For the umpteenth time, it is not a death a month now!

 

There's been huge improvements in London as I've pointed out, and that's resulted from all the efforts made which you appear to now nothing about. That is why I'm angry at your assumption that nothing is being done about the situation when so much has been done and is still being done, including by me!

 

The reduction in deaths from well over 20 when cycling was far less than half as common, to single figures now with such high cycling rates hasn't happened by accident. It's resulted from all the changes made.

 

They've included the following:

 

Trucks operating in the central area now have to meet minimum equipent standards, including a mix of such measures as extra mirrors, repeater indicators along the side of the truck, sound buzzer warnings of a left turn going to happen, additional warning signs on the left rear of the truck.

 

Truck operating companies have been helped to have cycle awareness training sessions for their drivers, in addition to all the added measures on the trucks.

 

TfL and the police have had cyclist and truck driver sessions to get them to appreciate each other's difficulties. This has included putting cyclists in the truck driving seats and drivers on bikes in the blind spots around trucks, forcing the message home.

 

The specific issue of the way women cyclists far too high death rate has been widely publicised, and I've taken part in that, including posting threads here three years running to bring their attention to what is going wrong and what to do about it.

 

And in Autumn last year, the Metropolitan Police had a several week session of flooding London's streets with officers specifically tackling the cyclist accident issue. During that time they kept watch at junctions and issued tens of thousands of behaviour warnings to drivers and cyclists. From memory they also fine ticketed over 8000 people, split roughly evenly between drivers and cyclists.

 

TfL had an advertising campaign with full page ads in the various London newspapers promoting awareness of cyclists to drivers.

 

Both ITV and the BBC regions had specific items on the issues, including a half hour peak time ITV program about the truck v cyclist issue, which included a re-enactment of how a cyclist is so easily accidentally run over by a truck at a left turn.

 

So much is being done and the results prove how effective that's been.

 

As for you saying a death a month is unacceptable, without reference to context, I remind you that it's a cyclist death per over 600 cycle commuting lifetimes, which is entirely acceptable, indeed excellent.

.

.

I consider that this is impressive evidence of a concerned society.

I cant launch a boat, go for a dive,go jet skiing or anything ( especially in Europe) without either training and insurance

 

 

I had not wished to return to this discussion but I find it difficult not to do so when untruths or half-truths are being peddled as fact.

You are free to put any unpowered boat into the seas of Europe. There are not licences on canoes. The reason why powered boats need regulation is exactly the same reason motorcycles need regulation... The hazard increases with speed and the danger to third parties increases with speed. I understand that the regulations come into play above 3.7kw

You certainly do not need a licence or insurance to snorkel dive, ... Have there been any court cases where an unlicenced or unregistered scuba diver has been cited? (I am not advocating that scuba divers should be untrained, as it recognisably a hazardous activity.)

 

There were 3 times more deaths by drowning in the UK in 2014 than deaths in cycling.

 

Look again at the UK statistics of 2014. Of the listed modes of transportation cycling had significantly the least deaths.

It is not a hazardous activity

 

There is one and only one point where we agree..... The future will be agast that we allowed heavy goods vehicles share the same spaces as pedestrians and cyclists, just as I was agast to see large locomotives and trains travelling ( slowly ) through villagesand across roads in Switzerland without protective barriers

In Holland 31% pedal to work and similar %age name cycling as their primary transport.

In England under 2% of population cycle to work.

Comparing total number of deaths between the two countries is flawed.

Holland also has compulsory cycle test for all 12 year olds. They manage to test 200,000 cyclists annually...

We should be looking at each and every scheme to reduce total deaths and halt the rise in serious injury.

If there is so much being done why is death rate fairly constant and serious injury rising. ( could be argued death rate dropped a few years ago because of better health care post accident, its also valid to point out rural areas have longer waits for ambulance as opposed to urban areas, which must also influence death rates between the two areas)

To argue everything is fine is burying your heads in sand.

Wether it needs dedicated cycle lanes specifically built for cycles ( and not stolen from car/ lorry lanes) or compulsory training in mixed use areas something must be done if government really want to get more on bikes.

Last year by family hired bikes in Wales, intending to not do any cycling on roads. It amazed me how many cycle paths simply stop leaving no choice but to join traffic doing at least 40mph more than cycling. Its simply barmy. I would never allow any of my family near a road on a pushbike under current situation, no matter how safe you tell me it is...because it plainly is not.

