Reinforcing my prejudice

[winjim]

An interesting study into perception and expectation this morning.

I was early to work today so there were a few more cyclists on my route than usual. One in particular caught my eye. I was waiting at the lights where I join the dual carriageway, having filtered towards the front so I was now two cars back and would safely make it through on the next phase of the lights. A cyclist comes through on my right, weaves through the cars in front and plonks himself right at the head of the queue, over the stop line. Now that's not a position I'd choose myself but neither is it the worst crime in the world. However, I also notice he has a massive camera stuck right on top of his helmet. Two thoughts spring to mind. Firstly, he may have weaved past me but I bet I'll 'ave him on the dual carriageway. Secondly, I'm just going to keep my eye on him and see what he gets up to. That weaving manoeuvre and road positioning combined with the camera have got my spidey senses tingling.

So the lights change and off we go. This section of dual carriageway is two lane, 30mph limit, lots of traffic lights, so if you're canny with lane changes and filtering, and know where to rest and where to sprint, you can make good progress through the traffic. We can't have got more than 50yds down the road, matey with the camera is in lane one. The traffic in that lane is slowing, so he takes a big swing out to the right, towards a narrowly closing gap as a car approaches from behind in lane two. I can't remember if he looked but he certainly didn't signal, and I don't know if he was aiming for a filtering position between the lanes or actually trying to join lane two, but the move did look rather sudden and exaggerated to me. Cue the driver of the approaching car sounding the horn and the two of them travel side by side for a short while arguing until the cyclist moves back into secondary position in lane one and the driver pulls away in lane two.

Now I can't say that the incident was definitely the cyclist's fault. I can't say that the driver didn't overreact. I can't even say that during a momentary lapse of concentration I might not have done a similar thing. But what is interesting is that it only took a few minor clues for me to mark the cyclist as someone to keep an eye on, and after I had it took less than a minute for him to become involved in some sort of confrontation, on a road I ride every day filtering and changing lane without incident.

So be mindful of clichéd prejudice, it may be right after all.

 

[Profpointy]

An interesting study into perception and expectation this morning.

I was early to work today so there were a few more cyclists on my route than usual. One in particular caught my eye. I was waiting at the lights where I join the dual carriageway, having filtered towards the front so I was now two cars back and would safely make it through on the next phase of the lights. A cyclist comes through on my right, weaves through the cars in front and plonks himself right at the head of the queue, over the stop line. Now that's not a position I'd choose myself but neither is it the worst crime in the world. However, I also notice he has a massive camera stuck right on top of his helmet. Two thoughts spring to mind. Firstly, he may have weaved past me but I bet I'll 'ave him on the dual carriageway. Secondly, I'm just going to keep my eye on him and see what he gets up to. That weaving manoeuvre and road positioning combined with the camera have got my spidey senses tingling.

So the lights change and off we go. This section of dual carriageway is two lane, 30mph limit, lots of traffic lights, so if you're canny with lane changes and filtering, and know where to rest and where to sprint, you can make good progress through the traffic. We can't have got more than 50yds down the road, matey with the camera is in lane one. The traffic in that lane is slowing, so he takes a big swing out to the right, towards a narrowly closing gap as a car approaches from behind in lane two. I can't remember if he looked but he certainly didn't signal, and I don't know if he was aiming for a filtering position between the lanes or actually trying to join lane two, but the move did look rather sudden and exaggerated to me. Cue the driver of the approaching car sounding the horn and the two of them travel side by side for a short while arguing until the cyclist moves back into secondary position in lane one and the driver pulls away in lane two.

Now I can't say that the incident was definitely the cyclist's fault. I can't say that the driver didn't overreact. I can't even say that during a momentary lapse of concentration I might not have done a similar thing. But what is interesting is that it only took a few minor clues for me to mark the cyclist as someone to keep an eye on, and after I had it took less than a minute for him to become involved in some sort of confrontation, on a road I ride every day filtering and changing lane without incident.

So be mindful of clichéd prejudice, it may be right after all.

you see that with motorists as well. You can't entirely put your finger on it but you know someone's going to do something unorthodox or downright daft. Afterwards you can rationalise it- woman with kids in 4x4, "chav" in the hatchback or old duffer in a hat, or even a non-stereotype who simply not looking out properly - but at the time they catch your eye and you concentrate a bit more on them. Sure enough, they do something daft according to type and yoy say "I knew they would do something odd"

 

[Yellow Saddle]

That's why profiling at airports, soccer stadiums and other security points works better than random searching.

 

[winjim]

That's the attitude that profilers would look for when seeking a dangerous driver, if they were ever to do such a thing.

Good job nobody's profiling my riding based on that single statement then, or they may be tempted to come to an erroneous conclusion. As expected I did 'ave him on the dual carriageway. Part of the reason for that was that he rode like a nobber which brought him into conflict with another road user, slowing him down, whereas I rode like a righteous dude, aware of the position of the traffic and the phasing of the lights, which enabled me to navigate a clear and efficient path through the traffic.

 

[Dogtrousers]

I concentrate on what keeps me safe. Who/what poses the biggest threat to me? Where are they now? Where will they be? Have they seen me?

A cyclist who is ahead of me is virtually no threat. I have more important things to worry about - vehicles behind and alongside me. Vehicles manoeuvring ahead. Road hazards ahead.

Going around making snap judgements on appearance, and planning to race other cyclists and "'ave them on the dual carriageway" is not on my to-do list.

 

[winjim]

A cyclist who is ahead of me is virtually no threat. I have more important things to worry about - vehicles behind and alongside me. Vehicles manoeuvring ahead. Road hazards ahead.

A cyclist who is ahead of me is a threat if I either expect them to do something to alter the traffic flow, thus creating a hazard, or if I expect to pass them. I expected either or both of these things to happen, and happen they did. The cyclist was both of the things highlighted in bold.

Going around making snap judgements on appearance, and planning to race other cyclists and "'ave them on the dual carriageway" is not on my to-do list.

We all make snap judgements based on appearance and prejudice. My point is that sometimes these judgements turn out to be correct. Planning to race is not synonymous with expecting to pass. I overtook him mainly due to a combination of his having been involved in a confrontation, and my most excellent roadcraft, as mentioned in the OP. The 'ave him thought was a reaction to what I perceived as a pointless MGIF manoeuvre from him at the lights, rather than an expression of aggression on my part.

 

[winjim]

Protesting a bit too much? Reinforcing the thread title then .

No, explaining myself. Some people appear to be arriving at conclusions about my attitude based on little information and some prejudice. Sometimes these conclusions are correct, hence this thread, but sometimes they are not, and require further explanation and discussion.

 

[Profpointy]

Protesting a bit too much? Reinforcing the thread title then .

It's not Cunobelin you know, so you're not obliged to argue for the sake of it

 

[jarlrmai]

You should have read up on confirmation bias.

 

[winjim]

You should have read up on confirmation bias.

Me? Why? I know about confirmation bias. It's literally the entire reason for the thread.

 

[jarlrmai]

So this is a thread about how you are changing your thought processes to avoid this cognitive mistake?

 

[jefmcg]

http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/stereotypes-are-a-real-time-saver-10696

 

[Profpointy]

So this is a thread about how you are changing your thought processes to avoid this cognitive mistake?

Wasn't it a "cognitive" short-cut which wasn't (in this case) a mistake?

 

[winjim]

So this is a thread about how you are changing your thought processes to avoid this cognitive mistake?

No, this is a thread about how I made a prediction which turned out to be correct, therefore I am super awesome.

I accept that my prediction was based partly on prejudice.
I do not know for sure who was at fault in the incident.
I do not think that all camera cyclists are nobbers.
I am not extrapolating this experience to make wider predictions.
I merely find it interesting that in this single case my prejudiced prediction turned out to be correct.

 

[winjim]

It's not Cunobelin you know, so you're not obliged to argue for the sake of it

It is interesting though. I thought about leaving out the "'ave him" comment, but decided to put it in, mainly to see what reaction it would get and whether I would need to defend it. So that's another prejudice reinforced by the thread itself. The trick now of course, is to not get drawn into a nitpicky argument about it. I know my own mind and my own motivation.*



*To a certain extent. IANAPsychologist.