Replacing McQuaid: Mission Impossible

I have just read an interesting piece on the cycle racing blog, “The Inner Ring."

It appears you may as well try to oust the Pope as try to get the UCI’s president Pat McQuaid removed from office.

This doesn’t surprise me, I have seen the workings of Cycling’s national governing bodies both in the UK and the United States, and they are structured pretty much the same as the UCI is described.

Clubs affiliated to their national governing body send delegates to an annual congress where officials are elected. These officials in turn become national delegates and get to elect a President and other officials at the world level at the UCI Congress held every four years.

At the club level and even at a national level, work is often on a volunteer unpaid basis; however, if you get elected to a national level there are certain perks. Travel is one of them; an all expenses paid trip to Switzerland every four years to the UCI congress for a start.

Then there is the Olympic Games every four years; who wouldn’t like to go to the Olympics for free? The top officials that represent each individual sport for each country get to go. There is an awful lot of working hard for little or no reward to get to these top positions, but when you get there it is like being the member of an exclusive club.

So having worked so hard to reach the top, even at a lower national level, are you going to make waves at a world level and vote the head guy out of office? Unlikely, unless you have aspirations to be President yourself, in which case you had better have a lot of buddies who you can count on to vote for you.

I’m sure many of the people who voted McQuaid into office ended up with nice paying jobs with the UCI. Others no doubt get to go to big races all over the world. The Tour de France, The Giro d’Italia, etc, etc.

If you are one of McQuaid’s cronies why would you vote him out? You would have to start all over again to ensure having an “In” with the new guy. If you back the wrong guy and he doesn’t get voted in, you lose; you are out of the exclusive club for ever.

McQuaid was first voted into office in 2005, and re-elected in 2009. The next vote is not for another two years in 2013, and there is no guarantee he will step down then.

In the mean time the Professional Riders might break from the UCI and form their own league, rather like the NFL and the NBA.

This looks like a distinct possibility, because McQuaid will stay where he is at least until 2013, and the UCI is not going to change. For that to happen the whole system would have to change, right down to the national and even the club level.

                          

Cyclists Misbehaving

“There is nothing wrong with the world except for people misbehaving.”

Think about it; if people behaved themselves, there would be no crime, no wars. No need for armies or police.

There would be no need to lock our doors, and we could leave our car or bike anywhere unlocked.

Utopia of course; a fantasy world that will never happen.

Here is a comment on the current bikes vs. cars situation in New York City from a Jack Brown, a former bike store owner no less.

I think his words sum up the situation probably as good as any I have read.

"Cyclists can be anywhere, at any time: on the sidewalk, riding the wrong way down the street, and you have no peace. The anarchy that has been allowed to prevail is astonishing.

According to butterfly theory, according to chaos theory, I am sure that the level of emotional and psychological damage wrought by the bicycle far exceeds the damage done by cars. The cumulative effect is equivalent to what happened on 9/11."

I think the comparison to 9/11 is a little strong; however, he is talking about “Emotional and Psychological” damage, not actual physical harm being done. That cars have far more potential to do physical harm than bikes is not the issue here.

In reality pedestrians are not being mowed down in large numbers and killed or seriously injured by cyclists, but the fear that it could happen causes emotional stress; in the same way that living in a high crime area causes stress.

Like living in the constant fear that you could catch a stray bullet at any time; it the fear that is real, not the odds in your favor that you will never actually be shot.

The problem is being caused by a minority of cyclists, just as a minority of people misbehaving can turn a community into a high crime area. No one notices the dozens of cyclists riding in an orderly and proper manner along a street or bike lane.

It is the cyclist brushing past you on the sidewalk at 15 or 20 mph that you notice, or the one who blows through a red light and you don’t even see until he flashes past the hood of your car. It is not the fact that either encounter was not even that close; it is the emotional stress caused by the shock, the surprise.

The stress causes fear, a fear of what could have happened. Fear is then transformed into anger; it is the natural human way of coping. Pretty soon just the sight of a cyclist makes a person angry, and there is a loss of sympathy for the cyclist’s vulnerability. An attitude of, “If these maniacs don’t care for their own safety, why should I care?”

I don’t feel by writing here I can change the situation, anymore that I can stop wars or crime; all I can do is speak to those who do care. Half the battle is understanding the other person’s point of view, and trying to understand why some pedestrians and motorists are angry with all of us.

