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

cfsmtb wrote:
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.



Geez that was good So is the beer If we can get Ian along to
Goat it should be fun as beer is wot he does for a living.

sinus wrote:
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.


Yeah I would agree with most of this. BV is really more people cycling
5 ks a few times a year. My point about being precious is that they
know this. They have been told lots and by lots of people. They just
think they know better.

The ATB is going to be bloody dangerous this year methinks.

BTW on sunday we saw some middle aged dude being picked up after riding
into the back of a car. (Not that I aint a middle aged dude Richard
it wasnt you was it? Can;t seem to find an email addy for you. I
guess if it was you you probably aint reading this but could you drop me
a line

Dave

sinus wrote:
(article in Saturday's Age employment section about an
Event Manager position).

Hmm, both BV & BNSW have replaced/lost their Events Manager recently.

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


There really does need to be a degree of focus on more people cycling, more
often. However, I see it more as promoting cycling as a practical and more
importantly pragmatic exercise rather than a form of recreation. The more
people who cycle as transport, the more it becomes normalised within the
community. This does mean that there will be a substantial proportion who
amble along at 15kph but if they're aware of basic good cycling behaviour
I'd contend that it's really not an issue. I came across a cyclist like that
this afternoon on St Kilda Rd. Upright position, quietly scooting along in
the bike lane. Not gumbying though. I sat behind her for a bit until I could
safely get around her and then did so. Not a problem. As far as being
something that you're willing to pay for, I'm wondering whether this is the
sort of organisation that really wants fees. Fees lead to executive
structures, executive structures lead to factionalisation and brawls over
where the funds ought to be spent. I'd be interested to see how far an
organisation can go on pure volunteer power. Think of it as an open source
BUG.

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 17:19:02 +1000, DaveB wrote:

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.

What you need to do is find (or fabricate) evidence that cyclists are
richer, more attractive and get more roots. That'll get the public's
attention :-)

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw

cfsmtb wrote:
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.

This seems to me to be basically trying to do what BV is
supposed to be doing.

BV is *supposed* to be grass roots.
BV is *supposed* to advocate safety issues and provide a focus for
bike riding activies, both recreationally and as a viable means of
transport.
BV is *supposed* to be doing all that you (as I understand it anyway)
are wanting to do.

So, rather than reinvent the wheel (and that's what you'll do,
this, if it takes off, will end up just like every other
well meaning group of passionate volunteers - either fading to naught
after the few get burnt out, or becoming a beaurocracy (sp?)), why not
work within BV? If you have the numbers, and it sounds like you
do, and BV is at least on the surface, democratic, why not mount a
concerted campaign to influence it, or even get elected to
a role within it and change it/refocus it or whatever, from within?
It seems a huge lot of effort to duplicate something that already
exists and that really just needs a decent shove in the right
direction.

Still, it's your time and effort, but it'd be a shame to waste that
energy.
This kind of thing happens *all* the time with just about any
advocacy/political group - BV, MRA|MRAA, SLSA, CFA, you name it ..
little dissatisifed
groups jump up & down, and splinter off with intentions of doing what
they
think the parent body is neglecting (and often it is!), but they
dissolve the
effectiveness of both the parent and the faction, and usually die off
pretty
quickly. It took the DLP how long to fade away? (anyone here even
remember
the DLP? ). How long was Menzies PM for again?

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.

Agreed - but that doesn't mean you have to throw the baby out with
the bathwater. BV (and/or CA) etc really should have taken a much more
prominant role than they did when the McGee thing happened. CA, in
it's
defence (urgh .. ) really aren't involved in cycling advocacy, they
just want all our money to keep the lights on at DISC.

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.

The legal system works for those that understand
it and those that have the resources to work within its structure.
Little people get rolled by the system, because they either
don't know the game, or don't have the resources to play it.

Where this is relevant is simple, BV (for example) has wads of
cash (compared to what WoJ has anyway). BV also has the ear of
Vicroads to a certain extent, and some of the pollies.
Why is this relevant? If you
can rouse BV, imagine how effective it could be.

Look at what the NFF manages to do, and the RSL, in terms of
publicising their causes. BV (or some national cycling advocacy
group) should be able to do the same, *if* it can be poked into action.
Compare that to the national socialists protesting at Melb Uni about
HECS - who
gets media coverage that isn't "look at these ratbags"?

How do you get real changes? You have to embarras the politicians or
convince them that they'll win votes, or maybe (rare, but it does
happen) convince them of the "rightness" of something.

You do this by having the right sort of media coverage and a membership
base that's big enough to get you an audience with the people in power.
The WoJ
McGee thing got the right sort of coverage. That's good, but it was an
exceptional and special case of something so blatantly wrong it was
simply beyond a joke. It was a special case where someone who knew the

system used it to their advantage in such an appaling manner that it
was bound to get shot down. It (the MkGee case) won't make any long
term difference
to anything. Looking at the McGee thing with one's angry eyes put away
in a box, and you see a case of someone within the system rorting it to
get out of gaol free. It's not related to bicycling at all, except
that the vic happened to have been on a bike instead of another car, on
foot, in a wheelchair, on a motorbike etc ...
So carrying on about it like it's going to make some difference to
cycling
safety is a little naive. One bad apple's been caught being bad, and
that's *it*.



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?

Of course you can. Anyone can, and if BV was working properly, your
faction could have real clout if channeled through BV. If you start up
yet another
grassroots group, you end up adding yet another bit to the labyrinth
and muddying the advocacy waters even further. Did I just win
consultant-speak bingo? "Paradgm shift", that'll seal it ... $50 for
me!

Imagine what could be done if BV released the hounds? 40 THOUSAND
paying members. 40 THOUSAND people who PAY to be members. That
has "scare the pollies" clout. That has the leverage to make real,
lasting
changes to Vicroads, state gov and council policies. BV may actually
be
doing stuff you/we think is unwise or not necessarily the best use of
resources. But, here's the rub; they *are* actually doing things.
They
*are* actually trying to make our roads safer for us as riders.

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.

My suggestion/idea, for what it's worth:

Fix BV - I'd say that
if your WoJ thing is so laiden with momentum, than you'd have
a pretty decent chance to influence BV, and BV already has the
membership
muscle and infrastructure to do all that you want to do. BV is
supposed to be democratic. Put together a ticket for the next
elections -
do some genuine campaigning to the membership of BV, and see how that
goes.
If you can articulate your position well enough, and it's a viable
position (and it is a viable position .. I'm all for what you're
talking
about, I ride on the roads more than most, so you bet I want the roads
safer!), you'll get votes, and then you can kick Harry's arse so hard
his
nose bleeds, and apply a cattle prod to his testicles while he's on the
way out the door! But bear in mind that the people at BV probably
think they're doing good for cyclists, and although they're not
terribly good at communicating it, they're probably actually doing some
good in terms of structural changes to our roads to try and make them
safer for all of us. 20 years ago there weren't bike lanes, or bike
paths beside freeways etc. Now there is. Didn't they (BV) also have
something to do with planning rules to make showers at new workplaces
compulsory? That's the kind of thing that has long-term affects on
cyclist safety and cyclist numbers. Fix the broken bits, don't
re-invent the wheel. Give 'em a solid kick in the goolies and see what
you can achieve.

snip rest of worthy post
Fix the broken bits, don't
re-invent the wheel. Give 'em a solid kick in the goolies and see what
you can achieve.

A fair point. One thing I'm seeing (and I'm more than prepared to
acknowledge that I'm wandering off down my own little garden path here) is
that BV seems to look at physical infrastructure rather than the people that
use it. There's a common theme: roads, bike lanes, paths, signs, showers,
the idea of 'build it and they will come'. Ok as far as it goes and
undoubtedly important. The discussions that we have here on the other hand
seem to focus on attitudes. The attitudes of motorists towards cyclists,
cyclists towards motorists, the general public towards cycling (rather than
cyclISTS, big difference) and so on. The issues that I'm personally
identifying are things like:

*motorists don't think bikes are real vehicles, only toys and cyclists are
therefore not really travelling but playing. We're not serious and we're
getting in the way of those who are serious and have serious things to do.

*cycling is dangerous. Cars don't look for you, roads are for cars, bikes
are wobbly (no, I'm not taking the ****), I don't know haow to cycle, only
weirdoes cycle.

Now that I think about it, yes, BV is trying to address the same thing in
some way. Make it normal, unremarkable, heaps of people do it etc and people
will do it. BV seem to be trying to say to the public that if the
infrastructure is there then it must be a sanctioned, normal activity. I
think that sort of arse about, but I can see how the thought comes about.
Besides, funding buys stuff not paradigms. I still say they've got Descartes
before the horse...I'm much more taken with the idea of "I cycle therefore I
can" rather than the other way around. Besides, I don't like the idea of
segregation (They're ok, but they should keep to their own kind. They're
happier that way...) so I'd rather mingle via the process of fiat populi
than legislation.

So, what am I trying to say? Mainly that if my personal tack has any virtue,
then the culture shift that would be required for BV to start social
engineering rather than civil engineering is not that much less than that
required to convince workmates that riding to work really won't hurt, look
at how nice the weather's getting gosh I'm glad I don't have to pay those
ridiculous petrol prices and gym fees how do you find time to get to the gym
anyway I would have thought by the time you got through peak hour traffic
you'd have almost no evening left speaking of the evening I thought I'd take
the scenic route home along the Yarra today it's really nice now that
spring's here...(and the kicker, lay it on with a trowel now)...so many
people are riding these days, I see cyclists everywhere. Everybody's doing
it. It's positively NORMAL. You're MISSING OUT.

Normalisation. You can get a population to do nearly anything with it.
Hmm...there's a use for funds, advertising.




Gads, I made a rant!

Resound Wrote:

Normalisation. You can get a population to do nearly anything with it.
Hmm...there's a use for funds, advertising.

Gads, I made a rant!


And what a terrific rant it truly was, you've hit the nail right on the
head. Any direction WoJ takes is more to do with local based networking
and information sharing, leave the infrastructure palavar to Govt,
NGO's & BUG's. Also, this is a national discussion, so take the
emphasis off Victorian related BV/HB issues. That's really a side
issue.




PS. Would monsieur like a House Red at the next Goat?


--
cfsmtb

"cfsmtb" wrote in message
...

Resound Wrote:

Normalisation. You can get a population to do nearly anything with it.
Hmm...there's a use for funds, advertising.

Gads, I made a rant!


And what a terrific rant it truly was, you've hit the nail right on the
head. Any direction WoJ takes is more to do with local based networking
and information sharing, leave the infrastructure palavar to Govt,
NGO's & BUG's. Also, this is a national discussion, so take the
emphasis off Victorian related BV/HB issues. That's really a side
issue.




PS. Would monsieur like a House Red at the next Goat?


--
cfsmtb


Ooh, is that an offer? I'm a student remember, all offers of
food/alcohol/anything really gratefully received and scoffed before the
generous party gets a chance to reconsider. I'd be drinking house red in any
case.

*jaw cracking yawn*

Well lookee, I can slap a conclusion on this essay that I've been beating my
head against all night and I've made word count. Some of the words are even
relevant! I'm not sure if I'm enthusiastic about the 35km ride to uni
tomorrow or not. Not that there's really a choice; the new shoes which I can
only barely afford are going to have to pay their way. Why is it that I can
blurt 500 words into a post here on a.b. and in an essay it's like pulling
teeth?

Resound wrote:
snip rest of worthy post


*motorists don't think bikes are real vehicles, only toys and cyclists are
therefore not really travelling but playing. We're not serious and we're
getting in the way of those who are serious and have serious things to do.

I wonder if thats true. Explains how annoyed they get when we pass them
We are only playing and yet we are better at it. (sometimes) I
have seen that in other sports. When we were sailing we used to beat
yachts whose mainsail had cost more than our entire boat. They hated it.

look
at how nice the weather's getting gosh I'm glad I don't have to pay those
ridiculous petrol prices and gym fees how do you find time to get to the gym
anyway I would have thought by the time you got through peak hour traffic
you'd have almost no evening left speaking of the evening I thought I'd take
the scenic route home along the Yarra today it's really nice now that
spring's here...(and the kicker, lay it on with a trowel now)...so many
people are riding these days, I see cyclists everywhere. Everybody's doing
it. It's positively NORMAL. You're MISSING OUT.

I like it.