 

To blame drivers all the time is missing the point completely. If I dove with sharks and got bitten it would be my fault. If cyclists must share space with dumper trucks, lorries and speeding cars its their own responsibility to make sure they have the skills to deal with it. Its proving (IMO) that many do not do that so then it becomes the responsibility of governing body to act. If they don't the government should.

All those folk cycling to work do not justify the deaths we are seeing or the serious injuries folk are living with.

Yes my perspective is as a none cyclist, 90% of the population ??? I suspect some of you cant see the wood for the trees. Cycling on roads is dangerous, arguing otherwise is more so. You will not convince me otherwise of either point.

Edited December 20, 20169 yr by Zlatan

According to Cycling Intelligence there is massive variation in Lindon cycle deaths year on year. The lowest on record was in 2004 with 8. Unfortunately the following year there were 21.

Over last 15 years ( their figures) the average is 17 pa.

Edited December 20, 20169 yr by Zlatan

According to Cycling Intelligence there is massive variation in Lindon cycle deaths year on year. The lowest on record was in 2004 with 8. Unfortunately the following year there were 21.

Over last 15 years ( their figures) the average is 17 pa.

 

 

Which means there has been a large reduction!

 

What you fail to consider is the huge increase in London cycling over the period. Up until the introduction of the London Congestion Charge in 2003, cycle commuting was very much a small minority activity, I hardly saw bikes in my car commuting then.

 

But the greatly increased costs of driving, traffic congestion, the increases in public transport fares and the rush hour overcrowding on buses and trains has meant a continuous increase in cycle commuting to today's over tripled levels. All while cyclist deaths have stayed around the same and are currently low.

 

To see how dominant London cycle commuting has become, have a look at this link.

 

As for cycling being dangerous, I was born in central London and have lived here most of my life. In my 70 years of cycling I've never had any collision with a vehicle or person and haven't a single cycling accident mark on me.

.

Which means there has been a large reduction!

 

What you fail to consider is the huge increase in London cycling over the period. Up until the introduction of the London Congestion Charge in 2003, cycle commuting was very much a small minority activity, I hardly saw bikes in my car commuting then.

 

But the greatly increased costs of driving, traffic congestion, the increases in public transport fares and the rush hour overcrowding on buses and trains has meant a continuous increase in cycle commuting to today's over tripled levels. All while cyclist deaths have stayed around the same and are currently low.

 

To see how dominant London cycle commuting has become, have a look at this link.

 

As for cycling being dangerous, I was born in central London and have lived here most of my life. In my 70 years of cycling I've never had any collision with a vehicle or person and haven't a single cycling accident mark on me.

.

I have to say that I have only skimmed this current topic re cycling safety, myself ,had enjoyed cycling for 30 yrs uptill 2001, when out leading a club ride was struck from the front by an out of control car on a narrow country lane, I was knocked off,sent into a high hedge with serious leg injuries.

The 'accident' was through no fault of my own, wholly due to lack of care and attention of the driver,who was to blame entirely, he got of with 12 points and a small fine.

 

It's my view that motorist are under trained in what to do when meeting cyclist,we are often treated as a nuisance and obstacle to be got around when on the road, this needs to change, the onus is not training cyclist ,it has is instilling caution in meeting cyclist, after all cyclist have a natural interest in cycling safely, as we are so vulnerable.

In conclusion it isn't training safer cycling , it's necessary that we have the basic rules of the road, but the need to instruct and train future drivers.

It's my view that motorist are under trained in what to do when meeting cyclist, we are often treated as a nuisance and obstacle to be got around when on the road

 

This is the core of the problem.

 

Basically car drivers have been spoilt ever since the abolition of the law requiring a man with a flag walking in front of a car. Of course I'm not advocating that returns, but drawing attention to the way in which progress has always suited the driver most.

 

First drivers were allowed to get away with treating roads as free car parks for any period of time, something that should have been banned at the outset.

 

Then roads were improved to permit higher speeds and widened to give higher capacity. Various forms of junctions were developed to aid the free flow of vehicles.

 

All of the changes tended to be with the motor vehicle in mind, the human pedestrian and others then being accommodated in some often inadequate way, so as to not too greatly inconvenience the driver.

