4 minute read
Q4: Do cyclists deserve a good reputation?
Q4: Do cyclists deserve a good reputation?
Yes. Cyclists pose little harm to other road users (Q2 & 3), and cycling is good thing to do for public health and the environment (Q1). Of course, no road user group is without its minority of mavericks, risk-takers and bad apples –and there’s no excuse for irresponsible behaviour – but it’s unjust to assume that cycling harbours more than most.
Without forgetting that the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks (Q1), there’s no escaping the fact that cyclists are vulnerable. This makes most of them ride as attentively and carefully as they can, and may explain why they are less likely than drivers to be assigned a contributory factor in collisions between cycles and motor vehicles (Q2). For those who are not attentive and careful, it probably doesn’t matter what kind of vehicle they’re driving or riding: risk-takers will be risk-takers, most likely young men with their “heightened tendency to act impulsively” . 26
Yet attitudes to cyclists as a whole leave a lot to be desired. One study from Australia discovered that a significant proportion of drivers don’t even view cyclists as fully human. 27 This echoes research from Britain that motorists “tend to classify [cyclists] as an ‘out group’ with significantly different characteristics from most other road users.” It gets worse. Another study found: “Car drivers’ negative attitudes towards cyclists relate to aggressive driving behaviour addressed at cyclists”. The drivers felt the same no matter what kind of cyclist they encountered – Lycra-clad or casually dressed. Why? The authors concluded that attitudes like these are rooted in a sense of attachment to cars.
That said, most cyclists experience courteous, considerate and good-humoured behaviour from drivers every day too, so it’s unfair to stereotype them negatively in turn. So, what do we do about all this?
• We must distinguish misperception and misrepresentation from reality. Statistics prove that people on bikes do little harm in comparison to motor vehicles (Q1), but are more likely to be harmed. Yet, most emphatically, this does not make cycling
“dangerous” – motor vehicles/drivers are the “dangerous” party in most crashes, and we need both the public and transport practitioners to accept this.28 • The Highway Code and its recent revisions29 need to be communicated effectively because, apart from explicitly expecting drivers to exercise a greater degree of
26 Transport Select Committee. Road safety: young and novice drivers. March 2021. 27 Delbosc A et al. Dehumanization of cyclists predicts self-reported aggressive behaviour toward them: A pilot study. 2019. 28 This point is made very well in the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety’s (PACTS) 2020 report What kills most on the roads? 29 Cycling UK. Changes to the Highway Code: FAQs. 2022.
responsibility for the sake of vulnerable road users, they explain why cyclists adopt certain positions on the road, demystifying the behaviour that seems to puzzle, not to say aggravate, all too many drivers (see Q5 below). • Awareness campaigns aimed at drivers and/or cyclists must be: based on sound research, accurately targeted, positive and non-judgemental; avoid victim-blaming; and linked to enforcement activity.30 • Journalists need to follow guidelines to stop them making lazy generalisations and using dehumanising language when reporting on cycling collisions.31 • Engineers should be able to tell if and why cycling behaviour is causing genuine problems to, say, pedestrians, and solve it with high-quality infrastructure32, e.g: o Installing cycle lanes segregated from fast and voluminous traffic or, if that’s not possible, addressing the hazards on the roadway o Making junctions cycle-friendly by, for instance, phased signalling (one of the most commonly cited reasons for running a red light is because it helps riders get ahead into open space before the lights turn green and motor vehicles flood onto the junction). No cyclist should have to choose between obeying the law and keeping themselves safe. • Giving more people of all ages and abilities the chance to take ‘Bikeability’33 courses.
These equip trainees with the confidence and skills needed to ride in today’s road conditions. We recommend Bikeability for everyone, but especially: o all children, encouraging them to turn cycling into a life-habit o driving instructors and professional drivers (mandatory), and learner drivers, to give them personal insight into what it’s like to be on a bike o offending cyclists and drivers guilty of an offence that has harmed a cyclist. • Codes of conduct/advice. Cycling UK: o supports Sustrans’ advice on using shared use paths o collaborated with the British Horse Society on Be Nice, Say Hi!’ to explain how cyclists should interact with horses and their riders o publishes a code for mountain bikers o offers pages and pages of advice on safe and considerate cycling. • And, finally, the authors who found that drivers tend to dehumanise cyclists, suggest:
“If we can put a human face to cyclists, we may improve attitudes and reduce aggression directed at on-road cyclists. This could result in a reduction in cyclist road trauma or an increase in public acceptance of cyclists as legitimate road users.”
30 See: What kind of awareness campaigns really help improve road users' behaviour? Cycling UK. 28 Feb 2019, and Road safety message that misses the target. 26 Nov 2021. 31 Active Travel Academy. Road Collision Reporting Guidelines; see also Cycling UK’s article What’s in a word? 30 Sept 2020. 32 DfT. Cycle Infrastructure Design (LTN1/10). 2020. 33 bikeability.org.uk/ Bikeability is based on the Government’s National Standard for Cycle Training which Cycling UK (then CTC) helped develop in 2005.