The number of cyclists injured in England has increased by almost a quarter in the last five years, according to official figures. (Not all on the road)

Health Minister Ben Bradshaw said 13,368 riders were admitted to English hospitals in 2006-7, up from 10,795 in 2002-3, a 23.8% increase.

In 2006-7, the latest figures available, some 1,873 cyclists were injured after colliding with cars or vans and 129 were in collisions with 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.

However, the figures for 2006-7 were lower than the previous year, when 13,533 cyclists needed hospital treatment.

Police forces across the UK will step up their fight against drink and drug drivers as part of a new campaign in the run up to Christmas.

Officers will be increasing the use of roadside breath tests as well as 'field impairment tests' such as balance and co-ordination exercises to detect drug use. Police also warned revellers of the dangers of still being over the limit the morning after a night out.

They advised designating a non-drinking driver or making alternative arrangements such as getting a cab home from festive celebrations.

New radio and internet adverts are to be launched alongside TV adverts, cinema and in-pub advertising to help get the message across.

Campaigners will also be working with Coca-Cola Great Britain to help tackle drink driving through its 'Buy one Coca-Cola and get two more free' deal for designated drivers at one of 2,500 participating pubs.

This year will see more roadside stop and check operations than ever before, at all times of day and night and on all types of road. Police Offices will be stopping a large number of drivers and where appropriate, will arrest and bring offenders before a court.

A man from the north east of England who had a heart attack after suffering from work-related stress and depression, has received £175,000 in compensation.

The gentleman in question had regularly worked twelve hour days and most of the weekend. Unable to cope with the workload, he suffered stress and anxiety and eventually had a heart attack in November 2004. He survived, but remained "seriously depressed" and was unable to return to work, taking early retirement at the age of 60.

Court proceedings began in 2006 and Northumberland NHS Care Trust admitted they had been negligent in exposing the man to working conditions that put him under stress. However, at the time they did not accept that the heart attack and depression suffered had been caused by their negligence.

There is a constant belief that driving can result in stress. Does this ruling and the previous award bring into question just how am employer needs to exercise their duty of care.

A woman who had won nearly £110,000 in compensation from her employers for stress-related illness, has successfully fought off a bid to have the ruling quashed.

Mobile phone company O2's appeal against a decision that it was in breach of its duty by failing to relieve the pressure of an employees job was rejected by the Court of Appeal.

The woman was a regulatory finance manager with O2 when she claimed to have reached "the end of her tether" due to work pressures, and could not cope with some aspects of her job.

Three Court of Appeal judges heard how she had warned her employers of how she felt, but that they had failed to relieve her situation, and in May 2002 her mental health broke down. She has not worked since.

She was awarded a total of £109,754 by a judge at Oxford County Court last December. The judge said her illness should have been "reasonably foreseeable" to her employers.

In its appeal, O2 challenged the way the judge had dealt with the case and claimed there was no proper evidence to support the finding of foreseeability or the decision that the company's conduct contributed to her illness. It said there had been no warning signs of a breakdown in her health.

However, Lady Justice Smith, sitting with Lords Justices Sedley and Wall, said the obvious inference from the history this lady’s condition was that she "tipped over the edge because nothing significant had been done to recognise and address her need for a rest and for a change to her work requirements".