Re: Critical Mass
Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2012 2:53 pm
Old school.human909 wrote:No.sogood wrote:Riding on road then deliberately stop and obstruct (even 1 mins) is not a bullying behaviour?
BNA - For the Australian Cycling Community
http://www.bicycles.net.au/forums/
Old school.human909 wrote:No.sogood wrote:Riding on road then deliberately stop and obstruct (even 1 mins) is not a bullying behaviour?
CM is not a protest movement, just a bunch of people who get together to go for a ride. There are no causes, policies nor representatives - just a love of riding bikes.sogood wrote:Well, then CM can get on with the time and protest to those who are in charge.
.
That's a terrible way to present the group Pete. I understand from their movement site that they do have an objective. If they didn't and also deliberately cause traffic delay, then they really have no more defence of their action.il padrone wrote:CM is not a protest movement, just a bunch of people who get together to go for a ride. There are no causes, policies nor representatives - just a love of riding bikes.
In among the tumbleweedssogood wrote:That's a terrible way to present the group Pete. I understand from their movement site that they do have an objective. If they didn't and also deliberately cause traffic delay, then they really have no more defence of their action.il padrone wrote:CM is not a protest movement, just a bunch of people who get together to go for a ride. There are no causes, policies nor representatives - just a love of riding bikes.
In short, critical mass don't set out to achieve anything & so far they have met that objective, much like "occupy Sydney".http://www.bikesarefun.org/faq.html wrote:What are the aims of Critical Mass?
Every participant rides in Critical Mass for their own reasons, and there are almost as many reasons as there are participants. However, some common reasons to ride are:
Having fun. (Seriously, would we keep turning up on the last Friday of every month if it wasn't!)
Meeting up with friends and making new ones.
Getting to enjoy bicycling/rollerblading/skateboarding on the smooth city roads, without the cars.
Showing off flashy and unusual bikes and clothes.
Being seen and vocal about creating a vision and experience of a possible future.
Networking with like minded people and organising similar activities.
Educating people about sustainable transport - cycling, roller blading, walking, public transport.
Show that all sustainable forms of transport can be used in the city, and that we need to sharing the road with each other.
Campaign for safe, use able cycling facilities.
To create a space that is Car-free in the centre of our city.
To reclaim the space street space for people
To encourage thought on Clean Air and healthier living.
The list goes on and on ... Turn up and ask some of the people
http://www.bikesarefun.org/faq.html wrote:Who are the organisers?
Nobody organises Critical Mass ...
Well, you can tell why I didn't want to be part of this debate.find_bruce wrote:Perhaps we should ask Nobody, apparently he organises it in Sydneyhttp://www.bikesarefun.org/faq.html wrote:Who are the organisers?
Nobody organises Critical Mass ...
I can't believe he's associated with them, but then again Nobody's perfect!find_bruce wrote:Perhaps we should ask Nobody, apparently he organises it in Sydneyhttp://www.bikesarefun.org/faq.html wrote:Who are the organisers?
Nobody organises Critical Mass ...
Occupy doesn't interfere with the general public (apart from their use of space and visual impact) and has a clear message. It's also a sore for the wealthy and ruling elites in the society. CM is not in the same league.find_bruce wrote:In short, critical mass don't set out to achieve anything & so far they have met that objective, much like "occupy Sydney".
And respected for it!Nobody wrote:Well, you can tell why I didn't want to be part of this debate.
They are not loonies. I am starting to get less and less amazed at how conservative and how different and cohort is found on BNA forums vs the actual cyclist cohort. These aren't loonies involved in critical mass, these are regular cyclists. There is a whole another world of cycling out there beyond the constrained cohort of road cycling. It is sad that there is such a rift, you can see this on MHLs and other such topics.AUbicycles wrote: I still picture loonies who go beyond the principles of making a stance to being aggresive and putting themselves in dangerous situations, ' standing infront of oncoming traffic on the habour bridge to make a point' rather then keeping to one or two lanes.
He didn't say they were loonies, he said "I still picture loonies" and I think he has hit the nail on the head. If you assume that Critical Mass has evolved and is no longer what it was, then it still has a major problem with how it is perceived. The fact is people still picture loonies being aggressive and disruptive. If CM wants to help cycling rather than hinder it then they need a re branding, their past is inescapable.human909 wrote:They are not loonies. I am starting to get less and less amazed at how conservative and how different and cohort is found on BNA forums vs the actual cyclist cohort. These aren't loonies involved in critical mass, these are regular cyclists. There is a whole another world of cycling out there beyond the constrained cohort of road cycling. It is sad that there is such a rift, you can see this on MHLs and other such topics.AUbicycles wrote: I still picture loonies who go beyond the principles of making a stance to being aggresive and putting themselves in dangerous situations, ' standing infront of oncoming traffic on the habour bridge to make a point' rather then keeping to one or two lanes.
Just saying...
CM is not a public relations firm or large corporation. 'Branding' doesn't really enter the picture.Alien27 wrote:The fact is people still picture loonies being aggressive and disruptive. If CM wants to help cycling rather than hinder it then they need a re branding, their past is inescapable.
What topic doesn't around here?g-boaf wrote:his topic even suggests that CM still polarises opinions, given the robust debate on the issue here.
Its not silly when the question I'm trying to answers was the OP's original one; "Are they (CM) helping or hindering cycling?" they need a re-branding if they are going to help cycling, otherwise their past and the public perception of them just makes it near imposable for them to get their message through. i would also imaging that no cyclists are their primary target market. Targeting cyclists would preaching to the converted wouldn't it?human909 wrote:...Saying that CM suffers from a image or branding problem silly. As long as you are appealing to your target market then their is no branding problem. (Their target market is NOT all cyclists, it simply cannot cover that range.) It is like saying that Bathurst (the car race) suffers from an image problem. Those that love the culture don't see a problem. Those that dislike the culture perceive a problem. I'm sure many would CM would find lycra clad culture not appealing.
Whether CM's branding enterers the picture or not in their eyes doesn't mean its not a problem for them.il padrone wrote:CM is not a public relations firm or large corporation. 'Branding' doesn't really enter the picture.Alien27 wrote:The fact is people still picture loonies being aggressive and disruptive. If CM wants to help cycling rather than hinder it then they need a re branding, their past is inescapable.
You are presently making a PR statement defending CM. PR is everywhere and does not have to be a firm or large corporation.il padrone wrote:CM is not a public relations firm or large corporation. 'Branding' doesn't really enter the picture.
"Loonies being aggressive and disruptive" = any cyclist who doesn't stick to singe file (in the minds of most drivers)
We all have different perceptions of what "cycling" is and what "helping cycling is". Sometimes I don't think the obsession with lycra, strava, speed and bunch helps the "cycling brand".Alien27 wrote:Its not silly when the question I'm trying to answers was the OP's original one; "Are they (CM) helping or hindering cycling?" they need a re-branding if they are going to help cycling, otherwise their past and the public perception of them just makes it near imposable for them to get their message through. i would also imaging that no cyclists are their primary target market.human909 wrote:...Saying that CM suffers from a image or branding problem silly. As long as you are appealing to your target market then their is no branding problem. (Their target market is NOT all cyclists, it simply cannot cover that range.) It is like saying that Bathurst (the car race) suffers from an image problem. Those that love the culture don't see a problem. Those that dislike the culture perceive a problem. I'm sure many would CM would find lycra clad culture not appealing.
Who said they are trying to preach to non cyclists? Who said they are trying to preach?Alien27 wrote:Targeting cyclists would preaching to the converted wouldn't it?
I dont disagree with any of thathuman909 wrote:We all have different perceptions of what "cycling" is and what "helping cycling is". Sometimes I don't think the obsession with lycra, strava, speed and bunch helps the "cycling brand".
Its a figure of speech... you suggested that their target market was cyclists, I was just making the point that considering one of their broader aims seems to be educating people about sustainable transport and sharing the road, then you would imagine that their target audience wouldn't be bikes as that would be say educating the educated, no?human909 wrote:Who said they are trying to preach to non cyclists? Who said they are trying to preach?Alien27 wrote:Targeting cyclists would preaching to the converted wouldn't it?
Branding isn't necessarily a concept limited to business.Alien27 wrote:Whether CM's branding enterers the picture or not in their eyes doesn't mean its not a problem for them.il padrone wrote:CM is not a public relations firm or large corporation. 'Branding' doesn't really enter the picture.Alien27 wrote:The fact is people still picture loonies being aggressive and disruptive. If CM wants to help cycling rather than hinder it then they need a re branding, their past is inescapable.
That is all part of their brand. Brand isn't just about name. It's about the story behind the name, the public perception, etc.greyhoundtom wrote: I therefore see no problem with their brand, as it describes what they do........just can’t see how their actions benefit cycling.
However I can see how their actions could make more motorists dislike cyclists as a group.