 

The sum total is that drivers too often have an attitude of right, expecting and demanding priority over all other interests.

 

We need radical changes in the way in which drivers are trained, the ways in which our legislators approach their task and the existing laws affecting personal travel.

 

The car has been God for far too long.

.

Edited December 20, 20169 yr by flecc

I have said it on here before, but a responsible Government would put out short 'ads' on TV to educate drivers as to their responsibilities towards cyclists.

Leave at least 5 feet between cycle and car when overtaking.

Understand what a cyclist is doing when 'taking the road' at keep left signs.

Avoiding the door zone and so on

I have said it on here before, but a responsible Government would put out short 'ads' on TV to educate drivers as to their responsibilities towards cyclists.

Leave at least 5 feet between cycle and car when overtaking.

Understand what a cyclist is doing when 'taking the road' at keep left signs.

Avoiding the door zone and so on

Agree with that Mike but it cuts both ways. Years ago when I learned to drive the unwritten rule

was assume car doors would open when passing parked vehicles and leave corresponding room to accommodate....but cycles undertaking can not possibly do that..look at the video that started this thread...IMHO the cyclist is equally in wrong, uf not more so...

Trouble is to make system work with road network under strain we all have to operate in smaller space than ideal. Look on motorway, if we all drove to highway code , braking distance etc to car in front some motorways would be in operable.

Yes drivers need to be more aware of cyclists but likeways cyclists should both follow same rules drivers operate under and be equipped to expect worst from drivers.( obviously within reason)

People who have managed to negotiate London roads over extended periods are the ones who should be passing on their skills to others rather than simply blaming drivers.

Yes ,standards of driving could always be improved but its well recognised Uk roads are amongst safest in world..so drivers cant be that bad.

Cyclists need to take some responsibility as well.

Its impossible to say (cycle) training would not help, its not happened or been tried to find out, seems Dutch think it helps. A million cyclists tested every 5 years !!!! Its helped with motorcycles...why not cycles ???

How many of the 6 females crushed by lorries turning left would be here had they had training before hand ???The fact it was / is such a specific group indicates something they did or didn't do contributed.

 

Being in the right legally does not save lives. Recognising the hazard and taking avoiding action does. Drivers will never be perfect, seems you are expecting them to be so for cyclists to be safe. That is being unrealistic.

Edited December 20, 20169 yr by Zlatan

In Holland 31% pedal to work and similar %age name cycling as their primary transport.

In England under 2% of population cycle to work.

Comparing total number of deaths between the two countries is flawed.

Holland also has compulsory cycle test for all 12 year olds. They manage to test 200,000 cyclists annually...

We should be looking at each and every scheme to reduce total deaths and halt the rise in serious injury.

If there is so much being done why is death rate fairly constant and serious injury rising. ( could be argued death rate dropped a few years ago because of better health care post accident, its also valid to point out rural areas have longer waits for ambulance as opposed to urban areas, which must also influence death rates between the two areas)

To argue everything is fine is burying your heads in sand.

Wether it needs dedicated cycle lanes specifically built for cycles ( and not stolen from car/ lorry lanes) or compulsory training in mixed use areas something must be done if government really want to get more on bikes.

Last year by family hired bikes in Wales, intending to not do any cycling on roads. It amazed me how many cycle paths simply stop leaving no choice but to join traffic doing at least 40mph more than cycling. Its simply barmy. I would never allow any of my family near a road on a pushbike under current situation, no matter how safe you tell me it is...because it plainly is not.

 

To blame drivers all the time is missing the point completely. If I dove with sharks and got bitten it would be my fault. If cyclists must share space with dumper trucks, lorries and speeding cars its their own responsibility to make sure they have the skills to deal with it. Its proving (IMO) that many do not do that so then it becomes the responsibility of governing body to act. If they don't the government should.

All those folk cycling to work do not justify the deaths we are seeing or the serious injuries folk are living with.

Yes my perspective is as a none cyclist, 90% of the population ??? I suspect some of you cant see the wood for the trees. Cycling on roads is dangerous, arguing otherwise is more so. You will not convince me otherwise of either point.

Whom here is blaming drivers for all cycling deaths and injuries? Whom here has said that cycling is not dangerous? Whom here has not said said that cycling infrastructure needs to improve. Just whom is arguing with you on these points. You are doing a great job of regurgitating statistics but other than beating the "cyclists must be trained drum" I read no other contributions to this thread. You have not made one point or suggestion on how to prevent incidents that invovle negligent drivers. In my opinion, negligent use of a motor vehicle is the major cause of all incidents involving vunerable road users.

