Bridging the Gap: Understanding In-Group and Out-Group Dynamics Among Heavy Vehicle Drivers and Bicycle Riders in New Zealand for Improved Road Sharing
R.A. Barter, Share the Road Campaign, Cycling Action Network, 2 Forresters Lane, Te Aro, Wellington 6011, New Zealand. richard@can.org.nz
Dr. W. Brookbanks, Professor of Criminal Law and Justice Studies, AUT Law School, 55 Wellesley Street East, Auckland 1010, New Zealand. warren.brookbanks@aut.ac.nz
ABSTRACT
This paper explores the complex dynamics between heavy vehicle drivers and cyclists, focusing on the role of in-group favouritism and out-group discrimination in road-sharing conflicts. Through an analysis of two surveys, a review of Share the Road workshops, and the McConnell Dowell feedback report, this study investigates the behavioural factors contributing to road tensions. Cyclists, often seen as a marginalized out-group, face infrastructure and visibility challenges, while heavy vehicle drivers contend with operational limitations such as blind spots. The research highlights the effectiveness of educational interventions, such as Share the Road workshops, in fostering empathy between the two groups. Post-workshop surveys showed improvements in drivers' understanding of cyclists' vulnerabilities and cyclists' awareness of the dangers posed by heavy vehicles. However, deep-rooted issues like lack of mutual understanding, infrastructure inadequacies, and biased perceptions remain. The paper suggests that experiential learning, peer influence programs and public awareness campaigns, can help reduce road conflicts by addressing the underlying in-group and out-group dynamics. This research underscores the importance of targeted, empathy-driven interventions to promote safer, more cooperative road-sharing between heavy vehicle drivers and cyclists in New Zealand.
Keywords
In-groups, out-groups, favouritism, discrimination, empathy, road sharing
1. INTRODUCTION
Road sharing between cyclists and heavy vehicle drivers presents a complex issue shaped by both infrastructural and social factors. In-group and out-group theory, which explains how individuals favour their own group while discriminating against others, is relevant in this context [1]. Cyclists, often seen as a marginalized out-group in motor vehicle-dominant transport systems, face significant safety risks due to infrastructure prioritizing cars and trucks. On the other hand, heavy vehicle drivers deal with challenges like blind spots and lack of road-sharing training, which heightens tension with cyclists [2].
Additional factors such as fatigue, substance abuse, and New Zealand's reliance on older heavy vehicles without modern safety features further complicate these dynamics. Research has shown that addressing in-group favouritism and out-group discrimination can improve road-sharing behaviours [3]. Hunter et al. highlight that group membership fosters a strong sense of identity, but issues arise when individuals assume their group is superior to others [4]. Educational programs like Share the Road workshops have shown promise (via post workshop surveys) in fostering empathy between cyclists and drivers, with participants reporting improved road-sharing behaviours post-training. How ever a recent review of Share the Road driver workshops that included post-workshop interviews with drivers indicated a tendency for in-group favouritism and out-group discrimination. To understand how deeply and widely the views expressed are held, a qualitative survey was undertaken to explore in more detail reasons and solutions for road conflict between drivers of heavy vehicles and people who ride bicycles. The results of this survey were aligned with Share the Road key messages and workshop activities to ascertain the degree to which they matched the suggested solutions to on-road conflict.
The paper focuses on behaviour change because every driver or bicycle rider has the ability to control their own behaviour. The paper will not go into depth about road rules, regulations regarding vehicles and infrastructure design because few road users have control over these factors. The paper will present findings from two surveys and a review of the Share the Road workshops and suggest strategies to mitigate out-group discrimination. The goal of this research is to understand in-group and out-group dynamics between heavy vehicle drivers and people who cycle, and to ascertain the degree to which Share the Road interventions that purport to reduce discrimination align with the solutions being suggested by these road users.
