The Pink Pound, Drink Driving Legislation, Racism & Cycling

[spen666]

I know, I know, you are thinking to yourself “What the f*ck is he babbling on about now?”

Well, bear with me and all will become as clear as mud crystal.

THE PINK POUND

The pink pound relates to the “gay economy – i.e. the money spent by the lesbian / gay / bisexual /transgender community (LGBT). The LGBT community were traditionally discriminated against. Indeed it was only in the 1960s that homosexual acts in private were decriminalised. Even in the 1980s, “queer bashing” was a regular occurrence in towns and cities across the country. Now, through the LGBT standing together and through groups such as Stonewall, the pink pound is a major economic force and the LGBT community have gained equal treatment on most issues. I am not saying this is a good or bad thing, merely it has happened.

DRINK DRIVING

The breathalyser was introduced into policing in England & Wales in 1967. Prior to this date it was generally not too frowned on by many to drink and drive even if it was illegal. The number of convictions for drink driving massively increased after the breathalyser was introduced as there was now a specific limit for the offence. However, the number of offences is now falling in real terms and as a percentage of those breathalysed. It is now not considered socially acceptable to drink drive. Credit for this change in attitude goes to lots of groups, from the police, the Home Office and various pressure groups. These days pubs provide non alcoholic drinks or tea/coffee for drivers. There is no stigma in not drinking if driving.

RACISM

Again, in the 1960s and 1970s racism was very common in society. TV Sit coms like “Love Thy Neighbour” and “In Sickness & in Health” were based on this. In the 1980s, racism was seen on the terraces at football matches. For example where the fanzine sellers now stand outside Newcastle United’s St James’ Park ground used to stand the New National Front paper sellers with their latest copies of “Bulldog” in which they published a “Racist League of Louts” which was the first thing people turned to in order to see where the NF had placed Newcastle in their league. Pride for the fan was in seeing your club at the top of the league. Black players were racially abused, both verbally and had bananas thrown at them. These days, it is exceptionally rare to hear any racist chants or behaviour in a football ground. Again, this comes about partly as a result of anti racism pressure groups.

“So what?” I hear you say. “What has this got to do with cycling? Come on, get to the point.” Well, in each of these three examples, the attitude of the public at large has been turned around as a result of co-ordinated and consistent pressure from pressure groups. There are no doubt many other examples that you can think of.

Well, now think of the general attitude towards cyclists including:

They ignore the rules of the road

They red light jump

They are a menace

They kill pedestrians

They deserve all they get

​

Well, what has this to do with the LGBT community or the anti racist groups? If we as cyclists could actually get our bodies together to campaign for us together on issues of common interest, we may be able to change public attitudes towards us.

Sadly, the Cyclists Touring Club (CTC), British Cycling, The London Cycling Campaign and other groups such as the League of Veteran Racing Cyclists and TLI all appear to be so insular and almost hostile to each other that we do not have a common voice.

It is considered an aggravating feature of an assault if you assault someone because of their race or sexuality, or if you assault someone weaker than you. We need to get assaults on cyclists treated in a similar way. We are vulnerable out their on the road and need protection. We should be campaigning to get assaults on cyclists treated in the same way as racist or homophobic assaults.

Instead our cycling groups refuse to back an idea introduced by a different group for fear people will join that other group rather than them. This petty feuding prevents positive campaigning for cyclists rights being as effective as it could be, thus resulting in campaigns that are ineffective. This is to the detriment of cycling and existing cyclists and prevents action being taken to address the concerns of those who don’t cycle at present.

Come on cyclists and cycling organisations lets fight the corner for cyclists together.

 

[MacB]

There is always the danger, if a campaign did become successful, that the 'moral majority' - or car drivers - may decide that it's just too unsafe and that bikes should be limited to offroad and cycle paths only. Probably with compulsory helmets and possibly some form of body armour as well.

 

[spen666]

There is always the danger, if a campaign did become successful, that the 'moral majority' - or car drivers - may decide that it's just too unsafe and that bikes should be limited to offroad and cycle paths only. Probably with compulsory helmets and possibly some form of body armour as well.

