Advocacy & Safety - The key to cycling's acceptance

Rather than ponder why cyclists are viewed poorly by drivers, I think it is more productive to speculate on how we can improve the image of cycling in general.

If Americans love one thing, it is an athlete. Thus, I think we need to make a greater effort to promote cycling as an ATHLETIC ACTIVITY. Joggers and long distance runners use road shoulders in many cases, just as cyclists do (sidewalks are Ok but not ideal, as they can be bumpy). As a runner i recall no instances of hostility from autos (though, to be fair, i have very few examples of hostility when on my bike either).

I would 'market' cycling as

(1) low impact/aerobic activity.
(2) more enjoyable than indoor gym workouts or dull training machine routines.
(3) inexpensive.
(4) racers/clubs should emphasize the athletic aspect/olympic aspect of the sport, and
(5) touring folks should emphasize its low cost, low environmental impact, and closeness to nature and native culture in foreign countries.

roughstuff

Um. That's been the American model of promoting cycling for 30 years.

If you want to improve the cycling environment, model other successful countries (define your own metrics for "successful"). In this post, I'm calling success high transportational ridership.

It's not rocket science. Countries with high ridership, and friendly treatment from drivers, have a lot of factors at play. Namely, infrastructure (distances, hills, bike-friendly street design), educated driving public (skilled, knowledgeable of laws), and economic motivators (cars or gas are very expensive).

You can watch areas as they become more or less bike-friendly to get more clues. As some of the big cities in China become for affluent, for example, cars have taken over. Which tells you that if you don't have artificial motivators in place (like police enforcing traffic laws) when the economic motivators fluctuate, so may ridership.

Um. That's been the American model of promoting cycling for 30 years.

If you want to improve the cycling environment, model other successful countries (define your own metrics for "successful"). In this post, I'm calling success high transportational ridership.

It's not rocket science. Countries with high ridership, and friendly treatment from drivers, have a lot of factors at play. Namely, infrastructure (distances, hills, bike-friendly street design), educated driving public (skilled, knowledgeable of laws), and economic motivators (cars or gas are very expensive).

You can watch areas as they become more or less bike-friendly to get more clues. As some of the big cities in China become for affluent, for example, cars have taken over. Which tells you that if you don't have artificial motivators in place (like police enforcing traffic laws) when the economic motivators fluctuate, so may ridership.


Well, many areas in the USA do have reasonable accomodations for bikes...broad shoulders, many roads with little or no traffic, few if any major intersections, nice scenery, etc. I don't think many people see cyclists as athletes at all....most people see bicycles in the toy section of stores, and think of them as something we should outgrow. Time to get behind the wheel, johnny.... :(

I didn't define what i meant by success...good point. I would just define it as a larger number of people on bikes...person/bike-hours, you might say. I don't see transportational ridership as meaningful in any way. By any reasonable standard---person miles, ton miles, revenue miles, value-added miles, cycling's contribution to the overall 'transportation' matrix is very small.

roughstuff

I don't see transportational ridership as meaningful in any way.


So - you don't view a bicycle as a vehicle, you view a bicycle as an athletic "toy". You should get out more and see the world. Most people on this planet use the bicycle for transportation.

So - you don't view a bicycle as a vehicle, you view a bicycle as an athletic "toy".

I said 'most people.see...' I hardly view my bike as a toy since I have done over 300,000 miles on them over the years...probably as much as my car.


You should get out more and see the world.
Well, 200,000 miles in dozens of countries sure puts me near the top of any league.


Most people on this planet use the bicycle for transportation.


Yes, and the vast majority of them are in 3rd world countries who are transporting raw agricultural products to markets, often pushing the bike on foot while it carries the weight. Shifting to fossil fuel based transport is clearly a superior step foreward, which is why nation after nation--China just the latest example--- is doing it. As I said, by any reasonable measure...ton miles, revenue miles, value added miles, cycling's contribution to the transportation matrix is miniscule.

This of course sticks in the craw of those cyclists who think they are Gods gift to our sport---commuters, specifically inner city commuters for whom Critical Mass is their spokesman.

The more we allow cycling to be defined by its athletic contributions and accomplishments, instead of the anti-car ravings of a chosen few, the more accepted we are likely to be.

roughstuff

People cycle for lots of different reasons. It's hard to lump it all together as "cycling", so it's hard to see how a single type of promotion is going to benefit all cyclists.

