Australian Cycling Advocacy Groups - Friends Again

[warthog1]

Divide and conquer is a tried and true strategy.
Works all too well on cyclists also.
We divide ourselves without any external input.

Funny aye? All posters are dismissive of this developement (Sorry head honcho, I suppose the least we could do is offer constructive criticism as you asked) with only one who has a specific issue. Helmets. Again. I guess the rest of us are just naturally suspicious/dismissive of any new players that want to feed from the same trough?

I am not necessarily dismissive of new players but I am pessimistic about the likelihood of attitude change in society at large given a Rupert Murdoch, Sky news, 2GB influenced popular culture.
The negative reinforcement and stereotyping is significant.
I think Human is correct that it can only be overcome by making cycling more popular.
It is happening in inner-city areas due to space and population pressure. I don't see it happening in suburban or rural Australia in my lifetime I guess.

[opik_bidin]

I'm just thinking it is a good push, and I see many cycling advocates are changing. There seems to be genuine interest to put cyling as an interest to everyone, not to the racing community, and this means, cyling infra and rules that benefit most of the citizens.

Its a right time, now you see many people talking about public and active transport, many who are talking about climate change, about housing, and Cycling slips right in to that. Not racing cycling obviously, but as a daily activity of life, combating climate change, congestion and housing( who needs a parking lot if they commute by public transport and bicycles, lets make it a commercial or residential area instead)

And cycling advocates really need to get inboard as cycling ticks many things that other people need, but may not know

[Thoglette]

I'm just thinking it is a good push, and I see many cycling advocates are changing. There seems to be genuine interest to put cyling as an interest to everyone, not to the racing community, and this means, cyling infra and rules that benefit most of the citizens.

Certainly my concern with many of the remaining groups on The List is that they are fundamentally sporting (or cyclosportif) groups who, as wielrenners, have different needs to utility transportation cyclists (fietsers) aka "just someone on a bike”.

who needs a parking lot if they commute by public transport and bicycles, lets make it a commercial or residential area instead)

Yup. Who needs parking space?

(near Delft trainstation DreamsTime stock photo)

[g-boaf]

I don't see it happening in suburban or rural Australia in my lifetime I guess.

I do see it happening in suburban areas - and it is indeed happening in my area. My area does have some cycleways and people are using them.

The cycleways make it convenient, but some of them are getting into a bit of a state of disrepair so I use the roads as well, that works fine too.

Out here, the difference is that everyone is more friendly towards everyone else.

Some of the businesses around here are also getting onboard too - good facilities in their workplaces for people who ride a bike to work. Mine is excellent, we have proper lock up facilities, excellent lockers, decent sized showers, even ironing board and irons and towels provided. It is a very good. We have a good portion of our workers who ride now.

[AUbicycles]

Alex, I updated the list and added CWANZ but to be honest, havn't heard much from them yet apart from the MD (or CEO) nomination.

I still discount Cycling Australia and state bodies as advocates as they even define themself as the governing body in cycle sports competition. There attempts to generate a broader audience beyond sport is still essentially financially motivated with income used towards fostering cycle sport competition. Their role is best as a supporter of dedicated cycling advocacy groups - it creates greater strength and means that one person or group is coverage a specific issue rather than two independent groups.


I am slightly influenced following the MP Duncan Gay rule changes in NSW - Both the AGF and Cycling NSW publicly endorsed the changes which were the Minimum Passing Distance (good) but also an increase in penalties for minor cycling offences. The advocacy organisations (Bicycle NSW and Bicycle Network) publicly criticised the fees and queried the unanswered topic of enforcing the law (though the passing distance is in essence required). You already know the repercussions have been with Operation Pedro and continuing criticism on lack of enforcement of the Minimum passing distance.

And cycling advocates really need to get inboard as cycling ticks many things that other people need, but may not know

One of the issues of having a broad message or being everything to everyone can weaken the message. This is a constant challenge for any organisation and even business. For example when the Australian Cyclists Party was operation, there was also the Australian Greens who 'technically' were also cycling positive but in reality the Green Party coverage is so broad that transport and cycle transport was a relatively small part of it.

