Cycling UK Forum

Government policy seems to stem from what politicians see in London. So that's why red light jumping and pavement riding is such a big issue in cycling debate. It is unusual to see such things out in the sticks yet it is always what is spouted against us!

fatboy wrote:Government policy seems to stem from what politicians see in London. So that's why red light jumping and pavement riding is such a big issue in cycling debate. It is unusual to see such things out in the sticks yet it is always what is spouted against us!

Precisely. That behaviour, suitably embroidered by the media, turns cycling into the transport of choice for oiks and gits. It's uncomfortable to see cyclists occupying the moral low ground so publically.

glueman wrote: Personally, I feel obeying the laws of the road would have the greatest positive net effect on cycling.

I have a feeling that even if every cyclist in the land rigorously abided by the law, cyclists in Britain would still be vilified and marginalised.

Cyclists are expected to behave impeccably, and yet motorists feel that any attempt to impose traffic laws which affect them amounts to the 'persecution of the beleaguered motorist'. Similarly, Britain's right-wing press is full of articles demanding 'zero tolerance' policing of cycling offences, and all but 'zero enforcement' of driving offences, especially speeding. What we need to do is stop and ask what is going on here.

The answer is simple and well documented, if you do the research. Britain is a hierarchical, inequitable 'society' (naturally I use this term very loosely here) with a strong tendency to hierarchical-authoritarianism and hostility to out-groups. Cyclists constitute just such an out group, primarily because they are seen as offering a challenge to the car-centric social norm, and so even if they were to behave impeccably they would still be targeted. If all cyclists were completely law abiding the emphasis would just shift slightly to 'cyclists don't pay road tax', cyclist are 'smug' or 'arrogant' and so on. The Transport Research Laboratory did a major study of this issues (TRL 549 'Drivers' Perceptions of Cyclists' and one interesting conclusion was that, from a drivers perspective, cyclists are as much 'in the wrong' for simply 'getting in the way' as they are for 'breaking the rules' when riding.

Given British society the only way cyclists will ever be treated with more respect is if Britain becomes a more inclusive, equitable and less status-orientated society (the opposite is happening) or if so many people take up cycling that cyclists themselves become a dominant social 'in group. Somehow I can't see that happening either.

It is also worth bearing in mind the hostility directed towards cyclists in the media today is nothing new. Exactly the same has happened almost since the cycle was invented. Only difference is that back in the 1920's cyclist were called 'Bolsheviks' and 'Cads on castors' rather than 'Lefty muesli munchers' and Lycra Louts. That's just Britain for you!

fatboy wrote:Government policy seems to stem from what politicians see in London. So that's why red light jumping and pavement riding is such a big issue in cycling debate.

Odd how things such as 'pavement cycling' are seen as total non-issues in most European countries. (Except by Daily-Mail reading British ex-pats perhaps!).

glueman wrote:... Another caller, a cycle trainer, summed it up - he said they were now educating people to sit in traffic not filter through it. That way riders can be seen and have to be acknowledged as part of the traffic. Scampering out the way may seem like an individual triumph but it lasts a few seconds and ensures motorised traffic never have to fully acknowledge what having bikes among them really feels like.

If the traffic is reasonably freeflowing I do this at lights and pinch-points, etc. Don't impede, just preserve safety and make sure drivers behind me have me in plain view all the time.

That way they have to think and leave space when they overtake, not just push past 6 inches from my right elbow.

Once you're worked up the nerve to be out there (but not impeding) it feels a lot safer. And if the car behind has to wait slightly whilst I get going at a green light then they can just go slower for a bit and wish I was an RLJ-er, which I will never be whilst it's illegal.

In long rush-hour traffic queues I mostly overtake down the right hand side.

Howard Peel wrote:I have a feeling that even if every cyclist in the land rigorously abided by the law, cyclists in Britain would still be vilified and marginalised.

The way things are going, we'll never get the chance to find out. Where I differ from some is the new riders do not represent some weaving mass of counter-cultural, left field togetherness sticking it to The Man, but the beginnings of what it feels like to have the Daily Mail riding among us - gobby, reactionary bullies who don't give a stuff for other cyclists or drivers.
We identify with them at our peril.

glueman wrote: The way things are going, we'll never get the chance to find out. Where I differ from some is the new riders do not represent some weaving mass of counter-cultural, left field togetherness sticking it to The Man, but the beginnings of what it feels like to have the Daily Mail riding among us - gobby, reactionary bullies who don't give a stuff for other cyclists or drivers. We identify with them at our peril.

It makes no odds whether 'we' identify with them or not. In the minds of the Daily Mail reading, 'gobby, reactionary bullies' who dominate British 'society', cyclists are 'all the same' in any case! Still, in a hierarchical society it's much easier to have a go at those perceived to be even lower down in the pecking order (motorists> 'proper' cyclists > scumbags on bikes...) than to challenge the status quo!

As Will Storr wrote in The Observer of 4 June 2006 with regards the findings of that TRL report 'Drivers perceptions of cyclists.

A recent report for the government commissioned by the Transport Research Foundation found that drivers treat cyclists as an 'out-group'. According to social-identity theory, this means that there is a multi-forked bias against us, which takes the form of that pernicious trident of hate - discrimination, stereotyping and prejudice.

So, in the head of a typical driver, subconsciously and automatically, things like these happen: the behaviour of the worst cyclist is used to judge them all; any cash the council visibly spends on them seems maddeningly unfair; any accident is the cyclist's fault; when making a decision, the motorist puts the needs of other motorists first; any behaviour at all that is 'different' to the driver's own is wrong. And so on. These are precisely the same primeval mental sparks that lead to football hooliganism, gang warfare and racism. Provocative and hateful newspaper reports about 'two-wheeled terrorists' merely stir up tribalism - basic, brutal and bad. It's the most dangerous and atrocious human impulse there is.

Whatever pernicious psycho-social group think we assume of motorists, cyclists occupied a safe legal ground which they are in danger of undermining. By saying it's a predatory, dog-eat-dog world and cyclists have to 'get real' to survive we are relegating cycling to an underground activity without status instead of a legitimate means of transport.

Cycling can do without overt politicisation of this kind. Pragmatism, as exercised by the best continental models, is the key to progress. 'Cagers' and similar terms show cyclists are capable of as much myopic tribalism as any driver.

glueman wrote: Cycling can do without overt politicisation of this kind. Pragmatism, as exercised by the best continental models, is the key to progress.

So you 'don't do politics'? Wasn't there a TV advert a while back highlighting the untenable nature of such a position? Anyhow, the 'Continental models' you refer to didn't appear out of thin air! Even the Dutch 20 or so years ago believed that universal car use was the future. Then their, Er, politicians, saw the unsustainable nature of this and, after much political argument, developed the 'Dutch bicycle master plan'. Similarly, Prescott's white paper 'A new deal for transport' was a deeply 'political' piece of work, and attacked by those with an opposing set of political values. As for the local government politics which see the joke 'cycle facilities' one see is the UK being created...

I find Howard's exposition of how we got to to where we are now, with respect to society's view of motoring, interesting and entirely plausible. By understanding how it happened we might be better positioned to implement changes in the future.

The position of the motorist is an anomaly compared with the rest of society. Each motorist is effectively trusted and given a huge responsibility for the safety & the lives of others. And yet how often do you perceive that they understand and act in such a way that this is of primary importance ??
. . . . . . . . . usually only after someone has been kiiled or injured I would observe.

Being apolitical about transport policy, including cycling, seems an honourable position to hold. I fail to see how getting down and dirty with self regarding career party stooges - who'll blow whichever way the wind is going - serves any long term good.
'Not doing politics' by comparison seems positively noble. Prescott's policy, excellent though it was in many ways, was smothered at birth by his fondness for fat cat motorcars: drive as I say, not as I do. He handed the motor lobby the gun, loaded it and showed them where to aim.

Graham wrote:The position of the motorist is an anomaly compared with the rest of society.

Unfortunately the cat is out of that bag. That motorists continue to describe themselves as such is the only novelty; conjouring wind in their hair Mr Toads. The car is so embedded they might as well be ironing board advocates or washing machine fans, so far has the motor car weedled its way into the popular consciousness.
Campaigning needs to lose its right-on credentials and treat itself seriously, not as a guerilla sniping exercise.

glueman wrote: Prescott's policy, excellent though it was in many ways, was smothered at birth by his fondness for fat cat motorcars: drive as I say, not as I do. He handed the motor lobby the gun, loaded it and showed them where to aim.

Not quite right. Prescott threatened to take the gun away from the motor lobby, who for years had held it at the 'Governments' head. The Blairites then made soothing noises whilst at the same time turning the barrel towards Prescott and ensuring that the gun was fully loaded with bullets. All the motor lobby and Britain's right-wing press then had left to do was to pull the trigger...

The cartoon below sums things up well. It's by David Brown and from The Independent sometime in 2000/2001. I wish I could get a good quality copy from somewhere!



By the way, not a lot of people who know this but, perhaps not unexpectedly, there were (and probabaly remain) many close links between those in the roads lobby and the NLP ('New Labour Project'). For example, Andrew Pharoah, who worked for the NLP as key member of their press team at Millbank tower prior to their first election victory, was formerly the press officer of the British Road Federation. (A once very powerful pro roads and car use lobby group now absorbed into the CBI).

I never underestimate how far the road lobby virus has insinuated itself into the hardware. A conspiracy theorist would make much of the fact an overweight, jag loving, mind-speaking, populist was given the job of fronting a new vision for civilised roads but if it looks like a c*ck up it probably is. Have I Got News For You cut to the chase most efficiently.

Since Ernest Marples gave his wife his road building company shares to ensure Complete Neutrality while getting Beeching to prune the rough edges of the railway back to a stump, petro-industrialists have called the agenda. It'll take more than Guardian breast beating to fix that wormhole.

Given British society the only way cyclists will ever be treated with more respect is if Britain becomes a more inclusive, equitable and less status-orientated society (the opposite is happening) or if so many people take up cycling that cyclists themselves become a dominant social 'in group. Somehow I can't see that happening either.

Societal upheaval? The clippety-clop of the apocalyptic nag riders is more likely to be heard before the gunshots and arribas of Britain’s Zapatistas... There’s also not much likelihood that Her Majesty’s Government will have the cajones to really clobber the “motor voter”, or tackle the laughably and terminally inchoate public transport system. That said, the increasing number of cyclists in the UK provides a glimmer of hope that pedal-power will command greater respect…