Advocacy & Safety - The Real Truth Behind Adult Cycling Most Anywhere

http://thinkingaboutcycling.wordpress.com/article-fear-of-cycling/

"....For the last third of the twentieth century, the cyclist was relegated in favour of the motorist. But the cyclist is coming back. And again, it is experienced by many people as as a threat. The radical separation of the cyclist from the motorist within UK society returns as an unsettling haunting. The push to bring cycling in from the margins suggests that car-centred lives will not continue forever. Forcing an encounter with the idea of oneself as a cyclist, it provokes fear of cycling. So my argument is not only that a fear of cycling is produced by varied attempts to make cycling safer, but also that a fear of the cyclist is related to people’s anxieties that they, too, might end up taking to cycling, and becoming a ‘cyclist’.

Conclusions

Fear of cycling constitutes a significant emotional barrier to cycling. Ironically, this fear is partly produced through attempts to make cycling safer. For as long as cycling remains something to fear, it remains a marginal and marginalised practice. The constant cultural construction of cycling as dangerous justifies the continued spatial marginalisation of cycling practice, which then enables the continued construction of the cyclist as other, a stranger pedalling on the margins. The ideological, spatial and cultural marginality of cycling are continuously reproduced, together.

But cycling is pedalling in from these margins. There are – admittedly tentative – signs of a cycling renaissance. A range of actors is today seeking to elevate cycling’s position in transport policy, to move it into the mainstream. If this push continues into the future, we may well see people’s anxieties, about change away from currently dominant automobility, increasingly projected onto the cycling stranger (Sandercock 2002, 205; Sigona 2003, 70). As people feel increasing pressure to get on bikes themselves, and thus really start to engage with the realities of currently dominant cycling conditions, we may also hear more cries that cycling is too dangerous. People’s fears of cycling will become more real and powerful as the prospects of their cycling grow greater. And people will feel and fear the loss of a way of life as it has come to be lived, as automobilised. When these anxieties become intense and the calls that cycling is too dangerous become really vociferous, we should I think take them as a sign that – as a culture – we are getting really serious about once more getting on our bikes.

In the meantime, what can be done to allay people’s fears of cycling? Although it is constantly produced and reproduced, fear of neither cycling nor the cyclist is inevitable. Both the conditions for cycling practice and representations of the cyclist can change and be changed, and thereby produce different effects. Many people who cycle today – racing cyclists, touring cyclists, cycle campaigners, bike messengers – belong to cycling cultures which produce and reproduce positive experiences and representations of cycling. These people may be aware of constructions of cycling as something to be feared, and of the cyclist as deviant and strange, but such negative representations are easily exceeded by the celebratory and confirmatory evaluations of cycling and the cyclist continually flowing through their specific cultural worlds.

Correspondingly, we can in varied ways promote a pro-cycling culture. At the level of representation, our task is to generate and continuously reaffirm positive representations of cycling as an ordinary and enjoyable practice, something I am pleased to see happening in, for example, the recent marketing campaigns of both Transport for London and Cycling England. Certainly, 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. Current fear of cycling can be otherwise, but we must help make it so....."

Fear is perpetuated by ignorance -- the lack of knowledge about a subject. Ignorance is removed by education.

Thus, fear is removed by education, applied where needed.

the problem is that the roads are more conducive to cars. in my area quite a few of the roads are unsafe due to the fact that the shoulders of the roads are not kept clean. it is impossible to take the lane as there is always a flow of traffic.
secondly, if one gets in an accident in a car, the vehicle provides some sort of protection. on a bike you are totally vulnerable.

Copenhaganize.com has posted this and I have linked it here a couple of times.

It's a good piece and well worth the read.

Marketing sells and nothing sells like a perceived safety factor. The automotive industry has done a bang up job to sell its product and the cycling industry could do much better than what it has done.

This article overthinks the whole thing. Ride because it's fun. Period.

Yeah. It's not any good to think about anything. It might get in the way of the fun...

I'm glad you agree ;)

I comes down to one thing... the car as a presentation of ego. I think the best way to overcome that is to have fancy chromed bikes with flashy gold appendages, and crushed leather seats... all of which cost a lot and look real big and fancy... so one can ride a bike down the street and flash their ego.

:rolleyes:

I comes down to one thing... the car as a presentation of ego. I think the best way to overcome that is to have fancy chromed bikes with flashy gold appendages, and crushed leather seats... all of which cost a lot and look real big and fancy... so one can ride a bike down the street and flash their ego.

