Download Understanding the relationship between cyclists and drivers

Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................. v
1
2
3
4
5
Introduction .................................................................................... 1
1.1
Background .................................................................................................. 1
1.2
Scope ........................................................................................................... 2
Methodology ................................................................................... 3
2.1
Summary ...................................................................................................... 3
2.2
Media review ................................................................................................ 3
2.3
Literature review ........................................................................................... 3
2.4
Focus Groups ............................................................................................... 4
2.5
Protocol analysis .......................................................................................... 7
2.6
Definitions ..................................................................................................... 8
Extent of Tension ......................................................................... 10
3.1
Introduction ................................................................................................. 10
3.2
What is tension? ......................................................................................... 10
3.3
How significant are any tensions? .............................................................. 11
3.4
Portrayal of tensions in the media .............................................................. 12
What are the causes of tensions?............................................... 17
4.1
Introduction ................................................................................................. 17
4.2
Themes ....................................................................................................... 17
4.3
Notable omissions ...................................................................................... 19
Theme I: Impatience ..................................................................... 20
5.1
Introduction ................................................................................................. 20
5.2
Congestion as a trigger of impatience ........................................................ 20
5.3
Anger and aggression in general ............................................................... 21
840979615
PAGE i
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
6
7
8
9
5.4
Anger and aggression on the roads ........................................................... 22
5.5
Experience from protocol statements and focus groups ............................ 23
5.6
Further thoughts ......................................................................................... 24
Theme II: Fear and Fright ............................................................. 25
6.1
Introduction ................................................................................................. 25
6.2
Feelings of fear and fright ........................................................................... 25
6.3
The relationship of fear and risk ................................................................. 26
6.4
The relationship of fright and response ...................................................... 27
6.5
Further effects of surprise .......................................................................... 27
6.6
Further thoughts ......................................................................................... 29
Theme III: Level of expectation ................................................... 30
7.1
Introduction ................................................................................................. 30
7.2
Situations .................................................................................................... 30
7.3
Expectations ............................................................................................... 31
7.4
Further thoughts ......................................................................................... 33
Theme IV: Level of awareness .................................................... 34
8.1
Introduction ................................................................................................. 34
8.2
Alertness to road space and environment .................................................. 34
8.3
Is it harder to drive or cycle? ...................................................................... 34
8.4
Risk compensation and related behaviours ............................................... 35
8.5
Views of the road ........................................................................................ 36
8.6
Further thoughts ......................................................................................... 37
Dissemination of attitudes ........................................................... 38
9.1
Introduction ................................................................................................. 38
9.2
The influence of media on the driver-cyclist relationship ........................... 38
9.3
The origin of perceptions ............................................................................ 38
9.4
Further thoughts ......................................................................................... 39
840979615
PAGE ii
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
10 Conclusion and Further Work ..................................................... 40
10.1
Conclusion .................................................................................................. 40
10.2
Further work ............................................................................................... 41
References .......................................................................................... 43
Appendix A: Summary of Literature Review .................................... 47
Appendix B: Focus Group Content................................................... 57
840979615
PAGE iii
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
Document History and Status
Revision
Date issued
Reviewed by
Approved by
Date approved
Revision type
1
2/7/2010
C. Munro
L. Ampt
2/7/2010
Draft
2
23/8/2010
C. Munro
L. Ampt
23/8/2010
Final
Distribution of Copies
Revision
Quantity
Issued to
1
PDF
Department of Transport
2
PDF
Department of Transport
Printed:
22 August 2011
Last saved:
22 August 2011 01:07 PM
File name:
\\Skmconsulting.com\melprojects\SBIF\Projects\SB19046\Deliverables\Reports\SB19046
Relationship Drivers and Cyclists (Final) v4.docx
Authors:
Liz Ampt, Penelope Somers and Cameron Munro
Project manager:
Cameron Munro
Name of organisation:
Department of Transport
Name of project:
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
Document version:
Final
Project number:
SB19046
840979615
PAGE iv
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
Executive Summary
Background
The Victorian Government is committed to promoting and encouraging cycling as a
legitimate and safe form of transport. However, there is a perception of increasing tension
between drivers and cyclists, suggesting a souring relationship that may lead to unsafe
behaviour on the roads and, potentially, reducing the rate of growth in cycling.
While there is much anecdotal evidence of tension between cyclists and drivers, and more
widely of generally increasing tensions on the road between all road users, what is lacking
is an understanding of the underlying motivations for any tensions, and indeed how
extensive these may be in the community.
This report documents a research project that investigated the extent of the tensions and
then takes the first steps to uncovering the components of these tensions. The purpose
has been to understand the factors, behaviours and circumstances that lead to friction
between drivers and cyclists. It has found a series of overlapping factors that are likely to
combine to create situations and interactions that lead to people experiencing tensions
(which may or may not manifest themselves in altered behaviours). The report proposes a
series of factors that could form the basis of further investigation that could lead to actions
and policies if needed.
The report suggests that the levels of tension in the driver-cyclist relationship occur in the
context of a society as a whole which is exhibiting behaviours and creating situations that
are likely to increase tensions in all walks of life.
Method
Most previous research on tension on the roads has focussed on drivers’ and cyclists
attitudes – particularly anger and aggression. While our work involved a detailed
investigation of relevant literature, this report describes a methodology that was based on
exploration of actual behaviours – both reported and in situ. This process consisted of an
interactive process of:
 literature review,
 hypothesis formation,
 focus groups to ask people about past behaviours, interactions and perceptions,
 people being recorded as they described thoughts, feelings and situations as they
cycled or drove (protocol analysis), and
 further focus groups and literature review to explore leads that were found as the
process emerged.
840979615
PAGE v
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
Findings
Extent of the tension
The research suggested that while there were reported tensions, the majority of reporting
came from (a) having seen behaviours that are considered dangerous and concluding that
‘there is a tension’, meaning an actual or potential danger, (b) having heard others describe
similar situations, and (c) having read (occasionally seen) media reports which add to the
influence of either (a) or (b).
In a simplified summary, the community tends to think there is a lot more tension than is
actually reported – and that actually seems to occur on the roads.
Key themes or factors potentially leading to overt tensions
The understanding gained during this project made it possible to posit four key factors that
are likely to, alone or in combination, lead to situations where either drivers or cyclists could
become tense and elicit observed negative interactions ranging from physical violence to
lesser signs of overt tension such as yelling, offensive hand gestures, muttering and so on.
The following were the key themes and triggers.
Impatience
It seems that impatience - irritability with anything that impedes delays – is likely to be one
of the key factors underlying the tendency to create situations of tension. There were
formal studies where certain situations (e.g. congestion) led to symptoms of impatience.
There were also practitioners (e.g. clinical psychologists) who noted that people who are
generally experiencing higher levels of stress are more likely to show visible signs of
aggression both on the roads and elsewhere in life.
We were able to identify specific behaviours that people used to identify impatience of
others. These included ‘drivers speeding and weaving’, ‘you can see their expression, they
look anxious’, or ‘cyclists cutting in and around slow moving traffic’.
It is concluded that situations that generate impatience, or an environment in which there
are impatient people, are likely to stimulate tension between cyclists and drivers.
Fear and Fright
Common themes were two emotions that we have described as fright and fear. We have
used fear to describe the emotional response to a perceived threat. It is often stimulated by
situations where past experience or stories have made people anxious. This can lead to
the ‘fear’ of a certain type of rider/driver or of a certain intersection or situation. Under
situations of fear, people (both riders and drivers) are more likely to exhibit overt tensions –
particularly if that circumstance is accompanied by a surprising or unexpected situation.
840979615
PAGE vi
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
Fright is a surprise or something immediately threatening. Fright has been reported to
cause aggressive responses of varying levels in many life situations, as well as among
cyclists and drivers.
In one focus group we explored the relationship of drivers and cyclists behaviour to
responses of fright and fear and found that there does appear to be a close correlation,
although this would need to be verified through further research.
Level of Expectation
The level of expectation is, in many ways, closely related to the concept of fright. Many
people talk of an emotion similar to fear or fright when in an unexpected situation. It was
clear from the focus group discussions that drivers felt lower tensions where they were
expecting to meet cyclists than in situations where cyclists were very infrequently
encountered.
The literature is clear that expectation can lead to certain types of biases. These include a
tendency to overvalue personality based explanations for behaviours (e.g. cyclists must be
low income), and undervalue situational explanations (e.g. it is beautiful weather for cycling)
– this is termed fundamental attribution error in the psychology literature. In the same way,
research suggests that people think that minority groups (e.g. cyclists – the less frequent
mode) exhibit consistent behaviours within the group (e.g. all jump red lights).
We tested this to some extent by asking people what type of people they thought were the
worst bike riders and the worst drivers. Very similar adjectives were used to describe both,
and included – arrogant (don’t obey rules (bikes), or speed (cars)), and ‘act like they own
the road’.
The level of expectation can also relate to infrastructure and cyclists in particular reported
surprise/fright/fear when, for example, a bike lane suddenly ceased.
In summary, unexpected situations can cause other reactions (fright/surprise/fear) which
seem to be closely related to increased potential for tension.
Level of Awareness
During the analysis of the protocol statements, and viewing the video cameras used by the
protocol group, two aspects of awareness differences between cyclists and drivers became
apparent:
1) Cyclists seemed to be alert to many more aspects of the road space and environment
than did drivers
2) Cyclists have a different view of the road than drivers


About 0.5 to 1.0 m higher than drivers (roughly similar SUVs or light commercial
vehicles)
180 degrees unimpeded vision (no car frame in view)
Both of these themes were explored in the final focus groups. The first seemed to be
believed by most people, but is worth further exploration. If true, it may mean that
840979615
PAGE vii
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
behaviours that seem reasonable to the cyclist who has a greater view of the road might
seem dangerous to drivers – leading to perceived impatience of cyclists by drivers as
described in the section on impatience.
Dissemination of Attitudes
The study found that tension between cyclists and drivers were no more or less prevalent
than other forms of tension in the community. We explored briefly the origin of people’s
perceptions of the tension that might lead people to say that it exists (seemingly with much
conviction) without being able to substantiate examples.
In many aspects of life, people apparently get their information from word of mouth,
supplemented by the media. It seems that this is likely to be similar with driver and cyclist
relationships. In other words they might have seen an experienced a situation which they
see as dangerous, which they interpret as a situation of tension. This could lead to a
situation of ‘fear’ or anticipation of conflict – and when there are media reports (often not
well-balanced) the reports serve to confirm the hypothesis.
Further investigation is clearly needed in this area if actions are to be taken.
Conclusions
It is concluded that while there are clearly some tensions evident between cyclists and
drivers, these occur in the context of an increasing tense and stressed world.
The underlying factors that are likely to precipitate tensions are impatience, fear and fright,
levels of expectation and differing levels of awareness between cyclists and drivers.
We believe that this report has set out the basis on which to take further steps to address
the issue of tension between drivers and cyclists.
840979615
PAGE viii
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
The Victorian Government is committed to promoting and encouraging cycling as a legitimate and
safe form of transport. In order to achieve this objective, a combination of infrastructure
improvements and attitudinal and behavioural changes are likely to be required. Cycling has grown
rapidly over the past ten years; for example, journeys to work by cycling have increased by 42%
between 2001 and 2006 according to ABS census data. This growth appears to have accelerated if
anything in recent years; VicRoads permanent bicycle counter data along the inner cordon has
indicated growth of around 33% between 2006 and 2009. However, there is a perception of
increasing tension between drivers and cyclists, suggesting a souring relationship that may lead to
unsafe behaviour on the roads and, potentially, reducing the rate of growth in cycling.
There is much anecdotal evidence of tension between cyclists and drivers, and more widely of
generally increasing tensions on the road between all road users. What is lacking is an
understanding of the underlying motivations for any tensions, and indeed how extensive these may be
in the community.
Drivers and cyclists are not mutually exclusive groups, as most cyclists are also car drivers and some
car drivers are also cyclists. The objective of this study was to explore the thinking of drivers and
cyclists when sharing the road, including such questions as:
Why is it that when we get in a car we feel aggravated by cyclists, although we may be a
cyclist ourselves?
Why do we feel it’s all right to go through a red light when we are riding a bike, when we
would never do that in a car?
These questions are very difficult to answer definitively as they are intrinsically linked to human
psychology – both behaviours and attitudes - which differ greatly among individuals and even within
individuals depending on mood and the situation. Furthermore, such behaviours and attitudes are
often full of contradictions.
Most previous research on tension on the roads has focussed on driver attitudes, particularly the
anger and aggression experienced while driving (often termed ‘road rage’ by the media). There is
also a small amount of literature on ‘bike rage’ which is described as acts of anger or aggression
committed by cyclists against drivers (Montgomery, 2009). There has also been extensive research
into the vulnerability of cyclists, including the types and severity of crashes, and the barriers to riding
(such as the focus groups commissioned by the Victorian Department of Transport in 2008). The lack
of research is balanced against market research data which, taken at face value, suggests a
significant problem – 26% of drivers report having had a collision or near miss with a cyclist and 77%
claim to have observed cyclists breaking the road rules (AAMI, 2010).
When incidents do occur, particularly at the more violent end of the spectrum, there tends to be
extensive media coverage. The way in which these events are reported (as well as their selection in
the first place) is sometimes emotive and speculative as to attribution of ‘blame’. There are often also
840979615
PAGE 1
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
statements about it being an ’increasing problem‘. However, there is little to no real quantitative
evidence to support these assertions.
1.2
Scope
Given the perception that tensions are increasing between car drivers and cyclists, the Department of
Transport (DOT) commissioned the present study to understand the tensions between cyclists and
drivers. Our scope in this study was to focus on understanding the relationship between cyclists and
drivers. The objective was not to identify interventions (should they be required) that could help
mitigate any tensions. However, some of the study findings may help point towards directions for
possible actions that the DOT may wish to consider further.
840979615
PAGE 2
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
2 Methodology
2.1
Summary
The methodology adopted for this study consisted of four components:
1) Identify relevant printed media articles on cyclist-driver relationships from the past five years.
2) Review the relevant literature, covering not just cyclist-driver specific research but also wider
traffic psychology, community anger and impatience studies.
3) Focus groups with drivers, cyclists and people who are both drivers and cyclists.
4) Protocol analysis - a method where people (in this case cyclists and drivers) verbally record their
thoughts, feelings and interactions as they are cycling or driving (as opposed to retrospectively).
Each stage of the methodology is described in the following sections. The media and literature
reviews were ongoing throughout the project as new aspects of enquiry were suggested by the focus
groups and protocol analysis. Similarly, the focus groups were staged with two taking place before
the protocol analysis and a further three towards the end of the project.
2.2 Media review
A search was undertaken for articles from Victorian mainstream print media, namely The Age, Sunday
Age, the Herald-Sun and the Sunday Herald-Sun, for the five year period 2005 to 2009 (plus 2010 to
the end of April), using search terms “cyclists and drivers” and “cyclists and motorists” to identify
articles specifically referring to the relationship between these road users. From these results,
irrelevant articles were removed and the remaining articles classified into those that made direct
reference to the driver-cyclist relationship or were more general articles but still relevant in terms of
understanding the reporting of cycling (and driving). Published public input (“word on the street”,
letters and emails printed in the paper) were included in the review.
The purpose of the media review was to:


determine any trends in the number of articles and in positive or negative reporting of both
cyclists and drivers (and cycling and driving), and
summarise reporting language and try to discern writers’ and publications’ views and any bias
towards cyclists or drivers.
2.3 Literature review
Published research from both Australia and overseas was identified from a range of sources: cyclistdriver studies, traffic psychology and the wider psychological and sociological literature. Relevant
research was found in publically available research reports, conference proceedings, technical
journals and relevant websites. The purpose of this literature review was to:



