Journalism and cycling

Tell me how

tomasrojo wrote: »

Honestly, I'd just forget about the "Let's get our house in order" mindset. It's a bunch of disparate people from all kinds of backgrounds with all kinds of attitudes who just happen to at least sometimes get about by bike. There is no house to get in order.

It is this view which in some ways influences many to be bad tempered towards cyclists. "There needs to be change but not on our side."

It could equally be argued that motorists do not exist as a group but are all separate individuals who happen to be driving cars and yet, we refer to them as a collective as they do us.

tomasrojo

Tell me how wrote: »

It is this view which in some ways influences many to be bad tempered towards cyclists. "There needs to be change but not on our side."

It could equally be argued that motorists do not exist as a group but are all separate individuals who happen to be driving cars and yet, we refer to them as a collective as they do us.

No, we don't. Nobody ever says things like "you drivers think you own the road!" People only ever do this for minorities.

tomasrojo

And nobody sees reports of horrific driving and says "Oh no! That's why we motorists have such a bad name! We're our own worst enemy!"

Duckjob

Tell me how wrote: »

It is this view which in some ways influences many" to be bad tempered towards cyclists. "There needs to be change but not on our side."

It could equally be argued that motorists do not exist as a group but are all separate individuals who happen to be driving cars and yet, we refer to them as a collective as they do us.

- We never have discussions about whether to provide to more car infrastructure which end in shouting about whether motorists behave well enough to deserve it (In fact we never have that discussion about whether to build new roads in the first place, its taken as a given and just happens)

- We never have discussions about what can be done to make the roads safer for drivers that get shouted down by people saying that they (all) don't deserve the increased safety because of how some motorists misbehave.

tomasrojo

You never mention at a social or work occasion that you had trouble finding parking and then someone says "Well, I hope you didn't park on the footpath!", while they're perfectly happy to start talking about cyclists breaking red lights if they figure that you got there on a bike.

There are so many ways in which cyclists are treated as a homogeneous group with exactly the same behaviours and attitudes and drivers are treated as just "people".

Tell me how

Duckjob wrote: »

- We never have discussions about whether to provide to more car infrastructure which end in shouting about whether motorists behave well enough to deserve it (In fact we never have that discussion about whether to build new roads in the first place, its taken as a given and just happens)

I suspect many in the motoring forum would disagree strongly with this point.

I'm not trying to fight motorists corner here. I'm suggesting that we look at what we can do to promote improvement, not just lament that we are the ones who suffer and are entirely blameless for the perception others may have of us.

I've made my point on this in relation to the topic of identification, I'm going to leave it at that.

tomasrojo

Ian Walker talks about the in-group/out-group psychology here:

A report from the Transport Research Laboratory and University of Strathclyde a few years ago led by Lynn Basford (PDF via tinyurl.com/7qk877b) suggested that there’s some classic social psychology at work here – cyclists represent an outgroup such that the usual outgroup effects are seen, particularly overgeneralisation of negative behaviour and attributes – ‘They all ride through red lights all the time’. It’s hard to escape the conclusion that something of this sort is going on.

However, there has to be more to it than just this. For a long time I wondered if the outgroup status of cyclists was compounded by two other known social psychological factors: norms and majority vs. minority groups. Not only are cyclists an outgroup, they’re also a minority outgroup. Moreover, they are engaging in an activity that is deemed slightly inappropriate in a culture that views driving as normative and desirable and, arguably, views cycling as anti-conventional and possibly even infantile.

https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-25/edition-9/interview-vulnerable-road-users

rubadub

Tell me how wrote: »

I quite regularly see a neighbour commuter cyclist doing about 15-18 kph on a footpath with a cycle lane on the road beside them. Every time I see them, I think that they are making it harder for people to think positively about us as a group.

I see similar in my road, but US strong black sisters need to stick together, one bad one should not give us all a bad name. Fcuk those prejudiced assholes grouping us all together, but sure you can understand why they do it, hard to think of us positively as a group.

