I hate to poop the party. I really do. But, it’s over: Cycling take up in Auckland has already peaked. Auckland Transport’s recent report goes into extreme detail on cycling traffic movements. For which we should be grateful: There is information on gender mix, helmeted vis lidless, and highly granular regional data. I’m sure that one day, that will be really useful, to someone. As with everything that’s dysfunctional with kiwi cycling, all that’s missing is the big picture.
Isn’t this a bit curmudgeonly of me? Who wouldn’t want to cheer any increase in cycling?
Because we can, and should be doing far, far better, right here, right now.
You actually have to dig a bit deeper to see what has been going on, on a relatively on a year by year basis – given some new infrastructure in place that is creating new, safe opportunities to get on a bike; and that Auckland Transport has been steadily adding measurement sites. But it’s in there (page 7 if you’re keen). For this we must compare only the same measurement sites that have been consistently used throughout the last 4 years: A comparison of these sites, excluding new measurement locations, reveal what is going on, attitudinally, outside of changes in infrastructure.
And it’s not good news: Increase continues around the 2-3% mark, but it peaked at a 21% increase back over 2009-10. This roughly correlates with better known reports of a 28% Auckland / 38% CBD increase in that period.
As my esteemed fellow blogger The Wheeled Pedestrian has been regularly highlighting: cycling’s modal share of trips still hovers around 1% – in the margin of error – we think – because we have precious little data on modal share to go on.
Morever, even if that 21% (or 28% depending on which figures you use) increase were to continue, it would pale woefully beside dramatically successful success in other, similarly historically car-dominated societies. As in 100% per year over five years.
Outside of the laudable, grassroots efforts of frokkers and cyclestylers, little has been done here to build a transport culture that will make normalized, non-recreational cycling appealing to non-cyclists.
Spectacular modal share leaps from 1% to 5% (and more) over five years in regions as diverse as Spain and Hungary proves that improvements can be made very rapidly if there is the political will. This kind of change isn’t beyond our capability.
What we should be asking is why the rate of increase fallen back to lacklustre.
A peaking of cycling take-up is unsurprising to those familiar with the segmentation of the cycling market. Portland, Oregon identified different attitudes in groups that ranged from the “brave and fearless”, “to the no way, no how”, other regions plan their cycling promotion around these realities, and it’s commonly understood - everywhere but here it seems, that only 1% of us will be ‘cyclists’.
Those people arrived in 2009-10. The hardcore/brave/fearless market is already saturated. It‘s the new wave of non-cyclists, who have entirely different aspirations and concerns than the ‘hard core’ existing riders, that city and transport institutions need to be reaching out to.
Kiwis are expected to crouch down on uncomfortable sports bikes, don flourescent roadworker kit and safety helmets, and work up a sweat. It’s little wonder the cycling most people see here is a total turn off, and that our hardcore cycling adoption has already peaked. In contrast, successful cycling societies, with 10-40% of trips cycled, are characterized by sit-up cycles, normal clothes, no helmets, and impeccable safety records.
Make no mistake, when cycling promotion budgets are finally directed to attracting non-cyclists, when we start to see sustainable, significant change – I will be dancing in the streets.
In the meantime – well – others have said it better:
“This aint no party, this ain’t no disco”
David Byrne, cycle rider.
Brilliant Tim, brilliant. Nailed it with the "only 1% of us will be ‘cyclists’" line. Same in the UK, and Oz and the USA (except NYC/Portland). Only CYCLISTS will wear high-viz, or helmets, or ride sports/mountain bikes. Only CYCLISTS will brave traffic. Only CYCLISTS will bother having showers at work. No-one else will put up with the crap CYCLISTS do in order to travel by two wheels. CYCLISTS love cycling so much they are mostly blind to the 99% of normal people, and their attitude of intolerance for uncomfortable bikes, clothes, unflattering helmets, vests and above all, bloody scary roads – regardless of any statistic about how safe 'cycling' actually is.
I now firmly believe that CYCLISTS are the last people to be advising local or national government on policy affecting wheeled pedestrians.
Lots of good points here tim… Would be nice to see the powers that be reach for the stars… Failing that 5% modal share in 5 years would be a stellar… Don’t think I’ll be holding my breath. Shame because as far as I can see cycling for transport fits with the worlds most livable city.
Julian, are you seriously saying Auckland is the world's most liveable city? Looking at the Wikipedia page on this I'm frankly stunned that Auckland comes anywhere near the top 100, let alone the top 10.
A few nice beaches (only accessable by car unless you live close) or some regional parks (access by car, ditto) do not make a city 'liveable'. Speaking as a former Aucklander on three counts, from Albany to Remuera to One Tree Hill, sure it's nice but not liveable, the way Amsterdam or Copenhagen or Vienna or many others are. You own a car or you spend a lot of money and a loooooooong time on public transport to get anywhere worth going.
Auckland is fundamentally flawed. It's grown over the last 50 years based on cheap oil. The North Shore and Manukau/Botany Downs/West Auckland are car ghettos. And the central suburbs are bestrode and choked by 4-6 lane arterial roads leading in-out to the aforementioned areas.
Liveable? What a joke. These studies must be done by journos who fly in for a few days, get taxis/hire cars everywhere and spend most of their time on the piss in vineyards on Waiheke.
Liveable means you can choose not to own a car, afford a place close to where you work and not feel at all restricted in your options for recreation. Auckland is not that city.
The picture goes with the story well….your glass is half empty.
@BG…looks like the glass is about 1-2% full (or 98-99% empty) – just like modal share
Increasingly people like Tim and others here in the UK are calling BS on where cycling is at. BS on the established lobbying bodies, 'vehicular cyclists' and anyone who thinks campaigns and flyers will shift any 'non-cyclists' to get on a bike. 20 years of post-oil-shock campaigning has achieved modal share in the margin of error. Failure. Utter failure. Existing lobby bodies need to get the hell out of the way, stop accepting crap handouts, cycle lanes, ASL's and similar fops, and let the hard fight of real, separate infrastructure be the one and only tool.
Kia Ora Mike. The reference to worlds most liveable city is a reference to our newish mayors future vision for the city. Not a note on it’s current state… Which is at best a C Minus.
BG: Do you have another explanation? If so I'd honestly love to hear it. Re the glass: I'm truly optimistic about can be done if cycling promotion here is united around some ambitious, absolute goals, and a culture change to reposition cycling as an aspirational, high value, normal activity. And I won't rest until that happens.
Mike Stead: I should clarify: While current infrastructure development is far short of what it should be, given a ROI that is ten times that of public transport – culture change will be the most crucial move here – not because it's intrinsically more important than infrastructure, but because it's currently absent. Achieving culture change will require a campaign – one that is unified and not ad hoc, with an overarching philosophy that is very different from the assumptions behind what passes for cycling promotion here today.
ALL: Re: the figures: I should emphasize, last year's overall increase is probably more than 2%, given some new infrastructure that wasn't there to measure before. But we don't have a reliable figure because the researchers have been adding new sites that weren't there previously. The only relatively reliable measurement (from current data) is on sites that have been in place throughout, and this shows a dramatic peak (the "rate of increase" row in the table above is my own).
Interesting – I've been riding in to work for years on a (commuter modified) mountain bike and wearing a viz vest, and reading this I'm feeling rather like part of the problem rather than the solution.
Maybe someone can persuade Giant to throw a sponsorship my way so I don't keep driving down cycle modal share through sheer unsexiness? Purely for the cause and all that…
KiaOra Mike. “Worlds most livable city” is the mayors vision of the future… Needless to say at the moment we are the “Underachieving city”..,
Sam F: Well er probably, with the big picture in mind – yes. And there is some new local research to confirm that non-cyclists associate a road warrior riding style with low status and danger. And without urging riders to move to ninja mode.. there is general evidence that drivers risk compensate when seeing dangerwear – certainly in respect of helmets.
Personally, I've gained increasing confidence and road space, from making my vulnerability plain and visible to drivers.
However, no-one here would condemn anyone for making the best decision they can in their circumstances (which will differ) for their immediate personal safety.
And yeah, perhaps Giant NZ (if there is such a thing) would care to take a leaf from their Aussie counterparts. No harm in trying.
Thanks, Tim. Just curious: what specifically do you mean by making your vulnerability plain and visible? And what exactly defines the 'road warrior' style in the study you cite – is this acting like a vehicle would, or acting more like a racing or stunt cyclist weaving through traffic at high speed etc?
@Sam In cities where cycling is represented with a high modal share you will see people cycling in their daily clothes on comfortable bikes doing local short trips. This person could represent your mother, son, grandmother (soft and precious). In contrast, cycling in Auckland is predominantly made up of middle-aged men,dressed as 'cyclists'. (Hi Viz, lycra etc) That's not to say there is anything wrong with that type of cycling. It's just that that type of cycling is only appealing to a limited number of people ie the people who are currently cycling. I think Tim is suggesting that the non cycling public will not be attracted to that warrior image. It reinforces danger and speed. Cycling can also be a practical easy form of transport.
I like the image of a pedestrian on wheels. Walking and cycling are just things we do in our lives. Not special, not dangerous. Just natural.
Attempts at developing this cultural aspect exist eg Frocks on bikes. But once again, this is a minority thing. But it's a good place to start.
Sam F: In my case.. simply doing as the dutch, and most of the non-english-speaking world do. Riding upright, normal clothes, unhelmeted, making eye contact with drivers, really clear signals. I get a few "where's your helmet" yobbo calls, but mostly I have more space around me.
Road Warrior is my term – the 2 year study for NZTA compares a number of cycle styles, but it tests and comments on a negative non-cyclist perception to common flouro / crouchdown / hybrid bike commuting relative to the approach of european riders.
The project included tests on photographic images of different cycle styles, and evaluated a 'try riding' test where non-cyclists were given a genuine choice of bikes, with the differences (eg: site up/crouch, hub/derailluer gears, chainguards/ nekkidchain etc etc) explained
"I hate to poop the party. I really do."
No you don't Tim. You love it, because you think it validates your idea that "WE ARE DOING IT WRONG." You see this single count as a validation of what you have always been saying.
On that I have yet to see what you would DO differently. You talk a lot about how we need a revolution. Show me your revolutionaries. The big wide population that you want on bikes doesn't WANT a revolution, and you are not going to get it to start one.
"But, it’s over"
Nonsense. Nothing is over.
"Cycling take up in Auckland has already peaked"
Yeez, short-term much? You talk about Copenhagen all day, and forgot that we are where Copenhagen was decades ago. They didn't arrive where they are by one day declaring that cars shall magically disappear, and bikes take their place.
They worked HARD for it. Over many years, and decades.
That's what Auckland needs. Constant work. Work for more cycleways. Work for speed limits. Work for a cycle culture.
That is what Auckland needs – not a frustrated "It's over!" call on a blog. Do what you think is right to get Auckland on bikes! Please do. But don't waste time and depress people by turning a slight increase into a sign of doom.
It was only a mater of time before the dutch reference was made…I am amazed Copenhagen hasn't been mentioned yet as it seems to be constantly on this site.
It makes me think of the Greens trying to convince me of global warming…everything has to completely dyer and end of the world like to make us all pay attention (instead turning alot of us off). Just give me the facts and let me decide for myself.
The FACT is Copenhagen has 5 times more people, is one of the most densly populated cities in europe and is very well off….it is no comparison to Auckland at all so why keep directing Aucklanders to make that comparison.
All you have attempted to do once again is make us all feel guilty for not being better Aucklanders and not living up to the almighty Dutch or some other randon completely different place.
Tell us what we are doing right, what can we do to help.
With Tim's extreme doom like view Auckland has no hope.
We are not even close to having Copenhagen's wealth, population, resources, central city etc…
Well said Max!!! You must have been writing at the same time as me. My Copenhagen comment was directed at Tim not you, funny coincidence:)
BG – I believe that Tim is wrong, but for other reasons than what you are saying.
Wealth, to start with, IS NOT THE REASON. Portland, Oregon, built itself into the US biggest cycling city (around 8% mode share) by spending only around 1% of it's transport budgets on bicycles (over 15 years, a fact people like Tim seem to ignore). Their whole bicycle network was recently valued at only $65 million replacement value! We can easily afford cycling infrastructure in Auckland. Let's not do the "we are so poor" argument – please. Compared to the motorways, arterial roads and other things we are building, it can be pretty cheap.
But I agree with you that we need to stop to constantly castigate ourselves (or our politicans) with comparisons they don't care about, and which are too sky-high. It's a comparison from a slightly different field, but "You need to learn to walk before you run". Cycling in Auckland is in that first stage.
Getting angry with our failures (which we do indeed keep having) is very rarely the right way (the Auckland Harbour Bridge protest for example achieved something – to keep alive the GetAcross campaign by showing that there WAS big popular support – but that kind of protest is not endlessly repeatable, nor all that often productive in my mind).
Three steps forward, two steps back. That is where we are, that is where we NEED to be. Because it's harder to achieve change than to call loudly for revolutions.
Thanks Max, fair call. I agree there is no reason Aucklnad couldn't afford the infrustructure (you could argue it can't afford not to). I didn't get the point across very well but is was more a suggestion of socio-economic wealth restricting the population getting on bikes…its a whole different can of worms to open but you could argue people with a better standard of living are more likely to get on a bike. I have absolutly no facts to back this up just a gut feeling but history would suggest different socio-economic groups make different decisions on health etc…
Before I dig this hole any deeper, either way you are totally right in the fact this will take a long time, we need to stay positive, keep at it and celebrate success.
I have a bike lane from Massey to the city now, WOW!
I rode at Sanders reserve on Sat, a council funded mountain bike bike, unheard of!
Things are changing, I am patient.
Hi BG
Tim IS quite right on a few things, like attitudes to cycling, and popular perceptions of cycling. He IS quite right that appealing to sports cyclists is a market with no promise for the mainstream.
What I disagree with him though is in the claim that we are on the wrong road, just because of the occasional Council campaign showing lycra and high viz. Heck, they sponsored the Cycle Style Gala too, and NZTA, well, they are the guys building off-road cycleways, where for the first time in long years, we now see families on their bikes, rather than just older males.
As for socio-economic factors. Well, again, there's some holdovers from past attitudes – cycling conditions were (and in some places still are) so bad that the only people who were left on bikes were the hard core road warriors (a "white, male, professional" type of sport) on the one hand – and everyone else who didn't have one of their carbon fiber jobs (and didn't drive out to the Hunuas with the bike on the back of the new SUV) was seen as a poor sod who couldn't afford a car.
Even the poor ARE concious of what their neighbours think. Maybe even more so than the rich, and even despite the fact that riding to work would free up a lot more money (percentage wise) for them than it does for the richer people.
to criticise a document reporting on cycle counts in Auckland because it doesn't have "the big picture" is like criticising a dog because it can't fly, that's simply what the cycle count document is and isn't intended to do
if you want targets, look here: http://www.aucklandtransport.govt.nz/improving-transport/strategies/TransportStrategies/Pages/WalkingAndCyclingStraegy.aspx and recognise that after 8 months of operation, Auckland Transport simply hasn't had time (or possibly the staff) to pull together a unified strategic plan for cycling
Wow, lots of apologists for the status quo. I guess the first step of rehab is to move beyond denial.
The hard, unequivocal evidence is that *everything* that's been done up until now has F-A-I-L-E-D.
It only spoke to the 1-2% who are willing to see themselves as 'cyclists'. It said nothing to normal people. No matter how many campaigns, brochures, celeb endorsements, bike to work weeks, pained lanes, ASL's etc you have, you will still only be preaching to the converted, or those willing to be converted. 1-2%. That's it. Accept that, get over it, and then wake up to the reality that the ONLY way to get past 1-2% is hard stuff – separate physical lanes.
Everything else is irrelevant fluff. Please don't try to retort with any local anecdote about a cool initiative, plan, scheme etc – it's all tosh. It hasn't worked, it doesn't work, it won't work. Nothing works but separate infrastructure.
Well the party is over, I'm so much the problem I better give up cycling. Me and the more than 50% of people I ride with or past during my ride to work who wear hi vis, and 98% who wear a helmet.
Ho hum, more negativity. Anyone heard of accentuate the positive?
Good luck with this style of campaign, I think I enjoy Lucy's blog post on the same topic far more. As would all of my non cycling friends and family, they might think, wow, more people are riding, maybe I should try that. Or read this post and think look at all this negative stuff and it being all over, why bother starting?
I think that possibly that this focus on self identification as a cyclist is a defeatist perspective, surely we want cycling to be part of the mainstream?
just as some people drive Remuera tractors and some drive MX5s, there's room for people on road bikes, hybrids, BMXs and situp and beg bikes wearing lycra, skirts, tweed and suits without snobbish comments on their attire! grow up!
Mike, you might be willing to accept it and move on but I'm not. I want better for my kids and grand kids.
If you have accepted it then why are you still here commenting, you can't have accepted it, you must want change but you must also know sitting around whinning about it being a complete failure isn't going to improve anything.
If you have accepted things then take your own advise and move on, why do you care if the general population take up cycling, what difference does it make to you.
We are slowly getting the improvements (SEPERATE bike lane Greenhithe bridge), seperate bike lanes will not happen over night.
Tim: thanks again for your response. Do you have a link to that NZTA study or where it can be obtained? Sounds fascinating.
Can't remember where I read it yesterday, but I have heard it cited that on top of the 1-2% hardcore cyclists, there are another cohort of 'keen but unsure' prospective riders who can be brought on board without some of the huge effort that capturing the full mainstream would take – and who might tip things over towards gaining real mainstream modal share. Have you heard anything similar and what's your take on this?
It sounds as though our approach to riding is broadly similar. Good signalling and eye contact with drivers is really important I think, and I actually make an effort for positive body language too – waving people past if I'm slow and have room to shift over to the left, thumbs up to people who are driving/riding considerately, and so on.
It's my personal theory that projecting a polite, relaxed and happy disposition on the road probably makes just as much of a difference to cycling's image as choice of clothing or vehicle. I find it sad when you see the fortress/road warrior mentality etched into someone's grim expression, no matter what they are riding.
And yes I'm feeling rather more positive about all this than yesterday – must be the cold but fine weather up here, or warm vibes from the lovely new orange vest I bought the other night…
@Sam Is this what you are referring to….?
http://cyclingauckland.co.nz/front/2011/06/im-enthused-and-confident-how-about-you/
wow! I think we should all remember that actually, the more cyclists on our roads (regardless of what they wear) the closer we get to reaching the "tipping point" where drivers will begin to anticipate seeing cyclists and accident numbers will go way down. The best way to change people's perception of cycling as a dangerous sport is actually to make it safer – so everybody who rides in Auckland contributes to that.
I also think we shouldn't get too hung up on numbers from individual years. Remember this is a one day count which is no doubt subject to massive variation given weather etc. What matters more is the long term trend since 2007 which shows a very gradual increase.
Tim is right that the increase isn't fast enough but at least the general trend is heading up slowly. I think if all work in our separate ways to achieve more increase we will see that happen. Personally, my focus is on getting more supportive legislation and funding increases.
Others are interested in frocking or organizing big events. Others are interested in rebranding cycling. CAA is doing a lot of very valuable work on improving infrastructure as it is built. I think all approaches are valuable and complementary.
thank you, Lucy, a sensible response
over time the permanent count sites will give a clearer picture of annual fluctuations so that the one day sample can be extrapolated with greater confidence to represen a true picture
@Mark – yes, that'd be the one.
I guess the debate over different advocacy approaches all seems a bit arcane to me, as I'm not actively involved in any particular group. Lucy's comment above sounds about right to me – a quality network of lanes for cyclists is pointless without a vibrant cycle culture to fill them up, and vice versa.
Jim talked about cross-pollination in a comment below too:
http://cyclingauckland.co.nz/front/2011/02/crunch-time/
I think Steve gets the prize for using a word like "extrapolated"!
It's a perfectly cromulent word.
cromulent, excellent, I had to look it up
respect is due, sir!
"a quality network of lanes for cyclists is pointless without a vibrant cycle culture to fill them up, and vice versa."
Why should someone with zero interest in cycle chic or bike polo or any of the hundred other 'bike culture' sub-classes have to take one up in order to see the merit of using a properly separated bikelane?
Again, everyone, you talk of 'cycling culture' as if it's a) needed and b) will magically make $100m of proper, separate infrastructure appear.
Do you think Danes or the Dutch have a population-wide 'cycling culture'? No, they don't. No moreso than NZ has a 'hoover culture' or an 'ironing culture'. You want a late-50's bank manager on a Brompton to feel some sort of weird affinity with a 21yo mohawked cycle courier. Like if people see themselves as 'cyclists' that that will help motivate them to lobby local government to pt more funding into cycling infrastructure. And so we have endless 'events' and 'campaigns' and so on. People try cycling on a high after being love-bombed by the converted, have a few near-misses with whatever the equivalent is of an ARC bus these days or a courier van and give up. For every person who's taken up cycling in the last decade, ***one has given up***. Roughly, as cycling numbers are still more or less in the margin of error for any study.
No amount of frocks or CM rides or bike-to-work breakfasts has changed this, or will change it.
The 99% of people who aren't 'cyclists' and who never will be 'cyclists' just cannot be hoodwinked into thinking cycling is a good idea. All the love in the world is useless when they get passed at 50kph with 6" to spare by a lorry.
Every time a cycling organisation gives a politician or official a photo opportunity at some pointless but well-meant initiative, it takes the heat off the real issue. It means that for another 3 or 6 months that person can feel like they 'did something' or that 'something is being done' to further to lot of liveable, healthier, more sustainable communities.
We should stop doing this. Stop pandering to the people who consistently fail to do the right thing.
I'm sure people with vintage car fetishes enjoy their little meetings, but it does not encourage the wider population to drive around in flying helmets & goggles at 30kph. Ditto anything I've ever seen regarding bikes. I attended the last Tweed Run in London bedecked in my Hebridean finery, had a great time, but I'm under no illusion that my doing so helped edge the cause of a £25M separate bike lane from SW1 to SoHo any closer.
By all means, have your passtimes, your two-wheeled diversions, but do not for an instant believe that your non-cycling neighbour will be encouraged to ditch their second car just because you took them on a Bike The Bays jolly one Sunday morning.
I vote that all this fluff stop, and the tens of thousands of hours put into ultimately futile initiatives be channelled into one thing: Lobbying for, protesting about and doorstopping politicos on separate infrastructure. No, it won't be fun. But it's the only thing that will work.
@ Mike Stead, I interpreted the meaning of 'culture' not to be a style thing eg frocks, tweed. It is creating a city designed for people rather than cars. This type of city would feature cycling. That's the cultural vision that I think of. May I be so bold as to suggest that we need to reclaim our cities from the road engineers. Where are all the urban designers when we need them? I agree, it's time to move on from tweed rides and cake stalls.
Some small tentative steps were once taken…
http://cyclingauckland.co.nz/front/2010/10/cycotecture-revisited/
http://cyclingauckland.co.nz/events/2010/09/cycotecture/
Mike: I'm not sure anyone seriously believes that frocking/tweed rides will cause cycle lanes to just sprout unbidden on major arterials. But surely if people enjoy doing such things and thus indirectly promote the idea that riding a bike can be enjoyable, rather than solely a fitness regimen or transport option of last resort, that's not necessarily a harmful thing?
Cycle chic and bike polo are a bit alien to me too, but I find it hard to imagine that organising such things would suck up quite so much time that an energetic, committed person wouldn't also be able to lobby for separated lanes if they wished to. And realistically, if they're not the type to do that kind of lobbying, will writing off the other stuff they might already be doing really help anyone?
You won't find any argument from me that fighting for proper physical cycle provision is critical, but I don't think that cause will realistically benefit from writing off other kinds of cycle promotion if that is what people are interested in doing – and amongst the people attracted to bikes by those kinds of 'soft' activism might be some who are keen to put greater pressure on goverment and local bodies for cycle provision too.
I actually think one of the nice things about biking is that it has lots of fun activism you can do.
I have been involved in environmental activism for about 10 years now (getting old!) and have seen a lot of groups fail and fewer groups thrive. I think that one of the main reasons people volunteer for activities is that they enjoy them.
I think this is one of the strengths of CAA, actually, that they make a real effort to make their meetings and such like enjoyable with food, drinks and so on. Not just something you go to because you want to "Make a difference".
Also Mike you said "Every time a cycling organisation gives a politician or official a photo opportunity at some pointless but well-meant initiative, it takes the heat off the real issue."
I know quite a lot of politicians. In my experience, politicians won't turn up to a photo opp unless they have (at least) some commitment to the issue involved. for example, the Greens won't go and talk to Family First (without taking a swipe at their crazy justice policies) and Steven Joyce won't come and talk to the Campaign for Better Transport (unless it's RIGHT before an election).
