Should cycling lobby groups be subsidised by the state?

galwaycyclist

Mod Note: This thread has been hived off the Document Dublin's Cycle Lanes thread since it's probably veered off the original topic.

BostonB wrote: »

Seems obvious to me that the people making these design decisions are not referencing any source that has real life cycling experience. No one who cycles would agree to any of this madness. I used to think they did it to be seen to be doing something, but in fairness I think theres a genuine will (in some places) to improve things for cycling, but their lack of cycling experience/knowledge fails them.

If all the information was complied into a website, or a report by the cycling community, as concise suggestions, perhaps it would have some weight.

This is an eminently sensible suggestion. The main reason this has not happened is because nobody in Ireland gets paid to look after cyclist interests. Everything is done by volunteers in their free time. If anyone here thinks they would like to get involved, Cyclist.ie are meeting in Galway on Saturday 25th of September its an open meeting in that it is not restricted to just the steering group - if you want to sign up then pm me. Alternatively if you can't make Galway there is still plenty to be done and very few volunteers again pm me.

Later

Bunnyhopper

galwaycyclist wrote: »

nobody in Ireland gets paid to look after cyclist interests

Probably not quite what you're looking for, but Fáilte Ireland do have a Product Officer for walking and cycling tourism - Ciara Scully, listed at the bottom of the page here:

http://www.failteireland.ie/Business-Supports/Tourism-Sector-Development/Activities/Cycling

It might be worth including her on any lobbying lists etc. about infrastructure, cycle tracks, bringing bikes on trains, and so on.

Doctor Bob

galwaycyclist wrote: »

nobody in Ireland gets paid to look after cyclist interests.

Um, Ciarán Fallon, Dublin City Council's Cycling Officer, might beg to differ.

Sarah Danaher in Cork too.

galwaycyclist

Doctor Bob wrote: »

Um, Ciarán Fallon, Dublin City Council's Cycling Officer, might beg to differ.

Sarah Danaher in Cork too.

Neither of these individuals gets paid to work directly on behalf of any commuter cycling group they are both local authority employees and as such their primary duty could be argued to be to their employers.

Chips Lovell

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Neither of these individuals gets paid to work directly on behalf of any commuter cycling group they are both local authority employees and as such their primary duty could be argued to be to their employers.

Directly elected local authority Cycling Officers FTW!

galwaycyclist

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Neither of these individuals gets paid to work directly on behalf of any commuter cycling group they are both local authority employees and as such their primary duty could be argued to be to their employers.

Likewise with Ciara Scully of Failte Ireland, her job is arguably to sell Ireland as a cycling destination in the first instance, considerations such as the quality of that product may be secondary to that aim.

Doctor Bob

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Neither of these individuals gets paid to work directly on behalf of any commuter cycling group they are both local authority employees and as such their primary duty could be argued to be to their employers.

I guess I don't agree that 'look after cyclist interests' = 'work directly on behalf of any commuter cycling group', I'm afraid. There's no commuter cycling group in this country that represents me, and I'm solely a commuter cyclist going on 20 years.

Who, would you suggest, should pay the person/organisation working directly on behalf of commuter cycling group? Surely, by your logic, the paymaster calls the shots, whoever it may be? Therefore the current situation, whereby advocacy groups are voluntary, is the ideal- not beholden to any purser? I'm not trying to be contentious, but that seems to be the obvious conclusion. (Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you.)

mtbireland

There's no commuter cycling group in this country that represents me

Well if you're in Dublin then these guys do.....

http://www.dublincycling.com

The Dublin Cycling Campaign is an independent, voluntary lobby group that has been working to improve the city for all cyclists for over a decade and a half.

galwaycyclist

Doctor Bob wrote: »

Who, would you suggest, should pay the person/organisation working directly on behalf of commuter cycling group? Surely, by your logic, the paymaster calls the shots, whoever it may be? Therefore the current situation, whereby advocacy groups are voluntary, is the ideal- not beholden to any purser? I'm not trying to be contentious, but that seems to be the obvious conclusion. (Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you.)

