Forum menu
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369847823001018?via%3Dihub#f0010
Highlights
•30 % of respondents (n = 563) considered cyclists less than fully human.
•Cyclists with helmets were perceived as less human compared to those without.
•Cyclists with safety vests and no helmets were perceived as least human.
•Dehumanisation related more to visible safety gear than obstruction of hair/eyes.
•Perceptions of dehumanisation varies based on respondent gender.
I cunningly disguise myself as a human being when commuting.
"That's correct, your Honour; I noticed something riding a bicycle, but I couldn't be sure that it was a person, so I just drove over them. Or it."
Cruelty to animals (even vermin) is still a crime though, eh?
Recent research from Australia
Never heard anything good about cycling on the roads in Aus
“That’s correct, your Honour; I noticed something riding a bicycle, but I couldn’t be sure that it was a person, so I just drove over them. Or it.”
I'm pretty sure there must have been a low sun, or the kind of minutes-long vacant seizure that could happen to anyone else who coincidentally thoroughly hates cyclists in general but definitely didn't casually murder this particular one on the roads: the like-minded jury would never convict.
I happy not to be considered human.
The examples of human include.
The Tory party, Trump,Musk,Putin, Farage the Israeli leadership,and too many to mention. Non human is fine by me.
No cycling clothes on me.No problems with other users except the odd idiot bus driver.
IME, a flashing red LED rear light in the day time, really seems to annoy drivers.
It’s Australian research. It doesn’t necessarily invalidate the findings but anti-cycling attitudes are even more prevalent than the UK.
Now run the same analysis for a control group like, say, builders, who may or may not wear safety equipment. File under junk research.
More like a hobby road cyclist you look, worse you'll get it IME.
High vis, drop bars, crouched position, tight shorts, glasses, it all adds up.
IME, a flashing red LED rear light in the day time, really seems to annoy drivers.
My experience seems to be quite the opposite. In rural settings particularly I seem to get fewer close / fast pass, passes on bends etc when using lights in the daytime. A bit like having a flashing light on heavy plant when its on the road - its not like drivers are going to fail to notice a JCB but the flashing light seems to start people thinking about having to pass a slower vehicle sooner
It’s Australian research. It doesn’t necessarily invalidate the findings but anti-cycling attitudes are even more prevalent than the UK.
I think theres been similar but simpler studies measuring differences in space given by drivers depending on how the cyclist is dressed here showing that drivers give less space to cyclists in cycling attire and a helmet than they do to cyclists in civvies - not sure if thats aggressive treatment of one type of cyclist over another or maybe a perception that 'cyclists' are more predicable the 'a bloke on a bike'. However it also showed that less space was given to female cyclists than male.
•Cyclists with helmets were perceived as less human compared to those without.
•Cyclists with safety vests and no helmets were perceived as least human.
Do these not contradict each other re. the wearing of a helmet?
High vis, drop bars, crouched position, tight shorts, glasses, it all adds up.
Which proves the idiocy of so many drivers?
(btw do you mean the more 'road pro' looking the worse you get it, or less?)
Do these not contradict each other re. the wearing of a helmet?
We seem to have a cultural dislike of hi viz jackets and the people who wear them. I work in circumstances where we have to ask anyone coming on site to wear one and it can be amazing how resistant to put a yellow vest on some people can be - you're basically asking them to dress up as a class of person they seemingly hate. So I suspect the jacket/no helmet points towards a class dislike of someone who is also on a bike rather than a cyclist dislike.
Do these not contradict each other re. the wearing of a helmet?
First one I think should be cyclist with helmets less human than someone without either a helmet or vest.
Odd the vest without helmet scored lowest vs vest and helmet.
However it also showed that less space was given to female cyclists than male.
Other way round iirc?
Yes - covered here - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457506001540
"Overtaking motorists pass closer to a bicyclist when the rider wears a helmet, rides away from the edge of the road, is male, or when the vehicle concerned is a bus or heavy goods vehicle. Based on previous work on drivers’ perceptions of bicyclists, we have suggested that many of these effects are the result of motorists making assumptions about bicyclists’ behaviours based on a brief visual assessment of their likely experience levels."