Know that the fear and resulting stress caused by this anarchistic minority is all too real. Fear breeds anger, and anger breeds hate.

I refuse to live my life in fear; I will not ride my bike in fear. By not riding in fear, I am not riding in anger. Knowing that the motorist’s anger towards me is basically born out of a fear that he/she might hit me, is in a small way comforting.

And by riding in a responsible and courteous manner I am soothing the fear, thereby calming the anger. It is one of the few things a responsible cyclist can do.

Here is some interesting reading on the subject in Chicago Magazine and from NYC in the New York Magazine and The Gothamist   

                           

Dictatorships

As countries around the world ruled by Kings and Dictators, rather than democratically elected governments fight for their freedom; it seems the UCI, the world governing body of the sport of cycling has its own dictator in the form of President Pat McQuaid. (Above.)

The former Irish pro bike rider has managed to piss off just about everybody, from the bike industry, to the promoters and now the professional cyclists. Without all of these different entities there would be no sport of cycling, and yet he still he remains in office.

Unfortunately we need organizations like the UCI just as countries need governments, democratic or not. Within separate countries there are smaller local governments, and usually within a democratic society these too are elected officials that can be voted out of office.

In theory that is. In practice there are cities within democratic countries where local mayors and other officials have been in power twenty or more years, about the length of time many of the world’s dictators have held on to power. Often they stay in power because there is no alterative candidate to oppose.

And so it goes on in any society, below any system of government there are smaller systems run by officials, some paid some not. Many unpaid volunteers do a job out of love for what they do, or for the benefit of the group as a whole.

It might be a group as small as a ladies sewing circle, or an athletic club; when the group gets beyond a certain size it needs structure in order to continue. That means a set of rules, and elected officials to oversee the day to day running of the club or organization.

I always tended to shy away from holding any official position within a cycling club where I was a member. I did on many occasions act as event organizer for bike races, it was something I enjoyed doing, but that was as far as my bike officialdom went. I was like the majority of members in any cycling club; I just wanted to race and ride my bike.

Here I have to generalize in my observations, which can be a mistake because there are always exceptions to the generalization. But over the years I have seen two types of people who become officials in cycling clubs.

There are the nice guys, they are the ones who step up because they have the ability to organize and do the job. Often it is time consuming and no one else wants the job, so they volunteer for the benefit of the group as a whole.

Then there are the control freaks; they want to see the job done their way, and by volunteering they will be in charge ensuring that things are run according to their way of thinking.

When it comes to club level elections of officials, the nice guys will often only take on the job only if no one else wants to do it, but if there is someone else willing to run they will not oppose. So the controlling types tend to end up in charge.

Don’t get me wrong, this is not necessarily a bad thing. A bike store owner may start a local club and put money into it. This could be considered a private enterprise, and not particularly democratic, but as long as it benifits the members what harm is there?

Also at a club level if the membership does not like the way things are run, they will leave and join another club, or form a new one.

It becomes a problem when it reaches National or World level as is currently happening with the UCI. We have a person in charge that is running this organization the way he and his cronies see fit. Not necessarily a way that is for the greater benefit of the sport.

The UCI President in theory could be voted out of office; however, the average members of clubs affiliated to their National Cycling bodies cannot do this. And like getting your local mayor out of office you also need a strong candidate to oppose the incumbent.

The only group with any power to oppose the Pat McQuaid and the UCI right now are the professional cyclists. Their demand of representation before major rule changes are made is not unreasonable.

Does the UCI need the professional cyclists more than the Pros need the UCI? It is going to be interesting.

                         

Signs we are winning

In the five years I have been writing here I have seen huge strides made worldwide towards bicycle friendliness.

Of course there is still an “Us vs. Them” attitude on both sides, but even this is breaking down. “Us” being the bicycle lobby, and “Them” being those who feel they are losing certain freedoms by encouraging more cyclists on the road. If you are on the other side the “Us and Them” are reversed.

For the most part what these changes mean is that people have to drive a little slower, and watch where they are going. Is that so terrible? To oppose it is such a short sighted attitude.

Every person riding a bike to work means one less car on the road, and less congestion. With less congestion everyone can drive slower and still get to their destination in the same amount of time, or even quicker; plus there is the added bonus of using less gasoline.

This also translates to less people killed on our roads, not just cyclists and pedestrians, but motorists too. Logical arguments like this are the reason the bicycle lobby is winning.

You can only argue against logic for so long, then gradually as more and more people see the reasoning, those remaining who continue fight change, begin to look stupid.

