The rise of the 'cyclivist'

eagle eye · 16-08-2017 04:35PM

amcalester wrote:

It would cost more to implement a cycle tax that it would generate.

amcalester wrote:

Also, bicycles have 0 emissions so how would you tax them.

amcalester wrote:

I already pay motor tax anyway, do I get a refund because I don't use my car as much as others and so cause less damage?

I'm a cyclist myself, did you miss that bit?

If they did it then you have rights. If they did it, properly, and put cycling lanes on all primary roadways it would be a lot safer out there imo.

buffalo · 16-08-2017 04:45PM

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm a cyclist myself, did you miss that bit?

If they did it then you have rights. If they did it, properly, and put cycling lanes on all primary roadways it would be a lot safer out there imo.

Just because you're a cyclist doesn't make the idea any less farcical. If the point is not to raise money but to enshrine cyclists' rights in other road users' minds, it would be a lot better to pour funds into ROTR enforcement.

After some convictions for dangerous overtakes and plenty of fines for parking in bike lanes, the general public would be a lot more aware and considerate of cyclists.

Danjamin1 · 16-08-2017 04:46PM

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm a cyclist myself, did you miss that bit?

If they did it then you have rights. If they did it, properly, and put cycling lanes on all primary roadways it would be a lot safer out there imo.

Unbeknownst to many you already have rights on the road, the Road Tax misnomer is a weak argument that ignorami use to justify their own sh**ty road behaviour. There are already cycling lanes (albeit in varying states of suitability & disrepair) on many primary routes but if they were observed & respected then the actions of I BIKE Dublin wouldn't be necessary. The will doesn't seem to be there to invest in appropriate & fit for purpose infrastructure. Just look at the poor planning around the Luas cross city project, despite there being a report on the impact to cycling traffic in existence it's still an afterthought for the planners.

Kaisr Sose · 16-08-2017 04:54PM

Danjamin1 wrote: »

.....The will doesn't seem to be there to invest in appropriate & fit for purpose infrastructure. Just look at the poor planning around the Luas cross city project, despite there being a report on the impact to cycling traffic in existence it's still an afterthought for the planners.

Knee jerk planning will always lead to fluid on the knee like symptoms. This keeps the whole Co Co and Planning lobbing train going. Why would they try and get it right first time

AndrewJRenko · 16-08-2017 05:17PM

Jawgap wrote: »

How do you know I don't

Where did I say that you don't?

beauf · 16-08-2017 05:43PM

Jawgap wrote: »

indeed - but even in the best countries good infrastructure is not universal whereas a respectful road use culture (if it could be engendered) would be ubiquitous.

I think that is going to be difficult in a country which doesn't have mindset of following rules in general.

HivemindXX · 16-08-2017 06:45PM

I'm baffled that people think Critical Mass is more positive than IBIKEDUBLIN. I see the latter as highlighting issues while disrupting only those people who want to park or drive illegally anyway. Good.

The point of Critical Mass (despite protestations to the contrary) is to disrupt people going about their normal business. I doubt very many of them are swayed to think they should get out on a bike themselves.

DCC seem fairly ineffective to me. I remember writing to them more than a decade ago pointing out how utterly dreadful the N11 northbound was (and still is) for cyclists and wondering why they had given it a good review. The reply was that they didn't want to appear too negative because then nobody would listen to them. Seems like nobody really listens to them anyway.

If I was rating the "cyclivists" at the moment it would be IBIKEDUBLIN first, DCC second and the Critical Mass crowd a very distant third. If those Russian guys who slap the big stickers across the windscreens of badly parked cars wanted to come over for a bit I'd be in favour too.

Jawgap · 16-08-2017 07:09PM

HivemindXX wrote: »

I'm baffled that people think Critical Mass is more positive than IBIKEDUBLIN. I see the latter as highlighting issues while disrupting only those people who want to park or drive illegally anyway. Good.

The point of Critical Mass (despite protestations to the contrary) is to disrupt people going about their normal business. I doubt very many of them are swayed to think they should get out on a bike themselves.

DCC seem fairly ineffective to me. I remember writing to them more than a decade ago pointing out how utterly dreadful the N11 northbound was (and still is) for cyclists and wondering why they had given it a good review. The reply was that they didn't want to appear too negative because then nobody would listen to them. Seems like nobody really listens to them anyway.

If I was rating the "cyclivists" at the moment it would be IBIKEDUBLIN first, DCC second and the Critical Mass crowd a very distant third. If those Russian guys who slap the big stickers across the windscreens of badly parked cars wanted to come over for a bit I'd be in favour too.

Not sure about the law in Russia, but here that would amount to criminal damage.

Some CM demos / tactics such as corking, die-ins and cyclones are disruptive and intended to be so. I'd be unsupportive of such an approach, but I think the idea of cyclists meeting in groups to cycle particular routes to provide a more impactful image of how many use it has merit.

CramCycle · 16-08-2017 08:00PM

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

should add that Weepsie is right that it's not all AGS fault. My bad there too. . It is disappointing to see them drive past cars illegally parked and not do anything. It can't be that hard/time consuming to rewrite a ticket for a parking violation. Candy from baby/low hanging fruit etc.

Alas the paperwork involved in the issuing of low level fines, they are basically a fools errand. If your a garda who wants to catch anything other than low hanging fruit or fill out paperwork for 50% of your day then you basically have to ignore it. The whole system needs a project manager to review grassroots policing including the atrocious QC system. Until that happens, all Tue garfai in the world won't fix the issues that are pervasive in Ireland.

I am not surprised so many of the rank and file are so disillusioned early in their career.

guanciale · 16-08-2017 08:34PM

I fully support the protest and the manner of it. They are enforcing an access way to a piece of infrastructure that is routinely abused and going about this in a manner that does not encumber other traffic legally voing about their business.
Very clever I hope its effective.

I support the protest as I believe its both necessary and not before time. My view is that Dublin is an increasingly grim place to commute by bike. I saw that with 14years of commuting by bike in Dublin. Infrastructure is now at breaking point. In addition Garda Traffic is possibly the least effective and poorest resourced of our police force.
As an old city we cannot make many roads wider abd that is why there needs ti be more emphasis on improving the infrastructure within the physical space we have, enforcing traffic laws for all and finally creating disincentives for private car use and greater incentives for public transport and other forms of sustainable transport (walking, jogging, cycling, even skateboarding).

It is largely irrelevant if some posters here believe cycling in Dublin is fine - I bet most here are reasonably able and experienced on a bike. I work with people who wont use a Dublin Bike ouside of onpath bike lanes (IFSC& Grand Canal) because ofnpoor infrastrucre.

In other cities better infrastructure and transport planning is key to better urban living.

Rezident · 16-08-2017 08:41PM

That is brilliant, another option is the psycholists in the psycholane!:mad: Something has to be done, they are killing us, literally.

AndrewJRenko · 16-08-2017 09:15PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Not sure about the law in Russia, but here that would amount to criminal damage.

Are you sure about this? I know some reputable businesses (at least one hospital) that used to do this for bad parkers. Has there ever been a case or ruling on this?

Jawgap · 16-08-2017 09:28PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Are you sure about this? I know some reputable businesses (at least one hospital) that used to do this for bad parkers. Has there ever been a case or ruling on this?

CDA 1991......“to damage” includes—

(a) in relation to property other than data (but including a storage medium in which data are kept), to destroy, deface, dismantle or, whether temporarily or otherwise, render inoperable or unfit for use or prevent or impair the operation of,

If you think it's not a crime put a sticker on a Garda car

maybe something like "Justice for cycle lanes" and see what happens.

Also, depending on where the sticker is placed, for example across the windscreen, (and if it's done so when the car is in a public place) there's the potential for X charge under S113 of the RTA 1963 - "Unauthorised interference with mechanism of vehicle"

AndrewJRenko · 16-08-2017 09:47PM

Jawgap wrote: »

CDA 1991......“to damage” includes—

(a) in relation to property other than data (but including a storage medium in which data are kept), to destroy, deface, dismantle or, whether temporarily or otherwise, render inoperable or unfit for use or prevent or impair the operation of,

If you think it's not a crime put a sticker on a Garda car maybe something like "Justice for cycle lanes" and see what happens.

Also, depending on where the sticker is placed, for example across the windscreen, (and if it's done so when the car is in a public place) there's the potential for X charge under S113 of the RTA 1963 - "Unauthorised interference with mechanism of vehicle"

Thanks, that's interesting - I'd wonder if it is 100% clear as that putting a sticker on something is 'defacing' it, but it is good to know exactly what's in the legislation. I wonder if there have been any/many cases involving stickers on cars?