840979615
determine what, if any, consensus has been established from the research about the extent
and causes of cyclist-driver tensions,
identify relevant models of behaviour and attitudes which may help in understanding the
nature of any tensions, and
identify research approaches which have been previously adopted in this area, and to
establish how effective they were.
PAGE 3
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
Summaries of key reports reviewed in this study are provided in Appendix A and discussed as
appropriate throughout this report. However, it is worth summarising the themes that emerged from
literature (mostly international) at this point.
1) There is evidence of aggression by road users, including drivers and cyclists.
2) There is also evidence of some tensions between drivers and cyclists, though its extent is not well
documented and there is little that specifically refers to Australia, with almost nothing being
written about the Melbourne situation.
3) The reasons for tension/aggression of any type seem to be able to be grouped into those that are
aggressive (and dangerous) and those that are irritating.
4) There is some evidence of the influence of stress.
5) There is varying evidence of other factors such as traffic conditions.
We expanded the literature search after the initial focus groups and protocol analysis to explore
several threads which are reported in detail in Sections 5 to 8.
2.4
Focus Groups
Two rounds of focus groups were held during the study:
1) To explore the issues in a wider context so as to inform the subsequent stages of the study - two
focus groups were held early during the project.
2) To verify the themes identified from the earlier focus groups, protocol analysis and literature
review and explore them in more depth – three focus groups were held towards the end of the
study.
Each focus group had between eight and ten respondents and was balanced as much as possible
across demographic characteristics and mode use (from avid drivers to avid cyclists and – the
majority – those in between).
2.4.1 Recruitment
A market research agency, I-view, assisted with recruiting the focus group participants. The following
criteria were used in selecting the participants for each series of focus groups:





Definition of cyclist and driver: someone who cycles/drives (is the driver) on roads more than
twice a week.
At least half both drive and cycle, and at least one drives only (by above definition) and at
least one cycles only (by above definition).
At least one of the driver-cyclists should be female.
One person in one of the groups to be a truck or bus driver.
There should be at least one cycle courier and one car courier (in total).
The initial series of groups had a requirement that participants travel within the CBD or other
potentially high conflict areas or routes, such as Beach Road or the inner northern suburbs (e.g.
Brunswick, Fitzroy and Carlton). For the final series of focus groups there was no such criterion. This
was in response to the themes of fear and fright and level of expectation that had emerged, so that
we could involve and gain responses from a wider range of road users, including those drivers who
may not encounter large numbers of cyclists on their journeys.
840979615
PAGE 4
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
These recruitment criteria meant that it was possible to obtain a wide range of views. The intention of
the focus groups was not to provide an unbiased representation of the community views; rather, they
were intended to help delve into the relationship between cyclists and drivers from different
perspectives. Further studies, conducted on a larger scale, would be required to determine how the
views and themes identified in this report are represented across the community.
2.4.2 Participant description
Table 2.1 summarises the characteristics of those at the initial focus groups. Most participants were
between 25 and 39. On average across the focus groups, there were about equal males and
females, and, while all people drove the car at some time, there was an approximately even split of
those who mostly drove and those who mostly rode a bike.

Table 2.1 Participant details for the initial focus groups

Table 2.1 Participant details for the initial focus groups
Female/ Male
Age (yrs)
Postcode
Car/Bike is main mode
M
25-39
3132
Car
M
25-39
3166
Car
M
25-39
3140
Bike
M
25-39
3053
Bike
M
25-39
3072
Car
M
25-39
3078
Bike
F
40-55
3121
Bike
M
25-39
3083
Car (Courier driver)
M
25-39
3161
Car
F
25-39
3038
Car
F
25-39
3122
Car
M
25-39
3032
Car
F
25-39
3032
Car
F
25-39
3121
Both Car and Bike
Session 1
Session 2
840979615
PAGE 5
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
Table 2.2 Participant details for the final focus groups shows the participants from the later focus
groups. Overall, 36% of participants were female and 32% were over 40 years of age. Almost 40% of
participants either cycled or cycled and drove.

Table 2.2 Participant details for the final focus groups
Female/ Male
Age (yrs)
Postcode
Car/Bike is main mode
Courier/Bus/Motorbike Driver
Session 3
M
40+
3073
Car
Motorbike
F
25-39
3083
Car
M
25-39
3022
Car
M
25-39
3190
Car
F
25-39
3337
Car
F
25-39
3775
Car
M
40+
3006
Both bike and car
M
40+
3201
Car
F
25-39
3135
Both bike and car
M
40+
3105
Both bike and car
M
25-39
3196
Both bike and car
M
25-39
3013
Both bike and car
M
25-39
3191
Car
F
25-39
3070
Both bike and car
M
40+
3019
Bike
F
25-39
3083
Car
M
25-39
3805
Car
F
25-39
3031
Car
F
25-39
3072
Car
Bus
M
40+
3175
Car
Courier
M
25-39
3163
Both bike and car
Motorbike
Session 4
Motorbike
Courier
Session 5
840979615
PAGE 6
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
2.4.3 Discussion topics
The topics covered in each of the two sets of focus groups are summarised here. The detailed
discussion guides are given in Appendix B.
First set of focus groups




Written task – to write down feelings when getting around (before any discussion). Included
frustrations and ‘other mode that causes most concern’
Bike/car relationship. Explore traffic conflicts in general – and then get them to name last one
in which they were involved
Bike/car tensions in more detail.
Review media articles (if time)
Second set of focus groups






2.5
Written task – as for first set
Exploring impatience
Exploring fear and fright – including written flight/fright assessment
Understanding level of expectation (what kind of people ride bikes/drive cars)
Level of awareness (difference in skill levels between bikes and cars)
Dissemination of attitudes – where do people get their perceptions from?
Protocol analysis
Protocol analysis is a means of obtaining the thoughts, feelings and behaviours of people – in this
case of cyclists and drivers. The method used here - concurrent protocol analysis (Crutcher, 1994),
means that people verbalise these thoughts as they are travelling. Such an approach avoids
problems of recall and respondent bias that are typical of recall-based surveys and interviews.
2.5.1 Method
Participants were recruited to drive or cycle along a road route with which they are familiar, e.g. a
typical commuting route or weekend recreational route. In this way the objective was to have
participants who are familiar with the route and so are aware of typical conditions and infrastructure
en-route.
Participants were provided with a voice recorder and small video camera which was located on their
helmet (cyclists) or windscreen (car). Participants attended a briefing session prior to the fieldwork
where they were briefed on the requirements of the study and the operation of the voice recorder and
video camera.
Participants were instructed to describe verbally as they made their journey the following:





840979615
General mood and how they feel prior to setting out on their journey, in comparison with other
times
The people they see or encounter
The other vehicles they encounter or can see
The ‘infrastructure’ they observe (traffic lights, diversions, one-way roads, bicycle lanes)
What they ‘think you are going to do’ at a certain point of the trip (e.g. intersection, pinch
point) and how that works out
PAGE 7
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists


Talk about how you are feel en route
As you conclude your journey, report how you feel.
All recordings and videos were reviewed by the research team after the fieldwork in order to identify
relevant feelings, events and tensions.
2.5.2 Participant description
Table 2.3 describes the participants in the protocol analysis exercise and the journeys they undertook.
Note that the last two trips (Northcote – Hawthorn return) were done on consecutive days by the same
person – once as a driver and once as a cyclist.

Table 2.3 Protocol analysis participant and journey details
Type
Cyclist
Mode used
Bike
Gender
Female
Time of
day
Journey details
Journey type
AM (light)
AM (light)/
PM (duskdark)
AM (light)/
PM (light)
Recreational (weekend)
Beach Road
Commuting
Kensington-Port Melbourne then
Port Melbourne to
Commuting
Fairfield-Heidelberg Heights
(return)
Cyclist
Bike
Male
Cyclist
Bike
Male
Cyclist
Bike
Male
AM (light)
Courier
CBD
Driver
Car
Female
AM (light)/
PM (duskdark)
Commuting
Ashwood-Hawthorn (return)
Driver
Car
Male
AM (light
Courier
Bundoora-CBD-South YarraToorak
Driver
Car
Male
Recreational (weekend)
Beach Road
Driver
Car
Male
Commuting
Carnegie-Richmond (retrun)
DriverCyclist
Car
Male
Commuting
Northcote-Hawthorn (return)
DriverCyclist
Bike
Male
Commuting
Northcote-Hawthorn (return)
AM (dawn/
light
AM (light)/
PM (duskdark)
3201 AM
(light)/ PM
(dark)
AM (light)/
PM (duskdark)
2.6 Definitions
In order to understand the concept of expectation in more depth, we introduce several psychological
concepts. These are described in brief below and will be referred to in the subsequent text as
appropriate. These social psychology theories were developed to describe social interactions in a
wide range of contexts – not just traffic psychology. They have clear parallels to specific traffic
interactions, including the relationship between drivers and cyclists.
840979615
PAGE 8
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
Fundamental attribution error
A tendency to over value personality-based explanations for observed behaviours of others
while undervaluing situational explanations. For example, drivers may assume cyclists only
ride because they cannot afford a car (in other words, they assume their travel choice is
constrained rather than made by choice). This often manifests such that the assumption
applies to all in the out-group consistently (see out-group homogeneity bias below).
Out-group Homogeneity Bias
An assumption that out-group members are more similar than they really are, and by
implication, in-group members as more dissimilar than in reality. Examples are: “all cyclists
jump red lights” or “all car drivers dislike cyclists”.
In-group Bias
A tendency to favour the group to which an individual feels most allegiance, leading to
feelings of superiority among in-group members and inferiority towards out-groups.
840979615
PAGE 9
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
3 Extent of Tension
3.1 Introduction
In this section we take into account all the avenues we explored (literature, media, focus groups and
protocol analysis with their accompanying videos) to describe the extent of the tension between
drivers and cyclists.
There is concern within the community, reflected in part by views expressed in the media, that as
cycling has grown in popularity so too have tensions between cyclists and drivers. However, it is not
altogether clear that tensions are growing, nor how extensive these tensions are, and whether they
are any different from wider tensions on the roads between all road user groups – or indeed than
tensions in our society as a whole.
Much tension seems to be reflected not so much in user behaviours (malicious acts by motorists
against cyclists and cyclists against drivers seem to be very rare) but rather in social attitudes and
views expressed in social situations and reported in the media.
In the focus groups and during the protocol analysis, there was some, but very little evidence of
reported tense or aggressive interactions between cyclists and drivers. It was mostly reported by
people who assessed themselves as ‘impatient’ in most aspects of their life. However, almost
everyone in the focus groups agreed that such tensions did exist (even though most individuals had
not directly experienced such tensions).
There is no ongoing survey to measure driver-cyclist tensions. Existing surveys and data collection
efforts (such as Police crash records and the AAMI Crash Index recording driver attitudes) provide
only a partial picture of what is happening on the roads. None of these surveys record attitudes or
tensions between drivers and cyclists.
3.2 What is tension?
For the purposes of this discussion it is useful to try to understand tension. A dictionary definition is
useful as a starting point:
It refers to the consequence of the failure of an organism – human or animal - to respond
appropriately to emotional or physical threats, whether actual or imagined (Seyle, 1956).
This is consistent with the literature we have reviewed and the lessons we have learnt from the
protocols and focus groups.
People appear to experience tension between cyclists and drivers in the following types of situations:
1) When people see behaviours in others (either cyclists or drivers) that they consider
aggressive (Tasca, 2000). These could include tailgating, weaving in and out of the traffic,
passing on the road shoulder, failure to yield right of way to other road users, preventing other
drivers from passing, running lights.
2) When people see behaviours that are not intended to physically harm other road users but likely
to intimidate, irritate, anger or provoke them (Tasca, 2000). These behaviours would include
flashing headlights, sustained horn-honking, glaring, yelling, gesturing.
840979615
PAGE 10
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
3) When people are experiencing fear/apprehension (of a known ‘danger’ spot) and/or they get a
fright or surprise by unexpected behaviour (see Section 6).
Based on the focus groups and protocol analysis, people seem less likely to experience tension if
they are highly skilled and experienced drivers/cyclists and if they are relatively patient people.
However, the behaviour of skilled and experienced drivers or cyclists might be perceived as
aggressive by others. The views in the literature on this issue are mixed; for example, Tasca (2000)
tends to agree with this conclusion while Lajunen et al. (1998) to the contrary finds that more
experienced and skilled drivers tend to get more frustrated when road conditions do not meet their
expectations.
3.3 How significant are any tensions?
Focus groups participants in this study were recruited on the basis that the discussion was about how
they feel on the roads. It was not until well into each of the first three focus groups was the specific
subject area of cyclists and drivers explicitly raised by the moderator. Participants were initially asked
to complete some questions about their experiences using the road (see Appendix B) without
discussion. When asked in this way (without the knowledge of other’s responses) to identify sources
of tension on roads the vast majority of drivers in the focus groups do not mention cyclists at all, or
only do so after first mentioning other drivers or infrastructure-related constraints. Even when asked
to identify ‘the road user that causes you most concern’ only 25% of drivers’ responses cited cyclists,
and fewer than 40% of all drivers mentioned cyclists. Seventy five percent (75%) of cyclists
mentioned drivers but only 43% of cyclist responses of their responses cited drivers. To some extent
it is likely that the proportion cyclists and drivers mention each other is related to the prevalence of the
other mode on the road. In other words, cyclists will almost invariably see many drivers on the road
but drivers are far less likely to encounter cyclists.