Like they did with homosexuality, drink driving and racism


If the campaign was succesful, then none of the things you suggested would happen, Precisely the opposite would happen. Its about CHANGING attitudes, not reinforcing them

 

[Tim Bennet.]

I think you're right: The fractious nature of cycling beggars belief.

Although parallel schisms can be found in both the gay and immigrant communities, they have been able to present a common front to represent their best interest on these issues, which is clearly beyond the wit of the cycling world.

There's a lot of cyclists who revel in the inter-cycling rivalries and if chatting to other riders on audax events is aything to go by, many seem to miserably enjoy their victim status.

 

[Fab Foodie]

Spen

I agree, it's about time there was a Clarion-call to arms so-to-speak for the cycling (or even non-car) road users.

The CTC and other cycling organisations seem as much use as a cardboard toothbrush, the cycling medie are doing nothing and yet many cyclists are seething. Furthermore every day seems to bring another hit-and-run fatality or picture of a bike under the wheels of a truck.

So how doe we change the status quo?
What are the key changes we need to see - our 'policy statement' if you like?
How to organise?
Importantly, we need a leader who is a credible media mouthpiece.



I have no experience of being part of any 'peoples' movement, I'm a pretty benign person, but on this I might get out of my armchair and man the barricades.

 

[mickle]

I'm in.

 

[MacB]

Like they did with homosexuality, drink driving and racism


If the campaign was succesful, then none of the things you suggested would happen, Precisely the opposite would happen. Its about CHANGING attitudes, not reinforcing them

It may seem so to you but no way can you place those three things up on a level with cycling attitudes. Don't get me wrong I'd love to see a change of attitude but I think there is an element of danger. If the campaign was succesful really means if it was succesful on your terms. To a non cyclist taking bikes off the roads could seem just as succesful a method of reducing cycling accidents, etc. It doesn't matter what intentions a campaign started with, once something reaches critical mass it can get away from you.

That said, cohesion among cyclists and cycling groups makes sense. At one point I thought that a national tv ad campaign would be a good start, along the lines of a mythbuster series. Take all the old chestnuts and address them one at a time, road tax, road position, smidsy, rljing, overtaking and the legal position of bikes on roads. Personally I think my CTC subs would be better spent on that than a lot of the guff they work on.

 

[Norm]

To a non cyclist taking bikes off the roads could seem just as succesful a method of reducing cycling accidents, etc.

Ask those non-cyclists how they would like to deal with all the extra traffic and the additional accidents which would arise therefrom.

 

[MacB]

Ask those non-cyclists how they would like to deal with all the extra traffic and the additional accidents which would arise therefrom.

Hey, I'm not the enemy here, it's the great mass of car drivers you'd need to convince not me. Even armed with the facts there'd be a lot who would think take bikes off the roads and problem solved.

 

[Norm]

Sorry, Mac, wasn't meaning to infer that you didn't know the answer to that question. I was just trying to say that my way to deal with people who complain about bikes on the roads is to ask them whether they'd rather face the increased traffic.

When that viewpoint is highlighted, most seem to quickly understand that the problem is the traffic and bikes are part of the solution.

 

[MacB]

Sorry, Mac, wasn't meaning to infer that you didn't know the answer to that question. I was just trying to say that my way to deal with people who complain about bikes on the roads is to ask them whether they'd rather face the increased traffic.

When that viewpoint is highlighted, most seem to quickly understand that the problem is the traffic and bikes are part of the solution.

you see I'm not so sure about this bit, yep they understand but that's rather different to being willing to change. One of my personal bugbears, which I know many share, is school run traffic. I have attended meetings where the focus has been how dangerous the roads outside/around a school are. Plenty of parents will make the right noises but you'll still see them, in the car, clogging up the school area the following day. The very same people that will complain that it's not safe for their child to walk/cycle to school, can also be seen handling the dropoff/pickup with fag and mobile in hand....I kid you not, this is first hand experience on my part, confrontation didn't go down too well either

 

[spen666]

It may seem so to you but no way can you place those three things up on a level with cycling attitudes. ...