These are the ones that have been used in other countries;

IMG_9835.JPG?auto=format&fit=max&h=1000&w=1000

IMG_9835.JPG?auto=format&fit=max&h=1000&w=1000

ED E · 16-08-2017 09:57PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'd love the i bike dublin people to pick a spot outside a garda station for their next event.

Never been far from one.

Jawgap · 16-08-2017 09:59PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Thanks, that's interesting - I'd wonder if it is 100% clear as that putting a sticker on something is 'defacing' it, but it is good to know exactly what's in the legislation. I wonder if there have been any/many cases involving stickers on cars?

These are the ones that have been used in other countries;

As I said try it with a Garda car and you'll find out soon enough

- maybe when they do an MIT checkpoint or speed enforcement and park up blocking a cycle lane.

Defacement is the provision used against fly-posters (sometimes).

Corca Baiscinn · 16-08-2017 10:06PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

re the differing approaches from dublin cycling campaign, and i bike dublin; i get the impression that they are not completely different organisations (as in, there are probably people active in both); but that DCC is working within the statutory systems to achieve change, and that they may have been wary about starting direct action campaigning under a DCC umbrella, as it may not have fit with their approach.

I think this is right and afaik people from DCC have joined I Bike Events so its not either/or. Campaigning takes many forms; lobbying planners and politicians/submissions/media publicity/organising events/protests and sometimes direct action. Different people have an inclination/aptitude for different activities too so it's not either/or.

I also think that both kinds of activity can secure results, sometimes its softly softly catchee monkey and sometimes its time to kick ass.

Same with public cycles, some in the past year (October) have been aimed at protesting re lack of funding/infrastructure, others especially the Liffey ones have been planned as a celebration of cycling and an indication of what could be, hence the choice of Sunday and the emphasis on family participation. There were some brilliant photos of the April cycle in circulation

jaqian · 16-08-2017 11:50PM

Jawgap wrote: »

First off, I don't cycle as much as I used to (or should) but I still get out occasionally and as yesterday evening proved - there's not much to beat a summer evening's cycle around the city.......even if it is going from meeting to meeting!!

Anyhooooo.....on the way back I detoured to have a look at the 'protest' going on at the Customs House regarding the use of that stretch of solid line bike lane as an effective coach park and I just wondered if anyone else has considered the rise of what might be called 'cyclivism.'

https://twitter.com/dublincycling/status/897493404124413953

As an aside, I thought I'd invented a new word but google tells me there is a (very nice) cyclivist blog.

I kind of defined cyclivism as something more than advocacy, as in activities that stray into the realm of more direct action.

Anyway, my own view, fwiw, is that while highlighting important issues, I'm not sure this type of action does much to help resolve matters because it tends to be escalatory, rather than conciliatory, and can result in unintended consequences - in the case of the cycle lane issue, for example, the reaction of DCC may well be to turn 'solid line' lanes into 'dashed line' lanes (or remove them altogether). And in any event, is the fundamental issue in cycle safety terms the lack of infrastructure or the country's driving and road safety culture (or lack thereof)? Personally, I think it's less of the former and much more of the latter.

Plus, I think it just shifts the perception of cycling from being a pleasant activity to being almost, but not quite, some form of political activity!! But there again, Orwell (I think) did say the revolution will arrive by bicycle.

I'm one of the "cyclivists" second time doing it and as Stephen one of the organisers said doing nothing wasn't working. Cycling in Dublin is not a nice experience, most of the cycle lanes when fit for purpose are just used as taxi ranks or just plane old parking, yet when you are forced out into the main lane you get grief for being in their way. I've been forced off the road by buses, had taxis brush against me at speed, had cars continuously blow their horns at me while they follow me and a car over take me at speed and throw water in my face. There are no Gardai visible and when there are, they are usual parked in the mandatory cycle lane along with taxis, vans and buses. So what are we to do? If we lose the lane we haven't lost anything as we do not have it at the moment but we might get it segregated and safe to use. I'm also a driver as are 90% of Dublin cyclists so we all pay Road Tax ahem Motor Tax but you'd swear we were pariahs.

Jawgap · 17-08-2017 07:13AM

jaqian wrote: »

I'm one of the "cyclivists" second time doing it and as Stephen one of the organisers said doing nothing wasn't working. Cycling in Dublin is not a nice experience, most of the cycle lanes when fit for purpose are just used as taxi ranks or just plane old parking, yet when you are forced out into the main lane you get grief for being in their way. I've been forced off the road by buses, had taxis brush against me at speed, had cars continuously blow their horns at me while they follow me and a car over take me at speed and throw water in my face. There are no Gardai visible and when there are, they are usual parked in the mandatory cycle lane along with taxis, vans and buses. So what are we to do? If we lose the lane we haven't lost anything as we do not have it at the moment but we might get it segregated and safe to use. I'm also a driver as are 90% of Dublin cyclists so we all pay Road Tax ahem Motor Tax but you'd swear we were pariahs.

I must be cycling in a different city.....if the lane is blocked I just maneuver around the obstruction.....and maybe it's just me, but I can count on one hand the amount of time I get "grief" in a given year, and even then it's confined to certain stretches of road I cycle regularly.

....and again the issues you highlight are down to culture, and that culture will still exist when a cyclist has to leave a segregated facility and use shared infrastructure.

As for 'doing nothing wasn't working' - just how does that statement apply to the likes of the canal cycle track, the Clontarf one, the re-vamp of the Park, the introduction of the DB scheme, the establishment of the CTW scheme, the ongoing construction of the various greenways around the country?

I would've thought that its better to show cycling as something that enhances the city and makes it more liveable (in other words show cycling and cyclists in a positive light) is better than engaging in activities that make life more difficult for another group of road users who also have a legitimate interest in how the city is organised and run.

Lambay island · 17-08-2017 09:12AM

Jawgap wrote: »

I must be cycling in a different city.....if the lane is blocked I just maneuver around the obstruction.....and maybe it's just me, but I can count on one hand the amount of time I get "grief" in a given year, and even then it's confined to certain stretches of road I cycle regularly.

....and again the issues you highlight are down to culture, and that culture will still exist when a cyclist has to leave a segregated facility and use shared infrastructure.

As for 'doing nothing wasn't working' - just how does that statement apply to the likes of the canal cycle track, the Clontarf one, the re-vamp of the Park, the introduction of the DB scheme, the establishment of the CTW scheme, the ongoing construction of the various greenways around the country?

I would've thought that its better to show cycling as something that enhances the city and makes it more liveable (in other words show cycling and cyclists in a positive light) is better than engaging in activities that make life more difficult for another group of road users who also have a legitimate interest in how the city is organised and run.

The culture is the problem but why should we accept it at the expense of our safety. The culture has changed in other cities with proper infrastructure and people in power understanding that the car is not the the be all and end all. You are right to point out the positives of the canal, clontarf etc but it doesn't mean it should stop right there. Plus, I don't believe these decisions came about to introduce these segregated lanes without the likes Of Dublin Cycling etc lobbying for it.
Id be similar to you in that yes there are obstructions that I generally have no major issue maneuvering around but it only takes once, for a motorist not to be looking when maneuvers or one of the illegal parked cars moving out to wipe out a cyclist. Most of us i would imagine have had close calls with this at some stage. "Making life more difficult for other road users" This campaign is as far as i can see - main target is to make life easier and safer for bikes and not to interfer with law abiding vehicles/motorist. The ones that are unhappy are the illegal parkers which in my opinion is not a bad thing.

Jawgap · 17-08-2017 09:24AM

Lambay island wrote: »

The culture is the problem but why should we accept it at the expense of our safety. The culture has changed in other cities with proper infrastructure and people in power understanding that the car is not the the be all and end all. You are right to point out the positives of the canal, clontarf etc but it doesn't mean it should stop right there. Plus, I don't believe these decisions came about to introduce these segregated lanes without the likes Of Dublin Cycling etc lobbying for it.
Id be similar to you in that yes there are obstructions that I generally have no major issue maneuvering around but it only takes once, for a motorist not to be looking when maneuvers or one of the illegal parked cars moving out to wipe out a cyclist. Most of us i would imagine have had close calls with this at some stage. "Making life more difficult for other road users" This campaign is as far as i can see - main target is to make life easier and safer for bikes and not to interfer with law abiding vehicles/motorist. The ones that are unhappy are the illegal parkers which in my opinion is not a bad thing.

