Urban Cycling is not for the faint-hearted. It’s f**** dangerous. But Cyclists are today’s Luddites standing in way of the EV revolution.

posted 18th May 2020

 

They don’t want you to know how dangerous cycling is on UK’s narrow, busy, congested urban roads and on narrow lanes between hedgerows in the countryside.

E.cycling and E.scooters is much more dangerous for everyone, especially when no helmet and insurance. The Metropolitan Elite urges them. Yes, book clever, but street wise – no, notably they never ever factoring human fallibity into their planning, especially their own.

 

Read the latest report from The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) a British charity that aims to save lives and prevent life-changing injuries which occur as a result of accidents.

Read latest report from RoSPA

In 2016, 18,477 cyclists were injured in reported road accidents, including 3,499 who were killed or seriously injured. These figures only include cyclists killed or injured in road accidents that were reported to the police. Many cyclist casualties are not reported to the police, even when the cyclist is inured badly enough to be taken to hospital.

The figures also exclude cycling accidents that occur away from the road. Although the number of deaths is accurate, there could be two or three times as many seriously injured cyclists and double the number of slightly injured.

And here’s a bit of stuff and nonsense probably supplied by cycling lobby.

It might be assumed that if the number of pedal cyclists on the road rise, the number of cyclist casualties will rise too. However, research has revealed a ‘safety in numbers’ argument that suggests that this may not be the case.

The safety in numbers approach states that in a mixed traffic environment, the balance of different types of road users can affect the relative risk of injury to individuals, suggesting that if more people cycle; the roads will become less risky for cyclists.

The concept of safety in numbers is not new. It was first demonstrated by Smeed in 1949 with regard to motor vehicles. Smeed argued that data from 62 countries indicated that the number of road fatalities per vehicle was lower in countries with more driving. This concept is now also being applied to cycling. Research by Jacobsen (2003) suggests that when more cyclists are on the road, there are fewer collisions, with data indicating that this is the case in The Netherlands, California and Denmark.

But above that the real world:

In 2018, 99 pedal cyclists were killed, 4,106 seriously injured and 13,345 slightly injured in Great Britain. Although car occupants account for the greatest number of casualties each year, this is unsurprising as cars account for 80% of traffic on Britain’s roads. By looking at casualty rates in terms of the number of casualties per mile travelled, pedal cyclists fall into the ‘vulnerable road users’ category, along with pedestrians and motorcyclists, who have much higher casualty rates per mile travelled than other road users.

Cycling is f**** dangerous – it’s official.

 

WHY DOESN’T RoSPA AND DfT ASK PUBLIC HEALTH ENGLAND FOR COMPREHENSIVE ACCIDENT STATS FROM THE HOSPITALS WHERE THEY ARE TREATED?

Cycling fanatics have invaded and taken over central and local government  planning departments, the media and beyond. In London they are trying to price cars off the road altogether, deliberately making vehicle journeys longer and slower.
The urgency is to introduce thousands of fast chargers into multi-storey town and city centre car parks to recharge High Street shopping and boost car industry.
Plan for the day after tomorrow not for yesterday.
PLEASE SHARE WITH COLLEAGUES AND FRIENDS

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *