Article on cycling in The Pyschologist

Harrybelafonte

LINK TO PDF

I found it interesting, especially considering the differences I've notice in driver behaviour around me now that I'm on a "normal" bike more, rather than the cargo bike.

buffalo

98 per cent of the delegates were in the next room for a session on the driver behaviour questionnaire whereas in the parallel stream on cycling issues there was just me and three Finnish people alone in a room

Says so much really.

Skrynesaver

Interesting article, the idea that cycling be part of the driving license curriculum in order to reduce the otherness of cyclists in the minds of drivers is not a bad one.

doozerie

That article tackles a range of issues that commonly crop up (e.g hi-hiz) and discusses them very rationally and clearly. It's a very worthwhile read and particularly not just for cyclists.

The idea that people who don't cycle can't empathise with cyclists and therefore don't make allowances for them in their own driving behaviour is one that I strongly believe to be true. It'd be very interesting to see a study compare the increase in cycling in recent years (via counts of people using Bike to Work scheme, counts of people using Dublin Bikes, counts of membership of Cycling Ireland, etc.) with the traffic accident statistics for the same period. If such a study were feasible (not sure that it is), would it show a decrease in incidents between motorists and cyclists or not I wonder, as more people are now presumably conscious, at some level, of cycling and cyclists. (Of course, any such study would have to factor in increased potential for incidents due to increased number of cyclists on the road, and various other tedious realities that any proper research should take into account ...ah feck it, I'm tired of the idea already!).

Surveyor11

Good article, this paragraph stood out for me:

"Incidentally, there are other reasons to be suspicious of high-visibility gear, not least that it transfers responsibility from the driver of the metal box that creates the danger to the victim of that danger."

tomasrojo

Ian Walker interview mentioned here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2012/oct/04/boris-johnson-cycling-accident-statistics-wrong

nomdeboardie

Skrynesaver wrote: »

Interesting article, the idea that cycling be part of the driving license curriculum in order to reduce the otherness of cyclists in the minds of drivers is not a bad one.

+1

Without wanting to derail the thread, this segues nicely with an encounter I had this morning: Driving school car squeezes by me (admittedly not very fast) coming up to a red light. I take the opportunity to let the learner driver know "that was too close" (those words exactly, no recriminations or unpleasantness). I felt a little bad to stress a learner, but if their instructor is not going to tell them to give adequite room, who will...? Cue for instructor to tell me I was "too far out" and inevitable refutations and attempts at education from me...

Qualitymark

nomdeboardie wrote: »

+1

Without wanting to derail the thread, this segues nicely with an encounter I had this morning: Driving school car squeezes by me (admittedly not very fast) coming up to a red light. I take the opportunity to let the learner driver know "that was too close" (those words exactly, no recriminations or unpleasantness). I felt a little bad to stress a learner, but if their instructor is not going to tell them to give adequite room, who will...? Cue for instructor to tell me I was "too far out" and inevitable refutations and attempts at education from me...

Two possible scenarios here:

1) Tap the helmet and say "Helmet cam says I wasn't; smile, you're on Candid Camera" and cycle on. If they can't see the camera don't worry - they'll assume it was integrated.

2) Ignore the "instructor" and say to the learner: "There are all kinds of reasons a cyclist may have to swerve out - potholes, badly fitted manhole covers, glass on the road. Always assume a cyclist may swerve suddenly in front of you. If you kill him because you're driving too close, you'll have to live with that for the rest of your life." And cycle on.

nomdeboardie

Qualitymark wrote: »

Two possible scenarios here:

1) Tap the helmet and say "Helmat cam says I wasn't; smile, you're on Candid Camera" and cycle on. If they can't see the camera don't worry - they'll assume it was integrated.

2) Ignore the "instructor" and say to the learner: "There are all kinds of reasons a cyclist may have to swerve out - potholes, badly fitted manhole covers, glass on the road. Always assume a cyclist may swerve suddenly in front of you. If you kill him because you're driving too close, you'll have to live with that for the rest of your life." And cycle on.

