Monday, 12 November 2012

A thought on SMIDSYs

As I was out cycling yesterday, I found myself thinking about SMIDSYs (Sorry, Mate, I didn't see you - the seemingly standard response to users of two-wheeled vehicles from inattentive motorists; I have heard, word for word, this very phrase myself). I was riding in a predominantly black outfit on a black bicycle and I found myself thinking about what might happen if the worst came to the worst and some distracted or inattentive driver failed to see me and there was a collision.

Now, let's be clear: it was a bright, sunny day, and I was perfectly visible for anybody who cared to look, but I knew from years of observing these things that, should a driver pull a SMIDSY, there was every chance that they, any police who got involved, and any media who might report on it, would automatically and unthinkingly shift the blame to me, saying or implying that it was my fault that the driver didn't see me because I didn't take sufficiently extreme steps to attract that person's attention (and, of course, no actions could ever be extreme enough to overcome the societal inertia on this point...!).

But then, I realized this: if there were a SMIDSY event that day, there were actually hard data to which I could point to show that my appearance wasn't in fact the issue. This idea could potentially be very useful! Specifically, I had been out cycling at that point for about 2 hours; hundreds of motorists had successfully seen me and dealt appropriately with me in a range of streets, junctions and country lanes. Given that hundreds of other motorists had had no problem with my appearance, if somebody did hit me, the data demonstrably show that my appearance wasn't the problem. My appearance had been tested and had passed the proving in hundreds of separate events. If somebody overlooked me that day, clearly the first thing we should be looking at to explain the event is them, and not my appearance, even if only for reasons of Occam's Razor.

So my thought for today is that this issue, of "Why did this particular driver and none of the others have a problem seeing me?" should perhaps be raised more often in SMIDSY discussions.


Wednesday, 16 May 2012

Thinking out loud: Are cyclists the new weather?

You find yourself standing next to a stranger, perhaps in a pub or a Post Office queue whilst waiting an unbelievable time for a simple stamp. You decide to strike up a conversation with this person to pass the time. But what do you talk about? The list of topics one can raise with a stranger is quite slim. You can hardly start out with "Isn't the current Prime Minister an incompetent buffoon?" as you risk upsetting their political sensitivities. Sport is also risky - they might support a team you do not. So what's safe? What can you be sure they'll not get offended by? Two topics that never fail are weather and traffic.

"Traffic's bad today, isn't it?" is as safe a conversation opener as you can find. The traffic might be light, but don't worry: this won't go challenged. What else is a safe opening line with a stranger? How about "It's hard to find a parking space, isn't it?" or "Cyclists are a nuisance aren't they? Always riding through red lights and on pavements?" Nod nod nod. Safe. Nobody's going to be offended here. We all agree, just as we all agree that winters aren't what they used to be.

These statements about cyclists, of course, raise the hackles of cyclists a great deal. One only needs to look at yesterday's drama about a survey of red-light jumping behaviour and how it was reported. The old saw about cyclists and red lights is one of a family of statements that are so often repeated I recently suggested somebody should make a bullshit bingo card: red lights, pavements, no tax, no insurance, license plates, helmets, lycra...

And this got me thinking. Yes, these statements are repeated an AWFUL lot, aren't they? I've been hearing them regularly for at least 8 years. They crop up in the comments on almost every article about cycling that gets published online (they'll appear below this, no doubt). Yes, they recur suspiciously often. Hmm...

The thing is, what should we take from these statements? Should we take them as evidence for endemic anti-cyclist feeling? I'm starting to doubt that. It's the fact these statements are repeated SO OFTEN and practically verbatim from a hundred thousand different mouths and keyboards that got me thinking. Because they appear almost as a reflex, and because so many people who don't know one another repeat exactly the same phrases, I suspect that these aren't true opinions; I reckon they are merely memes. They are cultural conventions that have grown up over the past years.

I'd like therefore tentatively to suggest that all these statements such as "Cyclists? They all ride through red lights, don't they?" are fundamentally NOT ABOUT CYCLISTS and should not really be taken as such. I believe they are really a set of social conventions that serve the same role as conversations about the weather: They allow a socially acceptable and safe way to find common ground with strangers. They are (in many people's minds) as uncontroversial as statements about how gravity still seems to be working fine, or how politicians can't really be trusted. They are not intended to challenge or provoke; they are intended to provide comfort through the repetition of a familiar and long-standing ritual, not unlike a religious service.

So perhaps we should not make the mistake of thinking that such statements are the product of considered thought, or really represent people's true opinions. People have not looked into these matters deeply enough to really have deep-seated opinions. If people really studied the weather and climate data they'd stop saying that winters aren't what they used to be. If they studied the traffic behaviour and accident data, they'd stop pointing fingers at cyclists.

Because these beliefs aren't really being examined in depth, people take evidence as it comes rather than going and looking for it, and when this happens one usually sees confirmation bias: the tendency to pay attention to information that confirms what we already believe and ignore information that challenges it. So a person doesn't really notice 25 cyclists stopping at a red light and 50 riding on the road, but spots the one who cuts the light and the one who rides on the pavement because these are what they expect to see.

Of course, the notion that a subgroup of society is a menace could not have taken hold were that subgroup not relatively small and perceived as outsiders. The context in which these social norms arose is fascinating and something I've also thought about, but would be a digression here. The main point I want to explore is that perhaps these statements we see so often are merely conventions that are repeated as part of the social glue that holds society together, and do not necessarily reflect people's true opinions about cyclists.

At first glance, the idea that these incorrect views about cyclists are not deeply examined convictions might suggest they will be easy to change. But if I'm correct in what I'm thinking here, we'd have to suggest the opposite: these views will be difficult to change - they came to hold the position they do in our society because they seemed so self-evident and obvious. Perhaps to challenge the idea that cyclists are all law-breakers is like challenging the idea that winters aren't what they used to be.