Google Images
Is cycling in Auckland entering a new phase? By looking at all the media coverage recently, one would be justified in thinking so. But will something positive come from the death that has generated all the media interest?
It was encouraging to see The NZ Herald devote two pages of analysis on the infrastructural defects of Tamaki Drive. The article makes for compelling reading. Tamaki Drive has become the lightning rod for everything that is wrong with cycling in Auckland. And potentially, everything that could be so right. Such a beautiful, scenic part of Auckland has increasingly been reduced to a semi-mobile car park and killing zone. In the article, the numbers speak loudly and clearly. From a Ministry of Transport analysis of crashes involving cyclists on Tamaki Drive between 2003 and 2011, the fact that motorists are at fault in the majority of them, has finally got some serious air time. The four crashes deemed as caused by cyclists are also open to dispute. Can a cyclist hitting a parked car be blamed on the cyclist? These days even Rudman is advocating the removal of car parking. Remember, it’s not anti-car. It’s pro-people.
Main Fault: Driver. Those were the words that were written all over the graphic in the Herald article. (The Death Star casts a long shadow). And when is a cycle path, not a cycle path? When it’s on Tamaki Drive, apparently. The article highlights what cyclists in Auckland have always known. The bike path along Tamaki Drive ‘is shite’.
The bottom line is that the shared pathway doesn’t work for commuting cyclists.
What will be the outcome of all this for Tamaki Drive and cycling in Auckland, in general? The advocates have batted the ball back to the city’s roading engineers. We await their response with baited breath.
This article is a significant achievement. It is a complete turn around in the way The Herald has previously treated cycling issues on Tamaki Drive. In the past, The Herald has always been happy to perpetuate the myth that cycling is the cause of all traffic problems along that stretch of road. The message has, until recently, been that people choosing to indulge in such a dangerous activity need to be prepared to accept the risks associated with it.
While it’s been a positive thing to have the details exposed of how poor infrastructure on Tamaki Drive has failed cycling, an essential element to ensure any long term success for cycling, is still lacking. It is hard to see a change in the ‘business as usual’ approach amongst the city’s roading engineers happening any time soon. It is also hard to see the level of vitriol from the public towards diminishing any time soon. The Warne incident is testimony to that.
And here is the down side of all this media coverage. As cycling establishes an increasingly high profile in Auckland, a vacuum is starting to grow that needs to filled. And invariably, this vacuum is being filled, but with the wrong messages.
Cycling needs to be presented to Aucklanders in a way that shows it to be irresistibly attractive and normal. Currently, the media are being given a free reign to present their own version of cycling. For example, look at this recent helmet analysis on television. Really, is cycling that complicated? Is it that dangerous? Of course it isn’t, so why is it made to look so? How many people do you know who do the kind of riding shown in this clip? This is not cycling. This is weird, freaky, dangerous, sub-cultural stuff. So why is this kind of media attention not headed off at the pass, kicked into touch? It is undermining any good work that is being done. This kind of media attention peddles the myth that cycling is dangerous and should only be attempted by the brave or insane.
As yet, Aucklanders have yet to be shown a compelling vision of what a cyclized city looks like. And with the current willingness of NZ media to engage with cycling issues, this is a wasted opportunity. Are the advocates so busy with the infrastructural issues that they are failing to capatilize on this golden opportunity?
Cycling desperately needs to be presented as a normal activity; as ordinary as making a cup of tea. Instead we hear of education programmes designed to encourage ‘bunches’ of cyclists to ride ‘considerately’ on Tamaki Drive. Give us a break. This should not be the core business of any organisation trying to promote everyday cycling. Cycling for transport is what it’s called. Ask yourself, since when did the Automobile Association feel obliged to defend motorists who exceed the speed limit or run red lights? Haven’t sports cyclists got their own lobby group?
The time is ripe to engage with a new audience. And who is this audience? The people who are not cycling at present, of course. These are the people who are the potential allies of cycling. The potential #wheeled pedestrians. A large percentage of trips undertaken by Aucklanders are of a distance that could easily be done on a comfortable bicycle. This audience may in fact, never ride a bike, but a friend or family member will do so. They will support it because they are smart enough to support something that is so fundamentally right. Because they will quickly understand how valuable cycling can be to a city. These people will make up the numbers to support advocates in the task of getting the infrastructural improvements that the city so desperately needs. The support base needs to be broadened beyond the current range of cyclists.
It is worth saying again; the bulk of the current breed of cyclists are based around sports and fitness. This is patently unattractive, from a marketing perspective. This is not to say that this type of cycling is inherently bad but, it will never be a selling point.
In years to come, will we look back at the death of a nurse on Tamaki Drive as the turning point? Will it be the point when the road engineers responsible for that death, move into the 21st Century and start to focus on transport being about moving people rather than slavishly providing for cars? Will it be the day that ordinary Aucklanders throw up their arms in dispair at the unnecessary killing of innocent people and demand action? This was how it happened in The Netherlands. Look at the state of cycling there now. It would be nice to think we could do the same in Auckland, but there is alot of ground to be covered before we will see any real progress. It will be the ordinary people who tip the balance in the end. How will these people be reached and who will do it?
The vacuum is waiting to be filled.
Cycling. It’s as easy as walking, but faster….
You can follow the #wheeledpedestrian on Twitter- @wheeledped
WP, I can agree with quite a few of your arguments, but I also think you are being very typically selective.
No mention that it was Auckland’s cycle advocates (well, CAA, to be specific) that created “Cycle Style” fashion show together with Frocks on Bikes. That CAA lobbies constantly for protected cycle lanes and off-road paths, which any sports cyclists would ignore even if paid money to ride there. No mention of “bikes on buses”, or our advocacy for bike carriage on the new electric trains. Or that we helped to bring over Roger Geller, the champion of the ultimate “Cycle Culture” city in the US, Portland, to talk to our city’s transport engineers and bureaucrats.
No mention that a presentation on “cycle culture” with lots of images of everyday cyclists was what CAA made a splash with at both NZTA, Auckland Transport, the Council’s Transport Committee, and various other organisations and groups in Auckland last year (google “Building a cycle culture for the Supercity” for it).
No, all you focus is the fact that we also helped organise the “good bunch” sports cycle workshops, to take some of the mutual aggro out of the equation, and that we aren’t shouting for a helmet law repeal “right here, right now”. You obviously have no idea what our “core business” is, when you talk about what we do. But you seem pretty happy to give us advice. How about help?
Is it really helpful to describe other cyclists’ activities as “not cycling” and “weird, freaky, dangerous, sub-cultural stuff”? I mean, I’m no mountain-biker, but I get a bit tired of the backhands passed to road cyclists and mountain-bikers on this blog.
@David. Did actually watch the TV clip? Good grief I wouldn’t do any of that stuff without a full exo-skeleton! Come-on that stuff was straight out of New World Disorder, not cycling through downtown Copenhagen/Amsterdam (which could have just as easily been used as an example).
I love my mountain biking and (watching) downhill riding, but that TV clip was ridiculous. “Let’s go on youtube and find XTREME BIKE CRASH VIDEOS!!11!”
It’s like having a mundane car safety article, filled with clips of the worst rallying crashes.
But describing DH riding as “weird, freaky, dangerous, sub-cultural stuff” does no favours for anyone. Its a legitimate sport with Kiwis racing at international level. If getting more kids on bikes is a priority, DH will probably be the “coolest” version of cycling in their minds.
Welcome to the world of the media? Why would they go for the less flashy, everyday bliss stories of cycling?
Actually, more of them do run these type of everyday cycling stories these days – but if you are surprised that the media will always love to present the “edgy” stuff (even if it has little relation to reality), then you probably will also be surprised that the Olympic Games is increasingly losing media market share to the X Games and other activities sponsored by companies like Red Bulll etc…
You want a new image for cycling? I suggest that we follow what (I think?) Jan Gehl said – we want riding a bicycle to be as normal as possible. In a way, we don’t want ANY image. We want it to be just a means of transportation, as sane and safe (and possibly more fun and more convenient) as the car, but needing no particular worldview to use.
You shouldn’t be a sporty or ecologically-minded person to use a bike. You shouldn’t be trying to save or even change the world when you get on your bike. You should be able to ride your bike whether you vote ACT or Greens. You should be able to ride a bike whether you wear a business suit, a t-shirt, a lycra outfit, or a high-viz vest. And get no flack or particular attention for any of these choices.
I’m all for positive portrayals of cycling. But maybe I am suspicious of these constant calls for “marketing” cycling better. Cycling markets itself!
“The time is ripe to engage with a new audience. And who is this audience?” How about all those sport cyclists who already own bikes. What is wrong with anything they wear if they ride try riding for transport? More and more I am coming to believe if we “everyday” pimped out cyclists just stepped off our soap boxes and took our noses out of the air we may actually make cycling a little more “irresistible.”
Sorry but all this marketing talk is no better than hiring a couple models to pose at the Bike to Breakfast.