Well, the comments section on this one should be fun: Cyclists are more interested in the common good than drivers are, a study published in the Journal of Environmental Psychology found. The study used four factors to define the common good — political participation, social participation, neighborhood solidarity and neighborly helpfulness. And as it turns out, drivers are less interested in all four of those things.

“Cycling rather than driving was positively associated with orientation towards the common good in all models,” the study found. “Cycling was the only variable that was a significant positive predictor for all four facets of orientation towards the common good after controlling for possibly confounding variables (homeownership, personal income, education, sex).”

Essentially, pedestrians and cyclists directly interact with their environment, while drivers are almost entirely isolated from it:

Because of the design of cars, the interactions car passengers have with their direct environment are significantly reduced. Sheller and Urry (2000) emphasize that no interaction with the spatial environment can take place from inside a passenger car because acoustic backdrops and smells of the city are not captured and distinctive buildings or urban artifacts are reduced to two dimensions by a perception from inside through the windshield of the car. Te Brömmelstroet et al. (2017) add that interaction with the spatial environment beyond visual channels occurs mainly at the point of origin and destination, and that there are few opportunities for interaction between the driver and the environment while en route, such as when stopping at a traffic light or standing in a traffic jam.

So now there’s evidence to suggest that cities should invest in walking and cycling infrastructure, not just because it lowers air and noise pollution, but because it would be better for society in general.

That said, the study didn’t attempt to determine whether people more oriented toward the common good are simply more likely to ride bikes, or whether riding bikes actually increases people’s interest in the common good. It would be incredibly hard to do in most of the U.S., but we’d love to see a follow-up study that measures whether or not cycling at least a few times a week changes people’s interest in the four criteria used here.

Of course, since this is America, there are plenty of people who will read the results of this study and draw the opposite conclusion. They’ll argue we’ve got to stop the bike lanes because caring about the common good isn’t ruggedly individualist enough and turns people into Godless Communists. We would argue, however, that if you see political participation, social participation, neighborhood solidarity and neighborly helpfulness as bad things, you might just be a bad person. Maybe going for a bike ride will help.

https://jalopnik.com/study-finds-cyclists-are-better-people-than-drivers-1850964103

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, the comments section on this one should be fun: Cyclists are more
> interested in the common good than drivers are, a study published in the
> Journal of Environmental Psychology found.

ROFL…’Experimental Psychology’!

> The study used four factors to define the common good — political
> participation, social participation, neighborhood solidarity and
> neighborly helpfulness. And as it turns out, drivers are less interested
> in all four of those things.

Pity about the American spelling.

Was this study done in the US?

> “Cycling rather than driving was positively associated with orientation
> towards the common good in all models,” the study found. “Cycling was the
> only variable that was a significant positive predictor for all four
> facets of orientation towards the common good after controlling for
> possibly confounding variables (homeownership, personal income, education, sex).”

So what?

> Essentially, pedestrians and cyclists directly interact with their
> environment, while drivers are almost entirely isolated from it:

> Because of the design of cars, the interactions car passengers have
> with their direct environment are significantly reduced. Sheller and Urry
> (2000) emphasize that no interaction with the spatial environment can
> take place from inside a passenger car because acoustic backdrops and
> smells of the city are not captured and distinctive buildings or urban
> artifacts are reduced to two dimensions by a perception from inside
> through the windshield of the car.

They need to explain why ‘acoustic backdrops and smells of the city are not
captured and distinctive buildings or urban artifacts are reduced to two
dimensions’ is a bad thing.

> Te Brömmelstroet et al. (2017) add that interaction with the spatial
> environment beyond visual channels occurs mainly at the point of origin
> and destination, and that there are few opportunities for interaction
> between the driver and the environment while en route, such as when
> stopping at a traffic light or standing in a traffic jam.

Again, why is ‘…interaction with the spatial environment beyond visual
channels…’ painted in a bad light?

> So now there’s evidence to suggest that cities should invest in walking
> and cycling infrastructure, not just because it lowers air and noise
> pollution, but because it would be better for society in general.

And where is this evidence *to suggest* ‘invest(ment) in walking and
cycling infrastructure’ a good thing?

> That said, the study didn’t attempt to determine whether people more
> oriented toward the common good are simply more likely to ride bikes, or
> whether riding bikes actually increases people’s interest in the common
> good. It would be incredibly hard to do in most of the U.S.

Ah, so this is US-based!

> but we’d love to see a follow-up study that measures whether or not
> cycling at least a few times a week changes people’s interest in the four
> criteria used here.

I would like to see a study done properly, with far fewer ArtStudent-type
phrases such as ’suggest’, ‘likely’, ‘would be’, and the rest. But then,
this is a ‘soft science’, essentially a fact-free environment.

> Of course, since this is America, there are plenty of people who will
> read the results of this study and draw the opposite conclusion. They’ll
> argue we’ve got to stop the bike lanes because caring about the common
> good isn’t ruggedly individualist enough and turns people into Godless
> Communists. We would argue, however, that if you see political
> participation, social participation, neighborhood solidarity and
> neighborly helpfulness as bad things, you might just be a bad person.
> Maybe going for a bike ride will help.

This whole pile of crap could have come straight out of the Soviet Union.

> https://jalopnik.com/study-finds-cyclists-are-better-people-than-drivers-1850964103

--
Spike

I certainly agree with and am not at all surprised by this finding.

I doubt you find very many MAGA types pedaling around. And at this point, the VENN diagram of MAGA and people who are just selfish conservative assholes is pretty much a perfect circle. Cycling is simply just the sort of thing that appeals to the more liberal sorts of people, who also tend to be wealthier. It involves actual exercise (unlike golf, the conservative asshole “sport” of choice) and expensive equipment.

On 27/10/2023 02:29 pm, Simon Mason wrote:

> I certainly agree with and am not at all surprised by this finding.
>
> I doubt you find very many MAGA types pedaling around. And at this point, the VENN diagram of MAGA and people who are just selfish conservative assholes is pretty much a perfect circle. Cycling is simply just the sort of thing that appeals to the more liberal sorts of people, who also tend to be wealthier.

Hah... the old "Considerably Richer Than Yow" rears its head again... :-)

Surely the pension pot can't be far behind?

> It involves actual exercise (unlike golf, the conservative asshole “sport” of choice) and expensive equipment.

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 2:29:23 PM UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:
> I certainly agree with and am not at all surprised by this finding.
>
> I doubt you find very many MAGA types pedaling around. And at this point, the VENN diagram of MAGA and people who are just selfish conservative assholes is pretty much a perfect circle. Cycling is simply just the sort of thing that appeals to the more liberal sorts of people, who also tend to be wealthier. It involves actual exercise (unlike golf, the conservative asshole “sport” of choice) and expensive equipment.

For MAGA types, read elderly and thick Brexit supporters.

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> For MAGA types, read elderly and thick Brexit supporters.

Was America in the EU, then??

--
Spike