
of cyclists in the UK and I am glad Hull City Council does not propagate this further.
Actually, I have always being intrigued how the average pedestrians fear of 'pavement cyclists'
seems to disappear when a pedestrian wishes to use facilities set aside for cyclists! (Are not
almost half of the users of the National 'Cycle' Network pedestrians?) Similarly, in part time
pedestrian zones, whilst pedestrians part like the Red Sea before Moses when a car comes up behind
them, they totally ignore any cyclists trying to thread their way through. Pedestrians also seem to
feel no need to keep to the 'correct' side on segregated cycle/footpaths, bless em!
Given that the majority of cycle/pedestrian collisions occur on the highway perhaps cyclists should
start to complain about the 'menace' of careless pedestrians!
On a similar theme I recently got into discussion with someone who argued that cyclists who were
riding 2 abreast were being 'dangerous' as drivers had to slow down until there was gap in the
oncoming traffic and cross over the central white line to overtake. I had though the Highway Code
showed this to be the correct over taking procedure even when passing a solo cyclist...
Anyhow, if this logic were applied to pedestrians would it not also be then case that pedestrians
walking 2 abreast or in the centre of a shared use path or bridleway would also be acting in a
'dangerous' manner on the basis a cyclist would have to slow down and wait until it was safe to
pass? I would suspect that in this case the onus of responsibility would be placed on the cyclist.
Personally, I would accept that this is correct and the burden of responsibility rests on the
faster, overtaking party, whether that person is riding a bicycle or driving a car...
I am most intrigued by your comment:
The majority of injuries to cyclists in Hull are not caused by other road users.
Are we including all those incidents where people simply 'fall off their bikes' in this, including
those under 16? If so I would probably agree with you. (I used to work at Rock City Skatepark and
the number of 'trick cyclists' who used to hurt themselves was amazing -or rather it was not given
the stunts they were trying to pull!).
However, such a statement certainly does not seem to tally with the research I have read on the
cause of cycle/vehicle collisions involving adult cyclists, some of which suggest that in as many as
83% of cases the vehicle driver is wholly or substantially at fault. (And of course, most life
threatening and fatal cycle injuries arise from cycle/vehicle collisions rather then people simply
'falling off' their bikes). I would argue that there are many grounds for arguing that such a figure
is substantially accurate. Ie:
Statistical studies of crash causation. Studies of factors contributing to crashes. Studies of
driver attitudes toward cyclists. My own experiences of over 30 years of cycling...
Statistical studies of crash causation.
Many other reports I have read indicate that in the majority of driver/cyclists, the driver is
wholly or substantially at fault. For example, Maycock and Hall (1984/1986) found that a full 50% of
cycle/ vehicle collisions on roundabouts were due to a driver simply failing to give way to a
cyclist who is already circulating the roundabout with another 10% being due to a driver exiting
across a cyclists path.
cyclists involved in cycle/vehicle collisions in the dark were correctly lit and so on.
(For some reason whilst I have never come close to knocking an unlit cyclist off whilst driving -
due to my car having excellent headlights and because I take due care to look for them as it is
reasonably predictable that one will come across them. However, when I cycle fitting £150 worth of
halogen lighting to my bike at times seems to render me invisible!..).
Studies of factors contributing to crashes.
Of course, there are many well know factors that contribute to collisions and indicate at least a
degree of driver responsibility, speeding, driving under the influence of drink or drugs, driving
with uncorrected defective vision, using a mobile phone etc. (You are probably aware of the TRRL
report 'Blood alcohol levels in fatalities in Great Britain, 1978-86.' This found that the average
blood alcohol content of those involved in fatal crashes were 69 mg/100 ml for pedestrians, 51 for
motor vehicle drivers, 46 for motorcycle riders. And just 15 for pedal cyclists...)
Studies of driver attitudes toward cyclists.
It would also seem reasonable to assume that negative driver attitudes towards cyclists are also
reflected in the amount of care and courtesy they show cyclists, with a lack of such courtesy being
a significant contributory factor in many collisions. As The Scottish Office report 'Sharing Road
Space: Drivers and Cyclists as Equal road users (2001) states:
...It appears that many motorists have a superior attitude towards cyclists and feel that they have
more right to the road, or that perhaps, due to the increased size and robustness of their
vehicles, they can bully cyclists into getting their own way. Seemingly, many motorists need to be
educated and encouraged to show more courtesy and patience when cyclists are in the vicinity of
their vehicle.'
... At most of the group discussions among cyclists, at least one respondent would have personal or
anecdotal experience of another cyclist being knocked off a bicycle by a driver who had either
misjudged their distance from a junction or who had awarded themselves priority at a junction even
though the cyclist had right of way. Finally, some drivers were criticised for their impatient and
aggressive attitude towards cyclists or simply because their speed is too fast, particularly in
situations when there are many road users around.
One also frequently reads newspaper letters stating 'I will treat cyclists with respect when they
(insert pet dislike of cyclists here).' Again this seem to read almost as an admission that some
drivers do deliberately drive in an intolerant or even dangerous manner when encountering cyclists,
or at least that they could drive in a more considerate manner if they chose to...
Personal experience.
The statistical analyses I have read seem to tally with my personal experience. I consider myself to
be a very careful and law abiding cyclist (and driver) and yet when cycling I frequently have to
take evasive action as a result of the actions of drivers overtaking me and turning left across my
path, pulling out of junctions into my path and so on. However when driving very few cyclists seem
to actually try to throw themselves under my wheels. Certainly myself and other cyclists I know are
fully aware that being in a collision will at the very least hurt and may result in death (and that
they are unlikely to get much support from the police , insurance companies etc) so they do
everything to avoid collisions occurring! Perhaps my own experience gives me a biased view. However,
I would really appreciate any data you have showing the causal factors in cycle/vehicle collisions
in the area. Is Hull out of line with national trends perhaps?
Other factors relevant to the attribution of blame.
I am aware that the concept of 'blame is rather is a tricky one. After all do not all road users
have a responsibility to do everything reasonable possible to avoid a collision even when others are
at fault? I would accept that, even though in many cases drivers willfully increase the risk they
pose to others, all road users may make genuine errors. However, given the principle that all road
users should do everything reasonable to avoid causing injuries even when others are at fault, and
the inevitability of 'errors', would it not be reasonable to expect drivers to minimise the possible
consequences of any error by driving at say 20 MPH or less in towns?
Is not driving at say 30 MPH - a speed where half of those hit will be killed- a sign of negligence
in itself? Similarly, does not the current edition of the 'Highway Code' say that drivers should
slow down whenever 'sharing' the road with cyclists? In my experience many feel it is perfectly
acceptable to bully their way past cyclists at high speed even on very narrow country roads. .
I also realise the collection of accurate statistics is difficult and that there is a gross under
reporting of cycle crashes. Although many of these will be 'cycle only' falls, many vehicle/cycle
collisions are not reported or are reported in a way that leaves the question of culpability open.
Even when culpability might seem to be clear cut an injured cyclist will still have to be able to
present significant evidence as to the culpability of a third part and doing so may be difficult.
Consequently, it would seem very likely that some 'accident' statistics, such as those complied by
insurance companies, reflect the number of 'proved' cases only, rather the the actual number of
cases where a driver was at fault...
Once again, I look forward to receiving any data you might be able to provide showing that
proportion of cycle/ vehicle collisions that were wholly or significantly due to an error on the
part of the cyclist alone and where the driver did everything reasonable to prevent a collision
occurring. (Including modifying their speed, road positioning and so on when first seeing the
cyclist, as the Highway Code advises...).
Many regards and thanks again,
