In what ways can WoJ be a useful group for cyclists?

Hi all,
See below for a 'discussion paper' informally passed around at the last
Goat Meeting. A couple of people , ie: Resound and co, mentioned it
would be wise to expand the discussion and post it here on a.b. Sooooo,
please feel free to pass on feedback & constructive comments.

Wheels of Justice forum:
http://s13.invisionfree.com/AusWheels_of_Justice/

Wheels of Justice National Strategy Discussions:
http://s13.invisionfree.com/AusWheel...index.php?c=12

WoJ yahoogroup:
http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/wheelsofjustice/

With Wheels of Justice we're currently working on ideas towards a
future events and planning a national strategy.

If you heard of, or were involved with the WoJ rides on May 7th in
Adelaide, Sydney, Brisbane & Melbourne, the group is evolving towards
creating a national cycling advocacy group over being a one-off
protest.

For more background (and plenty of it!), refer to the Bicycle Justice
blog:
http://bicyclejustice.blogspot.com

Also see the pictures from May 7th on flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/72663690@N00/


Now, onto that informal discussion paper:

IN WHAT WAYS CAN WOJ BE A USEFUL GROUP FOR CYCLISTS? MELBOURNE WHEELS
OF JUSTICE – AGENDA/DISCUSSION ITEMS FOR 9TH SEPTEMBER 2005

§ Be akin to a ‘Neighbourhood Watch’ for cyclists. Rely upon
local/regional knowledge and create an accessible database for
incidents (similar to Ghostbike)

§ Provide personal networking and contacts for cyclists in local area.

§ Conduct media monitoring of cycling issues, overseas and Australia.

§ Have a adaptable media strategy that can be utilised to comment at
short notice on relevant issues/breaking stories in the media.

§ Provide information regarding dealing with road incidents and follow
up with authorities, local/state governments

§ Have an easily recognisable image. Design a identifiable WoJ logo,
web presence, leaflets and possible stickers for distribution.

§ Not be reliant upon bureaucratic funding, an independent volunteer
based organisation that has a power-with, not power-over approach. ,
i.e.: pluralistic, approachable, but maintains independence and the
ability to freely criticise


*Your thoughts – Wheels of Justice’s possible strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, threats, notes etc. Now off you go now...*


--
cfsmtb

cfsmtb wrote:
Hi all,

*Your thoughts - Wheels of Justice's possible strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, threats, notes etc. Now off you go now...*


Isn't this a duplification of what BV (or any national cycling
advocacy group) should be doing? Ie: what BV should be,
but not what it has become?

If so, how do you prevent it going the same way?

Bleve wrote:
cfsmtb wrote:

Hi all,


*Your thoughts - Wheels of Justice's possible strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, threats, notes etc. Now off you go now...*



Isn't this a duplification of what BV (or any national cycling
advocacy group) should be doing? Ie: what BV should be,
but not what it has become?

If so, how do you prevent it going the same way?


we back cfsmtb up when (if) she needs it.. and she keeps it pointed the
right way

We try and minimise ****** involvement and ban people who own pajaro;s

And possibly at some point we take over BV and bend it more to our
agenda.

Bleve wrote:
cfsmtb wrote:

Hi all,


*Your thoughts - Wheels of Justice's possible strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, threats, notes etc. Now off you go now...*



Isn't this a duplification of what BV (or any national cycling
advocacy group) should be doing? Ie: what BV should be,
but not what it has become?

If so, how do you prevent it going the same way?


I was thinking the same thing. It's lookign a bit like what happened
with the MRAA and the factionalisation that happened within the
motorcycling community. If there's something wrong with the existing
cycling advocacy orgs, and WoJ is aiming to resolve some of that, the
mission of WoJ needs to be clearly articulated. Otherwise it's just
dismissed as another cycling org wanting its say, and any message just
ends up being diluted.

DaveB

DaveB Wrote:
If there's something wrong with the existing
cycling advocacy orgs, and WoJ is aiming to resolve some of that, the
mission of WoJ needs to be clearly articulated. Otherwise it's just
dismissed as another cycling org wanting its say, and any message just
ends up being diluted.


That's exactly what WoJ are attempting to do. We have been attempting
to research & plan our direction since May 2005, refer to the bicycle
justice blog for all the society history et al. This post made today to
a.b is only one of possibly dozens since that time that relate to the
outrage over the Eugene McGee case & cyclists issues.

What point blank is the problem is unfortunately most national & state
cycling organisations are NOT showing any leadership when it comes to
cycling/road issues. Hence stuff like the Amy Gillett Foundation, a
group we would like to work with.

