Cyclist antipathy

I think a lot of this would be fairly inconsequential - I don't really care hugely whether as a cyclist I am perceived poorly - but for the fact that the potential outcomes of interaction between cyclists and motorists are important. Risk of injury and worse increase pretty quickly as the amount of care that others take around us reduces slightly, so even a slight feeling of antipathy from those whom we are sharing roads can have really important consquences. Those stirring up and encouraging these feelings need to reflect on this an awful lot harder than they appear to be doing now.

Agree with much of the post.

My point is that it is important to distinguish between eg:

- trolls (Who inhabit parts of eg twitter, facebook and nextdoor),
- unthinking followers of the trolls,
- the readers of the trolls who may be convinced,
- those with platforms who are looking for personal or political advantage (eg Telegraph journos, Mr Poophole, IDS),
- those with real concerns which must be addressed not dismissed (eg visually impaired people who have been hit by people riding cycles, hacked e-cycles etc on footways),
- those who may have a point but need to be educated,
- those making ill-informed assumptions from lack of knowledge (eg who support broad-brush PSPOs that ban 'cycling' rather than implement appropriate enforcement on ASB),
- those who cannot see how they can credibly do less driving in 2024 given the state of the roads.
- those who have embraced pieces of conspiracy theories, or swallowed them wholesale.

And sometimes there are mixes of these. All that can give an ida of how particular people or groups can be influenced.

For example I'd see IDS and his allies as both ill-informed and ignirant, and proposing a measure that looks attractive to some who he wants to vote for him, but which is ill-conceived and will not work. Can any of his followers be influenced by proposing something better, rather than saying "nah nah nah" and dancing on his political grave? How much of this is is fear or silo thinking rather than dedicated ideological opposition? The former are easier to address imo.

In Change Management, different groups with different attitudes are addressed by different tactics eg encourage, engage and educate, emoliate, exclude, eviscerate - depending on the attitude, and the desired outcome.

I tend to block drive-by trolls on twitter, as irredeemable, but they may have readers who can be educated or convinced, or indeed may educate me.

There are imo useful ideas around these in how we handle public debate. 

The Telegraph need to be treated harshly because they are shit-shovellers who know exactly what they are doing, but their 'supprters' may have narrower real concerns which can potentially be stood down from "bloody cyclist - bash the lot", to something more focused. IDS can imo be treated as a soon-to-be-sunk-cost, who will leave a potentially-to-be-filled gap in the debate.

I think one area where good work has been done on social media is around demonstrating that a large majority of cyclists have insurance, for example.

There is a good presentation over at Active Travel Cafe by the leader of the Green Group in Darlington Council about the problems caused by timidity and conservatism amongst Officers and Councillors, and some tactics they have used. One is 'cycle safari' - putting a colleague on a cycle and getting them to do ordinary things eg "go and buy a loaf of bread from Tesco", aiming  to let them see in a mirror that their own policies are not serving elements of the community.

Worth a listen.
https://youtu.be/nw_gBxUx_ss?t=598

It's all about "othering" - seeing other people as outgroups, the binary opposite of you and people like you. So illegitimate versus legitimate road users. Reckless versus safe. Them not us. Freeloaders versus hard-working. 

It's all constantly reinforced by media, and a lack of empathy or understanding. You never will, nor do you want to, experience their point of view, because their view and experience is not valid. It leads to dehumanising the other.

Winston Churchill got it right when he abolished road tax, because as he said' motorists will believe they have moral ownership to  the roads'

The product of mainstream media click bait i.e. hate speech to identify an out group now that the law prevents their public disrespect and hatred of protected characteristics.

So they can't indulge their confirmation bias against your skin colour, race, sexuality, gender but heaven help you for the wrong choice of transport!

No, they haven't connected this to national success at Olympic level as thinking is a bit of an unwelcome imposition...

Anti-cycling bingo is a badge of ignorance, worn by the MSM and their audience.

Imagine not knowing how your tax is spent and why vehicle excise duty costs more for unsustainable vehicles...

There's a strong narcissistic tendency
Me! Me! Me! Me!
and sod the public good...

I honestly feel that it's very much a phenomenon that has grown and developed over the last 10/15 years. As a young adult in the eighties I never really heard peers ​grumble about people cycling and if they did it wasn't to the same levels as we hear today. Even when out on the bike in the seventies I never experienced close passes that have engrained themselves on my formative mind to a level that would put me off cycling.

As a middle aged man I do have experiences of shocking driving behaviours that I can drill down to the minuscule detail that are now permanently etched in my memory and have had days where I've been close to feck it,  I've had enough and I'm not going to put friends and family through the trauma of my not coming home because of some distracted or vindictive motorist. 

This antipathy has been driven mainly by various columnists over recent years with their uneducated rants and social media with yet even more uneducated posters who have convinced themselves that this information is carved in stone and believe it completely. It shows how persuasive some of the negative arguments have been. Many motorists have become more selfish, aggressive and impatient on the roads which flys in the face of my being taught the three c's of consideration, care and courtesy many years ago.

I once asked somebody if they were as nasty to other people as they were to those who cycled. They couldn't give me an answer. 

People have convinced themselves that people who cycle are the pariah of society and that they need taken down a peg or two  in the same way they've convinced themselves that there's also a war on the motorist with speeding fines, ICEs being phased out, LEZs being established, 15 minute cities  the list is endless.

I have occasionally seen people express the view that a bicycle is essentially a child's toy (much like a space hopper or pogo stick) and that no adult should use one. I don't think this view is particularly widespread though. There's no shortage of anger towards Deliveroo cyclists who are clearly cycling for work.

There was an article a while back on the BBC suggesting that cyclists are perceived as free-loading - not paying road tax, jumping queues, etc.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20130212-why-you-really-hate-cyclists

I don't think the angry drivers really think much beyond "cyclist in my way" even though their journey is mainly being delayed by all the other drivers.

I suspect that a lot of drivers feel very frustrated from driving in congested traffic and then see cyclists filtering past them, seemingly without a care in the world (I personally enjoy overtaking/filtering past drivers stuck in long queues). The lack of responsibility and expenses for cycling is also a likely antagoniser.

Quote:

Do some motorists dislike cyclists because they think our use of the roads is without a legitimate purpose? 

That's a red herring, IMO.

Many motorists dislike cyclists just because.  They dislike cyclists in normal clothing with panniers and the shopping just as much as a club ride of roadies in lycra.

I'm sure that's one reason.  The top ones I'm guessing are:

1) We're in the way.  Also - Schroedinger's cyclist - holding everyone up and going way too fast.  This points to:

2) Features of individual psychology - we seem to have low-level mechanisms for a) detecting "cheaters" and b) "us vs. them" / in-group and out group.

The first gets triggered by cyclists sharing the same spaces as others (road, shared use path) but not "playing by the same rules" e.g. on roads cyclists can filter ("undertake") cars and of course we "don't pay road tax" and ride through red lights.

In spaces shared with pedestrians cyclists can "cheat" by also choosing to ride on the road (pedestrians aren't going to walk there).  We are going faster for less effort and are reluctant to come to a complete stop.  (Cyclists are also fast and quiet - we maybe trigger an "alert! predator ambush!" response?)

Our "out group" triggers means that - at least while there are only a few "cyclists" in society - it's very easy to stereotype and misunderstand.  (This of course can affects anyone in some ways - "bloody BMW drivers" etc.)

On top of all that there may be cultural points - which may be useful for media / politicians to take advantage of which further shifts the dial.  So cars are associated with status / respectability / responsibility.  As you say - we have to drive; we're not doing it for fun you know!