Regarding sports cycling and everyday / functional cycling - these can appear to be two worlds. The rate of sports cycling in Australia is higher compared with many other nations where everyday/functional cycling has higher participation rates. This influences the perception of cycling in Australia and has made cycling advocacy much tougher as it is a standard scenario that the parents, grand parents, children, grand children, collegues and friends all ride a bike to get around.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Cycling NSW also participated in the discussions with the NSW government and endorsed the Duncan Gay changes. They were directly involved and were a party to the outcome. That makes them an advocacy group by your own definition.

Cycling Australia have a commission dedicated to Cycling Advocacy. They only have 5 commissions, the others being Sports, Womens, Coaching and Technical.

Cycling Australia’s Advocacy Commission recognises its ability to have an influential role in CA’s aspirations to be the unifying voice for cyclists, and its members comprise a fantastic representation of experience and expertise on cycling matters.

Whether or not an organisation is effective isn't the point. CA is a national cycling body that states its aspirations to be the unifying voice for cyclists. Like it or not, these sports organisations are also playing in this space.

[Calvin27]

I take a very capitalist view on this.There needs to be serious money if we are to arrive at a cycling advocacy group to rule them all. Look at any influential industry association and this will hold true. Just saying you are going to bring everyone together doesn't make it true.

What is needed to have one peak body to rule them all is either:
1. All the bodies contribute to the peak body (unlikely)
2. A new body with more money than it knows what to do with.

Option 2 is more likely but the question is where will this come from? look around at the cycling advocacy bodies and you will see funding sources are considerably varied. we have the old BV (Bicycle network) who has questionable funding sources and a big ride in spring. So what could be viable funding sources for a peak association with some balls and grit that doesn't sell out?
- Manufacturers - unlikely given they are overseas based
- Retailers - possible, but they are not exactly flush with cash
- Insurance groups - possibly, it would be in their interests to reduce claims also

[fat and old]

Option 3. A recognition of basic facts and realities coupled with action by those on the ground who are prepared for the long game.

[AUbicycles]

Alex, I accept your arguments on this and have made an amendment putting Cycling Australia in the top list. It is true they are a go-to group when politicians and organisations look to cycling and on paper are attempting to have an advocacy role (which I encourage... but also question). As the state bodies all are part of CA, I would have to be convinced that they are operating actively and independents... until then bundle them as one.

On the effectiveness of an organisation - this is spot on and their role served the interests of the politicians but was counter-productive for cycling advocacy.


--

I would like to see a national body, We Ride Australia won't fill this role (they are a facilitator but operate on a different level). We would also need to see a massive change in approach where the state based organisation move toward cooperation and then create a union/peak body.... but not with the unsavoury approaches we have seen in the past.

Step 1 - State bodies agree to communicate and consolidate key messaging
Step 2 - State bodies - share resources / increase efficiency (reduce duplicate activity)
Step 3 - State bodies form a new national body (on top)
Step 4 - Responsibilities shift and national, state and local strategies are aligned and spread to appropriate state bodies.

And the best thing, the names of the state bodies remain the same - they don't need to be changes or have new logos... Each state manages their members (members are automatically part of the national org).

[Thoglette]

I would like to see a national body, We Ride Australia won't fill this role (they are a facilitator but operate on a different level). We would also need to see a massive change in approach where the state based organisation move toward cooperation and then create a union/peak body.... but not with the unsavoury approaches we have seen in the past.

Step 1 - State bodies agree to communicate and consolidate key messaging
Step 2 - State bodies - share resources / increase efficiency (reduce duplicate activity)
Step 3 - State bodies form a new national body (on top)
Step 4 - Responsibilities shift and national, state and local strategies are aligned and spread to appropriate state bodies.

I believe that a the key issue is that these bodies need to represent (casual) transport users and not sporting concerns. Who, (for once), it is fair to say are the silent (and currently MIA) majority of potential bicycle users.

I say "for once" based on the extremely low numbers of cycling trips actually carried out compared to those that potentially could.

Achieving even 10% of that potential is going to require much more than just fixing driver & police attitudes or bicycle infrastructure on existing roads. It requires a major shift in both transportation policy (& expenditure) and in the way we design (& roll out) our cities.

In that sense these bodies need to encompass all transport modes which provide alternatives to private (or privatised) MV transport.

