Cyclists need a robust national campaigning group.

[GrumpyGregry]

It's a damn shame that CTC doesn't publish a how-to on local stuff, but, that's the breaks.

They do. Or did. But only for RtR reps it seems and it is somewhat dogmatic and blinkered advice too, from what I have seen, albeit at the other end of the scale from the segregationist cause.

and don't get me started on the PITA that trying to become a CTC RtR rep was.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Does anyone know (Reg where are you) if someone unconnected with a case can appeal a lenient driving sentence and if not whose corridor do you have to sit on the floor of to get one appealed?

 

[dellzeqq]

the reason it was a PITA was that Grace was spending 80% of her time photocopying stuff that nobody was interested in and sending it to dead people. Which is why she left.

When I say a guide I mean a kind of picture book, showing you how to put a document together, how to lay hands on a 1:1250 os map and so on and so forth, and, heavens, how about a copy of Powerpoint? All the bunph in the world about policy this or policy that is beside the point.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

the reason it was a PITA was that Grace was spending 80% of her time photocopying stuff that nobody was interested in and sending it to dead people. Which is why she left.

When I say a guide I mean a kind of picture book, showing you how to put a document together, how to lay hands on a 1:1250 os map and so on and so forth, and, heavens, how about a copy of Powerpoint? All the bunph in the world about policy this or policy that is beside the point.

Grace, and a more aptly named woman I've yet to meet, was a point of light and a beacon of hope. It got much, much worse after she left.

In my, limited, experience, campaigning for cycling infrastructure/facilities is a simple series of conversations. You have to approach them with integrity, honesty, sincerity, patience and pragmatism. Win the trust of the council guys, (officers and members) and the community leaders, plant the seed of your idea by holding your meeting in the street, at the actual location where you want change, arrive on your bike, and listen to what they say and admit you don't have all the answers about ninja's and rlj-ers, and explain that "no such-and-such a blogger does not represent the cycling community in this town" and be charming and gracious (even I can manage it) and I find the documents get written for you, the maps and plans drawn up as if by magic, your ideas are incorporated into plans that include theirs and you come to be seen as an integral part of a wider community not the representative of some 'out' group of raving eccentrics with a chip on their collective shoulder.

 

[Richard Mann]

Main use, to my mind, of a national org, would be to try to formalise the various approaches, and try to increase the common ground between them, so that local campaigners don't have to revisit the integration/segregation war every time. The disagreement isn't going to go away just by ignoring it.

In the mean time, the more you lobby locally (without being too mad), the more likely they are to listen to you and do what you say rather than the opposition (whether that's the car interest, the pedestrian interest or the other lot of cyclists...).

 

[ufkacbln]

I stand by my original point - we do not have a common aim.

Where would we stand on helmets for instance?

Where would we stand on single panniers?

The strength of the cycling community is that we are all individuals, we are all different in our aims, and an eclectic group like this will never be represented by a National Organisation

 

[Fab Foodie]

The strength of the cycling community is that we are all individuals, we are all different

I'm not ....

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

I think there's a world of difference between campaigning for an ASL to be added at some bad junction, and forming a lobby group to get major changes in place in an attempt to change attitudes nationally. Whilst a national organization could provide guidance and advice about campaigning for specific local objectives, the national objectives can only be addressed by demonstrating strength as voters. Unfortunately, the number of people who ride bicycles on the road is small, and the majority of those do not think there is any problem, so we actually are not a strong voter community. The other way to gain strength as voters is to find some issue, real or imaginary, that will cause outrage amongst the Daily Wail types, like the "Stop the child murder!" campaign in Holland.

 

[Riding in Circles]

The CTC should be the organisation but it is suffering the rigors of internal politics at the moment, BC has a focus on racing whereas CTC long ago became a much more general cycling group, it just needs a good kick up the arse to get it moving in the right direction again.

