CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 15years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
@Baldcyclist PoP was consulted, we did try to tell them it was a bad idea and declined to support it when asked to do so.
It was notable that the consultation had more representation from the motoring lobby and government funded groups than grass roots cycling...
"
POP was asked - we said at the time we didn't think it would be effective. Can't speak for any other groups but Spokes have tweeted that they didn't support it.
"
All of that may be true, but now POP is just that fringe direct action group that didn't want to engage when asked. Will it even be asked the next time?
I guess that is what I am saying by a little politically immature. You may not have agreed with this particular message (and probably rightly so), but the next message, or the next consultation? You might not get any say because you might not be at that table.
And to be honest direct action rarely works, whether it be the IRA, Greenpeace, Justice for Fathers, or the EDL or whatever fringe group with a grudge. What works is being at the table, granted it takes a long time, longer than you may be prepared to wait, but that's the reality, and you might just have given up your particular seat at the table... I hope not.
The great thing about groups like PoP and SPOKES is they don't have to be a part of this rubbish. They have no Government budget to protect, no press officers saying "I suppose we better sign up, or it might look bad".
Non-Government supported groups such as the AA, IAM etc. have nothing to loose in signing up to this - as it has no effect on their members and lets them look good on road safety and cycling, without actually doing anything about it.
Yes, making progress on cycling will likely involve dirty compromises (something PoP has already been accused of by moving the event to a Sunday) but the real skill in campaigning is in knowing where to draw the line. I think the Nice way code lies far, far over that line.
Well done to PoP and SPOKES.
I don't see much point being asked if the question is 'this is what we're doing, do you support it or not?'
Had the question been 'how can we improve the safety of vulnerable road users?' then maybe it would have been worth engaging more - but even then, we're not putting our name on something that we don't think is effective just because it gives us the illusion of influence. And I think the response online, on our facebook page and on twitter, suggests we made the right call.
The thing is we ARE a direct action group, like it or not (the clue is in the name). Maybe it's an ineffective approach (the Dutch might disagree) but it's the one we've chosen - other cycle campaigns exist and have chosen other routes, like the CTC - maybe we need all of those approaches to get any change.
@Baldcyclist - Interesting mix of organizations you list there (I hope Greenpeace is the only relevant analogue) but the key thing is that the stated goals of these groups have been met or at the very least their issues have been moved up the political agenda.
You do have a valid concern and it is a thin line between politicking and sticking to principles and I think the PoP lot have probably got this one right but we shall see what happens in the fall out
What works is being at the table
Not if you're just being asked to rubber stamp the stupid ideas of others. What Scotland definitely doesn't need is more yes-men organisations like Cycling Scotland.
Both PoP and SPOKES work and are good at what they do because they are grassroots organisations ("direct action" if you will) which can do what they or their membership would like them to. Their only loyalties are to the causes that they champion (more and safer cycling) and to their base membership / supporters. Not their paymasters (in the case of Cycling Scotland, the Scottish Government). Both orgnaisatins are pretty well in touch with the wants and needs of their base and would simply lose their support and any credibility if they sign up to things like this.
Simply supporting the established status quo to get some establishment browny points will achieve nothing for cycling safety in Scotland. We need more rocking of the boat, not less. In fact, this whole boat which is full of organisations that think we can patronise and market our way to safer roads needs to be capsised and then righted again, full of some more practical and saner minds.
Also, I think it's highly insulting to mention PoP in the same breath as the EDL or the IRA. You might want to consider your analogies a little bit better.
Baldcyclist - I appreciate the point you are making, but I think you are underestimating how much PoP has shaken up the cycling establishment (for want of a better description) in Scotland. Everyone wants a piece of a new, popular and media savvy organisation like PoP - including the Government. It is clear that PoP is now a go-to group for transport journalists in Scotland, which is a major achievement and possibly something of a worry for the Government, which is now being called-out for rubbish like this - which would never have happened in the past.
It is difficult for the Government to simply exclude a group that is both moderate and can call out huge numbers of people to demonstrate. PoP would only damage itself by signing up to this campaign and it is very unlikely to have placed its relations with Government at risk. After all, the softly, softly approach has hardly worked for Cycling Scotland SUSTRANS.
Also, direct action can achieve things - the anti-poll tax campaign springs to mind. Also, groups like Greenpeace have moved issues up political agendas in a way that allows more moderate groups to take slightly more radical action themselves.