I primarily cycle for transportation, having started mainly for environmental and political reasons. Secondarily I have come to appreciate the fitness benefit and the community, but I still don't see it as a sport, for me. I'm not into sports. And I think that seeing it as a sport only is one reason that many motorists don't see us as having equal rights to the road, because they think we're just out there practicing our sport on the same road they are using to try to get to work.

Americans hate cyclists as athletes. That's like the worst kind to them. How often have you heard people disparage cyclists as Lance wannabes? And grow irate at the mere sight of Lycra?

Rather than ponder why cyclists are viewed poorly by drivers, I think it is more productive to speculate on how we can improve the image of cycling in general.

If Americans love one thing, it is an athlete. Thus, I think we need to make a greater effort to promote cycling as an ATHLETIC ACTIVITY. Joggers and long distance runners use road shoulders in many cases, just as cyclists do (sidewalks are Ok but not ideal, as they can be bumpy). As a runner i recall no instances of hostility from autos (though, to be fair, i have very few examples of hostility when on my bike either).

I would 'market' cycling as

(1) low impact/aerobic activity.
(2) more enjoyable than indoor gym workouts or dull training machine routines.
(3) inexpensive.
(4) racers/clubs should emphasize the athletic aspect/olympic aspect of the sport, and
(5) touring folks should emphasize its low cost, low environmental impact, and closeness to nature and native culture in foreign countries.

roughstuff

Close... but Americans love sport heroes... not actually participating in the sport.

And Americans have some strange aversion to skin tight clothes on skinny guys (women are OK... and dressed even more scantily, even better... hence cheerleaders and Olympic volley ball players are best viewed in little more than bathing suits.)

The real issue is that you have to remove the "dork factor" from cycling... so no stupid Styrofoam hats... and we should add shoulder pads and perhaps make it a contact sport... perhaps cyclists should take on cars mano a mano... anything for sport, eh. :D

Oh and last but not least, you can't use any European words... so "peloton" is out, as is "derailuer" and "grouppo" (heck those words sound French... and that really won't fly). You need tough words like "Pack" or "Platoon;" "Gear Grinder, or Shifter Set." Oh and above all the colors of bikes need to be jet black and chrome... and we need a beer sponsor or two. :D

TV coverage... We need massive TV coverage... can we arrange a few tours with some blood baths... maybe a Pikes Peak straight down decent where crashing your opponent is allowed? Hey how about Jousting. ;)

I ride mostly for the health benefits. I'm not trying to lose weight or train for the Tour de France, but I do have a liver condition that, among other symptoms, include fatigue, lethargy, depression, inability to focus, and short-term memory loss. On days that I ride, I can counteract most of these symptoms without medication. The fact that I commute to work this way is a convenient means of finding the time. Other benefits such as financial savings, lower carbon footprint, etc., are merely added bonuses.

So - you don't view a bicycle as a vehicle, you view a bicycle as an athletic "toy". You should get out more and see the world. Most people on this planet use the bicycle for transportation.

+1. The OP is basically negating his own argument.


I said 'most people.see...' I hardly view my bike as a toy since I have done over 300,000 miles on them over the years...probably as much as my car.

Do you still recall what it was like to perceive cycling as an outsider? Do you think you have the ability to do so?



Well, 200,000 miles in dozens of countries sure puts me near the top of any league.

Since you scorn the commuter, I assume these are 200,000 McMiles?



This of course sticks in the craw of those cyclists who think they are Gods gift to our sport---commuters, specifically inner city commuters for whom Critical Mass is their spokesman.

So all commuters = fixed-gear pricksters? Come now - don't take your generalizations to an absolutely silly extent.