Why not?

In all 3 cases public attitudes were changed towards the situation.

Are you suggesting we can't change public opinion? If so, you are part of the problem, not the solution?


If you are referring to the point re assaults etc on cyclist being treated as an aggravating feature, then why not? the LGBT community and ethnic minorities are vulnerable minority groups, as are cyclists?

If we don't change attitudes, things will never really change. Tinkering at the edge is just that

 

[dellzeqq]

I reallly don't know where to start with this one......

First - Spen's take on the acceptance of gays and lesbians (I think that transgender folk have a way to go and bisexuals don't hit the radar) is confused. Was it Gay Pride? Was it the 'pink pound'. Was it Stonewall? Was it governments coming to terms with Aids and realising that Aids was as great a threat to heterosexual people as it was to gay men? The truth is that it was a bit of all of these, but the real motive force was the creation of a gay consciousness or solidarity that imbued men and women with a confidence that they'd previously not had. And that, my friends, is one of the benefits of the sixties.

Well, translate that to cycling. Do the CTC make a jot of difference? It does not. The organisation has many virtues, but it cannot reasonably be argued that the CTC has advanced the 'cause' of cycling at all. Has the LCC made a difference? Possibly, although while a decade of campaigning for LCN+ certainly brought in the cash it would not be unfair to suggest that LCN+ has had virtually no impact on cycling in London - be that as it may the effect of the LCC on local governance has been incremental, and that bit by bit the hegemony of the car has been rolled back in London. Have local groups like Cambridge Cyclists made a difference? Undoubtedly, but in a local way. Have people turned to cycling because it is sustainable? Some have.

To complicate matters still further if you look at the things that have made a difference it gets even more haphazard. The Yorkshire bombers. Ken Livingstone (not, by nature, a lover of cycling). Bus lanes. Warmer winters. Congestion. But the real difference is best explained by the Dean Tavoularis Fifty Monkey Theory. Put a monkey in a tree - nobody notices. Put fifty monkeys in a tree - everybody says 'monkeys'. And so, bit by bit, as cycling has increased in some areas (it's been flatlining across most of the UK) all of a sudden somebody says 'cyclists' and away you go...........

So I think that all the cycling organisations in the world are not going to make a lot of difference by politicking. People join them for all kinds of reasons, not least the benefits. The CTC has decided in effect to abandon its membership and campaign for the cyclists of the future - and this will, I predict, lead the organisation in to a forced merger with Sustrans in less than five years. No cycling organisation owes anything to anybody other than its members, and if you don't like that, join and try and change it. Cycling will flourish if people see other cyclists and think 'I could do that'.

I'll go further and say that if you are looking for an 'organisation' that might foster self-confidence, awareness and fellow feeling (aka consciousness) then, as Christopher Wren had it 'look around you'. This, my friends is it. I once suggested that writing about the joy of cycling might make a difference. Tim rubbished the idea. Well, insurance woes aside I think I've been proved right - building a consciousness makes a difference, and each and every FNRttCer is, whether they know or like it, an ambassador for cycling because they are, in their everyday lives, radiating the joy they gain from riding a bicycle. I suggest that people logging on to Cycle Chat are building something more adaptable, tangible and useable than people joining a cycling organisation.

Maybe the days of paying somebody to do your campaigning for you are running out. Maybe we are all campaigners simply by setting an example. Maybe we change that attitudes of those that don't cycle by being the kind of cyclists that are admired, or envied, or seen as an inspiration.

 

[Fab Foodie]

Guys and Gals, we could argue about whether this will change this that or the other until the cows come home. Look at Egypt right now, they're having a go and there's a very real chance it might work for them.


Might I suggest if this is to be of value that we spend our wit and energy on figuring-out what we CAN do and HOW to go about it. Revolutions need activity and a starting point not endless navel-gazing.

 

[dellzeqq]

hence my last paragraph. We're all the starting point.