Comments

6 responses to “Advocacy”

1. 

   Tim Jackson- Masi Guy

   May 2, 2007

   Thanks for the mention and good luck with the new blog and advocacy role.

   I know how hard the juggling act of time is… for sure.

   Yes, advocacy is an important thing for us to be involved with because without advocacy efforts, we all end up losing out. The investment in time allows us all to ride… so it’s worth it.

   Reply
2. 

   SueJ

   May 4, 2007

   I just have to wonder about the Trek presentation (it’s on their website) – all that talk about practical cycling, but where is it so much as acknowledged in their product lines?
   WHen they make me some turn signals I’ll believe it’s more than This Week’s Buzzword Hype.

   Reply
3. 

   James

   May 4, 2007

   Sue, I don’t mean to pick on you, but I have heard a lot of similar skepticism about the Trek video lately, and I just don’t get it. Sure Trek has a marketing interest in supporting and encouraging bicycle advocacy, all bike companies should. Not only is it the right thing to do, it is simply good business to try and grow your consumer base. The more people who feel safe riding, the more bikes they can sell, right? Having said that, I believe that most people in the bike industry, Mr Burke included, care very much about bikes and are sincere in their bicycle evangelism. So why pick on Trek when they mention advocacy?

   Turn signals on bikes are a good idea, so I won’t argue with that. Still, I don’t see how you can say that Trek has not acknowledged practical cycling in their product line. The Lime has been getting a lot of press lately, but what about older bikes like the Portland or the Soho (there are many others, but those are the first two that come to my mind without looking at a catalog)? Those designs may not have all the features that you think a practical bike should have, but they are definitely geared toward commuters and urban cyclists. I don’t know for sure, but I would bet that the marketing and design teams at Trek, and all the big bike companies, consider transportation-oriented bikes to be more than a fad. I think we will continue to see a design focus on those products in the near future.

   Reply
4. 

   Anonymous

   May 5, 2007

   Bike company executives can only spend corporate resources in a manner that benefits their, not others’, shareholders. To hold TREK accountable for lack of critical mass in building “practical cycling” bikes misses the main point.

   Practical cycling occurs when our streets are designed to be complete and that is more of a political decision than a bike design decision. Until other potential riders can overcome the fear and discomfort of practical cycling, a broader lineup will not solve any problems.

   Let’s hope Burke and other corporate leaders “get it” and work together. He is on the right track and deserves all the support he can build, which will benefit of all cyclists.

   Jack

   Reply
5. 

   SueJ

   August 2, 2007

   I’m “picking on” Trek because they’re t he one that made the presentation. If I’d seen the blather on another site, I”d have said the same thing. It’s not as if it’s worse than if he hadn’t said anything, either – it’s great that he’s at least *talking* about practical cycling. Is it more than lip service, though? *Is* Trek doing advocacy?
   I’ll assume he’s sincere. As the unitarian jihad says, ” Sincerity is not enough. We have heard from enough sincere people to last a lifetime already. Just because you believe it’s true doesn’t make it true.”

   Reply
6. 

   Anonymous

   August 17, 2007

   Hey Sue:

   http://www.bicycleretailer.com/news/newsDetail/277.html

   …how you like them apples?

   Reply