I found this on another forum. Allegedly it came from Cycling Weekly - but I haven't check on the authenticity. Even if it's a spoof, it's an interesting idea:
----------- 8< --------------- Following research by Dr Ian Walker of Bath University which concluded that drivers give you less clearance if you wear a helmet a recent experience of mine suggests a better alternative!
Myself, my wife and my son cycled to a pizza restaurant to celebrate his 10th birthday where we were give silver helium filled balloons to take home with us. After the meal, we decided to tie these to the back of my bike and I led the way home. When we arrived my wife commented that all the cars were really slowing down and giving a wide clearance, presumably because of the balloons attached to my bike.
So although not wearing a helmet apparently may cause a driver not to give you any room or space, what seems to be the biggest concern for passing drivers is not how likely they are to hit the cyclist - but whether or not the car will be hit by a balloon!
I've noticed a similar effect when cycling home from the pantomime with a flashing Magic Wand sticking out of my rucksac.
According to research, drivers are inclined to give less room to cyclists they perceive as predictable: the corollary would imply that if one looks sufficiently like a nutter, one will be given more room.
H****ts are seen as an indicator of predictability, and therefore may incline drivers to drive more closely. Of course, one can combine them with balloons:
So although not wearing a helmet apparently may cause a driver not to give you any room or space, what seems to be the biggest concern for passing drivers is not how likely they are to hit the cyclist - but whether or not the car will be hit by a balloon!
I seem to remember reading on a website (I've just googled for it and can't find the link) about a group of people who were slowing traffic on a back street by tying balloons to sticks/manhole covers in the middle of the street, and noticed that drivers would slow down to walking pace and go around them rather than drive over one.
As Mark pointed out, this conforms to David Martin's theory of Big. Anything unusual/out of the ordinary gets treated with the utmost caution, out of proportion to the danger it represents.
All this is great but gives us one depressing message - drivers care more about pretty balloons than they do cyclists!
That is one interpretation, yes.
Another interpretation is that it snaps drivers out of their autopilot mode, brought on by the 'illusion of safeness' created by the over-regulated road environment we have given to them. Something unexpected or not covered by the road rules returns them to manual mode, where they have to think for themselves again, and take full responsibility for their own actions.
This is the same principle that makes full road de-regulation so successful as a safety policy. It removes all safety cues, meaning that drivers (and other road users) cannot lapse into a complacency induced trance whilst using the roads - they cannot rely on others giving way to them as they do with the rule-based system.
All this is great but gives us one depressing message - drivers care more about pretty balloons than they do cyclists!
To me it suggests the need for driver education and that government "road safety" effort is somewhat misdirected.
In the meantime, I have to live with what we've got right now. David Martin's theory goes some way to explain why motorists give me so much more room when I'm towing a trailer and suggests a strategy to coerce motorists into giving me adequate space when I'm not.
In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...
Quoted message said:
All this is great but gives us one depressing message - drivers care more about pretty balloons than they do cyclists!
It's not about caring, or even about noticing - it's about prompting them to disengage autopilot and actually think about what they are doing and what's going on around them. If all cyclists had balloons then the drivers' autopilots would be programmed to deal with them and we'd be back to square one.
David Martin's theory goes some way to explain why motorists give me so much more room when I'm towing a trailer and suggests a strategy to coerce motorists into giving me adequate space when I'm not.
Worse: the ones in hi-vis would be seen but ignored, and drivers wouldn't even bother to look for cyclists not in hi-vis.
Not true. Hi-vis leads to SMIDSYs so often that it is nicknamed urban camouflage whereas motorists complain all the time about the number of unlit dark clothed cyclists they've seen. ;-)
-- Tony
"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least wildly inaccurate..." Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
According to research, drivers are inclined to give less room to cyclists they perceive as predictable: the corollary would imply that if one looks sufficiently like a nutter, one will be given more room.
My observations on this are that if I deliberately wobble the front wheel a bit or even just stand up on the pedals as a car approaches from behind, the motorist gives you much, much more room. As Will says, you seem unpredictable.
Similarly, when circumstances demand (eg narrow road, approaching a bend, etc) I have found that spitting sideways into the path of the car (not *at* the car I hasten to add) also causes them to slow dramatically and see you as a tired (and rude/objectionable/unsavoury - delete as appropriate) human being rather than just a 'bike'. Obviously this does not work on busy main roads where the saliva reserves will quickly run dry :-)
