CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

The Psychology of 'Feeling Responsible'

(81 posts)
  • Started 13 years ago by Wilmington's Cow
  • Latest reply from PS

No tags yet.


  1. These are random ramblings after some equally random thoughts this morning...

    I often make the point to people who, on finding out I'm a cyclist, start berating me for red light jumpers, non-light users, and so on, that I am not responsible for those people, and I wouldn't think at all of chastising them because I saw a completely unrelated motorist on their mobile phone that morning.

    It's the strange assumption that cyclists are someone responsible for the actions of each other.

    Fast forward to this morning and I'm taking photos at Tollcross (see the 'spotted' thread) with my headphones on listening to some killa choonz innit. And all the while wondering if that makes it look like I cycle with the headphones in. And remembering that when I tried it for a week in the interests of an article for citycycling one of the reasons I stopped is because I knew it was one of those things the general public thinks makes cyclists dangerous.

    I didn't take the headphones off there and then, but made a big play of doing so when I was gettign back on the bike.

    Some of that 'collective responsibility' seems to have seeped in without me realising. Maybe I will start having a go at driving friends for that bloke in the minibus I saw yesterday morning on his mobile...

    Posted 13 years ago #
  2. wingpig
    Member

    On the one hand it'll give drivers some of that tarred-with-the-same-brush feeling we get. On the other hand it could make them all indignant and denial-y.

    It's perhaps related to the closed-off-in-a-protective-box aspect of driving, where (even to other human drivers) other cars are Other Cars, where the squishy human inside isn't perceived as distinct from the weighty metal box. Humanity is more visible on a bicycle.

    Bloody Cyclist complaints are still mostly couched as "and I saw a cyclist going along the pavement/nipping through a red light/wearing headphones/tweeting whilst sipping a latté and clapping the wee dog in their organic hand-woven wholewheat eco-basket" whereas (mostly) complaints against drivers are aimed (linguistically at least) at the vehicle, except if it's something which is too unnatural to attribute to a vehicle such as being on the phone or putting on make-up at traffic-lights. Similarly "I saw a bike without any lights" is starting to creep in alongside "a cyclist with no lights on their bike" but the visibility of the operator definitely makes a difference.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  3. Stepdoh
    Member

    "saw a cyclist going along the pavement/nipping through a red light/wearing headphones/tweeting whilst sipping a latté and clapping the wee dog in their organic wholewheat basket"

    Oh, that was me. Soz.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  4. Min
    Member

    It's back to the whole outgroup thing isn't it? Same as how anyone who looks is if they might be a muslim is expected to apologise for something someone they've never heard of did 1000's of miles away.

    "I didn't take the headphones off there and then, but made a big play of doing so when I was getting back on the bike."

    Awwww. :-) You don't need to do that you know. Screw 'em. Just enjoy riding.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  5. holisticglint
    Member

    @Wingpig - yes it is weird how a car seems to be regarded as independent of the driver. Read any article about a single car accident and it will be "the car he was in left the road and hit a tree" whereas with bikes it is always "a cyclist was in collision with a lorry"

    @min -

    Screw 'em. Just enjoy riding.

    Couldn't agree more :-)

    Posted 13 years ago #
  6. LaidBack
    Member

    Cars 2 is a horribly popular movie that explains everything! If you're worried that your children don't enjoy cars enough you must take them to see this;-)

    It's only beaten in awfulness by Transformers Dark ______ of the Moon which got one star in the Sunday Herald and was described as 'war porn for kids'.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  7. amir
    Member

    There is a Walt Disney cartoon starring Goofy from 1950 that is on the money

    [+] Embed the video | Video DownloadGet the Video Plugins

    Posted 13 years ago #
  8. Smudge
    Member

    "@min -

    Screw 'em. Just enjoy riding."

