Cycle Safety - From a Driver's Viewpoint

The main reason I set up my twitter account (@asecretcyclist) and this blog, was to discuss & highlight cycle safety issues. Since joining twitter, I've discovered that there's a lot more to cycle safety than government policy on road layouts and cycle infrastructure. It's about tackling negative attitudes towards cycling as well. Whenever I see drivers (I assume, non-cycling drivers) mentioning cyclists and road safety together, the argument seems to fall one of two ways. Either; the roads aren't safe enough for cyclists to be allowed on them; or cyclists aren't safe enough to be allowed on the roads. I will attempt to address both of these below.

'The roads aren't safe enough for cyclists'

Often an argument against allowing cyclists on the road, dressed up as concern for their safety - is this accurate? Well, on the face of it, cyclists are in danger on the UK's roads. The Times has a running total of cyclists killed in 2012, which has recently passed the 2011 total and stands at 110 to date.( http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3313260.ece ) This endeavour may seem a little morbid, but it is raising awareness of the dangers faced by cyclists and lending credence to the campaign for safer roads for all. The increase on 2011 deaths may not be due to roads getting more dangerous, but simply a side effect of increased numbers of cyclists on the roads. A blog from September ( http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog/2636/cycling/stats-uk/ ) - albeit not containing the most up-to-date stats - shows that over the past decade there has been an increase in the number of kilometres cycled, but a marked decrease in the number of fatalities per kilometre cycled. In fact, per kilometre travelled, cycling is safer than walking:  
It's interesting to note that there were 25 fatalities per billion km cycled in 2008 - the most recent year this graph represents. That's just one per 40 million km. This shows cycling to be relatively safe. A guardian blog, also from September ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/sep/28/road-deaths-great-britain-data ), shows that driving a car is by far the safest mode of transport, with 1 death per 320 million km driven (note the guardian article measures in miles). This doesn't, of course take into account the deaths caused by inactivity due to choosing a cars as transport, but perhaps that's for another post. What is interesting to note, is that motorcycles are by far the most at risk group - with a fatality even 10.1 million km travelled - yet there is not a call for them to be taken off the roads for their own safety.

I've no doubt that some drivers are genuinely concerned that roads are not safe enough for cyclists. This may even be the reason they drive, rather than cycle. I know for a fact that a large number of drivers would cycle if they felt the roads were safer (35% of commuters and 46% of short journeys overall!) ( http://www.brake.org.uk/latest-news/commuters-call-for-safer-streets-for-cycling-to-enable-more-to-get-on-their-bikes.htm ). However, to cite cyclist safety as a reason for cyclists to not be allowed on the road is disingenuous. If someone is genuinely concerned for the safety of a group, they would support measures to improve their safety, rather than seeking to remove the issue. Cycling is overwhelmingly safe (an average cycle commute of 8.7 miles a day would require over 19000 years to rack up the miles per fatality in the UK), but the safety can be improved. One way to do this is for motorists to get on board with the cycle safety campaign. Yes, sometimes separate cycle paths are the answer, sometimes it's on road cycle lanes, sometimes reduced speed limits. Next time a driver tells you it's not safe on the roads for a cyclist. Tell them it IS safe, but if they really care, they'll lend their support to make it even safer.

'Cyclists aren't safe enough to be allowed on the roads'

This argument is usually backed up by an unsubstantiated claim that all cyclists run red lights, don't signal where they're going, weave in and out of traffic, don't cycle in a straight line, cycle the wrong way in one-way systems, don't wear Hi-Vis or helmets, don't have lights, cycle in the middle of the road or cycle on the pavement.

I've genuinely heard that last one as a reason cyclists shouldn't be allowed to cycle on the road. Because they illegally cycle on the pavement. The logic here baffles me completely. I'll try to show that cyclists aren't a danger in this part.

Firstly, I'll make a point which seems to elude most motorists. A cyclist, weighing perhaps 15 stone including their bike, is not a threat to a person cocooned in a 1.5 tonne metal box, no matter how dangerous their behaviour. This should mean that all concerns about cyclist behaviour should come down to the impact on the safety of cyclists themselves (as discussed above), which any cyclist will always put the utmost importance on in their decision-making, but somehow they are seen as a threat to the safety of people in cars.

Do all cyclists run red lights? According to the IAM 57% do ( http://www.iam.org.uk/component/content/article?id=1054 ). Well actually, looking at the study more closely, only 14% do this regularly or sometimes. The survey on drivers found 31.8% run red lights, though the breakdown isn't available. Whilst this study is disputed in it's veracity, it still shows that red-light jumping by cyclists is hardly an epidemic. 14% do it on a regular basis. It's not good, but it's not a reason to ban all cyclists from the road, and you can bet most of those cyclists are just going early, to get ahead of the traffic, rather than barrelling through at full pelt. Compared to the 278 motorists running red lights every minute in the UK ( http://www.cheapcarinsurance.co.uk/2011/08/20/uk-drivers-running-278-red-lights-every-sixty-seconds/ ) it's not exactly a major cause for concern. The solution here would be to ensure red-light jumpers on all modes of transport are adequately caught and punished. The fact that almost a quarter of drivers have been caught speeding ( http://www.metro.co.uk/news/69200-7-million-drivers-caught-speeding ) and 46% of cars break 30mph speed limits ( http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/the-need-for-less-speed-number-of-drivers-speeding-falls-8068933.html ) indicates that to find law-breakers, perhaps motorists need to look within their own group.