Actually, it hasn't and the trend in more motorised societies in Europe and beyond is to remove segregation and increase shared space.

Jumbled junctions: does removing traffic rules really bring utter chaos?

The concept was first developed by Dutch traffic engineer Hans Monderman, who used it in his work as the head of road safety in Friesland in the 1980s. “Shared space” (a phrase coined by Hamilton-Baillie) essentially means that if physical traffic controls are removed, “road users will work it out for themselves in a civilised fashion”, says Prof John Adams of University College London.

In streets where this has already been implemented – from Germany to Japan to Israel – rather than increasing traffic collisions, road rage, fear and the negative emotions that come with the loss of order, it has in fact improved the appearance of roads, sociability – and even reduced road accidents in some cases.

“Since 1950, per vehicle, the UK has enjoyed a decline in fatality rates by over 96%,” he [Adams] notes. “How much of the credit goes to the engineers, better breaks, better highways, and the legislators for drink-drive laws? I put most of my money on the cultural shift.”

Infrastructure does not drive (excuse the pun) cultural shift - if anything it creates cultural inertia by fixing behaviours, or fixing the limits within which behaviours can evolve - education and (most especially) enforcement in the Irish context will drive cultural shift. Therefore, calling for increased segregation suggests the problem is mis-understood while being both counter-productive and wholly out-moded.....but it is intuitively seductive

Lambay island · 17-08-2017 09:28AM

Weepsie wrote: »

If you're maneuvering, and the motorist isn't looking, then I would think that you on the bike have not done your due diligence and looked yourself before maneuvering.

Too many people just indicate and go be they on bike or car, and that's only those who indicate.

I may not have worded that part perfectly as personally, I always signal in these instances. I'm aware that some dont from first hand experience. My point is even if the motorist is looking, there are that special type that don't want to let you out or beep you as you are out wide to get out of doorzone of parked car.

Lambay island · 17-08-2017 09:35AM

Jawgap wrote: »

Actually, it hasn't and the trend in more motorised societies in Europe and beyond is to remove segregation and increase shared space.

Jumbled junctions: does removing traffic rules really bring utter chaos?

Infrastructure does not drive (excuse the pun) cultural shift - if anything it creates cultural inertia by fixing behaviours, or fixing the limits within which behaviours can evolve - education and (most especially) enforcement in the Irish context will drive cultural shift. Therefore, calling for increased segregation suggests the problem is mis-understood while being both counter-productive and wholly out-moded.....but it is intuitively seductive

Interesting and I can see the sense in the theory however safety would be the primary concern for alot of people. Segregation does bring that perception and at same time makes a commute cycle that bit more enjoyable.

Jawgap · 17-08-2017 09:39AM

Lambay island wrote: »

Interesting and I can see the sense in the theory however safety would be the primary concern for alot of people. Segregation does bring that perception and at same time makes a commute cycle that bit more enjoyable.

That seems to suggest that we should be more interest in generating a cycling environment that is perceived as being safe, rather than one that is actually safe. If the perception is that segregation provides a safer environment than other measures then maybe the efforts should focus on shifting people's perceptions so they understand the reality and therefore know what to protest/advocate for?

btw, surely it's more than a theory if it's being applied in practice through engineering?

Lambay island · 17-08-2017 09:44AM

Weepsie wrote: »

They don't have to let you out. An indication isn't a right of way. Now ideally they would, nay should, but see it in this way.

Scenario 1 : I am cycling, there's a car up ahead in my way, I've to maneuver around it. That's a bit of an inconvenience I think.

Scenario 2: I am driving. Someone on a bike wants to merge into my lane. That's a bit of an inconvenience I think.

The problem in most of these is selfishness, and it's not just motorists who are guilty of it. There are just too many selfish, and willfully ignorant people on all modes of transport and in all walks of life. There's a give and take.

I find that most of the motorists I have such interactions with are perfectly fine, it's very, very rare that it's an issue in my own personal experience, but others obviously have different ones.

Absolutely agree with all of that, however alot of the time the problem has began with illegally parked vehicles in cycle lanes which is my point.

