Road Cycling Safety

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
Dan Bishop
Posts: 3
Joined: 26 Mar 2020, 10:26am

Road Cycling Safety

Postby Dan Bishop » 31 Mar 2020, 2:36pm

Dear Road Cycling UK members,

I've had a preliminary discussion with Graham (Moderator). Graham has given this post his approval.

As a psychologist and keen cyclist who has commuted thousands of miles across London and is also a father of two young boys (8 and 5 years), I am keen to explore how we can improve road cycling safety. I would like cycling to become the preferred mode of transport for short journeys, including children’s travelling to school, sooner rather than later – in line with the government’s Future of Mobility: Urban Strategy (2019).

In order to take a rigorous approach, I want to have a better understanding of what we might call ‘road cycling psychology’; this is something that has not been considered in detail until now. Therefore, my colleagues and I have developed a survey to understand more about road cyclists’ self-reported behaviour and abilities, their self-confidence, their attentional style (the extent to which they are distractible) and their interactions with other road users. I am interested in hearing from anyone who regularly cycles on roads alongside other road users.

If you are able to find the time (approximately 13-15 mins), then I would love for you to complete the survey. So far, approximately 130 road cyclists have completed it. The deadline is 31st May 2020 – and you could win a £100 Amazon gift card.

If you would like to complete the survey, then please follow this link: http://brunellifesc.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_cGdH0q8vKzz6ILz

I would also like to understand more about the development of ‘road cycling expertise’, by talking to people such as you, who have considerable experience of road cycling. If you would be amenable to a virtual interview over the phone, Skype or other platform, then please let me know at daniel.bishop@brunel.ac.uk <.> . . . . . . . < full stop distanced from email address >

Stay safe,

Dan Bishop
https://www.brunel.ac.uk/people/dan-bishop/ < Background info only : Link fixed >
Last edited by Graham on 2 Apr 2020, 1:41pm, edited 4 times in total.
Reason: full stop distanced

User avatar
Graham
Moderator
Posts: 6207
Joined: 14 Dec 2006, 8:48pm

Re: Road Cycling Safety

Postby Graham » 31 Mar 2020, 9:56pm

I have asked Daniel to EDIT a link to the survey into his post above.

Hopefully, this will be done soon.

Dan Bishop
Posts: 3
Joined: 26 Mar 2020, 10:26am

Re: Road Cycling Safety

Postby Dan Bishop » 1 Apr 2020, 11:13am

Hi folks,

You should be able to access this now.

And just for clarity: this survey is for anyone with road cycling experience, whether you are a performance cyclist, commuter cyclist, recreational cyclist, etc., because you will all have valuable information to provide!

Many thanks,

Dan

Ellieb
Posts: 859
Joined: 26 Jul 2008, 7:06pm

Re: Road Cycling Safety

Postby Ellieb » 1 Apr 2020, 1:15pm

Done
Don't really understand the question about 'zigzagging' in a lane: Do you mean filtering through stationery traffic & sometimes needing to moveacross the lane to do it as safely as possible. (ie not always staying on the inside of stopped cars?)

Barks
Posts: 287
Joined: 14 Oct 2016, 5:27pm

Re: Road Cycling Safety

Postby Barks » 1 Apr 2020, 3:55pm

Couldn’t do anything for question after Q2.13 - Q38. Click to write the question text

Click to write Choice 1

Click to write Choice 2

Click to write Choice 3

Answered Q2.14 but could not then proceed to next page.

Any suggestions? I use an iPad if that is a factor

jgurney
Posts: 797
Joined: 10 May 2009, 8:34am

Re: Road Cycling Safety

Postby jgurney » 1 Apr 2020, 6:03pm

Ellieb wrote: Don't really understand the question about 'zigzagging' in a lane: Do you mean filtering through stationery traffic & sometimes needing to moveacross the lane to do it as safely as possible. (ie not always staying on the inside of stopped cars?)


Seconded. I wasn't sure what that meant either.

I was also confused by "When using a bike path (or bike lane), you use the indicated lane". Is this asking whether I stay in the part of a path where I should be (i.e. not cross a dividing line into a footway or a side of the path meant for cyclists coming in the other direction) or asking whether, given the options, I use cycles lanes and paths or prefer to stay in the general-purpose lanes or carriageway?

I'm not clear what a 'safety light' is either. Does that refer to lights bright enough to be used in the daytime, as opposed to showing the usual lights at night?

fastpedaller
Posts: 2418
Joined: 10 Jul 2014, 1:12pm
Location: Norfolk

Re: Road Cycling Safety

Postby fastpedaller » 2 Apr 2020, 10:12am

I tried to email this directly to Daniel, but the email address wouldn't work. Hope he sees it here :)

Hi Daniel, I’ve completed the questionnaire linked via Cycling UK forum as best as possible and had the same issues highlighted by others. For info, certainly for myself (maybe for others?) the ‘cycling profile’ eg how many years riding in an urban environment may lead to misinformation, as I have 23 years experience of urban, and then moved to a rural area 17 years ago – likewise the questions relating to activity state eg Do you time trial long distance? I used to ride up to 12 hour time trials before I moved area, but had to answer no, even though I have that experience. Re ‘safety lights’ it is unclear whether you mean a ‘daytime light’ – I certainly would oppose such an item as other road users should be able to see a cyclist in daylight! If you are referring to cycle lights at night, I would certainly use these if riding at night.

User avatar
hatless
Posts: 44
Joined: 11 Apr 2008, 8:49pm
Location: Northampton

Re: Road Cycling Safety

Postby hatless » 2 Apr 2020, 11:28am

I got nearly through the questionnaire, then decided to scrap my response. I found myself answering many questions about possible faults in my cycling leading to near misses or having to brake abruptly, but no suggestion that other drivers might be doing things leading to these same events.

For example, the questionnaire asks if you might misread a traffic signal and act on your incorrect understanding mistaking red for green, I suppose. It asks if I you misinterpret the intentions of people waiting at a crossing, and offers the never / hardly ever/ sometimes / all the time or whatever the options were on that page. I can see the value in asking people about faults in their cycling attention, and don't mind answering them, although misreading traffic lights seems an extreme example.

It asks if you sometimes don't realise a vehicle is about to move off, and have to brake abruptly. It asks if you sometimes don't realise a passenger or driver is about to open a door and similarly have a near collision.

Nowhere does it ask if you seldom or often find vehicles moving off without indicating, or people opening doors while you are alongside the vehicle, or too close to it for braking to be possible.

I have had to brake hard because of vehicles moving off, and I have had near misses and, once, a crash because of people opening doors without looking, but these have not been the result of my level of attention, but those of others. The questions, though, just list this amongst other examples of near misses that might be caused by the cyclist's inattention - going round corners too fast, and not spotting potholes.

Having got, I think, nearly to the last screen, I reflected that there had been no questions about my experience of attention deficit from other road users, and decided I didn't want to have anything to do with the research.

Maybe I'm being hasty, but collecting data about cyclist errors only, and collecting data about incidents that are frequently caused by the errors of others without giving the responder any way to indicate whether they are reporting their own inattention or that of others, seems questionable.

Ellieb
Posts: 859
Joined: 26 Jul 2008, 7:06pm

Re: Road Cycling Safety

Postby Ellieb » 2 Apr 2020, 1:13pm

fastpedaller wrote:I tried to email this directly to Daniel, but the email address wouldn't work. Hope he sees it here :)

Hi Daniel, I’ve completed the questionnaire linked via Cycling UK forum as best as possible and had the same issues highlighted by others. For info, certainly for myself (maybe for others?) the ‘cycling profile’ eg how many years riding in an urban environment may lead to misinformation, as I have 23 years experience of urban, and then moved to a rural area 17 years ago – likewise the questions relating to activity state eg Do you time trial long distance? I used to ride up to 12 hour time trials before I moved area, but had to answer no, even though I have that experience. Re ‘safety lights’ it is unclear whether you mean a ‘daytime light’ – I certainly would oppose such an item as other road users should be able to see a cyclist in daylight! If you are referring to cycle lights at night, I would certainly use these if riding at night.