    Most sensible comment yet ;-)
    I regularly get people saying "where's your helmet?" Sometimes I explain, sometimes I don't bother. I didn't use headphones for a long time, but then (while doing long boring rides!) I discovered after experimentation that moderate volume masks little or no more road sound than a motorbike crash helmet(!) or a loudish stereo in a car. So now I use them when I feel like it.
    Got passed, passed and got passed by a Police car this morning whilst I had earphones in and didn't get a second glance. Though I'm sure rear observations, signals and positive road positioning mattered far more to them than my choice of "choonz" ;-)

    But hey, maybe I'm just a bad example...good!

    Posted 13 years ago #
  9. crowriver
    Member

    I once shared an office in Edinburgh with a guy from Dublin, back in 1991 when the IRA were still blowing bits of England up quite a lot. Over an after work pint one day he expressed how uncomfortable he was in Scotland: "They can't tell I'm black until I open my mouth." I heard similar stories ten years later in Glasgow from another Irishman who sent me into the local hardware shop for him because "they don't like people like me in there."

    These days, it's cyclists and Muslim people. 'They' (the majority) always need a target. The more visible, the better.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  10. gembo
    Member

    @crowriver - I hope you aren't saying cyclists are stigmatised in the same way as muslims. I am not aware of anyone being firebombed for being a cyclist? BTW - the second Irishman was he wanting you to buy him fertiliser or nails or something in the hardware store?

    We were trying to turn right from Hanover St onto Queen St the other day - man driving HGV pulled out into our path from Jekyll and Hyde whilst on his mobile phone. Quite breathtakingly dangerous. I do not generalise from his behaviour to all lorry drivers. I think [aside from the bizarre ranters in the EEN] if someone makes a remark about a cyclist who has just jumped a red light you can have a discussion with them if you can be bothered that goes along the lines of - you are right, they shouldn't be doing that it just gives all cyclists a bad name and I imagine you have seen plenty of cyclists following the highway code but don't remember them as that is not remarkable? Mostly folk are just shouting their mouths off without thinking [but not I think in a fundamentally racist way??], more a kind of heckle or comment. Indeed I have been known to do it myself - eg chasing car drivers to let them know my opinion of their driving [just because they didn't like my orange fair isle tank top doesn't mean they had to swerve into it, hi viz but hi hassle that jumper is]

    Using the roads in Edinburgh can be a nightmare/a laugh/unremarkable/crazy from day to day. I have seen two good examples of driving from BMWs (well one was a bit fast but safe), countless lunatic stunts pulled by cyclists, an infinite number of moves by drivers who do not look beyond the car in front etc.I just try to "Stay classy" as Huey Morgan urges every Sunday at 4pm just before Mr jarvis comes on to soothe me over the ironing.

    On the headphones front - I used to jog with them on but I get lost in music, esp through headphones and would often realise I had just run across a road without looking to the right to see if anything was coming. Jimi Hendrix or The Clash etc not being the best choiced perhaps. I know many people on here go with headphones and have volume down and if that works for them I am less than bothered. On the other hand, I have overtaken people many times who cannot hear the bell I have been tinging now for a while because they have their headphones in [dog walkers, runners, pram pushers and cyclists]. They get a sllightly gruff shout of I AM COMING PAST ON YOUR RIGHT HAND SIDE. So of course it us up to you whether you want to use them and indeed what you listen to on them, I am just saying I wont be endorsing there use [but hey you don't need my endorsement]

    Posted 13 years ago #
  11. Morningsider
    Member

    "Am I my brother's keeper" - think this debate has been going on for some time. I would argue all we can really do is set a good example for others and, where possible, engage with other cyclists to encourage similarly good behaviour.

    Headphones - I don't wear them myself as I feel I need every available sense when cycling. If other people feel they can manage to cycle safely when listening to music then fair enough. I see this as a freedom of choice issues really - the person likely to come off worst in any accident where headphones may have been an issue is the cyclist, if they are comfortable with that extra risk (if any) then I say go for it.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  12. chdot
    Admin

    Standard CCE thread - so many complex topics melded.

    On headphones - yes 'personal choice', but, think its 'safety' depends on personal brain.