2. BACKGROUND
New Zealand’s transport infrastructure heavily favours motor vehicles [5], positioning drivers as a dominant in-group with considerable influence. In contrast, cyclists, as a smaller and marginalised out-group, face challenges advocating for infrastructure and legislative improvements that ensure safe separation between drivers and riders. Furthermore, New Zealand’s access to modern heavy vehicles with better direct vision is limited and expensive due to the long supply chains, leaving drivers to contend with vehicles that have poor visibility and significant blind spots [6] [7]. Addressing these challenges requires tackling in-group favouritism and out-group discrimination, which could improve interactions between drivers and cyclists, reduce road rage, and build public and political support for investment in improved road rules, legislation, and infrastructure.
3. METHOD
The goal of this exercise is to understand in-group and out-group dynamics between heavy vehicle drivers and people who cycle, and to ascertain the degree to which Share the Road interventions that purport to reduce discrimination. The authors compared results from existing post Share the Road workshop surveys, a new qualitative survey and information contained in a review of the Share the Road Workshops by McConnell Dowell, a civil engineering company that runs a lot of construction trucks [8]. This review was run by an independent third party called Vertical Horizonz. Their staff attended three face to face workshops and two online workshops. 125 drivers participated in these workshops. After the workshops, when the Share the Road presenter was out of the room, the reviewers interviewed the participants about what they had just experienced. The feedback was then analysed to provide recommendations aimed at improving the effectiveness of the Share the Road workshops. Most of the recommendations have since been incorporated into the workshop script and support materials. The reason for incorporating this feedback into the research was that the feedback was delivered in a group situation. This (according to an anecdotal report from the Vertical Horizonz staff) created a strong sense of in group favouritism and out group discrimination. In contrast the data collected from the other two surveys was from anonymous individuals completing the surveys on their own.
Data was utilised from Share the Road campaign post (Driver Toolbox and Cyclist Blindzone) workshops surveys of 922 bicycle riders and 2,580 drivers. These surveys reflect the views of workshop participants before and after Driver Toolbox Workshops, and Cyclist Blindzone Workshops. The survey questions focus on the key messages the workshops delivered to these groups so that the likelihood of the on-road behaviour change being sought actually happening could be understood.
A qualitative survey titled “Empathy and awareness between heavy vehicle drivers and cyclists” was conducted to gain further understanding of the issues raised by drivers in the McConnell Dowell review. Members of three trucking associations (National Road Carriers, NZ Trucking and Transporting New Zealand) were asked to share the survey with their drivers. Members of three cycling associations (Cycling Action NZ, Bike Auckland and Cycle Aware Wellington) were invited to participate. 56 drivers and 51 cyclists responded to the invitation to complete the surveys. The survey also sought information about the degree to which mainstream and social media stories and posts are increasing polarisation between drivers and cyclists highlighting favouritism and discrimination.
The data from the post-workshop surveys was collected using Google Forms. The results were analysed using a facility in the Google Sheets application to produce Tables 1 and 2. The outputs from the McConnell Dowell Survey report were taken directly from the report. The data from the recent driver and cyclist surveys was again collected using Google Forms with the results being analysed using a facility in the Google Sheets application to produce Tables
4. RESULTS
4.1. Share the Road Post workshop surveys.
The Share the Road key statements, resources and workshop models have been developed over an eight-year period with regular reviews and alterations being made to include recommendations for improvements. The goal of these activities and resources is to improve road sharing between HV drivers and people riding bicycles. The focus of the activities and resources are to break down barriers between these groups and reduce out-group discrimination.
The post workshop driver survey results show that the workshops increased the likelihood of heavy vehicle drivers' behaving positively towards cyclists. 87% strongly agreed or agreed, 6% were neutral, and 1.8% disagreed with the statement “The workshop has increased the chance of you following a cyclist at a safe distance”. Regarding the statement “The workshop has increased your patience with cyclists who ride out from the kerb or parked cars? 85% strongly agreed or agreed, 9% were neutral, and 2.8% disagreed. When responding to the statement, “The workshop has increased the chance of you passing a cyclist safely?” 89% strongly agreed or agreed, 5.9% were neutral, and 1.1% disagreed. Overall, the majority of participants felt the workshop improved their cycling safety awareness and the likelihood they would drive in a safer and more patient fashion around people riding bicycles.
The survey results reflect positive outcomes from the workshop for cyclists. 84% of survey respondents (as a result of attending the workshop) strongly agreed or agreed, 12% were neutral, and 2.5% disagreed with the statement “The workshop has increased the chance of you controlling your bike well”. Regarding the statement “The workshop has increased the chance you will ride to be seen “, 88% strongly agreed or agreed, 7.7% were neutral, and 1.8% disagreed. In response to the statement “The workshop has increased the chance you will choose safe routes”, 87% strongly agreed or agreed, 10.6% were neutral, and 1% disagreed. Lastly, 94% strongly agreed or agreed, 4.5% were neutral, and 0.8% disagreed with the statement “You have a better understanding of heavy vehicle blind zones”. Overall, the majority of participants felt the workshop improved their cycling skills, awareness of the importance of riding to be seen, choosing safe routes and an awareness of technical issues regarding what drivers of heavy vehicles can and can’t see when driving.
4.2. McConnell Dowell Workshop Feedback and Recommendations for Share the Road Workshops: Enhancing Cyclist Understanding of Safety Issues around Construction Sites and Trucks
The feedback highlighted issues such as unconscious bias, the need for scenario diversity, the importance of visual aids, and the necessity for a balanced perspective addressing both cyclists' and truck drivers' responsibilities with a focus on educating cyclists about safety issues. This feedback was then analysed to provide recommendations aimed at improving the effectiveness of the Share the Road workshops, ultimately enhancing road safety around construction sites. See recommendations in Appendix.
4.3. Empathy and awareness between heavy vehicle drivers and cyclists Survey
The comparison between cyclists and heavy vehicle drivers in survey responses reveals significant differences in their perspectives, behaviours, and attitudes toward each other, framed through dynamics of in-group favouritism and out-group discrimination. Both groups highlight how they view interactions with the other and the challenges of sharing road space, with empathy and awareness emerging as critical factors influencing their experiences. The survey covers an analysis of a number of key themes: age and gender distribution, type of road user, experience and frequency, comfort levels sharing the road, effects of social media posts, reasons for conflict and suggestions for improvements and educational campaigns. For results on participant age, gender, type of road user, driving or riding experience and road sharing comfort levels see Appendix.
4.4. Positive Interactions and Behaviour
Despite the prevailing tensions, both groups acknowledge occasional positive interactions, though these tend to be framed through in-group favouritism. Cyclists express appreciation when heavy vehicle drivers slow down, give them space, or wait until it’s safe to pass, viewing these behaviours as exceptional rather than the norm. Heavy vehicle drivers, meanwhile, highlight positive cyclist behaviours such as moving aside, riding single file, or acknowledging the driver’s courtesy with a wave. These gestures are seen as aligning with the drivers' expectations of politeness and respect.
4.5. Educational Campaigns
In terms of educational campaigns aimed at reducing road incidents, cyclists and drivers have different perspectives on the most effective strategies to improve road-sharing behaviour. According to the survey results, cyclists favour Joint Focus Group Workshops. Drivers rated Peer Influence Programs and Public Awareness Campaigns highly. Educational Videos were viewed with mixed results by both groups, seen as helpful but not transformative. Drivers, however, were more sceptical about Joint Workshops and Virtual Reality Simulations, with concerns about their practicality and real-world application.
4.6. Reasons for Conflict and Suggestions for Improvement
When asked about the reasons for conflicts between cyclists and heavy vehicle drivers, both groups cite mutual misunderstanding, infrastructure limitations, and differing priorities. Cyclists feel that drivers are often unaware of their vulnerability and need for space, while drivers express frustration with cyclists’ perceived disregard for road rules.