Apologies if this ends up sounding like a rant but that reads as incredibly - naiive. The reason this thread exists is because there are all manner of professionals; civil engineers, town planners, architects who have no idea what they are at, who are demonstrably incompetent, but get paid fabulously large amounts of money to go around screwing up our transport infrastructure. At the same time the people who have studied these matters in detail - the cycling camaign groups - get paid nothing and are required to give up their personal time to engage with these issues. The promotion of cycling involves confronting and challenging various vested interests with big budgets and full time staff such as inter alia the environmental lobby (often our worst enemies), the car lobby who include (the SIMI, the AA and most local authority roads departments), the medical profession (many of whom would like to criminalise people who cycle in their ordinary clothes) etc etc. One of the main reasons that Conor Faughnan gets on the radio to push the car lobby's view is because he is always available to do so - its his job. The car lobby gets massive direct and indirect public subsidies via scrappage schemes, the NCT system free advertasing on our National broadcaster etc etc. The cycling lobby gets effectively nothing but are expected to help deliver the state's National Cycle Policy Framework, eg 10% of coummuter trips by bike, on their spare time.

With respect give me a break....

Bunnyhopper

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Likewise with Ciara Scully of Failte Ireland, her job is arguably to sell Ireland as a cycling destination in the first instance, considerations such as the quality of that product may be secondary to that aim.

As I said, probably not quite what you're looking for, but I still think it might be worth making the argument to her that considerations of quality should not be secondary to the aim of selling Ireland as a cycling destination but are integral to it, and that it would be in her interests to lobby for improved quality cycle infrastructure, better provision for carrying bikes on trains (and making reliable reservations for that), etc. etc.

Doctor Bob

mtbireland wrote: »

Well if you're in Dublin then these guys do.....

http://www.dublincycling.com

The Dublin Cycling Campaign is an independent, voluntary lobby group that has been working to improve the city for all cyclists for over a decade and a half.

No- that's precisely my point. They don't.

Edit: That probably sounds a bit too blunt. Apologies, and thanks for the pointer nevertheless.

Bunnyhopper

I agree with a lot of that but I'm not sure what you have in mind with these points:

galwaycyclist wrote: »

the environmental lobby (often our worst enemies), … the medical profession (many of whom would like to criminalise people who cycle in their ordinary clothes)

I don't mean I disagree with those points just that I'm not sure what you're getting at

droidus

He must mean helmets.

Bunnyhopper

droidus wrote: »

He must mean helmets.

Yeah, that's probably it - that and/or hi-viz.

galwaycyclist

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

I agree with a lot of that but I'm not sure what you have in mind with these points:I don't mean I disagree with those points just that I'm not sure what you're getting at

The Irish environmental lobby have historically favoured an analytical framework wherein it was the cyclists that were "the problem" not cars or car culture. Therefore if we could just solve "the problem" by getting the cyclists out of the way onto paths and lanes everything would be fine. Essentially the Irish environmental lobby have been quite happy to give the car/roads lobby's a smokescreen to hide behind while they carried on with business as usual. So more high-flow roundabouts, more slip roads, more left-turn only lanes, extending one-way street systems, more urban roads with rural design speeds, cul-de-sac based housing estates etc etc provided you stuck in a few "cycle lanes" when you were finished. This thread is the fruit of their efforts.

PS Droidus is right its helmets - the Irish Medical Organisation wants them made compulsory.

mtbireland

Doctor Bob wrote: »

No- that's precisely my point. They don't.

Edit: That probably sounds a bit too blunt. Apologies, and thanks for the pointer nevertheless.

How come they don't?

Chips Lovell

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Apologies if this ends up sounding like a rant but that reads as incredibly - naiive. The reason this thread exists is because there are all manner of professionals; civil engineers, town planners, architects who have no idea what they are at, who are demonstrably incompetent, but get paid fabulously large amounts of money to go around screwing up our transport infrastructure.

Hold the phone there a second. Nobody is disputing that there aren't loads of crap cycle lanes. What was being disputed was that nobody in Ireland gets paid to look after cyclist interests. And several people do, although such jobs are relatively recent developments.

tomasrojo

galwaycyclist wrote: »

The cycling lobby gets effectively nothing but are expected to help deliver the state's National Cycle Policy Framework, eg 10% of coummuter trips by bike, on their spare time.

It's a very good point. That's quite an onus on a collection of voluntary workers.

I know from talking to some of the people in the Galway and Dublin Cycling Campaigns that they spend a lot of their free time on really frustrating paperwork and lobbying so that every road doesn't end up looking like this:



Speaking of the scrappage scheme, I'm with Brian Lucy on this: it really is largely an export of much-needed money, given that we don't produce cars and most of those cars being scrapped are relatively new and roadworthy. It would probably support more jobs maintaining the existing fleet of private cars than subsidising its replacement. SIMI really must have the ear of the government in a way that most lobbyists can only dream of.

galwaycyclist

tomasrojo wrote: »

I know from talking to some of the people in the Galway and Dublin Cycling Campaigns that they spend a lot of their free time on really frustrating paperwork and lobbying so that every road doesn't end up looking like this:



.

No its actually worse than that, people are spending all their free time mired in paper trying to stop this kind of thing and this stuff still gets built. Because volunteers do not physically have enough time to engage in the kind of lobbying necesary to stop this kind of thing. eg visiting every single member of a city council within a 48 hiour window to explain that the plan (eg the Doughiska road above) they were shown on Friday and are expected to adopt on Monday night cannot work.

Later

Chips Lovell

What are you suggesting galwaycylist? That the state start subsidising private lobby groups?

galwaycyclist

el tonto wrote: »

What are you suggesting galwaycylist? That the state start subsidising private lobby groups?

That would seem to be one way forward e.g. that the state should also subsidise cycling lobby groups along with all the other groups they subsidise. The HSE funds all manner of private groups that also then engage in poltical lobbying. If the cycle campaign groups were "sports" organisations they would be in line for all manner of grants. The reason that the cycle campaign groups dont get funding is not because they are NGOs but because they come under the "transport" heading. If they were involved in "health", "sports", "equality issues", "social exclusion" etc there would be a huge NGO funding stream available.

Chips Lovell

galwaycyclist wrote: »

That would seem to be one way forward e.g. that the state should also subsidise cycling lobby groups along with all the other groups they subsidise. The HSE funds all manner of private groups that also then engage in poltical lobbying. If the cycle campaign groups were "sports" organisations they would be in line for all manner of grants. The reason that the cycle campaign groups dont get funding is not because they are NGOs but because they come under the "transport" heading. If they were involved in "health", "sports", "equality issues", "social exclusion" etc there would be a huge NGO funding stream available.

I didn't think you were seriously suggesting it, but OK...

For one thing, the examples you point to are for groups that lobby in addition to everything else they do, rather than groups that exist solely for lobbying.

But go down this path and you get a precedent for pretty much any lobby group getting funding. Aside from the dubious need to actually do this and the costs involved you then have to ask yourself which lobby groups to fund, whether they are indeed representative of the communities they purport to represent and so on.

I've no problem with cycle lobby groups campaigning for whatever they want. As a cyclist, I would have a problem if my taxes were subsidising a minority of cyclists who purport to speak for the majority.

galwaycyclist

el tonto wrote: »

I didn't think you were seriously suggesting it, but OK...

For one thing, the examples you point to are for groups that lobby in addition to everything else they do, rather than groups that exist solely for lobbying.

With respect you don't appear to have any knowledge of what any of the campaign groups do.

el tonto wrote: »

But go down this path and you get a precedent for pretty much any lobby group getting funding. Aside from the dubious need to actually do this and the costs involved you then have to ask yourself which lobby groups to fund, whether they are indeed representative of the communities they purport to represent and so on.

Like any voluntary groups the cycle campaigns represent the people who show up and get involved. They have open meetings, elected officers, transparent accounts and publish their agreed position papers for criticism and discussion. This probably puts them ahead of some groups that already get state funding. If you or anyone else chooses not to get involved that is your choice. That is not a reason to disenfranchise an entire transport sector in favour of commercial interests, which is the current situation.

el tonto wrote: »

I've no problem with cycle lobby groups campaigning for whatever they want. As a cyclist, I would have a problem if my taxes were subsidising a minority of cyclists who purport to speak for the majority.

At the moment your taxes are already subsidising various commercial and other interests that are inimical to the promotion of cycling as a form of transport. Would you continue to leave the field to those interests? I am not aware that any of the cycle campaign groups have ever purported themselves to represent anyone other than their members.

Chips Lovell

galwaycyclist wrote: »

With respect you don't appear to have any knowledge of what any of the campaign groups do.

This is what they say they do:

"The seven Irish cyclist advocacy groups have combined to form a new lobbying body called “Cyclist.ie” to raise the profile of cyclist issues and campaign for action. "

"The Dublin Cycling Campaign is an independent voluntary lobby group"

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Like any voluntary groups the cycle campaigns represent the people who show up and get involved. They have open meetings, elected officers, transparent accounts and publish their agreed position papers for criticism and discussion. This probably puts them ahead of some groups that already get state funding.

I'm sure they do all of the above but that does not equate to an entitlement for state funding. The question is not how well organised, democratic or accountable they are, the question is whether lobby groups such as these should be funded.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

If you or anyone else chooses not to get involved that is your choice. That is not a reason to disenfranchise an entire transport sector in favour of commercial interests, which is the current situation.

Take this approach and then everyone is disenfranchised, the bus users, the rail users, the motorists, the truckers, you name it. And if you fund one lobby group in a sector, you have to fund them all. You'll also have to subsidise different groups with different objectives, e.g. a group that wants more cycle lanes, a group that wants less and so on. And I can't see any way how you could just ring fence this to the transport sector. So you'll have to fund the Irish Hoteliers Association, the Irish Farmers Association, the Licensed Vintners Federation etc.

What I'm trying to say is, what makes cyclists so special?

galwaycyclist

el tonto wrote: »

I'm sure they do all of the above but that does not equate to an entitlement for state funding. The question is not how well organised, democratic or accountable they are, the question is whether lobby groups such as these should be funded.

No the subject of this thread is documenting Dublins and Irelands cycle lanes. The issue is how we achieve a viable transportation infrastructure within which cycling is a key player. I don't think it is reasonable to expect change to occur when the field of discourse is dominated by commercial and other institutional entities who are hostile to the types of measures needed to bring about change. The only way forward is if there is a strong body with full time staff who are able to dedicate their time to pursueng the interests of commuter cyclists.

The reason state funding is being raised is because people like you, and thousands more like you, are not prepared to get involved, and perhaps more importantly, are not prepared to put your hand in your back pocket and contribute. Therefore other channels must be explored

galwaycyclist

Just to address one point raised above I see no reason why there should not be some funding made available for bus users, rail users or most particularly pedestrians. The difference from the IFA etc is that the IFA are a business organisation who represent commercial business interests e.g. Farmers, ditto for the Vintners, Hoteliers etc.

PS as I understand it the Irish Haulage Association was actually given state support to set up.

Chips Lovell

galwaycyclist wrote: »

The only way forward is if there is a strong body with full time staff who are able to dedicate their time to pursueng the interests of commuter cyclists.

And has already been pointed out to you, local authorities and other public bodies have begun appointing staff to work on cycling issues. But obviously you don't think that's enough.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

The reason state funding is being raised is because people like you, and thousands more like you, are not prepared to get involved, and perhaps more importantly, are not prepared to put your hand in your back pocket and contribute. Therefore other channels must be explored

So people aren't getting involved because they are too lazy and too tight fisted? Are you sure about that? Maybe, just maybe, they aren't getting involved because they don't agree with everything these lobby groups are promoting? Or maybe they choose to lobby public officials in a different way?

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Just to address one point raised above I see no reason why there should not be some funding made available for bus users, rail users or most particularly pedestrians. The difference from the IFA etc is that the IFA are a business organisation who represent commercial business interests e.g. Farmers, ditto for the Vintners, Hoteliers etc.

PS as I understand it the Irish Haulage Association was actually given state support to set up.

Yes they represent business groups, but they raise their money from membership fees or selling services to members. If the hauliers got a grant to set up, then no, I wouldn't agree with that either.

My local residents association is quite active. We recently lobbied Dublin Bus over changes to bus routes. We've also been on to the city council about improving park areas etc. Do you think we should get a grant as well? After all, we're just a bunch of punters up against a big company like Dublin Bus.

Or what about the oridinary Joe writing letters to the Council to get the potholes on his road fixed? Shouldn't he be subsidised for the time and effort?

This is how our society works. When people want something changed they pressure their elected officials as individuals or in groups and I can't see why the cycling lobby is any different. I simply don't get this sense of entitlement. So again, what makes cyclists so special?

droidus

I actually think you could make an argument based on the benifits to society that an increased number of cyclists brings. Better health, less/slower traffic, less noise, less danger, better for the environment, less fatal accidents etc...

-Chris-

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Just to address one point raised above I see no reason why there should not be some funding made available for bus users, rail users or most particularly pedestrians. The difference from the IFA etc is that the IFA are a business organisation who represent commercial business interests e.g. Farmers, ditto for the Vintners, Hoteliers etc.

PS as I understand it the Irish Haulage Association was actually given state support to set up.

I'm wondering if you should take into account the massive benefit that cycle shops will receive if cycle lobbying is successful and cycling numbers increase?
Should the cycle lobbies not be funded by an association of bike shops who have a business interest in the promotion of cycling?

galwaycyclist

el tonto wrote: »

So people aren't getting involved because they are too lazy and too tight fisted? Are you sure about that? Maybe, just maybe, they aren't getting involved because they don't agree with everything these lobby groups are promoting? Or maybe they choose to lobby public officials in a different way?

Or maybe the environmental and car lobbies have been so successful at muddying the waters that nobody percieves any need for a cycling lobby? Because everybody knows that all cyclists need or want is a line painted down the centre of the footpath and a few signs. Who needs a cycling lobby for that?

Your assertions as to a sense of entitlement are baseless no arguments as to "entitlement" have been put to you.

Your analogy as to some residents lobbying Dublin bus is in my view disingenuous. At least with Dublin Bus you are dealing with an entity that already had some knowledge of the field and has some interest in providing a bus service. The same cannot be said of local authorities providing cycle routes.

Were your residents having to advise Dublin Bus as to the types of buses they needed to use? Did they have to advise Dublin bus as to the type of maintenance regime and driver training that would be required to support that bus fleet? Did they have to advise as to the nature of the bus timetables and how they should be presented? Were they expected to point out things like bus stops that were not accessible by prospective bus passengers? Having done this, was the same group of residents required to go through the same process for every other area of the city and every other bus route? And on their spare time?

Having done this were they then required to repeat the process for private bus operators? (Local authorities are not the only people who build roads infrastructure)

Chips Lovell

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Your assertions as to a sense of entitlement are baseless no arguments as to "entitlement" have been put to you.

See, I thought you've been arguing all along that the cycling lobby should be entitled to state funding?

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Your analogy as to some residents lobbying Dublin bus is in my view disingenuous...

The response by any other private representative group to this argument would be that funding should be commensurate with the amount of work any particular group undertakes. I'm sure Paddy the Pothole Complainer would only think it fair that he doesn't get as much as the local residents association and that they in turn would accept a smaller budget than a city wide cycling campaign. What you have to address is not the amount of work any group undertakes, but the principle of funding such a group in the first place.

galwaycyclist

el tonto wrote: »

See, I thought you've been arguing all along that the cycling lobby should be entitled to state funding?

No I have been arguing that progress will be difficult to achieve without a funded cycling lobby with full time staff. I stated that state funding might be one way of achieving this. State funding would also have its pitfalls and I would be very wary of the basis on which such funding would be accepted. My preference would be if Bill Gates appeared with his cheque book, or somebody left their house to us rather than the cats and dogs home.

skidaroo

Doctor Bob wrote: »

Um, Ciarán Fallon, Dublin City Council's Cycling Officer, might beg to differ.

Sarah Danaher in Cork too.

I am not sure if Sarah Danaher is being specifically paid to look after cyclists interests. She is not a cycling officer, just someone who works in the Transportation Division in Cork City Council who happens to cycle daily to work and other places...
So occasionally people direct cycling questions to her and sometimes she gets asked to work on cycling related projects. In reality responsiblity for working on cycling issues and infrastructure is divided between many different people working in the local authority and they don't all know what each other is doing on cycling related matters all the time....