Ooh Dave, you've set the cat amongst the pigeons here with your pesky
cycling research! From my own somewhat cynical perspective, Richard
has failed to appreciate that to keep the bloated knowledge economy
afloat we need to do research whether it's required or not. Otherwise
we'll be out on the streets like the miners in the 80s. I wouldn't
mind that so much but I'd like some warning so I could retrain to
avoid penury.
On a more serious note, I'd be inclined to say that what is really
required is a political class that takes on board 'evidence' rather
than the 'policy-based evidence making' paradigm that we currently
enjoy. That however would probably require not having a plutocracy,
and there's precious little sign of that just yet.
On a different note, I'm pleased at the provocative headline of the
research (whether intended or not) because it has at least got people
talking, and that's no mean feat. It has certainly highlighted the
problem that campaign groups and cycling researchers tend to have
forgotten just how marginal cycling is to most people's everyday
lives.
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Katja leyendecker
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I think the report and its findings are crucially important to move on and
> broaden the UK cycling debate, away from what a minority thinks (yes, we
> cycling folks are in a minority).
>
> The report will help generalising and publicising our debate. Broaden and
> promote cycling ideas and the cyling dialogue.
>
> 'Understanding walking and cycling' should prove excellent for lobbying DfT
> public servants. It should really provide the amunition to a cycling
> revolution: here's what the masses say and want to get them cycling. The
> government wants the nation to partake in active travel. And here's a report
> listing the barriers to be lifted.
>
> Sadly the cycling community is still squabbling. Ununified and lacking
> cohesion in their message, there's little chance of advancing cycling from
> our minority position. A recent survey of cycle campaign groups may provide
> some hope.
>
> A campaigner's view. You may have guessed.
>
> Kat
> Http://newcycling.org.uk
>
> On 12 Sep 2011 09:59, "Richard Burton" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Dave, if you take offence at the word "blinkered" I apologise, but I'm
>> rather fed up with research which tells us what we already know, when we
>> need application, not more research. £936k could have been used for
>> something a lot more useful.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Horton, Dave
>> Sent: 12 September 2011 08:55
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Please ignore cyclists, especially when they are telling you
>> to
>> ignore cyclists...
>>
>> Dear all
>>
>> Of course I have a vested interest here, but I also strongly believe in
>> the
>> accountabilities and responsibilities which come with the research
>> enterprise, and am very happy to debate (for so long as it's useful) the
>> value/s of the Understanding Walking and Cycling research.
>>
>> Richard, I take offence at being labelled 'blinkered' - I went into 3
>> years
>> of research as a passionate cyclist and cycling advocate, but also one who
>> believes that research is vital to improving and broadening current
>> understandings. It is not at all 'blinkered' to be prepared to question,
>> challenge and perhaps change what you think/know (indeed, that is a key
>> hallmark of good research).
>>
>> And our research has I think achieved some important things (whether or
>> not
>> you like what we say is an altogether different matter):
>>
>> - we have produced strong scientific evidence that the majority of people
>> in
>> England are still far from jumping onto bikes, and for the range of
>> reasons
>> why this is the case;
>> - we have discovered a good deal about the social-spatial unevenness of
>> attitudes to and practices of cycling;
>> - to some extent our research has undoubtedly corroborated "what everyone
>> already know" (about cycling in England), but scientific research does not
>> lose its value when it confirms the taken-for-granted (and practitioners
>> and
>> policy-makers require a strong evidence base in order to defend and
>> legitimise their decisions).
>>
>> I could go on, but I'll stop here. But if anyone wants to raise critiques
>> and/or has questions about the Understanding Walking and Cycling project,
>> I'm very happy to respond to them on this forum, if others are interested.
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> Dave Horton
>> (Researcher on the Understanding Walking and Cycling project)
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list on behalf of
>> Richard Burton
>> Sent: Mon 12/09/2011 08:19
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Please ignore cyclists, especially when they are telling you
>> to
>> ignore cyclists...
>>
>> I don't think it's harsh at all: everything I've read about what this
>> research "discovered" was well known already by all practitioners in the
>> field.
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Cycling and Society Research Group discussion list
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Richard Mann
>> Sent: 11 September 2011 23:45
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Please ignore cyclists, especially when they are telling you
>> to
>> ignore cyclists...
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 11:16 PM, Richard Burton
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> There would appear to be no limits to the stupidity of blinkered
>> researchers
>> or their limited, unimaginative research. Can whoever funded this ask for
>> their money back, especially if it was tax payers i.e. me. £936,000 and
>> three years to produce this rubbish?
>>
>>
>>
>> That's a bit harsh. The research has taught us a lot about how people
>> think
>> about cycling and walking, in the absence of serious interventions to
>> facilitate them.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not convinced it cracks what we should do about it, but then it'd be
>> miraculous if it had.
>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe the next focus needs to be elsewhere, maybe into the gentle art of
>> taming motorists, or how the taming of motorists affects how people think
>> about cycling and walking.
>>
>>
>>
>> (In the mean time, it would be helpful if the report was available in a
>> pdf
>> that can be read on a Windows machine...!)
>>
>>
>>
>> Richard
>
|