What’s more frustrating than a #bikelash story in the media?

Screenshot via @NZHerald

I’ll keep this short – lob the grenade and dash for cover. It gives me no pleasure in doing so. Scout’s honour!

For me, the most frustrating thing about seeing #bikelash stories in the media these days is not the story itself but – the predictable response by cyclists.

To be so reactive. I appreciate that the vacuum is huge. But to ignore this reality, to do nothing about it, to leave things to chance, to assume that common sense will prevail is just – so frustrating. Maybe the problem is the lack of awareness of the vacuum’s existence, the assumption that cycling will sell itself. Quaint thought.

But please stop blaming the messenger.

I highly recommend that you add someone to your team who thinks differently, who will call you out when your ideas suck, or lack rational substance. Find someone who has an expertise in the science of human psychology. Because what appears on the surface as a cycling issue is in fact, a behaviour change issue.

See you when the smoke and rubble has cleared? I’ll be waving a white flag.

PS: It is possible to have opinion pieces published that are not clickbait.

‘Cycling’ is sport and recreation. ‘Riding a bicycle’ is everyday activity. No sweat. As easy as walking, but faster.

Get involved via: Twitter, Facebook, Flickr.

How to stop the killing on our roads

It feels wrong to be reflecting on road safety as a consequence of reading stories in the media about people being killed. To the families of these recent victims, please excuse my lack of sensitivity.

________________________________________

A young man on a bicycle is killed by a motorist in Auckland. The motorist drives off. A ‘hit and run’.

A young woman is run over by a truck in Melbourne. The driver fails to stop. A ‘hit and run’.

And what about the two people killed by a bus in Auckland. An eyewitness says he “heard a long honk before the moment of impact”. Does that not suggest the driver had time to stop?

Roads are designed for motor vehicles. For maximum speed and volume. These young people were victims of poor road design. Tragedies like this would be avoided if roads were designed appropriately and with the needs of soft human beings as a priority. Infrastructure is the answer. It’s simple. Build it and we will all be safe.

But sadly, the questions that will lead to that answer (beyond a handful of informed experts and advocates) are not actually even being asked yet. The uncomfortable truth is this: the ‘why’ has to come before the ‘how’. First and foremost, there needs to be an engagement in conversations and actions that will develop a universal intolerance for the killing and maiming that is currently taking place on our roads. Without a consensus that we need to stop the killing and to value life, progress towards improving the built environment will be slow and piecemeal. The ends will determine the means. Not the other way around.

The reality is that we are dealing with a human problem of the most pernicious kind. Any discussion about the role of infrastructure at this point is futile. Examples abound in the media. For example, the police and the coroner reinforce the status quo every time they issue a statement cautioning cyclists to make themselves visible. Biases run deep and they are extremely difficult to counter. It’s not the Dutch bike infrastructure that amazes me the most. It’s how they managed to build a social contract that made it possible to build that infrastructure. Bottle that!

Infrastructure is tangible. A social contract is not. But it is the social contract that will be the foundation on which the infrastructure will be built. Building a social contract requires different skills. It can be done though. That’s the part of the Dutch cycling revolution that has been overlooked. A social contract comes from the grassroots and is built up. Invest in that, I say. Now is good.

‘Cycling’ is sport and recreation. ‘Riding a bicycle’ is everyday activity. No sweat. As easy as walking, but faster.

Get involved via: Twitter, Facebook, Flickr.

For advocacy to be effective, it needs to be ‘evidence based’.

 

Choose your imagery wisely. Research shows it does matter.

Apologies. It’s been a while. I’ve been spending most of my time recently, with my teaching hat on. But that hasn’t been such a bad thing. As it turns out, I am discovering that the issues that education faces (and society, in general) appear to have a variety of common threads. Those common threads seem to me, to be about, figuring out ways to make progressive change. How do we achieve better learning outcomes for all students? How do we achieve better transport outcomes for commuters?

My effectiveness as a teacher has increased markedly ever since I opted to go ‘evidence based’. As a result of implementing an evidence based teaching pedagogy, I have witnessed an amazing growth in achievement amongst all students. And of course, this success can be measured in test scores. Better test results equate to better learning outcomes. Easy. But more importantly, I can identify the actions that lead to this success. There is a correlation between my teaching practice and the achievement of better learning outcomes.