:rolleyes:

Poor pricks have only so many groups they can lash out against, in another era they would be screaming on lashings.

Grassey

tomasrojo wrote:

You never mention at a social or work occasion that you had trouble finding parking and then someone says "Well, I hope you didn't park on the footpath!",

Actually had similar last week, met friends at masseys, who commented how busy/dangerous the road between hellfire & masseys was that day. I asked was that not their car parked opposite a continuous white line by masseys entrance, and why didn't they go into the practically empty car park in hellfire and walk the 100m back. 'yeah, but there was a space there behind the other car...'

It was almost like they couldn't connect their illegal parking choice to the narrowing of the road width contributing to a long gauntlet that cars hurtle down to beat oncoming traffic in and around numerous walkers.

Tell me how

tomasrojo wrote: »

No, we don't. Nobody ever says things like "you drivers think you own the road!" People only ever do this for minorities.

Come on now. We're on the same side but lets not be all holier than thou.

Many arguments against motorists start with "You think you're the only one who uses the road".

Lumen

Tell me how wrote: »

Come on now. We're on the same side but lets not be all holier than thou.

Many arguments against motorists start with "You think you're the only one who uses the road".

This is a cycling forum. Lots of us have had clubmates run over. I don't think expecting people to be entirely detached and neutral is a reasonable expectation.

Tell me how

Lumen wrote: »

This is a cycling forum. Lots of us have had clubmates run over. I don't think expecting people to be entirely detached and neutral is a reasonable expectation.

As I pointed out previously, I got knocked off my bike in November and fractured my pelvis. I'm still using crutches after it.

I'm just trying to advocate for considering how can we improve things without simply suggesting all improvement or attitude changes needs to be elsewhere.

I think reactions like "No point, it won't make a difference" are frustrating no matter which side makes them. I want to see more and more miles completed by bike, and less injuries when doing so and I think listening to some concerns might lead to a more positive perception of cyclists as a group.

tomasrojo

Tell me how wrote: »

Come on now. We're on the same side but lets not be all holier than thou.

Many arguments against motorists start with "You think you're the only one who uses the road".

Nothing I've said has anything to do with morality. It's to do with how people in general perceive groups. Cyclists are generalised: "*They* break red lights all the time". Motorists are just people, and sometimes (now I think of it, maybe even most of the time) even the person itself is abstracted away: "I saw *a car* break a red light".

So my point isn't that people on bikes never do any wrong, or what about the other people travelling by other means who do wrong. It's that the wrongdoing of people I don't know is nothing to do with me, and I'm not assenting to a completely counterproductive and pointless registration scheme so that people will say "Well, at least there are some good ones", because that itself is a result of overgeneralising about the faults of an out-group. (And they won't say that anyway.)

And I don't really appreciate accusations of moralising from someone whose input so far has been Bimodal Saint Francis of Assissi: "I both drive and cycle; where there is discord let me bring harmony".

Tell me how

tomasrojo wrote: »

Nothing I've said has anything to do with morality. It's to do with how people in general perceive groups. Cyclists are generalised: "*They* break red lights all the time". Motorists are just people, and sometimes (now I think of it, maybe even most of the time) even the person itself is abstracted away: "I saw *a car* break a red light".

So my point isn't that people on bikes never do any wrong, or what about the other people travelling by other means who do wrong. It's that the wrongdoing of people I don't know is nothing to do with me, and I'm not assenting to a completely counterproductive and pointless registration scheme so that people will say "Well, at least there are some good ones", because that itself is a result of overgeneralising about the faults of an out-group. (And they won't say that anyway.)

And I don't really appreciate accusations of moralising from someone whose input so far has been Bimodal Saint Francis of Assissi: "I both drive and cycle; where there is discord let me bring harmony".

And we're done.
So often the case, everyone things there should be agreement and the sooner everyone agrees that what I want is right the better.

