Small lobbying gains or self delusion?

Everything to do with cycling
User avatar
JohnToo
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 620
Joined: 6 years ago
Location: Leatherhead

Small lobbying gains or self delusion?

Post by JohnToo » 5 years ago

The government have apparently said that they will consult on revising the Highway Code to include the Dutch Reach. The motoring organisations are in favour and the organisation formerly known as CTC have made it a lobbying goal and will no doubt claim this as a success.

I had a disagreement in the former place once with the entity now known as @Iris about CTC lobbying. I asserted that they chose soft objectives (that achieve little but therefore also attract little opposition and require no very great fundamental change) in order to create the impression of success.

The Dutch Reach has, AIUI, no evidential basis. Some of us (me and drago among others, but don’t let that put you off) think from our own experience it could be counterproductive (you don’t turn far enough to see properly behind you and it distracts you from searching your wing mirror which is probably more useful). It is also not Dutch AIUI though that’s a minor irritation.

Crucially, it seems to me, this lobbying creates the impression that all that is required for cracking the problem of cycling safety is a trivial change with no cost to anyone. CTC are allowing government to tick a box and move on to other things without facing up to the real issues.

OTOH, some might say that the recognition that motorists have a responsibility for cyclist safety and that this is important enough to put in the Highway Code is a much bigger gain than I am allowing, and that small steps build up.

Thoughts?
0 x

User avatar
Rocky
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 1024
Joined: 6 years ago

Re: Small lobbying gains or self delusion?

Post by Rocky » 5 years ago

I think rules and motoring advice are all very good but what is needed is a change of motorist behaviour. I don’t think anyone (or very few people) consciously set out to doorswipe a cyclist. People just don’t look or think. I’m not sure how to change this.
1 x

User avatar
Rutabaga
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 1727
Joined: 5 years ago

Re: Small lobbying gains or self delusion?

Post by Rutabaga » 5 years ago

I think Rocky is right about the motorist behaviour aspect of this, the 'Dutch Reach' in itself is pretty irrelevant although it might draw people's attention to the fact that flinging a car door open without looking can be very dangerous. Possibly drawing attention to the fact that it might also damage their car might focus motorists' minds even more effectively.

As for the CTC, sorry CUK's motives, I think they need all the help they can get in terms of good publicity so, as you suggest, they most likely go for softer objectives for preference.
0 x

User avatar
Joan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 3117
Joined: 6 years ago

Re: Small lobbying gains or self delusion?

Post by Joan » 5 years ago

I find the whole thing (opening doors without looking) quite bizarre. It was drilled into me from when I was old enough to open a car door myself to look first. I do it totally instinctively, the image my parents used was a truck (aka lorry) passing closely could take the door and if you are unlucky, your arm too. So I look.

Do we really think putting "dutch reach" into the HC would make any difference? I imagine the name will be repurposed for a sex act and/or a variety of kush.
2 x

User avatar
JohnToo
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 620
Joined: 6 years ago
Location: Leatherhead

Re: Small lobbying gains or self delusion?

Post by JohnToo » 5 years ago

Rutabaga wrote:
5 years ago
..,,
As for the CTC, sorry CUK's motives, I think they need all the help they can get in terms of good publicity so, as you suggest, they most likely go for softer objectives for preference.
I’m even more cynical. CTC now depend on government grants and programmes for so much of their income (and hence to employ staff and hence to justify senior management structures and salaries) that they daren’t pick anything other than soft objectives -daren’t risk offending government by lobbying for real change.
2 x

Iris
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 755
Joined: 5 years ago

Re: Small lobbying gains or self delusion?

Post by Iris » 5 years ago

JohnToo wrote:
5 years ago
I’m even more cynical. CTC now depend on government grants and programmes for so much of their income (and hence to employ staff and hence to justify senior management structures and salaries) that they daren’t pick anything other than soft objectives -daren’t risk offending government by lobbying for real change.
Speaking of evidential bases, it strikes me that there are a number of empirical claims in this sentence that are subject to verification or falsification based on evidence.

An advantage of the organisation being a charity rather than a private members' club is that its accounts are freely available online (http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Ac ... 30_E_C.pdf) - and so if you're right I'd expect to be able to find evidence of what you say in them.

Instead:
Are they dependent on government grants and programmes for a lot of their income? No. It's less than a quarter from all grants (government and other) - £1.4m out of £6m.

Do they have a fixed, bloated senior management structure and salaries? No. They have 5 members of the SMT, only two of whom are on salaries over £60k. Total SMT cost is 10% lower than the previous year - you might remember a bit of a hoo-hah when they made a senior post redundant.

