Cycling and motoring ‘tribalism’, where groups of bike riders and drivers coalesce online to defend their ‘camp’ and demonise the ‘other’, is only hindering progress when it comes to road safety, says Oxford cycling campaign group Cyclox.

Cyclox has been one of the driving forces behind the campaign to increase road safety in the city by calling for the installation of protected cycle lanes and a reduction in speed limits and traffic. Five women have been killed cycling in and around Oxford since 2017, including two – Ellen Moilanen and Ling Felce – who were killed after being struck by lorries while riding their bikes in the past two months.

One of Cyclox’s trustees, Jake Backus, has published a piece in the Oxford Mail (link is external) over the weekend, arguing that the apparent tribal conflict between motorists and cyclists is a barrier to securing immediate changes on our roads.

Like the tribes that formed in the wake of dramatic political events such as Brexit, sparking prolonged waves of often anonymous online vitriol, Backus writes that “people who prefer to cycle and people who prefer to drive have formed their tribes.”

Those tribes, he says, are based on stereotyping the ‘other’: “Cyclists are annoying and don’t obey the rules, and drivers are dangerous, take up a lot of space and cause pollution. Consequently, “cyclists” go through red lights (although not all cyclists go through red lights), and cycle without lights and a helmet. “Vehicle drivers” speed, use their mobile phones (although, again, not all drivers speed or use their phones).

“But the reality is that many people both cycle and drive, and ultimately, some people are just badly behaved (let’s call them idiots)..

“You get idiot cyclists and idiot drivers (although idiot drivers tend to be more dangerous to others, while idiot cyclists are most often a danger to themselves).

“So, the debate goes around in circles with little compassion or empathy for each other. Ultimately, we share the same space, and we need to be considerate of one another.

“At the basic level, do we believe in “survival of the fittest” or “survival of the friendliest through cooperation”?”

He continues: “Where is the debate about what is best for society, best for the health and safety of our children and old people, and what is socially equitable and inclusive?

“Ultimately, if we want things to get better, we will need to make changes, since by definition, something needs to change to get better (unless of course you think that others should do all the changing).

“How flexible to change are we? How adaptable are we to alternative futures?

“Whilst it may generate engagement and conflict online, tribalism isn’t helping us to make any progress.

“Maybe one day cyclists and drivers can have their own segregated space, and if more people cycle, then vehicle drivers will also benefit with less congestion. A win-win. Meanwhile, the eighth woman has been killed in Oxford in recent years whilst cycling.

“Let’s make the health and safety of everyone the key priority, share the road considerately, and discuss things in a moderate and empathetic way so that we can agree how best to move forwards – literally.”

What do you think? Is online tribalism one of the main barriers to securing safer roads for everyone?

https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-live-blog-11-april-2022-291829#live-blog-item-33203

On 11/04/2022 10:06, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> Cycling and motoring ‘tribalism’, where groups of bike riders and drivers coalesce online to defend their ‘camp’ and demonise the ‘other’, is only hindering progress when it comes to road safety, says Oxford cycling campaign group Cyclox.

Sounds like Cyclox is on the back foot.

Is 'Cyclox' derived from 'cycling bollox'?

--
Spike

burtthebike | 3054 posts | 3 hours ago
7 likes

“Victim blaming as policy”: Cyclists blast Bedfordshire Police’s “one mistake could be fatal” cycling safety campaign"

I was interested in what the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s ‘2 Wheels’ campaign actually said, so googled it, and was quite surprised at the results, the oldest being 2019; one might have hoped that they'd learned not to blame the victims by now.

Most of the language used was the same, so obviously just cut and pasted from the NPCC, and all of it mentioned that it was aimed at drivers as well as motor-cyclists and cyclists. Almost all of the stories said that that particular police force was going to take some action on advising cyclists, but only one mentioned doing anything about dangerous drivers, by running a close pass operation.

It seems to me that the fault isn't Bedforshire Police; it's the NPCC, which isn't giving sufficient direction to individual forces to tackle the cause of the problem, not the symptoms.