So much for discussion. I'm out.

tomasrojo

Tell me how wrote: »

And we're done.
So often the case, everyone things there should be agreement and the sooner everyone agrees that what I want is right the better.

It's entirely possible for this to include your posts here too.

Chips Lovell

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm not trying to fight motorists corner here. I'm suggesting that we look at what we can do to promote improvement, not just lament that we are the ones who suffer and are entirely blameless for the perception others may have of us.

I've made my point on this in relation to the topic of identification, I'm going to leave it at that.

I'm not sure what you trying to argue here. Are you saying that cyclists should back an initiative they know to be unnecessary or counterproductive in order to avoid the appearance of inflexibility?

Tell me how

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I'm not sure what you trying to argue here. Are you saying that cyclists should back an initiative they know to be unnecessary or counterproductive in order to avoid the appearance of inflexibility?

Not sure there's any point explaining it again if you have read my posts and still don't get my point. Send me a PM if you genuinely are curious. Or anyone else can for that matter.

I've no wish to derail a thread once we are in to going in circles territory.

CramCycle

Tell me how wrote: »

Not sure there's any point explaining it again if you have read my posts and still don't get my point. Send me a PM if you genuinely are curious. Or anyone else can for that matter.

I've no wish to derail a thread once we are in to going in circles territory.

I get what your saying, I understand your reasoning. I just think that it requires alot of people to do what is apparently against their nature to do, and that is change.

You seem to believe that those who are aggressive or dangerous towards other road users will change their behaviour because I coughed up 120euro per year or because I signed on to a form saying I own a bike.

Even taking into account the conditions you put forth about ignoring the cost and inconvenience, I am shocked that you think this will change anyones mind who already shows disdain to others based solely on the mode of transport they use. Silly as it is, a mode of transport that reduces traffic volume, reduces enviromental damage, and could reduce the burden on the healthcare system compared to others.

you also seem to think that it will not negatively affect cyclist numbers, whereas every indication of human behaviour is that it will. It is the Opt in / Opt out debate in a nutshell, even if something will benefit a person or others, everytime you put an obstacle in the way, no matter how small, you will reduce the numbers of people doing it.

tomasrojo

CramCycle wrote: »

It is the Opt in / Opt out debate in a nutshell, even if something will benefit a person or others, everytime you put an obstacle in the way, no matter how small, you will reduce the numbers of people doing it.

Very true. It's a large part of behavioural economics, these often quite trivial obstacles that stop large numbers of people from doing things.

(Apologies again for two intemperate posts, one of which I've fixed, but since the other has been replied to and is quoted, I'll leave it.)

tomasrojo

The "small barriers don't necessarily have small effects" problem is referenced here, near the start:

Central insight: Small barriers to program access can have large impacts on participation and
outcomes

Implementation Guidance for Executive Order 13707: Using Behavioral Science
Insights to Better Serve the American People
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images/EO%2013707%20Implementation%20Guidance.pdf

(Ah, the far-off pre-Trump days, when they wanted people to access government programmes.)

magicbastarder

the best thing possible for cyclist safety is more bikes on the road. the notion of having to register your bike - even if it was free to do so - would create a downward pressure on numbers, resulting in life being more difficult for cyclists, not easier. it's a counterproductive measure. unless we want ireland to be more like australia.

Lumen

CramCycle wrote: »

You seem to believe that those who are aggressive or dangerous towards other road users will change their behaviour because I coughed up 120euro per year or because I signed on to a form saying I own a bike.

Like a Polish Jew proposing rhinoplasty in 1938.

07Lapierre

Tell me how wrote: »

I quite regularly see a neighbour commuter cyclist doing about 15-18 kph on a footpath with a cycle lane on the road beside them. Every time I see them, I think that they are making it harder for people to think positively about us as a group. I'm not suggesting that lane is perfect but I can understand how the dislike builds when each side is getting more and more aggrieved because of what the other is doing.

