Safety in Numbers

Cycle casualties were down in 2015 13% on 2014 and 47% on 2005-2009! as many more people took up cycling.
Safety in numbers?

1 Attachment

And who causes the crashes? Cabbies cause 25% more crashes on 2014 numbers

1 Attachment

Safety in numbers?

You need the population numbers - how many cyclists / other vehicles, how far / long travelled etc...

Agree . Are more people cycling in 2015 than in 2005-9, 2014? Last data is from census 2011 with 2013 update. Anecdotally it seems there were more people cycling in 2015

wrong pic?

Cabbies/private hire are a bunch of self serving cockwombles who should not be allowed on the road.

one good thing about cabbies is that they can be useful for disabled people though, as a lot of public transport unfortunately isn't accessible

London black cabbies openly boast on Twitter about close-passing cyclists. One said any rider not using the CSHs is "fair game". Their boss compares cyclists to rapists. The level of hatred is amazing. They keep leaning out of the cab to take a photo of an empty cycle lane and tweeting "You've broken London, Boris!"

Links? / evidence please..

I'm sorry I didn't collect them. It's pretty much constant, it happens just about every day.

simon dover ‏@simonmarino lazy london taxi driver, former international playboy father of 3

alperton essex riga los cris

Warning any cyclists that don't use the boxed in cycle lanes will become fair game can't see the mutters using it.

It's pretty regular.

Michael ‏@3offtheT 29 Apr 2015
When the CSH is finished & you spot a cyclist out of the confines of it, are they fair game ?
#askingforafriend

((Vader))) ‏@Taxi_Vader Jun 10
@londontaxitrade @CabbyGr Hope he's OK. Why though as the CSH has been created to stop this happening are cyclists not compelled to use it?

Pete ‏@Pete_Cee Jun 10
@standardnews 2 days in a row & 2 rows on that stretch of the #CSH with cyclists risking themselves by not using it. Idiots.

Richard Puller ‏@PullerRichard Apr 21
@geckobike @standardnews he came out of the CSH to overtake other cyclists the belligerent tosser

Terry ‏@playitcooltrig Mar 7
@TfL great to hear that cyclists on the CSH routes are going to be restricted to only use those lanes & banned from using the car lanes now👍

We've had cabbies argue that any sort of painted cycle lane means cyclists must use them:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCsTzoF6t4I

Warning any cyclists that don't use the boxed in cycle lanes will become fair game can't see the mutters using it

That threat is reportable to the met

agree on all points regarding cabbies being pieces of shit btw. just to clarify myself - cabbies' use for disabled people is their only redeeming quality, and actually the worst most expensive solution to the question of accessible transport. whether most disabled people can afford to use black cabs when their benefits are being cut left right n centre is also questionable

They're not all bad though

true, i can think of 2 cab drivers in the probably thousands (/guess/) I've encountered who have been not just safe drivers but actually went out of their way to be nice to me, there are also a small minority who drive more safely than the others. however because the overwhelming majority of them being dangerous/awful and the possible consequences of their dangerous driving, i think the safest position is to assume that all cabbies are dangerous until they prove otherwise - unfortunately

Safety in numbers is a terrible fallacy and quite unhelpful.

At any point on your journey the risk of being involved in a collision with another road user is completely unrelated to the overall number of other cyclists there are in the country, city or indeed borough.

The factors affecting probability can be divided into two broad categories. a) The opportunity for a collision to happen and b) the likelihood that it will. A is about environmental factors such as infrastructure and traffic density. B is about road user behaviour.

The only time when you can support an argument of safety in numbers is when the number of journeys being made by bicycle means that traffic density declines below motorised congestion levels. London isn't there yet and it isn't dependable across the whole of the road network at all times. You could argue that the presence of higher volumes of cyclists make you safer because they make drivers more familiar with their presence on the roads but that only really works at peak travel times to again isn't dependable across the whole of the road network at all times. This is even less credible an argument while cyclists still occupy a position as an out group and are viewed by a portion of drivers as an obstacle, not an equal part of traffic.

So the fact that absolute numbers of KSIs and fatalities have dropped year on year, while number of trips by cycle increased is a fluke?

The only time when you can support an argument of safety in numbers is when the number of journeys being made by bicycle means that traffic density declines below motorised congestion levels.

Why is that? Cycle numbers may increase while there are still motorised congestion levels -whatever you mean by that.

Drivers awareness and better behaviour around riders and likelihood of riders in the environment could reduce incidents

The factors affecting probability can be divided into two broad categories. a) The opportunity for a collision to happen and b) the likelihood that it will. A is about environmental factors such as infrastructure and traffic density. B is about road user behaviour.

This doesn't make sense. Why is 'opportunity' linked to infrastructure and 'likelihood' to road user behaviour?

Where's the 'many more cycling' stat from?

Census 2011/13

Drivers awareness and better behaviour around riders and likelihood of riders in the environment could reduce incidents

Agree lots with this. Have spoken with many drivers using the roads around the cycle super highways and even if it's worded negatively as "ugh always so many cyclists on the road" they are expecting cyclists and changing behaviours.

I think a larger impact is the vast effort to drive down speed. Far more roads now have speed humps/bumps/lumps/chicanes and typical junctions aren't as bell shape and wide as they had been in the past. Also with increasing numbers of cars parked on the streets the narrowing of lanes that creates helps reduce speeds.

The vast use of ANPR helps too, less uninsured drivers/drivers without licenses on the roads who statistically have more crashes?

The vast use of ANPR helps too, less uninsured drivers/drivers without licenses on the roads who statistically have more crashes?

Any numbers for that claim?

What are you doing with all the stats your querying?

plotting.