Will British cyclist ever be urban heros?

[Wigsie]

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.

This is of course what happens with any boost in publicity with a past time (golf, cricket, football, rugby and tennis etc). The 'hero' whether it be a single person or a team that do well or are idolised by many will no doubt lead to a mass of faddy hobbyists but many will realise just have fun, efficient it can be and stick with it.

Spending £1,000's on bikes and tweed for a few months usage is no ones business but the person doing the buying, to be honest who really cares? If you turn your noses up at them and judge them are you not in danger of creating an us against them mentality and restricting easy/fun access into cycling?

 

[Origamist]

It's worth reading the tract in full (for a laugh):

http://www.heldenmerk.be/

The concept of the "urban hero" seems to be appealing to little more than materialistic, status-obssessed, consumerist peacocks. Gordon Gekko wannabes on bikes. It's superficial and short-termist: a charter for velo-arrivistes. I suspect it will have a following!

I wonder how many Brompton riders would splash the cash for a Louis Vuitton case for their bike? Only me and Will Self, I suspect...

 

[Bollo]

"materialistic, status-obssessed, consumerist peacocks"

You called?

We're still a long way from the ideal, which is people using their bikes in the same way they use their shoes (or in this country cars ) - as a tool to get somewhere without a second thought. Attempting to engineer the image of cycling is almost counter-productive as it implies that cycling needs an image.

 

[phaedrus]

You called?

We're still a long way from the ideal, which is people using their bikes in the same way they use their shoes (or in this country cars ) - as a tool to get somewhere without a second thought. Attempting to engineer the image of cycling is almost counter-productive as it implies that cycling needs an image.

The problem as I see it is that, to a lot of people cycling does have an image, or rather a variety of images:

• oddball eccentrics who hug trees and only eat veg
• super-fit athletes who take drugs a lot
• poor people who can't afford a car
• kamikaze urban warriors who jump red lights
• recreational weekend potterers
• children with toys
• mountaineers on wheels

And so on. We need a public perception that cycling is just...normal.

 

[Wigsie]

I understand what you guys are saying, that people that are motivated by hero's or status symbols etc are perhaps not the type of people that would stick with it.

Although I do believe you are being a little narrow minded (and a little snobbish), the knock on effect from the "materialistic, status-obssessed, consumerist peacocks" starting (and soon after, quitting) cycling will be positive... Their friends/families who may well be less "materialistic, status-obssessed, consumerist" will also be introduced and stick with cycling as a norm (its how culture changes).

If we ever do get to the 'ideal' does it really matter if we get there by using clever marketing?

 

[John the Monkey]

If we ever do get to the 'ideal' does it really matter if we get there by using clever marketing?

I'd say no, but I don't think this *is* clever. It's just exchanging one definition of "cool" cyclists for another, a tactic that doesn't seem to work.

(And in the meantime, seems hell bent on alienating the people who are already out there riding to work &c).

 

[Origamist]

I think you've misinterpreted me, Wigsie. A campaign of this type does have a target audience, and if it gets people cycling, all well and good.

However, promoting the bicycle over the car needs more than just a spin off of the Übermensch concept with an appeal to our acquisitive natures. I don't know of any country with a high cycling modal share that has achieved it thorough the notion of the "urban hero".

Sadly, 100,000s of bikes reside in sheds and garages in the UK - a testament to impulse buying, good intentions and puchasing power, but not the sustainability of cycling as a means of transport.

 

[dellzeqq]

Well, for what it's worth, I'm going to start by setting out the '50 monkey' theory by Dean Tavioularis.

Who, you ask? I'm shocked. Dean Tavioularis was the designer of all of Coppola's great films. And his '50 monkey' theory was this. 'Put one monkey in a tree - nobody sees the monkey. Put 50 monkeys in a tree, everybody sees monkeys'. And Dean, being Dean was very, very precise in his meaning. 'Everybody sees monkeys' is absolutely not the same as 'everybody sees a collection of chimps and macaques'. Or 'everbody sees a smattering of gorillas, a few bonobos and an orang-utan'. 'Everybody sees monkeys' means just that. And on Clapham High Street and Kennington Road 'everybody sees cyclists'. The fact that those cyclists are riding Bromptons, Dutch utility bikes, fixies, road bikes, MTBs and wearing lycra, baggy shorts, suits, jeans, check shirts and yellow waterproofs does not matter. They are simply seen as cyclists. I've talked to people who have asked me about riding a bike to work and it really doesn't strike them that my wheels have only 16 spokes.

