H
Howard
Guest
As this thread seems to be going a little off target. Might
I suggest two possible explanations for this phenomena.
1) Pedestrians actually KNOW that cyclists pose minimal
danger to them and that most cyclists will go out of
their way to avoid colliding with a pedestrian. Hence
claims that pavement cycling is wrong are more to do with
feeling annoyed, disliking seeing some 'breaking the
rules', deep seated prejudices against cyclists as
members of a low status social out-group and so on rather
then any genuine concerns about safety. There is plenty
of research suggesting this: For example, http://www.dft-
.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/dft_roa-
ds_504728.hcsp
'Main Conclusions
* Observation revealed no real factors to justify excluding
cyclists from pedestrianised areas, suggesting that
cycling could be more widely permitted without detriment
to pedestrians;
Findings
Pedestrians change their behaviour in the presence of motor
vehicles, but not in response to cyclists.
Cyclists respond to pedestrian density, modifying their
speed, dismounting and taking other avoiding action where
necessary.
Accidents between pedestrians and cyclists were very
rarely generated in pedestrianised areas (only one
pedestrian/cyclist accident in 15 site years) in the
sites studied.'
The first finding is interesting. Consider how pedestrians
part like the Red Sea before Moses when a motor vehicle
drives through a pedestrianised area, even one doing so
illegally! It also suggest to me another explanation.
Perhaps pedestrians perceive motor vehicle users to be of a
high status and so feel compelled to 'keep out of the way'.
Drivers also feel themselves to be of a higher status and
expect others to 'get out of the way'.
However, many pedestrians (who are also quite possibly
drivers) feel that cyclists have a lower status then
themselves and so are loath to give way to them. Issues of
safety and so on are secondary. What really counts is the
perceived social pecking order!
Similarly, motorists often accuse cyclists as being
'arrogant'. Now as this means having a sense of self worth
not supported by reality, and the fact that many drivers
feel cyclists are almost non-human (look at all the
dehumanising and deindividuating terms used to describe
cyclists such as 'lycra lout', two wheeled terrorist', lycra
nazi' and so on), it follows that any cyclist who displays a
sense of self worth or who claims equality will be
definition be seen as being 'arrogant!
I suggest two possible explanations for this phenomena.
1) Pedestrians actually KNOW that cyclists pose minimal
danger to them and that most cyclists will go out of
their way to avoid colliding with a pedestrian. Hence
claims that pavement cycling is wrong are more to do with
feeling annoyed, disliking seeing some 'breaking the
rules', deep seated prejudices against cyclists as
members of a low status social out-group and so on rather
then any genuine concerns about safety. There is plenty
of research suggesting this: For example, http://www.dft-
.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/dft_roa-
ds_504728.hcsp
'Main Conclusions
* Observation revealed no real factors to justify excluding
cyclists from pedestrianised areas, suggesting that
cycling could be more widely permitted without detriment
to pedestrians;
Findings
Pedestrians change their behaviour in the presence of motor
vehicles, but not in response to cyclists.
Cyclists respond to pedestrian density, modifying their
speed, dismounting and taking other avoiding action where
necessary.
Accidents between pedestrians and cyclists were very
rarely generated in pedestrianised areas (only one
pedestrian/cyclist accident in 15 site years) in the
sites studied.'
The first finding is interesting. Consider how pedestrians
part like the Red Sea before Moses when a motor vehicle
drives through a pedestrianised area, even one doing so
illegally! It also suggest to me another explanation.
Perhaps pedestrians perceive motor vehicle users to be of a
high status and so feel compelled to 'keep out of the way'.
Drivers also feel themselves to be of a higher status and
expect others to 'get out of the way'.
However, many pedestrians (who are also quite possibly
drivers) feel that cyclists have a lower status then
themselves and so are loath to give way to them. Issues of
safety and so on are secondary. What really counts is the
perceived social pecking order!
Similarly, motorists often accuse cyclists as being
'arrogant'. Now as this means having a sense of self worth
not supported by reality, and the fact that many drivers
feel cyclists are almost non-human (look at all the
dehumanising and deindividuating terms used to describe
cyclists such as 'lycra lout', two wheeled terrorist', lycra
nazi' and so on), it follows that any cyclist who displays a
sense of self worth or who claims equality will be
definition be seen as being 'arrogant!
