Will British cyclist ever be urban heros?

[HJ]

Reading this blog post about the Velo-city 2009 conference in Brussels last week. About half way down there is a report of a lecture on "Can you make a 'hero brand' out of urban cycling?" The idea is to make cycling "cool". The blog poster suggests that in order for this to work:

We need to stick our fingers in our ears and shout "lalala" when the safety freaks and sub-culture geeks talk about cycling. The average person won't listen. Making a hero brand of urban cycling requires a whole different approach.

Could this ever working in Britain? Do we want cycling to be "cool"?

 

[Jake]

i think it has become cool. look at fixies with their pedal pushers.

 

[garrilla]

look at fixies with their pedal pushers.

" sub-culture geeks "

 

[snorri]

Maybe it's just me, but the terms 'Hero Brand' and 'cool' appear as direct opposites..

 

[John the Monkey]

It's cobblers.

It's the same marketing crap used to push fixie chic on all the dullards who think themselves urban warriors weaving in and out of traffic on newly purchased langsters. Those same dullards, or their spiritual kin are now gearing up to pose next to extortionately priced "Dutch" bikes.

Duval Guillaume spoke about how if you want to get people to ride, you have to forget about telling them about safety, about how healthy it is and all that. Just make it stylish and cool.

The problem with this approach is that when something else is "cool" instead, all those city bikes will collect dust. In it's own way, it's every bit as blinkered an approach as the attitude of the roadie who won't acknowledge people riding non carbon bikes.

 

[Wigsie]

Anything can be made "cool" with the right star or hero, a big name sponsor and a decent marketing campaign. Look at golf, its always had a large fan base (with the majority of a 'certain' age and social standing) but with Tiger Woods it became huge and appealed to the masses.

The problem with this approach is that when something else is "cool" instead, all those city bikes will collect dust.

I agree, but look on the bright side, all those cheap second hand hardly used bikes for us! a year or so and i may be in the market for a nearly new fixed with a bit of dust.

 

[MacB]

I agree, but look on the bright side, all those cheap second hand hardly used bikes for us! a year or so and i may be in the market for a nearly new fixed with a bit of dust.

oh yeah, I want there to be a sudden craze for 60cm, fully 'MacB' customised, titanium frames that suddenly go out of fashion

 

[Wigsie]

oh yeah, I want there to be a sudden craze for 60cm, fully 'MacB' customised, titanium frames that suddenly go out of fashion

bound to be a wealthy MacB doppelganger with an impulse purchased steed in a shed out there waiting for you buddy!

 

[hackbike 666]

fixies aren't cool they just think they are.

 

[eddiemee]

It might be nice if cycling was seen as cool, but isn't there then the danger that it is (even more than already) seen as a fad or pastime rather than the legimate form of transport it is? And speaking only for myself, dragging yourself from a warm bed onto the bike for 6 miles in the wind and rain mid-January does not fit my definition of 'cool'.

 

[Randochap]

What percentage of faddists of any sort do you think will still be riding in 40 years?

 

[John the Monkey]

What percentage of faddists of any sort do you think will still be riding in 40 years?

Exactly.

I like Copenhagenise et al, and in their own way they're quite inspiring - and they certainly have a better blueprint for facilities &c than we do here.

To me though there are two mistakes in the approach - one is the focus on "cool". Almost by definition, what is "cool" will at some point be "uncool" at which all the people cycling because it's cool will pack it in. It would be far better to take the normalcy of Copenhagen/Amsterdam and focus on that. Uncool people are cycling in those cities too, because everyone is. You don't have to look fabulous, you just have to turn the pedals.

The second mistake is to write off the "gearheads" and bicycle advocates who aren't wedded to the idea of heavy bikes, normal clothes and short trips. These are the people who will help out newcomers, advise them where the good bike shops are, give route advice &c &c. Personally, I've helped my neighbours out quite a few times in getting their own bikes up and running after years in the shed. To take these people and dismiss their contribution because they don't ride around in business suits seems to me to be a collosal own goal.

Imo, the cycling population in Britain just isn't large enough to create these artificial distinctions. Writing off one group as having nothing to say, and promoting one narrow vision of what cycling should be over here seems to me to be intensely wrong headed.

 

[phaedrus]

To me though there are two mistakes in the approach - one is the focus on "cool". Almost by definition, what is "cool" will at some point be "uncool" at which all the people cycling because it's cool will pack it in. It would be far better to take the normalcy of Copenhagen/Amsterdam and focus on that. Uncool people are cycling in those cities too, because everyone is. You don't have to look fabulous, you just have to turn the pedals.

The second mistake is to write off the "gearheads" and bicycle advocates who aren't wedded to the idea of heavy bikes, normal clothes and short trips. These are the people who will help out newcomers, advise them where the good bike shops are, give route advice &c &c. Personally, I've helped my neighbours out quite a few times in getting their own bikes up and running after years in the shed. To take these people and dismiss their contribution because they don't ride around in business suits seems to me to be a collosal own goal.

Imo, the cycling population in Britain just isn't large enough to create these artificial distinctions. Writing off one group as having nothing to say, and promoting one narrow vision of what cycling should be over here seems to me to be intensely wrong headed.

Good points, well made. I don't have any time for one sector of cycling looking down their collective nose at any other.

I, personally, am the antithesis of "cool". However, my hope is that a number of people will be drawn to try cycling because of an image, a hero, advertising, whatever. Of that number a subset will realise the real benefits and enjoyment, and stick with it once the "cool" has gone away.

If it helps cycling become mainstream and accepted as a completely normal activity I'm all for it.

 

[John the Monkey]

If it helps cycling become mainstream and accepted as a completely normal activity I'm all for it.

I doesn't though. It's as alienating as the idea that you need a carbon bike and full lycra for every journey, except this restricts cycle use to those who can carry off £1000 worth of tweed whilst riding a £1000 city bike. Both approaches are short sighted.

BikeSnobNYC may be a humourist, but he's right on the money with the various cycling as urban cool memes;

And that's what's so annoying about the fixed-gear fad and the fixed-gear backlash. They both seem to subscribe to a notion that there's no middle ground, and they only define themselves in terms of the other. Hate track bikes? Ride a tank! Don't like sluggish bikes? Ride a track bike! Of course, the truth is there are plenty of bikes that are reasonably quick, reasonably light, reasonably cheap, and reasonably practical all at the same time.

...

It's much more special to either do what all the hip people are doing, or to do the exact opposite of what all the hip people are doing. There's nothing special about simultaneously passing the dandies on the Dutch city bikes and getting where you're going just as quickly as the people on track bikes, only with dry pants.

http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2009/04/backlash-conspiracy-divide-and-conquer.html

In one of the linked New York Times articles, the model is pictured by a bike costing some $2,000. In a suit that COSTS MORE. It isn't inclusive. It isn't "normal". It's biking for the fashionable and "cool", not for everyone. Again. And it's a dead end in terms of getting more cyclists out on the roads.

 

[Sh4rkyBloke]

It might be nice if cycling was seen as cool, but isn't there then the danger that it is (even more than already) seen as a fad or pastime rather than the legimate form of transport it is? And speaking only for myself, dragging yourself from a warm bed onto the bike for 6 miles in the wind and rain mid-January does not fit my definition of 'cool'.

F*cking freezing, more like.