Couldn't agree more! 190+ people killed on our roads last year! (not one of them killed by a cyclist). I say we ban all new road infrastructure until ALL motorists "get their own house in order". Nobody should be allowed to buy a 191 reg car unless they have a full clean driving license, fully comp insurance and a valid "tax" disc. That'll sort it!*

* see how that sounds?

Tell me how

07Lapierre wrote: »

Couldn't agree more! 190+ people killed on our roads last year! (not one of them killed by a cyclist). I say we ban all new road infrastructure until ALL motorists "get their own house in order". Nobody should be allowed to buy a 191 reg car unless they have a full clean driving license, fully comp insurance and a valid "tax" disc. That'll sort it!*

* see how that sounds?

07Lapierre

Tell me how wrote: »

As long as you give 1.5meters im happy.

Duckjob

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm suggesting that we look at what we can do to promote improvement, not just lament that we are the ones who suffer and are entirely blameless for the perception others may have of us

Serious question:

For those of us that do our best to be a conscientious and considerate user of the road while on a bike, what can you suggest We do in addition to improve perceptions and lessen our chances of having our lives endangered by hostile passing, hooking etc etc etc ?

This is a genuine question because I for one am clueless as to how else I can make things safer on the roads than now for myself and for all those who choose to use a bicycle on our roads?

Online, When there is a suggestion of anything to improve safety for people on 2 wheels , and the first reply is "F*ck cyclists!" , I really don't know how I can engage with that in any meaningful way. I've tried posting up reasoned responses several times but people seem to just have their ears closed off to them.

I think The responses you are getting are genuine exasperation from people regarding why they must have their lives endangered on a daily basis, due to the "sins" of other people that they don't know from Adam.

07Lapierre

Duckjob wrote: »

Serious question:

For those of us that do our best to be a conscientious and considerate user of the road while on a bike, what can you suggest We do in addition to improve perceptions and lessen our chances of having our lives endangered by hostile passing, hooking etc etc etc ?

This is a genuine question because I for one am clueless as to how else I can make things safer on the roads than now for myself and for all those who choose to use a bicycle on our roads?

Online, When there is a suggestion of anything to improve safety for people on 2 wheels , and the first reply is "F*ck cyclists!" , I really don't know how I can engage with that in any meaningful way. I've tried posting up reasoned responses several times but people seem to just have their ears closed off to them.

I think The responses you are getting are genuine exasperation from people regarding why they must have their lives endangered on a daily basis, due to the "sins" of other people that they don't know from Adam.

The answer is you can’t do more. If obey the ROTR, use lights at night, then you are doing your bit.

Road safety is not shared equally across all modes of transport. “With great (horse) power, comes greater responsibility”.

magicbastarder

Plans for Liffey bridge derailed by Dart Underground scheme

Plans for a €17 million bridge spanning the River Liffey in Dublin’s Docklands have been scuppered amid concerns over the potential impact on the shelved Dart Underground scheme.

An Bord Pleanála has refused permission to Dublin City Council to move the proposed bridge 150m further away from a site that had been intended as a station for the underground line.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/plans-for-liffey-bridge-derailed-by-dart-underground-scheme-1.3746924

this was to be the pedestrian and cycling bridge between the beckett bridge and the east link. to be fair, where they were talking about building it was a little odd.

meeeeh

07Lapierre wrote: »

Couldn't agree more! 190+ people killed on our roads last year! (not one of them killed by a cyclist). I say we ban all new road infrastructure until ALL motorists "get their own house in order". Nobody should be allowed to buy a 191 reg car unless they have a full clean driving license, fully comp insurance and a valid "tax" disc. That'll sort it!*

* see how that sounds?

Actually it was 149, the lowest on record. Cyclist deaths are lower too for last year.

07Lapierre

meeeeh wrote: »

Actually it was 149, the lowest on record. Cyclist deaths are lower too for last year.

Yes great to see the numbers are down isn't it? Must be all the RSA Hi-Viz vests!