Fear of cycling

Coincidentally, I was just pointed to this excellent article:

http://thinkingaboutcycling.wordpres...ar-of-cycling/

A lot of what he says may sound familiar.

- Frank Krygowski

"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message
...
Coincidentally, I was just pointed to this excellent article:

http://thinkingaboutcycling.wordpres...ar-of-cycling/

A lot of what he says may sound familiar.

Fear? Mebbe in the abstract.
Heh, the length of this article is enough to strike fear....

The nitty-er gritty is that we have basically been mind****ed out of doing
*anything* productive, and part of our assessment of worth is, well,
horsepower -- of which, I am finding out, we are good for about 1/7th.
Heh, not even 1.0 hp.

You can essentially judge a culture by the entertainment it chooses.... our
doom started with game shows, continues with Reality TV, and proly the next
cultural tittylation will be PPV executions -- after all, we DO need the
revenue, right?

Having said all that, one legitimate fear is this:
If you didn't learn how to ride a bike as a kid, it will be
disproportionately difficult to learn as an adult -- and with much more
risk.
--
EA



- Frank Krygowski

On Mar 6, 7:32*pm, "Existential Angst" wrote:
Having said all that, one legitimate fear is this:
* * If you didn't learn how to ride a bike as a kid, it will be
disproportionately difficult to learn as an adult -- and with much more
risk.
--
EA

It`s the same with swimming and I would not be surprsed at the
coincidence

Frank Krygowski wrote:
Coincidentally, I was just pointed to this excellent article:

http://thinkingaboutcycling.wordpres...ar-of-cycling/

A lot of what he says may sound familiar.

"Yet this fear of cycling has been insufficiently analysed; many efforts
have been made to challenge it, but few to understand it."

Yes, you make many efforts to challenge it, yet few are successful.
Maybe it's because you don't understand it.

JS.

James wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:
Coincidentally, I was just pointed to this excellent article:

http://thinkingaboutcycling.wordpres...ar-of-cycling/

A lot of what he says may sound familiar.

"Yet this fear of cycling has been insufficiently analysed; many efforts
have been made to challenge it, but few to understand it."

Yes, you make many efforts to challenge it, yet few are successful.
Maybe it's because you don't understand it.

JS.

Shouldn't be so hard to understand. Here in Denmark there is no such fear
to speak of, and this is undoubtedly because there are cycleways almost
everywhere. Coming from Australia, where I acquired a set of defense
reflexes (mainly, trust no cars, they were basically out to get me), I am
always amazed at how car drivers here are careful of bikes and actually
wait for them to go past before making turns. No need to fear cycling here.

My son cycled in London for a year and reported how dangerous it was.
--
Dieter Britz (dieterhansbritzatgmail.com)

On 3/6/2011 4:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Coincidentally, I was just pointed to this excellent article:

http://thinkingaboutcycling.wordpres...ar-of-cycling/

A lot of what he says may sound familiar.

- Frank Krygowski

It's a rather broad (and wordy) dissertation. I found the
sociological/psychological parts interesting. I thought he soft-pedaled
the elephant in the room, which is motorist aggression and hostility
towards cyclists. Part of the intimidation factor is the awareness of
most cyclists of both the explicit hostility and willful negligence of
motorists and the general social tolerance (institutional and cultural)
for both. Given the stated orientation of the piece, I think the topic
got surprisingly scant coverage. Americans know they're increasingly
obese and unfit and we're in a precarious position with energy supplies
and ecological issues, but they're allowed to project, in the
psychological sense, their guilt for over-consumption into hostility for
the presumed smugness of cyclists, in the crudest form of social
backlash, yet he finds it unworthy of mention.

He presses the point of helmet promotion as a central plank of the
fearful cycling campaign, but doesn't recognize the virtually ubiquitous
promotion of helmets in other sports, and curiously and paradoxically,
finds the promotion and requirement of safety equipment in motor
vehicles to create an enhanced sense of safety there.