Unfortunately the bicycle industry, as it stands, appears either blind or disinterested in this vision. The e-bike makers and suppliers (hello Bosch) on the other hand might be interested in funding this as they need to create a market. (Mechanical doping being a rather limited market)

[human909]

I believe that a the key issue is that these bodies need to represent (casual) transport users and not sporting concerns. Who, (for once), it is fair to say are the silent (and currently MIA) majority of potential bicycle users.

Agreed. It seems only a couple of groups focus on this. Most focus on sporting cyclists which will only ever be a small minority.

Even on this forum I've been vilified for simply suggesting a focus less cyclists wearing Lycra and more on everyday cyclists as a key to encouraging cycling.

(Along with plenty Australia is different comments, too hot etc... )

[AUbicycles]

I feel the state bodies are all broadly focussed and it is just a matter of fact that sports cycling is more visible and there is a long way to go in Australia for everyday cycling. There are usually sportives but also tours and participation rides whilr on the advocacy front it is very much about the needs of the functional rider... irrespective of lycra.

Infrastructure still needs to be suitable for the user groups... so slow traffic shared paths for a MTBer ir Roady doesn’t make sense... but generally, this is not where the problem lies and lycra cyclists can be particularly supportive of general cycling progress if they are not cut-out.

There is a perception of cycling that does need to change... and for the comms cycling needs to be about inclusion and not a single group or type of rider. The organisations are, I feel, well on top of this but it takes time.

[human909]

I feel the state bodies are all broadly focussed and it is just a matter of fact that sports cycling is more visible and there is a long way to go in Australia for everyday cycling.

I disagree with both those statements. A quick survey of the front pages of your list of state based bodies shows a great emphasis on sporting cycling. Most of those are primarily about cycling as a competitive sport rather than advocacy.

Cycling ACT - State Cycle Sport Body
Cycling Northern Territory - State Cycle Sport Body
Cycling New South Wales - State Cycle Sport Body
Cycling Queensland - State Cycle Sport Bod
Cycling South Australia - State Cycle Sport Body
Cycling Tasmania - Now Bicycle Network
Cycling Victoria - State Cycle Sport Body
Cycling Western Australia - State Cycle Sport Body

Take a look at the front page of those websites and look at the images.

it is very much about the needs of the functional rider... irrespective of lycra....

There is a perception of cycling that does need to change... and for the comms cycling needs to be about inclusion and not a single group or type of rider. The organisations are, I feel, well on top of this but it takes time.

Inclusion? Yes making the roads safe for ALL cyclists no matter what their approach and clothing is important. But the majority of people getting from A to B don't want to look like a competitive athlete. I don't see motoring marketing pitching their messages towards racing car drivers in flame suits and helmets.

It is simple marketing. If you want to advocate and promote change appeal to the 99% not the 1%.
Even in The Netherlands there is an element of dislike from some towards road cyclists. Wherever you go and almost on whatever topic there is always going to be some people out there disliking an enthusiast minority.

[mikesbytes]

We are going to have a stronger voice is it isn't as fragmented, so if there has been a true improvement in unity then is a good thing.

The discussion about 9,000 signatures vs the 115,000 signatures on change.org emphases that even if we do achieve a unified front then we are simply not big enough to be noticed by ourselves. I feel that a minority group (in this case cyclists) needs to gather the support of the majority group (aka the motorists). We campaign for just about anything cycling related and that needs to continue but we could also add to that the benefits of cycling to motorists, for example;

• more cyclists reduces traffic congestion as the cyclists can utilise space that is not usable to motor vehicles in most situations. Hence car travel can be quicker and less stressful.
• There will be reduction in wear and tear in the road network meaning that a portion of maintenance funding can be redirected into road improvements, once again making the motoring more quicker and more pleasant
• Less fuel consumption will result in less pollution and therefor less need for punitive taxes to discourage use
• More parking spots will be available at your destination as those that cycled will largely park in locations not available for motor vehicles

I'm sure that others could build a much better list

[AUbicycles]

I disagree with both those statements. A quick survey of the front pages of your list of state based bodies shows a great emphasis on sporting cycling. Most of those are primarily about cycling as a competitive sport rather than advocacy.

You have interpreted my comments out of context. My comment is in context of this thread and bodies actively engaged in cycling advocacy.

My list has a strike through of all of the state sport bodies. This list was started by Alex and I put in my amendments to make it current and also reflect the status quo in the context of cycling advocacy.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I don't see motoring marketing pitching their messages towards racing car drivers in flame suits and helmets.

That's because such advertising isn't permitted. There are strict guidelines preventing advertising from invoking any imagery implying speeding, high performance activity that is unsafe or would breach the law.

Without such limits you can be guaranteed we'd see such advertising.

https://adstandards.com.au/products-iss ... dvertising

Provisions of the Code
These sections cover advertising and marketing communications for motor vehicles:

- Unsafe driving, including reckless and menacing driving that would breach any Commonwealth law or the law of any State or Territory.
- People driving at speeds in excess of legal speed limits.
- Driving practices or other actions which would, if they were to take place on a road or road-related area, breach any Commonwealth law or the law of any State or Territory.
- People driving while being apparently fatigued, or under the influence of drugs or alcohol to the extent that such driving practices breach any Commonwealth law or the law of any State or Territory.
- Deliberate and significant environmental damage, particularly in advertising for off-road vehicles.
- Use of motor sport in advertising:
* Such scenes should be clearly identifiable as part of an organised motor sport activity, or testing or proving activity, of a type for which a permit would normally be available in Australia.
* Racing or competing vehicles depicted in motor sport scenes should be in clearly identifiable racing livery.
- An advertisement may legitimately depict the capabilities and performance of an off-road vehicle travelling over loose or unsealed surfaces, or uneven terrain, not forming part of a road or road related area. Such advertisements should not portray unsafe driving and vehicles must not travel at a speed which would contravene the law.

[find_bruce]

I don't see motoring marketing pitching their messages towards racing car drivers in flame suits and helmets.

You are way off base here human- “win on Sunday sell on Monday” has long been an adage of the car industry- countless racing drivers established car saleyards, tyre retailer, a car parts store put their name to a formula 1 engine.

The backlash started in the early 70s with the phase iii falcon & since then there have been increasing restrictions on the way it has been portrayed in advertising leading to the current standards Alex sets out.

It is part of the aspirational aspect of car advertising - large 4wds are portrayed as freedom machines to get away from it all, rather than being used as a shopping trolley, stuck in traffic & taking the kids to sport

[fat and old]

We are going to have a stronger voice is it isn't as fragmented, so if there has been a true improvement in unity then is a good thing.

The discussion about 9,000 signatures vs the 115,000 signatures on change.org emphases that even if we do achieve a unified front then we are simply not big enough to be noticed by ourselves. I feel that a minority group (in this case cyclists) needs to gather the support of the majority group (aka the motorists). We campaign for just about anything cycling related and that needs to continue but we could also add to that the benefits of cycling to motorists, for example;

• more cyclists reduces traffic congestion as the cyclists can utilise space that is not usable to motor vehicles in most situations. Hence car travel can be quicker and less stressful.
• There will be reduction in wear and tear in the road network meaning that a portion of maintenance funding can be redirected into road improvements, once again making the motoring more quicker and more pleasant
• Less fuel consumption will result in less pollution and therefor less need for punitive taxes to discourage use
• More parking spots will be available at your destination as those that cycled will largely park in locations not available for motor vehicles

I'm sure that others could build a much better list

I really believe that these arguments are a waste of time when dealing with the public in general. They just don’t care. Really, everything around us demonstrates this yet it is ignored over and over again whenever this type of discussion occurs. More parking? Less wear and tear? Less pollution? If these issues were a priority for the 99% who don’t cycle they’d have done something already. They haven’t because they don’t care. Further, if a stupid greenie cyclist or one of those wannabe Lance Armstrong types is in the way they just force them aside with impunity. Go on, dispute this.

Then you have the cyclists who ridicule motorists who whine about traffic for not riding to work or the shops. THEY DONT WANT TO. Wake up and smell reality....you can’t force people to like something that they don’t.

Deal with reality. Reality isn’t arguing about what constitutes an advocacy group. Reality isn’t 200 people getting together at a conference discussing the benefits of cycling or how to build a better cycling network. These things are speaking to the converted; living the good life at our expense by reinforcing our self beliefs while doing nothing to make things safer. I don’t want a better roundabout... I want that idiot that killed Mike Hall charged with negligent homicide. I don’t want a 30kmh limit on side streets..,,.i want texting drivers fined heavily with major point loss. I don’t want to see Prince whoever TF he is riding around on a step through with no helmet and a stupid ass grin on his face....I want to see 1,000 cyclists ride through Citilinks tunnels.

Edited to agree with Thoglette on the e-bikes. Massive potential in those as a wedge to break the current situation, imo.

[mikesbytes]

We are going to have a stronger voice is it isn't as fragmented, so if there has been a true improvement in unity then is a good thing.

The discussion about 9,000 signatures vs the 115,000 signatures on change.org emphases that even if we do achieve a unified front then we are simply not big enough to be noticed by ourselves. I feel that a minority group (in this case cyclists) needs to gather the support of the majority group (aka the motorists). We campaign for just about anything cycling related and that needs to continue but we could also add to that the benefits of cycling to motorists, for example;

• more cyclists reduces traffic congestion as the cyclists can utilise space that is not usable to motor vehicles in most situations. Hence car travel can be quicker and less stressful.
• There will be reduction in wear and tear in the road network meaning that a portion of maintenance funding can be redirected into road improvements, once again making the motoring more quicker and more pleasant
• Less fuel consumption will result in less pollution and therefor less need for punitive taxes to discourage use
• More parking spots will be available at your destination as those that cycled will largely park in locations not available for motor vehicles

I'm sure that others could build a much better list

I really believe that these arguments are a waste of time when dealing with the public in general. They just don’t care. Really, everything around us demonstrates this yet it is ignored over and over again whenever this type of discussion occurs. More parking? Less wear and tear? Less pollution? If these issues were a priority for the 99% who don’t cycle they’d have done something already. They haven’t because they don’t care. Further, if a stupid greenie cyclist or one of those wannabe Lance Armstrong types is in the way they just force them aside with impunity. Go on, dispute this.

Then you have the cyclists who ridicule motorists who whine about traffic for not riding to work or the shops. THEY DONT WANT TO. Wake up and smell reality....you can’t force people to like something that they don’t.

Deal with reality. Reality isn’t arguing about what constitutes an advocacy group. Reality isn’t 200 people getting together at a conference discussing the benefits of cycling or how to build a better cycling network. These things are speaking to the converted; living the good life at our expense by reinforcing our self beliefs while doing nothing to make things safer. I don’t want a better roundabout... I want that idiot that killed Mike Hall charged with negligent homicide. I don’t want a 30kmh limit on side streets..,,.i want texting drivers fined heavily with major point loss. I don’t want to see Prince whoever TF he is riding around on a step through with no helmet and a stupid ass grin on his face....I want to see 1,000 cyclists ride through Citilinks tunnels.

Edited to agree with Thoglette on the e-bikes. Massive potential in those as a wedge to break the current situation, imo.

What do you think can be done to improve the situation?

[g-boaf]

I don't see motoring marketing pitching their messages towards racing car drivers in flame suits and helmets.

Aren't you forgetting blue and gold Subaru imprezas and those red white and black Lancer Evos with TME and Ralliart all over them?

[opik_bidin]

We are going to have a stronger voice is it isn't as fragmented, so if there has been a true improvement in unity then is a good thing.

The discussion about 9,000 signatures vs the 115,000 signatures on change.org emphases that even if we do achieve a unified front then we are simply not big enough to be noticed by ourselves. I feel that a minority group (in this case cyclists) needs to gather the support of the majority group (aka the motorists). We campaign for just about anything cycling related and that needs to continue but we could also add to that the benefits of cycling to motorists, for example;

• more cyclists reduces traffic congestion as the cyclists can utilise space that is not usable to motor vehicles in most situations. Hence car travel can be quicker and less stressful.
• There will be reduction in wear and tear in the road network meaning that a portion of maintenance funding can be redirected into road improvements, once again making the motoring more quicker and more pleasant
• Less fuel consumption will result in less pollution and therefor less need for punitive taxes to discourage use
• More parking spots will be available at your destination as those that cycled will largely park in locations not available for motor vehicles

I'm sure that others could build a much better list

1. Cycling as a normal thing, make it the same as walking to the shop, dress normally, no helmets, slow speed and strolling
2. Cyclists should befriend with pedestrians, public transport, developers, environmentalists, and health practicioners
3. Do you wanna have good cycling infrastructure or do you want your house to be further away from schools, workplace, hospital, shops and other amenities?
3. Do you wanna have good cycling infrastructure or do you want your house to be bulldozed for another freeway?
4. Do you wanna have good cycling infrastructure or do you want your house to be next to high noise and polluting freeway?
5. Do you wanna have good cycling infrastructure or do you want tunnels going under your houses and live besides pollution stacks?

6. Do you wanna have good cycling infrastructure or congested roads?
7. Do you wanna have good cycling infrastructure or dying small businesses and dying small towns?
8. Do you wanna have good cycling infrastructure or pay billions in obesity treatment?
9. Do you wanna have good cycling infrastructure or just sit in traffic?
10. Do you wanna have good cycling infrastructure so your kids can be independent and roam freely and safely or you want to be a helicopter parent that always have to chauffeur your kids to school and sport activity?

11. Do you wanna have good cycling infrastructure or you wanna spend your precious time and money in the gym?
12. Do you wanna have good cycling infrastructure or deficit in the budget as you continue to make new roads and lanes that don't solve congestion?
13. Do you wanna have good cycling infrastructure or destroy the environment?
14. Do you wanna have good cycling infrastructure or have bottlenecks and carmageddon in that new 12 floor apartment complex?
15. Do you wanna have good cycling infrastructure or have free parking in those high rise apartments that makes the price more expensive and wasting your precious space?

good cycling infrastructure can be added by :
1. good walking infrastructure
2. Good public transport

[fat and old]

What do you think can be done to improve the situation?

Apart from whine about the whiners?

I’m really not sure if there’s any way some of these can be done, but if so:

Legal representation at cases such as Mike Halls ( anyone who’s been run down and killed). Serious questioning of the evidence. Can this be done.

Again, at that inquest: I read that Cycle went along in some sort of support capacity. I note that this inquest was widely covered by national and international media. Where were the protesters? Where were the placards and banners? A photo opp gone begging. Any other inquest, the same. Banners. Noise.

Protest rides. Seen many, been to a few. The over riding consideration? Don’t be confrontational. Don’t be inconsiderate. Yeah, right. !! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !! that. The Alberto ride should have been down Royal Pde, up Collins and block Spring St. Banners. Placards. Noise. There’s a news article about a possible street/road closure to bikes, for safety? Daily protest rides. Banners. Noise. Jesus H Christ, where’s the effort these days? Coming from a left/ union background I just don’t get it.

What happens when we are vilified and targeted in the media? 20 or so people whine on a forum. 20 or so whine on Facebook while thumping their chest. Cycling Tips publishes an “expose” that gives them publicity. How about next time one of these moron radio jerks carries on one of the advocacy groups initiated legal action? No threats, just straight action. Surely an intelligent mouthpiece can identify a law that’s being broken? Or at least tries? I’m being vilified here. People are being encouraged to do me harm.

On passing laws. So the police won’t listen. So we have to write letters to the supervisor, the chief, the minister etc. Pffft. How about those letters are done by legal representation? Can’t an advocacy group organise that?

Can’t all of this be done with the media....mainstream media; not cycling media; being involved? Are none of these groups capable of putting the information together and presenting it? Oh yeah, and name names!!!! Hold people responsible for their actions. Mr X? !! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !! that you pussies. “A bike shop over there...” Pffft.

Next time someone is killed, can the person responsible be sued civil style? Does this happen already? Do the advocacy groups supply advice on this?

When there are forums and conferences on cycling, where are the protesters? Why isn’t the opportunity to gain media exposure not taken?

When Tony Abbott and friends are riding about on their pollie ride thing, where are the protesters? Where are the signs, the banners, the pictures of dead cyclists? What’s stopping our advocates being confrontational?