-Kurt

If I'm not mistaken, this is pretty much how cycling is already marketed. Hence the reason why drivers don't accept cyclists as equals (why should this recreational jogger/cyclist be on the road and screwing up my drive to work when they could just use the trail that goes to nowhere useful). If I go into a bike store or WallyWorld (the difference is quality, not marketing), my two options are a "tough" mountain bike that can take the hard trails or a "fast" road bike that can zip down the smooth ones. It's already promoted as an athletic activity, and I think it's pretty apparent that it receives about as much "success" with that marketing as a gym does. Plenty of bikes get sold and used for a few weeks as exercise, and then disappear into the garage. Most of the American public has a lot of aspiration to be a strong, healthy "athlete", but lack any of the motivation to do so. Until bicycles stop being marketed as exercise toys, I really don't think you'll ever see any acceptance. When Americans see Lance zipping up a hill, they get themselves a bicycle and ride it a few times to get some exercise... then their motivation slackens and they ditch it in the garage to collect dust. They do this same thing to their gym membership, and it's the primary reason why so many bicycles are sold in America and so few ridden.

It may help sales, but the last thing that will get cycling acceptance is to continue this failed strategy of encouraging New Year's resolutions to exercise more.

Thank you for the clarification, Roughstuff.

Hey, genec, how about something like this (http://www.beerbike.co.uk/)? That would be Americans off their butts and on their, err, butts. :lol:

Or this?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2361/2409545648_e82dac4f1b_m.jpg (http://www.pikebrewing.com/)

edit: More Bike-Beer labels (http://members.tripod.com/%7ERadlerBier/).

Oh and above all the colors of bikes need to be jet black and chrome... and we need a beer sponsor or two. :D

http://www.sierranevada.com/eStore/images/M157150.jpg

It's a microbrew though, which might turn people off. Think we can get Coors or Bud to make jerseys? Maybe they could do Lance-yellow... that way it'd even look like the piss it tastes like.

http://www.sierranevada.com/eStore/images/M157150.jpg

It's a microbrew though, which might turn people off. Think we can get Coors or Bud to make jerseys? Maybe they could do Lance-yellow... that way it'd even look like the piss it tastes like.

Coors used to sponsor the Colorado Invitational... and there was plenty of bike clothing (I got a hat every year). Apparently that is not quite enough though...

Then again it was never broadcast, and there may not have been enough blood. Or cheerleaders. :D

America's new blood sport: Bicycle Jousting.

http://www.wheelzup-filmfestival.de/src/joust.jpg

Hell, I'd watch bike jousting:thumb:

The secret to bicycle aceptance is to create "weekend warriors." The steady rise of bicycling in my childhood home of Pittsburgh (form "top 5 worst" in a bicycling mag to #11 in bike commuting (http://bike-pgh.org/2008/09/26/nationwide-commuting-trends-pittsburgh-increases-rank-in-cycling/)) roughly corresponds to the creation of rail-trails in SW PA and other bike-infrastrcture investments.

Since bicycle commuting is only 1.1% here, they'll never influence motorist attitudes towards cyclists, esp as this 1.1% is least likely to actually drive a car. However, if you can create a (dare I say) critical mass of weekend warriors, they will be less likely to engage in the more egregious forms of anti-cycling driving or support pols who are anti-cycling.


You can watch areas as they become more or less bike-friendly to get more clues.

My point exactly.

Also, comparing the US to european countries and deduce that ridership levels are predominantly influenced by infrastructure and laws is overly simplistic. First off, Europe was physically damaged post-WWII in a way that the US wasn't, and consequently many got into cycling due to financial limitations not present in post-war US. Secondly, the US is more geographically spread-out than any single European country; finally, exertion as a chosen activity took popularity only with the boomer gen: before that, the sweat on one's brow was something Andy Carnegie (going way back now) paid you for, and you'd be daft to do it for kicks-n-grins.

I don't think drivers will ever accept cyclists as long as we're "in their way" no matter what kind of marketing you do.

This of course sticks in the craw of those cyclists who think they are Gods gift to our sport---commuters, specifically inner city commuters for whom Critical Mass is their spokesman.

The more we allow cycling to be defined by its athletic contributions and accomplishments, instead of the anti-car ravings of a chosen few, the more accepted we are likely to be.

Now that you've decided to rag on commuters, I'd like to ask why the few places where cyclists are accepted on the road happen to be those few places where cycle-commuting actually exists as a significant share in the transportation network. I mean seriously, way to rag on something that actually works, is practical, and has successful increased the number of riders as well as driver acceptance. We definitely need more of the same "bike as a toy" marketing that currently exists. That way a few Lance wannabees can get even more of what they they already have, and we can continue to sell millions more bikes than people actually ride. And we'll continue to see the success story of people buying a bike for exercise, riding it twice, and then sticking it in the garage like the rest of their New Years resolutions.

