Much of Cascade’s success over the past decade comes from our firm belief in following facts, data and studies — letting them guide our work. Gone were the histrionics and hyperbole that typified some well-meaning advocates of the past — and with our evolution came more access, greater credibility and measurable progress toward developing bicycle-friendly communities. Where we flounder is when we come face to face with opponents for whom the facts mean nothing or just don’t matter, and it’s not just us left scratching our heads.
It seems many of us are coming to a similar conclusion regarding recent battles over what should be non-controversial roadway safety projects. Erica Barnett and Josh Cohen at Publicola and Tom Fucoloro at Seattle Bike Blog all note how the debate has wrongly centered on a “cars vs. bikes” meme — not that that has kept the so-called mainstream media from continuing to portray it as such — and that opponents generally have the facts wrong. Michael Snyder at Seattle Likes Bikes goes so far as to suggest that we’re winning battles but losing the war.
Snyder offers:
“At every turn, we lead in with the very strong problem statements. We engage drivers by talking about their inability to make left hand turns and how often they already block a lane of traffic making those turns…”
While I don’t agree completely with his criticism of a fact-based approach to explaining the need, purpose, and benefits of these projects, it’s clear that the framing (in combination with the MSM’s desire to keep the issue focused on the false trade-off) isn’t working. We’re not mobilizing enough of the pro-community base, nor are we changing the minds of enough of the project opponents.
To better understand the public mood and how we should frame the debate, Cascade Bicycle Club contributed to a phone poll of likely Seattle voters earlier this month. The results showed broad support for the kinds of projects that have garnered so much attention and drawn so much withering fire.
“City projects that improve transit efficiency, or make it safer and easier to walk or bicycle, like bus-lanes, pedestrian refuge islands, and bicycle lanes, sometimes require changes in travel lanes or parking on Seattle streets. In general, do you support changes in the configuration of Seattle’s streets that make mass transit, walking and bicycling safer and easier?”
Responses:
While the poll clearly demonstrates ideological alignment the question remains, what separates the hypothetical support from the actual support for these projects that can be fairly characterized as win-win? Brilliant suggestions are welcome and encouraged. Please feel free to comment below.
Until we come up with a better approach, continue sending your emails to SDOT and continue sending your letters to the Seattle Times – and we’ll continue to put our research, resources and muscle behind safer, more equitable transportation in Seattle and throughout the region.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Jonathan Maus, Cascade Bicycle Club. Cascade Bicycle Club said: .: What are we doing wrong? http://blog.cascade.org/2010/08/what-are-we-doing-wrong/ [...]
This article may offer some insight:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/?page=full
“The general idea is that it’s absolutely threatening to admit you’re wrong…” The phenomenon — known as “backfire” — is “a natural defense mechanism to avoid that cognitive dissonance.”
There’s no simple/single answer. CBC is pursuing the right things, and if it weren’t I’d stop my membership in an instant. One thing I saw recently was one community’s effort to show that cyclists were everyday people: Bike Fort Collins is running a great sounding publicity campaign – “You know me, I ride a bike.” http://www.bikefortcollins.org/clubportal/ClubStatic.cfm?clubID=1895&pubmenuoptID=32641
Whether it’s effective remains to be seen, of course…
I like Bike Fort Collins’ publicity campaign. If CBC ever decides on a Puget Sound version of this campaign count me in as both a supporter and a model. Heck, maybe Metro will even let me pose in my uniform
While ‘facts’ are important to many of us, they mean little to angry mobs with pitchforks. Part of being a good politician is leading the discussion and influencing public opinion. I give McGinn high marks for intent, but he’s failing miserably in terms of getting out in front of this issue. The art of politics is about winning public opinion.
[...] on the Network: Reinventing Transport offers a video on pay-as-you-go car insurance; Cascade Bicycle Club advocates for framing the debate around bicycle-friendly communities as a "win-win," [...]
[...] on the Network: Reinventing Transport offers a video on pay-as-you-go car insurance; Cascade Bicycle Club advocates for framing the debate around bicycle-friendly communities as a "win-win," [...]
The problem I have with phone polls, is that you’re only talking to people with landlines, which, is a much older demographic. (myself included). How many people under 35 have a landline? hardly any I would expect.
I would like to make it clear that I do applaud Cascade for holding to a fact based approach. The club has been excellent at getting facts into the hands of members, politicians, and bicycle activists and helping us find the politicians and officials who need to hear from us.
Where I think we need to consider how we frame our arguments and how we change minds is in the community at large. We sometimes make assumptions that the community understands that there is a problem and we start our conversation by trying to convince them that our solution is right when they haven’t even realized that there is a problem. We do this a lot when replying to columnists and on talkback forums, but we do it in person too.
I think we need to dwell on the problem more and make it that tangible sick feeling in the stomach of our opponents as they realize that if we don’t fix the problem then eventually an innocent neighbor will die. We need to introduce pedestrians who have been hit to not just city council members but also to Seattle Times columnists and business owners, making them feel the problem personally.
Once they feel the problem, we can then get them on board with the solution.
As long as they don’t feel the problem, it will be an us vs. them argument.
It would be good to know in a followup survey what reasons people have for opposing these changes.
Do they think it makes it harder to drive?
Do they think it costs too much?
Do they think that bicycling isn’t a legitimate mode of transportation?
I think there is a cognitive problem that starts at the gas pedal. There is a visceral ‘car consciousness’ that just seeks to glide at cruising speed. Any kind of obstruction, a light, a narrow road, “congestion”, becomes problematic, a deeply irritating impediment to the luxurious feeling of flowing toward one’s desire. That’s where the vehemence comes from. “These bicycle people are trying to keep me from my joy!” And of course, we are now into three or four generations of publicly sponsoring and normalizing this consciousness.
So, how to intervene? Good question. I think cars as health issue is the way to go. To use a cigarette analogy, high-impact mangling is the direct cancer here.
Use shame: billboards of mangled bikers, etc.
These projects were developed under Greg Nickles, not McGinn. What did Nickels do when the going got tough on the Nickerson St. road diet? He killed it until after the election. He never even tried to fight. Same on projects like dedicated lanes for Rapid Ride on 15th Ave. NW in Ballard; he just gave in to irrational demands to protect parking. McGinn is doing better than Nickels did, if he’s focused more on big projects like the tunnel and light rail and less on smaller ones like road diets and other complete street projects.
[...] Debates that are locally divisive and can cause hysteria (which can potentially lead to actual aggression on the streets) are exactly the places where the Times has the power (and responsibility) to explain the facts and how these road configurations compare to each other. That is important work, and perhaps we activists and citizen journalists could improve on our efforts, as Cascade is currently examining. [...]
To address Michael Snyder’s post about finding out why people oppose the project, I believe there’s another Wild Card. Some people are against change of any kind at all. They will vocally resist it. Sometimes even physically resist it. Having been involved in a seemingly benign traffic safety project in my own neighborhood, I’ve seen atrocious behavior up close. You may even have people making claims that oppose the laws of physics (e.g.: traffic calming devices make cars go faster; safety plan is more hazardous than status quo).
Opponents will also take tips from Burke Gilman Missing Link foes.
Where’s the Mayor in terms of taking the lead on this?
[...] Nickerson. In the face of the NE 125th St debate, David Hiller (still with Cascade) asked, “What are we doing wrong?” Seattle Likes Bikes (which formed in part during the Stone Way debate) even made the claim [...]
[...] lot of defeats in my life. And, times when we didn’t understand each other. It seems like we’ve lost our heart at times. When the fog of division, discord, and blame made it hard to see what lies [...]