“They don’t pay road tax, they block the road, they are inconsiderate, they overtake, they are bloody slow . . . I pay road tax, so I should have priority.”
That statement may sound like it was made by road.cc’s new friend Councillor Lawrence Abraham, but in fact it came from an unnamed motorist interviewed as part of a just-released Department for Transport-commissioned report into cycling safety and the attitudes of other road users towards cyclists.
The report, snappily titled, Safety, cycling and sharing the road: qualitative research with cyclists and other road users does not make for uplifting reading and will confirm what many cyclists already know to be the case, i.e. that some drivers view cyclists as inconveniences at best and a road-using underclass who shouldn’t be there at all, at worst (maybe "Oi Cyclist! Get off the road" might have been a more apt title - ed)
Tellingly, the report was released last Thursday with little attendant publicity indeed road.cc understands that a draft copy was prepared over a year ago, perhaps the DfT's reticence on the matter is because the report does paint such a depressing picture of the interface between cyclists and what it terms other road users (ORUs). Some of the main conclusions are:
• The evidence suggests a failure in the culture of road sharing, with a lack of consensus about whether, and how, cyclists belong on the roads.
• There was higher empathy for car drivers across all types of road user than for minority road users such as cyclists. There was also evidence of a stereotype of cyclists, characterised by failures of attitude and competence.
• Some infrastructure may create further room for disagreement about the norms of road sharing. Different types of cyclist also have differing, and potentially conflicting, needs from infrastructure.
• When it comes to encouraging cyclists to make themselves safer, it may be easier to promote visibility than helmet wearing. Promoting visibility could also be linked to the promotion of safer road-sharing.
• Cyclists in our groups used different behavioural approaches to manage perceived risks from ORUs, in the context of choices and limitations created by the bike.
• There were important attitudinal differences between adults and young cyclists. Children do not have experience of driving a motorised vehicle, and so lack an understanding of the perspective and needs of ORUs.
• Cyclists and ORUs explained the failures of road sharing in different ways, ranging from acts of aggression to failures of expectation or other situational factors.
The CTC said the report genuinely sheds light on detailed issues that are normally only dealt with in broad brush strokes.
“We feel this is a balanced report with the author taking a nuanced, well thought-out approach that is helpful in reflecting motorists’ attitudes towards cyclists,” said Chris Peck, the CTC’s Policy Coordinator. “It goes further than just casualty and collision figures, providing useful qualitative data that will assist us in influencing Government attitudes towards cycling in future.”
You can download a copy of the report here.
Add new comment
37 comments
How much did they spend on this report?- I could have told them this for half the price.
There are plenty of idiots on two wheels too. I was at a crossing with my kids and stepped out when the green man showed, only yto have to dodge out the way of two morons on fixed wheel bikes who had decided they didn't have to stop at the red light like all the other road users. I'm a keen cyclist and I ride a lot and have come close on occasion to a serious accident caused by a bad driver. But I also see the other side of the picture and some cyclists get us all a bad name.
Maybe the bus driver made a mistake but I guess you see quite often cycling there.
You're right about a hole drivers but I've seen some a hole cyclists too who don't even realise they are cycling prats!
The bus driver slowed down behind the ASL and then slowly crept into it. There was nobody behind us, the lights had been red for at least 15 seconds. Plenty of time to stop behind it. That was not an honest mistake.
The worst and mean drivers I see cycling in London are bus drivers and white van drivers. Taxi drivers, despite their awful reputation, I find them the best drivers.
We live in a motorized society, where people are bombarded 24/7 with car advertising, said advertisers still call VED road tax, perpetrating over and over the myth that motorists pay for the right to use the roads. We can go on and on about how that is not true until we are blue in the face. But then the TV says "pay less road tax". Who are they going to pay attention to?
And another thing is that drivers behave like assholes becuase they know they get away with it. Nobody has had their license taken away when reported for harrassment, even when video footage is available. Look at the van driver convicted this week thanks to the helmet cam of the cyclist that reported him. That scumbag should have had his license removed. Next time the only thing he will look out for is that the cyclist he will try to run off the road doesn't have a camera.
I had a run in with a bus driver this morning, at London Bridge. I was waiting at the lights, in the ASL, when this bus creeps up next to me. I told the driver that he shouldn't have stopped inside the ASL. "I know", the bastards says! Regardless of the legality of it (ASL's should be treated the same as a zebra crossing), it shows a hostile attitude to other vulnerable road users that somebody that is a) offering a service to the public and b) driving a 50ton vehicle should not be allowed to have! Even when I pointed at my camera, he said "I know". Complaints are not even taken seriously by TFL, who behave like a protection racket for people like this driver.
These kind of attitudes are acceptable, pissing off cyclists is acceptable, is seen as a bit of fun by society, the powers that be, the system, whatever.
On use of helmets, there is a growing (wrong) perception that helmets are compulsory and somehow not wearing one means the cyclist is automatically contributing to their downfall or injury, which isn't the case.
How about this for an anecdote - either meaning lost in editing, regurgitating what the police reported (?) or a misconception that the lack of helmet really is a material fact. (already taken up with the paper btw)
http://bit.ly/cIx03V (Wales Online)
Well that's a surprise, not.
Pages