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.
I saw a tweet today from Cycling Scotland proudly advertising a "free cycle."
Has the expectation of paying to cycle (a.k.a. "it's the new fun run") become such a norm that we need to advertise "free" rides?
Surely one of the pleasures and advantages of cycling should be how (very nearly. after cost of bike etc.) free it is.
Or maybe it's festival time and I'm just grumpy.
"maybe it's festival time and I'm just grumpy"
Maybe it's the night shifts...
As long as it's not another ****** charity cycle!
(he said grumpily)
It's not even that!
GOOD!
;-)
Is this the fourth ride that has been added to the Pedal for Scotland schedule? Maybe it's to differentiate this one from the two others on Pedal for Scotland day that you have to pay to enter. There's stewarding and presumably the participants will get the same snacks at Kirkliston and any finish line goodies that the paying participants get, making the 'free' aspect of it more meaningful.
@Instography yes I think it's that ride.
I think my general grumpiness is directed towards the fact that it seems to portray cycling as an activity that requires someone else to organise it and significant logistical overhead.
Rather than something you can just jump on your bike(s) and do!
Not just that but it puts cycling in the same category as marathon running. I (and I suspect a fair percentage of the population) would not entertain attempting the latter, even for charidee. Cycling is not (necessarily) a sport or athletic activity. Nor indeed is running. Both can be just 'normal' everyday activities, undertaken for fun or out of necessity (eg. cycling to work, running for the bus).
Enough "fun run" rides already!
Having said this, personally I was inspired to take on longer rides by taking part in the Edinburgh-St Andrews run: which while it used to be a Spokes ride has been a pay to take part charidee run for some time...
I agree, cycling doesn't need to be organised. It's just something that you can do but the community aspect of it is important. It's more fun if it has a community element to it. And for many people nine miles will seem an impossible distance to consider cycling. Fifty miles will be a marathon. So even though cycling doesn't need to be organised, people need to be organised into cycling.
For most people cycling is a lunatic thing to do and there are many more comfortable and attractive ways of making a trip or having a day out. Sometimes people need some impetus to shake them out of their habits and open them up the possibility of cycling as a fun thing to do and perhaps as way to make journeys. Events like Pedal for Scotland do that.
Both times I've got back into cycling after a long absence, the spur (or the focus) has been to take part in relatively long, organised charity rides. Would it have happened without the ride? Maybe. Who can say? I suspect not. I suspect my good intentions would have been continually thwarted by other pressing needs that somehow would conspire to make cycling impossible today but maybe tomorrow.
I'm fascinated by this place and the ability of people to find something wrong with almost everything even if it's as positive for cycling as getting 11,000 people all out on the same day in a huge celebration of our chosen mode / sport / hobby / normal every day activity. I really am shaking my head here.
@Instography - Its sometimes more complex than just being grumpy about it - there are times when these events feel over engineered.
I do a fair number of longish day rides, mostly with mates, mostly self organised. We also do a few 'charity' type rides, PFS, Edin-St Andrews etc.
We did the PFS last year, bus thru to glasgow, got the (scratched) bike off transporter, and joined a massive Q for the pleasure of being sent off in groups by Mark Beaumont.
After 5 mins, we said "sod that" and simply went round to the start and joined after one group had left - not a problem.
It made no difference to the day, except we didnt get cold waiting.
Wont stop me doing it again - I agree with you about getting people back to cycling - but with regard to the PFS, a fair few have commented to me that the 51 miles classsic is to short/easy, and the 100 mile route is a bit on the lumpy/long side - I tend to agree, and although they are doing a fair promotion job, they might need to rethink or add another route - not just the free 9 mile family rides.
I have no problem whatsoever with organised rides, I do however have "charity fatigue" in that whenever I see an organised ride in a magazine or whatever it invariably seems to be "pay £xx and raise as much as possible".
Can't we just go on rides, orgainised or otherwise, because it's fun and leave the charidee thing for really big organised events such as pedal for Scotland or really exceptional rides?
Unfortunately, these sort of events are fast becoming a lifeline for charities as other sources of funding dry up due to a number of societal reasons.
and many (non cycling) people I speak to are becoming as sick of them as they were of sponsored "fun runs" a few years ago. I wonder what the next gimmick will be :-/
Last year I was planning to do the Fife Coast Challenge charity ride for Friends of the Earth. I decided not to bother when the organisers started setting targets for the funds riders had to raise. I can understand the logic behind it but cyclists are not professional fundraisers, nor employees of the charity. It felt a bit too pushy and no longer 'fun'.