 

Would training of cyclists be a bad thing, no. An expensive program to implement with limited effect it would be as it would offer little protection from negligent road users. Again, inspite of repeated request for your input on what this cycle training should include, you have chosen to ingnore.

 

Training children on road safety up to and at the age of 12. It is a program that teaches basic traffic laws and how to hopefully not get run over. The vast majority of cyclist that commute and get killed and injured know those basic rules just from reaching the age they are. Most operate vehicles themselves. Again, without three paragraphs of statistics, would you please state what kind of training for cyclist will help them/us survive sharing the road with vehicles.

Edited December 20, 20169 yr by Emo Rider

Whom here is blaming drivers for all cycling deaths and injuries? Whom here has said that cycling is not dangerous? Whom here has not said said that cycling infrastructure needs to improve. Just whom is arguing with you on these points. You are doing a great job of regurgitating statistics but other than beating the "cyclists must be trained drum" I read no other contributions to this thread. You have not made one point or suggestion on how to prevent incidents that invovle negligent drivers. In my opinion, negligent use of a motor vehicle is the major cause of all incidents involving vunerable road users.

 

Would training of cyclists be a bad thing, no. An expensive program to implement with limited effect it would be as it would offer little protection from negligent road users. Again, inspite of repeated request for your input on what this cycle training should include, you have chosen to ingnore.

 

Training children on road safety up to and at the age of 12. It is a program that teaches basic traffic laws and how to hopefully not get run over. The vast majority of cyclist that commute and get killed and injured know those basic rules just from reaching the age they are. Most operate vehicles themselves. Again, without three paragraphs of statistics, would you please state what kind of training for cyclist will help then survive sharing the road with vehicles.

 

I,m not a cyclist so I have not got a clue but it seems some seem capable of cycling for years without incident or injury..perhaps your question should be aimed at them..

And you contradicting some others on here. You accept cycling is dangerous, Flecc offers stats suggesting otherwise. I would not dream of cycling through London, if I did it would be a nightmare,

What I am saying is yes drivers need to be more aware etc etc but cyclists as a body should take situation into hand and accept some responsibility especially with regard to training.

Are you really trying to tell me folk such as flecc could not offer new cyclists advice, training. If you are I don't believe you.

At the moment anybody of any age even over drink driving limit ( police have to demonstrate cyclists are intoxicated and can not demand breath/ blood tests) with zero training or experience can cycle through London. That is sheer barmy, no matter how you look at at.

And you contradicting some others on here. You accept cycling is dangerous, Flecc offers stats suggesting otherwise. I would not dream of cycling through London, if I did it would be a

 

The missing word is potentially. In other words cycling can be dangerous, but as my record shows, need not be. For me it isn't dangerous at all and in 70 years never has been.

 

I would not dream of cycling through London, if I did it would be a nightmare,

 

There are many who believe as you do, so they don't cycle in London. So there's no problem in their respect and even if offered training, they wouldn't take it.

 

What I am saying is yes drivers need to be more aware etc etc but cyclists as a body should take situation into hand and accept some responsibility.

 

I agree, but not as a body, they should take responsibility individually. The cyclist can take the personal actions that maximise their safety, and by their behaviour they can also influence how others behave on the roads.

 

At the moment anybody of any age even over drink driving limit ( police have to demonstrate cyclists are intoxicated and can not demand breath/ blood tests) with zero training or experience can cycle through London. That is sheer barmy, no matter how you look at at.

 

Cycling is hardly any different from being a pedestrian, and we don't train them. Drunks don't cycle at high speeds, nor do young children, in fact most unskilled cyclists proceed at under 18 mph and often very much slower. E-bike assistance is limited to circa 15 mph. The average fit person can run at 18 mph and I've seen many in London running at that for various purposes such as catching a bus or escaping a police officer or store security man.

 

The fortunate thing is that we have self adjusting safety built in. When we are fairly young and very fit we can run and cycle at speeds suited to our youthful quick reactions, acute eyesight and sharp hearing.

 

As we age we are less fit and so less capable of cycling or running as fast, so our travel speeds are commensurate with the decline in our abilities.

