Dave, if you take offence at the word "blinkered" I apologise, but I'm
rather fed up with research which tells us what we already know, when we
need application, not more research.  £936k could have been used for
something a lot more useful.

-----Original Message-----
From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Horton, Dave
Sent: 12 September 2011 08:55
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Please ignore cyclists, especially when they are telling you to
ignore cyclists...

Dear all

Of course I have a vested interest here, but I also strongly believe in the
accountabilities and responsibilities which come with the research
enterprise, and am very happy to debate (for so long as it's useful) the
value/s of the Understanding Walking and Cycling research.

Richard, I take offence at being labelled 'blinkered' - I went into 3 years
of research as a passionate cyclist and cycling advocate, but also one who
believes that research is vital to improving and broadening current
understandings. It is not at all 'blinkered' to be prepared to question,
challenge and perhaps change what you think/know (indeed, that is a key
hallmark of good research).

And our research has I think achieved some important things (whether or not
you like what we say is an altogether different matter):

- we have produced strong scientific evidence that the majority of people in
England are still far from jumping onto bikes, and for the range of reasons
why this is the case;
- we have discovered a good deal about the social-spatial unevenness of
attitudes to and practices of cycling;
- to some extent our research has undoubtedly corroborated "what everyone
already know" (about cycling in England), but scientific research does not
lose its value when it confirms the taken-for-granted (and practitioners and
policy-makers require a strong evidence base in order to defend and
legitimise their decisions).

I could go on, but I'll stop here. But if anyone wants to raise critiques
and/or has questions about the Understanding Walking and Cycling project,
I'm very happy to respond to them on this forum, if others are interested.

Best wishes

Dave Horton
(Researcher on the Understanding Walking and Cycling project)


-----Original Message-----
From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list on behalf of
Richard Burton
Sent: Mon 12/09/2011 08:19
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Please ignore cyclists, especially when they are telling you to
ignore cyclists...
 
I don't think it's harsh at all: everything I've read about what this
research "discovered" was well known already by all practitioners in the
field.

 

From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Richard Mann
Sent: 11 September 2011 23:45
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Please ignore cyclists, especially when they are telling you to
ignore cyclists...

 

On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 11:16 PM, Richard Burton
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

There would appear to be no limits to the stupidity of blinkered researchers
or their limited, unimaginative research.  Can whoever funded this ask for
their money back, especially if it was tax payers i.e. me.  £936,000 and
three years to produce this rubbish?

 

That's a bit harsh. The research has taught us a lot about how people think
about cycling and walking, in the absence of serious interventions to
facilitate them. 

 

I'm not convinced it cracks what we should do about it, but then it'd be
miraculous if it had. 

 

Maybe the next focus needs to be elsewhere, maybe into the gentle art of
taming motorists, or how the taming of motorists affects how people think
about cycling and walking.

 

(In the mean time, it would be helpful if the report was available in a pdf
that can be read on a Windows machine...!)

 

Richard