Earlier I started writing a series of blog posts about cycling safety. I let it slide but now I’m back on topic.
What I wanted to discuss in this post is the question of whether cycling advocates should talk about/campaign on safety issues?
There is a broad spectrum of opinion on this issue. Some advocates believe that we shouldn’t really talk about the fact (PDF) that cycling has a higher accident rate than other transport modes. Instead we should emphasize all the positive aspects of cycling instead.
These advocates feel that the media does enough to make cycling seem risky and, so, as promoters of cycling, we shouldn’t discuss cycling safety. I can see their point of view but, at the same time, I don’t really agree.
First, I think if we’re trying to convince the public that cycling is safe then this is an uphill battle for two reasons.
1)Â The public already believes that cycling is risky. Perceived lack of safety is the main reason New Zealanders cite for not taking up cycling (PDF) or letting their children cycle (PDF). Advocates just don’t have the money or resources to run effective advertising campaigns to balance out the effects of all the negative media coverage of cycling accidents. Only the government and councils have the money to do this type of social marketing initative.
2) The actual experience of cycling in most of Auckland doesn’t feel safe because we have heavy traffic, high vehicle speeds and inadequate cycling infrastructure. There are exceptions (like the North-Western) but in most cases people (especially novice cyclists) are going to feel at risk at least some of the time riding in Auckland. It doesn’t matter how good your marketing campaign is if somebody gets on a bike and rides through the Newton Gully and gets freaked out.
Personally, I think that cycling advocates should use cycling crash rates as a campaign tool. We should use the relatively high risk of cycling as a way to pressure the government and councils into investing more into cycle infrastructure and lowering speeds on local roads.
The media loves to spin cycling crash stories as a conflict between motorists and cyclists – “Who was at fault? Who’s to blame?” That’s because the media likes conflict because it sells. But, instead, we should try to make it clear that this is a conflict between all New Zealanders (who want to be safe on our roads) and the government who is failing to provide us with the funding or legislative environment we need to share the road safely.
What do you think about campaigning on cycle safety – should we do it? Or is it better for advocates to focus on the positive side of cycling only?
OK, I'll bite: My general view is try not to proactively highlight safety issues to the public (plenty of other positive things to focus on) but do make sure that the relevant authorities are aware of your safety concerns in your private discussions with them.
DON'T ever say to anyone that cycling here is UNSAFE – sorry, but when you have to cycle on average for more than 27,000hrs before suffering even an injury of note in NZ it's not a dangerous pursuit (and I haven't even mentioned the health benefits). And terms like "safe" and "unsafe" are meaningless anyway – show me ANY activity that is 100% safe.
You're welcome ask authorities to try to make cycling SAFER; we'd all like a more pleasant cycling environment. But don't justify this on the "fact" that cycling is less safe than other modes – that's not comparing apples with apples. E.g. we know that 12 year-olds can be pretty impulsive and inattentive when biking around – what would they be like if we let them drive as well? And how can we compare motoring crash rates that include a lot of safe motorway driving with cycling when we don't have any segregated "cycle motorways"?
That was basically the CAN/BikeNZ approach to last November's "fatal five": focus on what could be done better, but don't imply it's a deathwish to bike. Meanwhile in the background, discussions with MoT/NZTA saw some funding to help develop cycle training, road user workshops, and "share the road" promotions.
it's a short term/long term thing, it's easier for the individual to focus on an immediate "today" risk vs. a long term "way out there" benefit
Meyer Hillman's study for the British Medical association showed the long term health benefits of regular exercise outweighed the short term risk of a crash by 20:1
part of the problem is the compartmentalised model of government funding, spending in transport to save in health doesn't come into their equasion and for local government those savings aren't seen at all
Warning: printf() [function.printf]: Too few arguments in /home/unityfinesmith/cyclingauckland.co.nz/wp-content/themes/yvora/hades_framework/helper/Helper.php on line 224
Am feeling a bit emotionally bruised at the moment after twice being bullied by motorists when cycling in the last couple of days. We have a long way to go in achieving peaceful coexistence on our congested, stress filled road corridors. I am still waiving thanks when I hold up a car and trying to smile through those close encounters with the 4wheeled kinds.
We have the opportunity to keep putting pressure on Council through submitting on the Auckland Plan. Page 169 gives goals for the next three decades. 2011-2020 the goal is to complete 70% of the "regional cycle network" with completion not being until the next decade seems little progress. Not sure what is meant by the "regional cycle network". We must get clearer commitments and completion of an agreed on network much sooner than planned. We (Puketapapa Local Board) are adding another kilometre of off road cycleway to the net work in Mt Roskill shortly.
When Robert S McNamara (yes the same one) was president of Ford and introduced the safety belt, the other manufacturers loved it – while he was promoting the unsafe nature of his cars, the others could sell the glamour and aspiration for theirs.
Bikes need to do the same – sell the positives. No product or service gets sold by highlighting the drawbacks. In fact, most marketers go out of their way not to talk about them.
The problem is that the advocates who are vocal about cycling are cyclists and they tend to represent existing cyclists. Talking about safety is good for existing cyclists because it will make the activity we already do safer. But for those who do not cycle, who might consider cycling, it says 'cycling is dangerous'. It is a reason not to bother.
And if more people cycle, the drivers become more aware of cycling and learn how to deal with it. It becomes safer. Evidence from around the world shows that. The question isn't "do we talk safety?" it is "what do we need to talk about to encourage more people to cycle?"
@Paul Spot on. The car industry doesn't tell us that it costs them 2 hours of work a day to pay for this transport choice. And that's just the cost to the individual. No environmental costs included in that.
http://www.theurbancountry.com/2011/05/americans-work-2-hours-each-day-to-pay.html#comment-336279447
Neither do they tell us that 3000 people a day thru out the world are killed in car related accidents.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10759481