Suggestions for improvement centre on experiential learning and infrastructure changes. Both groups propose that members of the out-group (drivers or cyclists) experience each other’s challenges, whether by having cyclists sit in a truck’s driver seat or by having drivers ride a bicycle on busy roads. Additionally, both groups advocate for better infrastructure, such as dedicated cycle lanes, which they believe would reduce conflicts by separating cyclists and heavy vehicles.
5. DISCUSSION
A number of issues emerged in the results of the Empathy and awareness between heavy vehicle drivers and cyclists Survey. Responses from heavy vehicle drivers indicated that their experience and versatility in managing diverse types of vehicles give them a broader perspective on road-sharing interactions. Cyclists, on the other hand, appear more specialized in their mode of transport, which might reduce their understanding of the constraints and needs when operating a heavy vehicle. A significant portion of both drivers and cyclists who responded to the survey have over 20 years of regular on road driving or riding experience. These patterns of experience and frequency likely influence how each group views road-sharing behaviours, with both cyclists and drivers seeing themselves as experienced and capable but potentially lacking empathy for the other group’s challenges.
Both groups only reported a low to moderate level of comfort sharing the road with each other with neither group fully at ease in interactions with the other. The primary reason for these discomfort levels appears to stem from their perceptions of danger. Cyclists often feel vulnerable when sharing the road with large vehicles, fearing that drivers may not see them or provide enough space. Meanwhile, heavy vehicle drivers may feel that cyclists do not respect the road rules or understand the operational limitations of large trucks, such as their need for wider turns or longer stopping distances.
The survey data showed that while polarising social media posts receive a lot of attention, cyclists feel that these posts do not influence their behaviour, though some report slight to moderate changes in attitude based on what they encounter online. Similarly, heavy vehicle drivers report minimal influence from these posts, with the majority stating that social media posts about cyclists do not change their behaviour. One comment stood out regarding social media “Populists trying to pit us up against each other and create hate on which they feed.”
The feedback from both groups of respondents indicated that the notion of positive interaction is often tied to a power dynamic, where the out-group (cyclists) is viewed favourably only when conforming to the in-group’s (drivers) expectations.
The goal of this paper is to tackle out-group discrimination and create more balanced, empathy-based programs that can improve mutual understanding. Scenarios where both groups experience each other’s challenges were mentioned by both drivers and cyclists. Examples included cyclists sitting in a truck driver's seat or drivers riding a bike in a simulated environment, could be a way to bridge the perception gap. Peer influence programs were identified as effective in promoting positive behaviours through social reinforcement.
When responding to the questions about causes of on road conflict between the two groups, in-group favouritism is evident as both groups emphasize their own challenges—cyclists focus on their vulnerability, while drivers highlight the difficulties of operating large vehicles in shared spaces.
In-group favouritism is evident when heavy vehicle drivers mention being under time pressure, viewing their work as important and time sensitive. This belief can contribute to a perception that cyclists, who may slow them down or take up road space, are an inconvenience or hindrance. This framing casts the driver’s needs as legitimate and urgent, while cyclists are positioned as secondary or less important road users. Out-group discrimination emerges in the way some respondents describe cyclists as behaving "arrogantly" or "ignorantly," enforcing their right of way without consideration for the difficulties faced by truck drivers. Cyclists are sometimes depicted as acting recklessly or entitled, contributing to a sense of hostility from drivers who feel cyclists are not respecting their space on the road. A number of driver comments focused only on bicycle riders learning and obeying road rules.
Reviewing responses to reducing on road conflict, cyclists gave more weight to drivers undertaking experiential learning and to the improvement of infrastructure that would separate riders from motor vehicles. A significant number of bicycle riders pointed out that solving the problem of vehicle blind spots would reduce conflict on the road.
Another theme that has been mentioned already is the inadequacy of infrastructure, which is frequently blamed for forcing cyclists and heavy vehicles to share space on roads that aren’t designed for safe cohabitation. Both groups suffer from poor road design, with narrow lanes and a lack of separated cycle paths escalating the conflict. This structural issue compounds existing tensions, as both groups are left to navigate poorly designed spaces that put them at odds.