Finally - PoP and the IRA - really?
They never asked us before, what makes them ask us now? The fancy name or the fact we get thousands of people together on a single issue? Politics is a game played with a sleeping bear under the table.
OK, groups mentioned not at all appropriate, I was just thinking of 'direct action' groups, and often the best way to show something that doesn't work is to go to the extremes, that is of course not to compare PoP with any of them, but...
IRA, example of group that gave up direct action, got round the table, and have arguably achieved more than could ever have been possible the other way.
EDL, perfect example of a political group that jumps up and down and gets nowhere.
Should probably have kept to more mundane groups like Unions, and Greenpeace as better examples of largely ineffectual groups when they get involved in direct action.
I've been happy to attend the first two POP rides, I was there to support a manifesto that I agreed with. However now POP as an organisation is taking on a life of its own, unelected, unaccountable, and presenting its views as if they represent the views of those who have attended the POP events. I'm not at all comfortable with this.
re the list of organisations "supporting" nicewaycode, I don't think they would have seen even the limited publicity available so far when they were asked or decided to lend support. Comment from CTC is hardly enthusiastic support for the NWC so far.
re spending the 36% of CWSS on cycling (capital not revenue) is meant to be a minimum per council so the overall average should be higher. Some councils also get other money spent eg by developers including cyclepaths.
@charterhall - it's a fair point. We've tried to always refer back to the POP manifesto as that is what we've put out there publicly and that's what people have 'signed up to' as it were. That's also the reason why we haven't changed the manifesto materially between POP1 and POP2. But we've been making pronouncements on our website for more than a year now, about all sorts of things - CAPS, for instance. On the whole it's mostly been on the basis of 'does this fit with our manifesto? - if not, we don't support it.
The alternative is just to confine ourselves purely to direct action. That would mean not meeting with Keith Brown, not attending the all party cycling group and other events and not responding to any policy announcements at all. It would certainly give us lots more free time but might diminish the effect of POP itself.
I should say that anyone who wants to spend the rest of their free time reading emails is welcome to join POP, and help organise the next one. If there is a next one
@Charterhall - the key thing to remember is that PoP is made up of volunteers. One could imagine some sort of 'election' but it's more important that committed effective people are campaigning at this stage. The same could be said of SPOKES and lots of other small campaign groups. We can't really critcise any group of friends who come together to campaign on something is of concern as they're not elected...?
Presumably PoP needs to keep its base of support, and will make decisions accordingly (so if the "PoP executive" start campaigning to allow cars on the NEPN, they'll quickly lose all their supporters!)
Most importantly is that PoP has a Manifesto, which generally seems to restrict/direct its activities to those you and I probably think are a good thing.
Anyway, I'm thankful to the people who organised PoP! They and SPOKES and this forum have together moved cycling way up the council's agenda. We might all be grumbling about the latest Leith Walk plans, but the idea of a segregated cycle path by any road in Edinburgh would never have been drawn onto a plan even just 5 years ago. I think it's the mix of PoP's amazing massive protest, that really woke the politicians up, combined with the painfully detailed and dogged campaigning of SPOKES. This forum also is allowing us to keep the pressure on - it's here I learn about the consultation for Leith Walk, join the Breakfast Bike Ride, helped flier for POP, see the really powerful ghost-bike campaign, find ideas for bike rides, etc...
Thanks everyone :D
It's a shame this bubble of activity seems somewhat restricted to Edinburgh: Keith Brown et al. seem completely immovable on this issue. I'm starting to feel that the door is locked and bolted and has someone heavy leaning on the other side.
'unelected, unaccountable'
well yes, unelected because its essentially an anarchic movement, but I wouldn't say unaccountable, not by a long shot, PoP is quite open to the amount of vitriol and lack of support currently directed at nicewaycode but doesn't get it because we do support what they say, and they know enough to keep what they say simple and consistent. Better Infrastructure NOW etc.
"now POP as an organisation is taking on a life of its own, unelected, unaccountable, and presenting its views as if they represent the views of those who have attended the POP events"
I'm not a PoP or Spokes insider, though I know people at the core of both.
Spokes is a constituted body which has members which it aims/claims to represent, though I don't what it does to consult them on policies etc.
I'm sure PoP is well aware of the 'issues' of organisational structure, membership, representation etc.
I also expect there is no unified view for the way forward.