If politicans do come along and don't know anything about the issue and don't care then there are two positive outcomes you can hope for 1) they go away thinking "Gosh, there really are a lot of xx (cyclists/community gardeners/disabled children) in Auckland. I should do something about that (possibly to get their votes, but anyway, it's still good for you, as an advocate)."
Or they think "Shit, I don't care about cyclists/disabled children/beneficiaries and I think they're all loons but now I've come to their event I have to at least pretend to do something. What can I do?"
And often, as you say, these changes are not large and they may not be the massive changes in funding we would like to see. But they are still positive changes that open the door for more funding in future…
Speaking for myself, Sam, the effect of cycle culture was direct, not indirect.
Last year the Dominion Post ran a feature in the lifestyle section on riding bikes, with a particular focus on local women riding for transport. I looked at their photos which showed them wearing nice dresses and riding step-through bikes, and I thought "Well if they can do it like that, I might be able to too."
I bought a $75 bike off Trade Me and gave it a go. We don't have much bike infrastructure down here, but a year or so later I'm still riding in a skirt.
I should add here that all the infrastructure in the world wouldn't have got me on a bike. Frankly, I doubt I would even have noticed it. What I needed was (role) models I could identify with, and that's what the newspaper feature gave me.
Of course, now that I'm riding I'd like more infrastructure please, and lots of it! But it wouldn't have started me off, because it's for cyclists and I wasn't one of those. Cyclists all wear special sports gear and go fast and sweat a lot, don't they?
"Wow, lots of apologists for the status quo. I guess the first step of rehab is to move beyond denial.
The hard, unequivocal evidence is that *everything* that's been done up until now has F-A-I-L-E-D."
Sorry Mike, but that is just SO wrong. Excuse me, but I do not consider that I have failed in all the things I personally, Cycle Action in a wider sense, and Auckland and its population overalll have achieved in getting better cycling infrastructure for Auckland in the last couple years.
Whether it is ENOUGH is a different question. It obviously isn't yet, but that's the thing with incrementalism. It isn't magic, or revolution. First you do SOME tiny things. Then you get some localised improvements. Then you do some more. Then you get the political ability to do more. It's a virtuous cycle. A slow one.
But that doesn't mean we are on the wrong track. I could literally list dozens of improvements that I have personally been involved with – some small, like getting bike lanes refreshed or a dangerous bollard replaced, some larger – like saving & extending the Lake Road cycle lanes, or getting cycle lanes and off-road paths on Ian McKinnon Drive – to massive wins like seeing the Kingsland section built, or getting $8 million worth of new off-road cycle way in Waterview.
And there's other projects that I am confident will happen in the coming years (but since I am not the person making the calls, I won't list them here for my argument).
Call all these things a failure? Why? Because we haven't undone 50+ years of systemic car dominance in less than 5 years?
And also, I believe you are wrong that cycle lanes speak ONLY to the hardcore 1-2%.
Of course, a cycle lane along Great South Road in Manukau Central (worst non-motorway environment ever – six lane highways) isn't attracting anyone. But cycle lanes along arterials like Lake Road DO get people cycling.
How do you think we will ever get out of the 1-2% "strong and fearless" ghetto? It isn't (all) by appealing to the 60% "interested but concerned" group. You also have to look at the 5-8% "enthused & confident", because those are the people that will START making cycling normal and everyday again. And yes, many of them like bike lanes like on Lake Road.
http://cyclingauckland.co.nz/front/2011/06/im-enthused-and-confident-how-about-you/
Can we not turn this into a war?
Infrastructure is definitely part of the picture, but it's my experience that it's for people who already ride. What about the people who don't? I think that's where cycle culture is effective.
Both of these elements can work in tandem. So guys, can we just do that? Play to our strengths, support each others' very valid contributions. We all want the same thing.
I would like to think we could get alot more people using their bicycles without any specific/obvious infrastructure. Big gains to be made for minimal physical investment. Some attention to social engineering as well as road engineering could achieve wonders. These two aspects are complimentary, not exclusive.
I agree Mark – I wasn't dissing Tim's feeling about the benefits of doing more "social marketing" for cycling (not my personal thing, but I recognise that it is useful – as a complement to better infrastructure, just as you say).
