I know these sort of statements are well-meaning, in a placatory sort of way, but I find it dismaying that such platitudes inevitably garner a bouquet of 'Likes'. It's demonstrably untrue that people will behave in the 'same' way irrespective of the environment, conditions, or modes of being or relating. And this is before we even get to the obvious point that, whatever one's temperament, it is impossible to behave in the 'same' way, let alone do a similar amount of damage, in an articulated lorry as on a skateboard; or on a motorway as opposed to a busy street where children are playing. Individuals are, of course, more or less considerate or empathetic or patient than one another, so it's possible to imagine a perfect storm of temperament, power, opportunity, incentive and social approbation that allows one person to harm another on the road, but temperament is only ever going to be one part of the mix. The tendency for drivers to seek opportunities to characterize cyclists as eccentric, reckless, or unruly is a social phenomenon, not some kind of pure expression of character without context. Cyclists are a treated in this way because they are perceived as a threat to the status and self-identification of drivers. The best response, in my view, is not to indulge them but to mirror their supposed incredulity and turn their anxieties back against them. We need to respond in ways that are unexpected, in order to unsettle the assumptions that underpin the interaction. My favourite example is
@kimble's brilliant question for motorists in traffic jams on weekends and holidays: 'Are you doing this for charity?', and the obvious-but-still-effective classic is 'You're not stuck in traffic - you
are traffic,' but I am cultivating a range of responses of this kind appropriate to various situations, not least because it is a productive way of channeling irritation or anger that would otherwise result in swearing.
).