Those fighting change are starting to use disclaimers in their arguments to lessen the appearance of looking stupid. Do you remember how attitudes and commentary on it changed over the years following the Civil Rights movement. 

Bigots used to begin racist statements with a preceding disclaimer? “I have nothing against black people, or Jews, (Insert whatever minority being discussed at the time.) some of my best friends are black people, or Jews.”

By stating that some of your best friends are part of the minority you are about to malign, it somehow seemed to make it okay.  Bigots went from openly slandering minorities, to adding a disclaimer, until they lost the argument completely and it is no longer socially acceptable to say anything even mildly racist.

I have just read an anti-cycling rant in “The New Yorker” blog,titled “Battle of the Bike Lanes,” by John Cassidy. Third paragraph down is the disclaimer, “I don’t have anything against bikes.”

The writer then goes on at great length to explain that as a student he rode a bike everywhere. He then goes on to state:

“Today, of course, bicycling is almost universally regarded as a serious, eco-friendly mode of transport, and cyclists want it easy. From San Francisco to London, local governments are introducing bike lanes, bike parks, bike-rental schemes, and other policies designed to encourage two-wheel motion."

Then comes the final disclaimer before the argument against... "I support this but..."

"Generally speaking, I don’t have a problem with this movement: indeed, I support it. But the way it has been implemented, particularly in New York, irks me to no end. I view the Bloomberg bike-lane policy as a classic case of regulatory capture by a small faddist minority intent on foisting its bipedalist views on a disinterested or actively reluctant populace.”

Reading between the lines, I can see John Cassidy is losing the argument, or rather he has no real argument. What he is saying is that cycling is a good thing in London, or San Francisco, but not in New York City where he lives. Rather like saying “I have nothing against Jews or black people, as long as they don’t move into my neighborhood.

This whole article could be condensed to a single eight word sentence. "I am being inconvenienced and it annoys me."

What tells me the cycling movement continues to gain ground? It is not just that I read of an ever increasing number of cities across the world are installing bike lanes, and embracing cycling.

It is reading between the lines of the anti-cycling articles. They are losing the argument; or rather they are fast approaching the point where they no longer have an argument.

                         

Bryce Barker Guilty

Most bullies are cowards at heart; 24 year old Bryce Barker (Left.) fits the stereotype exactly.

Last July three cyclists were enjoying a Sunday ride near Berthoud, Colorado; one of the cyclists was celebrating his 65th birthday with a 65 mile ride.

Barker pulled alongside the cyclists and honked and yelled at them, one of the cyclists admitted giving Barker the one finger salute.

Barker then stopped his truck and when the cyclists tried to ride by, he threatened them with an aluminum baseball bat. Joseph Stevens held his bike between himself and the bat wielding Barker.

When Barker struck the bike, Stevens dropped it and stepped back; where-upon Barker proceeded to destroy the carbon fiber bike.

Now this is why I say Bryce Barker is a coward. When he is later arrested, which is what usually happens to thugs who use baseball bats to threaten people and destroy property, he tells a totally different story.

His version; as he drove past the cyclists, (Get this.) one of them threw his bike at the truck hitting it on the side. He stopped to see if the cyclist was okay, and he was surrounded by the three cyclists.

He feared for his life, and that’s when he took the baseball bat to defend himself. But he attacked a bicycle; was he defending himself against an inanimate object?

Maybe Barker watched too much “Transformers” as a kid; he must have imagined the carbon fiber bike would transform into the Trek monster and would eat him. That could have been why he beat the crap out of Joe’s bike.

Yesterday, (February 4th 2011.) the 24-year-old Berthoud man hyper-ventilated and was unsteady on his feet as the verdict came in late Friday. After nearly eight hours of deliberation in 8th Judicial District Court, Bryce Barker was found guilty of felony menacing and misdemeanor criminal mischief.

The maximum penalty for the felony is three years in prison, but prosecutors said they expect Barker to face probation instead of incarceration. He will be sentenced April 26.

Many of you will think probation is too light, but in this case none of the cyclists were physically injured. Bryce Barker now has a felony conviction on his record that will follow him for the rest of his life. He will have to mend his ways or face serious consequences in the future. He will have to be particularly careful when driving around cyclists.

The good thing is this young thug was brought to trial, and the publicity the case has generated will I hope act as a deterrent to other potential cyclist bullying, bat wielding cowards

Read more here.