    Cycling in traffic is complicated. I think there can be little doubt that experience develops the '6th sense' - more a familiarity, a knowledge of the dodgy junction, an expectation that certain cars - make, colour, driver type - will turn without signalling (etc.).

    So with one part of your brain processing this automatically another part is available for dealing with the extra aural input via headphones.

    I certainly think that full-on volume is foolish.

    It's impossible to know how much your experience/expertise has been built up using subtle unnoticed (consciously) sound - vehicles, behind or in side streets etc.

    Clearly not being able to hear shouldn't stop people cycling, but that doesn't mean that 'not being able to hear' - because of headphones - is a good idea.

    In some people there is a connection between hearing and balance. I have (deliberately) experimented cycling with loud rock music in traffic - in familiar places - and found that my spatial awareness was adversely altered.

    For this reason I (occasionally) just use one earpiece - more often speech radio than music - which is perhaps worse as it requires a different level of concentration(?)

    On the main topic - I don't think 'we' should feel responsible for other cyclists, but there is little doubt that some people regard 'all' cyclists as as bad as the 'worst' they've come across.

    Yesterday I was told of a disturbing 'cycle rage' incident (in Edinburgh) where (apparently) a person on a bike took exception to being told off for riding somewhere they may or may not have been legally entitled to and (apparently - this is 3rd hand) 'pinned a woman against a shop'.

    It gets worse - police (apparently) decided that nothing could be done as no-one hit anyone (I don't know if both parties were still present when police turned up).

    Of course this story (already) is being told as being about a "cyclist", not some aggressive anti-social person.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  13. crowriver
    Member

    Clearly not being able to hear shouldn't stop people cycling

    Just as well then for James Duthie or he'd never have made it.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  14. gembo
    Member

    CHdot - maybe your alleged cyclist who pinned the woman should meet up with the raj guy with daughter who shouts at cyclists at random

    Personally, I have calmed down over the years- getting old, realised only commuter on my commute with marmite/tunnocks tea cake top so taking on bad drivers in white vans meant they could spot me the next time I was out on the same run, exchange of ideas on this forum also

    So now I tend not to get so worked up all the time and may still point out the driver has just pulled a ridiculous stunt but without being totally angry - I mean if I have had to take precautions to avoid him - still will go bananas when they appear to be deliberately trying to kill me

    same with ridiculous cyclists - now if I am in red box and some dude comes into it and cycles in front of me whilst we wait for lights to change I laugh and figure they must be in a big hurry. Or with the Shandon RLJ champion - I figure nothing I could do or say to him would change his attitude and that I will just have to be extra considerate as a cyclist to balance the anti-karma he is generating amongst EEN readers who apparently hate cyclists and are furious about cyclists

    Posted 13 years ago #
  15. crowriver
    Member

    @gembo No, but I was making the point that it is easier to stigmatise people who are recognisably "different" in garb, customs or behaviour. I mentioned the stories about my Irish friends because it epitomises the relative subtlety involved in the formation of outgroups, whatever the historical context.

    The second story about Glasgow was from 2001, well after the Good Friday Agreement. My friend was from Kerry, had a very strong accent, and coincidentally was a keen cyclist. We were just shopping for various bits of wall fixings: expander bolts with eyelets I think it was, as he was helping me with some work in a building in the Trongate. The hardware shop was just across from the Tron: maybe still there for all I know. He had been in there before and some comments were made to him of a sectarian nature I understand.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  16. chdot
    Admin

    "CHdot - maybe your alleged cyclist who pinned the woman should meet up with the raj guy with daughter who shouts at cyclists at random."

    At least police were willing to deal with that guy - presume because it wasn't a one-off.

    I was given the impression that police gave the impression that they 'couldn't do anything' - not just 'decided not to'. This also (allegedly) extends to a belief by some officers that they can't enforce pavement cycling infringements...!

    I think most people 'on here' 'disapprove' of RLJs and pavement cycling for anti-social (and 'tarred with same brush' reasons) rather than straightforward 'it's illegal' reasons.

