AUbicycles wrote:I have a different opinion - it may be unpopular here based on the general consensus. I even agree with some of the criticism... but...
Yep.
AUbicycles wrote:The idea of trying to create a signal and awareness in the group is not bad. I don't feel that it is a white flag to surrender even if the connection is natural nor that it implies fault. It is like making a stance and if it is adopted by enough people and recognised by enough, there is a real opportunity of it having 'some' effect.
But what is exactly being signaled? To whom? And how are they to interpret it? What does this signal tell the audience when the audience sees this signal on many cyclists who in their eyes are behaving badly? (Eg taking a lane, riding two abreast, riding on a busy road...)
AUbicycles wrote:if they recognise riders are trying to be better.
How does this occur when in most of the hater's eyes better is when cyclists are off the road?
AUbicycles wrote:A far better implementation would be, as an example, a black armband. "Cyclist Safety is Dead". This means that the strategy is a bit different - it is more of a political message. But it is unique, has shock factor which creates attention. It is more practical to implement and if you imagine a bunch of 20 cyclists with black armbands, even if a few are wearing dark or black gear, you will still notice a bunch of cyclists with black bands.
A significant minority see cyclist as victims of their own choices. Gaining sympathy in the current environment with black armbands is akin to sky divers protesting against gravity.
IMO the focus needs to target the authorities because at the moment they are the ones with the power to legitimise cycling and in most places they are not doing so. (In some places the local councils have succeeded and the difference is amazing.)
From what I can see cycling advocacy groups that target education the general public have had negligible or often negative impact.