 

As ever nature knows best.

.

Whom here has said that cycling is not dangerous?

Actually I have said so and provided the statistics to back it up. 113 dead as compared to 3 times that in drowning, walking, 6 times that in motorbiking and 9 times that in cars.

Cycling is not a hazardous activity.

There are occasions and circumstances which move it into a highly hazardous activity, high speed, greasy or icy roads, lack of lighting, overtaking on the inside, breaking traffic lights and combinations of same. Is common sense a rare commodity?

I,m not a cyclist so I have not got a clue but it seems some seem capable of cycling for years without incident or injury..perhaps your question should be aimed at them..

And you contradicting some others on here. You accept cycling is dangerous, Flecc offers stats suggesting otherwise. I would not dream of cycling through London, if I did it would be a nightmare,

What I am saying is yes drivers need to be more aware etc etc but cyclists as a body should take situation into hand and accept some responsibility especially with regard to training.

Are you really trying to tell me folk such as flecc could not offer new cyclists advice, training. If you are I don't believe you.

At the moment anybody of any age even over drink driving limit ( police have to demonstrate cyclists are intoxicated and can not demand breath/ blood tests) with zero training or experience can cycle through London. That is sheer barmy, no matter how you look at at.

You're not a cyclist, this speaks volumes about your input so far. You really don't have anything to say to those of us that are. Especially those that risk life and limb daily. If I could pick and choose where I travel, I too could ride for years without incident. What happened to me two weeks ago was certainly no fault of mine. It was unavoidable on my part as one should be able to expect other road users to obey the rules. They do not. I would say there is also a bit of good luck in not having an incident happen.

 

Flecc, did you say cycling is not dangerous? Did I miss that? What I took

from what he posted is that things are getting better in certain areas. This is largely due to improved cycling infrastructure and a large enforcement effort directed towards both cyclist and drivers. Training for both? Call it what you wish but this is what is needed everywhere.

 

No agument here about training being benificial but I am repeating myself. Perhaps if you had some experience or qualification you could put on a course yourself. If you feel this strongly about it get on your bike, learn, ask flecc for advice, ask me, and then start your own training program. Perhaps this is where it could start.

So Emo

You willingly ( or perhaps have to?) take part in an activity where you say yourself

" risk life and limb" but you dont accept that your ability to avoid injury is through your own skill and or understanding of what you are doing..Its just luck ? I don't believe so.

Now lets assume you were riding right behind one of those 6 ladies killed by ( I believe) dumper trucks turning left... In that same scenario you would not have bern injured?? If its complete random why was it 6 females ? What action would you have taken ? How early would you have spotted the danger ? What would you have done ?

Had you had chance to speak to anyone of those ladies the day before , knowing the situation they would find themselves in, would you be unable to offer life saving advice ?

I suspect an experienced rider would know exactly what to tell them ? But perhaps not ? Is it just luck or lack of it? If its just luck I,d stop riding if I were you.

My point is the survival techniques some cyclists seem to have should part of an enforced curriculum for city cyclists. What advice would you give your kids before cycling through London? Would you let them just buy a bike and pedal through the City centre. The authorities are happy to let them.

Edited December 20, 20169 yr by Zlatan

So Emo

You willingly ( or perhaps have to?) take part in an activity where you say yourself

" risk life and limb" but you dont accept that your ability to avoid injury is through your own skill and or understanding of what you are doing..Its just luck ? I don't believe so.

Now lets assume you were riding right behind one of those 6 ladies killed by ( I believe) dumper trucks turning left... In that same scenario you would not have bern injured?? If its complete random why was it 6 females ? What action would you have taken ? How early would you have spotted the danger ? What would you have done ?

Had you had chance to speak to anyone of those ladies the day before , knowing the situation they would find themselves in, would you be unable to offer life saving advice ?

I suspect an experienced rider would know exactly what to tell them ? But perhaps not ? Is it just luck or lack of it? If its just luck I,d stop riding if I were you.

My point is the survival techniques some cyclists seem to have should part of an enforced curriculum for city cyclists. What advice would you give your kids before cycling through London? Would you let them just buy a bike and pedal through the City centre. The authorities are happy to let them.

