Is it time to start bombarding our MPs?

[jazzkat]

I fully understand that my apathy and inactivity, is part of the problem.

I think the fact that cycling is a relatively normal activity is also its undoing. If no one kicks up a fuss then we continue to drop down the priority list.
I have a good deal of respect for my MP, in that he does seem keen to get out and about and fight for local causes. Respect that he got on a bike and went for a ride with someone on that particular stretch of road. I bet he crapped himself, its not a great road to cycle on and quite narrow in places. If we all complain it raises our profile if we do nowt, we've got no one else to blame but ourselves for the lack of change in some of the attitudes we experience.

 

[jazzkat]

Anyone willing to put their own name forward?
http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/australian-cyclists-party.142257/
Starting at a local level & work from there.

I've thought about this a bit. Surely cycling should be seen as a mainstream thing rather than a niche activity. By becoming a 'cycling party' it's too niche in my eyes and will be seen by most as just 'some nutters playing at politics' and I think you'd need a lot of mainstream votes to have any chance of a result.
In my opinion the mainstream political parties should all have some cycling as a serious part of their transport policy, wishful thinking maybe.

These last few years we've had a bit of a 'perfect storm' - Wiggins/Froome, Cavendish, The Olympics, British track squad and thousands of people taking to two wheels. It's a shame that we've not been able to capitalise on this in a positive way amongst the non riders in society.

 

[clockman]

I do agree with you jazzkat. My apathy is my problem and I have to get off my bum and start doing not just moaning.
I'm glad you respect you MP and I have to say I respect that he gets out and sees problems first had. We need more like that. Those that know how they got there and who they represent.
I, however, have nothing but contempt for my MP. He is just resting on the fact that he's in a very safe seat, so doesn't have to do a great deal to retain his seat.

 

[classic33]

Well at present the car is king on Britains roads, with the same excuses being offerred/given every time.
Most MP's would not want to upset who they see as the people who may have the final say in their fate come the next election. Election time, even at local level next May. You will have promises made to you, in order to try & get your vote. Do you not feel that when the same people fail to deliver on those promises, they are not there for you?

 

[classic33]

Is it only me, but I really do not think there is the political will to do anything about this. Every time PM Dave does a re-shuffle, the transport minister changes. This means that everything goes back to the beginning.
Unfortunately, the internal combustion engine is GOD. That particular lobby has everyone else by the short hairs.
I fully understand that my apathy and inactivity, is part of the problem. As cyclists, we don't have the financial clout (at the present time) to force changes and until we do we will have to take what little we are offered.

We have the clout, the problem is we tend not to use it. The pencil in the Polling Station, on election day is a mighty weapon.

 

[classic33]

@jazzkat, @clockman
How about standing next year in the local elections? I promise you, you'll have your MP's full attention come the General Election, even if they're not willing to admit to you!

 

[redhanded]

Is it not the case that a lot of MPs will be pro or anti something depending on what is most politically expedient for them?

So for my local MP, she appears to be against a new residential development as it will generate more traffic and make congestion worse, but for relaxation of parking controls in local shopping areas (which will generate more traffic and make congestion worse...)

In both cases she is pandering to the local NIMBYs who don't want lots more people in the area but do want to drive their cars where ever they like...

 

[downfader]

Is it not the case that a lot of MPs will be pro or anti something depending on what is most politically expedient for them?

So for my local MP, she appears to be against a new residential development as it will generate more traffic and make congestion worse, but for relaxation of parking controls in local shopping areas (which will generate more traffic and make congestion worse...)

In both cases she is pandering to the local NIMBYs who don't want lots more people in the area but do want to drive their cars where ever they like...

That is indeed the case. Such clashes of ideals have been raised quite effectively in the local papers down here. I strongly feel its why my own MP lost about 4000 of his usual votes (barely scraped in) and the local rival Tory didnt get as many as he'd wished.

 

[clockman]

@jazzkat, @clockman
How about standing next year in the local elections? I promise you, you'll have your MP's full attention come the General Election, even if they're not willing to admit to you!

