 |
 |
I definitely agree with Matthew's point that danger and perceived danger are not necessarily best measured by accident figures. For example, the usual response to a place felt to be dangerous is to take action in an effort to increase safety, which *should* have the effect of reducing accident figures, even though the danger remains constant. To take a most extreme example, if every cyclists feels that a particular road is very dangerous they will never use it, thereby zero accidents but still a very real danger! However, I do think the term "perceived danger" is a very useful and important one. The correlation between the actual risk at a particular site and the perceived risk is often going to be an imperfect one. Because perceived risk rather than "objective" risk is related to people's prophylactic behaviours, it is essential to consider perceived danger rather than actual danger. If people erroneously feel safe in a particular environment we need to know this, as they are likely to fail appropriately to protect themselves as a result. Similarly, if people incorrectly perceive a danger in a particular place, they may take protective measures which are objectively ill-advised (e.g., moving to a route which they perceive as safer but which is in fact more dangerous, such as a roadside cycle track which vastly increases the number of junctions they encounter!) 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 ** RETHINK PUBLISHING at Philica.com ** ----- On 24 May 2006, at 10:39, Matthew Page wrote: > I don't think we are necessarily disagreeing here, I was just trying to > draw the distinction between locations which have lots of accidents and > locations which are dangerous. > > For road users (cyclists) who are sensitive to danger and will adapt > their behaviour in response (by taking more care, taking a different > route or just not cycling), the two are not the same. > > I realise that people who change their behaviour in response to danger > are, of course, responding to their perception of danger, but I would > suggest that in many cases, their perception is more accurate than the > accident record. My objection to the phrase 'perceived danger' is that > it tends to suggest that it is just a problem of perception - there is > an understandable temptation to assume that road safety problems only > really exist where there is an accident record. > > Matthew > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of >> Oddy, Nicholas >> Sent: 23 May 2006 13:50 >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: Cycling risk/perception of risk[Scanned] >> >> 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 >>> >> > >