It operates in a 'new media era' where words are drafted, edited, agreed by email. Twitter is (disproportionately?) getting messages across.
This forum has been helpful in co-ordinating the two PoP events by energising volunteers.
The future is unwritten as someone once wrote.
Perhaps this is a good place (new thread) to discuss this.
Not that it can in any way 'bind' those who are giving their time (free) to current PoP activities!
Iam not a member of any of the organisations listed, although have voted and do use Lothian Buses occasionally.
Consider that POP and Spokes should have joined, talking is always better than saying i told you from afar.
Their fallback position should have been that they would join, but reserve the option to jump out if it looked to be developing unacceptably.
"
Governments, and their promotional bodies, have short memories. Far from being “groundbreaking”, the new campaign is the latest in a long history of similar campaigns and exhortations, none of which have done much to halt the slaughter on the roads.
"
"IRA, example of group that gave up direct action, got round the table, and have arguably achieved more than could ever have been possible the other way."
The chronology is wrong. Politicians were talking to republican and loyalist paramilitaries in secret in the 1970s, long before the cease fire of the 1990s that were the prelude to the Good Friday Agreement. So you could just as easily argue (as I'm sure the IRA does) that without it's commitment to continuing "direct action" (even while they wanted to stop) there would have been no negotiation leading to power sharing and devolution.
As for this Nice Way fiasco. Look at the newspaper coverage. POP comes out of it fantastically - leading the coverage instead of being one of the long list of organisations lending their name. I don't think politically naive at all. A political novice would have taken the first chance of a 'seat'.
Boom!
And I'd much rather have the POP model than the more common one where elected officials feel they have been given an open-ended mandate to misrepresent "their" members.
A political novice would have taken the first chance of a 'seat'
Indeed... and proceed to build a "relationship".
PoP is keepin' it real. Respect.
Anyone else thinks their logo design could have come off the pen of one of our esteemed members? *cough*Knick*cough* wouldn't have anything to do with the nice family friendly PoP designs would it?
Just to say, I'm really happy with the way POP responded to this. Well done guys.
The NiceWayCode idea really is a waste of money and more of the same failed ideas, and I'm glad you stood up and said that.
As for accountability, if I think you're going off the rails, I just won't attend the next POP. If others feel you're moving in the right direction, they will join you. That works for me. Vote with your feet.
"... as better examples of largely ineffectual groups..."
Zing. Not.
When the intended delivery method of the NiceWayCode campaign seems to be bite-sized nuggets of garbage then bite-sized retorts would seem to be one form of appropriate response. I've not seen that much HA HA HA; there's been more disgust and rebuttal.
An article about this nonsense:
http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2013/07/30/the-troubling-attitude-behind-the-nice-way-code/
One more time: Keith Brown is the enemy of pedestrians and cyclists.
Oh, and if PoP had lent their name in support of the Nice Way Code, I would be significantly less likely to turn up to any future protests. We don't need any more toothless organisations joining the talking shop. The Dutch didn't get where they are with rubbish like this!
@insto Indeed, much in the same way we talk to the Taliban etc today, doesn't mean they are getting their way. The IRA comment was a mere generalisation,[rest of comment deleted]
@wingpig, think I mentioned elsewhere that my sense of humor was a little abstract, maybe a little too abstract sometimes, that comment was made entirely in gest. ;)
Anyway, back n topic, I can't see what harm t would have done for PoP to get involved in the discussion so to speak, that is all really. The analogies weren't intended to cause so much controversy!
It would be a shame if attendance at future POP events became a poll of support for POP as an organisation rather than a poll of support for cycling.
"I can't see what harm t would have done for PoP to get involved in the discussion"
I think Sally has already basically said there wasn't a discussion to be had, once it became clear that those behind this media campaign had already decided what they were doing before asking various organisations for 'support'.
Obviously some people think this campaign is OK (some are signing cheques using everyone's money), but if the core people in PoP think it's a bad idea you can't really blame for not 'signing up'.
'We' are clearly (mostly) not any sort of norm. (Probably knew that.)
So 'we' can be neatly dismissed as they asked real people - not ones who care.
"
It was clear that although there are people who hold strong, (often vocal) and diametrically opposed views, the vast majority occupy the middle ground – a place where they witness good and bad road behaviour from all quarters on a daily basis.
"
http://nicewaycode.com/2013/07/30/research-an-informed-approach-to-the-campaign
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts