Cycling UK Forum

I'm look at the cycling survey by the times Cities fit for Cycling. Am I missing something here? There is a question Which habits do you find annoying in cyclists?

An answer to grade is: Not wearing hi-vis clothing / lights

How can you lump clothing and lights into the same question? One a legal requirement at night, the other purely perception. What am I missing here? I've just closed the page without submitting in dismay.

I took the survey. I think it should have been is ' Cyclists who don't take care to make themselves clearly visible by not wearing bright clothing and/or not using lights at night'. Seems a perfectly valid question, just badly phrased.

Al

Perhaps Landriver, like me, would like to express his dislike of unlit cyclists, but no disapproval of riding without hi viz. It is a truism that the results of these questionaires are very much affected by how the questions are put. Often the results are interpreted in a way which is misleading. A badly put question can mean that the results can be made to conform to the preconceptions of the questioner.

After decades as a Times reader, I gave it up as a bad job a couple of years ago. I couldn't be bothered to pick up the pub copy today to look at while waiting for my lunch.

What's the purpose of the survey? Pandering to Parris, perhaps? I can't imagine they are trying to make sure cyclists are fully apprised on how to upset drivers.

We could have a competition to list the other irritations for marking. I'll go foggy with "Not paying road tax."

In reply to the question about about which cyclists habits annoyed me most (or something like that) I took the opportunity to say that I found the way cyclists take the blame for the incompetence of drivers the most annoying

(I have posted this before but just to reiterate.) There is a perfecty respected school of thought amongst psychologists that argues that in the face of an insuperable problem (traffic congestion in this case), a minor problem (behaviour of cylists in this case) will take on the mantle of the big problem. It will cause the same but of course disproportionate degree of outrage and concern. It's all pretty much bonkers.

That was the only point that I found annoying, though - apart from the bit about "what would encourage you to cycle more" to which I'd really have liked to reply "more hours in the day" or "not having a job"...

I think the driver's view is perfectly reasonable and understandable.

If all cyclists wore hi-viz and brilliant lights then the drivers could be guaranteed to see them in all conditions. This allows the aforementioned drivers to drive a lot faster.

As it is, the drivers have to slow down on bends and junctions to look for hte cyclists - if only they would help the drivers by being seen under all conditions then the drivers could safely speed up a lot more.

However as a cyclist, I do wonder why an awful lot of cyclists can't be ar**d to get proper lights when it is dark or poor viz!

horizon wrote:(I have posted this before but just to reiterate.) There is a perfecty respected school of thought amongst psychologists that argues that in the face of an insuperable problem (traffic congestion in this case), a minor problem (behaviour of cylists in this case) will take on the mantle of the big problem. It will cause the same but of course disproportionate degree of outrage and concern. It's all pretty much bonkers.

+1

Mike Sales, you have hit the nail bang on the head. I simple can't conceive how the two should be in the same sentence.

The question asks what annoys you about cyclists, irrespective of legality. A plausible option might be "they ride on the roads".

I was amused by the question "What would make you cycle more often?" Huh? Stupid question. None of the options would make me cycle more often.

The online survey is here: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cy ... 590034.ece

What annoys you about cyclists

was a fantastic addition to that survey, I can't see how the survey is meant to help encourage people to cycle, or gather the opinion of beginning cyclists, or do anything for cycling other than solicit thoughts of the homicidal road-rager.

I think myself the sort of person their campaign is/or should be targeting, because I'm that cross-hybrid (without a hybrid) of using an MTB with slicks, not all that confident on the roads, or fast yet, and I just felt patronised, or criminalised.

As a driver none of those things on the list annoy me (except lights of course), although, won't lie, sometimes it is annoying when I've not rushed an unsafe over-take approaching traffic lights which have turned red, to see that cyclist ride straight across, and it's not waiting at the red that bothers me at all.

Anyway, where's the list of 'What annoys you about cars'?

horizon wrote:(I have posted this before but just to reiterate.) There is a perfecty respected school of thought amongst psychologists that argues that in the face of an insuperable problem (traffic congestion in this case), a minor problem (behaviour of cylists in this case) will take on the mantle of the big problem. It will cause the same but of course disproportionate degree of outrage and concern. It's all pretty much bonkers.

+1

Some of the questions (as noted above) are followed by the "Other" box, some are not. The authors obviously believed that they had covered the likely impediments to cycling. In fact, as we all know, the reasons why most people don't cycle are hotly disputed. The three key reasons (all of them above the rest of the Times list in order of importance) are: effort/inconvenience, sweating and fear of punctures. The last of these was recorded in a TfL survey as the number one but whenever people are asked they don't IMV reply truthfully. I actually don't think that fear of death/injury does prevent people from cycling. Cycling is well within most people's risk framework - offer nearly anyone £1000 to cycle through central London and they will do it. The money overcomes the effort factor not the fear factor. It is obviously appalling that so many cyclists are killed and injured but the Times survey is yet another example of uninformed people trying to get in on the act; the survey is as bad as and probably written by one of the many students who present surveys on this forum but at least they are honest about their own limitations.

horizon wrote:Some of the questions (as noted above) are followed by the "Other" box, some are not. The authors obviously believed that they had covered the likely impediments to cycling. In fact, as we all know, the reasons why most people don't cycle are hotly disputed. The three key reasons (all of them above the rest of the Times list in order of importance) are: effort/inconvenience, sweating and fear of punctures. The last of these was recorded in a TfL survey as the number one but whenever people are asked they don't IMV reply truthfully. I actually don't think that fear of death/injury does prevent people from cycling. Cycling is well within most people's risk framework - offer nearly anyone £1000 to cycle through central London and they will do it. The money overcomes the effort factor not the fear factor. It is obviously appalling that so many cyclists are killed and injured but the Times survey is yet another example of uninformed people trying to get in on the act; the survey is as bad as and probably written by one of the many students who present surveys on this forum but at least they are honest about their own limitations.

+1 (again )