Lambay island · 17-08-2017 09:55AM

Jawgap wrote: »

That seems to suggest that we should be more interest in generating a cycling environment that is perceived as being safe, rather than one that is actually safe. If the perception is that segregation provides a safer environment than other measures then maybe the efforts should focus on shifting people's perceptions so they understand the reality and therefore know what to protest/advocate for?

btw, surely it's more than a theory if it's being applied in practice through engineering?

Well, do you not believe it would be safer with segregated lanes? I'm content to cycle in the current lanes, roads etc but I'd be less inclined to let my children do the same. I used the word perception as I perceive it as safer btw.

NeedMoreGears · 17-08-2017 10:08AM

Weepsie wrote: »

They don't have to let you out. An indication isn't a right of way. Now ideally they would, nay should, but see it in this way.
.......

/POSSIBLEPEDANTRY/

Just wondering about this bit.

As far as I understand it (mainly from boards it has to be said), a cycle lane is not quite a "normal" traffic lane. It's more of a subset of a normal lane. As a cyclist in the cycle lane I am also in the normal lane - i.e. I have possession of the lane and am entitled to reasonably move within the lane, without necessarily having to indicate or indeed without having to cede any right of way.

/POSSIBLEPEDANTRY/

In real life I always look ("I was in the right" would be a pretty poor epitaph) and mostly signal but I am curious as to whether the logic of the above actually stacks up. Answers on a postcard.....

ED E · 17-08-2017 10:12AM

NeedMoreGears wrote: »

/POSSIBLEPEDANTRY/

Just wondering about this bit.

As far as I understand it (mainly from boards it has to be said), a cycle lane is not quite a "normal" traffic lane. It's more of a subset of a normal lane. As a cyclist in the cycle lane I am also in the normal lane - i.e. I have possession of the lane and am entitled to reasonably move within the lane, without necessarily having to indicate or indeed without having to cede any right of way.

/POSSIBLEPEDANTRY/

In real life I always look ("I was in the right" would be a pretty poor epitaph) and mostly signal but I am curious as to whether the logic of the above actually stacks up. Answers on a postcard.....

There are no cycle lanes. We have cycle "tracks". So under the law clauses dictating lane behaviour don't really reference cycle lanes tracks.

Jawgap · 17-08-2017 10:41AM

Lambay island wrote: »

Well, do you not believe it would be safer with segregated lanes? I'm content to cycle in the current lanes, roads etc but I'd be less inclined to let my children do the same. I used the word perception as I perceive it as safer btw.

I'm content to go where the evidence leads. I don't doubt that a stretch of segregated track is safer if used properly, but does it follow that overall is cycling is safer because more of it is built?

For example, I'm loathe to bring the 'H' word in given the existence of a thread on the topic, but this study illustrates a point.....

Safety perceptions and reported behavior related to cycling in mixed traffic: A comparison between Brisbane and Copenhagen

.....segregation tends to generate over-confidence which tends to lead cyclists to cycle while distracted and/or forego head protection......one of the conclusions from that study was

"In fact, cyclists in Copenhagen tend to cycle more often while distracted and tend to use less helmets. Nevertheless, evidence shows that distracted cycling is unsafe and helmet wearing is associated with lower crash severity"

AndrewJRenko · 17-08-2017 11:05AM

Jawgap wrote: »

I must be cycling in a different city.....if the lane is blocked I just maneuver around the obstruction.....and maybe it's just me, but I can count on one hand the amount of time I get "grief" in a given year, and even then it's confined to certain stretches of road I cycle regularly.

....and again the issues you highlight are down to culture, and that culture will still exist when a cyclist has to leave a segregated facility and use shared infrastructure.

As for 'doing nothing wasn't working' - just how does that statement apply to the likes of the canal cycle track, the Clontarf one, the re-vamp of the Park, the introduction of the DB scheme, the establishment of the CTW scheme, the ongoing construction of the various greenways around the country?

I would've thought that its better to show cycling as something that enhances the city and makes it more liveable (in other words show cycling and cyclists in a positive light) is better than engaging in activities that make life more difficult for another group of road users who also have a legitimate interest in how the city is organised and run.

Don't fall into the trap of assuming that because it works for you, it works for everybody. We need to make cycling more attractive and accessible for kids cycling to school, for more female cyclists, for more older cyclists.

The IBD events are around making cycling a more realistic and safe option for everybody.

The rise of the 'cyclivist'

Comments