CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
Pictures of people on bikes
(25 posts)-
Posted 12 years ago #
-
Sad, but a pretty accurate representation of the current attitude :-(
Posted 12 years ago # -
OK going to play devils advocate here since I don't really like the angle the blog is trying to play.
Question: If instead of the last picture, there was one of people dressed in normal clothes with not a helmet or hiviz in site, would that mean we could draw the opposite conclusion and say that the image of cycling hasn't changed in 50 years? If not why does the DFT picture spell doom and gloom?
The use of illustrations for everything except the last one strikes me as rather manipulative. The 'angle' I was referring to is the usual one about how apparently 50 years ago we were a cycling paradise but now allegedly nobody can venture out without being wrapped in luminous body armour. If we run with the logic of the blog again we can completely change the conclusion merely by choosing whatever picture suits the argument we want to make. I'm a product of the 90s so if cycling really was better in the 60s/70s/80s then I will take that on faith from someone who actually lived through it. But you won't convince me by putting on the rose tinted specs and showing me a book cover from 1950.
I'll put my cards on the table here: I wear a helmet if I'm going to be riding open roads. No point if I'm just scooting along the canal for 10 minutes. I won't accuse anyone who doesn't wear a helmet of being dangerous or reckless. Heck with the summer finally being here I'm considering ditching it more often. As for hiviz, by default I don't bother as it's just overkill on most days, including the DFT picture I have to say. On a wet, dull evening though, when the light fades and contrast drops, I'll put on flashing lights and hiviz though. Funny that on those sorts of evenings all the 'normal' cyclists with ordinary clothes are nowhere to be seen. If you want to sell the image of cycling as being reserved for sunny days and quiet roads that's fine by me but it's not the whole story.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Next step for the DFT picture - add headcams to them all
Posted 12 years ago # -
Question: If instead of the last picture, there was one of people dressed in normal clothes with not a helmet or hiviz in site, would that mean we could draw the opposite conclusion and say that the image of cycling hasn't changed in 50 years? If not why does the DFT picture spell doom and gloom?
I don't think the blog is trying to say exactly what you think it is. I don't think it's suggesting any of the pics represent reality, but that they show the attitudes of the people in charge of commissioning/making/approving them.
Slightly unrelated, but I really like the "Streets are for people poster". It doesn't really say who should be remember their manners, it just suggests everyone should.
Posted 12 years ago # -
OTOH, I imagine pictures of people driving cars from that period might well show them smoking & not wearing a seatbelt, so I rather think the point is a trifle tendentious.
Posted 12 years ago # -
In addition to which I would be interested to see what sort of fluorescent, light weight cycling gear you think a cyclist from the '50's would be wearing? The earlier shots don't show them listening to iPods either. Wonder why that is?
Posted 12 years ago # -
I clearly am a child of the 70s - I love the image on that stamp/postcard.
Posted 12 years ago # -
"I don't think the blog is trying to say exactly what you think it is. I don't think it's suggesting any of the pics represent reality, but that they show the attitudes of the people in charge of commissioning/making/approving them."
Exactly that.
Posted 12 years ago # -
"The use of illustrations for everything except the last one strikes me as rather manipulative"
I suspect it's more that in the 50s, 60s and 70s illustrations were used for book covers and information posters more often than photos; whereas in the 2000s we see photos used for everything and good illustration (sadly) not used anywhere near as much.
I suspect it would be very difficult to find a report from the DfT published in the last 10 years that used an illustration rather than a photo; and equally if you hunt through cycling publications from the 50s, from adverts to information boards, you'd struggle to find photos.
So not so much manipulative as simply a consequence of the passing of time and changing fashions.
Definitely more just an 'attitudes towards cycling' post, probably (personally I don't like blog posts that only rely on a few images and a couple of short sentences that the writer thinks makes them insightful....)
Posted 12 years ago # -
In 1971 people in the UK cycled 4bn kilometres. In 2011 people in the UK cycled 5bn kilometres. Figures from TSGB0101:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/71279/tsgb-2012.pdf
In 1971 some 411 cyclists were killed on UK roads, with 111 being killed in 2010. Figures from DfT Road Accident Statistics table 40007. The early 70's also had the highest incidence of cyclist deaths per bn kilometers cycled. Truly horrific statistics.
We might no longer have the nice illustrations, but we are less likely to die while we are out on the road. Progress, I would argue.
Posted 12 years ago # -
To be honest the message I got from the blog was 'here's what cycling was like 20/30/40 years ago as shown by these illustrations....and here's what it's like now as shown by this photo...now recoil in horror at the sight of hiviz!'. I can see how that's maybe not the angle it was going for but that's how I read it. Kind of hard to extract any deep meaning given the scarce comments.
It just irked me a bit since much as I'd like there to be a big conspiracy at the DFT for us to blow open, it's much more likely that whoever composed the 'publication' did nothing more than find the nearest stock photo of some people on bikes and put it in. Again, had that photo been of somebody cruising a cyclepath looking normal there'd be no blog praising the DFTs progressive attitude to depicting casual cyclists.
Incidentally I'd like to see what 'publication' the photo appears in so we can see the actual context of it.
Posted 12 years ago # -
"In 1971 some 411 cyclists were killed on UK roads, with 111 being killed in 2010"
"
Cycling Science (@CyclingScience1)
01/06/2013 20:21
Get off the road! NZ study calculates 66 on-road cycling crashes per 1000 person-years, but only 50 off-road"
Posted 12 years ago # -
We might no longer have the nice illustrations, but we are less likely to die while we are out on the road. Progress, I would argue.
Or not. It depends on whether you think the nice illustrations contributed to the lower risk of death we now enjoy; by normalising and raising awareness of cyclists.
There is the argument that too many images of cyclists over equipped puts people off cycling, which in turn means less cyclists, and less money for infrastructure, and less awareness or interest in keeping cyclists safe. Which would result in an increase in the risk of deaths on the road in the future.
Obviously it all gets very, very tenuous, very quickly.
Fortunately, however, this is the internet and "very, very tenuous" is basically the same as peer reviewed scientific paper in terms of validity.
Posted 12 years ago # -
It is interesting to note in this thread no mention has been made of places where cycling is normal. You only have to cross the North Sea in order to see people cycling in normal clothes with out fear.
It is also notable these places you are less likely to be run down and killed by motor vehicles, as a pedestrian, as well cyclist. If you are really interested in how to make ride a bike normal come to the talk on Bicycle Culture by Design, it will be worth it.
Posted 12 years ago # -
"
....
In 1971 some 411 cyclists were killed on UK roads, with 111 being killed in 2010
....
We might no longer have the nice illustrations, but we are less likely to die while we are out on the road. Progress, I would argue.
"<devils advocate>Perhaps this is because of helmets and hi-viz, and the DfT is correct in advocating hi viz?</devils advocate>
Posted 12 years ago # -
Or perhaps it is because of driver education/enforcement, or better lights, or the invention of scotchlite and it's addition to non-hi-vi clothing, or global warming or..... some other reason that no-one can conclusively prove? ;-)
Don't misunderstand me, I have nothing against Hi-viz, in fact if you can introduce me to the person/team whi invented scotchlite then the drinks will be on me, I think it's one of the greatest road safety aids ever invented, however I digress (as is customary!)
What I object to is the assumption/suggestion that cyclists should wear bright yellow and retro-reflectives and a helmet of debateable benefit* at all times and regardless of the circumstances/weather/light levels to me this is wrong and no more sensible than equipping all cars with roll cages, proper 4 or more point harnesses and suggesting all occupants wear helmets and flameproof overalls on all journeys. These *could* undoubtedly save lives, but would be imho disproportionate, I feel the same way about dft pictures of families on sunny days, on apparently quiet roads (given the manner of riding and road positioning). Completely disproportionate and gives the clear message that cycling is a risky pursuit.*I say debateable because it is often is debated, not as an incitement to start a helmet discussion!
Usual caveats, all imho and no offence to anyone else's strongly held views ;-)
Posted 12 years ago # -
"You only have to cross the North Sea in order to see people cycling in normal clothes with out fear."
I would be happy to demonstrate cycling wearing normal clothes without fear on this side of the North Sea. Admission £15.
Posted 12 years ago # -
lol, I'll do it for £14 (special offer!) ;-))
Posted 12 years ago # -
Has no one noticed the both cycle and pedestrian KSIs have been increasing over the last few years after years of decline? The decline in cycle and pedestrian KSIs, has been largely due to sweeping the roads clear of non motorised people.
However, in recent we have seen a small increase in the numbers of cyclists nationally. If it was just cyclists, it could be put down to the so called "cycling boom". So there must be some other cause, could it possibly be a decline in driving standards? Perhaps due to distraction from mobile devices, or a sense that roads are there solely for cars and other should keep out of the way (as the DfT and the "road safety" lobby has been telling us for years), or the decline of enforcement of speed limits?
The big decline in road deaths between the 1970's and now is due to the introduction of drink drive laws and a change in social attitudes to drinking and driving.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Oh god, not another helmet/hi-viz 'discussion'!
Aaargh!
(Count me out).
Posted 12 years ago # -
No oh dear about it.
My kids are, and have always been, are encouraged to wear a helmet and hi-viz. Hardly over-equipped. As a family, we use bikes for work, for commuting, for fun, for exercise.
Never for the purpose of making a fashion statement.
Posted 12 years ago # -
To ride a bike you need a bike, anything else is over-equipped.
I'd say almost everyone on this forum is over-equipped when riding 99% of the time.
I ride with spd's so need specific shoes, ergo I'm over-equipped.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Have to disagree with rust; to walk up a mountain, all you need is the ability to walk and your birthday suit. Should you do so, I don't think Mountain Rescue would describe you as "equipped".
Posted 12 years ago # -
@BtoT but equally, were I to walk to the shops I'd look decidedly over-equipped if I put on mountain boots and carried a bergen full of safety equipment.
Imho you wear safety equipment suitable for the conditions.Posted 12 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