    CEC is trying to organise some sort of 'tell students to cycle nice' promotion - in connection with L&B and Spokes for the coming academic year - but there is perhaps the need for a wider understanding of where it's legal to cycle and why observing the Highway Code is desirable - for all road users.

    Perhaps a campaign could be run on the back of Lothian Buses - highlighting a different aspect each month - alternate message for cyclists and drivers??

    Posted 13 years ago #
  17. gembo
    Member

    @crowriver - Ok. I see what you are saying and I am saying that the abuse cyclists get is fundamentally different [tho still can be abusive of course] from the abuse Muslims get which is far more serious and indeed systematic.

    Glasgow is very bad for sectarianism, now also available on facebook. After that the West of Scotland, particularly central belt part is also still shocking. I asked some colleagues from Irvine why the town had two junior football clubs Irvine Meadow and Irvine Victoria. Neither getting much support or success [last time I looked]

    Posted 13 years ago #
  18. LaidBack
    Member

    Clearly not being able to hear shouldn't stop people cycling

    Very true. Bike training for kids and adults demands that they look. The only listening that is emphasised is to what they are being told.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  19. Instography
    Member

    When people tell me stories about things cyclists have done they are often trying to work out what the thinking behind it is. They want me to explain them not because I'm responsible for them but because they think I have some understanding of them that they don't have.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  20. Dave
    Member

    I think half the problem with being tarred with the same brush is that so many of us accept it (and encourage it).

    Not only do I not accept shared responsibility for last week's looting but I don't accept that looting "makes all pedestrians look bad" (or "all poor people", or whatever). This seems obvious but it is just illustrating the absurdity of accepting responsibility for the actions of others who can be broadly grouped together.

    Cyclists are so diverse that they have essentially nothing in common. In what meaningful way can we relate the actions of a looter on his BMX to a finance executive heading in to work, to an OAP person of enhanced years going down the shops to buy milk, to a toddler on a balance bike?

    I don't think it's wrong to compare prejudice against cyclists with prejudice based on religion. People may see religion as less easy to change (or more important) than method of transport, and they may be right - but that doesn't prevent the same mechanism explaining the phenomenon in both cases.

    Prejudice against cyclists is just that - prejudice.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  21. "When people tell me stories about things cyclists have done they are often trying to work out what the thinking behind it is. They want me to explain them not because I'm responsible for them but because they think I have some understanding of them that they don't have."

    That's definitely not the tone I've been questioned with - I wouldn't mind if it was an understanding issue, all too often it's prefaced with, "Y'know what I hate about cyclists...".

    Posted 13 years ago #
  22. crowriver
    Member

    "Y'know what I hate about cyclists...".

    Just replace 'cyclists' with 'blacks', 'asians', 'jews', 'catholics', 'gays', 'the unemployed', etc. and you can start to see where this mind set is coming from.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  23. "I'm not racist but..."

    Posted 13 years ago #
  24. chdot
    Admin

    "I'm not racist but..."

    "City faces demands to block cyclists' march"

    Or maybe I made that up...

    http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/City-faces-demands-to-block.6818922.jp

    Posted 13 years ago #
  25. Instography
    Member

    Sure, the tone is accusatory but it tends to sound, to me, like frustration. Very similar to the frustrated hatreds I hear from my seven year old son. And what he needs to deal with his frustration is either a clip round the ear or a patient explanation of why his 'hatred' is misplaced. Since it's no more acceptable to clip adults round the ear than children, I tend to find myself explaining.

    I suppose my inclination is always to argue the point even though I don't take any responsibility for other cyclists. "You hate red light jumpers? Have you thought about why people go through red lights and why it might be safer to go through the lights and get away from cars rather than wait until the cars behind try to squeeze past? Have you considered that the cyclist is actually doing you a favour and making it easier for you to get away from the lights?" That kind of thing. It doesn't mean excusing or taking responsibility but it does ask the hating driver to think.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  26. Min
    Member

    "@crowriver - Ok. I see what you are saying and I am saying that the abuse cyclists get is fundamentally different [tho still can be abusive of course] from the abuse Muslims get which is far more serious and indeed systematic."

