Advocacy & Safety - Fear of Cycling

While visiting copenhagenize.com, I read an excellent 5 part series called, "Fear of Cycling" written by sociologist Dave Horton.

A worthy read.

He concludes,

"we must stop communicating, however inadvertently, the dangers of cycling, and instead provide people with very many, very diverse, positive and affirming representations of both cycling practice and cycling identities."

Part 1 is an introduction,

Part 2 shows Constructing Fear & Road Safety 'Education'

Part 3 concerns itself with Helmet Promotion Campaigns

Part 4 looks at New Cycling Spaces

and part 5 looks at Making Cycling Strange

link?

Right.

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/09/fear-of-cycling-01-essay-in-five-parts.html

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/09/fear-of-cycling-02-constructing-fear-of.html

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/09/fear-of-cycling-03-helmet-promotion.html

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/10/fear-of-cycling-04-new-cycling-spaces.html

and part 5 is on http://www.copenhagenize.com/

"...three ways in which cycling is constructed as dangerous, and thus a contemporary fear of cycling is produced; road safety education, helmet promotion campaigns, and the increasing separation of cycling from motorised traffic. The irony, of course, is that these interventions are responses to a fear of cycling, clearly aimed at increasing cycling’s safety. But I will demonstrate how, contrary to intentions, each intervention actually tends to exacerbate fear of cycling, and sometimes literally invokes it in order to promote the ‘solution’. Fear is also used for financial profit in the sale of safety equipment; for example, adverts for high visibility clothing cite the numbers of cyclists killed and injured on UK roads, and claim starkly, ‘you must be seen’."

This resonates a bit. I kind of dislike "Road ID" because of the way the advertising stresses danger.

While I understand that getting people worked up and afraid of cycling is bad, how do you balance that against the good that education does? I mean, would you never have public service messages that tell people to wear bright clothes and have lights when they ride after dark?

Speedo

as some of us have been saying here for a while, and as the articles point out, road safety ought to primarily be the responsibility of the motorists, because they operate the most dangerous vehicles.

likewise, the focus of education should also be on the motorists, for the same reason.

The Vehicular Cyclists like to harp on 'incompetent cyclists', all the while ignoring the massive amounts of incompetent motorists allowed on the roads.

as some of us have been saying here for a while, and as the articles point out, road safety ought to primarily be the responsibility of the motorists, because they operate the most dangerous vehicles.

likewise, the focus of education should also be on the motorists, for the same reason.

The Vehicular Cyclists like to harp on 'incompetent cyclists', all the while ignoring the massive amounts of incompetent motorists allowed on the roads.

Thing is, a large percentage of cyclists are also motorists and way too many of those are as incompetent on a bike as they are in their cars and trucks.

as some of us have been saying here for a while, and as the articles point out, road safety ought to primarily be the responsibility of the motorists, because they operate the most dangerous vehicles.

likewise, the focus of education should also be on the motorists, for the same reason.

The Vehicular Cyclists like to harp on 'incompetent cyclists', all the while ignoring the massive amounts of incompetent motorists allowed on the roads.

An ideal goal is that all drivers improve and take on the responsibility to ensure all vehicle related injuries and deaths are significantly reduced. It is a worthy goal.

A solution in greatest control for those who care about their own safety is for the individual to take the responsibility for themselves and their own safety, no matter what type of vehicle they drive.

I am for more rigorous motor vehicle driver testing/licensing. More improved enforcement of driving behaviors/law that improve safety for all. Perhaps also more publicity/emphasis of how dangerous motoring is or can be. (?)

I do not believe expected motorist improvements should be cyclist specific, nor cyclist requested/promoted, but instead for improving the safety for all roadway users, cyclists, motorist and pedestrians. The push for this should come from concerned roadway users, unified. People are most motivated when it will reap benefit for them, not for someone else.

Motorist will be best motivated if they feel they will be safer, not just somebody else, but to start the unsafe ones need to be come to the realization they really are not as safe as they should and could be.

Thanks for the links.

I disagree with most of Mr. Horton's points, but appreciate his exposition of the controversial themes.

Cycling safety education has made me just as afraid of riding as food safety instruction of eating. Understanding real as opposed to imagined risks has, in fact, made me a better and more frequent road rider.

Helmet advocacy evokes the same fear in me as safety belt campaigns.

Enjoyment of riding on well designed segregated cycling facilities serves only to reduce my time behind the wheel.