@ crowriver. Sorry, I can't help noticing that in your earlier post you were appealing for "enough "fun run" rides already!" and now you're complaining that FoE were taking the fun out of their charity ride. Which do you want?
@ generally
No one's making anyone take part in any ride that they don't want to so, no, you don't have to pay for the pleasure and yes, you can just go off and pedal anywhere you like. In the meantime, there are two things combining. First, charities need to raise money. Cycling is a relatively easy, low cost thing for people to do using equipment that they probably have but don't use much. It presents a physical challenge that is achievable by even the most unfit. Second, the organisers often want to encourage people to cycle. (Don't we all?) Those two combine nicely. There's a third element - cycling is extremely versatile so the unfit can just cover the distance with no other goal, the regular cyclists can do it quickly. Since none of this actually gets in the way of anyone's freedom to independently cycle 50 miles, I can't really see how it's objectionable.
But if it's organised by a charity or in aid of charity then you'd expect a catch. Some fund-raising maybe? Anyway, often the fundraising is an important part of generating involvement. How many people will do PFS because they want to raise money for Maggie's or how many people do the Moonwalk because it's for Cancer Research?
So it turns out that the charitable aspect of it isn't a burden at all, it's a motivator. The whole event is encouraging people to set themselves a physical challenge in order to raise money for a cause they feel strongly about. They might come out of it having enjoyed themselves and with an enthusiasm to cycle more regularly. Jesus! These organising people are monsters. How can they live with themselves?
@Instography I mentioned this because it was the moment when I was put off charity rides a bit, even though I have every sympathy for the cause, wanted to fundraise and also to cycle. As I said, I understood why they would set fundraising targets for riders. For me personally, it all started to look a bit too much like work. For others, taking up that challenge was probably fine.
Maybe I've succumbed to the "charity fatigue" Smudge referred to earlier.
I'm fascinated by this place and the ability of people to find something wrong with almost everything
I find that the nature of a forum results in a lot of the output being the crystalised, distilled, refined and triple-filtered output of people (like me!) taking a mild (or otherwise) exception to things that they have been ruminating over and brewing up during the day and wanting to a have a bit of a moan/debate about it. Rather than just sitting, waiting to be outraged by something like a Daily Fail reader watching the BBC pre-watershed. The output of the vast majority of the day and time when fault isn't being found in things is just woefully under-represented!
Back OT, perhaps, I don't think my issue was anything about pay-to-ride events. Even if I personally am suffereing a bit of charity-ride fatigue, I wasn't disagreeing with them.
As you say Instography, for many people rides like these will seem long and a challenge and something that only mad people with beards and plastic eagles glued onto their helmets otherwise do. I think what I was mainly musing at was if this is the right way to encourage people into cycling - or does it re-inforce the image that it's a complicated, difficult and potentially dangerous activity that needs to be done en-masse, once a year and then the bike and fluourescent vest needs put right back in the shed where it can't do anyone any harm. But perhaps It's because I see cycling as something utilitarian and practical and enjoyable I find it hard to see it as a strange, mad-cap thing that should mainly be done in a silly outfit to raise money. That's like sponsoring people to drive to work or walk to the shops (not literally, but it's metaphorically what I'm trying to get at. And maybe some people do need sponsored to walk to the shops) Others of course will have a different take on it.
I don't think there's a right or a wrong, just an interesting topic for debate.
"No one's making anyone take part in any ride that they don't want to so, no, you don't have to pay for the pleasure and yes, you can just go off and pedal anywhere you like."
This is the crux of it. Mostly I'm an anti-social rider (I've written on here about it before). I like riding on my own, choosing my own route; changing it if I want to; stopping for pictures; deciding to go up a certain hill; deciding to avoid a certain hill. Even audaxes I just find a bit 'prescriptive'.
Converesely unless something is arranged I find I probably don't do the long rides as much, and as my brother and I have sort of agreed to try and get on the Etape du Tour next year I need a spur to do more long rides and so will likely get back to audaxing.
I've done Pedal for Scotland twice, thoroughly enjoyed the first year in the pouring rain; didn't get on with it so well the next year when the good weather meant a LOT more riders. At that point there wasn't the sportive ride either so the club riders after a time, who hadn't secured an early start, came barging through at times. Which all felt 'purposeful' rather than a relaxed meander that I usually aim for (whether it's a fast or a slow meander).