Summary, weave around a bit and don't try to look too pro.
btw do you mean the more ‘road pro’ looking the worse you get it, or less?
Former. Don't look like you're serious about road cycling or communting (panniers etc.).
Ride a mtb in jeans and t shirt, no glasses you're ok.
Guy I used to ride with, posted this. He’s also pathologically opposed to any cycling provision, whatsoever, that might impede a car. 
IME, a flashing red LED rear light in the day time, really seems to annoy drivers.
No one has ever had a go at me about it - and I'm all lycrad up an' everyfink.
Summary, weave around a bit and don’t try to look too pro.
I think the right approach is the same as when driving a car - assertive not aggressive. Do your best to make others around you aware of your intensions.
Do these not contradict each other re. the wearing of a helmet?
Schroeder's cyclist.
Now run the same analysis for a control group like, say, builders, who may or may not wear safety equipment. File under junk research.
I'm not sure I understand this. It might not be exactly representative of UK attitudes, and it might not tell you exactly what you should wear, but it provides some insight into attitudes.
The 'othering' point in the discussion is interesting; they hypothesise that riders who wear more cycling gear are more likely to appear committed to an 'other' group. It's not to do with visually looking unlike a human, it's more like waving a cycling pride flag that upsets motorists. If you're gonna cycle, at least have the decency to do it shamefully. /s
I think the right approach is the same as when driving a car – assertive not aggressive. Do your best to make others around you aware of your intensions.
Being more serious, oc I agree. When I'm in traffic, I am traffic - same for driving or cycling. It's those trying to beat the traffic at every opportunity that causes grief.
Ive thought for a long time that i'm safer on the road by not looking like a lycra roadie.
Outside of London the main focus of anger seems to be road clubs slowing down traffic at the weekend. So avoiding looking like one of those reduces the motorists prejudice i suspect.
I now ride in full ceremonial military uniform with the words "lest we forget" on my back. Seems to work.
Being more serious, oc I agree. When I’m in traffic, I am traffic – same for driving or cycling. It’s those trying to beat the traffic at every opportunity that causes grief.
Exactly my view. Seems to a minority view amongst both drivers and cyclists though.
I’m not sure I understand this. It might not be exactly representative of UK attitudes, and it might not tell you exactly what you should wear, but it provides some insight into attitudes.
Try riding a black bike in police uniform with or without a helmet, and see how you are treated. Of course perceptions are based on priors; in all disciplines. One of those might be use of relevant safety equipment. Or even just attire. Do you consult your patients in shorts and a T Shirt? It's an uncontrolled study that shows that people have prior beliefs. But that's a given in all aspects of life, hence the need for a control in the experiment.
I’m not sure I understand this. It might not be exactly representative of UK attitudes, and it might not tell you exactly what you should wear, but it provides some insight into attitudes.
I have a pet theory that plenty of drivers don't think about cyclists for any longer than it takes to get them out of their field of vision, and then they are forgotten, hence why you get overtaken and turned across, etc. Drivers are roughly as attentive as a goldfish, and once past obstacle A will then focus on obstacle B if there is one, or just go back to following the car in front in a sheep-like way.
And I've raised this point about eyesight many times - there was an ad for one of the opticians a while ago stating that something like 23% (I can't remember the exact figure, sorry) of drivers should be wearing glasses but don't. That's a whole lot of people who may not see you - cyclist or pedestrian, cat or dog, hole in the road or debris - until they almost drive over you.
I suspect that the vast majority of drivers don't give a flying fig how you dress on the bike because they are only aware of you for the length of time it takes to pass you, safely or not.You are only 'dehumanised' because you are an unusual obstacle to their progress.
I now ride in full ceremonial military uniform with the words “lest we forget” on my back. Seems to work.
Joking aside, I’ve seen a lot of American cyclists comment on Reddit that when riding in a red state, they get less abuse if they wear a Stars & Stripes jersey.
"Schroeder’s cyclist."
Schrödinger's cyclist.