This does not, of course, mean that Mr. Horton is wrong.

Thing is, a large percentage of cyclists are also motorists and way too many of those are as incompetent on a bike as they are in their cars and trucks.

while it is true that many cyclists are also motorists, the reverse is certainly not true

besides, I'd guess that motorists who are also cyclists drive much more carefully around cyclists than motorists who aren't cyclists

A solution in greatest control for those who care about their own safety is for the individual to take the responsibility for themselves and their own safety, no matter what type of vehicle they drive.

this is just plain selfish, especially from the motorist's viewpoint.

one of the points the essay made is that, as cars get safer, motorists habits actually get worse, w/r/t to their behaviour towards other road users

while it is true that many cyclists are also motorists, the reverse is certainly not true

besides, I'd guess that motorists who are also cyclists drive much more carefully around cyclists than motorists who aren't cyclists

not the incompetent ones. ;)

Really, a lot of the same people you see doing stoopid stuff on a bike are the same people you see doing stoopid stuff in their motor vehicles. Many are easy to spot as cyclists too, because they make a point of telling you that they ride a bike when they holler at you for being in their way, or have a bike hanging on a rack of the car they almost hit you with.

actually, I'm a bit surprised to see an essay promoting road cycling over separated paths on Copenhagenize.com, as my understanding is that traffic-separated paths are preferred by the blog author

this is just plain selfish, especially from the motorist's viewpoint.


Of course it is selfish. That is the point.

My ideal society is not one ruled only by selfish behaviors, but I recognize that getting people to change their behavior for selfish reasons is generally easier.

If those changes benefit others too then even better. Motivate people to drive safer so they (and the people they care about) benefit and as a side effect others they can't be motivated to care about will benefit too.

Tangentially related here is a choice of risks made every day by people:

Leave sleeping baby known to sleep thru night at home in crib unattended for 30min (illegal and socially unacceptable) or take them with you in car for 20min driving in properly installed baby seat (legal and social acceptable) and 10min at destination.

Assuming comparable conditions (a well locked, well fireproofed house, hazard free crib vs. a good driver) which really is more risky? Motor vehicle caused deaths are #1 for this age group. But maybe that is because people drive them everywhere instead of leaving them at home.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070913154720AAlndbX

Horton nailed it. I've never read a better exposition on cycling and society than that. Thank you Dr. Horton!

Keeping the Toronto Sheppard/Bryant affair in mind, I thought this passage was appropriate.

"The mass media is very alert to the potential of the cyclist's stigmatised identity to make 'a good story', especially in a social context which increasingly encourages people to reflect on transport choices and question their own automobilised lives (see below). Newspaper editors are attuned to knowing what their readers and advertisers want (and we should note how a high proportion of those advertisers belong to the system of automobility, on whose revenues newspapers depend). Media accounts are therefore likely to reproduce dominant representations of the cyclist as a 'yob', law-breaker and outsider (for example, Hoey 2003).

Such stereotyping works by isolating certain behaviours, stripping them from their meaningful context, and attributing them to ‘everyone associated with a particular group or category’ (Pickering 2001, 4). And these stereotypical representations contribute to the maintenance of the cyclist as a strange 'other' (Basford et al 2003; Dickinson 2004; Field 1996; Reid 2004).

Against the context of socially and ecologically destructive automobility, the reproduction of concerns about cyclists’ behaviour is a classic example of scapegoating (Cohen 2002). Scapegoating deflects attention away from greater crimes, by in this case sacrificing the cyclist in the ideological pursuit of ‘motoring-as-usual’. Through representing the marginal practice of cycling as ‘deviant’, the dominant practice of car driving is reproduced and reaffirmed as ‘normal’. Representations of cycling as deviant and cyclists as outsiders both contribute to, and are facilitated by, low levels of cycling which mean that few people are able to take, and defend, the cyclist's point of view."

Horton nailed it. I've never read a better exposition on cycling and society than that. Thank you Dr. Horton!

I've been reading Robert Hurst's Cyclists Manifesto and I think Robert nails it pretty good too.

:thumb:

Tangentially? Who uses a word like that?

You just have to wonder why the medical establishment are not jumping on how much cycling improves health.

If the pharmaceutical industry could bottle and sell in pill form what cycling does for health, they'd be all over it.

That the medical establishment seems to focus on the relatively small dangerous aspects of cycling displays how they are hurting their own cause; to increase the health of the public.