Education and awareness campaigns are also frequently mentioned, with many respondents suggesting that both groups need to be better educated about road safety and each other's needs. Some drivers focus on the need for cyclists to wear bright clothing which reflects a bias that places responsibility on cyclists to improve their visibility. In a few instances it was suggested that they be banned from the roads altogether. Conversely, bicycle riders suggest that drivers need more training on how to safely navigate around cyclists, emphasising that drivers should take greater responsibility for ensuring cyclist safety. One of the issues around training is that drivers work for companies that are accessible. Cyclists are not usually part of an organisation that can be asked invite members or staff to workshops. Many companies now fit the Share the Road campaign into their Health and Safety rather than driver training programmes. Since COVID, most workshops are now run online making the logistics of getting participation of drivers easier. It is easier to run workshops for drivers. 60 different organizations that have run Share the Road Driver Toolbox workshops in New Zealand.
Overall, the responses highlight how cyclists view heavy vehicle drivers through a lens of cautious optimism, with positive interactions standing out as moments of shared understanding in an environment where conflict and risk often dominate perceptions. Driver responses demonstrate a pattern where positive interactions with cyclists are only recognized when they align with the heavy vehicle drivers’ expectations or when cyclists acknowledge the drivers’ actions.
It is evident that while there is a desire for mutual understanding and better relationships between heavy vehicle drivers and cyclists, the suggestions are often framed by the perspectives of each group. Many respondents want the other group to change or be more considerate, revealing underlying in-group favouritism and out-group discrimination.
Regarding ranking of the effectiveness of educational programmes, drivers lean toward strategies that utilize social influence and public awareness, while cyclists prefer direct, interactive engagement. Drivers form the majority in-group so are less likely to be happy with being challenged in a face-to-face situation. Cyclists being the minority out-group appreciate the opportunity to have their voice heard in the same room as drivers. That cyclists favour joint focus group workshops, demonstrates a belief that direct dialogue between the two groups promotes mutual understanding and safer interactions. This approach encourages cooperative communication and problem-solving. Drivers, on the other hand, in rating Peer Influence Programs and Public Awareness Campaigns highly, indicated their belief in the power of social modelling and broader cultural shifts toward positive behaviour. These approaches focus on influencing attitudes and behaviour through community-driven efforts.
6. CONCLUSION
This paper has highlighted the issues drivers and bicycle riders face when sharing the road with each other. Cyclists do not understand the stress they cause to drivers due to being unaware of the blind spots around heavy vehicles, the limited visibility in mirrors particularly if they are not wearing bright clothing and using good lights. While not adhering strictly to road rules may not seem a big deal to people when riding bicycles, it is the lack of predictability of their movements that worries drivers. Bicycle riders rightly point out the failing of local and central roading authorities to provide adequately separated roading infrastructure. To increase the awareness of heavy vehicle blind spots, every bicycle rider who attends a Share the Road Blindzone workshop sits in the seat of a heavy vehicle and spends time identifying with the aid of objects placed around the vehicle what can and can’t be seen. The importance of riding to be seen (correct road positioning, bright lights and clothing) and to be predictable (use clear hand signals) is stressed at the workshops along with the benefits of choosing safe routes that separate them from contact with heavy vehicles. Part of the answer to reducing out-group discrimination of cyclists towards drivers rest in the hands of government policy that deal with rules around direct vision of heavy vehicles and roading infrastructure that separates drivers from cyclists. Addressing this is up to the priorities of elected representatives. This is always going to be a challenge as bicycle riders are in a minority, and in New Zealand with its very high car ownership rate [9] puts them firmly in an out-group.
Drivers know their large vehicles are intimidating and that this increases out-group discrimination against them. The surveys have shown that drivers consider their job of carrying freight gives them priority right of way on the road. To reduce out-group discrimination, any approach has to be able to demonstrate the benefits they will receive if they change their behaviour. Considering that many of the drivers who participated in the survey are older and highly experienced, it is important to acknowledge these factors, along with the significant contribution they make in transporting freight and passengers across the country. Many of the issues that were raised by drivers during the McConnell Dowell review of the Share the Road workshops have been incorporated into the workshop models. For example more time is given to explaining the messaging delivered to cyclists both in the workshop scripts, and in the videos shown in the online workshops. The workshop icebreaker includes asking drivers to share the number of years they have been driving, and the value of their work is acknowledged.
