"Dangerization" and cycling

tomasrojo

Don't think we have a thread themed around how road safety promotion can, theoretically, discourage cycling.

This looks interesting:
http://drianwalker.com/GambleWalkerLaketa-acceptedms.pdf

(I've used Gamble et al.'s spelling of "dangerization" in the thread title. Tell the OED that -ize spellings aren't acceptable if it bothers you.)

Haven't read it in detail, but think some people here might find much of interest in it. Examines how different campaigns alter, if at all, cyclists' and non-cyclists' perception of cycling.

Eric Pode of Croydon

Life is too shortfor this.

petethedrummer

Eric Pode of Croydon wrote: »

Life is too shortfor this.

Especially if you're a cyclist.

smacl

Eric Pode of Croydon wrote: »

Life is too shortfor this.

Reading the abstract takes about a minute and gives you the gist of it, i.e. cycling advocacy would do better to focus on health and enjoyment aspects of cycling, as safety campaigns don't encourage people to cycle. Seems sensible, particularly in the context of facing a childhood obesity epidemic in this country.

bazermc

Dangerization - sounds like a American word!!!!!!!!

magicbastarder

http://www.penguin.co.uk/books/danger-is-everywhere-a-handbook-for-avoiding-danger/9780141354156/

on_the_nickel

Sound like a word Kelly would make up.

Jawgap

the dangerisation of cycling......

CramCycle

tomasrojo wrote: »

(I've used Gamble et al.'s spelling of "dangerization" in the thread title. Tell the OED that -ize spellings aren't acceptable if it bothers you.)

Its the fact that two words are spelt in American english for the University of Bath, I just left it alone after that as it was most likely not peer reviewed

tomasrojo

CramCycle wrote: »

Its the fact that two words are spelt in American english for the University of Bath, I just left it alone after that as it was most likely not peer reviewed

It's a funny thing, but if you read English prose from the 1600s and 1700s, you'll never see a -ise verb. It's an affectation from French that spread into English. -ize spellings are the original spellings, and etymologically more correct (being derived from a Greek suffix). So the Oxford English Dictionary lists -ize spellings first, and include -ise spellings as variants.

I don't actually use -ize spellings myself generally, unless I'm writing for Americans, but it's more because I don't want to defend myself from people telling me I can't spell, rather than because I think it's more correct.

tomasrojo

smacl wrote: »

Reading the abstract takes about a minute and gives you the gist of it, i.e. cycling advocacy would do better to focus on health and enjoyment aspects of cycling, as safety campaigns don't encourage people to cycle.

They also found that safety campaigns didn't discourage people either, which surprised me, but it's really only an analysis of people's immediate reaction to leaflets with a particular slant. Given that campaigns have been going on for years, attitudes are probably pretty hardened already.

old_aussie

Eric Pode of Croydon wrote: »

Life is too shortfor this.

yeah, ya not wrong there mate..

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/doctor-henri-sueke-killed-in-rose-bay-cycling-crash-had-just-arrived-from-uk-20150529-ghc3by

CramCycle

Jawgap wrote: »

the dangerisation of cycling......

Suprised that got passed the filters, your one on the left is flashing :pac::pac::pac:

tomasrojo wrote: »

I don't actually use -ize spellings myself generally, unless I'm writing for Americans, but it's more because I don't want to defend myself from people telling me I can't spell, rather than because I think it's more correct.

As a scientist, I can assure you, my ability to spell is terrible. I always thought the -ize was American so I always went and ignored auto corrects recommendations on reports.

The more you know I suppose, and knowing is half the battle.

Jawgap

tomasrojo wrote: »

It's a funny thing, but if you read English prose from the 1600s and 1700s, you'll never see a -ise verb. It's an affectation from French that spread into English. -ize spellings are the original spellings, and etymologically more correct (being derived from a Greek suffix). So the Oxford English Dictionary lists -ize spellings first, and include -ise spellings as variants.

I don't actually use -ize spellings myself generally, unless I'm writing for Americans, but it's more because I don't want to defend myself from people telling me I can't spell, rather than because I think it's more correct.

Jefferson re-codified the English language for the 'Muricans and introduced or proposed a lot of the typically US spellings and sentence constructions to make things as consistent and simple as possible.

tomasrojo

Jawgap wrote: »

Jefferson re-codified the English language for the 'Muricans and introduced or proposed a lot of the typically US spellings and sentence constructions to make things as consistent and simple as possible.

I think Noah Webster did a lot of the work too. (Thought nobody ever started spelling 'cloak' 'cloke' or 'machine' 'masheen', which I vaguely recall were some of his suggestions.) In Ireland, people seem to have taken to his changing 'gaol' to 'jail', though it seems less popular in the UK. Even there, nobody writes 'musick' or 'publick' anymore.

However, the -ize spelling wasn't one of their changes to English spelling. The verbs were spelt that way in Britain and Ireland at that time as well, and for some time after.

smacl

bazermc wrote: »

Dangerization - sounds like a American word!!!!!!!!

Sounds like someone made up a word to verbalise the noun danger without knowing that the verb to endanger already existed and was in common use. Should be done for the grammatical equivalent of reckless dangerization

tomasrojo

"Endanger" means something different though. "Dangerize" is to increase the perception that something is dangerous, not to put someone in danger.

smacl

tomasrojo wrote: »

"Endanger" means something different though. "Dangerize" is to increase the perception that something is dangerous, not to put someone in danger.

In which dictionary though? Doesn't seem to appear in the on-line versions of Merriam-Webster, OED or Collins which to me suggests it is not actually a word in the English language. Wiktionary lists it as follows;

dangerisation (plural dangerisations)

The attribution of dangerous characteristics to something not particularly dangerous.
The promotion of cycle helmets causes the dangerisation of cycling.

Given that one of the only on-line definitions uses cycle helmets as a sample of its use suggests an ad hoc term used by the cycling advocacy community from where I'm sitting. Not a great choice for the title of an academic study.

tomasrojo

Hence the use of inverted commas around the word. It's a nascent term (and, of course, may disappear in a matter of years).

Hardly invalidates the study itself. (They're perfectly forthright about shortcomings of the study too.)

If you use Duck Duck Go as your search engine, the first results don't mention cycling directly; more to do with fearful child-rearing:
http://www.creators.com/opinion/lenore-skenazy/what-happens-when-we-dangerize-childhood.html

tomasrojo

Think it might come from this book (by extension of the term "dangerism"):
http://www.amazon.com/Beware-Dangerism-Kindle-Single-ebook/dp/B004K1F3K2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1310925348&sr=8-1

Whatever about the unlovely appearance of the word, it is a useful concept. For example, 24-hour running news distorts risk perception, and I can't think of a decent, concise term other that "dangerisation" that covers that.

tomasrojo

Also, not the most inappropriate title for an academic study ever!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90511761&postcount=3452

sbs2010

All words are made up.

I like it - you know exactly what it means without needing it explained.

Danjamin1

The two big things I find put people off cycling are the perceived danger and the cost. I can't understand either of these reasons.

Cycling is only as expensive as you make it. You can pick up a second hand bike relatively cheap, Lidl & Aldi regularly stock cycling gear and equipment, and the same people who say it's too expensive are generally the same people who are paying for public transport every day in and out of work.

As for the perceived danger, it seems to be people that have no experience of anything other than driving who think it's particularly dangerous. Most cyclists will say it's fine. The focus on safety and the measures that you need to go to to stay alive are important but it'd be good to see some promotion of the benefits.

I generally try to promote the good points to friends and family, but more often than not the reasons above are thrown back as excuses.

smacl

sbs2010 wrote: »

All words are made up.

I like it - you know exactly what it means without needing it explained.

I clearly didn't hence my previous post. To me, dangerization suggests making something dangerous, not making something safe falsely appear dangerous, as there is no part of the word that conveys this falsity. Needs a prefix such as pseudo if that's the intention. I admit to being a pedant, but feel quite strongly that if you're trying to communicate clearly to a broad unknown audience in a given language, you should wherever possible stick to the well understood and defined words that make up that language.

smacl

tomasrojo wrote: »

Hence the use of inverted commas around the word. It's a nascent term (and, of course, may disappear in a matter of years).

Hardly invalidates the study itself. (They're perfectly forthright about shortcomings of the study too.)

If you use Duck Duck Go as your search engine, the first results don't mention cycling directly; more to do with fearful child-rearing:
http://www.creators.com/opinion/lenore-skenazy/what-happens-when-we-dangerize-childhood.html

Doesn't invalidate the study at all, it merely makes the title somewhat ambiguous. Never heard of Duck Duck Go as a search engine before this, but see it rates number 11 among most popular search engines out there. Learn something new every day.

niceonetom

Dangerification? Or what about just verbing "danger"? The dangering of cycling...

Grammar is much more interesting than road safety.

CramCycle

niceonetom wrote: »

Grammar is much more interesting than road safety.

Alot more dangerous as well, more people have died over words, their intention and often their misunderstanding than will ever be injured by cycling.

smacl

niceonetom wrote: »

Dangerification? Or what about just verbing "danger"? The dangering of cycling...

Grammar is much more interesting than road safety.

Dontovertakeleftturningtrucksontheinsideification?

buffalo

This seems relevant to the actual topic, rather than the language of the title:



Apologies for the big pic.

magicbastarder

those stats are meaningless. they don't specify whether they're based on exposure or not.

RobertFoster

What happens if you use your car for leisure?

buffalo

magicbastarder wrote: »

those stats are meaningless. they don't specify whether they're based on exposure or not.

Lies, damn lies.

CramCycle

Haven't seen the report but I presume it's based on total head injuries across their desk with no regard for exposure levels.

It would be difficult to make it fair on normalisation via time or distance, they include work and crime in there. I presume it's solely based on reported reasons for head injury or what factor was a major contributor ie being in a car, being on a motorbike, being in work, being a victim of crime (could also be the perpetrator), being on a bicycle.

Would have being interesting to register whether in all those scenarios whether the risk was due to the injured party or another party.

RainyDay

magicbastarder wrote: »

those stats are meaningless. they don't specify whether they're based on exposure or not.

You'd also have to wonder about advancements in car safety and airbags etc in 10 years since the stats were collected. In Ireland, random breath testing has resulted in a steady downward trend in the death toll on the roads. Have these developments reduced head injuries?

magicbastarder

they're hard to interpret though as a result. i mean; my chances of suffering a head injury as a result of motorcycling is essentially zero, i've never even sat on a motorbike let alone ridden one. but someone who is a motorbike rider probably has a higher chance than the 13% specified; so the 13% figure probably applies to basically no-one.

purely coincidentally, i've just finished watching a BBC4 program on chance. one thing the presenter mentions is that the chances of dying in a parachute jump are approximately the same as dying in 40 miles of motorbike journeys.

beauf

Its amazing how many time stats are used for a headline, topic of conversation, without any context to give them meaning. Perhaps predictable would be a better description.

tomasrojo

magicbastarder wrote: »

purely coincidentally, i've just finished watching a BBC4 program on chance. one thing the presenter mentions is that the chances of dying in a parachute jump are approximately the same as dying in 40 miles of motorbike journeys.

Was it presented by David Spiegelhalter? Saw a small bit. He's the guy who co-wrote the bike helmet editorial in the BMJ (direct benefit too modest to measure).

Think motorcycling is by all metrics the most hazardous common transport mode.

magicbastarder

tomasrojo wrote: »

Was it presented by David Spiegelhalter? Saw a small bit.

that was he. the science was a bit basic but it was a decent show.

Lumen

tomasrojo wrote: »

Think motorcycling is by all metrics the most hazardous common transport mode.

Yeah, but...

recedite

tomasrojo wrote: »

It's a funny thing, but if you read English prose from the 1600s and 1700s, you'll never see a -ise verb.

Interesting. Gray was the most common spelling of grey on this side of the pond at that time too.

Anyway, I wonder if this "dangerization" topic is relevant to the situation in Holland, where far more people cycle about the place in "normal" clothes on their daily business, and hardly any wear a helmet. It could be that motorists treat them better because
(a) their appearance seems as normal human beings (as opposed to uniformed members of another tribe)
(b) more cyclists around, including lots of kids, so motorists more aware of them.

