Claim that Netherlands is more dangerous for cycling is statistical cherry-picking

In an LTT Viewpoint, Vincent Stops suggested that cycling safety in the Netherlands is worse than in the UK. But, argues Simon Munks, this is no more than ‘evidential gymnastics’ which overlook the fact that far more people cycle more often in the Netherlands

Cycle tracks in the Netherlands work, not just for safety, but also to enable a far higher number of people and wider range to cycle for a wider range of journeys PIC: Dutch Cycling Embassy

In his recent piece (LTT901), Vincent Stop warned against following advice from the London Cycling Campaign and unnamed “bloggers”.

Their approach, Stops said, is deeply wrong-headed, and a “forensic examination” of evidence would reveal it is far safer to cycle in the UK than the Netherlands. He believes a “data-led approach to road safety based on analysis and proper research” would mean ditching “all manner of confusing road layouts” (cycle tracks, basically).

A well-respected publication such as LTT should have no business with this kind of statistical cherry-picking, although, sadly, the views expressed by Stops are all too common in the transport industry. My concern is that his standpoint finds at least some sympathetic ears among those who still seem to view bicycles as toys in a grown-up world of big choo-choo machines.

The transport industry cannot legitimately keep insisting that of course we all want more cycling as we face crises of climate, inactivity, road danger, congestion, pollution, community severance and more, if every scheme comes down to an argument about whether cycle tracks are safe and how to even design them.

That’s not to mention the behind-the-scenes bunfight every scheme faces for capacity. Until rollout of schemes happens without showdowns, arguments and aggressive opposition to every element of every scheme, and instead simply is delivered at pace, to best practice, to targets and using clear policy, every climate or road safety target remains a vague ambition, a dream, never to be made real.

For some in the transport industry it still seems that delivering inclusive cycling and active travel outcomes is too hard, while climate targets are years away and electric vehicles will fix it all anyway. Except, of course, they won’t – there’s good evidence on that. We must stop pretending cycling is a ‘nice to have’, and that the climate crisis can be fixed without real change. It’s a convenient fiction, rather like Stops’ statistics. 

He states: “In 2023, Great Britain had 87 cyclist fatalities. In the Netherlands (NL) there were 270 … in a country with a population a quarter that of GB… 12 times the fatalities per million”. This is gibberish. Far more people cycle more often in the Netherlands both in per capita and overall terms. So, of course there are more fatalities, but not because there’s more ‘risk’. 

Stops also produces two graphs which, he suggests, show cycling danger is dropping in the UK while going up in the Netherlands – but he doesn’t put the figures next to each other. Stops’ own graphs show that in 2022, the number of fatalities per billion miles cycled was around 70 in the UK while in the Netherlands, it was 16 per billion km. Converting to matching miles, that puts the risk to cycling in the UK by Stops’ own graphs as seven times higher.

Stops throws in more stats but, ultimately, his evidential gymnastics just aren’t right. The Netherlands is far safer to cycle in than the UK, in part because, as international studies have shown repeatedly, cycle tracks work and not just for safety, but also to enable a far higher number of people and wider range to cycle for a wider range of journeys.

New data from the DFT (LTT901) reveals that while cycling traffic levels in England dropped by 7% in the 12 months up to June 2024, car and taxi traffic levels were 1.9% higher during the same period. This illustrates the reality in the UK that: more cars = less cycling.

Stops’ claim that the Netherlands is more dangerous for cycling is a statistical cherry-picking, while his claim that road danger is rising because of cycle tracks and/or e-bikes is pure speculation. Yes, there are more e-bikes in the Netherlands than here, and more cycle tracks, but there’s also more tulips and windmills. Correlation is not causation.

Perhaps e-bikes do represent a big increase in risk as they grow in uptake – perhaps there are lessons to learn from the Netherlands on their uptake. If there are, London Cycling Campaign will take those lessons onboard and so should you. But if you really wanted to examine the risks of e-bikes, you’d want to look at fatal and serious collisions to e-bike riders and also to pedestrians who have been hit by e-bikes. But Stops does not appear to have done this - the only linkage he posits from fatal collisions to e-bikes is his own.

The one thing I agree with Stops on is that I also welcome the Government “embarking on a fresh road safety strategy. A forensic examination of how we are doing would be helpful” .

I can only hope any Government ‘grown-ups in the room’ involved in that examination won’t use cherry-picked stats to make a hackneyed anti-cycling case, but instead seek to find ways to deliver on pressing issues we all face, using evidence and best practice.

Simon Munk is Head of Campaigns and Community Development at the London Cycling Campaign

Find out more about raod danger reduction at Liveable Neighbourhoods 2024.