Cycling in Wellington has beaten me to this post on Auckland Transports new campaign, and it was written so well, I have just plain nicked it!
Overall, I would go with a ‘C’ and ‘good try but could have done better’ for the campaign. However, as CIW has pointed out, Auckland Transport is so hamstrung with a culture of fear and nanny state health & safety rules requiring the thing be covered with fluoro and helmets and danger warnings, that realistically they’ve probably really pushed the boundaries with this one!
The question is raised “how do other countries manage to do it so much better?” and “should they just stick to what they know – infrastructure?” It is a bit like the school board advising students on how to enjoy popular music. You might get a few of the uncool kids to listen but it won’t take off!
“It is crazy to think we can encourage cycling while simultaneously discouraging it.” – Dave Kincaid
For a long time after the discussion on cycle culture vs infrastructure started among my fellow bloggers, I pretty well assumed that councils should stick to their knitting and focus on infrastructure. The odd bit of sponsorship of this or that event was fine, of course, but by and large they should just work in their appropriate field.
I still don’t think councils are particularly well-suited to culture pushes – they’re generally too rules-bound to be really creative, and they move too slowly to be leaders in this field. They like to keep their heads beneath the parapet.
But my views on this topic have started to change. I still don’t think councils will be leaders, but I do think they can be effective supporters. If they do it right.
Auckland Transport have a video series on starting out cycling that has the potential for brilliance. Video titles such as “Planning Your Route”, and “Feeling Confident on Your Bike” indicate well-thought out concepts for new or tentative riders. The people in the vids talk about what works for them, which would a new rider a level of comfort.
But there’s a problem. All but one of the vids had hi-viz in the front image, and most people I saw were wearing hi-viz (although there were some beautifully stylish riders too). Hi-viz is what people wear when they’re undertaking a dangerous activity. It’s not normal. Are you starting to see the problem?
All that good work that has gone into topics, getting the right people, good production values etc has been a bit of a waste. The main message that comes through clearly is “Danger! Danger!” How does that normalise cycling?
This is exactly why I think councils on the whole fail badly at cycle culture. They seem to confuse road safety with individual safety, and believe that in order to be responsible they must promote the message that cycling requires extraordinary levels of ‘protection’.
Certainly visibility is key. And there may well be times when hi-viz is appropriate – on a busy main road in a rural area, perhaps. But is promoting a form of visibility that sends an instant message that a) the wearer is engaged in a dangerous occupation, b) they are trained for this dangerous occupation and therefore no extra care is required around them, and c) (adding insult to injury) they are low-class, really going to encourage people to ride for transport?
I think making a blanket argument is not fair to Council / AT staff. After all, this is also a Auckland Council / AT campaign image:
http://cyclingauckland.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Clipboard01-294×420.jpg
Administrative organisations that get a lot of “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” whipping don’t end up very courageous in their average actions. I’d suggest that it is better that cycling advocates celebrate their successes (both those of authorities and of their own) than dwell on their failures or also-rans. It saps time and energy.
Positive feedback is much more successful in achieving things (negative feedback is only good if you want to STOP things – discrete things, you can’t just stop “rude driving”). There’s also some interesting things in this following article, which was a real key read for me, for all that it is so short:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivity/negativity_ratio
In summary, if you want a team to underperform, ensure that they get lots of “constructive criticism”.
Hi Max,
I’m sure you’re right about giving positive feedback being more effective than criticism. I can’t help pointing out though that the people in the AT campaign in the link above are clearly cycling on a footpath, not a road.
I do think perhaps the hi-vis thing becomes self reinforcing. Cyclist in the media are shown wearing it, cyclists then feel they should, and the media then reflects the reality that cyclists are wearing it.
It’s difficult to break the cycle, and I think it applies more generally than just the hi-vis issue. I think there’s a similar thing happening with the perceived safety of cycling for example.
Anyway, finally getting to the point; I wonder if everyone with an interest in increasing cycling in Auckland only said positive things about there experiences (or at least made the 5:1 ratio of good to bad in the wikipedia article) for 12 months or so, whether it would make a difference to the number of people cycling in the city..?
Its almost like a “come and bike our cyclepaths, but beware of the big bad road!” video series.
I have riden most of the cycleways in the videos, and I think you need the Hi-Vis for the dog walkers more than motorists! But the fact is there are alot of people who are oblivious to others on the road, path, bike or car, no matter how visable you are, youve just got to keep your wits about you!
wow, so few views of those videos, how long have they been available?
I like the broad cross section, but it’s a shame that they didn’t include a commuter cyclist as part of “everyone”
We can still criticise Council / AT when they get things wrong. But my opinion is that we need to ask ourselves at least sometimes whether there’s more positive ways to spend our time and energy – I loved Jenny’s fluoro-but-not-construction-worker high-viz garment idea from some years back. Such creative breaks with the (here-and-now) default are what cycling needs.
Or you guys and gals concerned with the “construction vest” message* could create an “indie campaign” – something like “same message, but with style”. Certainly cycle advocates don’t have anywhere near the money a Council organisation has, but that need not be a downside, because you can also be more flexible and creative. Time spent on creating a better campaign would be worthwile – and if it takes off, maybe AT will take notice.
(*I am also concerned about it, it just isn’t quite that high on my priority list)
I liked Susan’s bright, but not cyclist coat, practical, stylish and visible!
