Dublin cycling campaign thoughts?

slap/dash

Just came across this
https://www.facebook.com/dublincycling/posts/10153795084485052:0

A lobby group for some, not all cyclists it would appear:/

These are the people speaking for me? No thanks

Jawgap

What's your objection to them?

I'm not a member or a fan of anyone representing me either but DCC seem to be pretty good at the whole advocacy thing.

If anything they strike me as being quite rational and constructive.

Beasty

They have their own forum on Boards

... and here's their website

nerraw1111

Jawgap wrote: »

What's your objection to them?

I'm not a member or a fan of anyone representing me either but DCC seem to be pretty good at the whole advocacy thing.

If anything they strike me as being quite rational and constructive.

Yup. The first comment taking offence on behalf of spandex wearers. People go out of their way to be offended. Simply an effort to normalise cycling, pointing out that you don't need to dress in neon etc to enjoy a casual bike ride.

slap/dash

nerraw1111 wrote: »

Yup. The first comment taking offence on behalf of spandex wearers. People go out of their way to be offended. Simply an effort to normalise cycling, pointing out that you don't need to dress in neon etc to enjoy a casual bike ride.

Ah ok. I see. Never mind

diomed

The bicycle is the 2853 Navy Grijs selling at €349.
I am not sure there is "normal" cycling. If you do not cycle a Dutch bicycle with a wicker basket on front are you not "normal"?

petethedrummer

I was at two of their meetings a few years ago. They seem like a nice, level headed bunch of people with good intentions.

They are geared towards the utility & commuting cyclist. Which covers some of my cycling. Cycling Ireland covers the rest.

Beasty

slap/dash wrote: »

These are the people speaking for me? No thanks

Why do you assert they are speaking for you? They speak for their own members. They lobby for things that they believe will improve things for cyclists. They do not however claim to "speak" for cyclists in general

quozl

I think they do good work so I became a member.

Jawgap

quozl wrote: »

I think they do good work so I became a member.

Did you have to sacrificially burn your Lycra before they let you in and showed you the secret handshake?

slap/dash

Beasty wrote: »

Why do you assert they are speaking for you? They speak for their own members. They lobby for things that they believe will improve things for cyclists. They do not however claim to "speak" for cyclists in general

Grand. Ireland's done grand that way. Anyway I think that approach is quationable and frankly depressing.

petethedrummer

Jawgap wrote: »

Did you have to sacrificially burn your Lycra before they let you in and showed you the secret handshake?

I was at the meeting in Lycra. I was offered tea.

quozl

Jawgap wrote: »

Did you have to sacrificially burn your Lycra before they let you in and showed you the secret handshake?

Seeing as the only committee member I know is a dedicated Lycra clad club cyclist, unsurprisingly no.

People are missing the point of that - admittedly unclear post. The cycle chic stuff is an attempt to get more non-sport cyclists cycling by removing the perception that cycling is only for 'serious' cyclists. Ie you can choose to just wear your ordinary clothes or even be dressed up and still commute by bike. It's an international movement and I'd agree with them that one of the best things we can do for cycling is to get more people doing it. Some of them may even progress to being Lycra clad.

enas

Yeah, that's the Copenhagenize school of thought. You may like or not.

Still, I find the argument fundamentally flawed. As you sum up:

quozl wrote: »

The cycle chic stuff is an attempt to get more non-sport cyclists cycling by removing the perception that cycling is only for 'serious' cyclists.

Sorry, but that's a blatant case of reversing cause and effect. That you see more cyclists dressed in a casual way is a sure sign that cycling is attractive to a broader demographic. However that's a consequence of cycling being more attractive, it surely doesn't cause cycling to be more attractive.

I don't know, I'm not good at making analogies, but it's a bit as if some organisation were campaigning for less crime, and were reporting of a place where bike theft was so low that actually people were leaving their bikes unlocked all the time. And then, they were inviting people to stop locking their bikes in Dublin, hoping it would reduce bike theft. I'm not overly convinced.

Iwannahurl

enas wrote: »

Sorry, but that's a blatant case of reversing cause and effect. That you see more cyclists dressed in a casual way is a sure sign that cycling is attractive to a broader demographic. However that's a consequence of cycling being more attractive, it surely doesn't cause cycling to be more attractive.

It's both.

Essentially it is a form of social marketing. Check out "diffusion of innovation" or the "bandwagon effect", among other relevant concepts.

enas

Iwannahurl wrote: »

It's both.

Essentially it is a form of social marketing. Check out "diffusion of innovation" or the "bandwagon effect", among other relevant concepts.

I admit it, I'm not a marketing person. But I'm open minded. So let's assume that some very clever marketing operations succeed in persuading a good few people to try out cycling. Let's even assume for a moment that part of that persuasion came from seeing other cyclists dressed normally and not like geeks.

Then, those people discover how poor the conditions are, and quite logically, move on to something else. What was marketing good for here?

On a more general level: what's the track record of marketing as a way of increasing cycling? Where has it succeeded, alone, in increasing numbers, or where has it contributed to this?

I've nothing against marketing, but I have against bad marketing. Marketing is good when there's already a good product to sell. My opinion is concentrate on making cycling a good product, then the rest will follow quite easily.

HivemindXX

enas wrote: »

Then, those people discover how poor the conditions are, and quite logically, move on to something else. What was marketing good for here?

Why would this happen? Most people I know who start cycling keep it up, at least to an extent. Sometimes they have to be told it's ok to cycle in regular clothes as well.

quozl

I believe in that approach. For years I thought it'd be too dangerous for me to learn to ride a bike and cycle in Dublin. The cycle commuters I knew were mostly serious lycra clad types.
A large part of what convinced me that it'd be sensible to try was the increase in cyclists and especially things like the plebs on Dublin bikes. If all those ordinary looking people (with no helmets, hi viz or lycra) could cycle on those **** looking bikes without a single fatality despite the huge (i forget exactly) number of trips then cycling wasn't the dangerous pursuit that I thought it was.
I now cycle to work and did a hilly metric century ride yesterday for ****s and giggles.

So, I really do believe in it. I also think it's likely to be an even bigger influence in getting women cycling. Making it seem more a form of transport for normal looking people than a hardcore sport.

petethedrummer

enas wrote: »

I've nothing against marketing, but I have against bad marketing. Marketing is good when there's already a good product to sell. My opinion is concentrate on making cycling a good product, then the rest will follow quite easily.

They do lobby for infrastructural and law changes etc.. along with doing a some social media marketing.

Iwannahurl

enas wrote: »

I admit it, I'm not a marketing person. But I'm open minded. So let's assume that some very clever marketing operations succeed in persuading a good few people to try out cycling. Let's even assume for a moment that part of that persuasion came from seeing other cyclists dressed normally and not like geeks.

Then, those people discover how poor the conditions are, and quite logically, move on to something else. What was marketing good for here?

Two words & one number: Dublin Bikes & 6,000,000 (trips).

enas

petethedrummer wrote: »

They do lobby for infrastructural and law changes etc.. along with doing a some social media marketing.

Oh, I'm not denigrating at all the DCC. In all fairness, I wouldn't be familiar enough to be able to make any comment whatsoever, and whatever I know sounds really positive. I was simply expressing my views in relation to this specific argument (the "casual clothes cycle chic" thing), not to the person or organisation who expressed it (and it's not at all specific to them).

I agree it's something desirable. But, it's a mistake to see as a purpose in itself. It is an indicator (of how mainstream cycling became, which itself is an indicator of how safe and pleasant cycling is perceived to be). It's quite futile to try and alter the indicator, instead the phenomenon that it illustrates. And incidentally, I believe that a really good product is self-promoting, it doesn't need any marketing around it.