Martin,
I think you're right, but I also think the effect might unfortunately
be a negative one. I can't help but feel that the hi-viz clothing does
indeed draw attention of the "oh, look, there's a cyclist" variety, but
at the same time I reckon this might increase the "us vs them" feeling
of many non-cyclists - the more cyclists look like a breed apart,
dressed in lycra and helmets (a uniform, as you say), the harder it is
for non-cycling people to identify with the group and so see themselves
doing that activity. Again, this is speculation based on nothing more
than my experience, but I do tend to make a point of cycling to work in
ordinary clothes for this reason...
Ian
-----
Dr Ian Walker,
Department of Psychology,
University of Bath,
Bath BA2 7AY,
England.
Tel: +44 (0)1225 383908
E-mail: [log in to unmask] (academic)
E-mail: [log in to unmask] (other matters)
Website: www.drianwalker.com
On 25 Feb 2006, at 13:29, Martin K Parkinson wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ian Walker" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 11:58 AM
> Subject: Re: widespread visible onroad cycle facilities
>
>
>> One possible interpretation of the increase
>> in cycling you refer to (and I throw this out as a thought rather than
>> hard fact) might be that the creation of cycle lanes doesn't
>> necessarily make people feel safer as such, but rather acts as a form
>> of advertising, regularly illustrating the potential to cycle and -
>> perhaps more importantly - demonstrating official approval of the act.
>
>> From personal anecdote, I think this might be true. As someone who
>> cycled
> (in london) in the early eighties and has recently returned to doing
> so, I
> certainly felt gladdened and encouraged by all the nice green lanes
> (although when I started using them, they did seem to have promised
> more
> than they delivered).
>
> To build a speculation on what is already a mere speculation, I wonder
> if
> there might be something similar going on with high-vis clothing. I've
> haven't worked through the research on conspicuity but I gather
> (please put
> me right if I've got this wrong) that there is by no means an
> inevitable
> chain of causality that goes "bright clothes - will be noticed by
> motorist -
> motorist takes extra care - cyclist will be safer" and that in some
> circumstances it might in fact go "semi-official-looking clothes -
> will be
> interpeted by motorist as indicating exceptional competence - motorist
> passes closer - cyclist slightly less safe".
>
> However, maybe the appearance of cyclists in a sort of specialised
> uniform
> (the high-vis jacket plus helmet and flashing lights) might act as an
> advertisement for the activity. All this extra kit does make cycling
> look a
> bit dangerous but by that very token it also makes it look both
> *exciting*
> and *serious* as a mode of transport - the sort of thing a grown-up can
> legitimately *choose* to do, and that is worth doing, not just a casual
> default for poor people (and people will make strenuous efforts not to
> appear poor).
>
> I certainly wouldn't advocate the increasing "formalisation" of
> cycling on
> these grounds and I do agree that if you start to feel that half a ton
> of
> kit is *necessary* it does put off more people than it attracts and
> should
> be resisted for that reason. But on the other hand, the flocks of
> flourescent cyclists who have recently appeared in london do sort of
> make me
> think "oh, that does look fun!".
>
>
> Martin Parkinson
> (www.parkinson.greenisp.org)
>
>
|