It's interesting that car manufacturers can run whole ad campaigns stressing safety - VW did this with the bug, showing how strong the body was for rollovers, Volvo built the whole company on safety, everyone touts air bags, collision avoidance systems, etc; heck, every modern car has THOUSANDS of dollars, probably more than half the price of the car, rolled into safety features.

Yet when people see those, they don't think "Good lord, look how dangerous driving is, to think I have to spend $10000 on safety features just to get to the grocery store! I think I'll walk instead!"

Yet when we say "you know, maybe a helmet would be a good idea, given that you don't have 10K in steel wrapped around you as a safety bumper" people think exactly that.

Tangentially? Who uses a word like that?

Literate people?

This is like saying "who ever actually uses trigonometry?" When people say stupid things like that, I say "I do. Actually I bet anyone who actually ever understood what trig actually WAS uses it occasionally. It's very useful." Just like the word "Tangentially".

You just have to wonder why the medical establishment are not jumping on how much cycling improves health.

If the pharmaceutical industry could bottle and sell in pill form what cycling does for health, they'd be all over it.

That the medical establishment seems to focus on the relatively small dangerous aspects of cycling displays how they are hurting their own cause; to increase the health of the public.


It's because they can't make money by doing it. Those who push helmets as the solution to what they say is a "dangerous" activity make money by selling helmets and all the new gear that goes with them. New bike, spandex pants, synthetic jerseys, bike computer, lights, another new bike, a new helmet after the first one gets dropped once, etc, etc... Join a club, you'll see what I mean.

Fear mongering sells products. Just because it comes from a doey-eyed soccer mom pleading to "please, just to make a good impression for the kids" (batting her pretty eyes) doesn't make it any less destructive. Helmets are promoted as the "magic pill" that'll make the "dangerous" activity safe for women and children.

Did Horton hear a Who?


Oh, come on! Some of you were thinking it and someone had to say it.

... Fear mongering sells products... Helmets are promoted as the "magic pill" that'll make the "dangerous" activity safe for women and children.

it sure does, and they sure are but both of these points run counter to what the medical establishment should be pursuing.

Cycling improves health and helmet campaigns yields drops in numbers of people cycling.

If the goal is to improve overall health, get more people on bikes. Don't scare them away.

It's interesting that car manufacturers can run whole ad campaigns stressing safety - VW did this with the bug, showing how strong the body was for rollovers, Volvo built the whole company on safety, everyone touts air bags, collision avoidance systems, etc; heck, every modern car has THOUSANDS of dollars, probably more than half the price of the car, rolled into safety features.

Yet when people see those, they don't think "Good lord, look how dangerous driving is, to think I have to spend $10000 on safety features just to get to the grocery store! I think I'll walk instead!"

Yet when we say "you know, maybe a helmet would be a good idea, given that you don't have 10K in steel wrapped around you as a safety bumper" people think exactly that.

yup, peoples perceptions have been shaped by years of manipulation.

I can see an manufacturers perspective coming up with this argument, but for the public to miss the obvious danger of an automobile is astounding.

I think they do so because they only look at the positives an auto can give them, and ignore the negative.

To miss the obvious limitations of a bicycle helmet against a motor vehicle is to bury a head not just in a helmet, but in the sand.

as some of us have been saying here for a while, and as the articles point out, road safety ought to primarily be the responsibility of the motorists, because they operate the most dangerous vehicles.

likewise, the focus of education should also be on the motorists, for the same reason.

The Vehicular Cyclists like to harp on 'incompetent cyclists', all the while ignoring the massive amounts of incompetent motorists allowed on the roads.

The day I decide to relinquish total ownership of my own safety to anyone else is the day I will hang my bike in the garage and leave it there for eternity.

Do yourself a favor and stop playing the persecuted victim.

The day I decide to relinquish total ownership of my own safety to anyone else is the day I will hang my bike in the garage and leave it there for eternity.

Do yourself a favor and stop playing the persecuted victim.

The transformation of streets for people into roads for cars, perhaps inevitably, produced death and injury...Yet road safety education concentrates not on the drivers of vehicles, but on those who they have the capacity to kill. (http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/09/fear-of-cycling-02-constructing-fear-of.html)

Cyclists (and peds for that matter) aren't victims?

reaching back in public roads safety a bit further,

how the streets were made safe for cars.


how the streets were made safe for cars (http://pricetags.wordpress.com/2008/07/29/how-the-streets-were-made-safe-for-cars/)