"I'd still rather they were there than not"
I think it's undoubtedly true that if Spokes didn't exist you couldn't invent it.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Questions/Support/Help
Spokes - are they worth it ?
(66 posts)- Started 11 years ago by Charterhall
- Latest reply from chdot
- This topic is
resolved
-
Posted 11 years ago #
-
My main issue with the Spokes leaflets is the excessive use of exclamation marks!!!
The leaflets are a bit dense, design-wise; however, if there are any desktoppublishers/pagesetters/graphicdesigners out there with some spare time, I'm sure Spokes would be happy to hear from them...
Posted 11 years ago # -
"I'm sure Spokes would be happy to hear from them"
I suspect not.
It's more about content.
They should probably get CyclingScotland to pay for another four pages and use larger text!
Posted 11 years ago # -
@anth: Well, there's the roads of course...
Posted 11 years ago # -
"... the excessive use of exclamation marks !!!"
Intriguing observation.
To paraphrase George Orwell, by their use of language so shall ye know them.
To avoid doubt I think Spokes are remarkable.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Are spokes worth it??
I honestly believe that any organisation that is pro actively seeking to change things for the better for all is worth a paucity of my annual salary.Despite the criticism of the leaflets that Spokes put out, i think they do sterling work in producing these for us all to use gratis.
Just wish they had a louder voice than the people shouting them down.....
R :-)
Posted 11 years ago # -
They should probably get CyclingScotland to pay for another four pages and use larger text!
But keep the A5 format. Anything larger becomes difficult to shoehorn through saddle rails and brake cables.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"Just wish they had a louder voice than the people shouting them down"
Spokes tends to be quiet rather than shouty.
Probably more effective in Edinburgh.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"continues this debate in some style"
Aye -
"
This so-called “Quality Bike Corridor” is not an example of the government supporting cycling or finally taking it seriously as a transport option. This is yet another example of the government paying lip-service to utility cycling, along with – and this is the saddest bit – yet another example of cycle campaigners lapping up the crumbs from the floor."
Posted 11 years ago # -
It's very easy to criticise and moan. Particularly now that people can mouth off at length on blogs, etc. Less easy to do something constructive, or take action to try and change things. That of course requires hard work and time spent on what, clearly, is often a thankless task.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Spokes have had many interesting meetings with varied speakers. I'd recommend anyone to go along if they want to network or just put some names to faces.
So yes they are worth it - 30,000 copies of the newsletter is quite an achievement. Crammed but with good facts in every issue - the format may be small but it documents the achievements (and failures) in cycling policy for all to see.
Without the Spokes bike count we'd also have no data (Dave did one today but these things take time)
Spokes also have DdF willing to take time to post on various forums - including this one.
I'll now have to get my cheque book out!
Posted 11 years ago # -
So yes they are worth it - 30,000 copies of the newsletter is quite an achievement.
I disagree. What would be an achievement is the provision of good quality cycling facilities, not the publication of a newsletter.
Crammed but with good facts in every issue - the format may be small but it documents the achievements (and failures) in cycling policy for all to see.
Yes there's lots of stuff about acronym-laden cycling policy but very little about what it as an organisation has achieved where it matters, on the ground.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I disagree. What would be an achievement is the provision of good quality cycling facilities, not the publication of a newsletter.
In fairness, providing infrastructure is the job of government and/or developers. Campaigns can only attempt to make the case for such infrastructure, and try and make it happen. Spokes does both.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Spokes is only as strong/influential as its members. If yu feel your contribution hasn't helped it do enough, then one option is to increase it, or as you suggest to drop it, or donate to another group.
But a financial contribution is ony one way of doing something, and perhaps the least significant.
We might also ask to what extent we have responded to spokes requests for us to write to policy makers, or the media. How often have we contacted spokes to offer material help?
And how often have we tried to influence their policies, and - especially - offered to help them develop and implement those policies?
Posted 11 years ago # -
I can't really see what the argument is. Spokes exists by its own activity and by the willingness of its members and supporters to do things. If you like and support what they do, join them. If you want to change what they do, join them. If neither applies, don't join. If you think they are irredeemable, set up an alternative.
You don't have to buy the right to criticise - that's free to all. A sensible organisation will listen and take note of its critics (just in case they have a point) but shouldn't feel obliged to adapt to them.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Does joining Spokes give one the ability to change what they do? I have to admit, I don't know anything about how it is steered.
It's very easy to criticise and moan. Particularly now that people can mouth off at length on blogs, etc. Less easy to do something constructive, or take action to try and change things. That of course requires hard work and time spent on what, clearly, is often a thankless task.
I'm not sure about this, given that Boris has announced the best part of a billion pounds for cycling and has gone on record as saying that the chap quoted above (amongst others) was responsible for changing the political agenda... through his writing?
Although to be fair, perhaps when print journalism started out, people also felt that it was overly easy to just run off a front page here and there instead of taking action to try and change things? ;-)
For my own part, what I write is seen by between 500 and 800 unique IPs each day. I think I would be doing well to reach as many people any other way (although I understand that a bunch of randoms reading an article and disagreeing with it might not be as effective as a single grumpy letter to a councillor).
Posted 11 years ago # -
"You don't have to buy the right to criticise - that's free to all."
Interesting perspective. My own personal morality tells me that I shouldn't criticise if I'm not willing to take a turn at doing. But I suppose not everyone shares that.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I've never tried to build a basic PC, still less a better one but the one I'm typing on is a heap of crap. More positively, people who coach are often not participants and/or no good at the thing they are coaching but their external perspective, the fact that they are not engaged, not fighting from the inside, allows them to take a broader, more dispassionate view.
Dave's (via Boris') point about the bloggers is important. It's often far too easy for people compromised by a cosy relationship with the power they were meant to be fighting to turn round and say, 'and what are you doing?'. It's a moralistic argument and a variation on 'anything is better than nothing'. There's an important role for carping from the sidelines.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"My own personal morality tells me that I shouldn't criticise if I'm not willing to take a turn at doing. But I suppose not everyone shares that"
Probably not!
Though that seems to discount the fact that criticism can be a positive action.
Current (in the news) discussions about NHS whistleblowers surely show that fearing to speak out (criticise) - or being gagged - is not exactly healthy.
I appreciate that there's a difference between a workplace 'this is wrong' and a general 'they shouldn't be doing that (but I'm not going to get involved and try and change things)'.
One person's critic is another person's whinger.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Blogging strikes me as somewhat more constructive than EEN commenting.
I guess I would ask that those dropping Spokes membership actually take the time to write and tell them why they are doing so.
I have occasionally taken issue with aspects of Spokes policy only to be told that I'm the only one to have contacted them, or that all the other feedback has been positive.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"only to be told that I'm the only one to have contacted them"
If true that demonstrates a general 'British'(??) reluctance to complain.
I know that some people were unhappy when Spokes was supportive of the tram going along the Roseburn Corridor (subject to suitable cycle route at the side of course).
I don't know if people told Spokes or if any were members - or if any members decided not to renew.
Spokes is made up of individuals doing (in some cases a lot of) work in their own time.
Over the years it has achieved a lot - by the work of a few and by encouraging members to write/email on many issues.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Blogging strikes me as somewhat more constructive than EEN commenting.
You know I'm not sure it is. If you subscribe to the EEN
worldparochial view then by commentating support you create a feedback loop that ensures, for example, the next time the Council tries something different like closing half of Princes St to traffic the EEN will take the side of it commentators and not give any other point of view a second paragraph. There by giving the impression to the council that the "public" are against the plans and they quietly go away. The council seems to still give more weight to the views of the EEN and its readers than any other group.Commenting against their mind set is usually shot down by a few muppets and thus any one who disagrees with their editorial stance is shot down and goes away.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I know that some people were unhappy when Spokes was supportive of the tram going along the Roseburn Corridor (subject to suitable cycle route at the side of course).
Given the inestimable value of the NEPN I still find this hard to believe - we all know any path provided will be terrible, if useable at all, not to mention the immense damage of closing the route for construction for an indefinite (years?) period.
The argument might be made that it was inevitable the trams would go down the old railbed, in which case why annoy the council by campaigning for cyclists in all of this, but that very much hearkens back to the AlternativeDfT comment above.