Have they avoided lobbying for real change? No. Read the strategic report. It includes challenges to government on air quality, weak prosecution of drivers, lack of action on road traffic offences and lorry safety. It's possible to disagree with the main thrusts of their activity - getting more people on bikes and creating safer places to ride - but it's all evidence-based, even if you happen to disagree with the conclusions drawn from the evidence.

A sense of the range of challenges to government can be got by searching online for news reports. https://www.google.co.uk/search?biw=120 ... c2vOwmwBbw

As for whether small lobbying gains are worth it, just think what the Highway Code revisions might have looked like. Not that long ago we were looking at an HC revision that included mandating use of bike lanes and was toying with mandating helmets. Both are notably absent, as is any movement on the absurdity of wasting parliamentary time on the tiny number of cyclists who injure pedestrians. And in the same week you posted this, a neighbouring country's government was positing that mandatory registration of bikes might be a good idea. Small gains might look like a little, but shifting the narrative away from large losses is itself a major gain.
0 x

User avatar
Joan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 3117
Joined: 6 years ago

Re: Small lobbying gains or self delusion?

Post by Joan » 5 years ago

Wow ^^^^^ that's depressing. So they are in some kind of red queen's race, running as fast as they can just to stay in the same place?
0 x

Iris
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 755
Joined: 5 years ago

Re: Small lobbying gains or self delusion?

Post by Iris » 5 years ago

Joan wrote:
5 years ago
Wow ^^^^^ that's depressing. So they are in some kind of red queen's race, running as fast as they can just to stay in the same place?
No - it's just that small gains take quite a long time to achieve, but mount over time into major gains.

Think about gay rights - growing up in the 70s homosexuality was still only recently decriminalised and there was widespread personal, institutional and legal prejudice against it. These days we have full marriage (and soon civil partnership) equality, and sexuality is a protected characteristic in human rights legislation. (Which isn't to say that things are perfect - but in the rush to get the next bit of progress we're not very good at celebrating how far we've come.)
0 x

User avatar
JohnToo
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 620
Joined: 6 years ago
Location: Leatherhead

Re: Small lobbying gains or self delusion?

Post by JohnToo » 5 years ago

Iris wrote:
5 years ago
Speaking of evidential bases, it strikes me that there are a number of empirical claims in this sentence that are subject to verification or falsification based on evidence.

An advantage of the organisation being a charity rather than a private members' club is that its accounts are freely available online (http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Ac ... 30_E_C.pdf) - and so if you're right I'd expect to be able to find evidence of what you say in them.

Instead:
Are they dependent on government grants and programmes for a lot of their income? No. It's less than a quarter from all grants (government and other) - £1.4m out of £6m.

Do they have a fixed, bloated senior management structure and salaries? No. They have 5 members of the SMT, only two of whom are on salaries over £60k. Total SMT cost is 10% lower than the previous year - you might remember a bit of a hoo-hah when they made a senior post redundant.

Have they avoided lobbying for real change? No. Read the strategic report. It includes challenges to government on air quality, weak prosecution of drivers, lack of action on road traffic offences and lorry safety. It's possible to disagree with the main thrusts of their activity - getting more people on bikes and creating safer places to ride - but it's all evidence-based, even if you happen to disagree with the conclusions drawn from the evidence.

A sense of the range of challenges to government can be got by searching online for news reports. https://www.google.co.uk/search?biw=120 ... c2vOwmwBbw

As for whether small lobbying gains are worth it, just think what the Highway Code revisions might have looked like. Not that long ago we were looking at an HC revision that included mandating use of bike lanes and was toying with mandating helmets. Both are notably absent, as is any movement on the absurdity of wasting parliamentary time on the tiny number of cyclists who injure pedestrians. And in the same week you posted this, a neighbouring country's government was positing that mandatory registration of bikes might be a good idea. Small gains might look like a little, but shifting the narrative away from large losses is itself a major gain.
Sorry, we were away on hols when you posted this, and i’ve only just got round to looking st the accounts myself.

I will readily admit to looking for fault in CUK and falling into exaggeration as a result. But I think you are too optimistic.

Firstly, the significance of that government grant is greater than you suggest because (a) a chunk of the income is from the holiday business, which is pretty much money in and the same money out, and (b) another chunk is from memberships subs, but there are costs that are also proportional to membership. So the income that is available for doing what the charity wants -on my thesis, largely employing staff - is less than the total. Plus i’d suggest that the income (and expenditure) on training is to some extent vulnerable to government displeasure.