I mean, seriously... is this OP actually serious? Does he actually believe that more of the same is going to produce different results?

I thought the key to getting Americans to do anything was convince them that doing it was "patriotic" and not doing it was "anti-American" :p

I thought the key to getting Americans to do anything was convince them that doing it was "patriotic" and not doing it was "anti-American" :p

I don't think you can call it "patriotic" unless a corporation stands to make a lot of money off it.

Also, comparing the US to european countries and deduce that ridership levels are predominantly influenced by infrastructure and laws is overly simplistic. First off, Europe was physically damaged post-WWII in a way that the US wasn't, and consequently many got into cycling due to financial limitations not present in post-war US. Secondly, the US is more geographically spread-out than any single European country; finally, exertion as a chosen activity took popularity only with the boomer gen: before that, the sweat on one's brow was something Andy Carnegie (going way back now) paid you for, and you'd be daft to do it for kicks-n-grins.

But one might think that after WWII the repairs and improvements would have been more conducive to the auto, as was America's 1956 Highway act... so Europe should not be dramatically different from America, unless there was some other motivation...

And the "spread out issue... " I really don't think that matters as cyclists typically don't go from city to city in Europe either... Yet we have east coast cities that date back to long before the auto that are European in density (think NYC, Boston, and others) that have somehow determined to make way for the auto... period.

Somehow the auto has taken precedence here in the US in a way that "killed" both bicycles and public transit. Could it be something more sinister such as a conspiracy?
http://www.1134.org/stan/ul/GM-et-al.html
Is there perhaps a more modern parallel???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car

If Americans love one thing, it is an athlete. Thus, I think we need to make a greater effort to promote cycling as an ATHLETIC ACTIVITY. Joggers and long distance runners use road shoulders in many cases, just as cyclists do (sidewalks are Ok but not ideal, as they can be bumpy). As a runner i recall no instances of hostility from autos (though, to be fair, i have very few examples of hostility when on my bike either).

I would 'market' cycling as

(1) low impact/aerobic activity.
(2) more enjoyable than indoor gym workouts or dull training machine routines.
(3) inexpensive.
(4) racers/clubs should emphasize the athletic aspect/olympic aspect of the sport, and
(5) touring folks should emphasize its low cost, low environmental impact, and closeness to nature and native culture in foreign countries.

roughstuff

I can't imagine a less productive way to promote bicycling to the public in the US. As zeytoun points out your plan has been the promotion scheme for 30+ years, except for the inexpensive point. Trying to ramp up a Lance Effect V2 will do nothing for cycling but raise the price of bikes that are offered and make the bikes even less practical for the majority of people.

I thought the key to getting Americans to do anything was convince them that doing it was "patriotic" and not doing it was "anti-American" :p
It's the other way around. We use "patriotism" to convince ourselves NOT to do something. (Don't think rationally, don't become educated, don't join the modern world)

It has to be a Fad... somehow we need to get Brad and Angelina to take up cycling and "get caught at it."

Then a few other celebrities need to be "caught" riding bikes... before too long folks will be taking up cycling all over.

Think we can get Coors or Bud to make jerseys?
Coors used to sponsor the Colorado Invitational... and there was plenty of bike clothing (I got a hat every year). Apparently that is not quite enough though...

Then again it was never broadcast, and there may not have been enough blood. Or cheerleaders. :D
http://www.bikesomewhere.com/bikesomewhere.cfm/productLarge/412/3955/18818?i=default

It has to be a Fad... somehow we need to get Brad and Angelina to take up cycling and "get caught at it."

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j103/jetsanchEz/bradpitt.jpg

Fads don't last though - not unless there's something useful about it (get Brad and Angelina to ride touring machines to the grocery store, fill the panniers and ride back home - now that would "work," though the logistics are unfeasible.).

-Kurt

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j103/jetsanchEz/bradpitt.jpg

Fads don't last though - not unless there's something useful about it (get Brad and Angelina to ride touring machines to the grocery store, fill the panniers and ride back home - now that would "work," though the logistics are unfeasible.).

-Kurt

Brad's pic was part of a movie scene... (and actually I was in jest about Brad or Angelina as a role model).