But there is another component to effective teaching that is equally important. In the teaching business, it is called student ‘agency’. It is a measurement of the quality of the conversations that students are having – with their teacher and among the students themselves. Conversations that reflect curiosity and inquiry. The teacher’s role is to provoke and stimulate these conversations. That’s where learning is at its most powerful. Self-generated, self-sustaining. Once again, a correlation exists; between the level of student agency and better learning outcomes.

Can you see the link yet?

As far as I can see, in the business of getting people on bikes, success is being measured in two ways. Firstly, it is being measured in terms of raw numbers. Bodies. On. Bikes. But I want to ask these questions. What ‘actions’ are generating these people to ride? Do the numbers stack up in terms of mode share? i.e. Is there a correlation between the actions to get more people riding bikes and people actually riding bikes? I mean, the number of people may be going up, but so is the population. It’s possible, eh?! And besides, who are these people? Why are they riding? Secondly, success seems to be measured in the number of meters of cycle paths being painted. This is problematic. Just like the existence of a well appointed, functional classroom is no guarantee that effective teaching will be taking place. Boosterism is no substitute for the implementation of successful strategies.

And how are we doing on the ‘agency’ front? How are those conversations going? Are we experiencing success? Based on my daily interactions with people and motorists, I see no evidence of any significant change in attitudes towards cycling. In New Zealand, the conversations around cycling are still in the realm of sport and recreation. It’s an activity enjoyed by special interest groups. Its perception is still a long way from that of a normal everyday activity. Based on my experience in teaching, I am not surprised by this. That’s because the promotion of student agency is not standard practice in the education sector, either. It is a strange reality when implementing evidence based teaching practice results in one being seen as an outlier. That’s because it requires a very different mindset and way of thinking and engaging. It requires a willingness to allow the expertise of the crowd to come to the fore. It requires the leader to be good at managing and enhancing human interactions.

While I take no pleasure in critiquing advocacy groups, I also think there is a validity and value in doing so. To be effective, advocacy needs social movements that will give them the space to be bold and advocate for bigger and faster change. In order to do that, they need to be good at listening and engaging with a range of ‘voices’ and nudging the conversations in a more constructive and meaningful direction.

‘Cycling’ is sport and recreation. ‘Riding a bicycle’ is everyday activity. No sweat. As easy as walking, but faster.

Get involved via: Twitter, Facebook, Flickr.

Making cycling something that everyone can relate to and do.

 

Would you like more lanes with your motorway, madam?

It is no secret that this blog has at times been openly critical of some aspects of the way cycling advocacy is approached. Nonetheless, the intent of this blog has always been about wanting to engage in a meaningful conversation. To present different views and interpretations that may not be appreciated or understood fully, yet. While no one likes to be criticised, including myself, I feel that it may be helpful to spell out that it is never my intention to make it a personal issue. For me, it has always only ever been about looking for the most effective ways of getting more people using bikes for short utility trips. And for what it’s worth, I am trying harder these days to be better at using criticisms that I receive, as an opportunity to strengthen my argument.

And I believe that my views do actually reflect the views of some people, and have in fact, lifted the level of conversation and understanding. That has to be one of the real values of the internet; the democratisation of ideas. I also believe that organisations will be better off if they are open to differing viewpoints – echo chambers and all that. Reasoned, critical voices need to be encouraged. As well as being critical, I believe that I have offered authentic and well argued alternatives. And on that matter, if you do support the ideas being presented on this site, or if you are mildly curious, why don’t you try approaching your local advocacy group and let them know.

One aspect of advocacy that I have been critical of has been around the nature of the relationship between advocacy groups and the national transport agency. It is a sensible and pragmatic approach to get a bike lane attached to a new motorway when it is being built. Of course, cycling needs all the help it can get. So while I am pleased to see the latest Auckland motorway project being given the thumbs down by the advocates, the potential for the relationship to be compromised should be a concern. Financial and political autonomy would be the dream scenario. Cycling for the people, by the people.