Table 3.1 Summary of reported 'road users of most concern' to drivers and cyclists in focus groups
% drivers
% cyclists
Cyclists
39%
25%
Drivers
39%
75%
Truck drivers
26%
25%
Pedestrians
13%
25%
Taxi drivers
17%
25%
Trams
9%
-
Couriers
4%
-
Young people
4%
-
All road users
4%
-
Columns total to greater than 100% as question was multi-response.
People also report greater tensions than they can identify. In the first two focus groups respondents
were asked to describe the relationship they believed to exist between cyclists and drivers. For
example, someone said (to much nodding from others in the room):
Cyclists, they’re selfish, they think they own the road. They take over the road, in the lane. It is
illegal but they are not registered road users. That frustrates me; they do not stop when there is
840979615
PAGE 11
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
an accident. They can hit a car, damage and disappear . They are more likely to get away with
it. They’ve got nothing to verify who they are. (Female driver, 25-39 age group)
When the whole group was asked to name the last time they personally could remember and describe
an incident (tension between drivers and cyclists), only two of the eight could do so. This is consistent
with findings from focus groups in the UK with drivers (Basford et al., 2002) where cyclists were rarely
cited as a source of tension.
Drivers do not have particularly strong feelings towards cyclists compared to their level of
feelings towards other groups of road users. (Basford et al., 2002, p1)
However, when cyclists were mentioned drivers tend to have strongly negative views towards cyclists
and tend to classify them as an out-group with significantly different characteristics from other drivers.
This apparent contradiction – where drivers do not identify cyclists as a source of tension without
prompting, but then assign strongly negative views when they do, is difficult to explain and was the
source of exploration in the second round of focus groups.
An apparent explanation which appeared in the focus groups and in the protocol recordings might be
that once you hear a story of an incident (particularly from a ‘trusted other’) you become more alert to
listen out for, and repeat, stories that support that notion. In a similar way, one person reported a
recent ‘fright’ she had had as a driver (see Section 6 for more detail) where she nearly hit a cyclist and
noted that:
The last fright I had was at an intersection; I was watching a pedestrian and a bicycle went
straight as I was about to turn left. I was just shaken up, ‘cause I was going to hit him. Just
really shaken up!
Then later she said:
The incident made me more alert. But more in the negative way - I will squeeze to the left, so
they can’t turn left. (Female driver, 25-39 age group)
3.4 Portrayal of tensions in the media
It is useful to examine how cyclist-driver tensions are reported in the media to assist our
understanding.
In its review of violence associated with motor vehicle use, the Victorian Parliamentary Drugs and
Crime Prevention Committee (DCPC) noted that:
There has, indeed, been a dramatic increase in the reporting of ‘road rage’ incidents and
commentary on the topic in the media and it seems that this may be responsible for the
perception that the problem is serious and increasing in prevalence... The Committee found,
however, a disparity between the perception of the seriousness and extent of ‘road rage’, and
its actual level of occurrence.
DCPC (2005, p. xv)
A similar finding would seem to be reasonable for the frequency and way in which the media portrays
incidents between drivers and cyclists.
840979615
PAGE 12
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
3.4.1 Media analysis
There were a limited number of reports of ‘rage’ in The Age and Herald Sun over the last five years.
While general ‘road rage; arose relatively frequently, there was much less frequent citation of cyclistdriver relationships. Nonetheless, some of the more sensational reporting asserted that ‘the animosity
of motorists towards cyclists has hit an all time high" (Herald Sun, 2007).
Examples of ‘positive’ reporting include:


‘Cyclists are legitimate road users’ (The Age, 2008)
This means having a more balanced road system that recognises bicycle riders as legitimate
road users, not punishing them for avoiding dangerous situations. (The Age, 2005).
Examples of ‘negative’ reporting include:



Abuse hurled by drivers has increased so significantly, it's close to becoming an official sport
in Melbourne. (Herald Sun, 2006)
.....constantly appalled by cyclists' inconsiderate attitude towards other road users and their
flouting of basic road rules (Herald Sun, 2005)
...lycra louts who think they own the roads ....unhealthy culture of arrogance, selfrighteousness and competition’ (Herald Sun, 2010).
Table 3.1 summarises the relevant articles (117 plus 61 public contributions; 178 in total) for the five
year period.

Table 3.2 Summary of the nature of relevant articles and contributions
Year
Positive
Neutral
Negative
Positive
Cyclists
Neutral
Negative
Cycling
2005
4
41
12
4
5
3
2006
3
8
9
10
7
4
2007
1
13
7
16
4
1
2008
2
19
7
13
10
3
2009
2
8
7
11
6
0
2010 *
1
1
1
4
0
1
Total
13
53
43
32
32
12
Drivers
Driving
2005
0
4
7
1
6
0
2006
0
9
11
3
11
0
2007
0
12
10
1
12
2
2008
0
10
11
2
12
2
2009
0
10
6
1
10
1
2010 *
0
3
1
0
4
1
Total
0
48
46
8
55
6
* First four months to end of April.
840979615
PAGE 13
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
Of the 178 articles and contributions, 113 referred to the driver-cyclist relationship. Table 3.2
summarises the nature of these articles and contributions.

Table 3.3 Summary of the nature of articles and contributions referring to the driver-cyclist relationship
Cyclists / Cycling
Drivers / Driving
Year
Positive
Neutral
Negative
Positive
Neutral
Negative
2005
4
1
10
0
3
4
2006
11
7
8
0
12
5
2007
10
11
5
0
11
10
2008
7
14
6
0
13
9
2009
8
9
6
1
12
7
2010 *
10
1
1
0
7
1
Total
50
43
36
1
58
36
* First four months to end of April.
Tables 3.2 and 3.3 suggest there has been no discernible change in the reporting of driver-cyclist
relationship over the five-year time period. There have been a number of incidents and issues within
this period that have been heavily reported, including:




July 2005: Professional cyclist Amy Gillett killed by a driver while on a training ride (in
Germany).
August 2006: Elderly pedestrian fatality after a collision with Hell Ride cyclists on Beach
Road.
September 2008: Female cyclist fatality on Swanston Street
Various transport strategies announced (including the Victorian Cycling Strategy in 2009).
These have had a significant bearing on the level of reporting. Notwithstanding this, the general
range of phrases used and variety of tones does not seem to show any trend in public sentiment or
writer bias over time.
Table 3.4 summarises the tone of the articles based on publication and it suggests that the Herald
Sun is more car-oriented and anti-cyclist. In 2010 the Herald Sun continues to use phrases, even in
editorials, such as “anti-car policy”, “panders to noisy anti-car groups” and “cars forced off roads” to
appeal to the sentiment that driving is an inherent right while cycling threatens our established way of
life and does not deserve government commitment and spending. On the other hand, The Age
supports the new measures being proposed by State and Local Governments, with statements such
as “the message will ring out that cars are no longer the rightful rulers of every city road”.
An example of this is the Herald Sun reporting of Melbourne Mayor Robert Doyle’s decision on
banning cars from Swanston Street (January 2010), which includes quotes about it damaging trade
and the statement ”Cyclists need to be careful and need to be tamed” whilst The Age includes no
such aspersion and the article was followed the next day by an Age editorial extolling the virtues of
the Mayor’s position.

Table 3.4 Summary of tone/message by publication
Cyclists / Cycling
Publication
840979615
Positive
Neutral
Negative
Drivers / Driving
Positive
Neutral
Negative
Total
PAGE 14
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
The Age
50
37
Herald Sun
23
48
In summary, the review suggests that:

17
48
2
49
92
38
36
6
54
86
The number of articles is heavily dependent on the occurrence of major incidents, with those
such as the Beach Road pedestrian fatality generating disproportionate reporting.
There does not appear to be a significant change in the number of articles published on
driver-cyclist relationships over the review period.
The language used has not changed over the review period.
There is an apparent bias in the reporting in different publications, which may reflect (trying to
appeal to) a different readership.



The frequency of malicious acts by drivers against cyclists and cyclists against drivers seem to be
very rare. Certainly, incidents of a serious nature seem to be (thankfully) very infrequent, although
when they do occur they appear to garner significant media coverage.
Witnesses to the crash have told smh.com.au the group of up to 60 professional cyclists were
riding south on Southern Cross Drive, just south of Dacey Avenue, Mascot about 6.30am when
a driver, agitated with being held up, accelerated in front of the pack and then slammed on his
brakes, giving the riders no time to stop.
“A perfect example of the enmity were the jeers and taunts of several drivers - more than three
separate drivers that I noticed - making their way past the aftermath of the accident, despite the
fact that a police car and two ambulances were on the scene treating seriously injured people.”
“Furious driver takes out 50-strong cycle pack”, Sydney Morning Herald, May 8, 2008
In the case of some conflicts it is not entirely clear whether the incidents are related directly to cyclist
and driver tensions or are related to wider acts of spontaneous community violence.
…the woman, from Berwick, was riding west on the Princes Highway at Officer when a white
Commodore travelling in the same direction changed lanes and slowed behind her. The front
seat passenger then leant out of the window and pushed the cyclist. The woman fell on to the
road as the Commodore sped off, Senior Constable Dennis said.
“Cyclist seriously injured by two men in highway attack”, The Age, April 5 2010.
It is likely that less serious incidents are significantly underreported. Nonetheless, acts of
premeditated (or instantaneous) physical conflict between motorists and cyclists do appear to be very
rare.
There are numerous instances of journalists “making a good headline”, with the headline being
inconsistent with the content. Often headlines are exaggerated and suggest high levels of aggression
that are not substantiated by evidence described in the article. Examples of this include

840979615
“End this vicious cycle’ (Herald Sun, 2005) about the Critical Mass ride. The headline would
suggest a group of malicious cyclists but the article offers no proof of intended harm but
rather indicates (and perhaps encourages) the tendency of drivers to generalise and attribute
cyclist behaviour (particularly when cyclists “impede” drivers).
PAGE 15
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists

840979615
‘Riders join war on rage’ (Herald Sun, 2008). While the article does not substantiate
widespread conflict between road users, it does refer to an actual incident, when a driver
deliberately hit cyclists in the Around the Bay in the Day event and also includes numbers of
cyclists injured that have ‘hit its highest rate’. The latter is not discussed in terms of cause of
injury so less discerning readers may interpret it, in the context of the article and headline, to
mean that injuries result from incidents of rage with drivers.
PAGE 16
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
4 What are the causes of tensions?
4.1 Introduction
Identifying the cause of cyclist-driver tensions is exacerbated by the influence of wider societal
tensions and the rarity of actual incidents between cyclists and drivers. The traffic psychology
literature posits a number of potential causes for tensions, including:



Infrastructure: a lack of dedicated provision for cyclists or ambiguous sharing of space
combined with increasing traffic levels not keeping up with infrastructure growth leading to
congestion.
Regulatory: unclear regulations and laws applying to cyclists (and drivers), many of which
are not widely known or understood by the community.
Impatience in society: early 21st century life is widely seen as very busy, with an increasingly
self-centric society; on-road tensions are simply a reflection of these wider tensions.
Many of these tensions are reflected in wider public discourse through common statements and
purported objection to the presence of cyclists on the roads. Examples of statements that the
community at large is likely to agree with are: Cyclists don’t obey the road rules, Cyclists slow me
down and Cyclists don’t pay road tax. What is not entirely clear is whether these statements truly
reflect the underlying source of tensions (whether they are rational objections) or instead are byproducts of deeper attitudes.
4.2 Themes
Through the literature review, focus groups, protocol analysis and media analysis, we have identified
four key themes that we see as major contributors to tension on the roads, including the tension
between cyclists and drivers:
1)
Impatience: There is growing impatience by all road users as traffic congestion worsens
and the pace of modern life.
The car behind me has just gone into the bike lane to turn into this lane. He was probably
impatient – not that I’m a particularly patient driver. (Female, 20, car driver, protocol
analysis)
This can also be manifested in specific situations, such as drivers turning in front of cyclists
or drivers being delayed behind cyclists.
One of the most annoying things about cyclists is when you overtake them, then they
overtake you at the lights and then you have to wait to overtake them again. (Male, 26,
car driver, protocol analysis)
2)
Fear and Fright: These are two related emotions that potentially lead to a response that is
likely to cause or be perceived as tension. The dictionary definitions are:
Fear is an emotional response to a perceived threat. It is a basic survival mechanism
occurring in response to a specific stimulus, such as the threat of danger.
Fright is sudden intense fear, as of something immediately threatening; alarm.
840979615
PAGE 17
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
The relevant longer term fears include I’m afraid of hitting a cyclist or I always get anxious
turning this corner because I don’t know if I’ll get a green arrow. Fright, with the element of
surprise was reported as unsettling by focus group and protocol analysis people. For
example:
That car in front of me went past very quickly – startled me a little. Heart races, but that’s
ok. You get used to it on the bike. (Male cyclist, 30, protocol statement)
Fear can be exacerbated in specific environments; for example, a termination of a bicycle
lane on an intersection approach that puts cyclists and drivers into direct conflict for shared
space.
That bike lane suddenly ended – that really makes you alert (Male driver, 40, protocol
statement)
Fear and fright are discussed further in Section 6.
3)
Level of Expectation: Tensions are likely to arise from different expectations of cyclists and
drivers.
Expectation is relevant in two ways.
o
o
Expectation can be seen as ‘what is considered the most likely to happen’. In this
case, if something happens that it is not at all expected, it is a surprise and leads to
the responses discussed above and in Section 6.
Expectation can also take the form of assumption/s, i.e. a proposition that is taken for
granted, as if it were true based upon presupposition without consideration for the
facts (cyclists always run red lights, drivers never realise how fast cyclists are
travelling are examples).
On a typical journey a cyclist or driver will see many motor vehicles but a driver does not
always encounter cyclists, or will do so much more infrequently than they will encounter
other cars. An unexpected cyclist may cause surprise and stress to a driver. This stress is
related to the theme of fear and fright described above. This issue is discussed in more
detail in Section 7.

Different Levels of Awareness: Some tensions are likely to come from what different levels
of awareness are needed and used in the driving/riding task. We discovered this in
discussions, in recordings and by viewing the video footage from drivers and cyclists. The
rapid pace and more frequent talking in the protocol analysis recordings suggested that
cyclists have (or need to have) elevated awareness compared to drivers and are more
focussed on road conditions and are more alert to other users.
We’ve got a car parked across the road – but that’s alright, now it’s out of the way. Cars
on the left, but they’ve seen me – aren’t coming anywhere. Down Macauley Road – bike
lane fairly well marked. Side street, no one coming. Bike lane – there’s a car unloading
from the lane. (Male cyclist 45, protocol statement)
compared with
840979615
PAGE 18
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
Now an intersection between Tooronga and Toorak – not a particularly exciting
intersection. Nothing much to say. Again I’m sticking in the right hand lane – habit –
usually cars parked in left. (Female driver, 24, protocol statement)
Car drivers did speak about sections of the road where they saw or ‘often see’ bikes, but they
did not make as many observations about road users, expectations and checking behaviours.