:rolleyes:

Most US locales will not give much thought to the accessories you described when applied to a motor vehicle, but most likely they will look upon you as something from the lunatic fringe when applied to a bicycle.

It's tough enough just having my commuter bike and I decked out in basic attire without a lot of the locals thinking you've just landed from Mars.

It's tough enough just having my commuter bike and I decked out in basic attire without a lot of the locals thinking you've just landed from Mars.

? I ride to work in jeans.

Just to play devil's advocate, and give folks some things to think about, it could be argued that the non-bicyclists who sense that bicycling would be inordinately dangerous for them are in some ways correct. Especially for beginners, which these people would be, bicycling is far more likely to result in injury than driving, mainly due to the normal solo crashes that beginners enjoy. Maybe they know someone who recently snapped a collarbone in a piddly bike wreck and they decide they'd rather not go there themselves.

If people decide they don't want to bike based on the danger factor, I'd say that's fine. Maybe bicycling really isn't for everybody, and maybe attempts to urge non-believers to ride by belittling their fear would do more harm than good. I'm not going to make fun of people who think bicycling is too dangerous for them, unless they willingly get out and drive on the freeways without fear, in which case I'd say their perceptions are somewhat twisted.

Finally, it seems possible that bicycle advocates' fear of fear could be misplaced. When trying to attract the masses to your activity, maybe danger is actually an attractive force overall. Look at skate boarding and motorcycling. Both are perceived as dangerous. Motorcycling especially is perceived as dangerous -- it is dangerous, statistically, and everybody knows it -- and yet its popularity has grown like wildfire over the past few decades. To what degree does the perceived danger of motorcycling affect its popularity, and in which direction?

If people decide they don't want to bike based on the danger factor, I'd say that's fine. Maybe bicycling really isn't for everybody, and maybe attempts to urge non-believers to ride by belittling their fear would do more harm than good. I'm not going to make fun of people who think bicycling is too dangerous for them, unless they willingly get out and drive on the freeways without fear, in which case I'd say their perceptions are somewhat twisted.

You can get hurt driving a car anywhere, not just the freeway. Motorists are injured and killed daily in lower speed urban environments. People's perceptions that driving is safe are false, and based on a mix of marketing lies and our own inability to accurately assess risk.

Just to play devil's advocate, and give folks some things to think about, it could be argued that the non-bicyclists who sense that bicycling would be inordinately dangerous for them are in some ways correct. Especially for beginners, which these people would be, bicycling is far more likely to result in injury than driving, mainly due to the normal solo crashes that beginners enjoy. Maybe they know someone who recently snapped a collarbone in a piddly bike wreck and they decide they'd rather not go there themselves.

If people decide they don't want to bike based on the danger factor, I'd say that's fine. Maybe bicycling really isn't for everybody, and maybe attempts to urge non-believers to ride by belittling their fear would do more harm than good. I'm not going to make fun of people who think bicycling is too dangerous for them, unless they willingly get out and drive on the freeways without fear, in which case I'd say their perceptions are somewhat twisted.

Kinda hafta agree here, Robert; riding may not be for everybody. A few members of my extended family, living with me, are very much AGAINST throwing a leg over a bike -- thus, they don't have one. One bike I'd like to take back is the gift I made to my sister's husband, just because he thinks so little of riding that he doesn't appreciate the gift. He averages about 2-3 slow, short rides a year. (pretty much a waste of about $500 worth of bike.)

I'm just as happy that bike riding isn't for everybody; the only real item on my wish list is agreeable tolerance from the motoring public.

Drivers: a few seconds' inconvenience out of your life isn't worth trying to terrorize me; you'll only create an enemy... not a good idea.

Drivers: a few seconds' inconvenience out of your life isn't worth trying to terrorize me; you'll only create an enemy... not a good idea.

Now if only we could make all cars sound that message over their radios every time the driver hits his horn within 100 feet of a bicycle....

Thus, fear is removed by educationOnly when the fear is unjustified/incorrect/etc.

Some of the fears of bicycling are unjustified -- but others are justified, and aren't going to be removed by education. The dangers may be reduced by education, but not everything is about your skill level.

No one can successfully argue that cycling is 100% safe, but nothing is 100% safe. The problem with how the general public views the dangers of cycling versus driving is that almost no one admits how dangerous driving is.

The fears covered in the article run deeper and wider than just physical safety. It's a good read, thanks OP.

Most US locales will not give much thought to the accessories you described when applied to a motor vehicle, but most likely they will look upon you as something from the lunatic fringe when applied to a bicycle.

It's tough enough just having my commuter bike and I decked out in basic attire without a lot of the locals thinking you've just landed from Mars.

Sorry, you missed my point... which is understandable, as I tried to be somewhat sarcastic in my "presentation."

My point is that the average car is not just about transportation, but about the ego of the owner... otherwise we would be quite satisfied to all drive VW beetles or some other basic car, but instead, for most motorists the car is something of a status symbol and an ego booster... it is "look at me."

Well it is hard to convey that same sort of materialistic message with a bicycle (except perhaps to other cyclists... more on this in a second), to a culture that has been "trained" (think of the oodles of car ads over a lifetime) to evaluate personal "worth" by the status of your transportation.

The ironic thing I wanted to touch on is that in the cycling community in some regards, ones status is NOT determined by the flash of an expensive bike, but by one's ability or prowess with the bike... think about the rise of fixie culture and how it depends for instance on a simple ride vice some fancy machine.

Sorry, you missed my point... which is understandable, as I tried to be somewhat sarcastic in my "presentation."

My point is that the average car is not just about transportation, but about the ego of the owner... otherwise we would be quite satisfied to all drive VW beetles or some other basic car, but instead, for most motorists the car is something of a status symbol and an ego booster... it is "look at me."

Well it is hard to convey that same sort of materialistic message with a bicycle (except perhaps to other cyclists... more on this in a second), to a culture that has been "trained" (think of the oodles of car ads over a lifetime) to evaluate personal "worth" by the status of your transportation.

The ironic thing I wanted to touch on is that in the cycling community in some regards, ones status is NOT determined by the flash of an expensive bike, but by one's ability or prowess with the bike... think about the rise of fixie culture and how it depends for instance on a simple ride vice some fancy machine.

I sensed the sarcasm, but went with the ego factor anyway, and if you don't think the flashy ego is alive and well in the cycling community, just look at all the number of pics in any of the pic threads on BF. Plus, post a poll on BF on how much money(or lack of)one has invested in their bike and see what happens.

Only when the fear is unjustified/incorrect/etc.

Some of the fears of bicycling are unjustified -- but others are justified, and aren't going to be removed by education. The dangers may be reduced by education, but not everything is about your skill level.

OK... let's make a list.

I'll do the 'unjustified'...........

1. I'll have a heart attack and die.

Your turn.

OK... let's make a list.

I'll do the 'unjustified'...........

1. I'll have a heart attack and die.

Your turn.You're just being stubborn. But for some (hopefully very few), that's a legitimate concern -- any exertion could prove fatal. Even brisk walking could ...

Being run over by a drunk driver is certainly a justified concern. Especially if it's Saturday night and the bars just let out. Education might suggest being lit up like a Christmas tree, that you not be on the road at that time -- but what if you just got out of work? Side roads will help, sure, but still, you fear that every car that passes you might be driven by a drunk.

Riding in the ghetto -- fear of crime. Likely justified, though people may exaggerate it. Education might suggest bringing a gun or not riding there ... but what if the only alternative involves riding on the interstate (which may be just fine -- it depends) or going many miles out of the way.

But by all means, enjoy your world where education always trumps fear. Sometimes fear is a healthy thing -- it often keeps us alive. (It also limits our potential, true -- but it's not something that should be totally squashed.)

I sensed the sarcasm, but went with the ego factor anyway, and if you don't think the flashy ego is alive and well in the cycling community, just look at all the number of pics in any of the pic threads on BF. Plus, post a poll on BF on how much money(or lack of)one has invested in their bike and see what happens.

Oh it is alive in the cycling community... but it doesn't extend beyond that... that is my point. Most "adults" (the focus of this thread) are automobile owners and choose their auto not on practicality, but on "wow" and ego factor, (like Hummers... the biggest ego stroke out there) cyclists across the board are generally viewed as "poor" by the general population (who can't tell a $5000 bike from a $50 bike).

There is no "prestige" to owning and riding a bike. Thus "adults" consider bikes as toys... and in some respect this latter situation does extend to some cyclists... those that strap their flashy bike to their flashy car to drive to some event. (we've all seen it.)

As long as we "evaluate" each other based on that bling factor... "adults" will tend to eschew cycling.

As long as we "evaluate" each other based on that bling factor... "adults" will tend to eschew cycling.

Without the flood of automobile ads hyping the bling/performance factor, most of the US population would would have the same view of the flashy car, or take it another step, if bicycle manufactures placed ads on the same level as auto manufactures do today, and the public reaction to bicycles would be different.

Just to play devil's advocate, and give folks some things to think about, it could be argued that the non-bicyclists who sense that bicycling would be inordinately dangerous for them are in some ways correct. Especially for beginners, which these people would be, bicycling is far more likely to result in injury than driving, mainly due to the normal solo crashes that beginners enjoy. Maybe they know someone who recently snapped a collarbone in a piddly bike wreck and they decide they'd rather not go there themselves.

If people decide they don't want to bike based on the danger factor, I'd say that's fine. Maybe bicycling really isn't for everybody, and maybe attempts to urge non-believers to ride by belittling their fear would do more harm than good. I'm not going to make fun of people who think bicycling is too dangerous for them, unless they willingly get out and drive on the freeways without fear, in which case I'd say their perceptions are somewhat twisted.

Finally, it seems possible that bicycle advocates' fear of fear could be misplaced. When trying to attract the masses to your activity, maybe danger is actually an attractive force overall. Look at skate boarding and motorcycling. Both are perceived as dangerous. Motorcycling especially is perceived as dangerous -- it is dangerous, statistically, and everybody knows it -- and yet its popularity has grown like wildfire over the past few decades. To what degree does the perceived danger of motorcycling affect its popularity, and in which direction?

I don't think he was saying we should belittle those who say it's dangerous. I thought he was saying we just shouldn't talk about the danger, directly or indirectly, and we should encourage other bicyclists to do the same.

Anyway, I disagree that it's a fear of getting hurt or killed. I know people who have routes they consider safe and still don't ride but talk about wanting to. Maybe they don't really want to ride. Maybe it's my presence? Personally I don't talk about unless asked (except amongst fellow cyclists). However, people notice and ask. Maybe it's "liberal guilt" that prompts them to consider it? But really they just aren't zinged on biking and don't want to?

I suspect that advertising danger will do little to get people on bikes. Motorbikes have any danger bikes have, plus some, cost more (which is a plus, not a negative), are already more normal, go faster, and are probably (certainly) more dangerous.

I suspect that the lack of anonymity, the extra work, the extra thought involved (carrying stuff), and the lack of normalcy are the main impediments. All the real problems can be trivially solved by an 8 year old (and they do, because it's their only means of conveyance aside from walking).

So, I see two things that can make it (Amsterdam in America) happen:
1. Economics: Gas gets super expensive (like $15-20 a gallon) and electric cars aren't common yet.
2. Culture: Bicycling becomes profitable, huge capital is spent on advertising, and suddenly bikes are the new SUV.

I don't foresee either happening. So, "baby steps."


I also think the term "real truth" is inane.

i don't know. cars whizzing by me within a foot of me on a bike is pretty scary to me.
alot of drivers on the road, when they see me on a bike, give me second class status, whereas if i was in a car they would give me more respect and obey the rules of the road.

Riding in the ghetto -- fear of crime. Likely justified, though people may exaggerate it. Education might suggest bringing a gun or not riding there ... but what if the only alternative involves riding on the interstate (which may be just fine -- it depends) or going many miles out of the way.

wrong, IME.

The ghetto is a place where many ride bikes. Undocumened immigrants, kids cutting school, etc. I see it as bike friendly in many ways, and despite one altercation, I feel generally more at ease cycling there during my commute than I do in the rush-rush-i-feel-oh-so-entitled "better" parts of town.

i don't know. cars whizzing by me within a foot of me on a bike is pretty scary to me.
alot of drivers on the road, when they see me on a bike, give me second class status, whereas if i was in a car they would give me more respect and obey the rules of the road.

Are you sure about that? Or does being surrounded by that steel cage and being able to match the other vehicles in speed and size give you the perception of more respect...and the illusion that others follow the rules of the road any differently? Something to think about in a drunken moment anyway. ;)

I'd like to raise this issue with Chris Phelan (Ride of Silence) when he's in my community this week. The Ride of Silence is supposed to (among other things) raise motorist awareness of public safety. But it might have the unintended consequence of discouraging new riders by over-emphasizing the fatalities associated with cycling. How can this be reconciled?

wrong, IME.

The ghetto is a place where many ride bikes. Undocumened immigrants, kids cutting school, etc. I see it as bike friendly in many ways, and despite one altercation, I feel generally more at ease cycling there during my commute than I do in the rush-rush-i-feel-oh-so-entitled "better" parts of town.Not all ghettos are the same, and not all riders are the same.

I am glad to hear that you feel comfortable in your local ghetto, however. Here in Austin, I'm not really sure that we have any real "ghettos", but the east side is generally the poor side, and yet the people there are mostly friendly and I like riding out there. (I don't have any problems with the west side, though the people aren't quite so friendly.)

But I'm not so naive to think that everywhere is like Austin ...

My point is that the average car is not just about transportation, but about the ego of the owner... otherwise we would be quite satisfied to all drive VW beetles or some other basic car, but instead, for most motorists the car is something of a status symbol and an ego booster... it is "look at me."
The "average" car is a Camry. That car isn't saying "look at me". Cars are about the ego of many owners but not all of them.


Well it is hard to convey that same sort of materialistic message with a bicycle (except perhaps to other cyclists... more on this in a second), to a culture that has been "trained" (think of the oodles of car ads over a lifetime) to evaluate personal "worth" by the status of your transportation.
While the "material message" inherent in an expensive bicycle might have a limited audience, it still is a message. I'd guess that many, if not most, expensive bicycles are purchased to present that message.


The ironic thing I wanted to touch on is that in the cycling community in some regards, ones status is NOT determined by the flash of an expensive bike, but by one's ability or prowess with the bike... think about the rise of fixie culture and how it depends for instance on a simple ride vice some fancy machine.
And, regardless of the cost of the symbol, it's still a symbol. There are people who make a "statement" by driving rusty, old cars too.


Oh it is alive in the cycling community... but it doesn't extend beyond that... that is my point. Most "adults" (the focus of this thread) are automobile owners and choose their auto not on practicality, but on "wow" and ego factor, (like Hummers... the biggest ego stroke out there)
The most popular cars are rather generic ones like Camry, Civics, Corollas, Accords. Most automobile owners, it would seem, don't actually choose based on "wow" and "ego factors".


There is no "prestige" to owning and riding a bike.
Social symbols are complicated. There can be "prestige" associated with bicycles in certain groups. And a fair number of bicyclists are so to be "green". And Hummers are not universally admired.

i don't know. cars whizzing by me within a foot of me on a bike is pretty scary to me.
alot of drivers on the road, when they see me on a bike, give me second class status, whereas if i was in a car they would give me more respect and obey the rules of the road.

No they won't. They will merely more actively avoid hurting their cars on yours. If they knew a magical anvil would fall from the sky and crush the front ends of their cars upon hitting a cyclist, the rates of cyclists being hit would drop like a stone overnight.

The "average" car is a Camry. That car isn't saying "look at me". Cars are about the ego of many owners but not all of them.


While the "material message" inherent in an expensive bicycle might have a limited audience, it still is a message. I'd guess that many, if not most, expensive bicycles are purchased to present that message.


And, regardless of the cost of the symbol, it's still a symbol. There are people who make a "statement" by driving rusty, old cars too.

True on all points; I arbitrarily chose VW as the average... but yeah, we'd all be driving similar functional boxes if ego wasn't the issue.

As for the bike... remember bikes only matter to other cyclists... so even a $10,000 bike has no bling factor to a motorist, or a society keyed on fancy cars as a symbol.

The statement of the rusty old car is not really one of ego... as in "look at me I am stupid rich." I don't recall anyone fawning over a rusty car at any time (unless it was a collectible car.) Yet there are countless tales of "nice cars" as objects of affection.... such as the inevitable Vette as a "chick magnet..."

Reality is the fit cyclist is probably in far better shape and more fun than the driver of the "chick magnet." But that image just is not part of our social meme.

but yeah, we'd all be driving similar functional boxes if ego wasn't the issue.
A large proportion of motorists do, in fact, drive "similar functional boxes".


As for the bike... remember bikes only matter to other cyclists... so even a $10,000 bike has no bling factor to a motorist, or a society keyed on fancy cars as a symbol.
Bicycles, even ignoring the cost of them, are often messages to the general public (see: Portand, OR). A $10,000 bike has a bling factor in some group and, I'd suggest, the bling factor is what motivates those people who pay that amount for a bicycle. (They aren't generally doing so because it is practical.)


The statement of the rusty old car is not really one of ego... as in "look at me I am stupid rich." I don't recall anyone fawning over a rusty car at any time (unless it was a collectible car.) Yet there are countless tales of "nice cars" as objects of affection.... such as the inevitable Vette as a "chick magnet..."
No, a rusty car isn't a symbol of being "stupid rich". It could even be an "anti-symbol" of "I'm rich because I am frugal" (see: Warren Buffet). Sometimes, even, a rusty car is just a rusty car. VW bugs certainly were often symbols of something (see: the '60s).

A large proportion of motorists do, in fact, drive "similar functional boxes".


hence no bling factor... but society in general accepts that...



Bicycles, even ignoring the cost of them, are often messages to the general public (see: Portand, OR). A $10,000 bike has a bling factor in some group and, I'd suggest, that the bling factor is why most people pay that amount for a bicycle. (They aren't generally doing so because it is practical.)



Right they bling appeal to other cyclists... but the question at hand is regarding the general population of adults, not the specific population of adult cyclists. To most adults, there is no "bling" in any bike. "Just toys..."



No, a rusty car isn't a symbol of being "stupid rich". It could even be an "anti-symbol" of "I'm rich because I am frugal" (eg, Warren Buffet). Sometimes, even, a rusty car is just a rusty car. VW bugs certainly were often symbols of something (see: the '60s).

And again the odd duck.

Neither rusty cars nor fancy bikes are "chick magnets" per se... no bling. A far larger proportion of "adults" is worried about the image they project, and their car is part of that image... neither rusty boxes, or fancy bikes project any sort of upscale image.

Let's face it, if Warren Buffet drove by in an old serviceable car, would you have even looked?

Car ads have trained us to evaluate people by their car, regardless of their actual station in life.



BTW, for full disclosure, I drive an old rusted truck. (or one of 4 bikes)

Neither rusty cars nor fancy bikes are "chick magnets" per se... no bling.
A $10,000 bike is 100% (or nearly so) "bling".

===============


hence no bling factor... but society in general accepts that...
I think, for most of the population, having a "reasonable" car is enough. Many might prefer having a "blingy" car but what most people actually buy are "boring" things like Camrys. Put another way, people have a very strong motivation to buy any car irrespective of the "bling" factor.


A far larger proportion of "adults" is worried about the image they project, and their car is part of that image... neither rusty boxes, or fancy bikes project any sort of upscale image.

Most "adults" buy Camrys. They aren't that worried about projecting an "upscale" image.

===============

Anyway, I'd guess that nearly as many people hate Hummers as see them as "blingy". Also note the popularity of the Prius (and why it's popular) compared to traditional desirable attributes of cars. While many people (hard to say whether it's "most") care about "blingy" cars, there is more than just that going on.

As they say you cant fix stupid. Styling and bling infects the auto owners too. The fact is there is really little practical difference between a $25,000 car and a $55,000 car. Same with bikes. Once you get to a certain level, additional money only buys you a "name" and snob appeal.

When it comes to adults, there is a shift in the way society is looking at bikes. The baby boom gen is causing it. Baby boomers have for the most part been more active in their lifestyles. They are trying harder to remain in shape and lead a healthy life. Bikes fortunately are a part of this. Another thing is the wide variety of bikes. Mountain bikes have caused increased cycling. And yes recumbents and trikes are drawing in more older american due to the comfort. The more people that cycle, the less resistance to cycling there will be.

LOOK OUT AMERICA HERE COMES THE BABY BOOM BIKERS

Didn't somebody say cycling was the new golf?

No they won't. They will merely more actively avoid hurting their cars on your yours. If they knew a magical anvil would fall from the sky and crush the front ends of their cars upon hitting a cyclist, the rates of cyclists being hit would drop like a stone overnight.

yeah i tend to agree. it is probably more about the potential harm to the car.
or it may be the potential harm to themselves in case of an accident, or a combo of both.
a crash with another car is dangerous, but a crash with a person on a bike isn't, to the driver of a car.

Just to play devil's advocate, and give folks some things to think about, it could be argued that the non-bicyclists who sense that bicycling would be inordinately dangerous for them are in some ways correct. Especially for beginners, which these people would be, bicycling is far more likely to result in injury than driving, mainly due to the normal solo crashes that beginners enjoy. Maybe they know someone who recently snapped a collarbone in a piddly bike wreck and they decide they'd rather not go there themselves.

If people decide they don't want to bike based on the danger factor, I'd say that's fine. Maybe bicycling really isn't for everybody, and maybe attempts to urge non-believers to ride by belittling their fear would do more harm than good. I'm not going to make fun of people who think bicycling is too dangerous for them, unless they willingly get out and drive on the freeways without fear, in which case I'd say their perceptions are somewhat twisted.

Finally, it seems possible that bicycle advocates' fear of fear could be misplaced. When trying to attract the masses to your activity, maybe danger is actually an attractive force overall. Look at skate boarding and motorcycling. Both are perceived as dangerous. Motorcycling especially is perceived as dangerous -- it is dangerous, statistically, and everybody knows it -- and yet its popularity has grown like wildfire over the past few decades. To what degree does the perceived danger of motorcycling affect its popularity, and in which direction?

Perhaps. Anecdotally, I think that fear of injury is more of an impediment to parents letting their children cycle than preventing themselves from simple joy riding. Speaking broadly about adults, fear of injury only seems to come into play when they consider getting from A to B -- i.e., where they have much less flexibility about where they ride -- and one of the connections inbetween involves a heavily trafficked road.

I also recall a literature that concludes that subjective estimates of risk have huge CVs and their subjective estimates of the variance are far worse.

Are you sure about that? Or does being surrounded by that steel cage and being able to match the other vehicles in speed and size give you the perception of more respect...and the illusion that others follow the rules of the road any differently? Something to think about in a drunken moment anyway. ;)

The speed and steel cage give you the perception of equality... verses being out in the weather, moving slow and surrounded by others that move past you quickly in said steel cages...

And of course there is no perceived need to wear a helmet while in the steel cage... as the cage will wrap you in cushions of air bags, lest others violate your space.

No they won't. They will merely more actively avoid hurting their cars on yours. If they knew a magical anvil would fall from the sky and crush the front ends of their cars upon hitting a cyclist, the rates of cyclists being hit would drop like a stone overnight.I don't think so.

The vast majority (99+%) of motorists absolutely do not want to hit a cyclist with their car under any conditions. Even the ones that actively hate cyclists know that 1) it would likely damage their car and 2) it would likely have other repercussions -- make them late for work, get them a ticket, make their insurance go up, send them to jail, etc. (even if this doesn't always happen, it's always possible.)

If a 60 mph car hits a cyclist directly -- the damage to the car will be extensive, might as well be an anvil. (And the damage to the cyclist will be even larger, prompting a police investigation that few people want.)

The majority of motorists are at least civil to cyclists, whether they like us or not -- they give us plenty of room when passing, don't cut us off, etc. Many are even nice, helping us merge into traffic, etc. Fewer will be rude, but will certainly do whatever is needed to avoid a collision -- and perhaps little more. Those who don't care about having a collision are an incredibly small minority -- and I know this simply because accidents are rare and we're not all dead.

I don't think so.

The vast majority (99+%) of motorists absolutely do not want to hit a cyclist with their car under any conditions. Even the ones that actively hate cyclists know that 1) it would likely damage their car and 2) it would likely have other repercussions -- make them late for work, get them a ticket, make their insurance go up, send them to jail, etc. (even if this doesn't always happen, it's always possible.)

If a 60 mph car hits a cyclist directly -- the damage to the car will be extensive, might as well be an anvil. (And the damage to the cyclist will be even larger, prompting a police investigation that few people want.)

The majority of motorists are at least civil to cyclists, whether they like us or not -- they give us plenty of room when passing, don't cut us off, etc. Many are even nice, helping us merge into traffic, etc. Fewer will be rude, but will certainly do whatever is needed to avoid a collision -- and perhaps little more. Those who don't care about having a collision are an incredibly small minority -- and I know this simply because accidents are rare and we're not all dead.

You are indeed correct in them not wanting to hit you, but I am speaking of drivers paying more attention when they think some damage/harm might be imminent if they do not.. I am deliberately overstating things. However, from my riding all day as a former messenger and now daily urban riding, drivers are much more cognizant , and respectful of a bike's position in the roadway if there is an obvious form of negative reinforcement, perceived or real. Messengers who ride with locks visible to drivers are given more leeway, even moving over several feet if this lock is held up for the driver to see.. no need to threaten they just need to see it. Best example of all is how contrite and respectful of the space around bike cops motorists become even though they drive around according to the laws all the time. Another fantastic example of this phenomenon is the extra feet the drivers move over in the lane to avoid the streetcar in the central lane, that could not move over no matter what. Driver's act like it might jump off it's rails and land on their cars. I've watched this for years, I know it to be true but don't know the name for it. IF the laws of physics were flexible and you could give a cyclist the mass of a two ton truck so that a car would wrap around a cyclist in an accident, you'd see rates of hassled/buzzed cyclist plummet, and cyclists being hit would significantly drop because the motorists would indeed be paying the kind of attention on the roads we beg them to now.

My beef is when people talk of risk in cycling, they rarely do it in perspective. It has it's risks, but bottom line, cyclists live longer and make the world a safer and healthier place for everyone.

I'm not going to say cars are death machines, but they do kill. I'm not going to say ride a bike and live forever, but poor health is a far bigger killer of men than machines are.

For some reason people think riding a bike is dangerous while driving a car is safe. A great frame of thought if you're selling cars. Not so great if you ride a bike.

Too true, I got a physical at the end of Feb, and the doctor just kept saying he so wished more of his patients would take an interest in themselves. I told him all I do is commute back and forth for the most part to work , albeit fairly intensely b/c of the ride being so short. @ 43 years, I still have a heart belonging to someone in their early 20's and perfect blood pressure. I love to ride, and I'll be forever grateful if something I love doing aids in keeping me off a machine that goes 'ping'.

Indeed CB, good point .... the risks of NOT riding seem to far outweigh the dangers one might face while riding.

... and this paper hits a good many points I make when I go on about about helmets.

Helmet promotion insinuates cycling is dangerous, and the cure for the danger is a helmet.

It's not true (at least not true in the way helmets are promoted - exaggerated danger, exaggerated benefit), and it doesn't address how being on a bike can be safer, or the roll motorists play in the safety of cyclists.

I don't think so.

The vast majority (99+%) of motorists absolutely do not want to hit a cyclist with their car under any conditions. Even the ones that actively hate cyclists know that 1) it would likely damage their car and 2) it would likely have other repercussions -- make them late for work, get them a ticket, make their insurance go up, send them to jail, etc. (even if this doesn't always happen, it's always possible.)

If a 60 mph car hits a cyclist directly -- the damage to the car will be extensive, might as well be an anvil. (And the damage to the cyclist will be even larger, prompting a police investigation that few people want.)

The majority of motorists are at least civil to cyclists, whether they like us or not -- they give us plenty of room when passing, don't cut us off, etc. Many are even nice, helping us merge into traffic, etc. Fewer will be rude, but will certainly do whatever is needed to avoid a collision -- and perhaps little more. Those who don't care about having a collision are an incredibly small minority -- and I know this simply because accidents are rare and we're not all dead.

I'd like to add: They believe they'll kill the cyclist, and they're afraid of killing another human.

No they won't. They will merely more actively avoid hurting their cars on yours. If they knew a magical anvil would fall from the sky and crush the front ends of their cars upon hitting a cyclist, the rates of cyclists being hit would drop like a stone overnight.

BS, most motorists are completely distracted, incompetent and clueless, and they continue to run into each other with alarming frequency.

My beef is when people talk of risk in cycling, they rarely do it in perspective. It has it's risks, but bottom line, cyclists live longer and make the world a safer and healthier place for everyone.

I'm not going to say cars are death machines, but they do kill. I'm not going to say ride a bike and live forever, but poor health is a far bigger killer of men than machines are.

For some reason people think riding a bike is dangerous while driving a car is safe. A great frame of thought if you're selling cars. Not so great if you ride a bike.

I don't think that after recent shenanagins people believe it's any safer to drive a car.

A $10,000 bike is 100% (or nearly so) "bling".
===============


I think, for most of the population, having a "reasonable" car is enough. Many might prefer having a "blingy" car but what most people actually buy are "boring" things like Camrys. Put another way, people have a very strong motivation to buy any car irrespective of the "bling" factor.



Most "adults" buy Camrys. They aren't that worried about projecting an "upscale" image.

===============

Anyway, I'd guess that nearly as many people hate Hummers as see them as "blingy". Also note the popularity of the Prius (and why it's popular) compared to traditional desirable attributes of cars. While many people (hard to say whether it's "most") care about "blingy" cars, there is more than just that going on.

All I see is a overlarge Chevy Tahoe with a lift kit because that's about what they are.

To most adults, there is no "bling" in any bike. "Just toys..."


Older women always thought my grey old Rollfast was neat, and I'll be gathering stares again very soon, Padre.

I hate Camrys and most of the cars around here are PONTIACS.

A $10,000 bike is 100% (or nearly so) "bling".

That's simply not the case. It may be that the bike isn't worth spending so much, but it's not about bling.