how govts could advertise to improve public image of cyclists?

[cooperplace]

Here are my suggestions:
-two animations of traffic, one with lots of cars, no cyclists, = lots of congestion; the other lots of cyclists, a few cars = no congestion. Caption: cyclists are doing us all a favor by reducing traffic and congestion.

two animations of cars cruising looking for parking spots, no bikes to be seen, lots of cars, no parks available; the other scenario, has lots of bikes parked in nearby bike racks, few cars, lots of available parking.
Caption: cyclists are doing us all a favor by making it easier to find a parking spot.

I think the feds should be pressured to pay for something on these lines to encourage cycling and make Joe average drivers realize that they don't actually need to kill/terrorise/abuse cyclists.

Any other suggestions?
thoughts?

[Cyclophiliac]

My thoughts are that the govt won't do any pro-cycling advertising for one very good reason: there's a very powerful motoring lobby in this country that (at least partly) OWNS the govt.

[cooperplace]

you're probably right, but I prefer to think along positive lines. Don't forget that govts fund public transport, and they also fund (to some extent) cycling paths.

The only thing that will influence motorists (and I'm sick of them trying to murder me) is appealing to their selfish instincts.

[Thoglette]

I believe that the key to government support rests with the various health ministers, followed by bean counters.

The health ministers bear the costs of private motor vehicle use: directly (accidents filling hospital beds & on going disability costs) and indirectly (obesity related problems).

The various finance ministers/treasurers need to get the best bang from their buck. And building roads ain't it.

[P!N20]

Here are my suggestions:
-two animations of traffic, one with lots of cars, no cyclists, = lots of congestion; the other lots of cyclists, a few cars = no congestion. Caption: cyclists are doing us all a favor by reducing traffic and congestion.

two animations of cars cruising looking for parking spots, no bikes to be seen, lots of cars, no parks available; the other scenario, has lots of bikes parked in nearby bike racks, few cars, lots of available parking.
Caption: cyclists are doing us all a favor by making it easier to find a parking spot.

I think the feds should be pressured to pay for something on these lines to encourage cycling and make Joe average drivers realize that they don't actually need to kill/terrorise/abuse cyclists.

Any other suggestions?
thoughts?

Love your concept, but what driver is going to ditch their car for a bike and miss out on all that congestion free driving and ample parking? So they will continue to crawl along bumper to bumper, get irritated and take it out on anyone in earshot.

[ball bearing]

Easy.

Shots of Lycra clad rider in traffic. One car with an impatient driver overtakes her just missing her bars. Next shot shows her arriving at uni where she removes her helmet and shakes out her long flowing hair. She walks to class. She is a teenager.

Shot of man riding in inner city traffic. He takes the lane and is tailgated and honked by the usual suspects. Next shot he arrives at his upmarket offices and dons his very expensive suit and walks into the boardroom meeting.

And so on.

[Dreams V Reallity]

Sounds like a good idea. Perhaps.
Most car drivers think they should be the last one standing (driving). Its their right and privilege as Oz car owners.

[AUbicycles]

The Federal government has a very tiny role for bike riding... it is left to the states.

Advertising or ‘education’ is one part of the strategy to improve cycling... and state Governments, if pressured, would prefer a marketing campaign than infrastructure.

In fact, in NSW they conducted advertising, partly to inform if the new minimum safe passing distance and very prominently to advertise increase fines for bike riders not wearing helmets or having a bell (so scare campaign). Two issues were that firstly they spent a ridiculously small amount which was criticised by leading marketing firms because if is too little to be genuinely effective, the second was thr targeting as it appeared to target bike riders rather than drivers who would benefit by knowing the law.

I put in a formal request with the NSW government (minister) for information on their campaign which has bern ignored like the majority of my requests.

Importantly, education alone is part of the solution but cycling safety is compromised where there is no, or too little clever cycling infrastructure. Currently some councils are making progress, many are saying that they are active by simply putting up a few signs to get bike riders away from major travel routes and a lot are twiddling their thumbs under a load of bureaucracy and misguided pressure from the State Government to build misguided infrastructure for private motor vehicles.

Bikes are in fact just part of what should be a balanced transport solution, thiz would mean improving infrastructure and opportunities for pedestrians and public transport.



(Blame big fingers on a small smart phone)

[MichaelB]

....

Any other suggestions?
thoughts?

This saying comes to mind

"Never teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time and annoys the pig".

Defeatist attitude I know, but sometimes, reality rears it's ugly head.

[gorilla monsoon]

Cynical hat on: federal, state and local governments love motorised vehicles and here's why - feds make money from import tariffs, sales tax, fuel excise. States make money from registration, stamp duty. Councils make money from parking/parking fines, traffic infringements.
And lets not forget the tax made from everything - consumables and accessories - bought to fit on motorised vehicles.
Bicycles? pretty much nothing to be made from them except a tiny bit of tax on sales and consumables.
It all comes down to dollars so good luck winning that argument with a politician at any level.

[CXCommuter]

That isn't cynical hat that is reality hat

[Thoglette]

Another key messaging element (sorry for the marketingspeak) would be to aggressively pursue the moron motorists caught on video. And follow up their face-o-gram posting with details of their sentencing & job loss.

Despite being "revenue neutral" this will never happen.

[trailgumby]

Fuel excise needs to be indexed again. Hurt them in the hip pocket. Don;t tell them this, but it will help make electric much more attractive in the long term, which will have a massively positive impact on the trade deficit.

[Scott_C]

Simply treating cycling the same as the rest of Public Transport would vastly improve its profile. In WA Public transport costs are ~2/3rds subsidised so, in aggregate, my $4/day train fare incurs an $8/day Government contribution. This is $40/week and close to $2000/year.

The same Government spends ~$50/year/cyclist who rides at least once per week or <$1/ride on cycling infrastructure (of which the vast majority is spent on shared paths rather that cyclist specific infrastructure). If cycling was funded commensurate to the rest of Public Transport there would be more than sufficient funds to deal with the infrastructure bottlenecks that have long been identified as preventing increased cycling participation.

Once the infrastructure is in place then I can see the use in advertising the available routes so that people know they can get from X,Y & Z to the city without any bottlenecks/safety concerns.

[RobertL]

Cynical hat on: federal, state and local governments love motorised vehicles and here's why - feds make money from import tariffs, sales tax, fuel excise. States make money from registration, stamp duty. Councils make money from parking/parking fines, traffic infringements.
And lets not forget the tax made from everything - consumables and accessories - bought to fit on motorised vehicles.
Bicycles? pretty much nothing to be made from them except a tiny bit of tax on sales and consumables.
It all comes down to dollars so good luck winning that argument with a politician at any level.

I think that you have to counter this with Thoglette's argument above. Sure, governments make money through fuel excise etc, but they also spend lots of money on roadworks and the health budget. Keep bludgeoning them with the numbers that the costs outweigh the revenue and they may realise the benefit (to them) of more people cycling.

[tcdev]

Shots of Lycra clad rider in traffic. One car with an impatient driver overtakes her just missing her bars. Next shot shows her arriving at uni where she removes her helmet and shakes out her long flowing hair. She walks to class. She is a teenager.

Shot of man riding in inner city traffic. He takes the lane and is tailgated and honked by the usual suspects. Next shot he arrives at his upmarket offices and dons his very expensive suit and walks into the boardroom meeting.

I'd go one step further...

Shots of Lycra clad rider in traffic. One car with an impatient driver tries to overtake her, clipping her bars and sending her into the gutter. Next shot shows the driver arriving at the hospital to visit her daughter who is to undergo specialist surgery for a life-threatening condition. Another doctor walks in and informs them that her surgeon has broken her wrist in a cycling accident on the way to work and is unable to perform the operation.

Shot of man riding in inner city traffic. He takes the lane and is tailgated and honked by the usual suspects. Next shot he arrives at his upmarket offices and dons his very expensive suit. He's about to interview someone for a senior position... in walks the driver...

[human909]

Not bad ideas really. Though an expensive suit and office work only targets some of the population. Meanwhile it is off putting many whose work is more labour involved... A demographic which is probably more highly in need to targeted advertisements...

I'd got for a doctor or a dentist.

So that cyclists that you angrily beeped is actually your dentist that is drill your tooth today.

[AUbicycles]

If you want a powerful visual,

A family - dad mum and two kids riding the bike along a peaceful country lane and a driver behaving poorly revving engine, passing to close and shouting abuse. Kids start crying.

Maybe the family make it into the next town and all of the towns people are hurling verbal abuse and start throwing things. It is an analogy with racism.

That demonstrates what it feels like out on the street.

[g-boaf]

If you want a powerful visual,

A family - dad mum and two kids riding the bike along a peaceful country lane and a driver behaving poorly revving engine, passing to close and shouting abuse. Kids start crying.

Maybe the family make it into the next town and all of the towns people are hurling verbal abuse and start throwing things. It is an analogy with racism.

That demonstrates what it feels like out on the street.

So they will then behave around families but everyone else gets the same old crap treatment.

One day we even had an old Mercedes 230 driver in Horsley Park beeping at a couple of junior riders out on a training ride...

The lot in the car were retirees by the look of it, as soon as they overtook they turned off. There should only be one old Mercedes W123 around there in pristine condition...

[no_gears_no_tears]

I don't know that the goverment is capable of changing the public image of cyclists. I think that if we want to change the pubilcs perception of cyclists than the best thing we can do is just continue to be well-behaved cyclists. In Brisbane at the moment there has (apparently) been heaps of tension between drivers and cyclists, and I just spent 8 weeks riding all day every day (thanks to school holidays) and not once did I have a bad encounter with a car. In fact, the only negative experiance I had was with a pack of cyclists on a bicycle lane. Getting angry and shouting at drivers and punching in their mirrors is never acceptable, unless the driver has deliberately tried to caused serious harm. I once shouted at a car and swore at the driver after he didn't give way, and he then nearly reversed into me.

[AUbicycles]

I think that if we want to change the pubilcs perception of cyclists than the best thing we can do is just continue to be well-behaved cyclists.

I understand this but disagree. It is similar to the highly criticised Bicycle Queensland White Helmet idea. A driver who doesn't want me on the road doesn't really care whether or not I am following the rules. Of course I follow all rules but not because this will change the behaviour and attitude of bad drivers.

Some bike riders go through red lights... but if every single bike rider correctly obeyed the traffic lights, would this change the attitude of drivers who detest bike riders.... no, they just find the next excuse such as the extremely flawed 'don't pay rego'.

Some of your comments are 'cause and effect' and I feel are not right:

Getting angry and shouting at drivers and punching in their mirrors is never acceptable, unless the driver has deliberately tried to caused serious harm

Even if a driver attempts to harm you - legally it is still not ok or right to hit their side mirror even though that may be the natural reaction. Unfortunately the only 'proper' reaction as a rider is to try and report it to the police. However it will generally be ignored unless you can back it with video along with supporting evidence and have enough patience and persistence to purse to get a result.


Managing your reaction as a bike rider when a car come dangerously close or even maliciously attempts to hurt or kill you by swerving is very difficult... but I generally manage my reaction fairly well - I also judge myself as a very considerate rider and ride to avoid confrontation or and when possible, avoid situations and scenarios which put me at greater risk.

However, the best thing we can do is to continue to pressure the governments though I have found the NSW State Government to be atrocious - they are not operating transparently and are certainly not operating in the interests of residents. The most effective approach, even as an individual, is to work positively with your local council. It is a slow approach but over the course of years it is possible to help support change and improvement locally. Otherwise membership in an advocacy organisation is a low energy approach as it supports a more powerful group. Ddirect support for their advocacy activities also contributes.

[AUbicycles]

So they will then behave around families but everyone else gets the same old crap treatment.

It's a start.. we certainly have the different groups and for a road user they would see 1) everyday people 2) commuters 3) lycra riders.


So here is an idea just for you g-boaf

Monday, Paul goes to the grocer and gets served by John. Friendly and kind interaction.
Tuesday the same scenario,
Again on Wednesday
Again on Thurday
Again on Friday.
And again on Saturday
On Sunday, Paul is in the car and sees John riding his bike and unprovoked abuses the crap out of him, swerves and drives dangerously, nearly hitting him
On Monday, Paul goes to the grocer, gets served by John, Friendly and kind interaction



Cheers
Christopher

[tcdev]

A driver who doesn't want me on the road doesn't really care whether or not I am following the rules. Of course I follow all rules but not because this will change the behaviour and attitude of bad drivers.

Some bike riders go through red lights... but if every single bike rider correctly obeyed the traffic lights, would this change the attitude of drivers who detest bike riders.... no, they just find the next excuse such as the extremely flawed 'don't pay rego'.

I tend to agree - for the most part. You may change the attitude of a very small minority who are genuinely peeved (only) by cyclists flouting the road rules, but they're generally not the most dangerous. It's the P-plater ute-driving tradie (to unashamedly stereotype) who finds anyone slowing them down for even a second offensive, doubly so if they happen to be in lycra.

And while we're at it, to think that cyclists paying rego would change anything at all is simply fantasy... despite the fact that I'm struggling to think of what they could hate on if we all paid rego, rode single file, and obeyed the road rules. I'm sure they'd find something... maybe we'd be forced to stop wearing lycra and stop drinking latte too...

[BJL]

And while we're at it, to think that cyclists paying rego would change anything at all is simply fantasy... despite the fact that I'm struggling to think of what they could hate on if we all paid rego, rode single file, and obeyed the road rules. I'm sure they'd find something... maybe we'd be forced to stop wearing lycra and stop drinking latte too...

As soon as cyclists have to pay rego, motorists will all of a sudden decide that rego doesn't pay for the roads after all, and that roads are completely funded by fuel excise.

There's no reasoning with many motorists because they're self centered, opinionated hypocrites. I know of at least one who'll call out other motorists on the roads for using mobile phones when driving (He'll see someone on the phone and he'll be muttering 'get off the phone you stupid bitch and look where you're driving' sort of thing but too gutless to actually say it loud enough for the offender to hear), but when he is driving and HIS phone rings, you'd never guess what happens next. And the time I called him out on this, he got angry at me and starts making all sorts of excuses.

He's one of 'those'. Never wrong, always right. There's plenty of them out there on the roads. Many of them write into newspapers complaining about cyclists breaking the law but conveniently omit who else breaks the law on the roads.

Thankfully, I have nothing to do with this !! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !! anymore and I have no time for anyone else like this either.

[AdelaidePeter]

I think that if we want to change the pubilcs perception of cyclists than the best thing we can do is just continue to be well-behaved cyclists.

I understand this but disagree. It is similar to the highly criticised Bicycle Queensland White Helmet idea. A driver who doesn't want me on the road doesn't really care whether or not I am following the rules. Of course I follow all rules but not because this will change the behaviour and attitude of bad drivers.

Some bike riders go through red lights... but if every single bike rider correctly obeyed the traffic lights, would this change the attitude of drivers who detest bike riders.... no, they just find the next excuse such as the extremely flawed 'don't pay rego'.

I mostly disagree (and mostly agree with no_gears_no_tears). I haven't seen a scientific survey (though I'd love to see one), but for me the anti-cyclist sentiment is for two primary reasons:
1. cyclists are perceived to flout the road rules
2. cyclists (in some cases) slow traffic down.

If there was a culture to keep the road rules, the reasons to not like cyclists would be cut by 50%, which is a good start. Especially because, for many cyclists (e.g. probably most commuters), reason (2) doesn't really apply.

Which brings me to what I'd do: an education campaign. Focusing on (1) why cycling is good for society in general (less traffic actually makes commuting and parking easier; less pollution); (2) where rego money goes and why bike rego would be counter productive; and (3) some basic cycling-related road rules (passing distances, where 2 abreast is and isn't legal, filtering, etc). I can't see the government forking out for many TV ads, but I think it could be done via social media. (EDIT: And getting back to the point at the start of my post, such a campaign would obviously be helped if more cyclists kept to road rules).