Different view of the road: In our analysis we observed that cyclists see the road from
about a metre higher than car drivers and that this gives a very different perspective of the
road environment (although it is a view similar to that experienced by SUV and light
commercial vehicle drivers).
In our final two focus groups, we explored this a bit further, by showing participants photos of
exactly the same traffic situation from the view of a driver and from the view of a cyclist. The
implications of this observation are discussed in Section 8 and could be explored further.
4.3 Notable omissions
In deriving these themes we note that a number of the frequent statements made in the media and by
some in the community (e.g. “cyclists should pay road tax”, “all drivers are dangerous to cyclists”) did
not appear, or at least not explicitly. Very rarely were these issues raised in the focus groups, and
when they were, they were in much more nuanced terms than is widely portrayed in the media. While
it could reasonably be stated (as have a number of market research surveys) that, for example, many
in the community think cyclists should pay road tax, this may be a direct response to the question as
such views do not appear to be influencing community attitudes. Alternatively, but in our view less
plausibly given the perception that such views are ‘mainstream’, the group dynamics may have been
such to keep more extreme views quiet. In our view these views that are widely stated in the media
seem to be a rationalisation, or an outcome, of the themes identified above. As such, we consider
these types of statements to be unhelpful in understanding the true nature of the cyclist-driver
relationship.
Similarly, comments to the effect that “cyclists do not obey the road rules” were made only rarely if
unprompted. When prompted, or where a participant in a focus group did raise this view, then it was
widely supported by the participants. This dynamic operated much in the same way as the “cyclists
should pay road tax” view; that is, it was rarely raised without prompting, but when raised was widely
supported. Furthermore, when such an issue was raised there was confusion about exactly what the
rules were (e.g. whether it was legal to cycle two abreast). Given this, we conclude that such a view
does not appear to strongly contribute to tensions between the user groups – and what tension may
be created through this view may be mitigated by improving knowledge and clarity of the current rules.
840979615
PAGE 19
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
5 Theme I: Impatience
5.1 Introduction
This section discusses the theme of impatience, a topic that seemed to pervade the discussions and
observations. The Free Dictionary has a useful definition of lack of patience; intolerance of or
irritability with anything that impedes or delays. It goes on to give synonyms for the concept of
irritability which are relevant to the behaviours sometimes exhibited by both cyclists and motorists and
likely to be called the expression of tensions: shortness, edginess, intolerance, quick temper and
snappiness.
As noted earlier, many people mentioned the hypothesis that a world of growing impatience is
increasing the amount of tension in all walks of life.
Examples that we heard included:
I’m impatient as a driver – as a cyclist too actually - I’ll take back streets so don’t have to stop at
lights. (Female, 35, focus group)
It’s Western society. Always in a rush. Example? People want to travel the world before they
have the finance. (Male, 40, Focus group)
I’m in a high pressure job with consequences for lack of performance. I get impatient with
people who do not provide information in time or do their job properly and I think they should –
the pressure is on me and I’m relying on them. (Female,30, focus group).
The car turning left split us: turned left in front of us rather than waiting. Don’t know why he did
that!” (Female cyclist, 45, protocol statement)
We reviewed the literature to see if this theme could be understood further in the context of tension
between cyclists and drivers.
5.2 Congestion as a trigger of impatience
Congestion is widely suggested to have a link to impatience. In response to the question of what
causes frustration on the road, the focus group participants only cited congestion infrequently or in
passing. It did not appear to be a particularly significant issue, which runs contrary to popular belief.
Traffic congestion...banked up...frustrated because not moving and wasting time. Packs of
cyclists – more than two a breast and block road. (Male driver, 25-39 age group)
The literature on this issue is also somewhat divided. For example, Smart et al (2004) in a Canadian
study, report that road rage is an increasing concern in the community and that problem behaviours
are greater for those drivers driving on busier roads and as distances driven (per week) increase. The
study found that after controlling for driver exposure, victimisation/perpetration was greater for drivers
in Toronto and it is posited that this is due to the “pace of life [being] more demanding”.
840979615
PAGE 20
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
Parker et al. (2002) suggested that traffic density (and hence congestion) is likely to play a role in
driver aggression, based on surveys of drivers in three European countries (Britain, Finland and the
Netherlands). This is supported by the evidence on ‘road rage’ reported by DCPC (2005):
The highest risk time period [for road violence] was confirmed in a number of studies to
be 3pm to 6pm, which correlates generally with peak-hour traffic. Very congested traffic
conditions, however, often did not lead to an increase in incidents. Instead, more
incidents occurred in conditions of dense but fast-moving traffic.
DCPC (2005, p. xix)
Audirac (2008) focused on frustration and its link to aggressive driving. It was posited that the
modern urban form and road networks have created an expectation and norm of “unimpeded mobility”
and when situations arise that cause delays there is frustration that, depending on the individual, may
result in aggression.
Hennessy and Wiesenthal (1997) reported that aggressive behaviours are more prevalent in highly
congested conditions. In a subsequent study, Hennessy and Wiesenthal (1999) argued (based on
studies in the US/Canada) that with the increase in private vehicle use and increasing congestion,
competition for space and “potential sources of frustration, irritation and stress have escalated”.
Furthermore, it was suggested that stressful driving encounters have a cumulative effect and reinforce
a driver “trait” disposition that results in subsequent particular situations as stressful.
On the other hand, Goodwin and Lyons (2010) in a UK report, reference evidence that people have
become accustomed to congestion as a part of life; older road users have become resigned to it
whilst younger road users treat it as a part of life, as they have not known anything to the contrary.
People have particular habits and behaviours as coping strategies, such as listening to the radio and
in general just endeavour to relax. Some have taken the resigned view that congestion is unsolvable
and therefore they disengage from the concern on a personal level. It is noted that while people may
not be concerned at a personal level, they may still assert that congestion is a problem for the city or
country.
The annual AAMI Crash Index survey of driver attitudes in Australia (AAMI, 2009) has reported an
increase in those who say that anger and aggression on the roads is linked to congestion (from 70%
in 2005 to 88% in 2009).
While none of these studies related specifically to cyclist-driver tensions, they do seem to suggest that
drivers will have a higher level of tension when traffic levels are high (but not so high that traffic is
effectively at a standstill). It may be reasonable to assume that when drivers have higher overall
levels of tension they will be more likely to be tense with cyclists (as well as other road users).
5.3 Anger and aggression in general
In the light of the discussions of impatience, we thought it worth pursuing whether perceived tensions
were linked to a person’s level of impatience or anger.
A British study (Lawton and Nutter, 2002) compared levels and expression of anger in everyday
situations and driving situations to test the idea (widely reported in the media) that people become
more aggressive behind the wheel (compared to other social situations) and that road rage is a
840979615
PAGE 21
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
significant social issue. Contrary to the hypothesis, they found that there was no significant
difference between the self-reported level of anger associated with driving and every day, non-driving
situations. The difference lay in the expression of anger, with people more likely to displace their
anger in driving situations. Those with greater anger were found to be more likely to be outwardly
aggressive in driving situations than the everyday situations. While the study found that there were
no gender differences in the levels of self-reported anger in either situation, women and men
expressed their anger differently. Women displaced their aggression (for example, by complaining to
their passengers) more than suppressing it (doing nothing) and were least likely to outwardly express
it; the tendency for men was suppression over displacement then (less so) outward expression.
The tendency for women to vent anger is attributed to the finding that where there is anonymity
women feel uninhibited to express aggression (Lightdale and Prentice, 1994). This expression is not
directly confrontational to others but provides the ‘opportunity to vent’. Lawton and Nutter suggested
this may be a “positive experience...to ‘let off steam’ without consequence”, an opportunity that is not
typically otherwise provided. It is suggested that interventions should focus on raising awareness
about the interpretation of perceived intentionally aggressive behaviours. Greater understanding that
perceived negative behaviours, which may even seem to be personal attacks, may be no more than
other people releasing their general frustration about having a “bad day” and therefore be more
empathetic.
5.4 Anger and aggression on the roads
The link between people who are prone to anger and impatience has been widely researched in the
transport literature, in particular in order to predict aggressive driving instances using attitudinal
attributes as predictors. The driver anger scale developed by Deffenbacher et al. (1994) has been
widely used to identify links between aggressive personal traits and aggressive and angry driving
behaviour. For example, Lajunen and Parker (2000) identified a link between aggressive personal
traits and aggressive driving behaviour in a sample of UK drivers. Similarly, Deffenbacher et al.
(2003) classified drivers according to the driver anger scale and found that angry drivers 1 exhibited
more frequent and intense anger and more aggression and risky behaviour in daily driving, greater
anger in frequently occurring situations, more frequent close calls and moving violations than low
anger drivers.
Psychologist Grant Brecht (Brecht, 2008), based in Sydney, reports having quite a few clients who
present with high levels of tension and stress and admit to venting road rage; "They often have
emotional outbursts in other situations as well - work, family, sport”. He also reports that males are
more likely to express anger outwardly than females.
"It does appear to be an increasing problem, due to the increasing pressures and time
demands on people - too many things to be involved in with too little time to do them. There are
also high levels of expectations placed by ourselves on ourselves or by others on us." (Brecht,
2008)
1
Deffenbacher et al. differentiate between trait anger and state anger; the former is related to general feelings of anger while
the latter is anger triggered by events.
840979615
PAGE 22
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
The issues around road rage are often far broader than concerns about increasingly congested roads
but in Brecht's view traffic congestion becomes "the straw that breaks the camel's back". Brecht
argues that the road is just one of the places that stressed people will vent their anger:
“It is seldom, if ever, the only situation in which these people explode emotionally. It is an
accumulation of stressors that are not being dealt with effectively by the individuals who
emotionally snap."
Other studies have suggested that anger is not just a good indicator of anger when driving, but that
anger while driving is more prevalent than anger in other contexts (Parkinson, 2001). Moreover, how
anger is defined alters the frequency with which it is cited, and the triggers behind it. Mesken et al.
(2007) found that anger is most often associated with events affecting impeded progress while anxiety
was associated with events which affected safety. If correct in a cyclist-driver context, the implication
would be that events that impede progress (for example, having to slow to pass a cyclist) would be
more likely to incite tension than events which lead to fright and potential collisions.
Brewer (2000) reviewed media references to ‘road rage’ in the Sydney Morning Herald over time and
found that there has been a significant increase in usage of the term but that this is not matched by
evidence of increased numbers of incidents. The increased perception of violence generally in
Australian society was also discussed and it was concluded that studies do not support a large
increase in acts of homicide or violence, and that in fact aggressive conflicts are rare compared with
positive interactions. However, on the roads 91% of drivers agree that drivers are becoming more
aggressive (AAMI, 2009). Four in five said yelling, swearing and gesturing are justifiable reactions to
road rage from other drivers while two thirds say tailgating is justified. So while there was disapproval
that aggression is increasing, there was also a self-reported tendency to undertake aggressive
behaviour.
5.5 Experience from protocol statements and focus groups
The theme of impatience came up in two ways when we analysed the protocol statements and during
the focus groups. In the first case it was when we asked people about the types of road users on the
road that caused them most concern. Among other responses (e.g. taxi drivers, trams, trucks,
cyclists, motorcyclists) the theme of impatience seemed to arise regularly:
They’re impatient if they want to push past...when there’s no room. (Male driver, 40+ age
group, focus group)
People driving without their lights and pulling out without indicating. (Female driver, 25-39 age
group, focus group)
People who pressure you, especially to speed (Male, 40+ age group, focus group)
People who cut you off, people who’re aggressive - you know - finger up. Or when merging
they speed up. (Female, 25-39 age group, focus group)
We asked people in the last three groups ‘how do you know if a driver is impatient?’ with the following
replies indicative of all responses:
Drivers speeding and weaving (Male driver, 25-39 age group,)
840979615
PAGE 23
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
Drivers beeping horn. Or drivers give you the finger. Cyclists usually scream at you (Female
cyclist/driver, 25-39 age group,)
Drivers waving fist. (Male driver, 25-39 age group )
You can see their expression. They look anxious (Male cyclist, 25-39 age group,)
A driver who frequently changes lanes ....Cyclists, cutting in and around slow moving traffic.
(Male, cyclist and driver, 40+age group)
Revving their engine at the lights, changing position and over taking all the time. (Male cyclist,
40+ age group)
5.6 Further thoughts
There is sufficient evidence to suggest that the community is becoming more impatient, and that
exhibitions of impatience are appearing more frequently – including in the relationship between
drivers and cyclists. This leads to some specific questions that might be further considered:

Does the nature of the cyclist-driver interaction (generally slower speed, with expressions
more likely to be sighted) mean that cyclists and drivers pick up on more of this venting –
there may not be any difference in levels of grumbling between different road users but
cyclists and drivers are more likely to see them?

This issue may be more acute for cyclists as they are not in the ‘cocoon’ of the car, so
negative expressions will be conveyed more readily to other road users (and displaced anger
may be seen as outward anger)?