Posted 11 years ago # -
You can certainly be much more coherent and intelligent in blog posts on subjects - the difficulty is with that having visibility to those who matter.
Ties in with what steveo says - the EEN is very visible, and the commenters are a subset of that visibility. The posts are short and snappy (and angry). They show in a microcosm how 'the people of Edinburgh' think about things. Those making decisions don't seem able to distinguish between 'shouty minority' and 'the people of Edinburgh'.
A blog post sits there - generally read by like-minded people. Preaching to the converted essentially (I've often mused on this with citycycling and not done many pieces aimed at non-cyclists because I know they won't have clicked anyway to be there and read it). The Council aren't converted. Ergo the Council don't even hear that voice in order to take it on board.
Which gets us back to why Spokes are good. Their voice IS heard (not quite as strong as some of the EEN commenters seem to think - it's been said quite a few times that Council transport policy is actually decided by Spokes, which once more ties in with a previous point, in that the people who believe that aren't reading anything that would counter that view because they're unlikely to read a blog about how awful the QBC is, and so simply have their prejudices confirmed by articles talking about how expensive it was which allows them to rail at Spokes forcing the Council to put in a corridor that inconveniences motorists).
That's not to say stop blogging, far from it, but know what your audience is likely to be - and therefore you're not trying to change minds in a blog (or in a monthly online magazine), but rather fire up those readers to do more than just read, and to take to the comments pages, or twitter, or write to their councillors, or... join Spokes.
Posted 11 years ago # -
If you want to influence someone there's no substitute for getting in a room with them over a protracted period and making your argument again and again and again, backing away, coming back, compromising, making some progress and giving way on something else. It's a messy business, all the time to cries of 'sell out' from people carping from the sidelines.
The people in the room need to negotiate. The other side's job is to win them over, make them 'see sense'. Spokes is in the room, doing the negotiating. The people carping need to make sure they don't get too cosy. Sometimes, like on the QBC, they get it wrong. That's how it goes.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"They show in a microcosm how 'the people of Edinburgh' think about things. Those making decisions don't seem able to distinguish between 'shouty minority' and 'the people of Edinburgh'."
Yes and no.
ENews commenters are no more representative than CCEers.
We're just better behaved and more rational...
I'm sure there are people at the EN, and politicians, who are well aware that the commenters are not 'representative' - and so ignore or 'adopt'.
I think there are (very broadly) two sorts of blog -
Option and 'fact'/analysis.
There are people who write what they think and theorise and may become 'followed' and influential. Increasingly often people are coming on TV and Radio described as "bloggers" - usually associated with convenvential political parties - though not usually toeing the party line...
A lot of the cycling bloggers are going into great detail about existing road conditions or new proposals and (in general) pointing out inadequacies - and suggesting improvements.
This helps people like Boris who is broadly supportive as it will at least give him questions to ask TfL.
The Greener Leith blog has analysed the proposals for Leith Walk. The organisation behind the blog has produced responses and coordinated various organisations to support them.
I suspect that ideas expressed on here have been incorporated. Certainly the CCE LW thread has been read by relevant council officials and some politicians.
So CCE is a sort of 'multi-user blog' - which may or may not be influential...
Posted 11 years ago # -
I don't think the criticism levelled here at Spokes would have been as strong if CCE had been a forum on the Spokes site. I think Spokes has been overtaken by Web 2.0, the democratic web or whatever you want to call it. We expect to be heard as individuals in organisations now. When Spokes started its handbook was typed by the secretariat of Edinburgh Voluntary Organisations or some-such. It's changed days.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"if CCE had been a forum on the Spokes site"
Part of the reason CCE was set up is because Spokes did have a forum on its site.
But it was hardly used.
CyclingScotland had one which was probably even less visible.
I had a coffee conversation with Mr. .citycycling.
We agreed the concept and the name and a couple of weeks later emailed our 'mail lists'.
People seem to like it.
Though people go and others join (and some have been here for ever).
There are far more 'observers' - but that's all fine!
Posted 11 years ago # -
The good thing about this forum is it is not seen as being "the voice of" any other organisation. So one can get a good debate going like this thread.
There are not that many regular posters, really, I think?
Posted 11 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