Do you even read what people write? Let me rephrase that, could you understand what people are writing? Go back and read all the posts I wrote. You missed the parts where I said training was a good idea. You have chosen to ingnore the fact that I was involved in an incident recently that was out of my control inspite of my experience. All the training in the world will not prevent the actions of those that chose unsafe behavior. I was unlucky, you know, the opposite of lucky.

 

In a career spanning 4 decades, I worked for a company in which safety was the number one priority. Safety training was thorough and second to none. Yet certain employees chose to ignore the rules put themselves and others at risk. To answer you question about how I could have helped these 6 ladies, go back and reread this paragraph from the beginning until you understand what I am trying to say.

 

In everyone of those 6 fatalities there were two people involved. The driver and the cyclists. Who did what wrong? Who did what was right? I was not there. I do not know the details. Your challenge to me is unfair and uncalled

for, in fact rude and offensive.

 

Where all the cyclists careless? Did all the truckers overtake and left hook the cyclist (violation of highway code 182)? You tell me. One thing I can tell you for sure is that people that know the rules do not necessarily follow them. All the training in the world will not prevent stupidly.

 

I am going to work tomorrow on my bike. I'll take my chances. Perhaps I'll

be lucky, perhaps not.

Edited December 20, 20169 yr by Emo Rider

Emo

I was not being offensive, if you interprted it as so apologies.

Seriously, good luck.

I think you are missing my point .

This is the core of the problem.

 

Basically car drivers have been spoilt ever since the abolition of the law requiring a man with a flag walking in front of a car. Of course I'm not advocating that returns, but drawing attention to the way in which progress has always suited the driver most.

.

 

Awww!! You ruined it! here I was dreaming of a Bugatti Veyron with a man with a red flag walking in front of it...

Emo

I was not being offensive, if you interprted it as so apologies.

Seriously, good luck.

I think you are missing my point .

 

No. Your "logic" is flawed that is all. Don't worry, at the moment flawed logic is very fashionable!

why was it 6 females ?

 

This is well understood, it's because female cyclists are more inclined to obey the rules.

 

At red traffic lights they stop at the white line and don't jump the lights, which places them neatly in the blind spot at the left of a truck cab. If the truck turns left there can be a consequence.

 

In contrast male cyclists are more likely to stop ahead of the white line to give them a head start, or even to jump the lights. Males also seem to have taken all the publicity about the left turn truck risk to heart and acted upon it, but females have too often apparently failed to learn.

 

One strange phenomenon is the way female cyclists don't always seem aware of left turn flashing indicators on trucks and what they mean. This has been video'd by CCTV more than once, one a fatality, and on another occasion described by numerous witnesses on the pavement who saw that other fatality.

.

Edited December 20, 20169 yr by flecc

Awww!! You ruined it! here I was dreaming of a Bugatti Veyron with a man with a red flag walking in front of it...

 

Ettore Bugatti was a Frenchman of course, so it would have to be a blue flag. Red is Italy's race car colour.

.

Come on with a name like that you know he was Italian

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ettore_Bugatti

 

And in Italy it is the city that dictates the makers colour so Ferrari is yellow, Alfa Romeo is red and so on. The national colours came much later.

Come on with a name like that you know he was Italian

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ettore_Bugatti

 

And in Italy it is the city that dictates the makers colour so Ferrari is yellow, Alfa Romeo is red and so on. The national colours came much later.

 

Yes, but he adopted France like some of my own Italian family, and his cars were all French.

 

With Ferrari, Alfa Romeo, Maserati and Lancia all being Fiat now, city colours can no longer be applied.

 

If the flag walker was reintroduced now, blue would be the correct national one for the Bugatti cars. But of course there's no need for men walking in front with flags in France, the farmers carry out the road blocking function.

.

So I have had Christmas with some Dutch people and asked about the cyclists who die without being in a accident with anyone else and the answer was: we have so many older cyclists they probably died of a heart attack while on their bike. The person wasn't sure if that is the official reason, it was his educated guest.

So I have had Christmas with some Dutch people and asked about the cyclists who die without being in a accident with anyone else and the answer was: we have so many older cyclists they probably died of a heart attack while on their bike. The person wasn't sure if that is the official reason, it was his educated guest.

 

While that's possible and I know of two cases in Britain in my lifetime, it seems unlikely to be a major factor in so many deaths. Approximately 80 every year. And the Dutch are not stupid, if that were the case they would surely have said as much in the government study, which was specifically about the causes of their cycling deaths.

.