Cycling advocacy in Australia: a minority movement or ...

[Aushiker]

Write or say anything publicly that is remotely critical of cyclist behaviour in Australia, and you will incur the wrath of a growing body of active and media savvy cycling advocacy groups.

This is the way it should be.

Australia’s long history of strong cycling advocacy dates back to the late 1800s. The groups which followed played a key role in securing the place of the bicycle in this country....

As cyclists we don’t have to be perfect. But I do think we should care about our presence in public spaces, and how our riding attitudes and actions impact others.

Tell me what you think. Is greater solidarity and unity needed in Australian cycling advocacy? Can we think of cycling as a homogeneous movement, or does diversity in cycling identity matter more?

The Conversation

Andrew

[outnabike]

I reckon unity is a hard thing to achieve. That is why we get small groups start up with “My views on advocacy” Often that person makes a break to start his own brand or stance.
Personal views are in direct conflict with what is good for cycling, and that is a “united front”. So a lot of good hearted people are out there trying to garner support for their ideas and working hard to be heard.
But we all make mistakes, and righteous indignation and strong voices do not necessarily make the objective correct.
I have seen it get to the point of individuals being personally attacked for daring to disagree.
So we have an element of “I am dedicated so do as I say!”
That’s a by-product though of all strong willed people. What seems to be missing to me, and I am strictly an outsider that just wants to ride my bike safely; is that everyone ought to get together in the one hall and settle on the wants of cyclists, and not leave the building until they are all pushing together in the one direction.
Settle on whether or not,
We should support the one metre laws.
Footpath riding a good idea or not.
Should we scrap the bike path systems that only create door zones.
Bike serial numbers; should we have a law that says; No bikes may be sold without the manufacturers serial number in the “for sale add”. (prevent the sale of stolen bikes)
Surely we can get consensus on the MHL.
The bicycle fraternity is so divided with hot potato issues that the government and shock jocks take the initiative and beat us over the head with our own ability to make a united front.
But we can dream can't we....

[il padrone]

Just look at the range of cycling activities that go on and you'll see why there is huge diversity of opinion.

From lycra roadies to suited commuters, expedition tourers, BMX kids, MTB downhillers, urban hipster fixie riders. lo-rider cruiser dudes, pub and shop bikes, retro vintage and classic cyclists, MTB orienteering, Audax long distance riders, credit-card tourers, city couriers, MTB trials riders, bike-polo riders...... and on..... and on.

[yugyug]

Just look at the range of cycling activities that go on and you'll see why there is huge diversity of opinion.

From lycra roadies to suited commuters, expedition tourers, BMX kids, MTB downhillers, urban hipster fixie riders. lo-rider cruiser dudes, pub and shop bikes, retro vintage and classic cyclists, MTB orienteering, Audax long distance riders, credit-card tourers, city couriers, MTB trials riders, bike-polo riders...... and on..... and on.

Sure, though the advocacy issue in Australia primarily concerns the use of roads, footpaths and interaction with motorvehicles. That's not so relevant for some of those biking cultures. Regardless of whether one is a roadie or a MTBiker, we should be able to agree on issues of road safety.....

Settle on whether or not,
We should support the one metre laws.
Footpath riding a good idea or not.
Should we scrap the bike path systems that only create door zones.
Bike serial numbers; should we have a law that says; No bikes may be sold without the manufacturers serial number in the “for sale add”. (prevent the sale of stolen bikes)
Surely we can get consensus on the MHL.

.... but we don't. I think I understand why all those issues are contentious (and have strong opinions on some of them myself). But what about strict liability, like they have in the Netherlands? Sure it would be a hard sell to motorists, but isn't it something that has no controversial aspects within the cycling community?

[il padrone]

Just look at the range of cycling activities that go on and you'll see why there is huge diversity of opinion.

From lycra roadies to suited commuters, expedition tourers, BMX kids, MTB downhillers, urban hipster fixie riders. lo-rider cruiser dudes, pub and shop bikes, retro vintage and classic cyclists, MTB orienteering, Audax long distance riders, credit-card tourers, city couriers, MTB trials riders, bike-polo riders...... and on..... and on.

