Show Me the Collisions: What the CrashMap Data Really Says About Duke Street

✍️ Author’s Note

This post supports my recent article, Bin the Bollards, by detailing how I sourced and verified crash data on Duke Street. It shows step by step how the evidence doesn’t support the claim that wand orcas are needed for cyclist safety. This isn’t speculation—it’s public record. If you’re going to spend over half a million pounds on a piece of infrastructure, the least you can do is build the case properly.  —Rory Wilmer

www.crashmap.co.uk

1. How I Got the Data

I used CrashMap.co.uk, a public platform that aggregates collision data from official DfT records (STATS19), covering the years 1999 to 2023. I filtered by:

• Location: Duke Street, Birkenhead

• Timeframe: Last 10 years

• Vehicle Type: Pedal cycles

• Severity: All recorded levels (slight, serious, fatal)

CrashMap lets you visually identify incident markers and download official reports. I then requested and reviewed all reports relating to the stretch from Ashville Road to Duke Street Bridge.

2. What the Reports Say

Four collisions involving cyclists were recorded over 10 years. Here’s the summary:

• 13 July 2020 – Car vs. cyclist, slight injury, both travelling straight, dry daylight conditions

• 21 May 2021 – Car turning, cyclist commuting, slight injury, damp road

• 3 May 2022 – Car rear-ended cyclist, slight injury, dry road

• 25 Sept 2023 – Car pulled out into cyclist, serious injury, dry daylight conditions

No fatalities. One serious injury. All in daylight. No collisions at night, in fog, or on complex junctions. No repeat location pattern.

3. So What?

Let’s compare the numbers:

• Four incidents in 10 years is a rate of 0.4 per year

• Only one incident resulted in a serious injury

• No pattern of dangerous overtakes, narrow squeezes, or systemic risk

• No evidence of ‘blackspot’ status or repeated failures at specific points

This is not a high-risk corridor by national or local standards. It's not even medium-risk.

4. But What About "Perceived Safety"?

That’s a different argument—and if the Council had said:

“We’re installing wand orcas to comply with visual demarcation standards and address low-level noncompliance with existing advisory lanes,”

I’d still critique it—but I wouldn’t call it dishonest.

Instead, they’ve claimed it’s a “safety improvement.” That’s a stretch. There’s no supporting collision analysis. The report approved by the Committee on 16 June 2025 contains no risk register, no injury severity summary, and no comparison to design thresholds.

5. Summary

Wand orcas are being installed:

• Without a clear safety mandate

• Without supporting public demand

• In a heritage-sensitive location

• Based on an outdated consultation and guidance

That’s not “best practice.” That’s checkbox planning masquerading as progress.

Post‑2023 Incident Check on Duke Street

I checked for any major or cyclist-involved collisions on Duke Street, Birkenhead, after the September 2023 report. Nothing specific turned up—no media, police, or local news citing Duke Street crashes since then.

⚠️ Nearby Incident in Seacombe (Not on Duke Street)

The only significant collision identified was on 29 October 2024, involving a cyclist and HGV at the Tower Road & Birkenhead Road roundabout in Seacombe. This incident led to serious injuries and ultimately a fatality. It prompted emergency road closures that affected nearby routes—including Duke Street—but crucially, the crash did not occur on Duke Street itself.

Next Steps

If you’ve read this far, do one thing: ask to see the data behind your council’s road schemes. They work for you, not the other way around. You can use www.crashmap.co.uk or submit a request under the Freedom of Information Act for the full risk assessment. Councils are legally obliged to disclose it.

📘 Related Reading:

• Bin the Bollards: Why Wand Orcas on Duke Street Are a Lazy, Ugly, and Risky Mistake

• West Dulwich LTN High Court Ruling: A Watershed Moment

• The Future of Cycling on Wirral – White Paper

Disclaimer

This article draws on publicly available data, including Department for Transport STATS19 collision records (accessed via CrashMap), council documents, open-source mapping, and AI-assisted tools for analysis and visualisation. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, there may be gaps, omissions, or updates not yet reflected in public datasets.

If any factual inaccuracies are identified, I welcome corrections and will amend the article accordingly. This post is written in a personal capacity, not on behalf of any organisation, and is intended to support open, democratic scrutiny of local decision-making.

No councillor or officer is accused of wrongdoing. The purpose here is transparency, accountability, and the belief that public policy should be grounded in evidence—not jargon.