I really do not think my MP would give me the time of day. He couldn't give a damn. His majority is far too big for him to be worried. I certainly do not intend to become a member of the Torys or Lib Dems, to sit in a council chamber in my evenings after work. I want to be cycling. I have enough trouble getting out now that the nights are closing in!
Having a Father who is Tory Local Councillor, I know what his opinion of his Tory MP is. Not flattering! He tries to avoid using the MP when canvassing. So an independent, running in the local elections in my area would have no chance. I have better things to do, at this time.
I don't rule out having a go in the future, but at the moment, family and work have to come first. With cycling, for the spare moments I do have.

 

[jazzkat]

Is it not the case that a lot of MPs will be pro or anti something depending on what is most politically expedient for them?

So for my local MP, she appears to be against a new residential development as it will generate more traffic and make congestion worse, but for relaxation of parking controls in local shopping areas (which will generate more traffic and make congestion worse...)

In both cases she is pandering to the local NIMBYs who don't want lots more people in the area but do want to drive their cars where ever they like...

Absolutely, if it was us cyclists making more noise would that not 'sway' their impression that something needed doing.
I can't imagine the average man in the street writing to rave on about all the cyclists on the road and if they did it could potentially fuel our fire.

@classic33 Whilst in principle I'm not against standing, time pressures aside, I just don't see what it would achieve. I appreciate that big things grow from small, but it just seems like dabbling at the edges while I think we need more mainstream action that can only come from central government.

 

[classic33]

Absolutely, if it was us cyclists making more noise would that not 'sway' their impression that something needed doing.
I can't imagine the average man in the street writing to rave on about all the cyclists on the road and if they did it could potentially fuel our fire.

@classic33 Whilst in principle I'm not against standing, time pressures aside, I just don't see what it would achieve. I appreciate that big things grow from small, but it just seems like dabbling at the edges while I think we need more mainstream action that can only come from central government.

But as has been shown, mainstream action, for cyclists, is not what the main parties are bothered about, aside for the time they want you to cross the box alongside their name.
Think of it as a protest vote, one that will be noticed the following year at the General Election.

 

[Bad Company]

Even if we cannot agree on things like cycle lanes - how about the presumed liability? That, surely, would help everyone?

Really? How many motorist voters & how many cyclists!

Presumed liability is immoral anyway IMO. Fault needs to be established case by case.

 

[jazzkat]

Presumed liability is immoral anyway IMO. Fault needs to be established case by case.

It's hardly immoral when you consider that the larger vehicle/professional driver should be acting with the more vulnerable road users interests in mind. Not charging past cyclists within inches of the end of their handlebars, white van man tailgating the 70mph car in the outside lane, the artic driver that pulls out in front of the car overtaking in the middle lane so he can go 1mph faster than the artic he's been following for the last 10 miles, the cyclist charging down the pavement, scattering pedestrians (yes, it cuts all ways) and lets not talk about the morals of mobile phone use while driving, drink/drug driving yada yada.
When a lorry or van hits a car there is a good chance that the occupants will walk away (speed dependant of course), if a motor vehicle hits a cyclist it's going to get messy regardless of the speed involved.
I don't see the immorality.

I don't deny that fault needs to be established case by case, but I suspect with presumed liability there would be less cases in the first place as we might begin to respect each other on the road a bit more.

 

[classic33]

What we have to overcome the problems all road users face, we already have. What is missing is the will of those elected to serve our interests, is to get those rules enforced when they are needed.

 

[clockman]

The will does not exist, period! If you ask any politician, they will spout platitudes, say 'I agree , yes blah dee blah, more needs to be done'. Then, like everything else, when the time comes, there is no money available to fund the policing of the rules. The minister, after advice from the civil service grandee, will point out to your politician, that cycling is not really all that important, in the grande scheme of things. But, it is the responsibility of the (already financially hard pressed) local authorities. Such is life.