    I am not sure what is not serious or systematic about the abuse, threats and intimidation that we get regularly? Our lives are still at stake and are worth just as much as anyone elses. This combined with the constant encouragement of abusive types from the press and almost complete lack of support from the authorities makes it pretty much exactly the same IMO. "Society" may believe that it is absolutely fine to use a motor vehicle as a weapon but I do not accept that.

    Posted 13 years ago #
  27. Dave
    Member

    <edit - weirdness>

    I hope I'm not about to go through a period of seeing posts appear four or five times in a row as seemed to happen on another forum a while back!

    Posted 13 years ago #
  28. Min
    Member

    You've just said that twice Dave! You must reaaally mean it. :-P

    Posted 13 years ago #
  29. chdot
    Admin

    "as with any oppressed minority, it's an uphill battle!"

    Not sure how tongue in cheek you are being!(?)

    I thought the 'hard pressed motorists' were a/the minority!

    When I cycle round the streets of Edinburgh I don't think about the areas in which I am a minority. (I'm male, so there's not much I can do about being in a group that is less than 50% of the population.)

    I assume that there are more people driving cars so to the extent that we have chosen our forms of transport I suppose my choice is 'minority'.

    But as 'we' tend to experience some days, that majority is further sub-set into (for instance, BMWdrivers and whitevanmen - those are further sub-setted by good/bad/other).

    I do think about how many drivers wish they were cycling. How many aren't because ... (slot in legitimate reason/dubious excuse). AND how many think "I'd like to but it's not 'safe', I'm not fit enough etc.

    I also wonder how many do actually see to the extent of being able to pass the 'read that number plate' (is there a more modern equivalent??) part of their driving test.

    I wonder how many really know the law/Highway Code when it comes to yellow lines ASLs etc. (I wonder how many people with bikes do...)

    There must be many people who have seen cycling in London and think that it's legal/legitimate/safer to (at the very least) go ahead of the white line at junctions.

    Don't forget that there are countries where it's legal to cycle left (or usually right) through red lights if there are no pedestrians.

    Then in some countries/states/cities drivers are expected to stop if someone wants to cross the road!

    So (with only an oblique look at rioters/looters) there must be people who disregard (many) laws/'petty restrictions' as a matter of course. Some think they are vanguarding the rules/laws as they think they should be - so would be happy to have their day in court, others quite confident that they won't be caught anyway.

    That was about 'cyclists'. Some motorists are as bad (ever seen cars deliberately going the wrong way in the short bit of Leven Terrace?). Of course they can't 'get away with it' because they are bigger, have number plates, licences to lose etc. etc.

    SO some of them resent cyclists - and in turn, perhaps, all cyclists and (perhaps) any other minority/other group.

    I feel no responsibility for them (not just because I don't drive very often).

    I think I have only been told off twice by other people on bikes - once for being in front of a white line at a junction where I know it's advisable to get a head start on the traffic - "you're giving cyclists a bad name". The other was on the Millennium Bridge where I was proceeding at a very slow pace with my legs on both sides of the crossbar.

    I also came across an unpleasant policeman who took exception to me cycling on the ramp/bridge at Leuchars Station. I explained that carefully (I was) riding a loaded touring bike was safer (hands on both brakes) and taking up less room than me walking beside it. But it made no difference.

    Because of course rules are strictly black and white and must be slavishly followed and enforced...

    HOWEVER I don't like people who cycle without lights. I'm sure it must give all cyclists a bad name and is dangerous and illegal and...

    These days it's only a minority because lights are cheap and (because of LEDs) they don't go out as often.

    Tip of the day - always carry spare batteries. (Four lights is better than two anyway.)

    Posted 13 years ago #
  30. chdot
    Admin

    "I hope I'm not about to go through a period of seeing posts appear four or five times in a row as seemed to happen on another forum a while back!"

    The second version had an extra sentence at the end so first one must have been 'work in progress'!

    Posted 13 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin