The Times Cycling Campaign

The people who really need cycling to be safer are not, so much, those of us who cycle today but those who do not cycle.

They need cycling to be safer because the perception of cycling safety is possibly (certainly in my experience anecdotally) the prime reason why more people who cycled as kids don't cycle now and the reason why those people won't let their kids cycle.

Clive, read this:

http://www.bikereader.com/contributors/Field/reasons.html

Worries about safety are unquestionably something that prevent some people back onto bikes, but there are plenty of other reasons why people don't want to cycle. Some are simple--not wanting to be rained on, or other comfort-related things, others are more complex. There's no silver bullet for resolving this.

The mantra that 'cycling is dangerous' (which is utter nonsense) was introduced because at the dawn of mass motorisation, cycles formed the greatest part of road traffic, 80-90% of vehicular traffic in some places, while there were very few drivers of motor vehicles. However, motor vehicle users soon wanted to use the higher speeds at their disposal, which was impossible with so many bike riders around (which drivers of motor vehicles saw as 'being in the way' when in fact cyclists were simply exercising their identical legal right to passing and re-passing along the King's or Queen's highway).

To be sure, the early years were carnage; there were huge numbers of road deaths and injuries (partly owing to less well-developed medical care, but still), but it wasn't cycling that was 'dangerous' in the sense of being the source of danger (the word is, of course, vague and ambiguous), it was bad driving. It was victim-blaming, and the ambiguity was exploited very successfully by the 'Road Safety' movement. The sense in which people in this country believe cycling to be 'dangerous' is still unmatched in any other country I've been to (although I'm sure there are some).

The truth is that there are a lot of reasons why people don't cycle, and there is plenty of evidence that 'lack of safety' is often put forward as an excuse by people who don't wish to admit that they have reasons for not cycling which they worry might not be accepted as readily as 'lack of safety'. It is, of course, perfectly fine for anyone not to cycle if they have reasons which they genuinely hold, including simple things like not wanting to get rained on, or, indeed, subconsciously not wanting to admit to themselves how much they've been missing out since 'Cycling Proficiency' inculcated in them the idea that they shouldn't cycle, as it's strange and deviant (this was, indeed, often the effect of cycling proficiency, although provision across the country varied; some courses were reportedly delivered by genuinely enthusiastic people who avoided the standard negative message). However, people are often frightened to admit to such 'invalid' reasons, as the image of cycling is at the same time as something so 'virtuous' (green, clean, healthy, benign etc.). That image actually puts many people off, too; it's generally not helpful.

Now, of course we all want the number of crashes to be reduced, but it is very wrong to pretend that it is the only, or even a main, barrier to cycling. Fortunately, many MPs in yesterday's debate recognised that the risks should not be over-emphasised, and the debate therefore took on a suitably positive tone. Given that a culture change is happening on all fronts, we are possibly witnessing a lasting social change in this country. Granted, we are still exploiting easily latent potential, but it might lead on to greater things.