randya

https://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/9/3/205

This article's premise is that the more cyclists there are on the road in any given location, the safer the motorists behave around the cyclists. The 'results' are seemingly encouraging; my only problem is that I'm a little uncomfortable being cast in the role of the traffic calming device--bicyclist as human speed bump, as it were. Personally, I'd like it if more attention was given to actually educating motorists to slow down and drive cautiously around pedestrians and cyclists, rather than letting the motorists work this out for themselves using the peds and cyclists as guinea pigs in some grand lab experiment...

Now open for discussion...

Erick L

Why human speed bumps? I don't understand your reasonning.

Education only goes so far. You can educate drivers all you want, if the drivers never or rarely have real-life experiences with pedestrians and cyclists, they will forget. They say the results are surprising. I'm not surprised at all. I've always said it, the best way to increase awareness is to get more cyclists out there.

More cyclists = real experience for drivers.
More cyclists = less cars.
More cyclists = more drivers being also cyclists.

Convert a driver!

John E

Where you have a choice, it may be safest to select the road most often taken by your fellow cyclists!

randya

Human speed bumps because drivers only slow down because they have too--when you are 'in their way'.

I'd much prefer that motorists didn't 'learn on the job' when it comes to driving safely around cyclists; but rather, that they approach driving in the first place with the attitude that cyclists are vehicles, have a right to be on the road, and they need to drive safely in their vicinity. Much of this can only be instilled by properly educating motorists in the first place.

BTW--I totally agree with you about converting drivers to cyclists...and local experience in Portland seems to bear out the conclusions of this research--the munber of cyclists is doubling every 5 years or thereabout, and the number of reported cyclist-motorist collisions has held approximately steady.

Erick L

I believe drivers do get a decent education in the first place (I did). I don't mean to learn on the job but to be able to put that education in practice. We're dealing with humans here, not machines. I don't think you should see yourself as a rat lab either. The same would true the other way. I'm sure if they took a bunch of cyclists riding only on bike pathes and put them on the road for a while, they would probably have more chances of getting in a accident than those having experience dealing with cars. Fortunately (or not), there are plenty of rat lab (cars) for cyclist to learn on the job.

MichaelW

Ive always thought that the best place to ride was not the flattest, driest, sunniest or warmest place, but the one with the most cyclists. When lots of people ride, cycling becomes normal and accepted, rather than unusual and odd. Drivers expect cyclist to be on the road, and both drivers and cyclist learn to live with each other.

I know what you mean by the term "human speed bump". We get that in the UK with some "road calming" features, esp the bollards that narrow a road down and prevent overtaking.

Da Tinker

Good paper, just suprised it hasn't been done before.

Driving is habit based, just many things we do on a regular basis. When pedestrians & cyclists are more frequent, responding to their presence becomes part of the driver's habits. MichaelW has got it right. Cyclists do educate drivers with their mere presence, so behave yourself & set a good example.

There are other effects at work that the author misses in his discussion. Foster and others have shown that cyclist accident rates (both per mile & per year) take a steep drop as experience levels increase. I wonder if the same applies to pedestrians?

Also, could attitudes in a community shift as more cyclists take the roads. Traffic levels should drop, which will also calm traffic, reduce driving stress and make most drivers a bit easier to get along with.

Trust me on this, I teach driving safety.

Roughstuff

I also think it is a repeat of the technique many riders have taken over the years to become safer and more respected, and that is to ride in a "convoy." Most people who hassle cyclists are cowards anyway, so they would easily be frightened by numbers.

Motorcyclist ride in gangs to make sure they get respect in their lanes; trucks rode in convoys to deter theft and bandits. Cyclists can ride as a group for the same reasons.

roughstuff

randya

I agree, can you say Critical Mass?

Roughstuff

Thats right! I have mixed feelings about critical mass, just as i have mixed feelings about motorcycle gangs, truck convoys on the turnpike, or drag racing. But if it is necessary to "wear the ring of road equality on everybody's nose" in order to get them to listen, then I will support (that) aspect of their rides.

I especially like their motto: "we aren't blocking traffic: we are traffic.

roughstuff

AndrewP

I dont agree with critical mass. I find that in Montreal there are sufficient cyclists that they form a normal part of the traffic, so motorists are aware of them and generally treat them with consideration. There are a few road users who dont give anyone consideration but treat all bikes, cars, busses and trucks with uniformally bad manners.

Chris L

I'm just wondering why critical mass sees the need to form one big "critical mass" in one place? What if they formed several smaller "critical masses" in several places. It would have two major advantages that I can see:

1. It would be visible to a lot more people in a lot more areas.

2. The smaller size of the group would not give the same perception of "holding up traffic".

Just a thought.

closetbiker

Gee, on my very first thread I took part in on this board (helmet's harmful, I dunno...) I said, It's good to see the bmj printed a study that sees things the same way!