This leads me to another aspect of advocacy in which my thinking diverges critically from what is currently on offer and to which I have tried to offer clear and reasoned arguments for an alternative approach. NZTA and advocacy groups seem intent on selling cycling to enthusiastic sports and recreational cyclists; to convert these cyclists into everyday commuters. I have argued repeatedly that this strategy is of limited value. Or at the very least, it ignores a whole swathe of the population who will never ride like that. The growth market in cycling is in riding a bicycle; a comfortable, slow bicycle, for short, utility type trips. Like they do in Japan. Riding a bike is achievable to a whole lot of people if we think of the bicycle as replacing walking, not driving.

I accept that this is a slightly different goal than what we are currently being presented with. The goal that I believe we should be striving for is an inclusive and more specific one. It will make cycling available to young and old, male and female. Not just more cycling, but more people using bicycles for short, utility trips. It is a goal that will require our attention being focused on making our cities less car friendly. That’s a big target and will need to be broken down into smaller, manageable goals. I just find it hard to accept that it is wise to be relying on an organisation that loves cars that much, as the best source of advice on making cycling a real thing for everyone.

‘Cycling’ is sport and recreation. ‘Riding a bicycle’ is everyday activity. No sweat. As easy as walking, but faster.

Get involved via: Twitter, Facebook, Flickr.

People who live in cities that prioritise people ahead of cars have better sex lives

If traffic would just act like water and evaporate.

Yay! She’s done it. Alice, the Tunnel Boring machine has finally completed boring the tunnel that will allow for the motorway encircling Auckland to be completed. For a city that is so reliant on driving, this really is a reason to celebrate. Although, I tend to see it more like a heroin addict finding out that a new shipment has just hit the street. Rather than encircling, I see strangling. But don’t mind me, I do tend to see things a bit differently.

Back in 2008, when this project was given the green light, the justification for this billion dollar investment largesse was about “easing traffic congestion and delivering significant economic growth in Auckland.” This project was so critical, we were told, it needed to be fast-tracked. The usual process of consultation was waived. Cycling advocates took a pragmatic approach to the situation and made sure the project included cycling connections. Afterall, what’s wrong with the government’s transport agency being the largest provider of cycle paths in the country? Pragmatism rules, ok!?

I don’t recall there being much resistance to this project. To do so would be to find yourself like the boy with his finger in the dyke. You would have to go home for dinner at some point in the evening. Accept it. Take what you can from it. Resistance was futile. Even if the arguments in support of this project didn’t stack up economically, the government has the PR budget and the cojones to make stuff happen. We have a PM who is extremely adept at making stuff up. Black is white. Until it isn’t. While scientists go about their job earnestly checking and rechecking the data, the real power brokers “seem free to operate beyond the law, beyond truth, beyond accountability, beyond good and evil.”

So how did it come to pass that, within this context and within the same celebratory announcement, did we get to witness a transport agency spokesperson downplaying the benefits of the project? Yes really. Was it accidental or was it a deliberate move to ease the motoring public into the reality that traffic is not like water; that it doesn’t evaporate? Maybe it was neither because as far as I could see, there was no media reaction to these comments. It was no big deal. The project’s almost been built. Business as usual.

I suggest there are some things to be learned from this lack of media or public reaction. I want a lot more from cycle advocates – I want them to emulate these experts and their techniques, in a positive way, for a good cause. Call it aspiration. A much bigger and glossier picture needs to be presented. Bolder, braver. Give us a new narrative. A city full of wheeledpedestrians is a win/win situation. Sell it like the motoring industry or tobacco industry do so well. More of the why, less of the how.

As a rule, advocacy tends to run on goodwill and cake stall budgets. A situation that makes them too fragile to be critiqued. Choose your partnerships wisely. Partnerships that limit your ability to speak the truth have their limitations. While it is nice to be inside the tent, pissing on the tent from the outside is not the default alternative. Maybe that’s why Russel Norman has decamped to a truly effective advocacy group.

Finally, never let the facts get in the way of a compelling narrative. I mean, I’m sure it’s true that people who live in cities that cater for people ahead of cars live healthier lives and have better sex. I wouldn’t bother to fact check that. Just trust me. It’s true. Go on, put it on a poster and practice keeping a straight face.

‘Cycling’ is sport and recreation. ‘Riding a bicycle’ is everyday activity. No sweat.

Get involved via: Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, Vine or Instagram.