I had an old chap stop me and tell me my rear light was too bright. I pointed out that if he saw me then it was serving its purpose and if he was blinded by it maybe he should consider getting his eyes checked for astigmatism. That's the only time I've ever been challenged for being too visible.
I’d say that the research was pretty useless to me
Based in Australia
Photos look nothing like i would on a bike. Most of my car interactions are being passed from behind
It seems reasonable to imagine that the situation there encounter cyclists effects the judgement about the cyclists attire
I’d be much more interested in noting people's reactions passing cyclists in a driving simulator
It says in there a perception of hair makes cyclists safer.
What wig for...?
I've always thought there was something to this line of thinking, tbh. Completely anecdotally, unscientifically - when I bought a "butchers bike" style thing (Cannondale Treadwell with front basket, obvs don't dress in lycra or usually wear a helmet with it) to use for my short commute/ride to pub etc, I definitely feel drivers & peds treat me more kindly - more smiles, even got let out at a junction the other day by a Range Rover driver!
Try riding a black bike in police uniform with or without a helmet, and see how you are treated.
One of my pals did this for a few years. Sometimes in black, no helmet. Sometimes in full lycra...once in uniform because he was intrigued if any drivers would notice.
Apparently there was one gent who wound down window to shout at him to wear a helmet / get off road etc - who only realise the luminous jacket was a Police one...
Usually though he rode his bike and radiod his colleague up ahead with the perp's details.
Sadly it was me who was assaulted one day by a driver as we co-led a group of kids on a bike ride.. I would love to have seen the drivers face when the most experienced traffic officer in Scotland introduced himself...
I commute to work on a Genesis Smithfield. Big pannier bags, no lycra, just shorts and a club ride shirt. Sometimes with a helmet, sometimes without. I've had no close passes or incidents since May when I started. Circa 15 miles each way.
If I'm on the MTB with riding gear on its close pass central on the way to my local loop. Not sure what would happen if I got a road bike and started wearing lycra. I assume I'd be immediately runover.
“Schroeder’s cyclist.”
We seem to have a cultural dislike of hi viz jackets and the people who wear them. I work in circumstances where we have to ask anyone coming on site to wear one and it can be amazing how resistant to put a yellow vest on some people can be – you’re basically asking them to dress up as a class of person they seemingly hate.
When I started a job as a vehicle logistics driver, it was an absolute requirement to wear hi-viz all the time, many businesses had a safety policy of hi-viz being worn on site, so the only time I didn’t have one on in a vehicle was when the weather was crap, because I was wearing a hi-viz coat. When I started working at one of the sites I used to visit, hi-viz was again a requirement because of continuous vehicle movements, but what got me was self-employed drivers were always turning up without hi-viz, despite it being required at most places they’d be picking up from.
When I started there, they would hand out a vest to a driver while on site, and ask for it back when they left, but when Cazoo took over, they had less tolerance - any driver without were pointed in the direction of a place on the estate where they could buy one, and they could come on site once they’d got one, but only then; that meant at least 35-40 minutes wasted when they could have been driving the car away. Some drivers got really pissy about it, didn’t help them much!
I accumulated quite a collection of hi-viz jackets and vests, that I found in cars, and were issued, I’ve got enough in my car for a full complement of people in the event of an incident that required everyone having to get out of the car, and I’d insist on them being worn.
I’d never wear one on a bike, though I’d usually have flashing lights on.
It’s Australian research. It doesn’t necessarily invalidate the findings but anti-cycling attitudes are even more prevalent than the UK.
There have been various, mostly small-scale, ad-hoc "studies" in both UK and US that have come to much the same conclusion though. A general "othering" of cyclists, cultural norms around driving being the "proper" or "normal" way of getting around therefore cyclists are different and somehow less worthy.
I had an old chap stop me and tell me my rear light was too bright
There is no such thing as a Goldilocks Cyclist where everything is just right. You're either riding too fast (and therefore hurtling and a menace) or you're riding so slowly that you're holding up all the traffic.
You're either dressed in all black and completely invisible (and motorists will shout out of their window to tell you how they haven't seen you!) or you're too bright and therefore dazzling.
Your lights are either pathetic and inadequate or they're blinding everyone for miles around.