Like many I'm sick to reading about tales of a legal system doesn't
work for you, becoming defeatist, indulge in circular arguments and
pointlessly criticise any group attempting to change the status quo.

There's a incredible amount of prior WoJ discussion you're not seeing
here, also hence this thread being made to broaden the discussions.

Read the WoJ forum, read the yahoogroup, read the hundreds of posts to
the WoJ blog.

Also, for those to you with no knowledge regarding some of the
labyrinth of bullsh*t involved with non-competive cycling advocacy over
the last decade; why can't a grassroots cycling group try to articulate
valid issues?

As purely voluntary organisation in it's infancy, we're not asking for
expensive membership fees, telling you where to ride or what to ride or
ignoring revalent local issues. WoJ don't want your money, we require
your ideas.


--
cfsmtb

"DaveB" wrote in message
...
Bleve wrote:
cfsmtb wrote:

Hi all,


*Your thoughts - Wheels of Justice's possible strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, threats, notes etc. Now off you go now...*



Isn't this a duplification of what BV (or any national cycling
advocacy group) should be doing? Ie: what BV should be,
but not what it has become?

If so, how do you prevent it going the same way?


I was thinking the same thing. It's lookign a bit like what happened with
the MRAA and the factionalisation that happened within the motorcycling
community. If there's something wrong with the existing cycling advocacy
orgs, and WoJ is aiming to resolve some of that, the mission of WoJ needs
to be clearly articulated. Otherwise it's just dismissed as another
cycling org wanting its say, and any message just ends up being diluted.

DaveB

I would be inclined to suggest a much less rigid structure than BV.
Certainly I would want to see people like cfsmtb holding the reins and a
solid core of people such as ourselves backing her to the hilt but rather
than a shiny newsletter and focussing on bureaucratic structures (both ours
and others) as a top down exercise, I'd be focussing on cyclists and taking
a more bottom up approach.

*Community workgroups for new cyclists who want to learn how to get the most
out of their bikes and how to make cycling a not-scary thing.
*Possibly get as many LBSs onside with regards to this as possible.
*Set up area specific ride to work days, possibly a "ride to work bus" that
cyclists can tag onto and off of as they need to. If they were regular
enough they could well become self sustaining.
*Cycling workshops for schools?

Is there a way in which we could position ourselves in such a way as to make
ourselves approachable by parents so that we can address their concerns
about the safety of cycling AND effectively encourage them to encourage
their kids? Hell, we might get a few parents on bikes as well. A variation
on the "ride-to-work-bus" concept? I know that there have been parents
setting up "walk to school bus" type programs in response to fears about
paedophilia. If we can enlist a few Mums and Dads...in fact, there are
probably a few Mums and Dads here.

We should definitely have a strategy for dealing with media and ensure that
almost anyone who's actively involved can either coherently talk to the
media or point them at someone who can. Are we going to be proactive or
reactive with regards to this though? Both approaches have good points.
Either way, we should be a quiet voice of reason, not a shrill reactionary
call to revolution (which is what out opponents will expect and want us to
be). Let them fling the mud and look pathetic; we have enough good things to
talk about that we don't need to go there.

Set up a cycling wiki. We'd need to be prepared to moderate it and we'd have
to think about what criteria we want to peg on granting authority to edit it
or the trolls will sneak in. By reference only?


This is all off the top of my head so there are probably glaring problems
with these ideas, but feel free to pick holes in them. Better that we do it
now and kick them into shape before unsympathetic audiences get a chance.

Resound wrote:
"DaveB" wrote in message
...

Bleve wrote:

cfsmtb wrote:


Hi all,


*Your thoughts - Wheels of Justice's possible strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, threats, notes etc. Now off you go now...*



Isn't this a duplification of what BV (or any national cycling
advocacy group) should be doing? Ie: what BV should be,
but not what it has become?

If so, how do you prevent it going the same way?


I was thinking the same thing. It's lookign a bit like what happened with
the MRAA and the factionalisation that happened within the motorcycling
community. If there's something wrong with the existing cycling advocacy
orgs, and WoJ is aiming to resolve some of that, the mission of WoJ needs
to be clearly articulated. Otherwise it's just dismissed as another
cycling org wanting its say, and any message just ends up being diluted.

DaveB


I would be inclined to suggest a much less rigid structure than BV.
Certainly I would want to see people like cfsmtb holding the reins and a
solid core of people such as ourselves backing her to the hilt but rather
than a shiny newsletter and focussing on bureaucratic structures (both ours
and others) as a top down exercise, I'd be focussing on cyclists and taking
a more bottom up approach.

*Community workgroups for new cyclists who want to learn how to get the most
out of their bikes and how to make cycling a not-scary thing.
*Possibly get as many LBSs onside with regards to this as possible.
*Set up area specific ride to work days, possibly a "ride to work bus" that
cyclists can tag onto and off of as they need to. If they were regular
enough they could well become self sustaining.
*Cycling workshops for schools?

Is there a way in which we could position ourselves in such a way as to make
ourselves approachable by parents so that we can address their concerns
about the safety of cycling AND effectively encourage them to encourage
their kids? Hell, we might get a few parents on bikes as well. A variation
on the "ride-to-work-bus" concept? I know that there have been parents
setting up "walk to school bus" type programs in response to fears about
paedophilia. If we can enlist a few Mums and Dads...in fact, there are
probably a few Mums and Dads here.

We should definitely have a strategy for dealing with media and ensure that
almost anyone who's actively involved can either coherently talk to the
media or point them at someone who can. Are we going to be proactive or
reactive with regards to this though? Both approaches have good points.
Either way, we should be a quiet voice of reason, not a shrill reactionary
call to revolution (which is what out opponents will expect and want us to
be). Let them fling the mud and look pathetic; we have enough good things to
talk about that we don't need to go there.

Set up a cycling wiki. We'd need to be prepared to moderate it and we'd have
to think about what criteria we want to peg on granting authority to edit it
or the trolls will sneak in. By reference only?


This is all off the top of my head so there are probably glaring problems
with these ideas, but feel free to pick holes in them. Better that we do it
now and kick them into shape before unsympathetic audiences get a chance.




I was obviously too glib earlier. My apologies all. I do think that we
dont have to repeat the glaring mistakes of BV. When you think about it
the biggest mistake of VB (and at least one other fairly big cycling
organisation) is to get too precious about themselfs. Thats not going
to happen to us anytime soon.

Good points these by the way.

Resound wrote:
*Set up area specific ride to work days, possibly a "ride to work bus" that
cyclists can tag onto and off of as they need to. If they were regular
enough they could well become self sustaining.

I reckon that's a great idea. I've worked with a lot of people who have
talked about cycling to work but just never got around to it. Something
like that may well make a difference.

The other thing I was thinking about is some kind of flyer for the
office noticeboard that gives some basic info like:
- where the shower and bike facilities are in the building (or the
nearest to the building). I've worked in so many buildings with good
facilities that most people didn't know existed.
- some basic info on the time/cost advantages of cycling to work
- how to get setup for carrying laptops, clothing etc
- and some cycling contacts within the building for help/advice

Maybe we could have a WoJ template that you fill in for your office and
also has some basic WoJ info for all to see.

DaveB

dave Wrote:
When you think about it the biggest mistake of VB....

Is that it's tasteless compared to Goat. Ok, ok, back on topic, good
points made so far. Like the cycling wiki & workplace template - that
is all feasible.


--
cfsmtb

dave Wrote:
Resound wrote:

I was obviously too glib earlier. My apologies all. I do think that we
dont have to repeat the glaring mistakes of BV. When you think about it
the biggest mistake of VB (and at least one other fairly big cycling
organisation) is to get too precious about themselfs. Thats not going
to happen to us anytime soon.

Good points these by the way.
BV have done a good job IN THE PAST on some fronts. Insurance, the
rides (ATBIAD, etc.). But it has become an ego thing. First there was
the atempts to make the Great Melbourne Bike Ride the biggest in the
world - who cares but Harry? The final straw for me was the position
they are taking on Around The Bay - they want it to be as big as the
Melbourne Cup (article in Saturday's Age employment section about an
Event Manager position). That's just bull and turns off the people who
have supported it in the past. And for what gain. The focus on
recreational cyclists who otherwise wouldn't ride bikes is at the
expense of the "true believers". Copenhagen bike lane concept another
case in point - OK for those who ride at 15kmh, but not "real"
cyclists (I'm thinking wandering pedestrians, bang).

So there I was, paying for an organisation that makes its activities
irrelevant to me, provides a voice that is alarmingly different from
mine and, the catch, insurance that seemed a reasonable proposition. No
more (I haven't rejoined)

My point - an org that can give me insurance, maybe an LBS discount and
can really represent me is something I AM willing to pay for. Probably
many others as well. This might not be viable in the short term. But is
worth considering as a strategy moving forward.

The key to success is to make sure there is shared understanding of
why. BV has gone wrong by focussing on "More People Cycling More
Often", meaning they are trying to represent the entire population. WOJ
would benefit from clearly agreeing who they represent and what they are
trying to achieve (their vision) to support the actions in CFSMTB's
discussion paper.

Sorry. I am a consultant and can't help but revert to consultant-speak
and over-generalise anything not pinned down and forget that I am not
being paid by the word.


--
sinus