The practical aspect exists though, but this would be difficult for most Americans to accept due to the auto centric nature of the design of our cities and the shear lack of a wide variety of practical bikes... There are far too many "racer wannabee" bikes at most bike shops.

Look, the only way cycling is going to really get more uptake in America is if motoring is rendered impractical... either due to $10+ a gallon gas, or no gas, or grassroots upheaval regarding the noise, pollution, and other negatives of motoring... However, even some those negatives can be overcome with vehicles designed for people not egos such as the pseudo military support vehicles that become popular. (ragging specifically on the Hummer line here... perhaps one of the least practical vehicles GM ever put on American highways).

The fact is that motoring in America is "supported" by the display of sex, and a huge industry based on the motor vehicle as status symbol. Those two things are gonna be darn tough to overcome. Even the reality of obesity in America is one aspect of driving that has yet to "come home" to Americans...

Who knows, maybe the bankruptcy of the "the big three" will change this picture... only time will tell.

Actually there is one great way that cycling could gain huge acceptance in America...

A federal act similar to the 1956 hiway act... but for cycling... a massive project to make roads more cycling friendly and to add such things as well built cycling freeways across our cities.

If ordinary people felt comfortable doing ordinary things on bicycles, then cycling would be taken up by many more people.

Until the comfort level exists for children and grandparents to ride bikes on a daily basis (as they do now in parks and on isolated paths) then it is not likely for cycling to have a great uptake here in America.

Telling folks to just get out there and ride among the SUVs and speeding motorists will just never get the approval of the masses. Cycling will always be a daredevil "sport" under our current conditions.

Just had this thought for a TV spot/short video --

Have two people. One is driving to the gym, the other is riding the same route. Traffic is busy, so the cyclist easily keeps up with the driver.

The driver stops, gets out, notices the cyclist, goes inside, changes clothes, and gets on a stationary bike. Be nice and have them looking out the window during their workout.

The cyclist keeps riding, and goes to run errands. Drop off a rented video, buy some groceries, stop at the bookstore, whatever.

The cyclist comes back, and is passing by the gym at the same time the driver is walking out. The driver recognizes the cyclist and sees the grocery bags and fresh thermos of coffee. The driver then looks back in the gym window at the stationary bike and wonders why they just spent an hour spinning in place.

Eh? Sound good? There'll be a fine line between snobby evangelizing and making it look normal, but I think it could be done, even with this storyline.

Just had this thought for a TV spot/short video --

Have two people. One is driving to the gym, the other is riding the same route. Traffic is busy, so the cyclist easily keeps up with the driver.

The driver stops, gets out, notices the cyclist, goes inside, changes clothes, and gets on a stationary bike. Be nice and have them looking out the window during their workout.

The cyclist keeps riding, and goes to run errands. Drop off a rented video, buy some groceries, stop at the bookstore, whatever.

The cyclist comes back, and is passing by the gym at the same time the driver is walking out. The driver recognizes the cyclist and sees the grocery bags and fresh thermos of coffee. The driver then looks back in the gym window at the stationary bike and wonders why they just spent an hour spinning in place.

Eh? Sound good? There'll be a fine line between snobby evangelizing and making it look normal, but I think it could be done, even with this storyline.


For the most part, the average US driver would most likely think the bicyclist as crazy for bicycling around in traffic with a full load, and could have done it in the comfort/safety of the gym and car.

It has to be a Fad... somehow we need to get Brad and Angelina to take up cycling and "get caught at it."

Then a few other celebrities need to be "caught" riding bikes... before too long folks will be taking up cycling all over.

Many people view celebrities as buffoons.
Some people even hate them.
Quite often, people that love celebrities are weak minded followers.

I think it would do more harm than good.

For the most part, the average US driver would most likely think the bicyclist as crazy for bicycling around in traffic with a full load, and could have done it in the comfort/safety of the gym and car.

I didn't say the cyclist was dodging traffic, did I? Plus, now the driver has to spend more time running those same errands as the cyclist did, and the gym membership starts to look like a waste of time and money.

How about this -- put that good-looking cyclist in regular clothes and on a nice Dutch bike (or an equivalent).

I didn't say the cyclist was dodging traffic, did I? Plus, now the driver has to spend more time running those same errands as the cyclist did, and the gym membership starts to look like a waste of time and money.