 

[dellzeqq]

I think there's a world of difference between campaigning for an ASL to be added at some bad junction, and forming a lobby group to get major changes in place in an attempt to change attitudes nationally. Whilst a national organization could provide guidance and advice about campaigning for specific local objectives, the national objectives can only be addressed by demonstrating strength as voters. Unfortunately, the number of people who ride bicycles on the road is small, and the majority of those do not think there is any problem, so we actually are not a strong voter community. The other way to gain strength as voters is to find some issue, real or imaginary, that will cause outrage amongst the Daily Wail types, like the "Stop the child murder!" campaign in Holland.

even if it were not for the Coalition's localism agenda (as in 'we're not particularly interested in sustainable transport') and the CTC's moiling toils, I genuinely don't see how that would work. You've got the CEGB muppets (I'm allowed to say that, since they delight in misrepresenting me) wanting mandatory cycle paths to every front door in the country (see ibid.) and you've got people who want inclusive, congenial streets.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I think there's a world of difference between campaigning for an ASL to be added at some bad junction, and forming a lobby group to get major changes in place in an attempt to change attitudes nationally. Whilst a national organization could provide guidance and advice about campaigning for specific local objectives, the national objectives can only be addressed by demonstrating strength as voters. Unfortunately, the number of people who ride bicycles on the road is small, and the majority of those do not think there is any problem, so we actually are not a strong voter community. The other way to gain strength as voters is to find some issue, real or imaginary, that will cause outrage amongst the Daily Wail types, like the "Stop the child murder!" campaign in Holland.

I don't think that is strictly true. The majority of cyclists would, I think, vote in favour of traffic reduction and speed reduction in urban areas where the majority of cycling takes place. That people are prepared to take to our roads DESPITE the obvious problems is a wonderful testament to our collective eccentricity.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

even if it were not for the Coalition's localism agenda (as in 'we're not particularly interested in sustainable transport') and the CTC's moiling toils, I genuinely don't see how that would work. You've got the CEGB muppets (I'm allowed to say that, since they delight in misrepresenting me) wanting mandatory cycle paths to every front door in the country (see ibid.) and you've got people who want inclusive, congenial streets.

Well, I agree with what you said, but that is rather the point. It seems unlikely that progress will be made on the cycling issues that we are really concerned about, partly because there is no consensus about appropriate solutions, so we have to find or invent a bogey-man that nobody will argue about. "Presumed liability is needed because children should not have to to prove negligence against a driver who ran them over", for example. (Off the top of my head, so not necessarily the one to go with.)

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

I don't think that is strictly true. The majority of cyclists would, I think, vote in favour of traffic reduction and speed reduction in urban areas where the majority of cycling takes place. That people are prepared to take to our roads DESPITE the obvious problems is a wonderful testament to our collective eccentricity.

That's a different point. Any cyclist who is asked that question might agree with those aims, but the majority of cyclists do not think there a sufficient problem for them to get off their bike and vote at all. Indeed, if you look at the STATS19 figures, they even seem to support that view! The cars passing at 40 mph, less than 3 feet away, are extremely unlikely to hit you in fact, so where's the problem? So what if it puts other people off cycling; that's their problem. (I don't agree with these points, by the way.)

 

[dellzeqq]

Well, I agree with what you said, but that is rather the point. It seems unlikely that progress will be made on the cycling issues that we are really concerned about, partly because there is no consensus about appropriate solutions, so we have to find or invent a bogey-man that nobody will argue about. "Presumed liability is needed because children should not have to to prove negligence against a driver who ran them over", for example. (Off the top of my head, so not necessarily the one to go with.)

I quite take your point. And, in a way, that's not a bad thing.

 

[Richard Mann]

National organisations represent constituencies that provide their funding.

CTC represents "cyclists" which is a pretty hyper-narrow interest
Sustrans represents cycle path users
CBT represents the rail (and to some extent the bus) interest
LivingStreets represents pedestrians

Unfortunately, we can only achieve real change by garnering majority support, and that means going outside narrow interests, to something that works for a clear majority. It requires consensus-building and bravery on the part of one or more organisations to reach out beyond their immediate constituency. Or it requires a new organisation (and funding base) that specifically advocates a reasonable consensus viewpoint.

Actually, I think a cycling organisation could do this (it's roughly where we've got to in Oxford; the cycle campaign has adjusted it's views to achieve consensus among most cyclists and with pedestrian/bus interests). I'm not at all clear that CTC is capable of it. At the moment.

Maybe LivingStreets is a better bet.