[bikeqld] Mailing list name (and purpose)

[Michael Yeates]

Thanks Ian (and Pete for his comments) ...

Interesting points ...

The use of the word "advocacy" implies if not emphasises a critical 
view which in itself is no bad thing ... indeed it seems that bikeqld 
is one place where there is considerable informed discussion that is 
potentially open to anyone in Queensland and beyond. But I would not 
suggest any real changes to the aims etc .. certainly not to further 
emphasise advocacy.

But it is very important to maintain a somewhat critical site ... to 
deal with issues that are it seems are deemed "prickly" ie do not 
touch ... at least in public. But that is DEFINITELY NOT the only 
role for bikeqld ...! Be concerned if anybody says it is ...!

Perhaps correctly given Queensland's politics, BQ is very politically 
sensitive AND very private indeed ... and despite its (implied if not 
explicit) claims to represent non-members, it does not make much if 
anything available to non-members ... as we know.

The latest Queensland Cyclist has plenty of examples of promotion of 
cycling which is fine .. but if this is all that is needed, then 
presumably there is no need for critical advocacy ie that which puts 
a focus on what needs to be done ... or done better ... based on 
public discussion ... as on bikeqld.

The same edition is almost devoid of "critical advocacy" except for 
what seemed to me to be praise for the 2.2m wide temporary path while 
the widening of the Bicentennial Bikeway is widened ... complete with 
rest stops with roofs etc etc ... but increasingly, NOT really a 
bikeway as it would seem most cyclists prefer to use it now ...!

And it seemed from previous discussion about that project that few if 
any bikeqld people had been consulted about the proposal or even knew 
of any prior consultation. Presumably BQ was consulted ... and we can 
only assume it either (i) was in agreement or (ii) was ignored. both 
would seem grounds for maintaining a public "critical advocacy" ?

The basic problem with taking up Chris' Melbourne and Sydney models 
which are excellent albeit not quite as simple and user friendly 
(although a lot more is involved), is that "bikeqld" is needed ... 
and is read ... throughout Queensland.

This is really important from an advocacy perspective in Queensland 
given we have so many large towns and cities (and regional offices of 
QT and MR with often quite different "local" attitudes to cycling) 
compared to Victoria .... AND our towns and cities are so far apart.

So "bikeqld" would in my view need to remain with a name that puts a 
focus on Queensland not Brisbane or even SEQ ... thus it would become 
the equivalent of Chris' model but with a Queensland name and target ...

However BQ already has "Queensland Cyclist" ... and qldcyclist is 
nowhere near as neat as bikeqld ...

bikeqld sums it up ...!

Also, it would seem bikeqld (based on Ian's history) predated BQ 
which was known as BIQ ...!

As for the "need for freshening up", although it might be right (and 
presumably can apply to bikeqld anyway), that seems to be highly 
subjective, a bit too "flavour of the month/year" and a bit too like 
the politicians ... who seem to keep changing their strategies, 
plans, policies etc not because they have been completed, but it 
seems mainly so they can announce the new ones ... even though there 
really isn't any demonstrated need to do so ... and/or the aims etc 
have not changed or been implemented ... then found wanting ie 
sufficient to justify change..

In the circumstances, isn't it best to accept that if it ain't broke, 
don't change/fix? Improve? Sure. update? Sure. If necessary?

Now if someone can prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that the current 
bikeqld is not working AND that a new one will work, .............!

That said, the other extremely important role of a list like this is 
raising awareness ... which in itself is likely to increase "critical 
advocacy" for much better outcomes ... as well as more enjoyable 
cycling by more people more often .... surely something we should 
encourage and promote and defend ... if necessary by use of informed critique.

This information will range from the favourite attack sites of 
magpies to "consultation" discussions of proposals to what is the 
best v easiest v safest v most enjoyable routes to engineering 
"standards" should be used to advanced examples from overseas that 
show just how far behind are our pro-cycling government agencies.

MY................

At 10:13 PM 1/06/2009, Ian Lister wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>I'd like to get input from list members on the idea of renaming this 
>mailing list. Although it has had the name "bikeqld" since its 
>inception more than thirteen years ago there is arguably potential 
>for the name to be confused with that of Bicycle Queensland, which 
>has now gone by that name for more than ten years.