"need to form a more effective lobby"
Easier said than done.
Not trying to be defeatist.
What @SRD says makes sense
BUT
I think the essential problem (assuming we are referring back to @Kim's question "why is it we (as a society) find the death rate caused by drivers acceptable?" is that it needs much more than a more effective 'cycle lobby'.
There are many groups looking out for 'cyclists', even more for 'motorists', pedestrians and bus users are less well served. People who just want to get around safely/conveniently and be able to let their kids out (etc.) don't have such an easily identifiable 'lobby focus'.
What 'we' are talking about is much more than 'cycling'. It's political - even Political.
At election times such issues 'ought' to be prominent. The reality is we have competing groups of people wanting 'to be in power' (for whatever reason) and are primarily concerned with (because that's what they believe the voters are too) "the economy", jobs, growth etc. i.e. more of the same (+ more).
Putting cost benefit figures on safety, pleasant environments, work/life balances etc. is difficult and largely ignored.
Whether politics/politicians reflect what people/voters want (or vice versa) is an open question.
Some people join political parties - most don't. Some people join pressure/lobby/common interest groups.
@SRD - "but I would argue that we need a 'normalization' campaign that enables casual cyclists to identify as 'cyclists' and be 'casual' members of groups, to create a momentum.
This seems to be what sustrans/bike belles etc are trying to do, but i suspect it is a long-term project."
Both Spokes and Sustrans have been around for more than 30 years. Both have made a difference. In the meantime (for instance) Copenhagen has got on encouraging cycling gradually and subtle. Basically the council tried a few things, found that they worked - more people cycled - so did some more.
In the same time Edinburgh has seen the creation and abolition of Lothian Regional Council (which created most of the off road network - particularly in North Edinburgh) and other changes from Edinburgh Corporation to Ediinburgh District Council to City of Edinburgh Council. Several changes of controlling parties. Many changes of political leadership both at the top and of 'transport'. (In addition creation of Scottish Parliament and political changes there.)
Few of the politicians took a great interest in cycling - most saw it as a 'lobby' which had to be 'balanced' with other interests.
NOW there are at least a lot more people on bikes (mostly unattached to any group).
It's not all the council's fault/responsibility BUT just some of the things that have been highlighted on here in recent weeks - George IV Bridge, Meadow Place, red surfacing (notably Marchmont Road) show that the message isn't getting through that Edinburgh is supposed to want to become a 'model cycling city'.
(Then there's whole issue of Cycle Training - particularly for all children in schools)
It's not a new problem http://cyclingedinburgh.info/2008/03/05/how-model-cycle-friendly-edinburgh-really-works
Starting a new organisation (just for cycling people) is not sensible (in my opinion). Becoming actively involved in Spokes might be an option for some.
Joining Living Streets, Sustrans, transform scotland etc. and/or a political party - and trying to get them to work together more might be useful.
Individually there are things that can be done - writing to councillors/MPs etc. can have an impact - but even being lobbied by lots of people won't result in instant changes.
It will be interesting to see (after the current election) how much the rules on 'professional lobbying' are tightened up. There can be no doubt that a lot of influence is wielded by companies (and larger charities) with money.
If you don't join things/write letters, just cycle more, persuade/help your friends/relatives to try it too. (Some of them may be so appalled at what they find that they kick up a fuss!)
posts
