Dear all
I would also concur that it is 'perceived danger' from MOTOR traffic
that puts people off. It would be interesting to look at general
mobility behaviour and perceived danger of each mode. My hunch is that
motorists over estimate the dangers of cycling because the very fact
that they are aware of the potential dangers they pose to cyclists (or
not). Whereas in reality cyclists are much more able to cope with a
harassing hostile environment because of the coping mechanisms that they
develop through their very practice which in turn increases the very
practice itself. The problem is getting those fretful people to at
least engage with cycling practice in order to learn those coping
strategies - whether they are inclined to do so is another matter.
Tim Jones
Department of Planning
Oxford Brookes University
Oddy, Nicholas wrote:
>Surely 'perceived danger' is the right term for what you are describing?
>If statistics show that -er- 'actual' danger is found in places
>different from that which is believed to exist. In terms of cycling
>practice, I would propose that it is the perception of danger that puts
>many potential riders off, rather than any real danger riders expose
>themselves to. In my book, 'danger' is not a consequence of the
>inanimate. Danger to cyclists is almost entirely a consequence of human
>agency, rather than of the fixed environment, be it the agency of the
>cyclist or other road user or both.
>
>Nicholas Oddy,
>Historical & Critical Studies,
>Glasgow School of Art.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Matthew Page
>Sent: 23 May 2006 10:17
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Cycling risk/perception of risk[Scanned]
>
>Dear Richard,
>
>I am supervising an MSc student at the moment who is doing a
>questionnaire study comparing reported accidents, actual accidents and
>where cyclists report the danger to be in Sheffield. I'm sure she would
>be interested to discuss the work, I've copied her into this email.
>
>Incidentally, I think this is a much under researched area. Where users
>are likely to adapt their travel behaviour to road danger there is
>likely to emerge a significant difference between where the accidents
>happen and where the safety problems are. This probably doesn't affect
>car users much, but it is very significant for pedestrians and
>especially cyclists and possibly for this reason it's something that the
>traditional road safety establishment have been very slow to take on
>board. It was brought home to me most forcefully when I attended a
>discussion between the Council Officer who looked after accident
>statistics and active cyclists. Their assessments of where was most
>dangerous were completely different.
>
>Incidentally, I'm not sure "perceived" danger is the most appropriate
>term here. Just because a location doesn't have any accidents, it
>doesn't mean it isn't really dangerous - it might just be so dangerous
>no one would ever dream of cycling there!
>
>Very happy to discuss this in more detail if that would be useful,
>
>Matthew Page
>Institute for Transport Studies
>University of Leeds
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list
>>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Richard Jones
>>Sent: 21 May 2006 20:40
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Cycling risk/perception of risk
>>
>>Hi
>>
>>I am a Transport Planning student and keen cyclist. I doing a
>>quantitative research dissertation on cycling risk and
>>perseption of cycling risk on the cardiff road network. I
>>will survey as broad a spectrum of cycling groups as
>>possible. Is there anybody who has specific knowledge in this
>>field or has anybody actually created a questionnaire to
>>capture this data. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>>Richard
>>
>>
>>
|