He cites Ken Kifer's web content about the over-estimation of cycling
dangers without revealing the fact that Kifer was killed by a motorist.

He does give rather thorough treatment to the trend over the decades to
ever more blame the victim in motor vehicle carnage. He accurately
describes the message being given to children as "be safe" rather than
"have fun", along with the stern contained implication that a failure of
safe behavior and its tragic consequences would almost always be the
fault of the child, despite evidence to the contrary. He does not make
the obvious connection to the basic premise, equally unsupported by the
facts, that vehicular cycling advocates make, which is despite the
touted safety of cycling, the virtually non-existent risks can be
virtually completely mitigated through modification of cyclist behavior,
consisting mostly of adhering to motoring principles. This oversight is
particularly glaring when he cites the infamous NYC study of cyclist and
pedestrian fatalities that found, unlike the "official" reports, nearly
100% motorist culpability. In short, he draws the dots but fails to
connect them.

In his treatment of the question of facilities, he reveals a curious
flip-flopping, potshots covered by a veneer of objectivity, as in his
opening sentence:

"Although often criticized and sometimes ridiculed (for example, see the
‘cycle facility of the month’ pages at
www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk; last accessed 4/2/07), at its best
this infrastructure aims to make cycling journeys more attractive;
quicker, easier, safer, more pleasant."

At least he doesn't highlight "safety" as the exclusive goal of
facilities, but he does feel compelled ("fair & balanced"?) to include a
link to an anti-facility rant site. He then goes on to develop his
primary thesis that facilities, like helmets, have the main effect of
making cycling appear dangerous. With a very indirect argument, he
raises the specter of facilities eroding cyclists rights to use the road
(the Forester phobia).

"In 2006, the draft of the revised Highway Code instructed cyclists to
use off-road routes wherever they exist. These planned revisions were
opposed by cyclists, led by CTC, but they nonetheless make clear how the
provision of ‘attractive’ alternatives produces the cyclist-on-the-road
as ever more out-of-place. New ideas of ‘normal’ are being produced, and
it is becoming less normal to see roads as appropriate places to cycle."

But it's even worse than that (according to him):

"It is also worth noting, for what is to follow, that spatial
re-allocation of cycling away from the road is shifting the object of
fear, from cycling to the cyclist. On off-road routes, the cyclist is no
longer so viscerally threatened and endangered, and instead becomes
perceived as the source of threat and danger to slower-moving, more
leisurely others. The source of fear shifts from the practice to the
practitioner."

His final section "Making Cycling Strange" is a curious one. He has a
rather long-winded and metaphorical justification for "taking the lane":

"The cultural acceptability of cycling’s spatial marginality,
particularly when combined with the cyclist’s stigmatised identity, is
highly consequential. It means that those cyclists who do not stick to
the margins, but either consciously or unconsciously attempt to ‘centre’
themselves, are experienced as threatening and unsettling, and are
demonised – most visibly and powerfully within the mass media."

This raises a fine point that's often skated over by vehicularists,
namely that taking the lane ****es off motorists (despite being legal
and sensible) as much or more than true moving violations. The author
continues with a reasonably accurate description of the scapegoat status
of cyclists and the mismatch of the currently auto-centric rules of the
road and cycling realities:

"This cyclist can execute a whole range of manoeuvres designed to take
short-cuts, avoid hold-ups and escape danger. It should be stressed that
many such movements, whether actually ‘illicit’ or simply unavailable to
people in cars, are risk reduction strategies, tactics developed by
cyclists to reduce conflicts and risks of collision with others. But
unlike road safety education, helmets and new cycling infrastructure,
many are not officially sanctioned and are therefore not regarded as
wholly legitimate. Those very same tactics which have enabled cycling to
survive as an urban practice can also therefore reinforce the cyclist’s
already stigmatised identity."

He neglects to mention the "vehicularists" insistence (despite evidence
to the contrary) that scofflaw behavior is more contributory to safety
than corresponding motorist or pedestrian behavior, or the lack of
justification for calling for "crack downs" for either safety or "image"
reasons, despite the popularity for that among vehicular advocates.

Finally, the most glaring omission, he sketches the following quickly:

"So here is another challenge to cycling as a marginalised practice and
the cyclist as a stigmatised identity. But this time it is not Critical
Mass or aberrant cyclists who, by moving from the margins to a more
central position, are issuing the challenge. It is governments. More
accurately, it is transport discourse and policy, which especially in
light of a range of social and environmental ‘problems’, is now pushing
cycling back towards ‘the centre’. UK Government transport policy (most
notably Transport for London) is recognising cycling as ‘a good thing’,
and making it clear that people should give cycling a go. The mass
media, albeit at its more progressive end, is also now representing
cycling in more positive terms."

That's about all the social justification he can describe to anchor the
whole long-winded article. If the future of cycling and it's hopeful
rise from its current ashes are based on a government turn-around on
cycling policy, what's the policy change driven by? Economics?
Aesthetics? He doesn't say, other than the vaguely, quoted to dodge any
literal meaning, used terms like "problems" and "a good thing". That is
a huge waffle, and the ultimate disappointment of the article.

What the automobile has led into is a kind of "tragedy of the commons".
Motor vehicles take up lots of space and force us into low density
development. For many years this was seen as a feature rather than a
liability by the social planning mainstream. In many ways, it still is.
There are economic consequences to low density patterns, but I feel that
the main problem with low density development is sociological rather
economic, which makes the omission of this facet by a sociologist more
than a little surprising.

In the end, we are predominantly social creatures. The technology which
allows us to spread out finally forces us to, and replaces formerly
vibrant shared spaces with mere transport corridors. Choice becomes
impossible as options for high density living become increasingly
impractical. The reason that so many urban planners and administrations
are now embracing cycling is that it provides a new option for the kind
of high density environment under their stewardship. The elephant in the
room is density. This is why Northern European cities have led the way,
they have older, denser communities, founded long before the
technology-driven spreading. Formerly seen as quaint, charming
anachronisms (look, windmills and bicycles!), they are now regarded as
in many ways more desirable places to live, work and recreate. At least
those citizens have options, we don't.

I worry that, with 95% of US cycling being recreational, that the
"renaissance" will just be a fad. I have nothing against recreational
cycling -- I'm one myself -- but I realize how confident you can feel,
especially in a pack of equally well fitted out cohorts, and at the same
time how quickly such confidence can fade when you're grinding out a wet
dark commute in a sea of cars & trucks without another cyclist in sight.
It's not easy being green.

Utility cycling, which I prefer to think of as "community cycling"
doesn't only have a good match to the high density city, it also well
supports the "village" model, where there's a town center surrounded by
outlying residences. This presumes practical destinations in the center
for work, school, play and commerce. As towns have decentralized, many
services, shopping and schools have moved out to spacious lots, strip
malls and big box stores on the ring roads, leaving little more in the
center than a hollow shell. With a 1% trip mode share, I don't expect
cycling to play any part in changing that, nor without re-population of
the center do I expect there to be much reason to expect utility cycling
to grow beyond its minuscule level.

For the above reasons, I don't expect community cycling to have a
significant effect on energy or emissions issues. I don't expect it to
much to do with national car usage, either. Where it's likely to have
the most potential for growth and change is in the densest communities.
Unfortunately, those communities have typically struggled for decades
trying to cope with the changes that motorized technology brought.
Merchants and employers have fought to make downtowns more accessible to
suburban commuters. Mayors have pandered to auto interests and resisted
sharing or relinquishing space. What's been a sea change in recent years
is a new open-mindedness to the idea that cycling may connect local
residents with local work and services, improving quality of life and
attracting new residents. Cities are more being seen as places to live
(if only for part of your life) rather than places just to visit. For
these pragmatic reasons, I see promotion of cycling to be important in
that kind of area, and facilities as being instrumental to that promotion.

On Mar 7, 11:19*am, Peter Cole wrote:

...
read more »

I won't attempt to respond point-by-point to such a lengthy post, one
that exceeded Google's length limit. And I don't want you to think I
disagreed with everything you said. We definitely agree on certain
points. I just want to make two or three comments.

First, keep in mind this blog is in essence a distillation of some of
the information contained in the book _Cycling and Society_. Rather
than saying "He left this out," perhaps you should read what else
he's written. No one article can cover everything. (And in fact, he
actually did mention some of what you claim he omitted.)

Second, you persist in misrepresenting vehicular cycling and its
proponents - or at least, most of them. Really, if you're going to
attack claims by those who advocate riding as competent vehicle
operators, it would help to stick to the claims that are real. That
might best be done by attacking them when and where they actually
appear in print.

Of course, there are few opportunities for you to actually do that,
because the statements you claim to rebut either remain correct, or
don't generally exist in real life.

Beyond that: Yes, it's a long, serious article, and somewhat
complicated. It's gotten favorable comments in some other cycling
forums. Those who are serious about learning something about cycling
and society might want to read it, and perhaps even dig into some of
the references he cites.

- Frank Krygowski

On 3/7/2011 1:25 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Mar 7, 11:19 am, Peter wrote:

...
read more »

I won't attempt to respond point-by-point to such a lengthy post, one
that exceeded Google's length limit. And I don't want you to think I
disagreed with everything you said. We definitely agree on certain
points. I just want to make two or three comments.

First, keep in mind this blog is in essence a distillation of some of
the information contained in the book _Cycling and Society_.

I now see that buried in a response to a comment on an article that he
had intended to include the article as a chapter. He did not mention the
book in the "about me" section of the blog, nor cite it in the extensive
footnotes. I had no idea he wrote a book. After locating it at Amazon,
at $100, I doubt that I'll read it.

Rather
than saying "He left this out," perhaps you should read what else
he's written. No one article can cover everything. (And in fact, he
actually did mention some of what you claim he omitted.)

Not likely, see above.


Second, you persist in misrepresenting vehicular cycling and its
proponents - or at least, most of them. Really, if you're going to
attack claims by those who advocate riding as competent vehicle
operators,

I do not. I attack vehicular cycling as a bad philosophy leading to all
kinds of cycling dead ends, and I've corrected you on this charge many
times in the past.

it would help to stick to the claims that are real. That
might best be done by attacking them when and where they actually
appear in print.

I might rebut that if you were more specific. I did you the service of
reading your selected very long article and composing a very long and
specific response. You might do likewise instead of tossing an offhand
vague remark. You can rant at length after all.


Of course, there are few opportunities for you to actually do that,
because the statements you claim to rebut either remain correct, or
don't generally exist in real life.

See above.


Beyond that: Yes, it's a long, serious article, and somewhat
complicated. It's gotten favorable comments in some other cycling
forums. Those who are serious about learning something about cycling
and society might want to read it, and perhaps even dig into some of
the references he cites.

Frank, you're too much. Have you no shame at all?

On Mar 7, 9:19 am, Peter Cole wrote:

He cites Ken Kifer's web content about the over-estimation of cycling
dangers without revealing the fact that Kifer was killed by a motorist.


Does he mention Kifer's finding, contrary to his biases and
expectations, that riding a bike is much, much more likely, per-hour
or per-mile, to result in injury than driving a car?

Frank Krygowski wrote:

Coincidentally, I was just pointed to this excellent article:

http://thinkingaboutcycling.wordpres...ar-of-cycling/

A lot of what he says may sound familiar.

- Frank Krygowski


I didn't even think of that fear when younger

But now that I'm older... I think abt it all the time!!

Especially since people text, eat, read...and do
everything BUT drive in their cars now!