There is a dot at the end of 'uk' which you need to remove from the address

mikeymo
Posts: 892
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 6:23pm

Re: Road Cycling Safety

Postby mikeymo » 2 Apr 2020, 1:24pm

hatless wrote:I got nearly through the questionnaire, then decided to scrap my response. I found myself answering many questions about possible faults in my cycling leading to near misses or having to brake abruptly, but no suggestion that other drivers might be doing things leading to these same events.

For example, the questionnaire asks if you might misread a traffic signal and act on your incorrect understanding mistaking red for green, I suppose. It asks if I you misinterpret the intentions of people waiting at a crossing, and offers the never / hardly ever/ sometimes / all the time or whatever the options were on that page. I can see the value in asking people about faults in their cycling attention, and don't mind answering them, although misreading traffic lights seems an extreme example.

It asks if you sometimes don't realise a vehicle is about to move off, and have to brake abruptly. It asks if you sometimes don't realise a passenger or driver is about to open a door and similarly have a near collision.

Nowhere does it ask if you seldom or often find vehicles moving off without indicating, or people opening doors while you are alongside the vehicle, or too close to it for braking to be possible.

I have had to brake hard because of vehicles moving off, and I have had near misses and, once, a crash because of people opening doors without looking, but these have not been the result of my level of attention, but those of others. The questions, though, just list this amongst other examples of near misses that might be caused by the cyclist's inattention - going round corners too fast, and not spotting potholes.

Having got, I think, nearly to the last screen, I reflected that there had been no questions about my experience of attention deficit from other road users, and decided I didn't want to have anything to do with the research.

Maybe I'm being hasty, but collecting data about cyclist errors only, and collecting data about incidents that are frequently caused by the errors of others without giving the responder any way to indicate whether they are reporting their own inattention or that of others, seems questionable.


It's probably best to let Dr Bishop design his own study, then let the usual peer review process examine the methodology. I'm pretty sure that he isn't asking respondents for their opinions on how he came up with his questions. Well, unless they also happen to be PhD Psychology lecturers with an interest in cycling, I suppose.

Of course, it could be a ruse. Psychology departments do that once in a while don't they? Pretend to be studying X while actually studying Y. Most people know Milgram:

https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html

So maybe Dr Bishop is actually studying how cyclists on internet forums respond to being asked questions by an academic, regardless of what those questions actually are.

Mmmmm. Very clever Dr Bishop :wink:

fastpedaller
Posts: 2418
Joined: 10 Jul 2014, 1:12pm
Location: Norfolk

Re: Road Cycling Safety

Postby fastpedaller » 2 Apr 2020, 1:58pm

I agree with Hatless - too much emphasis on the possibility of cyclist error than anything else. But I stuck with it in case I win a voucher :lol:

Cyril Haearn
Posts: 12939
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am
Location: Between the woods and the water

Re: Road Cycling Safety

Postby Cyril Haearn » 2 Apr 2020, 2:02pm

This should identify those who like filling in questionnaires :?
Entertainer, kidult, curmudgeon
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we dislike mortons

gbnz
Posts: 1736
Joined: 13 Sep 2008, 10:38am

Re: Road Cycling Safety

Postby gbnz » 2 Apr 2020, 2:29pm

fastpedaller wrote:I agree with Hatless - too much emphasis on the possibility of cyclist error than anything else. But I stuck with it in case I win a voucher :lol:


Have to admit I replied!

But given I've always experienced issues with Amazon, have to admit that I assumed that the potential of winning a Amazon voucheer was put in to sort the wheat from the chaff! (NB. I turned down the voucher offer)

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 3170
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: Road Cycling Safety

Postby The utility cyclist » 2 Apr 2020, 8:29pm

the question regarding speed on a flat road for 30 minutes, why not put what speed can you average over 30 minutes on a flat road without any wind. what's the point of the big gaps?
I pretty sure I can do 20mph average so I put 100%, but 0% for 25mph as I can't, thus then 30mph is also 0%, or os it meant to be a % of the higher speeds that you might maintain? it's really poorly constructed for the question being asked and most of it is hugely superfluous.

