This interesting British paper, http://thinkingaboutcycling.wordpress.com/article-fear-of-cycling/ shows how fear may be the major obstacle that we must overcome but ironically, some of the things we're doing can actually create fear.
Here are a couple quotations to whet your whistle.
" three ways in which cycling is constructed as dangerous, and thus a contemporary fear of cycling is produced; road safety education, helmet promotion campaigns, and the increasing separation of cycling from motorised traffic. The irony, of course, is that these interventions are responses to a fear of cycling, clearly aimed at increasing cycling’s safety. But I will demonstrate how, contrary to intentions, each intervention actually tends to exacerbate fear of cycling, and sometimes literally invokes it in order to promote the ‘solution’.
On education: "The transformation of streets for people into roads for cars, perhaps inevitably, produced death and injury. By 1936 concerns about the alarming rise in cyclist casualties had led to the idea of a cycling proficiency scheme, eventually adopted nationally in 1948 (CTC 2005). To stem the carnage, cyclists must be trained to deal with the new, dangerous conditions. But things could have been otherwise. A 1947 book by J. S. Dean, former Chairman of the Pedestrians’ Association, is instructive here. In his ‘study of the road deaths problem’, Murder Most Foul, Dean’s basic tenet is that, ‘as roads are only “dangerous” by virtue of being filled with heavy fast moving motor vehicles, by far the greatest burden of responsibility for avoiding crashes, deaths and injury on the roads should lie with the motorist’ (Peel n.d., 3). Yet road safety education concentrates not on the drivers of vehicles, but on those who they have the capacity to kill. Dean saw how placing responsibility for road danger on those outside of motorised vehicles might lead, by stealth, to placing of culpability on those groups, and Murder Most Foul is a tirade against the placing of responsibility for road accidents on children."
Anybody want to discuss this or other related topics over beer at Jay's Thursday after the BB meeting?
Frank
The more I read, the more I find that there are not just one or two solutions.
It's like it's a three-sided coin. Every side has it's proponents and "data" to back it up. Each side has it's downsides. Vehicular cycling, separate facilities, merging facilities. Reading through the American Bicyclist and listening in on the LCI forum there are just too many ways to skin that duck.
So Nick was right all along...
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 6:50 PM, Frank Gmeindl frank.gmeindl@comcast.net wrote:
This interesting British paper, http://thinkingaboutcycling.wordpress.com/article-fear-of-cycling/ shows how fear may be the major obstacle that we must overcome but ironically, some of the things we're doing can actually create fear. Here are a couple quotations to whet your whistle. " three ways in which cycling is constructed as dangerous, and thus a contemporary fear of cycling is produced; road safety education, helmet promotion campaigns, and the increasing separation of cycling from motorised traffic. The irony, of course, is that these interventions are responses to a fear of cycling, clearly aimed at increasing cycling’s safety. But I will demonstrate how, contrary to intentions, each intervention actually tends to exacerbate fear of cycling, and sometimes literally invokes it in order to promote the ‘solution’. On education: "The transformation of streets for people into roads for cars, perhaps inevitably, produced death and injury. By 1936 concerns about the alarming rise in cyclist casualties had led to the idea of a cycling proficiency scheme, eventually adopted nationally in 1948 (CTC 2005). To stem the carnage, cyclists must be trained to deal with the new, dangerous conditions. But things could have been otherwise. A 1947 book by J. S. Dean, former Chairman of the Pedestrians’ Association, is instructive here. In his ‘study of the road deaths problem’, Murder Most Foul, Dean’s basic tenet is that, ‘as roads are only “dangerous” by virtue of being filled with heavy fast moving motor vehicles, by far the greatest burden of responsibility for avoiding crashes, deaths and injury on the roads should lie with the motorist’ (Peel n.d., 3). Yet road safety education concentrates not on the drivers of vehicles, but on those who they have the capacity to kill. Dean saw how placing responsibility for road danger on those outside of motorised vehicles might lead, by stealth, to placing of culpability on those groups, and Murder Most Foul is a tirade against the placing of responsibility for road accidents on children." Anybody want to discuss this or other related topics over beer at Jay's Thursday after the BB meeting? Frank _______________________________________________ Bikeboard mailing list Bikeboard@cheat.org http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/bikeboard
-
Frank Gmeindl -
Gunnar Shogren