If I was a 12 yo Indigenous child I could get MHL’s repealed. If I followed the correct religion I could get an exemption and not wear a helmet. I’m neither, and have no influential backers to champion my plight. So disruption is my only option. You know, there was a story in the news tonight: food delivery cyclists using citilink (again) That was the headline. After a few minutes of talk and cctv of these idiots....8 of them last month.....the talking head notes that there’s also an average of 11!!!! pedestrians per week doing the same. And that while cycling deaths are up 80% this year whilst ped and car deaths stay at +/- 5% yearly.....with the obvious inference that it’s our own fault! And some advocacy dick interviewed carries on about sham contracts!!!! Ok, so the media twists the truth. So where’s the protests? The noise outside their office? The pointing out of the truth?

And there’s a public gallery in all parliamentary upper and lower houses. Google what the Dutch did in those places in the 70’s....hint: they didn’t have a camp fire and sing folk songs while holding candles.

Edit: look at the post above for a comprehensive list of crap people don’t care about. No offence to the poster, but cycling ain’t gonna save country towns, and people would rather pay more for an apartment with parking than cycle. Deal with it and make plans based on reality, not some utopian ideal.

We’re on our own here, best understand that and act accordingly. It will be a long time (if ever) before people give up their cars.

[AUbicycles]

Were you protesting fat and old?

Action / progress is usually slow and the ongoing voice and pressure is important... even though the result are half-hearted. Cycling topics may not rate with the general public, some are happy moaning but would never do anything substantial for or against it... the nature of the beast.

[fat and old]

Were you protesting fat and old?

Action / progress is usually slow and the ongoing voice and pressure is important... even though the result are half-hearted. Cycling topics may not rate with the general public, some are happy moaning but would never do anything substantial for or against it... the nature of the beast.

Tempting as it is to take offence, getting older has made me more tolerant of cheap shots...……………


…….section outlining my CV in protest and chest thumping deleted ....

………..the reality is that protest...real protest; boots on the ground.....is the domain of the young and the old. Either those with stars in their eyes, or miles under their belt. Everyone else is to busy living their life and is concerned with tomorrow. Next week, next year is to far away to think about.


No, I did not protest beyond joining in a few rides in support of any cycling issues. Of course, that's not what the subject is, nor what I was calling for, is it? The subject is advocacy groups; my issue is the apparent inability of said advocacy groups to motivate and gather people such as myself into a cohesive block that wants change and who will take action in a noticeable, public manner. In particular, I do not understand why there is not more legal initiative. This may well not be possible; I don't know hence the question.


You seem to be suggesting individuals are responsible for the current state of affairs. While there is some truth inhis, you must realise that individuals are just that, and without leadership or vision; a clear understanding of the outcomes they want and what it will take to gain them just isn't there. Who has time to organise and publicise this? Who has the contacts and knowledge to ensure that this reaches to people who can make a difference? Are you suggesting that individuals such as myself should be doing this? Or are you suggesting that as I am not, I have no right to expect more from any advocacy group nor the right to criticise?


Society in general and those who dream of change in particular are blinded by social media and technology, They believe that this is the answer to our prayers: we'll get the message out there and people will pay attention. Things will change, because I have 1,000 likes. I can get 9,000 signatures. They point to events such as the Arab Spring as evidence. Great, so long as you actually get the people on the street. 9,000 cyclists signed a petition. So what? How many non-cyclists signed? What is being done with those 9,000 people? Are they being organised? Asked to participate beyond a simple feel good click? If not, why not?

Old George showed it was possible to motivate cyclists on The Boulevard. They went further in a short sighted attempt to assert dominance over the road by disguising it as a hooning issue which backfired, but they tried (and achieved to be honest. Just not the outcome they hoped for. Typical short sighted single issue failing). Imagine if those same couple hundred cyclists were organised in a mass ride around the CBD? It doesn't take much to cause gridlock, and people take notice then!

There was a major cycling conference held earlier this year (iirc) in Queensland, attended by all sorts of O/S and national delegates. What did it achieve that will impact positively on my safety? This is a serious question, as

1. There was no real media coverage
2. I therefore have no idea.

Earlier in this post, there was a list (eventually) agreed on of the various advocacy groups. What has any one of the national groups done in recent times that impacts positively on my safety?

It's not about me. It's about them. Give me someone to follow.

[fat and old]

Were you protesting fat and old?

Actually, I'll tell you what. I'll find out where Abbott is having his next pollie ride next year (I think it's usually in autumn?). I'll be there, with requisite banners, noise and attention seeking methods, every day.

If you come with me.