Cyclists care more about the common good

CassidyAce

Senior Retro Guru
An interesting little piece thrown my way by Google News this morning: https://road.cc/content/news/study-cyclists-more-caring-drivers-community-issues-304755.

In a nutshell: if you cycle around urban areas, you engage with other people and the local environment more than you do when driving, and this engagement has a psychological effect making cyclists, on average, care more about the 'common good'. That means that there are more benefits to cycling than previously thought.
 
An interesting little piece thrown my way by Google News this morning: https://road.cc/content/news/study-cyclists-more-caring-drivers-community-issues-304755.

In a nutshell: if you cycle around urban areas, you engage with other people and the local environment more than you do when driving, and this engagement has a psychological effect making cyclists, on average, care more about the 'common good'. That means that there are more benefits to cycling than previously thought.
By the same logic, people who walk care even more? And people who walk slow care the most?
 
By the same logic, people who walk care even more? And people who walk slow care the most?
No. Not 'more' or 'most'. According to the study, it's the same effect on cyclists as on walkers. People who walk the slowest would see least of their environment, so neither the effect nor the 'logic' holds.
 
Ah, it's been at least a week since I posted the appropriate gif

homer-simpson-homer.gif
 
No. Not 'more' or 'most'. According to the study, it's the same effect on cyclists as on walkers. People who walk the slowest would see least of their environment, so neither the effect nor the 'logic' holds.
This assumes they walk for a set time rather than a set distance. If they cover the same distance they are exposed to the environment for longer.
 
This assumes they walk for a set time rather than a set distance. If they cover the same distance they are exposed to the environment for longer.
Fair point. However, it's still the case that the authors (of the original research) were not saying that caring about the common good correlates with speed of travel, such that the slower you travel the more you care about the common good. (Neither were they saying that there's a simple, linear relation between length of time outside and caring about the common good.) They say that urban driving is usually too demanding of drivers' attention for them to engage with their surroundings in the same way as cyclists and pedestrians, and they say that the cocooning effect of cars creates a barrier between people in cars and their surroundings so that they're less able to appreciate those surroundings. However, I remain interested rather than convinced by what the authors said; in particular, I don't know whether they adequately allowed for the reverse case: concern for the common good leading to people cycling.
 
Fair point. However, it's still the case that the authors (of the original research) were not saying that caring about the common good correlates with speed of travel, such that the slower you travel the more you care about the common good. (Neither were they saying that there's a simple, linear relation between length of time outside and caring about the common good.) They say that urban driving is usually too demanding of drivers' attention for them to engage with their surroundings in the same way as cyclists and pedestrians, and they say that the cocooning effect of cars creates a barrier between people in cars and their surroundings so that they're less able to appreciate those surroundings. However, I remain interested rather than convinced by what the authors said; in particular, I don't know whether they adequately allowed for the reverse case: concern for the common good leading to people cycling.
Thanks.

I'll not make a joke next time.
 
I would argue that the average urban cyclist does so because they care about the common good rather than caring more because they cycle 🤷‍♂️
 
Back
Top