For what’s it’s worth, my thinking has changed. One reason why Take Me Fishing was so successful was because it was based on a self-imposed tax within the fishing and boating industries. The other reason was, it was subsidized by surcharges on fishing licenses from the Department of the Interior. Neither of those items now seems likely or– in today’s political climate– even possible to be applied to cycling.

I actually had a chance to meet briefly with Bikes Belong’s Tim Blumenthal at Interbike last year and we had a cordial conversation on the topic. While he accepts (which is not the same as “agrees with”) my premise that if advocacy groups did more to increase ridership, they’d do better at getting infrastructure funded, he sees it more as a chicken/egg problem where the chicken part just happens to be easier to work on.

PS: No point in going back to the blog; I took it down about a year ago when my observations were used out of context to support other people’s notion that all advocacy is a waste of time…which, as you take pains to point out, was never (and still isn’t) my position.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.