How about this -- put that good-looking cyclist in regular clothes and on a nice Dutch bike (or an equivalent).

And if it's a rainy day... hmmmm?

Well, reading many of these posts makes it quite clear, sadly, that there is alot more to getting cycling accepted than a simple 'athlete' image...if even that would contribute to the overall cause. :( . Perhaps my proposal is well intentioned but simplistic.

Cyclist visibility is a good beginning, but only that?

roughstuff

RE: Original poster:

When cycling is seen as a recreational/athletic activity, cyclists are given parks and separate facilities, bike paths, etc. That's all well and good if you just want to take a training ride, but they're useless if you actually want to take a real road and go somewhere (shopping, work, etc.)

The goal of recreational cycling facilities is to get bikes "out of the way" so cars don't have to deal with them-- so when bikes do encounter cars on real roads, cars are even more pissed off. "We just built you a bike path!" The thought process goes that we're not real traffic, so we should get out of the way.

I don't know why you say that cycling isn't seen as a recreational/athletic activity in the states. Almost every major piece of bicycle-accessible infrastructure built from the 70's to the 90's has reflected this approach.

I got into cycling purely and simply because of scarce parking spots and gridlocked auto traffic. It's not unusual to circle the block for 15 minutes looking for a spot. My time was too valuable to waste stuck in a car. If I'd lived in a place where automobile use was more convenient, I never would have even thought of bicycles.

I think the image of cycling as sport or exercise is profoundly harmful to its acceptance as transportation. What works for me is practicality. I'm to lazy to drive, except on weekends, on winding roads, in a vintage car.

Possible slogan - "If you found a place to park today, thank a cyclist!"

Paul

And if it's a rainy day... hmmmm?

Film it on a sunny day, of course. Take multiple days to do the filming so that the sun is near the same place in the sky, unlike those amateur movies that last five minutes but the day goes from morning to night.

And I specified "good looking cyclist" because dorks like us just won't be as video-genic. :thumb:

I don't know why you say that cycling isn't seen as a recreational/athletic activity in the states. Almost every major piece of bicycle-accessible infrastructure built from the 70's to the 90's has reflected this approach.

That, and when you look for a bike in most places that get the most retail traffic (malls, big box stores, etc), you go to the Sporting Goods section or a sports store like Dick's or Sports Authority.

Getting retail space that sees a lot of foot traffic is expensive, and not all bike shops can afford to put themselves in the middle of everything. There are two shops over in Georgetown, which is full of high-end retail -- but they're both on the same block, way out on the end of the retail zone, over the crest of the only hill, and at a stupidly busy intersection that doesn't allow people to come by for a quick stop. There's a third shop half a block down a side street, but their selection of stock isn't nearly as nice or as wide-ranging.

Rather than ponder why cyclists are viewed poorly by drivers, I think it is more productive to speculate on how we can improve the image of cycling in general.

If Americans love one thing, it is an athlete. Thus, I think we need to make a greater effort to promote cycling as an ATHLETIC ACTIVITY. Joggers and long distance runners use road shoulders in many cases, just as cyclists do (sidewalks are Ok but not ideal, as they can be bumpy). As a runner i recall no instances of hostility from autos (though, to be fair, i have very few examples of hostility when on my bike either).

I would 'market' cycling as

(1) low impact/aerobic activity.
(2) more enjoyable than indoor gym workouts or dull training machine routines.
(3) inexpensive.
(4) racers/clubs should emphasize the athletic aspect/olympic aspect of the sport, and
(5) touring folks should emphasize its low cost, low environmental impact, and closeness to nature and native culture in foreign countries.

roughstuff

I don't agree with #3 -"Inexpensive". Cycling can be inexpensive, but most cyclists spends lots of money on better wheels, frames, and gadgets.

The key to cycling's acceptance?

Put killer motorists behind bars. Let them serve jail time.

There would be less motorists driving with a callous "get out of my way" attitude.

Cycling would then be seen as reasonably safe.

I don't agree with #3 -"Inexpensive". Cycling can be inexpensive, but most cyclists spends lots of money on better wheels, frames, and gadgets.


Oops! Curse of the gearheads! ;)

Of course auto and motorcycle riders also spend alot of time and money on gadgets of various types as well.

roughstuff

The key to cycling's acceptance?