Does the anonymity of cyclists mean they can more readily/have a tendency to more freely
outwardly express anger?
840979615
PAGE 24
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
6 Theme II: Fear and Fright
6.1 Introduction
A common theme in the focus groups and protocol analysis was an emotion that could be classified
as ‘fear’ or ‘fright’. As noted earlier (Section 4.2) the latter is more of a sudden shock at something
unexpected while former is likely to apply over a longer period of time. Cyclists tend to be acutely
aware of their mortality and drivers by and large are acutely aware of cyclists’ vulnerability. This leads
to tension for both road user groups, the vast majority of cyclists do not want to suffer harm (self
evidently) and the vast majority of drivers do not want to harm cyclists.
This theme relates to the theme of expectation (Section 7), particularly for feelings of fright. Where
cyclists are not expected, and there is no clear indication from the roadway design as to how drivers
and cyclists should behave, there appear to be increased self-reports of incidents leading to fright in
the short term and fear/apprehension/alertness in the longer term.
As noted earlier (Section 4.2) the emotions of fear and fright can potentially lead to a response that is
likely to cause or be perceived as tension. The definitions we used were:
Fear is an emotional response to a perceived threat. It is a basic survival mechanism
occurring in response to a specific stimulus, such as the threat of danger.
Fright is sudden intense fear, as of something immediately threatening; alarm.
In this section we explore these two types of tension more closely.
6.2 Feelings of fear and fright
There is only limited literature on the impact of feelings of fear and fright on driver and cyclist
behaviours. Much of what has been published refers to driver performance under situations where
they are fearful either because of a situation or because they are fearful of driving. For example,
Taylor et al. (2007) found for a sample of New Zealand female drivers that those who said they were
fearful of driving made more errors2 during controlled driving trials than those who said they were not
fearful. These trials were however based on respondents who were fearful of driving overall, not just
undertaking specific stressful tasks (such as interacting with cyclists). Fairclough et al. (2006) found
from a sample of drivers more representative of the wider driving population in the UK that those who
had higher levels of anxiety (as measured by their heart rate and self-reported stress) were more
likely to fail a formal driving test.
The majority of drivers seem only to be angry or unset for small proportions of their trips. Levelt
(2003) used a travel diary to identify the proportion of time drivers feel happiness (53%), anger (22%)
and fear (8%); the implication being that drivers are angry or fearful for only small proportions of their
journeys.
Note that the emotion described as fear by some is often described as being alert by others:
2
The types of errors made did not differ, only the frequency with which they occurred.
840979615
PAGE 25
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
Getting to Albert St. where the bike lane ends. It makes me feel more concerned and makes
things more difficult as cars come close, so I need to be more aware (Male cyclist, 25-39 age
group, protocol statement).
Now I’m going in left. Have to check for bikes. I always check for bikes because I have seen
quite a few bad accidents involving bikes. (Femaledriver, 24 & under age group, protocol
statement)
Hence, to some extent, the longer term ‘fear’ can lead to more cautious, alert driving.
6.3 The relationship of fear and risk
‘Fear’ can also be related to the level of risks that people are willing to take. Lerner and Keltner
(2001) report lower levels of risk taking by people classified as fearful and significantly higher levels of
risk taking amongst angry people. This is particularly relevant to the current research and deserves
further investigation.
The literature does expand on the influence of risks, though generally reports a lack of knowledge
about the influence of infrequent risks. Infrequent risks, such that those that occur to drivers and
cyclists on the road are very poorly understood by humans (Adams, 1995). We are generally unable
to rationalise relative risk where the absolute risks are small, and are poor at linking risk to appropriate
risk mitigation strategies.
The way in which risk is identified, and how it relates to fear, has been extensively studied.
Psychologists talk of risk as “risk as analysis” and “risk as feelings” (see for example Slovic, 2004). In
the former, people tend to use reason and logic to assign risk to their choices. More commonly
however, people tend to rely on “risk as feelings” where we rely on feeling and intuition rather than
rational thought and consideration.
This poor appreciation of relative risk, combined with a typically emotive risk mitigation strategy, can
result in undesirable behavioural responses. One often cited example is the interaction of cars and
trucks. Car drivers often label trucks as “unsafe” and apportion the blame to the trucks and their
drivers. Certainly, in a collision between a truck and a car the car will most often come off worse – so
there is good reason to be fearful3. However, US studies have demonstrated that in around 70% of
cases it is the car driver that is largely at fault (Blower, 1998). The inference is that a fear, while
based on reason, is resulting in unreasonable responses from car drivers.
A similar set of behaviours may be present in driver-cyclist interactions, perhaps initiated by
perception by drivers of being “slowed down” or impeded which result in unsafe driving responses.
When collisions do occur the rationalisation from drivers sometimes appears to be to, at least in part,
attribute the crash to the cyclist on the basis of some erroneous causality. Often this will be based on
fundamental attribution error (for example “cyclists are unpredictable people”) combined with outgroup homogeneity bias (for example, “all cyclists break the rules – so did this one” or “cyclists don’t
have lights – neither did this one”). Where attempts have been made to allocate responsibility for
3
Similarly, a cyclist will almost invariably come off worse in a collision with a car.
840979615
PAGE 26
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
collisions they have found that cyclists more often than not are not primarily responsible4 (Knowles,
2009).
6.4 The relationship of fright and response
When people experience a sudden unexpected situation or behaviour, this is often described as fright.
Tessler (1997) describes the considerable evidence from many years of applications that stress ‘fight’
responses to fright. As an experiment, we used his fight/flight test for the last three focus groups to
see if there might be a relationship between self-reported impatient people and those who scored
highly on the likelihood of responding with a ‘fight’ response. While this could not be considered a
scientific test, it did show that people who rated themselves as impatient were rated almost twice as
likely to exhibit a ‘fight’ response than those that rated themselves as patient.
6.5 Further effects of surprise
As part of our research, we also presented schematic representations of some situations between
drivers and cyclists which had been described to us, and then to present them to the last of the focus
groups.
The following three diagrams represented situations described by people involved in the research.
Driver and cyclist both get surprised/fright
 Cyclist alert – suddenly see glass on road, gets a fright/surprise and moves out without looking
 Driver sees cyclist move erratically - gets a fright/surprise

Figure 6.1: Cyclist veering into path of car
An exception to this, as noted in Knowles et al. was child cyclists – where police crash report tended to identify the child
cyclists’ behaviour as contributory to the crash.
4
840979615
PAGE 27
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
This means both rider and driver receive a surprise – which could lead to tension. Both think they are
doing as expected under the circumstances.
Cyclist gets surprised/fright; driver unaware
 Driver sees cyclist coming to corner in bike lane. Hard to judge the speed of bike. Bike is in driver’s
blind spot just prior to the turn. Cuts cyclist off. Unaware of any conflict
 Cyclist is cut off and gets a surprise/fright.

Figure 6.2: Driver veers into path of cyclist
This case will cause tension in cyclist, possible anger at driver/s over the longer term.
Importance of minor differences in cyclist’s location on road
a) Peaceful coexistence – both driver and cyclist have expectations fulfilled
b) Tension producing situation - cyclist moves very slightly to the right, driver is squeezed.
Surprise/tension in driver, cyclist unaware
c) Cyclist takes up whole lane (‘taking the lane’ advocated as a safety measure). . Driver can’t
get past. Both are tense.
840979615
PAGE 28
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists

Figure 6.3: Overtaking clearances
(a) Ample clearance
(b)
clearance
Close
(c) Inadequate clearance
These three illustrations show the likely effects of surprise and expectation. The third was shown to
the final focus group, with the following reactions:
I’d never thought of that before (Driver)
You wouldn’t’ know when you had moved just that little bit too far over (Cyclist)
Respondents came up with the idea of ‘fright-free roads’ as part of these discussions, where neither
cyclists nor drivers would encounter surprising situations such as those illustrated in these examples.
Further, the examples triggered a deal of empathy among both groups for the other in these
situations.
6.6 Further thoughts
Some areas that have arisen in exploring this theme that could be explored further include:

Is it likely that more fearful people perceive more tensions than those who describe
themselves as not fearful?

Do these people perceive risk takers as those causing tension?

Do impatient/angry people cause more tensions?

Are people who call themselves impatient more likely to exhibit behaviours judged as
aggressive, i.e. that might cause tensions?

What relationship does being a confident driver/cyclist have here?

How do surprise and expectations link together?

To what extent is knowledge of the rules relevant for both drivers and cyclists?
840979615
PAGE 29
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
7 Theme III: Level of expectation
7.1 Introduction
During the early focus groups we heard people talking of the way in which expectations as they drove
and rode influenced their level of tensions – in general and towards other modes of transport:
When you drive down Mitcham Road you just don’t expect a bike, so you’re unprepared and it
makes you annoyed that you have to suddenly slow down. (Male driver, 25-39 age group,
focus group)
I was just about to turn – you have to go on orange and those cars went through (opposite) so
I’m left with little time to get through and turn – made my heart race a bit. (Male, 25-39 age
group, cyclist, protocol statement)
7.2 Situations
One of the strong themes arising from the focus groups was that drivers report most tension when
they encounter cyclists in areas where they do not expect them.
7.2.1 Classification of situations
In their review of motor vehicle related violence in Victoria, the DCPC (2005) classified triggers to
violence or road anger into four groups:
1. Frustrating events – e.g. slow or hesitant driving or failing to move promptly when lights turn
green
2. Endangering events – e.g. crashes, near collisions or driving at excessive speeds
3. Discourteous/hostile events – e.g. failing to let a car merge or making an obscene gesture
4. Violating events – talking on a mobile phone while driving or cycling on a road considered to
be the ‘proper’ domain of cars.
This review emphasised that these triggers were in themselves not sufficient preconditions for
violence (or even increased tensions), but that in conjunction with other personality and situational
traits could be sufficient to trigger tensions. In a cyclist-driver context all of these events are likely to
occur to some extent.
7.2.2 The importance (or otherwise) of visibility
We found only one reference to visibility of cyclists in all focus groups and protocol statements. This
was a cyclist courier who reported that wearing black made him feel safer on the road:
It is better not to be visible; if drivers see you they panic and act unpredictably.
This view runs contrary to some views expressed in the literature, where perceptions towards visibility
were explored. For example, Davies et al. (1997) found that cyclists believed they were more visible
that drivers thought, and that in turn this leads drivers to attribute crashes to poor visibility of cyclists.
However, the topic of cyclist visibility was not raised in any of our discussions/protocols by
participants.
840979615
PAGE 30
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
7.3 Expectations
Road users have preconceived expectations of road infrastructure and the behaviour of other road
users. These expectations are based primarily upon their experiences as road users; when these
expectations are not met, there is likely to be increased tension.
The acquisition of knowledge enables drivers to form expectations which translate into
increasingly automatic visual search and behaviour. The principal advantage of expectations is
the possibility that they provide to drivers to focus their attention more quickly on the most
relevant aspects of the situation. The disadvantage is that expectations also lead to
overlooking less probable events or those which seem less dangerous.
(Koustanai et al., 2008a)
Where cyclists are infrequently encountered, as would be the case in much of middle and outer
metropolitan Melbourne, there would appear to be increased tension when such encounters do occur,
as was reported on Mitcham Road (Section 7.1)
There is considerable literature on the scanning patterns of car drivers, including in the context of
driver-cyclist interactions. For example, Räsänen and Sammala (1998) reconstructed 188 bicycle-car
collisions in Finland and found that in 37% of collisions neither the driver nor the cyclist saw one
another (or did so in sufficient time to take evasive action) before the collision. Similar research in
Denmark (Herslund and Jørgensen, 2003) found that drivers were more likely to see cyclists in an
intersection if there was already another vehicle in the vicinity of the cyclist. In other words, the
presence of another vehicle improved the visibility of the cyclist. This is consistent with the findings
of Koustanai et al. (2008b), who suggest that “looked-but-failed-to-see” crashes have perceptual and
processing stages. At the perceptual stage drivers may not expect to see a cyclist and so
subconsciously fail to identify their presence (even if they have “seen” the cyclist). At the processing
stage the driver may fail to appreciate the danger, or misinterpret the speeds and trajectories of the
cyclist and driver.
Walker and Brosnan (2007) found that at intersections drivers tend to look first at a cyclists’ face and
they spend longer looking at the face (particularly so when eye contact is made) than other parts of
the body, including the arm when the cyclist is signalling. The inference is that there is an attentional
bias such that drivers seek out a cyclists’ face in preference to other areas, and that this fixation may
impede the ability for a driver to process the speed and trajectory of the cyclist appropriately.
The limitations in human physiology described above appear to limit our ability to process information
in dynamic road environments. Research suggests that eye contact between drivers and between
drivers and pedestrians decreases significantly at speeds beyond 30 km/h (Hamilton-Baillie and
Jones, 2005). These may contribute to increased tensions; if neither user sees one another, or
(reasonably) expect that one would yield to the other, but do not – there is likely to be increased
tension.
7.3.1 Expectation and infrastructure
One theme coming from the focus groups and protocol statements was the infrastructure that
delineated space between cyclists and drivers.
840979615
PAGE 31
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
Traditionally, traffic engineers have sought to make the road environment one of consistency,
uniformity and predictability (Hamilton-Baillie and Jones, 2005). The rationale of safety and
minimising potential conflict meant that vulnerable pedestrians and often cyclists were to be
segregated from cars. In many cases people reported that segregated infrastructure led to
expectations of safety and hence a more comfortable ride.
There’s only a small [narrow] bike lane here but it is still comforting. (Male cyclist, 25-39 age
group,, protocol analysis)
Look, there are cars turning out and in because of a cyclist. There’s not even a bike lane
there... probably should make a lane for them- then it would be much safer for them in my
opinion (Male driver, 24 & under age group, protocol analysis)
Conversely, locations where delineation was unclear or contradictory elicited higher levels of tension.
Where I’m riding now there are pictures of bikes [wide kerbside lane markings] but no bike
lanes. Then the bike lane re-starts. The inconsistency of not having them/ having them and all
the variation, particularly over short stretches is really amazing. Confusing for both cyclists and
drivers! Feel a lot more comfortable with bike lanes throughout.” (Male cyclist and driver, 2539 age group, protocol analysis)
On the other hand, on the issue of car doors opening unexpectedly, both drivers and cyclists in one of
the focus groups suggested that lines for parking can lead to an expectation that there will be no
interactions between cars and bikes:
You are in the bike lane, so you think that cars (and doors) should stay out of the way (Male,
cyclist, focus group)
You park legally in the parking bay, so it’s easy to forget that you need to look out (for bikes)
(Male driver, focus group)
7.3.2 Expectation and people types
To follow up the concept that people might expect all cyclists and drivers to be of a homogeneous
nature, we asked the question in the last three focus groups: Who rides bikes, who drives cars, and
what are the personal characteristics of the worst drivers and cyclists? The reactions are presented
below.
Who rides bikes?
The most common answers (about 90%) named people who are motivated by health, fitness and
environmental concerns as bike riders. A few other comments include:

Teenage kids (before licence) – 1

Arrogant people – 2

Anyone – 2
Who drives cars?
Most people said that all sorts of people drive cars.
840979615
PAGE 32
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
Characteristics of worst bike riders?
When we asked the characteristics of the worst bicycle riders typical responses were as follows (note
that when participants used just one word we asked them to describe further).

Those that don’t obey road rules, and don’t use lights. Arrogant behaviour

Older males are worst

Arrogant – above the law, do what they like

Arrogant - like riding more than 2 abreast, disobey lights

Arrogant - disobey stop signs, not stop at lights

Act like they own the road. Don’t move over when there seems to be room.

Not using bike lane, when there is one

Careless and with no safety concern
Characteristics of worst car drivers?

People with bad attitudes; they do not show consideration to other people.

Arrogant, especially people with expensive or sport cars who want to show off. Normally you
will hear them beeping. When they speed, you know they’re arrogant.

Irresponsible people who, for example girls doing makeup while driving.

Slow drivers, who are not considerate of other people who are in a rush to get somewhere
(particularly if they drive slow in the right hand lane).

Arrogant,- means they are side by side, and they do not care for road rules.

Flash their lights, and tailgate.

The ones that ignore other road users, and safety of other drivers.

Driving and talking on a phone (mentioned by 3 people).
There are many overlaps between what people consider the worst drivers and riders. The words
‘arrogance’ and concepts of inconsiderateness are most frequently used.
7.4 Further thoughts
The research suggested that tensions might be caused when expectations are not met and gave
examples when that happened. However, there are also interesting thoughts:

How are expectations related to fear and fright?

How can expectations be modified to reduce the risk of tension

To what extent are drivers and cyclists the subject of fundamental attribution error and outgroup bias – people thinking that all cyclists are like each other, and all drivers are like each
other.
840979615
PAGE 33
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
8 Theme IV: Level of awareness
8.1 Introduction
During the analysis of the protocol statements, and viewing the video cameras used by the protocol
group, two aspects of awareness differences between cyclists and drivers became evident:
1) Cyclists seemed to be alert to many more aspects of the road space and environment than did
drivers
2) Cyclists have a different view of the road than drivers


About 0.5 to 1 metre higher than drivers
180 degrees unimpeded vision (no car frame in view)
In this section we discuss each of these in more detail, and explore the likely effects on driving and
riding behaviour. More importantly, we discuss the likely perceptions of the other mode that could
increase levels of tension.
8.2 Alertness to road space and environment
As mentioned earlier, listening to the protocol statements made it clear that within the same amount of
time, drivers mention many fewer aspects of their travelling environment than cyclists. Drivers
occasionally even reported thinking of other aspects of their day.
This car in front is daydreaming, if she just moved a little bit in forward I could turn left...I don’t
get how she drives...probably doing her make-up or something! Wheel is bad condition too.
What am I going to eat for lunch today? Don’t know that it will be enough for me. (Male driver,
24 & under age group, protocol analysis)
That was never the case for cyclists who were either involved in their current activity or sometimes
even preparing for a tense point in advance.
Coming to Bell Street here. Pretty hard to merge. Cars not willing to give you much room.
Waiting to turn right into Bell Street. Won’t get an arrow. Hope people give me room and
space and respect. I did get an arrow – good. Car behind me gave me respect and space
which is good. 3 lanes here, lost bike path (Male daily cyclist, 25-39 age group, protocol
statement)
All protocol cyclists mentioned many things that made them alert. They included glass on the road,
presence of green turning arrows at signalised intersections, drivers close behind and being aware of
being in a driver’s blind spot. In the context of the above discussion (Section 6), they could be
classified as avoidance of fright, conditioned in most cases by an underlying ‘fear’ or awareness from
past incidents where fright had occurred.
8.3 Is it harder to drive or cycle?
To explore the theme further, we asked each person in the last three focus groups if they thought that
the task of driving or cycling was the most difficult. The hypothesis we were testing here was whether
a more ‘difficult’ task required a different level of awareness. Most people needed to consider the
840979615
PAGE 34
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
question for awhile, and while there was some variation, about 80% of people thought that the cycling
task required more constant skill.
The driving task requires more skill
Cos have to concentrate so much on everything going on around you. (Female driver, 25-39 age
group)
Driving a car. Probably more rules (Male driver, 40+ age group)
Easier to cycle. Takes more concentration in car. (Male driver, weekend cyclist, 25-39 age group)
Anyone can ride a bike, but not everyone can drive a car but it would take more skill to ride a bike on
Collins Street, than drive a car. Got trams, cars and pedestrians. If you make mistake, you’ll pay
greater. (Female driver, 25-39 age group)
The cycling task requires more skill
Much easier driving than cycling as you don’t have to pay so much attention, looking over shoulder,
looking for cars, trucks. You can command a lane. On a bike if you try to command lane you’ll be
beeped off road. (Male cyclist, 25-39 age group)
Driving is easier if you’re on your usual route- peripheral and subconscious. I switch off or listen to
music. Can’t do that on a bike. (Male driver and cyclist, 25-39 age group)
It’s the safety perspective too. In a car you can switch off to the element of surprise. On a bike you’re
always switched on and vigilant. (Male cyclist, 40+ age group)
On a bike you’re more vulnerable. (Male driver, 40+ age group)
Everything is so fast, and the road is not built to handle both cars and bikes. It is harder to jump on a
bike, cause safe in car. When on bike, you are not. (Male driver, 25-39 age group)
Cycling – you have to be more alert. (Female driver, 25-39 age group)
8.4 Risk compensation and related behaviours
In the light of the view that cyclists need to be more alert to all aspects of the road environment to
keep themselves safe, or to avoid risk, it is worth briefly reviewing the literature on behaviours that
people make on the road to compensate for perceived risk.
One of the more controversial aspects of risk analysis and safety intervention is risk compensation. It
has been found that the theoretical benefits of new safety devices in cars (e.g. anti-lock brakes – see
Aschenbrenner and Biehl, 1994) has been greater than observed in reality. The argument, as
described in detail by Adams (1995), is that drivers compensate for the greater safety by behaving in
a more unsafe manner. From our research and general observation, it would be fair to assume that
cyclists are (generally) well aware of their mortality when in traffic.
Drivers may be somewhat less aware of the dangers they face, particularly with modern cars that
provide greater separation from the external environment through improved vibration damping and
840979615
PAGE 35
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
noise isolation. If drivers were to compensate by driving faster, or more aggressively, this would have
negative impacts on cyclist safety.
Studies in the US have observed that newer cars tended to leave shorter headways between
themselves and the car ahead (Evans and Wasielewski, 1983). Self-reported questionnaires of 4WD
drivers found similarly that these drivers reported more traffic violations, errors and lapses than small
car drivers (Bener et al., 2008). What is not clear is whether this is a result of the vehicle itself or
other attitudinal characteristics of those who choose to own a 4WD. In a simulation study, Horswill
and McKenna (1999) found that increasing internal car noise as a function of speed decreased
drivers’ preferred speed. The inference is that modern cars with their good noise damping may
encourage greater speeding. Whether this also leads to greater tension with cyclists is not
necessarily as clear.
8.5 Views of the road
As noted previously, we noticed early in the research that cyclists and drivers saw the road from a
different height and also had different views of the road – cyclists were uninhibited by the car
structure. We were not clear on what impact this might have had (if any) so included a short
discussion with the last three focus groups where we presented them a picture of the same
intersection from both driver and cyclist’s perspective.

Figure 8.1: Typical view from a cyclist perspective
840979615
PAGE 36
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists

Figure 8.2: Typical view from a driver perspective
From the images and the comments, it became clear that cyclists cannot only see a wider
perspective, but that they can also see further ahead in a line of traffic. Most cyclists use this
perspective to plan for their next moves in the traffic, but it also serves to alert them to likely road
situations within the next few minutes. The comments from the focus group participants included:
If you’re driving, stuck in congestion. Cyclists can whiz down gap. I’d never thought about that
(Male driver, 25-39 age group)
The dashboard obscures a bit of view (Male cyclist/driver, 25-39 age group)
You’d feel a lot safer from car. From cyclist perspective you’re a lonesome person on a metal
frame – bit isolating (Female cyclist/driver, 25-39 age group)
From a cyclist’s view you can see all the way ahead but from car only one or two. (Male
cyclist/driver, 25-39 age group)
You can see further and be constantly planning (Female cyclist/driver, 25-39 age group)
Yes, I can see how cyclist has to be planning more. (Male driver, (Female cyclist/driver, 25-39
age group))
8.6 Further thoughts
The consideration of different levels of alertness and different views of the road led to the following
further thoughts:

Would it be useful to make drivers/cyclists aware of the other’s levels of awareness?

Would this assist in limiting surprises (e.g. diagrams in Section 6.5)?
840979615
PAGE 37
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
9 Dissemination of attitudes
9.1 Introduction
In Section 3 we noted that the extent of the tension between cyclists and drivers appears to be less
than would be expected based on the language used in the media. The review of media reports
(Section 2.2) led us to try to understand where people get their information on relating to tensions.
However, we first review further literature on this topic.
9.2 The influence of media on the driver-cyclist relationship
Some authors (see for example Horton et al. (2007)) suggest that the media may distort reporting of
cyclists and cycling arguing that “the cyclist’s stigmatised identify to make ‘a good story’ and
‘scapegoat cyclists’ and their views may be influenced not just by what readers want but also the
influence of advertisers, particularly when many relate to cars”. This may be changing with increased
environmental and social awareness and Government policies.
As mentioned earlier, generally motorists and cyclists do not hold ill-feeling towards each other or act
negatively towards each other. Periodically however, articles appear in the print media about cyclists
or the cyclist-driver relationship and there are generally a large number of public comments in
response.
“Great, another article to soup up a phoney cycle-vs-car debate, making motorists feel more
justified in verbally abusing me, swerving at me, and generally punishing me for other cyclists'
(often imagined) legal infractions. I wish the paper would drop this.”
“Yawn. Here we go again; The Age looking to increase its page count hits for advertisers by
doing the old bike vs car thing. It's really become the equivalent of the Israel vs Palestine thing
on the letters page, with the same contributors spouting the same old lines, time and again.”
Online forum responses to “Riders left reeling by bike fine increase”, The Age, May 27 2010.
In an early focus group we asked participants about the way the media portrays the driver-cyclist
relationship. There were mixed views. Some said there was a lot of positive news about cycling
(perhaps influenced by the timing of this study and the high profile CBD bike hire scheme), whilst
others asserted that the media is anti-cyclist and that cycling incidents reported are exaggerated.
“The media does its job in bringing awareness, but there many contributions to the fear and the
conflict they create.“
“The media blows it [the relationship] up even more.”
9.3 The origin of perceptions
When we asked people in focus groups when they had last had a cyclist-driver tension personally
only about 6 out of 35 (17%) could name such an occasion – a few reporting that this was ‘long ago’.
In the last three focus groups therefore, we asked people to tell us from whom they got information in
relation to various things, including the relationship between drivers and cyclists, to try to understand
840979615
PAGE 38
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
the origin of the perceptions. We asked respondents to describe the mechanisms through which they
found information about a new technical device (e.g. a TV, phone, computer) as well as about drivercyclist relationships. While the new technical device discussion had nothing to do with driver-cyclist
relationships, it was used as a means of comparing the different pathways by which participants find
out information. The results are summarised below.
New technical device
Son or father, family and friends
Husband or someone that knows or already has one.
Research myself, ask a technical person.
The internet
Shop person. Research on internet as well.
Talk radio
Newspaper
TV and newspaper
Most information (and hence perceptions) came from people or the internet. The media – particularly
television – was rarely mentioned in the case of a new technical device. Trusted people are likely to
be most important.
Drivers-Cyclists
You grow up thinking you should hate cyclist – your parents talk about it when they drive.
Media - especially for Beach Road – you just get a perception.
Talk back radio – that’s where I draw my perception from. See a little.
Local media – lots of publicity re Beach Rd
You see people doing stupid things and you think there must be a problem
Remembering a scare I got once.
On the limited evidence accumulated here it seems that people are very important in relaying
messages on the driver-cyclist relationship – either parents or self-experience. The media appears to
be playing a lesser, more limited role.
9.4 Further thoughts
This is an area where it seems there could be a lot more exploration that might be useful in finding
and implementing measures to address the issues uncovered in the current research.
840979615
PAGE 39
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
10 Conclusion and Further Work
10.1 Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to develop a better understanding of the relationship between drivers
and cyclists on Melbourne’s roads. The purpose of the study has not been to definitively identify the
scale of the tensions, or the underlying mechanisms, or indeed to offer recommendations on policy
actions. Rather, it has been to provide an indication of the types of factors which seem to be playing
a role in the interactions between the two road user groups.
Our key conclusions are as follows:

There are tensions between all road users in certain situations; tensions between cyclists and
drivers do not appear to be greater than those between other road users.

The extent of tensions between cyclists and drivers are perceived as occurring more
frequently than reality would suggest. The frequency of overt aggression seems to be very
small.

We have identified four themes that appear to be contributing to tension:
1) Level of impatience

There is a perception that impatience is increasing across society

Irritability due to delays (perceived or real) on the roads
2) Fear and fright

Fear is an emotional response to a perceived threat, and appears to lead to
greater overt tensions where the fear is motivated by the interaction between
cyclists and drivers.

Fright is a surprise or something immediately threatening, and may be
leading to aggressive responses in individuals with an underlying disposition
towards aggressive behaviour.
3) Level of expectation

A strong theme emerging was that drivers experience more tension when
encountering a cyclist in a situation where they are not expected.

Similarly, cyclists indicated they had higher levels of tension when drivers
undertook unexpected manoeuvres.

Both road user groups agreed that ambiguity in the use of road space made it
more difficult to predict road user behaviour, and could lead to greater
tension.

For minor modes such as cycling, non-cyclists tended to use personalitybased explanations for behaviour over situational explanations.
4) Level of awareness

840979615
Cyclists appear to be more aware of their surroundings than drivers (in
general), perhaps because of their self-awareness of their vulnerability.
PAGE 40
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists


The cyclist view is rather different to cars, and more akin to SUV or light
commercial vehicle drivers, in that it is generally 0.5 – 1 m higher.
Furthermore, the view is unencumbered by the vehicle’s structure.

These differences may mean differences in perceptions between drivers and
cyclists as to what are ‘unsafe’ behaviours.
While direct, personal experience of tensions between drivers and cyclists appear to be
infrequent there is nonetheless a prevailing view that such tensions do exist. These views
seem to be motivated primarily by word of mouth, with the media playing a secondary role.
10.2 Further work
Given the preliminary nature of this research a large avenue of further research may be considered,
including:

Does the nature of the cyclist-driver interaction (generally slower speed, with expressions
more likely to be sighted) mean that cyclists and drivers pick up on more of this venting –
there may not be any difference in levels of grumbling between different road users but
cyclists and drivers are more likely to see them?

This issue may be more acute for cyclists as they are not in the ‘cocoon’ of the car, so
negative expressions will be conveyed more readily to other road users (and displaced anger
may be seen as outward anger)?

Does the anonymity of cyclists mean they can more readily/have a tendency to more freely
outwardly express anger?
Is it likely that more fearful people perceive more tensions than those who describe
themselves as not fearful?


Do these people perceive risk takers as those causing tension?

Do impatient/angry people cause more tensions?

Are people who call themselves impatient more likely to exhibit behaviours judged as
aggressive, i.e. that might cause tensions?

What relationship does being a confident driver/cyclist have here?

How do surprise and expectations link together?

To what extent is knowledge of the rules relevant for both drivers and cyclists?

How are expectations related to fear and fright?

How can expectations be modified to reduce the risk of tension

To what extent are drivers and cyclists the subject of fundamental attribution error and outgroup bias – people thinking that all cyclists are like each other, and all drivers are like each
other.

Would it be useful to make drivers/cyclists aware of the other’s levels of awareness?


Would this assist in limiting surprises (e.g. diagrams in Section 6.5)?
Improve understanding of the role personal contacts and the media have in perpetuating
perceptions of the cyclist - driver relationship.