Sure, though the advocacy issue in Australia primarily concerns the use of roads, footpaths and interaction with motorvehicles. That's not so relevant for some of those biking cultures.

As far as I'm aware almost all of these cyclists listed above ride their bikes on roads, tracks, and paths. Only the BMX kids, MTB downhillers, MTB trial riders, and bike polo riders do not ride on roads to practice their particular pursuit; and even they will still often ride roads to get there. They are all still cyclists and have legitimate views on cycling advocacy.

[Mulger bill]

Most of the advocacy that occurs revolves around road use from either a utility/commute or train/race aspect.
John Baggyshorts the MTBer who drives to and from the trails aint gonna care much, neither do the Sixpack Kings at the local jumps park.
But, if it comes to that, how often do the road based crew get their hands dirty with trail access and maintenance issues?

We're horribly fractured along tribal lines, it's a regressive attitude that does little good for anyone.

We have to unite, until we can provide one voice we'll be forever picked off one by one.

First they came for the E-bikers, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not an E-biker.

Then they came for the Velonauts, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Velonaut...

LATE EDIT:Yes Pete, all groups deserve to be heard but a one million strong voice is much louder than one thousand voices a thousand strong.

[outnabike]

I have never joined a political party in my life and now am a member of the Australian Cyclist Party. Maybe that is the real front door to getting changes made.
If they start disagreeing on the proposed 1 metre law, we will all be up the pole.
Problem with politics is that even though we have a cyclist Prime Minister we don't see any bones thrown to the cyclist lobby. Maybe with all the security he doesn't get any close shaves.

Has any one seen a manifesto of proposals yet?

[il padrone]

Mad Rabbott don't ride no bike.

He just goes for the occasional mobile party consultation/press conference

[yugyug]

[quote="outnabike".
If they start disagreeing on the proposed 1 metre law, we will all be up the pole.
/quote]

Why? I think there are some reasons why it's not such a great law. but to stay on topic, why would disagreement on that be any different to disagreement on anything other topic?

[rkelsen]

Surely we can get consensus on the MHL.

There's a >7000 post thread around here somewhere which says otherwise...

We're horribly fractured along tribal lines, it's a regressive attitude that does little good for anyone.

We have to unite, until we can provide one voice we'll be forever picked off one by one.

+1

[find_bruce]

I hate to disagree when everyone is calling for unity, but I think that there is plenty of scope for a diversity of opinions and a diversity of advocacy efforts.

It is the mavericks who can raise controversial issues. All too often the larger, established "advocacy" groups are effectively neutered by trying to stay "inside the tent". Despite Mr Fry's reference to "active and media savvy cycling advocacy groups" I am willing to bet the people who contacted him were not representing the various state based bicycle organisations.

Local groups can be very effective at resolving local issues, around street design and projects, in a way that a state based organisation will never devote the time or resources. Mountain bike tracks and jumps parks have been built on the hard work of usually small groups of people who want that facility to be created or maintained.

[outnabike]

[quote="outnabike".
If they start disagreeing on the proposed 1 metre law, we will all be up the pole.
/quote]

Why? I think there are some reasons why it's not such a great law. but to stay on topic, why would disagreement on that be any different to disagreement on anything other topic?

[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

Seems to me that cycling advocacy will always be a minority party.
I don't think disagreement is the problem, but Its the "old divide and conquer" mentality that is not being noticed.You see, we all want to be selective in our opinions but no one actually has a platform to agree on any thing. All folks bring up is reasons to disagree on things.(not unlike what you are doing right now. you are more interested in disagreeing that putting forward a solution.) It is human nature.
So every different body likes to think they are progressive whilst diametrically opposed to each other on singular issues.
That's why you need a government to force an issue and override the procedures of all the factions.This leaves all the bike mobs on the outer looking like country bumpkins looking in and whinging.
Then we battle the government due to silly laws that we have difficulty in changing.
I am not being selective in picking on a matter, but it is a strange thing that some one busts their bum to get a trial of a law to protect cyclists and then another group does its best to can them. I don't blame the man in the street for thinking we are crazy.
Consider if 6 groups could get together and form one group. And why don't they? Simply due to self interest.
Some have seen this reality and want a part of the law making process, so started a cyclist party. That may be the only true advocacy path in the bitter end.

