Cyclecraft is "destroying" UK cycling

[blockend]

As I said, statistics are important to statisticians. The rest of the world is moved by more instinctive responses. The truth of that is shown after the London transport bombings, where a tide of public transport users decided to ride bicycles instead. Statistically the chance of being blown up by a fundamentalist terrorist on a bus or tube is infinitesimally small as a proportion of journeys made, and much lower than meeting your end by other means. Nonetheless, irrational fear got more people on bikes than millions of pounds of campaigning, advertising and tax breaks.

If statistics alone held sway there's been sufficient evidence of cycling's health giving properties, its relative safety among experienced riders and its cost effectiveness to make riding a bike a no brainer for three decades at least. Yet despite the best efforts of statistically empowered campaigners three lunatics with a lot of press changed the ingrained habits of a lifetime.
I sincerely believe there's a huge over-reliance on data for campaigning purposes in the misguided belief that they're superior to fashion and passion.

 

[jonesy]

So how do we know what to campaign for?

 

[theclaud]

So how do we know what to campaign for?

I'm going with "free beer". Any takers?

 

[Dan B]

I sincerely believe there's a huge over-reliance on data for campaigning purposes in the misguided belief that they're superior to fashion and passion.

If you'd made that point in the first place I would probably have agreed with you. But just because you don't think statistics will win an argument, that's still no reason to invent entirely specious ones of your own

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

Statistics are unlikely to persuade anyone who isn't disposed to believe them. If they suit the political will of the moment they won't be required and if they don't no amount of data probability will swing the idea. Better to deal in emotion than stats if you want change.

Ah, now you are getting to the real point. The issue is not about statistics at all, which actually provide good solid evidence on which to base rational decision-making (certainly not "puff-pastry" as you said earlier); your (new) argument is that the majority of people are incapable of rational decision-making. I have to say that, given the success of the No campaign's lies and emotive BS against the Yes campaign's rational arguments in the AV referendum, I have no choice but to agree with you.

The miserable conclusion from that, though, is that the most we can hope for is to continue to have crap bits of paint daubed on our roads, which have no actual positive effect on safety, but do reinforce the belief of many motorists that cyclists should not be "in their way", and encourage a tiny number of people to take to their bikes, wobbling along in the gutter and getting killed or injured by left-hooking, side swiping and "SMIDSYing" motorists.

On the other hand, why not use good logical reasoning based on solid, well-founded statistical evidence to make decisions about how to organise our transport infrastructure, and emotive, political campaigning (but also supported by solid, well-founded statistical evidence) to encourage more people to take up cycling. You don't have to give people graphs and tables, just simple statements like "the evidence has shown that, for a given journey, you are more likely to be killed on foot than on a bicycle". Oh, and throw in a few pictures of horrific car-on-car RTIs for good measure.

 

[srw]

The other explanation that the insurance industry is full of bike friendly philanthropic actuaries is highly unlikely.

I do my best - but there's only one of me.





(For the hard of thinking - yes, of course I fulfil my professional obligations to my employer to the best of my ability. That was a joke.)

 

[dellzeqq]

That isn't how statistics are used. They're conceived, collected and disseminated by people with agendas to make their beliefs appear less arbitrary. I cycle because I'm bloody minded.......

respect!

 

[dellzeqq]

So how do we know what to campaign for?

surely we look at that which we're most familiar with, work out what kind of a town or city we'd like to live in and propose something that will, one hopes, help that come to pass....

https://www.cyclechat.net/

 

[dellzeqq]

Hmmm.....back to name-calling, are you?

that's not name-calling, that's fact. As for the rest....chip/shoulder

 

[blockend]

If you'd made that point in the first place I would probably have agreed with you. But just because you don't think statistics will win an argument, that's still no reason to invent entirely specious ones of your own

That's just internet arguing, point scoring presented as logic. My observations were apposite and informed. You may not agree but there's no point dissing it as illogical, people aren't logical about whether to ride a bike or not or almost everyone would. They're informed by other things as 7:7 illustrates. I'm surprised campaigners haven't caught on to the pleasure of cycling instead of 'cycling might not kill you' statistical arguments. The ones who have tend to get bums on saddles.

 

[Dan B]

I'm going with "free beer". Any takers?

Theclaud: putting the "hic" into vehicular cycling. Yeah, I'd vote for that one

 

[Red Light]

surely we look at that which we're most familiar with, work out what kind of a town or city we'd like to live in and propose something that will, one hopes, help that come to pass....

Nope, we'll never get the sun to keep shining in blue skies like there ;-)

 

[theclaud]

Theclaud: putting the "hic" into vehicular cycling. Yeah, I'd vote for that one

I'd have that as a sig line, if I wasn't so attached to DP's men-with-big-moustaches.

 

[Red Light]

As I said, statistics are important to statisticians. The rest of the world is moved by more instinctive responses. The truth of that is shown after the London transport bombings, where a tide of public transport users decided to ride bicycles instead. Statistically the chance of being blown up by a fundamentalist terrorist on a bus or tube is infinitesimally small as a proportion of journeys made, and much lower than meeting your end by other means. Nonetheless, irrational fear got more people on bikes than millions of pounds of campaigning, advertising and tax breaks.

If statistics alone held sway there's been sufficient evidence of cycling's health giving properties, its relative safety among experienced riders and its cost effectiveness to make riding a bike a no brainer for three decades at least. Yet despite the best efforts of statistically empowered campaigners three lunatics with a lot of press changed the ingrained habits of a lifetime.
I sincerely believe there's a huge over-reliance on data for campaigning purposes in the misguided belief that they're superior to fashion and passion.

You are mixing up statistics to guide you towards the best answer with change management methods to get people to go there. What you are proposing seems to be more geared to encouraging the MMR debacle because its what the people want.

I fully agree that change management is about fear, security and how to move people emotionally from where they are to where you want them to be. But where you want them to be should be evidence based in this arena.

The first thing we need to do though is get away from all the cycling is dangerous conversations such as you must wear hi-viz and a helmet, you must stay away from traffic...... and start talking about the positives instead. The airline industry doesn't talk advertise its safety record and measures (pre-flight demonstration excepted), even though it is extremely good, for a very good reason.

 

[Red Light]

You don't have to give people graphs and tables, just simple statements like "the evidence has shown that, for a given journey, you are more likely to be killed on foot than on a bicycle". Oh, and throw in a few pictures of horrific car-on-car RTIs for good measure.

Please no. This is where blockend is right. People will hear one word in that sentence - killed - and forget the rest. Just imagine how airline passengers would react if the pre-flight demonstration started with the reassurance that you were less likely to be killed on this flight than on the journey to the airport. Half the passengers would have the screaming habdabs