Sometimes all these things can happen simultaneously. I've had "sorry mate I didn't see you" and "your lights are too bright" on the same ride. /shrug emoji
Try riding a black bike in police uniform with or without a helmet, and see how you are treated.
Years ago, there was a study where someone rode the same route daily on a motorcycle and recorded how many times their progress was obstructed. Using a headlight made only marginal difference compared with not, but dressing the bike up to look like a police motorcycle resulted in almost no incidents. The conclusion was that motorists can see motorcycles, but only treat them with any respect when they perceive them as a threat to their licence/wallet.
Clearly that's all happening sub-consciously, rather than as a logical, reasoned take, but it made a certain amount of sense to me. The parallel was that working as a motorcycle in courier in that London also elicited a certain amount of 'respect', which was probably fear for their bodywork. Cyclists rank pretty low on the scale of actual threat to cars, so unless you make motorists automatically liable under law or blatantly carry a large bomb with you, as a cyclist you're relying on a combination of compassion / consideration and basic observational / spatial skills, something quite a few drivers conspicuously lack, commuters in particular.
Anyway, my anecdotal observation on shared use paths is that wearing a bright checked shirt elicits more positive greetings etc than the same bike ridden in Lycra or just mountain bike gear. Ride an e-cargo bike loaded with shopping down our local tow-path and walkers virtually hug and kiss you as you pass.
Also, I've found a lot of motorists more likely to hang back if you use a bright rear flasher. The Exposure TraceR with the Reakt stuff is ace for that, presumably because the pattern varies and it confuses them...
We seem to have a cultural dislike of hi viz jackets and the people who wear them.
Tory leaders you mean ?
The parallel was that working as a motorcycle in courier in that London also elicited a certain amount of ‘respect’, which was probably fear for their bodywork. Cyclists rank pretty low on the scale of actual threat to cars, so unless you make motorists automatically liable under law or blatantly carry a large bomb with you, as a cyclist you’re relying on a combination of compassion / consideration and basic observational / spatial skills, something quite a few drivers conspicuously lack, commuters in particular.
im not convinced by that - my bike, and I, will make significant damage to the bodywork of any car I hit. Even a glancing blow from a pedal / bar-end or taking a wing mirror off probably costs more to fix than the fine you alluded to m/cycle cops potentially imposing. Your sub conscious “calculation” doesn’t include the delay to the drivers journey which must be a factor even if it is only to get out and check no damage done.
I suspect the subconscious and conscious decisions of which m/cycles to allow through are not about fines but something much more subtle. Thats the sort of thing this research was trying to understand. I think the humanisation scale is flawed - it stops at 100% human, but people are culturally reluctant to score anything as 100% - to understand the significance of the scale you would need to reference against other examples, and understand what people mean by “not human” - after all about 10% of my total mass as a “cyclist” is not human - it’s bike.
The study is a bit odd. The pictures don’t show people on bikes, rather standing beside them. They only show one orientation with reasonable eye contact to the camera. What do sunglasses do to perception? What does the rear view do? What do different styles of bike / riding position do? Different ages of rider? Shape/style of helmet etc. the Lycra examples they include show some of that but are attributed to being Lycra. Obviously this is an “initial” study, from an unrepresentative self selecting group but whilst it sets out to answer a “why” question it does it with this rather unusual concept of “dehumanising” but without really establishing what that means in the minds of participants which is probably dangerous to then draw conclusions on - are they understanding drivers attitudes to cyclists or psychology participants attitudes to the word human?
but they should probably be congratulated for doing the study and asking the questions because that will likely stimulate others to replicate with improved studies which might make design of bikes / clothing / transport infrastructure / policy / driver education more effective.
a study using simulators would be interesting, it would be easy to randomly swap the cyclist, but I don’t really care “why” just how to “mitigate”.
It's a bit hilly where we live, otherwise I'd be wearing a full flowing skirt or dress Maybe a helmet disguised as a bonnet) and ride a Pendleton style bike, with a wicker basket, then wobble all over the road. This would be a lot safer than the riding gear which is needed for comfort.