I am just peeved that he thinks we are on the wrong track with, well, just about everything. If he thinks we need more social media / advertising / campaigns to support cycling, why not create some, or advocate to Council for them? It is every pro-cycling person's own responsibility to work for cycling in the best way he/she can, and find people that he can work with – not to lecture others how they are "failing" when there was only a 3% increase this year.
But Lisa, I do hear you. I probably should be spending less time on this particular post, and back at actually doing things. There is indeed no need for aggro. The real quality of the cycling movement should be that we can all work in our different ways, for the same goal.
Cycling can be mainstream (around 15% of trips in Oxford, UK) without segregated tracks – if car speeds are low. Of course you might find it easier to build tracks than to cut car speeds! Cutting car speeds in residential and shopping areas is fairly popular, so it can get you a long way. There's no reason why "lesser" main roads shouldn't be low-speed and perfectly cyclable.
It's also really important to have a good public transport system, especially in bigger cities. Oxford, for instance has bus >40% modal share for trips to city centre. That's the only way to get medium-distance traffic volumes under control. So I'd suggest starting with bus lanes.
BG: Still waiting – do you have another explanation?
Seriously. I'm all ears.
———
Sam F: I'll send it to you if you I can find an email in the site admin – it's biggish (3MB+)
———
Max: Why the hell would you assume that the thing you accuse me of not doing isn't happening. How would you know?
We have to start with reality. Unfortunately none of the council's media puffpieces have bothered to note the simple reality that I've elicited in 15 minutes of enquiry. It's peaked. That's need not be the end of the story, but a different approach is clearly required. Some of us have some ideas about that, but the least that could happen is that current cycle promotional spending could take a few cues from really – and I do mean really successful campaigns elsewhere that are achieving 10 times our progress.
I'll be so bold to say that that's the difference between irrelevance and significance. Be offended if you will.
I've drawn attention to an unfortunate, but totally predictable trend. I've also balanced this with praise for the benefits of new cycle infrastructure, those who helped achieve it. Credit where credit is due. Seriously, and sincerely.
If I'm seeing a pattern here, it's that vehicularists are offended at finding out they're devaluing the bicycling brand – culturalists respect individual choice, but also that dangerwear is a highway to nowhere – for confident riders, and it tells non-cyclists – the people we need to achieve safety in numbers – that cycling is a bit shit. And scary. Reality. This is reality. Eat it.
In this site, i'm just a messenger. Shoot me if it makes you feel better. Elsewhere.. what do you know?
Infrastructure promoters are achieving some great things. But infrastructure is only half of the story. Some commentators get this. Others, apparently not.
We can build it but they will not necessarily come – in the numbers that they might otherwise. And if they don't come enough – for whatever reason (Triangle Rd?) cycle infrastructure will get a bad rep, and infrastructure growth will wane.
I don't pretend to know much about infrastructure, (I mean I REALLY don't) but culture is my domain. It's what I'm paid to work on. I know my shit. I respect and value the work of infrastructure promoters, but I'm mightily pissed when they try to tell me how to suck eggs.
Sorry Max, if I'm a little late getting back on this – been a little busy doing… that thing you said.
Richard, Thanks for the ideas. Personal mobility options in Auckland are at an all time low. Not just in terms of cycling. We have a local and national government that continues to underfund active/sustainable transport and PT. Meanwhile the govt is continuing to pour bucket loads of money into building more motorways. It appears that its intention is to build its way out of traffic congestion. We can only read and weep at the foresight and commitment to sustainable transport that European cities show.
Seriously, confused on what you mean by another explanation?
Just telling it how I read it. Your glass sounds half empty, you sound defeatist, negative at best. I can't see your attitude getting anywhere, people don't want to deal with the aggression. I just hope your not actually involved at an official level.
Regardless of whether your view is right or wrong, worthy or not the way you portray it is off putting.
After almost swaying to get out on the road again, reading blogs, looking at my options I am sticking to WINNING the battle for more off road riding. The on road stuff is just too ugly and sounds all bad and I haven't even got my slicks on yet.
You can put me down as another person who is not going out on the "crazy" road, although I get the impression this pleases you deep down. I'm not sure a great cycle culture and infrustucture is ever going to make you glad.
Triangle Road is a classic example of something I thought I would never see, a step forward, great. After a month on this site I wouldn't dare touch it. Pitty.
Good Luck.
Pingback: Cycle culture vs infrastructure? : Cycling in Wellington