So in that country where the "dangerization" of cycling seems to be laughed at, could cycling actually be safer?

tomasrojo

This doesn't really belong in the hi-viz megathread. It's potentially the phase after hi-viz in "co-accumulation"(*) and, arguably, dangerisation.

we went to visit Trek last week and the brand is really keen to promote the use of rear lights during the day. It even had the members of Trek Factory Racing ride the prologue of this year’s Tour de France on time trial bikes fitted with the Flare R “to promote awareness of the most important cycling accessory available today”.

http://road.cc/content/feature/159493-trend-spotting-should-we-all-be-using-lights-daytime



(*)

Some people who did begin acquiring safety-related items referred to the co-accumulation of multiple safety items. This suggests the potential operation of a dynamic whereby the expected level of safety gear continues to increase. If one function of safety gear is, as suggested above, a visual demonstration that a cyclist is not a risk-taker, then it might not be surprising that once an item (e.g. helmets) becomes widespread, other items take its place as signalling one’s distance from the ‘typical’ dangerous cyclist (c.f. Aldred 2013)

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95424808&postcount=1261

tomasrojo

As someone once put it very well:

Lumen wrote: »

Great, so we're now competing with the sun, which apparently produces around 400 billion billion billion lumens. Plenty of scope for upgrades.

magicbastarder

comment from damian o'tuama on dangerisation of cycling published in the IT:

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/we-need-to-tackle-the-real-dangers-facing-cyclists-on-the-roads-1.2310268

oakley2097

This thread hurt my head

niceonetom

oakley2097 wrote: »

This thread hurt my head

Were you not wearing your internet helmet?

Your own fault so.

oakley2097

Should the thread not have a trigger warning

I was just reading along

tomasrojo

Gamble et al.'s "dagnerization" study in the (cycling) news:
http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/cycling-is-dangerous-doesn-t-repel-would-be-cyclists-finds-st/018325

In order to increase cycling levels throughout the country and to bring about the enormous benefits active transport can bring to an individual’s health and the wider environment we need to rethink how it’s promoted with a renewed focus on the enjoyment it can bring.

As mentioned at the top of the thread, they didn't find any evidence that talking about safety precautions puts people off cycling.

This bit in the bikebiz report is interesting:

In recent years, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has indicated that more cycling would dramatically improve public health - indeed, the WHO has speculated that an increase in the number of trips by bike could be ‘the single best thing’ a society could do for public health.

Don't know the source of the claim though.

tomasrojo

Good article, I think, about the "drip drip drip" of bad news stories that misrepresent cycling as a deadly activity.
http://www.bicycleretailer.com/industry-news/2015/11/04/rick-vosper-haunted-ghosts-dead-cyclists?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#.VjqXlTZOfDs

Qualitymark

tomasrojo wrote: »

(I've used Gamble et al.'s spelling of "dangerization" in the thread title. Tell the OED that -ize spellings aren't acceptable if it bothers you.)

When I was a babby I was told that verbs derived from Latin got the 'ise' spelling and those from Greek got the 'ize' spelling. Made it easier in those days when people learned Latin and Greek. Around the 1980s most newspapers in Ireland standardised all ises to esses. I think the Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors may still carry a list of which common words take which ending.

eeeee

Qualitymark wrote: »

When I was a babby I was told that verbs derived from Latin got the 'ise' spelling and those from Greek got the 'ize' spelling. Made it easier in those days when people learned Latin and Greek. Around the 1980s most newspapers in Ireland standardised all ises to esses. I think the Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors may still carry a list of which common words take which ending.

That's made me very happy to know. Mmmmm grammar!

tomasrojo

Most of the early -ize/-ise words arrived in English via Latin or French, often originating further back in Greek. Don't think there ever was a usage split between Latin-derived and Greek-derived words. The -ize spelling was originally used in England, and it's the one the Americans retained in their spelling system.

There are some words that never take -ize in any spelling system, such as "promise", "advertise", "surprise", "devise", which are all from Latin, often via French, but it doesn't work as a general rule. There are plenty of words from Latin that were initially spelt -ize and still are in America, such as "actualize" (from about 1800).