Cyclists are sometimes accused of not signalling where they are going. Whilst I've heard this claim numerous times, I haven't been able to uncover any studies to support the claim. I have discovered that a survey in 2011 found 33% of drivers don't indicate when turning ( http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/1656.html ). In my experience, this is even worse when on a bike - drivers simply don't see you, or don't feel they need to indicate their actions to you. Again, I feel that signalling is in a cyclist's best interest - if they feel they are in danger if they don't indicate, then they will indicate.

The argument that cyclists are dangerous because they weave in and out of traffic stems from a misconception. Firstly, it's only possible at low speeds - a cyclist doesn't have the power to weave tightly at speeds of over about 5mph, which isn't going to cause a danger to anyone. Most 'weaving' occurs through stationary traffic, and is actually filtering, with the occasional need to switch lanes due to a differently positioned motor vehicle. It's argued that such filtering is undertaking and is illegal. This is incorrect. The highway code states that motorists must look out for cyclists (and motorcyclists) doing this and makes no comment on the legality of the manoeuvre (where something is illegal, the Highway Code will clearly state this). ( https://www.gov.uk/road-users-requiring-extra-care-204-to-225/motorcyclists-and-cyclists-211-to-213 )

Cyclists do not cycle in a straight line. This does not make them dangerous. No road user maintains a perfectly straight line. They will often move in their lane to avoid potholes, parked cars, or debris. Cyclists have more obstacles they will try to avoid for their safety, such as drain covers in the rain and will therefore need to occasionally make slight movements in order to avoid these. They are also more vulnerable to the elements, and therefore may be moved by wind. Rarely are the variations in course so severe as to cause a cyclist to move more than a foot or so. This is not a problem if a driver is overtaking in the manner described by the highway code:

If a driver is not overtaking, then there is no problem at all. It's clear here, then, that variations in a cyclist's line of travel are only an issue when another road user is not acting correctly.
This is also linked to the view that cyclists 'ride in the middle of the road'. This is known as primary position, and is usually only take up when there are parked cars (to avoid the likelihood of doors swinging open) or when it isn't safe for a car to overtake, to prevent an attempt. A cyclist will generally be in secondary position, about 2-3ft from the kerb and will check before moving into primary. This policy is correct, and recommended by bikeability training ( http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/cycletraining/article/ct20110110-cycletraining-Bitesize-Bikeability--Part-4--On-Road-Positioning-0 ). The issue generally here then, is not that cyclists are dangerous, but rather that motorists don't understand the actions of other road users, which is somewhat worrying.

The final safety concern I'll discuss is around cyclist's safety clothing & accessories: Lights, Hi-Vis & Helmets. Somehow helmets are seen as something which makes a cyclist unsafe. It's their own concern - personally I always wear a helmet on the road because I don't trust others not to knock me off, but it has no bearing on how safely I cycle & realistically won't be much use in protecting me in a high-speed collision, or at saving anything other than the top of my head in a low-speed one. Lights are mandatory at night & any cyclist without them can expect to be fined. Hi-vis is not mandatory. Perhaps it does make someone that bit more visible - but if a driver cannot spot a cyclist with lights & reflectors at night, or just cycling along in the day, the issue is probably more of the driver's observation skills & hi-Vis wouldn't be likely to help anyway. None of this makes a cyclist more or less dangerous on the road - it may help to prevent them from being hit, but as I've pointed out before, if a cyclist gets hit by a car, the driver isn't likely to get injured at all.

This visualisation neatly sums up the relative dangers of cycles and cars to pedestrians: ( http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/visualizations/8560350665bf11e0b026000255111976/comments/8564596065bf11e0b026000255111976 )

The department for transport has also done research into collisions involving cyclists and other vehicles, and found cyclists solely to blame in just 7% of cases. ( http://road.cc/content/news/12065-report-dft-casualty-stats-says-cyclists-not-blame-93-cent-cases ).

The facts don't lie - cyclists on the road rarely cause deaths of others - approximately 2 per year - far fewer than are caused by cars ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13040607 ). To suggest that cyclists are dangerous is merely an excuse to get them off the road by those who view them as an inconvenience. Arguments that cyclists should have insurance, registration & have to pass tests are also flawed. Mandatory car insurance is indicative of the risk of high-cost accidents, registration is necessary to monitor insurance & due to the ability to flee the scene of an accident, and tests are necessary for motorists to ensure they are properly training to drive vehicles which are easily capable of killing. The fact that law-breaking among motorists (speeding, red-light jumping, not indicating, illegal parking) is as prevalent as it is, suggests training and testing does not eliminate these behaviours and would be an expensive an useless folly to apply to cyclists.

Driver concern for cycle safety as an argument for removing bikes from the road is either misplaced - a genuine concern, but targeting the wrong solution - or just plain wrong - attributing dangers to cyclists which are greatly exaggerated. Either way, the argument needs to be refuted, gently, and cyclists need to work with drivers to create safer roads for everyone.