Does advocacy get new people on bikes and if not, what will?
May is Bike Month, and in addition to all the special rides and bike shop discounts, our local, statewide, and national bicycle advocacy groups are front and center highlighting the need for good infrastructure and encouraging us to get on bikes. Locally, this means the Austin Cycling Association, League of Bicycling Voters and Bike Texas while on a national level the League of American Bicyclists, Bikes Belong, and IMBA work to secure resources for making biking more accessible. I have many friends in these organizations, have contributed myself to some, and while I’ve felt they’ve been too timid in the past, I generally support their activities.
With this in mind, I read with great interest a recent series by former Specialized Marketing Director and bike industry critic Rick Vosper on the value and return on investment of the millions of dollars spent each year on bike advocacy. Vosper argues that while advocacy organizations have succeeded in getting new infrastructure built, they have been a failure at stopping the precipitous drop in the number of Americans actually choosing to ride a bike. According to the National Sporting Goods Association he reports, per-capita riding is down 35% in America in the last 15 year. We’ve lost 15 million riders, and this has resulted in a loss of $1.33 billion dollars a year in lost revenue for the bike industry. Pretty shocking stuff.
Vosper is not all negative about advocacy attributing it to slowing the decline in the last decade, yet it has not reversed the trend. He takes the view that while building infrastructure is great, if we aren’t actually actively encouraging people to get out and ride, it’s all for naught. I agree that not enough is being done to put people on bikes, but here’s where Vosper looses me. He suggests taking the money spent on advocacy and doing a major national marketing campaign encouraging people to ride, basically the bike industry version of “Got Milk?” He says let’s try to find the 8.5 million lost or new cyclists needed to recapture the lost $1.33 billion dollars. If we spend about $1/rider, that’s around $10 million dollars a year.
So here’s how he lost me: First, criticizing infrastructure for not producing cyclists in this country is disingenuous. Consider how many billions of dollars and millions of square miles are dedicated to facilities for cars to the practical exclusion of all other forms of transportation, and you’ll see bike advocates are fighting a tank with a squirt gun. Secondly, does anyone think a $10 million on a national campaign will have much of an impact? $10 million is a smallish media budget for just the state of Texas. Think one round of F-150 truck ads.
I agree we need to make the case for riding in a real way, but either the bike industry needs to pony up 5 to 10 times that every year or more realistically look at strategic partners that have similar interests. In Europe, there are some really compelling TV ads heralding the advantages of biking. Who pays for those? The government. It’s time to use those same advocates that get beat up in Vosper’s articles to shake some serious money out of the government to promote cycling. Want to tackle energy independence? Promote cycling. Want to address our obesity epidemic? Promote cycling. Want to create close knit communities? Promote cycling. The tax payer shouldn’t shoulder all the burden. The bike industry should put in money as well and there are other companies like New Urban developers and retail and restaurants in the urban core that could benefit directly from more people biking. Create a public/private promotional partnership that will achieve real market penetration.
Bike infrastructure and public service announcements are great, but I think the real opportunity here lies not in old media and government policy but tapping into the growing social media networks. Do you know who puts more new people on bikes every week than anyone else in Austin? Your local bike shop. Nope. City of Austin Bike/Ped? No. Go to Fiesta Gardens on most Thursdays, and you’ll see 200-300 people on bikes participating in Social Cycling Austin’s Thursday Night Social Ride. Heck, get there on an especially popular night, and you’ll see 500 people. The vast majority of the riders aren’t weekend warriors, and there is a conspicuous absence of spandex. Instead, they’re normal people, in normal clothes going out for drinks with friends. It’s just in this case they happen to be riding bikes. And for an industry that’s completely clueless about marketing to and serving women, you’ll also usually find a 50-50 split of men and women.
We spend an inordinate amount of time in this country in front of screens: TVs, computers, or smart phones. Social media like Facebook and Twitter tap into the isolation we feel from this lifestyle, but in the end, they fall short. There is a hunger for real, live social interaction in this country, and the bicycle is supremely positioned to be a tool of creating these interactions. The return to growth in the bike industry will not be from the current or next Lance Armstrong. It will not be from the coolest new materials or latest components. Racers and recreational riders are not the future. Figuring out ways to get people to do everyday things on a bike, that is the industries only hope for a return to salad days.
I’d suggest instead of spending $10 million on ads that will be a blip today and gone tomorrow, the bike industry fund a version of Social Cycling Austin in the top 100 US markets. Social Cycling Austin was created with no money and a Facebook account. $100,000 dollars/year would go a very long way to create and sustain such an organization in each city and physically put new people on bikes. For those in the bike industry reading this, e-mail or pick up the phone today and call Social Cycling Austin chief Keith Byrd. Keith and his crew are ready to expand their social biking goodness to other necks of the woods, and in the end, they may just save your balance sheets and your butt.
Related posts:
- Volunteer call for Texas Custom Bicycle Show ...
- David Byrne and panel talk bicycles, planning, advocacy ...
- Austin Bike Summit this weekend to plan what’s next for bike advocacy ...
- San Antonio getting public bike share, should we be envious? ...
- Texas Custom Bicycle Show looking for volunteers ...
on May 20th, 2010 at 3:06 am
Nicely said! I’ve had similar thoughts about TV campaigns every time I see a Texas F-150 spot. Look at the amount of media time focussed on traffic reporting, car sales, insurance…
You may be right on the money. Social cycling efforts like Keith’s could be very effective. I know I have enjoyed myself thoroughly when I got out on a Hump Day Nooner ride or similar event. Imagine what Keith could pull off with a little help.
Interesting contradiction. National surveys and studies show decling ridership. But then I see a pent up demand, desire, need by people when I help out at Yellow Bike each week. I get a lot of “I wish I could bike” from a lot of my non-cycling acquaintences.
on May 20th, 2010 at 8:46 am
Great post Elliott!!
Can’t wait for Bike to Work Day tomorrow! ok, most days are Bike to Work Days for me, but tomorrow I get friends to ride with me, free breakfasts, and extra fun!
on May 20th, 2010 at 11:29 am
15 years ago would have been 1995, wasn’t this more or less the peak of mountain bike popularity? It seems that every regular schmoe was buying one at that time..
Building infrastructure absolutely gets more ‘normal’ people on bikes. I just got back from NYC where they’ve been laying down bike lanes at breakneck speed, and when I arrived I could immediately tell there were far more cyclists on the road than there was just a couple years ago, and I see a similar effect here.
If you build it they will come. Many regular folks want to ride, but just don’t feel that it’s safe enough. While the question of whether bike lanes actually make people safer is debatable, I think the lanes increase confidence amongst new riders and promote the perception that cycling is a viable transportation alternative.
on May 20th, 2010 at 11:43 am
kelso,
I don’t disagree that great facilities will increase the likelihood of people riding, but your observations were anecdotal and specific to that market. Vosper’s stats cover the entire market over a long period and essentially fewer people, not more are riding. Now, the amount of infrastructure we have in this country is pathetic, but it was pathetic 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago and somehow more people per capita rode then. Great facilities may slow the losses, but without a concerted effort to get people on bikes, it will be a long time before the bleeding stops.
Advocacy is critical to the bike industry but for different reasons. We need to make sure things aren’t done to make it harder to ride and improve safety. Vosper says advocacy and the resulting facilities in of themselves do not increase ridership, and I have to say I agree.
Yes, advocate for the industry. Yes, build more facilities. Yes do a PR campaign (but get the government and strategic partners to put in some dough, for God’s sake), and yes, support groups like Social Cycling Austin that provide the physical channel to actually put real people on real bikes. It should not be an either/or and you shouldn’t expect advocacy and facilities to solve all our problems.
on May 20th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
The pursuit should be getting kids to ride to school. Schools have been designed to support every parent to drive to drop off / pick up their kids creating traffic that is difficult for kids to navigate. School districts should work around this – encourage walking / biking to school by either staggering times, creating drop off zones away from the school or other creative solutions. It is a first step in getting kids back to riding all over neighborhoods, putting bikes back into daily sight and daily consideration.
the traffic around my kid’s elementary school is insane – and this is a neighborhood school where no kid lives greater than 2 miles from the school.
It is sad to see the bike racks at elemantary schools – at a school of over 500 kids I’ll see maybe 20 bikes. That is a problem.
Kid habits are easier to create. Parents lives are around their kids’ needs and habits. So, more kids bike = parents bike aware or even bike. If you are looking for bang for the advocacy buck…there it is.
on May 20th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
Here’s an interesting alternative view: http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/05/cycling-isnt-fun-its-transport.html . The author is essentially saying that people start bicycling when it’s the most convenient way to get around: “Make the bicycle the quickest way to get around a city or town. THAT’S what people want. THAT’S what will make them choose the bicycle. THAT’S how we will mainstream urban cycling and work effectively towards liveable cities, healthier populations and The Common Good.”
on May 20th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
Jason Bucher,
Getting kids to ride more is a great long term strategy, but it will not immediately turn around the problem. I’d also say as a parent who’s witnessed other parents, the parents are the dominant decision makers on transportation and in general, they are paranoid about allowing their children to do anything unsupervised (never mind that children are less likely to be abducted today than in the 60s and 70s.) The other thing is that if there’s no physical or social infrastructure to continue to promote cycling into adulthood, many of these children will cease riding when they grow up. Remember, based on these statistics, more people used to bike, but now they don’t. The habits were there and now they aren’t.
I’d say, yes, create programs to encourage kids to ride, but don’t expect a payoff for many years and don’t expect a payoff at all if there is no adult program.
Jason,
I’ve read the Copenhagenize article. I agree that convenience is a major factor in retaining utility cyclists and getting majority market adoption. When I was running Austin CarShare, cost and convenience were the major factors in choosing to car share. If there wasn’t a car near by or it cost them more to be a member than to own, people just won’t join. Same with bikes.
I think one of the major points left out of that article is safety. Safety is consistently one of the top barriers to entry in cycling. Of course, that’s not an issue in the stats Copenhagenize quotes because Copenhagen has great infrastructure that makes people feel safe. It’s not an issue. We on the other hand have marginal facilities at best. Unfortunately, based on the recent Bike Blvd debate, I’d say we’re a long way from making that a reality. Until we get Copenhagen style facilities, I’m putting my money on social cycling.
Safety is a major reason why social cycling brings people out. There’s safety in numbers. In our recent spring social ride series, 93% of the participants said that riding downtown in a group made them feel safer. Individuals told me they would never have done the initial ride by themselves, but now feel comfortable having done it in a group. I think Mikael at Copenhagen underestimates the power of fun in getting people introduced to the concept of riding to get places. Yes, convenience needs to be there to keep them, but most people live within 5 miles of most activities in their life, a very bikeable distance for anyone. If they never try, they’ll never know. Social cycling can be that bridge.
on May 22nd, 2010 at 9:26 pm
I love all organized rides that do not involve spandex such as Social rides, Critical Mass, Hump Day Nooner, Tuesday Morning Ride, The Heavy Metal Fitness,
on May 22nd, 2010 at 9:46 pm
I love all organized rides that do not involve spandex such as Social rides, Critical Mass, Hump Day Nooner, Tuesday Morning Ride, The Heavy Metal Fitness, Yoga Ride, CycliDactyl B.C., SkelliCyclists, etc.
Sadly, you have forgotten to mention Austin Yellow Bike, which is THE organization—anarchist as it is—that has been mentioned by the League of American Bicyclists to give Austin a Silver standing in its ranking for the most bike friendly cities in America.
Nonetheless, infrastructure is paramount to turn the wave of this car-centered society into a human-centered one, that is a society that prioritizes the bicycle over any other means of transportation for its able bodied people. Witout infrastructure there is no way to convince the majority of the population to change into alternative transportation. In this very same blog you republished that study which demonstrated that women—at large—will not bicycle if they do not have perceived safe routes to appropiate destinations. Infrastructure and connectivity. Is anyone surprised about these findings? Only traffic engineers would be surprised if they would deign to read the study. Other than them, it is so obvious and self-explanatory that keeping waiting for them to realize it is trully painful.
on May 25th, 2010 at 9:10 am
Alonso,
I think Yellow Bike is an incredibly valuable part of our bike culture, but I do not think the organization in of itself the way it is currently organized will bridge the gap to majority market acceptance of the bicycle as a valid transportation choice. Awards are great, but they do not change people’s habits.
I agree infrastructure is key to long term change. We have to make biking easy, convenient and safe. I just know that based on our experience with the proposed Nueces Street Bike Blvd, nothing other than basic traffic calming, that getting the political will to build this infrastructure in the face of the auto/oil & gas/road engineer & contractor lobby is going to be difficult until we can get more people in our tent. I think social cycling has the best ability to do that.
I don’t think we stop funding advocacy, but I do agree with Vosper that expecting advocacy to put bodies on bikes is foolish. That’s not its job, and we need a separate strategy and set of tactics to achieve that.