The concerns and solutions raised by cyclists and drivers in the surveys, and how they are addressed by Share the Road key messages and workshop activities are summarised in the Conference Poster in the Appendix.
Share the Road workshops focus on paying attention to the things roads users have control over such as control of their vehicle or bicycle, and to find ways to manage the things they do not have control over such as the behaviour of other road users, regulations and roading infrastructure. Reducing outgroup discrimination between heavy vehicle drivers and cyclists requires approaches that promote empathy, mutual understanding, and experiential learning. Infrastructure improvements, such as better cycling lanes, can further reduce conflict by physically separating the two groups. Ultimately, a combination of peer influence programs, educational campaigns, and infrastructure investment will be critical to fostering safer and more cooperative road-sharing between heavy vehicle drivers and cyclists. The conclusion drawn from this research shows that while in-group favouritism and out-group discrimination is prevalent in when drivers and bicycle riders gather in groups and on social media, on road behaviour reflecting discrimination of out-groups can be reduced with appropriate interventions[10]. The authors are striving for streets and roads where users see others as people with common values, and not as negative stereotypes whose characteristics are amplified through disinformation across social and mainstream media channels.
Further Research
Those who completed the Empathy and awareness between heavy vehicle drivers and cyclists Survey ranked focus group type workshops with moderate to high levels of confidence in their efficacy. These views are reflected in the high levels of satisfaction with the Share the Road Driver Toolbox and Cyclist Blindzone workshop models. Public Awareness campaigns, Peer influence programmes, Virtual Reality Simulations and Educational Videos while not seen as the answer on their own, were all seen as important elements in the task of reducing outgroup discrimination. Each has its own place in terms of it ability to reach its intended audiences. It was noted how hard it is to get cyclists to workshops, but many engage in social media so providing links to online videos or simulators for example could be a way to get messaging to them. The authors would like to undertake more research into these alternatives in order to increase the reach of the key messages in order to improve road sharing between drivers and bicycle riders.
7. References:
1. Abbink, K. and D. Harris, In-group favouritism and out-group discrimination in naturally occurring groups. PloS one, 2019. 14(9): p. e0221616.
2. Talbot, R., et al., Fatal and serious collisions involving pedal cyclists and trucks in London between 2007 and 2011. Traffic injury prevention, 2017. 18(6): p. 657-665.
3. Wilder, D.A., Reduction of intergroup discrimination through individuation of the out-group. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1978. 36(12): p. 1361.
4. Hunter, D., Anne Bailey, and Bill Taylor, The Art of Facilitation. 2007, Auckland, N.Z.: Random House New Zealand.
5. Mackie, H., et al., Towards a safe system for cycling: development and application of a cycling safety system model: preparing New Zealanders for utility cycling. 2017.
6. Baas, P.H., S.G. Charlton, and G.T. Bastin, Survey of New Zealand truck driver fatigue and fitness for duty. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, 2000. 3(4): p. 185-193.
7. Government, N.Z. New Zealand freight & supply chain issues paper Preparing our freight and supply chain system for the future. 2022 [cited 2024 15 May]; Available from: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Freight-and-supply-chain-issues-paper-full-version.pdf.
8. Quinn, T., Workshop feedback and recommendations for Share the Road workshops: Enhancing cyclist understanding of safety issues around construction sites and trucks. 2023, Vertical Horizonz: Auckland.
9. MoT, Te tatauranga rāngi waka a tau 2021 | Annual fleet statistics 2021. 2022: Wellington, New Zealand.
10. Hitlin, S., H.W. Kwon, and R. Firat, In-and out-groups across cultures: Identities and perceived group values. Social science research, 2021. 97: p. 102569.