Afternoon:
11°c
Cycling injuries rise by a quarter
Rashid Razaq18.11.08
THE number of cyclists injured in England has increased by almost a quarter in the past five years, official figures revealed today.
Health minister Ben Bradshaw said 13,368 cyclists were admitted to English hospitals in 2006-7, up from 10,795 in 2002-3, a 23.8 per cent increase.
In 2006-7, the latest figures available, 1,873 cyclists were injured after colliding with cars or vans and 129 were in accidents involving lorries and buses.Some 9,191 were injured in incidents involving no other vehicles and 518 hit stationary objects.
A further 208 cyclists collided with other riders and 89 crashed into people or animals.
But the accident figures for 2006-7 were lower than the previous year, when 13,533 cyclists needed hospital treatment, Mr Bradshaw told shadow health secretary Andrew Lansley in a Commons written reply.
Reader views (16)
claire, london
funny that... I only hate Peter's from Hartlepool, all other Peters get along fine and dont feel the need to constantly winge about others behaviour in forums like this...
- Rljr, london
Robert - no, I haven't seen him. Which way did he go?
- Reg, London
claire ,london
i only hate cyclists,all other road users get along fine and dont feel the need to constantly winge about each others behaviour in forums like this,and who are you to decide if someone is safe to drive on the roads ? let me guess your a cyclist !
- Peter Ex Londoner, Hartlepool
sally gardener,mayfair
im very happy ,very fit and very healthy and all without the use of a bicycle,they are not the be all and end all that cyclists think they are !
- Peter Ex Londoner, Hartlepool
Sorry Reg, you've clearly never seen the cyclist without any form of lights or reflective gear, generally wearing black, cycling at high speed, head down, at night? Never mind the red lights, one way street signs, pavements, all of which apply to everyone other than the cyclist. I suppose the cyclist I saw last week happily cycling down a one way street the wrong way, on a mobile phone, with a child in a child seat (no helmet to be seen on either of them) wouldn't be responsible if an accident ensued? You're obviously a cyclist - I used to be but am no longer.
- Robert N, London
Having read a few of Peter's posts, I'm not sure that someone with such a psychopathic hatred of other road users is safe to drive any vehicle and should probably have his licence taken away.
- Claire, Londn
"Some 9,191 were injured in incidents involving no other vehicles and 518 hit stationary objects."
That is almost 10,000 who really are too stupid to be allowed near a public road.
- Bruce, London
Look at the last paragraph: "the accident figures for 2006-7 were lower than the previous year"
Cycling injuries have actually gone DOWN since last year!
And of the 13000, 9000 involve no other vehicles. I'll bet these are from mountain bikers!
- Psycholist, London
Peter - Of course all of them are the cyclists fault, nothing to do with the fact most drivers give cyclists lots of room & dont try and force them off the road NOT!
- Dom, London
Sally Gardener - you forget to factor in the syndrome of cycling in numbers being safer, perhaps due to the large number of mutual witnesses. Given that most urban accidents to cyclists occur when they are not cycling within a group, this suggests logically the opportunities for such accidents should be fewer as cyclists increase in number. Yet these accidents are increasing at a significant rate.
Ptw - an admirable sense of perspective. You are of course correct to equate the irritation of motorists with those cyclists who illegally but harmlessly jump lights with the dangerous driving of heavy goods vehicles by people who can't speak English, have faked their driving licences, and pay no road tax, unlike the many cyclists who own cars.
Peter - your use of hyperbole cannot dodge the issue. You might be able to dredge up one or two incidents where the cyclist has been shown to be at fault, but the majority of the thousands of yearly cyclist collisions are actually proven in court to be the fault of motorist aggression of lack of care. Then the motorist is given some moisturising lotion by the Judge to cope with the epidermal trauma of the slap on the wrists which usually takes the form of a £200 fine for a kill.
- Reg, London
Who cares about cyclists anyway?
What about us pedestrians who try to use the pavements, and have to contend with theses morons.
- P I Staker, London
Peter in Hartlepool, you might like to look up the "at fault" rates in RTAs involving cyclists, according to research from the AA. Cyclists have the lowest "at fault" rate, despite your increasingly shrill rants whenever a cycling story appears here. Not surprising really, they're not surrounded by a ton of steel, they have a natural disinclination to collide with anything. Lighten up! Get a bike, go for a ride, it will make you happy, fitter and healthier!
- Sally Gardener, Mayfair
In line with the point made by Sally, the more people that cycle, the safer it gets for all cyclists.
- Austen, London
and of course not one of the accidents was the cyclists fault ! they being the most carefull of all road users NOT !
- Peter Ex Londoner, Hartlepool
So just like the cycling lobby call for the ban of those very dangerous motorbikes (note that no collisions with motorbikes are not mentioned in the above figures) then surely the same can now be said to the banning of cyclists?
- Ptw, London
Beware dubious statistics! Cycling has increased by 80% in London alone, so an increase in cycling accidents at the rate o23% means, in fact, the roads are getting safer. A huge rise in cycling, a small rise in accidents. Good news. Please note the figures also include off-road mountain biking which is like including Formula 1 deaths in road safety stats...
- Sally Gardener, Mayfair