So I acknowledge your point that government funding is not objectively massive, whilst sticking by my point that it is big enough to be a significant consideration in deciding how irritating to government to be. You only have to think about the year in which they lost a million and a half in grants....

I don’t think even CJ’s staunchest supporters would have said he was one of the SMT. That was kind of the point - they got rid of an expert but expanded the number of managers. Nor do I think that who an organisation declare as SMT bears much relation to the actual function. I will, though, acknowledge that the pay rates of their senior staff are less than I would have guessed.

As for whether their campaigning objectives are soft or not, we might just have to differ. I don’t doubt the value of incremental change - it’s the unwillingness to espouse the sort of challenging, culture-shifting objectives that could really make a difference (but which could rapidly lose government goodwill) that I worry about.
0 x

User avatar
JohnToo
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 620
Joined: 6 years ago
Location: Leatherhead

Re: Small lobbying gains or self delusion?

Post by JohnToo » 4 years ago

I see that it was me who started the previous discussion of the "Dutch Reach", so clearly the evidence shows that I am obsessive on the subject. But the latest from CTC/CUK says:
Do the Dutch Reach
We’re hoping that by campaigning for safer roads for cyclists, we’ll see more and more people give cycling a go. This Tuesday marked the launch of our Dutch Reach campaign in partnership with Uber, which aims to prevent car-dooring.

The Dutch Reach is a simple technique which involves opening the car door with the hand furthest away from the door. If every regular cyclist teaches five people the Dutch Reach, we'd have over 10 million people opening their car door safely.
I submit that asserting that being taught the Dutch Reach equates to "opening their car door safely" is not just fantasy, it is dangerous and long-term counter-productive, because it distracts attention from the culture changes that are actually necessary to make our roads safer.
0 x

User avatar
Joan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 3117
Joined: 6 years ago

Re: Small lobbying gains or self delusion?

Post by Joan » 4 years ago

I think the emphasis is wrong. They need to emphasising looking, and the "reach" is more a mnemonic.

Image

Image
1 x

User avatar
Regulator
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 1880
Joined: 6 years ago
Location: Cambridge

Re: Small lobbying gains or self delusion?

Post by Regulator » 4 years ago

JohnToo wrote:
4 years ago
I see that it was me who started the previous discussion of the "Dutch Reach", so clearly the evidence shows that I am obsessive on the subject. But the latest from CTC/CUK says:



I submit that asserting that being taught the Dutch Reach equates to "opening their car door safely" is not just fantasy, it is dangerous and long-term counter-productive, because it distracts attention from the culture changes that are actually necessary to make our roads safer.
I agree.
1 x

User avatar
JohnToo
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 620
Joined: 6 years ago
Location: Leatherhead

Re: Small lobbying gains or self delusion?

Post by JohnToo » 4 years ago

More obsessing from me.

I've just watched the CUK video promoting the Dutch Reach.


It describes the Dutch Reach as a "solution" to car dooring, which is either knowingly dishonest or shows a completely inadequate understanding of the factors involved in road safety.

And it is filmed in a convertible car. One of the criticisms of the Dutch Reach is that in most cars, turning your head as you twist your body simply results in you staring into the door pillar and seeing less of the road than if you looked in the mirror. This, clearly, does not apply in a convertible. So they have deliberately chosen unrepresentative circumstances in order to give a dishonest impression of the effectiveness of what they are advocating.
1 x

User avatar
JohnToo
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 620
Joined: 6 years ago
Location: Leatherhead

Re: Small lobbying gains or self delusion?

Post by JohnToo » 4 years ago

I see that Paul Tuohy is leaving. I'm tempted to cheer but it probably won't make difference as presumably they'll replace him with someone of similar style and direction.

https://www.cyclinguk.org/press-release ... steps-down
1 x

User avatar
Regulator
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 1880
Joined: 6 years ago
Location: Cambridge

Re: Small lobbying gains or self delusion?

Post by Regulator » 4 years ago

JohnToo wrote:
4 years ago
I see that Paul Tuohy is leaving. I'm tempted to cheer but it probably won't make difference as presumably they'll replace him with someone of similar style and direction.

https://www.cyclinguk.org/press-release ... steps-down
"...transforming the charity into a progressive, fearless campaigner for cyclists’ rights."

Yeah - right. ::)

I think they meant to say "...transforming the charity into a poodle that won't bite the government hand that feeds it."
1 x

Post Reply