Cycle campaigning

Thanks Skully - I'm indeed just a messenger!
No one has to attend or support the April protest.
I for one will say if it's not something I agree with.

Thanks. Someone gets what I'm saying.

The thing is the LCC for years actively campaigned against separate infrastructure and in favour of vehicular cycling in the face of sizeable opposition from their members and only now, after a referrendum have changed their tack.

Therefore it is important to know what a protest is for before a) lending it your support, and b) participating in it.

Exactly. It will present them with a fait accompli. It should be consulting it's members, not merely informing them.

I got what you were saying. I just don't think there's a problem. If I didnt think members had a say, I would say so.

Not sure how else an organisation should plan these events - ask all 11k members to agree on a date, agenda, name etc? We were invited to vote on the next major campaign (Go Dutch won) so I'm expecting this protest to be spawned by that.

You'll be relieved to know that I'm well and truly done discussing this now.

I'm not sure that protests work unless you have a genuine critical mass (recent events in the middle east for example). Cycling is a large minority sport that battles huge negative perceptions. Placard waving, petitions and protests are far less effective than constructive political measures.

I know this is a minority opinion but I believe that if you want to change the world you need to utilise professionalism, intelligence and network to the point that you have access to the key people and win them over with clear and intelligent argument. You need to get stuck in, build respect for who you are and what you stand for and then lead with dignity and humility.

On the phone so apologies for lack of line breaks etc but Stonehedge - this comes across really patronising and below your usual standard of posting... Or is it condescending, i'm not sure what the difference is. 2nd paragraph, anyway, you can prbly see it.

I have re-read it Hoefla and that was not my intention. Apologies for the tone of that paragraph.

I do believe that protest does little to further your cause in some circumstances. Protest should be used very sparingly and carefuly in conjunction with other methods of campaigning (as I'm sure there are in this case) and normally have more effect if they target a very narrow range of issues.

Does anybody remember the motorcycle protest that shut traffic down on Trafalger Square every Wednesday for a year? Sadly for them, they ended up losing public support by antagonisation and making no progress on their cause. It took the engagement of a lawyer with significant experience of engaging with governments to finally get the ball rolling for them.

Different issues, different protest. My point is, it is possible that having a thousand placard waving cyclists will cause more harm than good.

You weren't the only person who thought so Hoefla, just got my second ever nerg. My first that wasn't Hatbeard being a hoser. Sorry everybody!

they* set themselves out to be:

http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/mission

what will elevate them to principal in your eyes?

*I have nowt to do with them, just keep tabs on their progress.

I don't know, just give them some time. They're very new.

I think the Cycling Embassy is a bit different from other campaign groups in that their aim is to work towards cycling becoming a normal form of transport for everyday people who don't necessarily consider themselves to be 'cyclists'. That means one of the things they concentrate on is promoting the kind of infrastructure used in the Netherlands, where the good quality infrastructure helps everyday people over there feel cycling is safe and normal - something the average non-cycling person probably wouldn't say in the UK at the moment.

They are very new and therefore still pretty small, but their different approach might be useful. I quite like their take on things anyway.

One thing they've got a petition about at the moment is to reject calls for mandatory helmet laws. I don't want to get into a helmet debate, but check out the link if interested.
www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/news/2011/12/22/reject-calls-mandatory-helmet-laws

An email is going round be a group called Bikes Alive about a planned protest on 9 January. It reads:
*
"Dear fellow cyclists

As you will be aware, cyclists and other non-motorised road users continue to suffer death and injury (not to mention being delayed, poisoned and terrorised) by the selfish, anti-social (and frequently illegal) behaviour of motorists.

There is no reason for much of the traffic in urban areas, other than (in the case of cars) the selfishness of the drivers concerned. The situation on major roads and at major junctions in London is exacerbated by the policy of Transport for London, which prioritises the speed and volume of motor vehicles above the safety and sanity of everyone else.

Polite meetings and symbolic action are having no effect. We need to act. The time has surely come for non-motorised road users to (nonviolently) defend ourselves.

There is a plan (which you might already have seen leaflets about) for large numbers of cyclists and pedestrians to be at the lethal junction at Kings Cross (where York Way meets Pentonville Road and Euston Road) at 6pm on Monday 9 January. According to taste, cyclists can ride very slowly round the one-way system, or simply not move at all for an hour. Pedestrians could cross the road very slowly - or simply block the road completely.

If we succeeded in at least calming - and perhaps stopping - the traffic for an hour, would TfL finally change their priorities? If not, we could return for an hour every week until they did. (And then we could target another dangerous junction...)

For more details of this plan, see bikesalive.wordpress.com; or e-mail bikesalive @ london.com

SO:

1) Will your group at least publicise this plan to your members/contacts, whether or not you can officially support it?

2) Will your group publicly announce its support for this action?

3) Are there individuals who would help with the planning and preparation of the action?

4) Do you have any comments or questions?

Whatever your answer to these four points, if you have any interest in active resistance to the tyranny of motor vehicles in urban areas, please respond to this e-mail.

Many thanks."*

Southwark Cyclists and Tower Hamlets Wheelers have expressed concerns.

I don't personally feel I can get behind this campaign at least, not as it has been pitched to us - not because it is direct action or because it challenges TfL's reluctance to take cyclists and their safety seriously, but because of the ethos, the divisive message, the hot-headed tone of it. Does it ever help to be so virulently anti-motor vehicle drivers and so generalising about them? I don't think so.

Of course the anger is justified and at times it seems that only physical action that affects traffic flow can achieve results, but I disagree with the manner in which this campaign channels that anger and I'm not convinced this type of protest actually does work in the long term. I think our efforts are much better spent negotiating, badgering and meeting with the decision makers and of course riding our bicycles every day.

This is attitude is surely no way to encourage those who do not cycle to start.

Alex

I agree. This will only make things worse for cyclists.

I can't see anything that's "anti-motor-vehicle" in that email. Just "anti-reckless, stupid and dangerous drivers".

It's also perfectly true to say an awful lot of urban car journeys are unnecessary and could easily be replaced by other methods.

^ really?

"the selfish, anti-social (and frequently illegal) behaviour of motorists"
"selfishness of the drivers"
"tyranny of motor vehicles in urban areas"

More on the website too.

I am no more in favour of motor vehicles than these campaigners but to suggest this action will encourage people to replace their car journeys with cycling or walking is a bit too optimistic if you ask me.

This kind of them and us approach will not help matters a great deal, cyclists will tend to notice car drivers behaving badly, car drivers will tend to notice cyclists behaving badly. Neither camp is beyond reproach. The tone of the email and intended action is unlikely to help explain our concerns, educate anyone or further our cause.

The first line could be turned around:

"As you will be aware, pedestrians and other motorised road users continue to suffer inconvenience and injury (and occasional death) not to mention being delayed, and terrorised by the selfish, anti-social (and frequently illegal) behaviour of cyclists."

^ really?

"the selfish, anti-social (and frequently illegal) behaviour of motorists"
"selfishness of the drivers"
"tyranny of motor vehicles in urban areas"

More on the website too.

I am no more in favour of motor vehicles than these campaigners but to suggest this action will encourage people to replace their car journeys with cycling or walking is a bit too optimistic if you ask me.

Maybe. What else is there for us? Lobbying? Letter- writing campaigns?

A couple of weeks ago the GLA were to discuss road safety and dangerous junctions. The tories walked out before the discussion:

http://lydall.standard.co.uk/2011/12/16-cyclists-dead-but-tories-refuse-to-debate-road-safety.html

TFL were warned explicitly about dangerous junctions years ago. They did nothing.

I'm not 100% sure direct action such as is proposed is the best way, but everything else seems to make no difference.

And I really don't see the campaign as being anti-motorist, just anti-bad motorist. Deaths on the roads cause congestion, if the protest leads to a re-design of the worst junctions then maybe long-term congestion will decrease,and fewer people will die.

possible roadblock? Remember pepper spray is water soluble, so don't cry, it'll only get worse...

Maybe. What else is there for us? Lobbying? Letter- writing campaigns?

A couple of weeks ago the GLA were to discuss road safety and dangerous junctions. The tories walked out before the discussion:

http://lydall.standard.co.uk/2011/12/16-cyclists-dead-but-tories-refuse-to-debate-road-safety.html

TFL were warned explicitly about dangerous junctions years ago. They did nothing.

I'm not 100% sure direct action such as is proposed is the best way, but everything else seems to make no difference.

And I really don't see the campaign as being anti-motorist, just anti-bad motorist. Deaths on the roads cause congestion, if the protest leads to a re-design of the worst junctions then maybe long-term congestion will decrease,and fewer people will die.
If you read up you'll find listed various measures we take to campaign and get changes made.

Maybe it's not doing enough. Maybe this more aggressive way is better. I just don't like a nameless, faceless organisation coming along and saying they are anti-violence and yet presenting their case in the most emotive language I've read on the matter.

I just don't like a nameless, faceless organisation coming along and saying they are anti-violence and yet presenting their case in the most emotive language I've read on the matter.

What I really hate is this bit of their website:

Your comments must include a name, your (approximate) whereabouts, and an e-mail address; these must be given in the body of your message for inclusion if the message is published. Comments not including this information as part of the message will be deleted and not considered for publication. If you want to comment without saying anything about yourself publicly, you are welcome to communicate directly with the originators of this web page via the e-mail address above, but such comments will almost certainly not be published here.

Whilst they stay anonymous, with no names or anything given on the site, to comment on it, you have to surrender your own anonymity. Also, what they are offering is not a free or fair discussion of their proposals, as there is no guarentee any messages will be published. This leads me to suspect that messages from people who disagree with it will never be posted.

There is a time and place for this sort of non-violent confrontation, but I'm not sure that we're there just yet. I also feel that Critical Mass, for all its failings, is a space that cyclists can use for this.

Hopefully the site & idea will stay tucked away in obscurity where it belongs for the moment, whilst the creators look at the responses that they've had, and modify their plans.

There are some strange things happening in the cycle campaigning world and this email / blogsite are symptomatic.

London has vastly improved as a place to ride a bike over the past 10 years and evidently many many more people are moving around on two wheels. (There have been some terrible tragedies this year, more than there have been for a few years, yet the increase in deaths and serious injuries has not been proportional to the rise in miles travelled and) London cycling has become safer.

Over these years Transport for London and some London boroughs have worked well with cycling advocates and professionals in genuinely promoting cycling and looking at ways to reduce road danger. 20mph is becoming more prevalent, professional driver education has started and is being funded by TfL. Infrastructure is being modified to encourage road sharing. Yet there are major aberrations, places where riders really need to understand how to position themselves in order to get seen and get space such as kings cross (which they have agreed to review http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/22151.aspx) or vauxhaull cross.

Since LCC has shifted to Go Dutch, which despite attempts at explaining what this means, seems to me so much vaguer and wooly than campaigning for specifics like 'lower vehicle speed limits' Strict liability law' 'Permeable filters through neighbourhoods' all of which are campaigns for facilitating shared space.

There seems to be some prominent bloggers who have taken up the mantle campaigning for segregated cycle lanes or 'clear space for cycling' on London roads (What does that mean?) which has been taken up by LCC as their main campaign issue. This has taken LCC to a much more confrontational stance which may make it harder for TfL to work with LCC as they have in the past in looking how space can be shared, which of course must include major junction/roundabout/gyratory redesign.

I have never had an issue with direct action (I was involved in reclaim the streets in early 90s) yet i think this more confrontational rather than cooperative approach is not appropriate to the moment.

Im with the sentiments expressed here, as also someone who has done years of promoting cycling, and been on not one or two c.masses protest rides and yes SD I was there at reclaim the streets when Trafalagar sq (then a road outside nat gallery) got its very own soundsystem in 1997.
what this sounds like is c.mass- at Kings X, so yeah, but no, c.mass already happens every month.
mr Drem is also very astute.
the approach proposed by this forum seems one of the best for me at present,
as its clearly pro-cycling, but dosent ignore the complexities

 http://rdrf.org.uk/

"forwards ever, backwards never, prepare for whatever and always stay clever, in any endeavour intelligence is better, and be on guard for false prophets in leather"
KRS-ONE

Agree Jason re RDR forum but that group need to work on communicating its messages to the right people rather than to the already converted to the road danger reduction philosophy. Most local authorities still consider (old Skool) promoting hi-viz and helmets a better way to spend tax payers money than road danger reduction interventions. RDR has been around for over a decade yet so few road safety people seem to 'get it', questions need to be asked.

If you look at things from first principles the situation with motor vehicles in London is appalling.

Most of the cycle lanes I see in London don’t comply with the highway code, ie don’t provide enough room for motor vehicles to overtake a cyclist whilst giving them as much room as a car. The CPS/Courts accept SMIDSY as a defence and whenever somebody is convicted of causing death by dangerous driving etc the penalties are a joke.

Unsecure parking spaces around my area rent for over £100pcm, that’s the market price. It’s not much of a jump therefore to say that the state (ie everybody) is subsidising car owners who park on the road in my area to the tune of £1000pa. That’s before we look at the massive issues around the use of natural resources and the social, health and economic costs of pollution, sedentary lifestyles and the effect on cyclists, peds and our cityscape.

Ultimately we’re competing against the motoring lobby etc and it doesn’t seem unreasonable to say that a significant proportion of their profits accrue from environmental exploitation (ie everybody is paying for it) of one form or another. It’s impossible to compete against that on equal terms because almost by definition we’re not exploiting the environment to get cash to fund our campaigns.

In his official Police report into the 80s? Brixton riots Brian Paddick concluded/suggested that education has a major liberalising effect on Police officers and because they are allowed to use so much discretion in their work this is significant when we consider that, in London, the average Police officer is likely to be less educated that the average person of a similar age. My experience is that the average Police officer in London is innately biased against cyclists and often doesn’t know the law. If the Police actually enforced the laws we do have rather than acting like legislators themselves the situation would be much much better. How can the Police officially point black refuse to enforce laws (ie 20mph speed limits) and not get sacked?

I fully accept that reinforcing the differences between cyclists and motorists is generally not helpful but ultimately when are we going to say enough is enough? What if the situation is no different in 50 years?

What if the situation is no different in 50 years?

then we'll all most likely be dead or senile, and it'll be a new generation being frustrated. there'll be bigger problems facing all by then though. happy days.

also, given the oil reserves, will people be driving cars in 50 years?

I hope so, 'cos I'll be too old to ride by then...

I hope so, 'cos I'll be too old to ride by then...

said that to my grandfather.

And this is how many people? Childish left wing politics attempting to make cycle campaigning class war with late 90s identify politics thrown in.

Best ignored

BTW- good piece in cycling weekly this week by Keith Bingham which aptly summarises where we are now.

One point I got from it was that things worked in Holland because Central Govt told local Govt what to do and held the purse strings. We have 32 borughs in London.

Since LCC has shifted to Go Dutch, which despite attempts at explaining what this means, seems to me so much vaguer and wooly than campaigning for specifics like 'lower vehicle speed limits' Strict liability law' 'Permeable filters through neighbourhoods' all of which are campaigns for facilitating shared space.

The fundamental problem with all these shared space campaigns is that they are campaigns for riding on the road in traffic, and that reinforces the idea that cycling is an activity reserved for fit, energetic, highly skilled and trained experts, because who the hell else would even consider cycling on London streets? Faciliting shared space puts vulnerable cyclists next to HGVs.

Campaigning for lower speed limits not only gets motorists backs up, including those who are also enthusiastic cyclists, it is ineffective, because London motorists don't obey the limits we have anyway and lowering them will change nothing. Besides its not speeding drivers that are killing cyclists. It's slow moving HGVs. To stop that you have to campaign to remove them entirely from the streets at times when people are likely to be cycling, and the LCC are not doing that.

The 'Go Dutch' campaign is something that can reinforce the idea that cycling is for everybody, man woman and child, no matter what their skill or fitness level, because the ambition is to close streets to cars entirely. That is much better that a vague 'permeable filter' campaign. And who except planning officers know what a permeable filter is anyway? I think that perhaps taking entire streets off cars would oddly meet with less resistance from motorists than taking parts of them does.

Strict liability is important, and of all the campaigns it is the one that has the greatest chance of success and will have the most profound impact on the habits of road users. There must be a reason why Belgian cyclists take such care around pedestrians as they enjoy their car free streets, and why the French drivers extend such courtesy and respect to motorcyclists and cyclists. Strict Liability is that reason.