Put killer motorists behind bars. Let them serve jail time.

There would be less motorists driving with a callous "get out of my way" attitude.

Cycling would then be seen as reasonably safe.

Right... in fact go one better and give cyclists the right of way over anything that burns oil. Do this based on cycling being "zero emission." Charge motorists for carbon offset.

Suddenly cycling seems so much wiser.

Good luck selling this concept to oil addicted Americans.

Many people view celebrities as buffoons.
Some people even hate them.
Quite often, people that love celebrities are weak minded followers.

I think it would do more harm than good.

True to all the above.... but history has shown that hordes do follow fads... from Jackie Kennedy hair styles to Jamie Lynn Spears pregnancy...

All we have to do to lead the masses is give them a suitable idol.

...scarce parking spots and gridlocked auto traffic. It's not unusual to circle the block for 15 minutes looking for a spot. My time was too valuable to waste stuck in a car.
Paul

Why I ride every day.

I got into cycling purely and simply because of scarce parking spots and gridlocked auto traffic. It's not unusual to circle the block for 15 minutes looking for a spot. My time was too valuable to waste stuck in a car. If I'd lived in a place where automobile use was more convenient, I never would have even thought of bicycles.

We're right in between easy car-free and car-necessary living here, aren't we..

But, you're right, on days like today I'd rather ride down to the shops than drive.

Alternate TV spot:

On a Saturday afternoon, a cyclist and driver end up at the same intersection at the end of a block full of stores. The light turns green and they both head in.

The cyclist finds a rack, locks up, and heads into a shop. The driver starts looking for a parking spot, but it's VERY busy and there aren't any spots on that block. So, he goes around, and there aren't any spots on the back street. So he goes around again, and the one spot that opened up just got taken by another driver. So he goes around again.

He finally finds a spot -- which, for TV purposes, is right next to the cyclist's bike. He gets out of the car at the same time the cyclist comes back out of the shop with the stuff he just bought. The cyclist unlocks his bike and rides away. The driver watches, then looks back at his car dejectedly.

Fine points: the cyclist does NOT smirk or shake his head in shame at the driver. No snobbishness. Keep this as much from the driver's point of view as possible.

The TV ads are great if you've got money to produce and air TV ads -- but what do you do on a small, local level to change people's minds about biking (particularly in places where parking isn't yet as tight as in DC)? I've started a separate thread for this discussion from my particular angle; hope you'll head over:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=488688

I don't think drivers will ever accept cyclists as long as we're "in their way" no matter what kind of marketing you do.

There are lots of things "in their way" that they don't freak out over such as double parked cars. The question we should be asking is why is double parking accepted and bicycling is not?

Rather than ponder why cyclists are viewed poorly by drivers, I think it is more productive to speculate on how we can improve the image of cycling in general.

If Americans love one thing, it is an athlete. Thus, I think we need to make a greater effort to promote cycling as an ATHLETIC ACTIVITY. Joggers and long distance runners use road shoulders in many cases, just as cyclists do (sidewalks are Ok but not ideal, as they can be bumpy). As a runner i recall no instances of hostility from autos (though, to be fair, i have very few examples of hostility when on my bike either).

I would 'market' cycling as

(1) low impact/aerobic activity.
(2) more enjoyable than indoor gym workouts or dull training machine routines.
(3) inexpensive.
(4) racers/clubs should emphasize the athletic aspect/olympic aspect of the sport, and
(5) touring folks should emphasize its low cost, low environmental impact, and closeness to nature and native culture in foreign countries.

roughstuff

The problem with cycling is that it is not promoted at all...not in any way, shape or form. When's the last time you saw a Cannondale commercial? Or any cycling related commercial?

The question we should be asking is why is double parking accepted and bicycling is not?

Double parking really isn't accepted, not by anyone who plans to drive straight through. On the southeast leg of Pennsylvania Ave., during the afternoon you can expect to only have one useful lane out of the three that are marked. The left lane will get blocked by people trying to turn left, and the right lane will be blocked by people double parking.

At the same time, that constant double parking makes it a dependable obstacle -- that is, you know other people will be doing it. Then, when someone decides to double park just to "pop in for a sec", they know that they won't be a surprise, because, as they'll say it, "everyone does it."

Just goes to prove that stupidity breeds stupidity.