"Just zis Guy, you know?" <
[email protected]> wrote:
|
| At Sat, 02 Jul 2005 22:44:47 +0100, message
| <
[email protected]> was posted by Patrick
| Herring <
[email protected]>, including some, all or none of the
| following:
|
| >| Why is it that so many people are so intent on portraying cycling as
| >| dangerous that they will not allow a comparison with another activity
| >| whose risks are readily understood without the emotional baggage of
| >| decades of "BIKE DANGER!" helmet promotion?
|
| >But one can see where the instinct comes from. Walking isn't very
| >difficult, even crossing a road safely isn't that difficult and we all
| >get taught how to do it. Driving is skilled but you're insulated from
| >most mistakes by the steel cage and air-bags, and most adults have had
| >the training and the experience. But cycling (on roads amongst motor
| >traffic) is as skilled as driving but with no protection from mistakes
| >and to a non-cyclist the level of skill needed is unknown.
|
| Yes, it's an easy impression to foster. It also gives drivers an
| "out" when they harm cyclists: it's dangerous, they know what they are
| getting into.
I wonder whether there are any stats, maybe from the insurance world, of
drivers who never hit anything versus drivers who seem rather "accident
prone". Something like "5% of drivers have 85% of collisions". That
would be useful against the view that the danger is unavoidable rather
than that there are just some bad drivers.
| >So the perception of the general public is that the danger from dicing
| >with cars is offset by cyclists' skill and awareness rising to the
| >occasion. One can see how people can conclude that fewer cyclists die
| >than pedestrians because, they think, cyclists take more care and get
| >better at judging the traffic than the average pedestrian.
|
| I have not tried this: I will ask around a few people and see if they
| think more cyclists or pedestrians are killed and injured.
Would be interesting. I really meant: if people know or are told the
ped/cyclist death figures do they explain them by hypothesising cyclists
must be better at judging traffic, or do they come up with some other
theory.
I think this is what pk was trying to say with his "loony" remark.
People don't discount the potential for "accidents" just because the
figures show the dangers can be coped with.
| >And to a large extent I agree with them. They're correctly seeing the
| >danger as coming from the cars. But then they compare us to motorbikers
| >and ask why we're not wearing a helmet. ISTM we won't get anywhere
| >pointing out the stats for ped & cyclist KSI, the perception of cycling
| >having a greater danger won't go away.
|
| When there are five or six false perceptions all mixed together, no
| one message will deal with them all.
True, but "helmets are dangerous" does give you an intro...
| >But we can plug the line that it's bad drivers who are the problem & the
| >powers that be should be getting them off the road. But to make that
| >line stick, particularly if it's seen as coming from the cyclist lobby,
| >we'd probably have to agree that there are bad cyclists too, and we may
| >have to agree to training-based licencing.
| >Does the panel think trading cyclist-licencing for no MHL and getting
| >bad drivers off the road is a good deal?
|
| I don't think it would happen. First, it is *much* harder to
| implement (there is no training and testing infrastructure).
But Cycling Proficiency has been around for decades. And the new
training schemes are coming along thanks to people like Tilly.
What I want to be able to do is when asked why I'm not wearing a helmet,
firstly I say they're dangerous due to risk compensation, and secondly I
want to say I spent the money doing a cycle training course up to Level
N "which has been shown to provide much more ability to save lives
through ability than helmets ever could through physical strength".
| Second, getting careless motorists off the roads is politically inexpedient.
I disagree. It's quite easy to create a monster, the tabloids do it all
the time. And the monster might get /you/ next time. I think "BAD
DRIVERS KILL 10 EVERY DAY", to use your presentational style, is a line
that could easily be effective. The politicians then just have to appear
to be Beowulf slaying Grendel and everyone wins. As long as no-one feels
they might be labelled a bad driver without a proper reason...
| Helmet laws have no impact on non-cyclists, and no direct cost to the
| Government, so are a much easier sell.
True. But saving road deaths would save GBPmillions. Anyone know a
better estimate for this?
--
Patrick Herring,
http://www.anweald.co.uk/ph