So any little quirk of fashion that gets young people to ride bikes is a good thing. It may be transitory, but, to get back to Dean Tavioularis, if they are some of many then they are simply part of the many.

And my second quotation is from Bonnie Greer and it's this. 'Cyclists are vermin'. Absolutely. They thrive where conditions allow them to thrive, and they take the shortest route from A to B. One hundred and forty million quid spent on LCN+ (London's cycle routes) really didn't have any effect. Four idiots from Yorkshire did have an effect. Cyclists are, generally, people who have made a choice based on convenience and cost. Create the conditions in which cycling is the most convenient and cost-effective option, and no vermin-repellent spray will deter them.

So, in my book, if you get a bunch of people to ride bikes it's good. And the more that do, the more will do. If you see what I mean.

 

[garrilla]

great post delzegg.

 

[Woz!]

The problem as I see it is that, to a lot of people cycling does have an image, or rather a variety of images:

• oddball eccentrics who hug trees and only eat veg
• super-fit athletes who take drugs a lot
• poor people who can't afford a car
• kamikaze urban warriors who jump red lights
• recreational weekend potterers
• children with toys
• mountaineers on wheels

And so on. We need a public perception that cycling is just...normal.

I'd agree that cycling has an image problem, but sadly the image perception I get from the non-cyclists at work is much simpler than you think:

Dangerous, knackering, dirty.

That's about it in a nutshell.
My work is very pro-actively green and heavily promote the cycle to work scheme. The workforce is largely fairly young and fairly fit. So far, I'm the only regular cyclist. One other person has a bike on the C2W scheme but she rarely rides in because the roads around the office (Maidenhead) are not good for cyclists.
It may be that the south-east has especially aggressive car drivers (I think this is actually true) but I've found the roads to be fine and I've not been overly bothred by close-overtakes etc.
That doesn't help the perception that it's not safe.

That's what needs the work - we need to get kids out on the roads on bikes, unsupervised. Sure, we need to teach kids to ride, but we don't need to have cycling proficiency tests so rigorous that (in the case of my kid's class last month) 11 out of 30 kids are failed over minor faults.

We don't want kids (and adults) feeling that they have to dress like American footballers in order to be safe on a bike. The amount of times when I tell people that I ride a bike to work where the response isn't "Oh, well done, you must be getting fit" but is instead "I hope you wear a helmet, it's very dangerous isn't it?" makes me despair.

THAT'S the main thing we need to work against - the fear.

 

[J4CKO]

Anyway, you seem to forget that I am coming up to my first year anniversary from starting cycle commuting and have doubt notched the cool-o-meter up a few notches

Sod cool, just not getting splattered by HGV's, buses, ignorant bell ends or spat on by Chavs in Corsa's would be my preference.

 

[John the Monkey]

Last two posts have it, right there.

Start enforcing traffic law. Start punishing the people who don't give shoot about anyone who isn't in a car or a truck. And punishing them PROPERLY. Bans. Jail.

In tandem (arf!) with that, point out how you don't need anything special to do 3-5 miles at an easy pace. Point out that unless there's some medical problem you have, or you need to carry something REALLY big, there's no reason that you shouldn't ride instead of taking the car. If you're already "cool", you'll be no less "cool" riding a bike. If you're not, well, just ride the flipping thing, why not?

*Then* you'll see people doing "utility" cycling.

 

[Bollo]

Also, the trouble with 'cool cycling' is that it defines itself by exclusivity and cliques. There's enough of that in cycling already.

 

[Origamist]

Nice Greer quote. I'm definitely more of a rodent than an urban hero.

Cyclists beget cyclists. No more Boom and Bust! The EU want a 15% modal share by 2020 - let's see.

 

[Bollo]

No more Boom and Bust!

I believe the last gentleman to use that phrase has run into a few difficulties....