Consider policy interventions which may help redress what tensions do exist between cyclists
and drivers. These interventions may span across infrastructure, legislative, education and
communication measures.
840979615
PAGE 41
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
840979615
PAGE 42
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
References
AAMI (2009) “AAMI Annual Road Safety Index”.
(http://www.aami.com.au/about_aami_insurance/aami_news_centre/pdf/special_reports/AAMI_CrashI
ndex06report_mediacentre.pdf)
AAMI (2010) “Riding a bike still too risky for many”, Media Release, Thursday 4 February.
Adams, J. (1995) Risk, UCL Press, London.
Aschenbrenner, M. and Biehl, B. (1994) “Improved safety through improved technical measures?
Empirical studies regarding risk compensation processes in relation to anti-lock braking systems”. In
R. M. Trimpop and G.J.S. Wilde, Challenges to accident prevention: The issue of risk compensation
behaviour. Groningen, the Netherlands: Styx Publications.
Audirac, I., (2008), “Sharing Fast-Speed and Slow-Speed Roads with Bicyclists and Pedestrians A
Source of Female and Male Driver Frustration?”, Transportation Research Record 2067, pp65-74.
Basford, L., Reid, S., Lester, T., Thomson, J. and Tolmie, A. (2002), “Drivers’ perceptions of cyclists”,
TRL549, Transport Research Laboratory UK.
Bener, A., Al Maadid, M. G. A., Özkan, T., Al-Bast, D. A. E., Diyab, K. N. and Lajunen, T. (2008) “The
impact of four-wheel drive on risky driver behaviours and road traffic accidents”, Transport Research
Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 11, pp324-333.
Brewer, A.M. (2000) ”Road rage: what, who, when, where and how?”, Transport Review, 20(1), pp4964.
Blower, D. (1998) “The Relative Contribution of Truck Drivers and Passenger Vehicle Drivers to
Truck-Passenger Vehicle Traffic Crashes”, UMTRI-98-25, University of Michigan Transportation
Research Institute.
Crutcher, R. J. (1994). Telling what we know: The use of verbal report methodologies in psychological
research. Psychological Science, 5, 241-244.
Daff, M. R. and Barton, A. (2005), “Marking Melbourne’s Arterial Roads to Assist Cyclists”, Institute of
Transport Engineers Annual Meeting, 7-10 August, Melbourne.
Davies, D., M. Halliday, M. Mayes and R. Pocock (1997) ‘Attitudes to Cycling: A Qualitative Study and
Conceptual Framework’, TRL266, Transport Research Laboratory UK.
DCPC (2005), “Inquiry into Violence Associated with Motor Vehicle Use: Final Report”, Drugs and
Crime Prevention Committee, Parliament of Victoria.
Deffenbacher, J. L., Oetting, E. R. and Lynch, R. S. (1994), “Development of a driving anger scale”,
Psychological Reports 74, pp83-91.
840979615
PAGE 43
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
Deffenbacher, J. L., Deffenbacher, D. M., Lynch, R. S. and Richards, T. L. (2003) “Anger, aggression,
and risky behaviour: a comparison of high and low anger drivers”, Behaviour Research and Therapy
41, pp701-718.
Evans, L. and Wasielewski, P. (1983) “Risky driving related to driver and vehicle characteristics”,
Accident Analysis and Prevention 15 (2), pp121-136.
Goodwin, P. and Glenn, L, (2010) “Public attitudes to transport: interpreting the evidence”,
Transportation Planning and Technology, 33 (1), pp3-17.
Granville, S., Rait, F.. Barber, M. and Laird, A., (2001), “Sharing Road Space: Drivers and Cyclists as
Equal Road Users”, Scottish Executive Central Research Unit.
Hamilton-Baillie, B. and Jones, P. (2005) “Improving traffic behaviour and safety through urban
design”, Civil Engineering 158, pp39-47.
Heinen, E., Van Wee, B. and Maat, K. (2010), Commuting by Bicycle: An Overview of the Literature,
Transport Reviews, 30 (1), pp59-96.
Hennessy, D.A. and Wiesenthal, D.L., (1997) “The relationship between traffic congestion, driver
stress and direct versus indirect coping behaviours”, Ergonomics, 40 (3), pp348-361.
Hennessy, D.A. and Wiesenthal, D.L., (1999), “Traffic Congestion, Driver Stress, and Driver
Aggression”, Aggressive Behaviour, 25 pp409-423.
Horton, D. Rosen, P. And Cox, P. (2007) Cycling and Society, Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
Johnson, M., Charlton, J. and Oxley, J. (2008) “Cyclists and red lights – a study of behaviour of
commuter cyclists in Melbourne”, Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education
Conference.
O’Connor, J. P. and Brown, T. D. (2008), “Riding with the sharks: Serious leisure cyclist’s perceptions
of sharing the road with motorists”, Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 13, pp53-58.
Horswill, M. S. and McKenna, F. P. (1999) “The Development, Validation, and Application of a VideoBased technique for Measuring an Everyday Risk-Taking Behavior: Drivers’ Speed Choice”, Journal
of Applied Psychology 84 (6), pp977-985.
Knowles, J., Adams, S., Cuerden, R., Savill, T., Reid, S. And Tight, M. (2009) “Collisions involving
cyclists on Britain’s roads: establishing the causes”, PPR445, Transport Research Laboratory.
Koustanai, A., Boloix, E., Van Elslande, P. Bastien, C. (2008a) “Formation of expectations while
driving: Influence of the possibility and the necessity to anticipate on the ability to identify danger”,
Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behavior 11, pp147-157.
Koustanai, A., Boloix, E., Van Elsande, P. and Bastien, C. (2008b) “Statistical analysis of “looked-butfailed-to-see” accidents: Highlighting the involvement of two distinct mechanisms”, Accident Analysis
and Prevention 40, pp461-469.
840979615
PAGE 44
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
Lajunen, T., Parker, D. and Stradling, S. G. (1998) “Dimensions of driver anger, aggressive and
highway code violations and their mediation by safety orientation in UK drivers”, Transportation
Research Part F 1, pp107-121.
Lajunen, T. and Parker, D. (2001) “Are aggressive people aggressive drivers? A study of the
relationship between self-reported general aggressiveness driver anger and aggressive driving”,
Accident Analysis and Prevention 33.
Lawton, R. and Nutter, A. (2002) “A comparison of reported levels and expression of anger in
everyday and driving situations”, British Journal of Psychology 93, pp407-423.
Lerner, J. S. and Keltner, D. (2001) “Fear, Anger and Risk”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 81 (1), pp146-159.
Levelt, P. B. M. (2003) “Praktijkstudie naar emoties in het verkeer”, SWOV Report R-2003-08 [in
Dutch].
Lightdale, J.R. and Prentice, D.A (1994) “Rethinking sex differences in aggression: Aggressive
behaviour in the absence of social roles” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, pp 34-44.
Mesken, J., Hagenzieker, M. P., Rothengatter, T. and de Waard, D. (2007) “Frequency, determinants,
and consequences of different drivers’ emotions: An on-the-road study using self-reports, (observed)
behaviour, and physiology”, Transportation Research Part F 10, pp458-475.
Miller, J.G., (1984) “Culture and the Development of Everyday Social Explanation”. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 46 (5) pp961-978
Montgomery, C. (2009) Bike Rage, Momentum Magazine, No. 4. Vancouver Canada.
Parkinson, B. (2001) “Anger on and off the road”, British Journal of Psychology 92, pp507-526.
Shinar, D. (1998) “Aggressive Driving: the contribution of the drivers and the situation”, Transportation
Research Part F, 1 pp137-160
Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E. and MacGregor, D. G. (2004) “Risk as Analysis and Risk as
Feelings: Some Thoughts About Affect, Reason, Risk and Rationality”, Risk Analysis 24 (2).
Sullman, M. J. M. (2006) “Anger amongst New Zealand drivers”, Transportation Research Part F:
Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 9, pp173-184.
Tasca, L. (2000) “A review of the literature on aggressive driving research”, Aggressive Driving Issues
conference (http://www.aggressive.drivers.com/board/messages/25/49.html).
Taylor, J. E., Deane, F. P. and Podd, J. V. (2007) “Driving fear and driving skills: Comparison between
fearful and control samples using standardised on-road assessment”, Behaviour Research and
Therapy (45), pp805-818.
Tessler, M. S. (1997) “Fight or flight therapy” (http://www.fightorflighttherapy.com/fight-or-flightquiz.htm)
840979615
PAGE 45
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
Underwood, G., Chapman, P. and Crundall, D. (2009) Experience and Visual Attention in Driving.
Walker, I. and Brosnan, M. (2007) “Drivers’ gaze fixations during judgements about a bicyclist’s
intentions”, Transportation Research Part F 10, pp90-98.
Wood, J. M., Lacherez, P. F., Marszalek, R. P. and King, M. J. (2009) “Drivers’ and cyclists’
experiences of sharing the road: Incidents, attitudes and perceptions of visibility”, Accident Analysis
and Prevention 41, pp772-776.
840979615
PAGE 46
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
Appendix A: Summary of Literature Review
Application of Psychological Theories
Basford et al, 2002, Drivers’ perceptions of cyclists, TRL Report TRL 549, Department for
Transport UK.
The UK Government’s 1998 White Paper, “A New Deal for Transport – Better for Everyone” aimed to
increase cycling and the Basford et al study explores one of the main deterrents to cycling: fear of
traffic, and the associated attitudes and behaviour of drivers. The report findings are articulated
against psychological theories, especially the “Theory of Planned Behaviour” (TPB). TPB theory is
that a person’s actions result from attitude, social norm and perceived behavioural control.
When undertaking driver scenario testing, the authors recommend questioning drivers about their
intentions and actual behaviour. Researchers should try to determine a driver’s attitude to the
intended behaviour, to the attitudes of other drivers at the time (norm) and his/her perceived ability to
complete the intended behaviour plus the validity of this perception.
The report suggests that, using TPB, rather than just trying to address negative cyclist-driver
relationships by changing attitudes, changing perceived norms and perceived behavioural abilities
should also be explored.
Attitudes, social norms and habits
Heinen E, Van Wee B & Maat K, 2010, “Commuting by Bicycle: An Overview of the Literature”,
Transport Reviews, Vol. 30(1), pp59-96
This paper covers many factors that determine whether people choose to cycle to work; some of
those relevant to this study are discussed here: socio-economic and psychological factors. With
respect to the former, the relationship between a person’s income and cycling habits is unclear, and
differs from country to country. The section on psychological factors discusses attitudes, social norms
and habits. Attitudes are integral to two theories applied in mode choice studies: the Theory of
Planned Behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991) and the Theory of Interpersonal Behaviour (TIB) (Triandis,
1980, 1997). An attitude is “the expectation of all the outcomes of an activity, and the personal value
of these outcomes”.
The paper reports that people’s attitudes towards car use are typically more positive to those towards
cycling. An individual with a more positive attitude towards cycling means a higher probability that
they will cycle. Habits affect mode choice and frequency and mean that individuals are unlikely to
seek alternative modes, such as cycling. Driver commuters perceive more barriers to bicycle
commuting than do cyclist commuters, who in turn perceive more possibilities for cycling. Many
surveys query why individuals choose not to cycle but it is unclear as to whether the attitudes
expressed by participants result from not-cycling or whether not cycling results in the attitudes.
The paper notes that while current research indicates that attitudes and norms have strong influence
on cycle commuting, there has been limited research into the relationships between cycling, norms
840979615
PAGE 47
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
and attitudes. Heinen et al suggest that “attitudes play a more significant role than has been assumed
in most research to date”.
Parker, D. , Lajunen, T. and Stradling, S.G. (1998) Attitudinal predictors of interpersonally
aggressive violations on the road. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and
Behaviour, 1, 11-24.
The results of the Parker et al UK study support recommendations made in previous studies about
behavioural change; the need to modify drivers’ beliefs and attitudes towards (perceived) aggressive
driving, with a particular focus on persuading drivers not to interpret (perceived) violations as
purposely aggressive actions by other road users. The authors note that some drivers may enjoy a
“buzz” from aggressive interactions.
Nature and Extent of Concern
Reported hostility/aggression from drivers towards cyclists was not always borne out in the
UK. (Basford et al, 2002).
The report found that the depth of ill-feeling towards cyclists from drivers is not as immediately
negative as is sometimes generalised; cyclists are not immediately raised as drivers’ primary concern
or annoyance but once mentioned it is made clear by drivers that cyclists are considered an “out
group”. The report details drivers’ main concerns about cyclists and explored drivers’ responses to
different scenarios. A range of recommendations were made on the basis of the study outcomes. The
study did not attempt to make direct links between frustration and negative behaviour.
O’Connor, J. P. and Brown, T. D. (2010), “Riding with the sharks: Serious leisure cyclist’s
perceptions of sharing the road with motorists”, Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 13,
pp53-58.
Serious leisure cyclists reported “frequent intimidation and harassment by a minority of motorists"
Attitude towards Cyclists and Drivers
Personal attitudes towards cyclists are predictors of frustration. Non-cyclists are generally more
negative towards cycling/cyclists (various).
O’Connor, J. P. and Brown, T. D. (2010), “Riding with the sharks: Serious leisure cyclist’s
perceptions of sharing the road with motorists”, Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 13,
pp53-58.
O’Conner and Brown 2010 found that (serious recreational) cyclists perceived a pervading car culture
and that they were seen as an “out group”.
Granville S, Rait, F. Barber, M. And Laird, A , 2001, Sharing Road Space: Drivers and Cyclists
as Equal Road Users
This study surveyed people on their views on who has the “right” to use the road, to ascertain whether
people viewed cyclists as equal road users. The researchers found that how environmentally friendly
the road user is, safety and public service provided by the mode determine priority. It was found that
cyclists were not generally considered as equal road users and that, for non-cyclists, a negative
840979615
PAGE 48
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
experience of cyclist behaviour generates a negative generalisation of all cyclists. Whilst drivers
generalise about cyclists, cyclists consider that drivers are generally good and that there are a
minority of bad drivers.
Stress
Brecht , G. (2008) as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald
http://www.smh.com.au/news/drive-life/driven-to-violence/2008/07/29/1217097215289.html
Sydney consultant and clinical psychologist Grant Brecht says he has quite a few clients who present
with high levels of tension and stress and admit to venting road rage. "They often have emotional
outbursts in other situations as well - work, family, sport," he says. It is a growing problem, which
tends to have a definite gender bias.
"Males are more likely to express anger outwardly, where females tend to keep it in more," Brecht
says.
"It does appear to be an increasing problem, due to the increasing pressures and time demands on
people - too many things to be involved in with too little time to do them. There are also high levels of
expectations placed by ourselves on ourselves or by others on us."
The issues around road rage are often far broader than just concerns about increasingly congested
roads but in Brecht's view traffic snarls become "the straw that breaks the camel's back". "[The road]
is just one of the places that stressed people will vent their anger - it is seldom, if ever, the only
situation in which these people explode emotionally. It is an accumulation of stressors that are not
being dealt with effectively by the individuals who emotionally snap," he says.
Environment of Growing Impatience
Audirac, I., (2008), “Sharing Fast-Speed and Slow-Speed Roads with Bicyclists and
Pedestrians A Source of Female and Male Driver Frustration?”, Transportation Research
Record 2067, pp65-74.
The Audirac (2008) U.S. study focused on frustration and its link to aggressive driving within the
context of an environment-driving-behaviour model. It was posited that the modern urban form and
road networks have created an expectation and norm of “unimpeded mobility” and when situations
arise that cause delays, there is frustration that may result in aggression. The study concluded that
personal attitudes towards cyclists are predictors of frustration. It also found that females and the
more affluent experienced greater frustration towards sharing the road with cyclists (on fast-speed
roads).
AAMI (2009) “AAMI Annual Road Safety Index”.
http://www.aami.com.au/about_aami_insurance/aami_news_centre/pdf/special_reports/AAMI_
CrashIndex06report_mediacentre.pdf
840979615
PAGE 49
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
The AAMI Crash Index (AAMI Australian Insurance, August 2009) which has been run for 12 years
reported that motorists are becoming more aggressive, and increasingly, this is linked to congestion
(70% in 2005 and 88% in 2009).. When AAMI reported on “road rage” in 1996, 57% said the roads
were “like a battlefield” and by 2009 91% said motorists are becoming more aggressive. Four in five
said yelling, swearing and gesturing are justifiable reactions to road rage from other drivers whilst two
thirds say tailgating is justified. Whilst the study does not report on the cyclist-driver issues
specifically, it does suggest that people are finding the experience of using the road increasingly
frustrating as their journeys are delayed and become more uncertain.
Sullman MJM. 2006. Anger amongst New Zealand drivers. Transportation Research, Part F 9:
173-184.
Anger amongst New Zealand drivers was surveyed (using a Driving Anger Scale) and four main
categories of situations that cause anger were found: progress impeded, risky driving, hostile
gestures and discourteous driving. Higher levels of reported anger were found for drivers in urban
areas and those who have less driving experience and those who travel greater distances and prefer
higher speed. The authors concluded that their research provides some support of a link between
traffic density and driver anger, and that those living in the main urban areas ‘may be leading more
rushed, busy and stressful lives’
Shinar, D. (1998) “Aggressive Driving: the contribution of the drivers and the situation”,
Transportation Research Part F, 1 pp137-160
Shinar argues that the increased level of frustrations experienced by road users are due to worsening
road conditions, rather than changes in people’s personalities. Increasing frustration is also attributed
to the “instant” nature of modern communications and the global competitive environment, increasing
the value of time and thereby making its “loss” more frustrating.
Tasca L. 2000. A review of the literature on aggressive driving research. Presented at the First
Global Web Conference on Aggressive Driving Issues.
http://www.aggressive.drivers.com/paperslist.html
This Canadian author lists specific behaviours which could constitute driving perceived by others as
aggressive, though this could equally well apply to cyclists in most cases:






Tailgating
Weaving in and out of traffic
Improper passing (e.g. cutting in too close in front of vehicle being overtaken)
Passing on the road shoulder
Improper lane changes (failure to signal)
Failure to yield the right of way to other road users


Preventing other drivers from passing
Unwillingness to extend cooperation to motorists unable to merge or change lanes due to
traffic conditions
Driving at speeds far in excess of the norm which results in frequent tailgating, frequent and
abrupt lane changes
Running stop signs


840979615
PAGE 50
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists

Running red lights
He adds that displays of annoyance or hostility which are not intended to physically harm other road
users but likely to intimidate, irritate, anger or provoke them may accompany these behaviours and
serve as indicators of the underlying motivation. These behaviours would include:





flashing headlights
sustained horn-honking
glaring at another driver to show disapproval
yelling
gesturing
Lajunen, T. Parker, D. and Stradling, S.G. (1998) Dimensions of driver anger, aggressive and
Highway Code violations and their mediation by safety orientation in UK drivers.
Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 1, 107-121.
This study used the Driving Anger Scale to survey British drivers. Factors causing anger used were:
reckless driving, direct hostility and impeded progress by others. . The latter incorporates discourtesy
and slow driving, whereby other road users make the driver slow and/or wait. This was found to
invoke frustration as progress cannot be maintained.
It is noted that there is a community perception (or message conveyed by studies and media) of
increasingly aggressive behaviour on the roads but that there is little literature to confirm this. In
making recommendations to address driver anger and aggression, Lajunen et al suggest, particularly
as problems of congestion are unlikely to improve, campaigns and education programmes should
focus not on vehicle handling skills but on increasing drivers’ concern for safety.
Expectation and Stress
Lajunen, T. Parker, D. and Stradling, S.G. (1998) Dimensions of driver anger, aggressive and
Highway Code violations and their mediation by safety orientation in UK drivers.
Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 1, 107-121.
A number of studies are cited as linking driving aggression with safety orientation and that drivers who
consider themselves as highly skilled have heightened emotions when driving than do drivers who
emphasise safety. Lajunen et al posit that drivers with a safety orientation and lower belief in their
driving skills means drivers better cope with road conditions that do not meet expectations and that
these characteristics moderate anger and behaviour.
Hennessy, D.A. and Wiesenthal, D.L. (1997) The relationship between traffic congestion, driver
stress and direct and indirect coping behaviours
Hennessy and Wiesenthal reference numerous studies that conclude that perceived control over
environment is a significant factor in stress people experience. Numerous studies, of both driving and
non-driving situations, have found that preparatory information (and pre-planning potential actions)
results in people experiencing lower stress. Information may allow people to have reasonable
expectations of situations, feel they have greater control and perform coping strategies and actions
available. Examples presented in the study included variable message signs and radio messages on
traffic conditions.
840979615
PAGE 51
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
Definition of Road Space
Martens, M.H., Brouwer, R.F.T. and van der Horst, A.R.A (2009) The Environment: Roadway
Design, environmental factors and conflicts.
Martens et al assert that roads (incorporating pavement type and width, markings, environment and
alignments) should be ‘self-explaining’ and create the correct expectations to users with respect to the
presence and behaviour of other users, and also how they should behave. Furthermore, the authors
state the by achieving the correct expectations, potential errors by road users will be reduced.
Daff, M. R. and Barton, A. (2005) Marking Melbourne’s Arterial Roads to Assist Cyclists,
Institute of Transport Engineers Annual Meeting, 7-10 August 2005, Melbourne.
Daff and Barton summarised the main cycle line marking measures that have been implemented in
Melbourne, namely wide kerbside lanes, exclusive bike lanes, parking and bike lanes and advanced
stop lines at signalised intersections (“bike boxes”) and used video based studies to observe the
response of over 10,000 drivers. The separation that drivers provide cyclists (by measuring vehicle
tracking) and the comfort and stress levels of cyclists were also investigated. Cyclists reported
reduced stress when bicycle symbols (“wide kerbside lane markings”) are used and also where wide
kerbside lanes are indeed wider. Motorists understood the rationale for the introduction of such
markings but their actual vehicle tracking when passing cyclists was unchanged from marked and
unmarked roads.
The finding that many cyclists feel more comfortable with dedicated facilities (with use of line marking)
was supported by many of the participants in focus groups and protocol analyses. Driver participants
often noted their discomfort and/or displease when cyclists move out of ‘bike spaces” (e.g. marked
bike lanes). The Daff and Barton study did not go into detail about this and this could be an issue to
be explored further in studies and/or be considered as part of suggested measures to improve the
cyclist-driver relationship.
Behaviours of Others
Arrogance – Illegal Behaviour – Discourtesy
AAMI Crash Index August 2009: Annual Road Safety Index
The following reported behaviours are likely to be relevant to understanding the tensions between
cyclists and drivers.

840979615
Speeding is increasingly considered acceptable (29% purport that driving just above the limit
is not really speeding) and only 16% say they never speed (i.e. 84% of drivers admit to
breaking the speed limit). There seems to be contempt for speed zones. The risk of a
speeding fine is the greatest deterrent to non-compliance.
PAGE 52
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists



One-quarter of drivers have been penalised for speeding in the last two years and 5% for
failing to stop at red lights and stop signs. Whilst drivers often stereotype cyclists as “lawless”,
these figures indicate that drivers have poor compliance too. Why do some drivers focus on
cyclist misdemeanours only (do they see it as a greater problem – is it associated with
cyclists’ increased vulnerability and drivers’ fear of hurting cyclists and do they use cyclist
“lawlessness and arrogance” as justification for negative behaviours towards them?
Three in five drivers are supposedly concerned about being victim of a road rage attack.
80% of drivers have had a crash.
Sullman MJM. 2006. Anger amongst New Zealand drivers. Transportation Research, Part F 9:
173-184.
Sullman (2006) included risky and discourteous driving as two of the four categories of situations
causing anger. It could be suggested that likewise, risky/discourteous (illegal) cycling causes anger in
drivers, with feelings intensified because of the perceived increased risk (to cyclists) and fear of
hurting the cyclist. From a cyclist perspective, it is suggested that cyclists may interpret driving as
discourteous when drivers do not provide a comfortable clearance. Being unable to provide
comfortable clearance (e.g. feeling “squeezed” by the need to balance car-bike clearance with
clearance to oncoming traffic) was also a source of discomfort reported by drivers in our focus
groups/protocol analyses.
Johnson M et al, 2008, Cyclists and red lights – a study of behaviour of commuter cyclists in
Melbourne
Johnson M et al (2008) undertook a study on (commuter) cyclists and red lights. The Melbourne study
used 36 hours of video recording over two sites, with 5420 cyclists observed. The authors found that
11% of cyclists fail to stop at a red light, which is a similar figure to a previous study, which found that
9% of cyclists fail to stop. Three types of non-compliant cyclists were classified: “runners”, “impatients”
and “racers”. Cyclist non-compliance with signals is cited as a cause of negativity from motorists.
Johnson et al note suggests that this shows that driver’s perceptions that that “cyclists are a
homogenous group whose behaviour is discourteous regardless of the specific manoeuvre
undertaken” (Basford et al., 2002).is not correct.
Unpredictability – Legibility
Davies, D., M. Halliday, M. Mayes and R. Pocock (1997) Attitudes to Cycling: A Qualitative Study and
Conceptual Framework, Transport Research Laboratory Report 266
Davies et al. (1997) undertook a study (in Queensland) which had a particular focus on visibility and
clothing and accessories used by cyclists to enhance visibility, with the finding that there are
significant differences in perceptions and attitudes of cyclists and drivers has important implications..



840979615
77% of drivers (and 57% of cyclists) agreed with the statement, “cyclists are difficult to see in
traffic”.
88% of cyclists (and 60% of drivers) agreed with the statement “drivers do not look for
cyclists”.
Drivers believed a cyclist with headlight can be seen at night at half the distance believed by
cyclists.
PAGE 53
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists

Drivers are likely to attribute crashes to poor visibility of cyclists but unable to determine if due
to blame and self-justification.
The study concluded that there are significant differences between perceptions and attitudes of
cyclists and drivers and also their liabilities and responsibilities in improving awareness of each other.
The implication of this may be that cyclists’ behaviour is based on a false assumption of their visibility
(and therefore inadequate caution); also drivers may believe that cyclists are being inconsiderate or
taking unreasonable risks , not knowing that cyclists believe that drivers’ awareness is better than it
actually is.
Underwood, G., Chapman, P. And Crundall, D. (2009) Experience and Visual Attention in
Driving.
Underwood et al discuss the deficiencies of drivers, particularly inexperienced drivers, in terms of
becoming focused on a hazard, which limits their scanning ability and therefore ability to view and
process other potential hazards. It is recommended that drivers are educated about anticipating the
behaviour of other road users.
This may be particularly relevant to drivers who consider cyclists to be a hazard and encounter
cyclists and feel fear/fright (that may result in conflict). This may be overcome by drivers being more
aware to the potential presence of cyclists and better understanding and anticipating the behaviours
(“what happens next”) of cyclists in certain situations.
Different Levels of Awareness by Cyclists and Drivers
Davies, D., M. Halliday, M. Mayes and R. Pocock (1997) Attitudes to Cycling: A Qualitative Study and
Conceptual Framework, Transport Research Laboratory Report 266
A survey was undertaken of attitudes towards road users. Cyclists generally have a negative view of
driver behaviours and positive view of cyclist behaviours whilst drivers have negative opinions of both
road users. The study found that cyclist - drivers are less likely to have negative views on cyclists,
cyclist-drivers are more likely to “side with drivers” but this study posits that this is a result of their
heightened awareness of the impact of cyclist behaviour and visibility. The recommendation is made
for cyclist education to focus on the difficulties confronting drivers and that the usual implied
responsibility of drivers to be more aware of cyclists should be more shared.
Fear/Fright
AAMI research, publicised as a media release (2010)
Riding a bike still too risky for many, indicates that many drivers still interact with cyclists with
trepidation and almost 9 in 10 (86%) of respondents to a survey AAMI conduction believe that roads
are unsafe for cyclists. Drivers have issues with the legibility of cyclists, with 66% asserting that
cyclists are hard to see and 65% also consider them to be a hazard. Despite these views, 79% of
respondents are positive towards improved facilities for cyclists and drivers also recognise that they
have shortcomings in terms of their treatment of cyclists. The AAMI researchers conclude that
Australian drivers are becoming more accepting of the increased presence of cyclists and the need to
anticipate cyclist behaviour and share the road safely.
840979615
PAGE 54
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
Lerner, J. S. and Keltner, D. (2001) Fear, Anger and Risk Journal of Pers Soc. Psychology,
Jul;81(1):146-59.
Drawing on an appraisal-tendency framework (J. S. Lerner & D. Keltner, 2000), the authors predicted
and found that fear and anger have opposite effects on risk perception. Whereas fearful people
expressed pessimistic risk estimates and risk-averse choices, angry people expressed optimistic risk
estimates and risk-seeking choices. These opposing patterns emerged for naturally occurring and
experimentally induced fear and anger. Moreover, estimates of angry people more closely resembled
those of happy people than those of fearful people. Consistent with predictions, appraisal tendencies
accounted for these effects: Appraisals of certainty and control moderated and (in the case of control)
mediated the emotion effects. As a complement to studies that link affective valence to judgment
outcomes, the present studies highlight multiple benefits of studying specific emotions.
Tessler, M. S. (1997) Fight or flight therapy. Tessler argues that it has long been understood that our
minds and bodies respond to stress and trauma in precise physiological ways, often referred to as the
‘fight or flight’ response. Our nervous systems instinctively activate specific mechanisms designed to
protect us, helping to insure our survival. In other words, stress and trauma can create a ‘fight’
response to a situation of fright. http://www.fightorflighttherapy.com/fight-or-flight-quiz.htm
840979615
PAGE 55
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
840979615
PAGE 56
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
Appendix B: Focus Group Content
840979615
PAGE 57
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
840979615
PAGE 58
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
840979615
PAGE 59
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
840979615
PAGE 60
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
840979615
PAGE 61
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
840979615
PAGE 62
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
840979615
PAGE 63
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
840979615
PAGE 64
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
840979615
PAGE 65
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
840979615
PAGE 66
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
840979615
PAGE 67
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
840979615
PAGE 68
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
840979615
PAGE 69
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
840979615
PAGE 70
Relationship between Drivers and Cyclists
840979615
PAGE 71