As others, 'zig-zagging', what the hell is that, is that really in the Cycling Behavior Questionnaire - Useche et al., 2018? if so, it again highlights how these people don't understand cycling very much. :roll:
Is a drinks bottle classed as an 'obstructive' object, shouldn't that be distracting and/or item that could effect the amount of control you have?

Also, you have 'never' as an option, but the upper limit is almost always, why not always as you have an absolute at one end of the scale, the answers therefore are bias from the outset.
Q4.1, this would be better served with less ambiguous answers, asking for a rough % of each road type would be miles better.
Q 4.3, what does a 'safety light' mean? I do not use a light during day time, nor do I use one for 'safety' why do you think this offers 'safety' to the cyclist, where's your evidence that a light gives this so called 'safety', define what safety means in the way you are asking it.

A better question would be, do you fit lights to adhere to the lighting up regulations.

Q4.4 is rather presumptuous, How often do you have a near miss Almost colliding with ... sorry but I don't nearly collide with, others nearly collide INTO me, there is a significant difference, your version is rather telling in that you follow the typical media/police thinking which immediately places blame/fault to the cyclist and using poor language which discriminates/introduces bias from the outset!
And again, the answer options are unbalanced and introduce bias AGAIN!, you cannot have Very frequent, Frequent, Occasionally, Very infrequent, Never, and not put in INFREQUENT!
A
nd also, shouldn't it be how close a MOTORIST is overtaking uncomfortably, this is a criminal offence, maybe you should define that hostility, anti social behaviour and close overtaking are ALL criminal offences, a close pass is hostile AND anti social, being left hooked is hostile and anti social, being brake checked is hostile and anti social, being sworn/threatened for you mere presence is hostile and anti social, they are ALL Criminal offences.
Q5.1
poorly worded questions, you use the word Sometimes, often and generally within the statements then offer up how much one agrees, why would you do that, there's just no need and it makes the whole statement and answers more ambiguous, just drop it for goodness sake!

It should be 'I interrupt an activity to check an unrelated detail ... I am the first person to notice ... (omitting 'in general') I stay in cntrol of my thoughts ...
Simply saying 'I am the first one (rather person) to notice changes in a room' - something is also superfluous!

Also, in what sense does unrelated mean, so if I check my watch whilst doing x, is that unrelated?, if I check my phone for messages walking to the post office is that unrelated, define why? Aren't most tasks actually multi tasks, so for instance if I'm preparing food at work and I need to do multiple other things that have a relation to that but to the uneducated may not seem related, how would you decide what is or is not related?

I do not use a computer for work so I cannot give an answer but your system will not let me give no answer.

I can work with music on but I don't have it on if it's anything to do with me, people slow down their work and can get distracted/make mistakes, most of the time it's inane chit chat and garbage music, another reason not to have it on, I rarely even put the radio on when i'm driving even for long journeys.

Repeated question, I am so absorbed and I am so focused is the same question!

Q6.2, judge within what accuracy of distance, to the cm, metre???

Q7.1
I do not cycle distracted, define distracted?
You can hit 'something' in the road without misjudging anything.

Done but this is a shockingly poor designed questionnaire, in fact the worst ever.

On reflection, I've sent the Dr an email and CCd to the research ethics committee person Christina Victor as it's an utter disgrace
Yes I'm a snitch because crud like this should never be allowed to form anything to do with 'research' for safety of people on bikes or even to demonise people on bikes as so much so called research does. it shows lack of ethics, it shows complete lack of understanding even the basics of cycling on the road or what cycling is.
The more I thought about it the more angry i got at this shower of dog doo.

Dan Bishop
Posts: 3
Joined: 26 Mar 2020, 10:26am

Re: Road Cycling Safety

Postby Dan Bishop » 3 Apr 2020, 7:15am

Dear all,

Thank you for your very useful feedback. It has provided me with a great deal of useful insights, and will no doubt help me to develop this strand of research considerably.

Stay safe,

Dan Bishop
daniel.bishop@brunel.ac.uk