An interesting article about changing perceptions,
http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/i-dont-want-to-be-right
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News
Changing perceptions
(10 posts)-
Posted 9 years ago #
-
"False beliefs, it turns out, have little to do with one’s stated political affiliations and far more to do with self-identity: What kind of person am I, and what kind of person do I want to be? All ideologies are similarly affected… . Facts and evidence… may not be the answer everyone thinks they are: they simply aren’t that effective, given how selectively they are processed and interpreted."
Posted 9 years ago # -
An interesting read.
If they think perceptions about vaccines are bad they could try to convince EEN readers that motorists don't pay road tax.Posted 9 years ago # -
That is interesting. What would it imply for how you go about convincing people that cycling is both safe and beneficial?
Posted 9 years ago # -
When I make to click the link all I get is an invitation to subscribe to the New Yorker. Am I missing something obvious or is there a paywall?
Posted 9 years ago # -
There is a paywall.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Not a paywall for me. Don't recall ever registering, though I was served a mobile-looking version.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Am I missing something obvious or is there a paywall?"
There is a pay wall but can read some for free. If using a cooperate network then may not be able to read for free, may that it has blocked the big networks, or that someone has already used the free quota on network, dont know but it works at home.
Posted 9 years ago # -
That is interesting. What would it imply for how you go about convincing people that cycling is both safe and beneficial?"
Well not to challenge peoples strongly held beliefs as may not work.
Don't make it too ideological, political , or challenge peoples perception of the world for example we need to cycle as there will be no oil in 20 years, 30, 40 or whatever.I tend to think the cycling is safe as a message is a bit of a non starter. Cycling is not as unsafe as you may think, of course semantics-), Safer than a motorcycle? dont think that one would fly-).
The "white bikes" send out a strong message that cycling is unsafe. The idea being to make car drivers realize among other purposes I would guess.
Presumably any safety message would want to tell potential bike users bikes are safe, yet convey a different message to the motorist? The dutch got their cycle paths in part because perception of danger.
If cycling is currently safe on the road based system, why do we need any infrastructure, may be people just dont cycle because they dont like it or may be there is too many hills
or something? this is what someone may say etc.Perception of safety and actual safety can be quite different.
I think familiarity would make people see cycling as something safe to do. Even objectively dangerous things like smoking, the familiarity makes people under estimate the risk.
Also as with smoking, cyclists feel in some control unlike plane etc. The feeling of control reducing perception of risk. So give people the idea there is ways to mitigate risk with choices routes etc etc.
The economic benefits people would not hold strong views either way so would be potential on that. The health benefits would already be consider by many so could height awareness of this.
In short would be play in to peoples beliefs, change things that there is no strong views on and avoid challenging strong beliefs with statistics. The safety statistics could be better , imagine trying to sell bike safety to someone who believes its unsafe with statistics.
"Cycling is a dangerous this to do you would have to be a crack pot to cycle around city traffic". Well no cycling is safer than.........a motor bike? in respect to other modes of transport. A bus a car, a train, a plane, etc figures would not be helpful.
Could of course move the frame away from transport to say cycling is safe, compared to smoking, or being obese but what if someone did not participate in these actives either. When someone says cycling is unsafe as could be killed by a car or injured, selling health benefits or even it could be safer its getting safer and risk can largely be reduced through personal choice of where and how someone cycles.
If someone is predisposed to cycling, but concerned about the risk then may be some sort of reassurance that its not as crazy as they think, you can ride on paths tracks, avoid main roads etc, there is safer ways of going about it. Does not need to be cars and trucks flying past on the by pass round about etc. I tend to think safe, is too strong a word to use with someone that has perceptions of it not being safe. Possibly more that risks can reduced by some choices and not as dangerous as they think.
People seeing others cycling and more bikes will may be have most effect. I suppose things such as women, older people children cycling on any material is better.
In respect MARIA KONNIKOVA thinkingthe politics and ideology.
Cycling used to be regarded as male workman or sporting, sort thing to do even up until the 80s may be. I thinks its lots any political aspect of being a low class labor type activity. Which may make it more immune to criticism from traditional politics.Where as in the past may be considered for people that cant afford cars the answer then being for themselves or society making changes to allow them to buy a car and leave the bike behind , dont think that would be the perception today.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Perceptions not just of safety but also of practicality, cost, social status, fitness requirements, time lost, failure modes, helmet hair, those painful looking saddles etc. etc.
Posted 9 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