[yugyug]

[quote="outnabike".
If they start disagreeing on the proposed 1 metre law, we will all be up the pole.
/quote]

Why? I think there are some reasons why it's not such a great law. but to stay on topic, why would disagreement on that be any different to disagreement on anything other topic?

[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

Seems to me that cycling advocacy will always be a minority party.
I don't think disagreement is the problem, but Its the "old divide and conquer" mentality that is not being noticed.You see, we all want to be selective in our opinions but no one actually has a platform to agree on any thing. All folks bring up is reasons to disagree on things.(not unlike what you are doing right now. you are more interested in disagreeing that putting forward a solution.) [/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

If you read back through my comments you'll see that I did offer a solution, in the form of advocating for NL-style strict liability, which in my opinion has advantages of the 1m rule, but none of the disadvantages.

Regardless, I don't think you sufficiently answered my question as to why disagreement on the 1m rule would be any different, or worse, than disagreement on any other issue. Are you saying its because there is an ongoing trial in Queensland? To me that seems to be a perfect opportunity for an open discussion, and disagreement, so that its value can be properly assessed. What a shame there wasn't more disagreeable opinion when the MHLs were considered back in the 80s and early 90s.

I am totally in agreement with Find_Bruce that diversity of opinion makes for stronger advocacy. Yes, there is a time and place for consensus, but it will never be here, on these forums. I support the cycling party though, because a political party is able to put forward a democratically decided consensus (at least within the party structure), unlike advocacy groups whose position on policy is arbitrarily decided by their principle operators, after public consultation or not.

[yugyug]

Surely we can get consensus on the MHL.

There's a >7000 post thread around here somewhere which says otherwise...

Ok I haven't read the whole thing, but from my time spent on the helmet thread my feeling is the anti-MHL proposition has far more consensus than the pro-MHL proposition - even if the value of helmets themselves has merit.

[Xplora]

Finding the best direction for cycling advocacy is quite easy to work out. Look at RACV and NRMA etc. Love them or hate them, they are effective and vocal organisations for motorist interests. They aren't concerned about fringe groups, they know what the majority of drivers want to see on the road, and they help shape that expectation in discussing legislation and the rest of it.

Replicating this is a very different issue. MHL is a great thing to discuss for a cyclist advocate for the reasons that padrone keeps bringing up. It is detrimental to cycling numbers, detrimental to social attitudes, and detrimental to the cause of cycling. What would the NRMA do if they were faced with MHL inside cars? I raise SCA and AGF as a good example of advocacy failure, because of their approach to MHL.

If someone is going to bugger up your transport mode, you have to say "no, this should be repealed". Put the activism on the backburner, sure, until you get your 1.5m law, until you get better support for local infrastructure, until more research is done, etc... but an advocate should be saying "no" when even the smallest negative is raised as a possibility. Would you march over something you aren't concerned about? Nope. But the ethos of the MHL - where lobbyists pushed through laws to restrain citizens - is something that permeates other things, like bike lanes that aren't bike lanes, like police refusing to pursue attempted murder charges because the attempt was vehicular...

This is the bread and butter of the advocate. If a group is concerned about cyclists, then they need to pursue unfettered freedom for riders, and be proud to serve their interests even when it conflicts with their personal views. You can ask councils to install better bike lanes without believing they are the best way to serve the cyclist. If there isn't enough energy to fight every battle, let someone else do it.

I have no doubt NRMA is serving the motorist. I am unsure if AGF is REALLY serving my interest.

[WarbyD]

And therein lies the issue with cycling advocacy at present IMO. Advocates appear to be advocating based on their own views and preferences rather than that of any group they represent. Without getting into discussion about the MHL specifically (we have enough of that already) - Xplora's post provides a good example in that he appears to suggest that any cycling advocate should be pursuing MHL repeal as the basis for all further advocacy. This is ONE issue and, whether advocates on either side of the fence accept it or not, not something in which there is even close to unanimous agreement. If you were to use this as the basis of your advocacy efforts you immediately lose the support of all of those who don't agree with your stance on the matter.

IMO to get traction on advocacy, there needs to be a bit of "yes placement" going on - Pick some low hanging fruit in which it is relatively easy to get agreement amongst the masses and show improvements in those areas, then use the credibility you've built from that as leverage to start working on some of the more difficult / contentious issues. I don't know specifically how to apply this to cycling advocacy, but I doubt that starting with MHL, regardless of which side of the fence you're on, would be a good place to start.

Have the various cycling advocacy groups put much into reaching out to the non-hobbyist side of cycling? I know I've seen a few posts on here looking for feedback/thoughts, but what about all of the cyclists who aren't on these forums? Do the groups put material out in the LBS? local papers? etc. I don't know if they do or not, but I know that I certainly couldn't have named a single cyclist representative group before I took a strong interest in cycling..

[Xplora]

Unsure if we're on the same page, WarbyD - I definitely agree that MHL would be a bad place to start, because it is divisive, but it should should certain be on the platform agenda.

The simple reality is cycling is different to walking, running, swimming and driving. Everyone chooses to cycle for the same reason. The way they apply that is different, and the secondary reasons are very different. Some on BNA ride for solitude, others ride for company. Others ride for fun, others for exercise. But they all choose cycling over walking or running for a reason, and that's what we have to "get". I don't think cycling advocates all understand what that basic reason is. I think they understand "their" reason.

I think cycling offers a fun, low impact, easy, fast and relatively safe way to move between two places. Anything that detracts from those things has to be fought. Helmets reduce the fun. Cars reduce the safety. Bad path design reduces the fast. Too many stops reduces the easy. Ultimately, the worldview guides the advocacy, the advocacy doesn't guide the worldview You can have preferences for action first, but the reality is that eventually you get everything you want (see RACV and NRMA) - you then have to work out how to defend what you have as well, which again is a conundrum that hasn't been managed. The Clover lanes in Sydney faced extermination a couple years back. They survived, but the reality remains that BNSW couldn't organise a chook raffle so even some gains are hard to keep.

I am guessing that ACP has been thinking harder about these things. I certainly hope they have, if they expect to last longer than the Motorist Enthusiast Party in the upper houses.

[WarbyD]

Unsure if we're on the same page, WarbyD - I definitely agree that MHL would be a bad place to start, because it is divisive, but it should should certain be on the platform agenda.

..Yup, reading the rest of your post - I think we are definitely on the same page! Agree with all that you've said there.

[ColinOldnCranky]

Everyone chooses to cycle for the same reason.

On my reading of your post, everything you stated after the above indicated a variety of reasons.

I'm confused.

[Xplora]

"The spirit of cycling is the same for everyone, even if the specific objective is different"

Advocacy needs to tap the spirit of the bike - I think the NRMA and RACV have tapped the spirit of the car. I don't think advocates need to be reasonable in their demands or objectives. Let others advocate for the opposition. We live in an oppositional world. Accept it, and adapt to win.

[WarbyD]

I don't think advocates need to be reasonable in their demands or objectives

Wha? Now you've lost me... If you aren't reasonable in your demands or objectives, what do you hope to achieve beyond a bit of foot stamping and banner flying?

[Xplora]

Listen to the RACV's advocates speaking - they are completely unreasonable in their demands. Expecting human life to come well before driver convenience would rate very high on most people's list of logical calls, but this isn't the case... people have come well behind the car, and that's the result of NRMA/RACV advocacy over years and years.

[find_bruce]

I don't think advocates need to be reasonable in their demands or objectives

Wha? Now you've lost me... If you aren't reasonable in your demands or objectives, what do you hope to achieve beyond a bit of foot stamping and banner flying?

Good cop, bad cop requires someone to be unreasonable. Very hard to play on your own