I bought my last windbreaker in a very light gray* specifically because I wanted something I could cycle in at night that would be much more visible than the dark stuff I often tend to wear. Certainly many winter cyclists in NZ could stand to do these things, even if they don’t need fluro during the daytime.
*(I call it “basically white” – my girlfriend sniffs at that, though)
Max, did you actually read the article? I don’t mind criticism of what I write, but I don’t see any blanket statements in there. There is encouragement in there but you seem to have missed it – I said the concept & effort etc were excellent. The original post also contains Helpful Suggestions. I don’t see any point saying what shouldn’t be done without also saying what should.
Also, for the record, I DO want Auckland Transport to stop something. I want them to stop making people believe cycling is unsafe through poor use of imagery.
It hasn’t come through in the above extract from my original post, but I used to work for Wellington City. I think I have some idea of how to encourage and discourage council officers.
Hi Lisa,
Yes, I did read your and Jenny’s blog posts. Maybe I was conflating the comments you made a bit with those of some people in the cycling community who seem categorically of the opinion that Council staff just ain’t of any use. So I’ll accept that in the defense of the various worthwile Council staff I know and work with, I in turn myself got a bit too blanket-statementy.
I still feel that it is best to just ignore such things and praise / concentrate on other things. But of course since you see active harm in this – where for me, it is just a not particularly extreme case of the status quo – you will feel different.
I don’t think talking positively about cycling and/or marketing will really help that much until we can stop people experiencing cycling (when they actually try it and get out on their bikes) as dangerous. I know several woman who genuinely gave cycling a go in Auckland, bought a bike, tried it various times, and gave up because it FELT too dangerous to them. Whether they were right or not about how objectively dangerous it is, that was their subjective experience. And this is why I think it is really important for us to focus on getting good infrastructure and legislation in place to protect cyclists – although I accept marketing is also impt.
Definitely chicken and egg stuff … people won’t try it if the image is ‘danger, danger, uncool, dorky, danger’ and, the few who do give it a go, will give up pretty quick if it ‘feels’ dangerous. But if more people ride, it feels safer and it is safer due to the ‘safety in numbers’ effect! And if more people ride bicycles then more investment is made in cycling infrastructure, which makes it safer and makes it feel safer …..
So the upshot of this is that we need to promote cycling the same way as soft drink manufacturers market their products – after all, they have a lot less to work with (sugar laden fizzy stuff that makes you fat and rots your teeth). Marketing the bicycle should be eezy peezy if we can get away from the dorky fluoro safety vest and helmet thing. Fizzy drinks are bad for you in certain circumstances, like drinking too much of it – everyone knows that, but do you ever see any rotten teeth or fat people in the Coke ads?
Marketing is about creating aspirations and desires. When was the last time you saw a car advert that said “buy this car – it will cost you a fortune in petrol, suck your life away sitting in traffic jams, and it will probably make you fat and realistically you probably can’t afford it once you factor in the parking and speeding tickets you will get, and the chances of you having an accident are really quite high because cars are inherently dangerous and it also means you won’t be able to drink when you go out for the evening” … I could go on … Do they zoom in on the tax disk to show you it’s current. Do they show you the insurance papers or it’s WOF? Do they ever show you a petrol station or a traffic jam?
So why do we need to put all the mundane detail in bicycle marketing?
We need a square jawed male model in a beautifully cut suit zipping through empty streets, casually arriving and leaning his styley bicycle against an impossibly gorgeous cafe to meet an equally beautiful female model for a latte … how hard can that be? Isn’t this marketing 101? Add a clever tag line and voila!
“So the upshot of this is that we need to promote cycling the same way as soft drink manufacturers market their products – after all, they have a lot less to work with (sugar laden fizzy stuff that makes you fat and rots your teeth).”
Actually, the sugar has very strong quasi-addictive properties, and provides an immediate reward, with all the downsides coming only MUCH, much later. Whereas the benefits of cycling and the physical activity rush take a bit longer to kick in, maybe, and the potential downsides (exhaustion, stress, rude drivers) might easily all be experienced by a novice on her first ride ;-/
Not that I disagree with your concept of marketing cycling better.
We obviously ride in a completely different way to each other Max. I would say that there is a definite and immediate high every time I push off on my bicycle; I don’t really notice a delayed effect but there probably is one in increased health etc. I would totally say that riding a bike is addictive and once you’ve experienced the freedom and fun of cycling, it entices you back.
As for the downsides, I can only remember one incidence where I have experienced a grumpy driver and most of the time they are very courteous. On the other hand, I can name quite a few interactions with stroppy shop assistants and bus drivers (from inside the bus) so would have to conclude that there are no more rude drivers than there are rude people I encounter in the rest of my life. Exhaustion? Not sure what you mean here. There is no cycling law that says you have to ride really fast and in my opinion, if you are at exhaustion, you are doing it wrong. Stress? Riding my bike is the least stressful time of my day. In fact I think I would be completely stressed out if I DIDN’T ride my bicycle.
Maybe I’m an eternal optimist but I can’t see any downsides in cycling. I think that people are often put off before they begin and that the ‘sports’ cycling culture that we have in NZ means that quite often beginner cyclists are just doing it wrong as they feel they need to fluoro up and battle with the traffic to be a ‘proper’ cyclist. There are other ways of getting around on your bicycle – go slowly, take the back streets, smile and chat to people you pass regularly, take the time to enjoy life, enjoy the ride!