What a dumb fucking study. They show people pictures of two people and ask them to choose which one looks ‘less human’. What the fuck does that even mean, they’re obviously both human. Obviously people are going to latch onto some external difference, and if only one has safety gear, that’s an extra level of “obfuscation” so if you have to choose one that’s less human, that’s what most people are gonna choose. But what if you don’t see either of them as less human? I’m a cyclist and I agree there’s a problem with how people perceive us, but forcefeeding study participants a conclusion that yoi think will make your study look good doesn’t help anything.

Aggression towards cyclists and pedestrians needs to be prosecuted. The penalties need to be appropriate to the potential harm as well.

Until that happens, there won’t be any real change.

How to prove an attack is the hard part. Perhaps a dash cam device for bikes and a police force willing to take it seriously? I don’t have a good answer at all.

This was mentioned in c/bicycles recently. I’m not surprised at the outcomes of the study, but I don’t think it should be taken to correlate with real-world behaviours. There was no investigation of other modes of transport, only two models were used for most pictures, the models in the pictures were simply standing beside a bike rather than riding it, two different models were used for 2 of the 10 data points, and the study is based on survey data (high degree of subjectivity).

I do agree that dehumanization is a contributing factor in aggression towards cyclists, but it’s a factor in nearly all prejudicial behaviour towards ‘outsider’ groups. I feel like the takeaway from this study should rather be that, generally, people wearing apparel that is not typical fashion could be seen as less human. And I definitely don’t think this should have an impact on one’s choice to wear safety gear or not.