Mel rode it with me both times, and her dad the second time as well, neither of whom had done anything like the distance before, and it just showed what is achievable if you're moderately fit - would they have done, or even tried, the distance without it being organised? Possibly. I did a couple of 40 mile rides with Mel, but they were kind of tied in to training for the big one as well.
Anyway, this waffle is all a long-winded way of saying charity-fatigue is understandable (more getting asked by friends and colleagues almost every week for sponsorship for some event or other - that can feel like an obligation despite me having various direct debits straight from my account to some charities I have specifically chosen as ones I would like to support); but when it comes to taking part or not, well, there isn't a gun to anyone's head.
What all of this has done is made me want to get up early at the weekend and go for a ride before the world wakes up.
"Mostly I'm an anti-social rider"
I think you mean unsociable.
Then again...
That last remark probably breaks the "no personal insults" rule.
But we know each other, so...(?)
Can something be a personal insult if it's true? ;)
@Kaputnik "...I find it hard to see it as a strange, mad-cap thing that should mainly be done in a silly outfit to raise money. That's like sponsoring people to drive to work or walk to the shops...."
Exactly what I was failing to say in places :-)
"
Can something be a personal insult if it's true? ;)
"
Think so(?)
I've looked at the PFS website. It's full of happy people: old, young, helmets or not, mainly without fluorescent clothes, all enjoying themselves. No silly outfits. I can't see how it might be reinforcing an image of cycling as complicated, difficult and potentially dangerous.
That's not to say that I would have no criticisms. There are two questions that need to be asked of events like PFS:
* what proportion of the bums on saddles are new-to-cycling or back-to-cycling bums?
* what proportion of these new/returning bums are regularly cycling, in any way, six months after the event?
Of course, there doesn't seem to be any data about those things. It is simply proclaimed a success. The Scottish Government, in its Cycling Action Plan says, "Cycling Scotland organises the event to demonstrate that if you can cycle all the way to Edinburgh in around 5-6 hours, then the 3 mile commute to work, school or the shops is likely to be more manageable than people might have thought."
But if it were doing that, we might expect to see the proportion of travel to work journeys made by bicycle increase by more than the 0.7% that it grew between Q3 1999 and Q3 2010 (from 1.8% to 2.5%).
The problem with charity rides like PFS is the lack of follow-through. They measure success by getting bigger. They get more people on the day (and maybe even preparing for the day) but then it stops. From that perspective, it looks to me like the main problem is to have the event in September, just as the days are shortening, the air is chilling and the weather is turning. Just about the perfect time to minimise transfer from one-off event to regular participation.
"
There are two questions that need to be asked of events like PFS:
* what proportion of the bums on saddles are new-to-cycling or back-to-cycling bums?
* what proportion of these new/returning bums are regularly cycling, in any way, six months after the event?
"
I THINK some research has been done on this.
Kaputnik expressed perfectly just what I was going to say. No further comment, except to say I'll be mostly off the charidee rides for the foreseeable future.
"I THINK some research has been done on this."
My googling is failing to turn anything up. If you had a link I'd be grateful. All they say in their annual report for 2010 is that from their post-event feedback 55% of riders (although what they mean is 55% of the unspecified proportion of riders who submitted feedback) said they had undertaken 10 or more rides in preparation for the event.
@Anth
Interesting that you want to do the Etape du Tour, but don't like riding in big groups.
The key reason why I don't want to do the Etape du Tour is the sheer number of people taking part - I'd hate to do all that training, go all that way and pay all that premium only to be forced to walk up (say) the Tourmalet because the road was blocked by punters getting off and walking in front.
So I guess I'll just have to organise my own trip out there to do it solo. :)
@PS
I know, sounds odd doesn't it, but I know if I don't sign up then I just might not ever get round to going out there specifically to ride some of these mountains. Hope to make it a slightly longer trip and do another day riding without being surrounded by the crowds, but also tie it in to seeing some of the Tour as well (something else I might not get round to without signing up to something).
Talking of "paying for the pleasure".
Price of petrol increased 42% from 1999 to 2009.
Price of crude oil increased 226%.
If petrol price increased in line with crude price alone it would have cost £2.07 a litre in 2009.
Based on average spot price of crude in 2011 it would be £4.62 a litre!
Of course it's far more complicated than that in reality, well beyond the reach of my lunch time spreadsheeting.
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts