In the past I've asked grown up pavement cyclists "Why are you riding your bike on the path?", in the foolish expectation of getting a straight answer. The politest response has been "get a life", I'll spare you some of the others. There are some questions that the very act of asking can't help but sound judgmental.
In the light of this experience I realised that in some contexts it just isn't worth asking the question. For example, a group I chaired once tried to conduct a survey among public sector employees about how they currently undertook short journeys. We tried to keep it as value neutral as possible but the simple act of asking meant that we were clearly coming from a particular perspective. Some of the group's members wanted to ask some direct questions about why people didn't use bikes for short journeys but I resisted this on the grounds that I knew what answers we'd get: It's too hilly, the weather's too bad, there aren't any changing rooms at work... All of these could be correct (i.e true) answers from someone who'd actually tried it for a month or so but, in the context of the rest of the questionnaire and its implied criticism of not walking or cycling, I knew that all we'd get were conventional excuses.
Now it turns out, from research done by people who are better at getting straight answers, that the initial barriers to getting more UK citizens on their bikes are social. When most people see a grown up on a bike it seems that their initial assumptions are that the person is a) too poor to drive , b) making a lycra bound statement about their athleticism or c) just plain eccentric. When I put these finding to fellow cyclists they were usually happiest with being just plain eccentric.
So, one of the challenges facing those of us who want to get more people on their bikes, for the sake of their own health as well as that of the wider environment, is to make it normal.
Now I've had a surprising number of dealings with fairly senior police officers in recent years and can honestly say that, for the most part and probably thanks to the Open University, they're a much more enlightened bunch than might be expected. Whether the same can be said for the ranks remains moot. So I was surprised to read that comments of the Chief of the Metropolitan Police in the light of the recent spate of cycle deaths in London.
As reported in The Guardian
In the light of this experience I realised that in some contexts it just isn't worth asking the question. For example, a group I chaired once tried to conduct a survey among public sector employees about how they currently undertook short journeys. We tried to keep it as value neutral as possible but the simple act of asking meant that we were clearly coming from a particular perspective. Some of the group's members wanted to ask some direct questions about why people didn't use bikes for short journeys but I resisted this on the grounds that I knew what answers we'd get: It's too hilly, the weather's too bad, there aren't any changing rooms at work... All of these could be correct (i.e true) answers from someone who'd actually tried it for a month or so but, in the context of the rest of the questionnaire and its implied criticism of not walking or cycling, I knew that all we'd get were conventional excuses.
Now it turns out, from research done by people who are better at getting straight answers, that the initial barriers to getting more UK citizens on their bikes are social. When most people see a grown up on a bike it seems that their initial assumptions are that the person is a) too poor to drive , b) making a lycra bound statement about their athleticism or c) just plain eccentric. When I put these finding to fellow cyclists they were usually happiest with being just plain eccentric.
So, one of the challenges facing those of us who want to get more people on their bikes, for the sake of their own health as well as that of the wider environment, is to make it normal.
Now I've had a surprising number of dealings with fairly senior police officers in recent years and can honestly say that, for the most part and probably thanks to the Open University, they're a much more enlightened bunch than might be expected. Whether the same can be said for the ranks remains moot. So I was surprised to read that comments of the Chief of the Metropolitan Police in the light of the recent spate of cycle deaths in London.
As reported in The Guardian
Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe initially told a radio show that while he understood why people cycled if they could not afford to drive or use public transport, it would not be his preference.
"Of course some people don't have the choice, economically it's not easy you know. If you've got someone who can't afford to take a car into the congestion zone – if they did, you can't park it anyway," he said.
"Some people, they've got limited money and they can't pay for public transport. I understand why they take the choice. It wouldn't be mine."
The comments were widely criticised, prompting the commissioner to release a statement later "clarifying his position". He said he had expressed his "personal view as a non-cyclist".
Meanwhile I shall continue to imagine asking my house mates "why don't you just put a bit of water in the greasy frying pan and then put it aside to soak rather than dunking it in with the rest of the washing up so that it can spread its grease more evenly over everything else?"
Meanwhile I shall continue to imagine asking my house mates "why don't you just put a bit of water in the greasy frying pan and then put it aside to soak rather than dunking it in with the rest of the washing up so that it can spread its grease more evenly over everything else?"
No comments:
Post a Comment