In cycle campaigning circles, 'dangerisation' is the claim that discussing safety, danger and potential risks suppresses cycling levels, and even causes people to give up cycling altogether. For instance -

A great deal of cycle campaigning is currently stressing the dangers of cycling, and too often ignoring the multiple reasons why so many people get into cycling in the first place. Cycling is not suicidal. Famously, the British Medical Association reported in 1997 that the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks by 20:1. 

It’s healthier to cycle than not to cycle. Yes, people die while cycling, and every road death is one too many, but the bigger risk is having a sedentary lifestyle.


It's time to stick up for cycling. Negative campaigning has its place, but it shouldn't be the only and main form of campaigning. In his book Risk, geographer John Adams, a leading authority on perceived risk, said: “The safety advice aimed at cyclists stresses the danger of cycling to the point that all but the heedless and foolhardy are likely to give it up.”

There is, however, no evidence to support this claim that discussion of safety and danger by campaigners keeps people from cycling. Indeed, recent research has found that

safety-focused campaigns are unlikely to have any immediate effect on people’s perceptions and intentions to cycle, whether positive or negative 

It is the objective hostility and danger of our roads and streets, as well as how people perceive them, that suppresses cycling in Britain - as research consistently shows.