Ha - good idea on the bluffing. I don't wear a helmet, and don't (yet) have a cam, but maybe I could rig up a small object to look like one on the handlebars...

Qualitymark

nomdeboardie wrote: »

Ha - good idea on the bluffing. I don't wear a helmet, and don't (yet) have a cam, but maybe I could rig up a small object to look like one on the handlebars...

Or if you're feeling rich...

http://www.7dayshop.com/photo-and-video/cameras-and-camcorders/7dayshop-extreme-sports-helmet-action-video-camcorder?cl=4

nomdeboardie

Qualitymark wrote: »

Or if you're feeling rich...

http://www.7dayshop.com/photo-and-video/cameras-and-camcorders/7dayshop-extreme-sports-helmet-action-video-camcorder?cl=4

Hmm...even if it was complete crap I wouldn't have lost a fortune. Thing is, I think I'm afraid of triggering my inner Magnatom :eek:. On the other hand, it would be nice to be able to ask the instructor if they would be happy to have the footage sent to the Driving Instructor licencing body (if there is such a thing) or used as discussion material with the RSA.

I should have asked the instructor "So, if I had been a little farther still from the curb, would you have advised your pupil to drive through me?"

Qualitymark

nomdeboardie wrote: »

Hmm...even if it was complete crap I wouldn't have lost a fortune. Thing is, I think I'm afraid of triggering my inner Magnatom :eek:. On the other hand, it would be nice to be able to ask the instructor if they would be happy to have the footage sent to the Driving Instructor licencing body (if there is such a thing) or used as discussion material with the RSA.

I should have asked the instructor "So, if I had been a little farther still from the curb, would you have advised your pupil to drive through me?"

Maybe. Anger doesn't serve you well.

monument

Skrynesaver wrote: »

Interesting article, the idea that cycling be part of the driving license curriculum in order to reduce the otherness of cyclists in the minds of drivers is not a bad one.

I don't see how it could be workable and forcing people in this way to cycle on roads could just alienate cycling and, simplified, make people think that cyclists are nuts or hard nuts that don't need protection or due care.

doozerie wrote: »

The idea that people who don't cycle can't empathise with cyclists and therefore don't make allowances for them in their own driving behaviour is one that I strongly believe to be true.

It seems more complicated than just 'people who don't cycle'. There also seems to be a link between behaviour and knowing others who cycle. When you child, sister, brother, wife, husband, friend, neighbour, workmate etc cycle, some people will at least start to empathise when they see these people cycling.

There's also stuff like social norms. Simplified: If all cyclists are criminals, it's easier to dismiss them and think they are always in the wrong.

doozerie wrote: »

It'd be very interesting to see a study compare the increase in cycling in recent years (via counts of people using Bike to Work scheme, counts of people using Dublin Bikes, counts of membership of Cycling Ireland, etc.) with the traffic accident statistics for the same period. If such a study were feasible (not sure that it is), would it show a decrease in incidents between motorists and cyclists or not I wonder, as more people are now presumably conscious, at some level, of cycling and cyclists. (Of course, any such study would have to factor in increased potential for incidents due to increased number of cyclists on the road, and various other tedious realities that any proper research should take into account ...ah feck it, I'm tired of the idea already!).

Not quite a study but a quick look at the trends... http://cyclingindublin.com/2012/08/11/safety-in-numbers-for-cyclists-in-dublin-city/

Zyzz

nomdeboardie wrote: »

Ha - good idea on the bluffing. I don't wear a helmet, and don't (yet) have a cam, but maybe I could rig up a small object to look like one on the handlebars...

Why don't you wear a helmet?

Cookie_Monster

Zyzz wrote: »

Why don't you wear a helmet?

because he doesn't want to one would assume.
Please don't start the nonsense that it'll save your life etc

tomasrojo

Saw this, and the first bit reminded me of Ian Walker's article:

We view minorities and the vulnerable as less than human

https://aeon.co/ideas/the-bad-news-on-human-nature-in-10-findings-from-psychology

H/T @philosophybites on Twitter