What's up, Doc?
DOUGLAS CARNALL has been borough co-ordinator for the LCC in Hackney for about two years. He works as a research fellow at University College London working on the best ways of getting research information out to doctors, and edits the career section of the BMJ. Trevor Parsons meets the man with the plan.
[This article was written in 1998. Douglas handed on the post of borough co-ordinator a couple of years later to become "a private cyclist", as he puts it, but he continues to support the LCC in the borough and more widely].
|
- When people consider the effects
of transport on health, they often talk about asthma and lead
poisoning, and end up putting their faith in technical fixes like cars
with catalytic converters and lead-free gas. Recently, though, there
has been more recognition of the wider health issues. You're in a
pretty good position to promote that message.
Yes, it is only a mid-90s recognition. We now have clear evidence that a lot of the problems of obesity and coronary heart disease and stress and depression and so on are linked to exercise. It's not just an environmental issue or a pollution issue - although you can demonstrate that there are measurably increased numbers of deaths on days of high air pollution - but it's a matter of, if you don't walk or cycle or use public transport, then you get less exercise and then your health suffers as a result, and quite markedly. The best evidence of this to date is a large study of 6000 civil servants in which they looked at people's behaviours in detail, and how many died and what they died of. People who took exercise regularly were much less likely to die early, basically, and that's all been summarised by both the Cyclists' Touring Club and the British Medical Association. Figures show that, even allowing for the risks of death from trauma, the overall benefit from increased cycle usage to public health could really be very significant indeed. And if we're preventing illness, that's less work for me, and I'm happy! So that's my main motivation in advocating cycling, apart from wanting to make things better for myself as a cyclist. These arguments are no less applicable, probably more so, in relatively poor areas than in relatively rich ones. - Many bicycle advocates see promoting cycling as a way of making society more equal as well as saner and healthier. How can we square that with people's obvious desire to display status - e.g. all those shiny BMWs and Mercedes sitting in jams in Dalston and Mare Street? Get them to buy shiny bikes, of course! I certainly don't think that choosing cycling as a way of getting around is mutually exclusive with economic success. If we look at our continental neighbours which have much greater social cohesion, and are much more prosperous overall - Germany, The Netherlands, and northern Europe generally - prosperity seems to go hand in hand with greater general cycle usage. In Holland they've actually got higher car ownership than us. I'm not saying don't aspire to own a car - as long as you're prepared to garage it and service it pay for the external costs of your behaviour, fine. But maybe you'll want to choose the arial delight of cycling which is beneficial in so many ways both to the individual and society. - Arial? Well, on a bike you're floating on air, aren't you? - You're an Edinburgh lad. How come you ended up in Hackney? I was living in Cambridge, and working in London, so I decided to move down. I realised that location was very important, so I got a map and plotted out where all my friends lived, and the middle of all those points turned out to be Clissold Park. I found a flat in Stokey, so that was fine. I had no idea what borough it was in, and didn't care. Stoke Newington Church Street is the eighth wonder of the world as far as I'm concerned! I've now bought a house in Navarino Grove, off Graham Road. I don't know if I'll live in London forever, but it could be a long time. During my medical training I was just aiming to get through each year one at a time. Now, for the first time in my life I'm able to be on a five year plan, and I'm going to live here and do my GP work and journalism. Of course, I haven't got as deep roots as some people, but there are a lot of other people in the East End of London who are in a similar situation. - That's true, and I suppose that explains why you haven't been shy about getting stuck into the cycling campaign. Yes, I got involved pretty quickly. It has been an interesting time for me learning about local politics. I can see that some people might have difficulty with an outsider telling them how to live, as they might see it, so I have a responsibility to show respect and to find out why things have become the way they are. Of course, there are so many brilliant things about London that you wouldn't want to change at all, like the diversity, like the density of population, like the wonderful shops, facilities, culture, accessibility of parts national and international. - What about your strategy for the LCC? Keep on plugging away? My philosophy has always been that individuals can achieve a lot, so we should say to people, "Well, good, if you feel that way about a subject, get to work on it, and we'll try to support with the expertise and resources we have in the group." I certainly haven't become borough co-ordinator by default. I have other calls on my time, and if someone else has more time to devote to it, I'm always prepared to continue to be active but slip into a more supporting role. - It's suppose it's understandable that only a small minority of members is active. For instance, a quarter of the members have got young children. Children are certainly time-consuming. The question is, though, what kind of world do their parents want them to grow up in? It's great that people are active, if they have the time. But I also believe that what you do individually is very important. Whatever else we may do or not do, it's always good to be a personal evangelist for cycling, and that was my inspiration for Project Modal Shift. I think that's very important. The other thing I'm very keen on is that we should have as much money as possible available for campaigning work. I think the fundraising Burns Night has been a good innovation for that. Having a grand to spend each year as opposed to 500 quid is good - that way we don't have to think twice about doing a mailshot or something like that. I think we've done pretty well recently, lobbying, getting out mailshots, starting off our electronic communications with the email list and the website. The only worrying thing about the email list is that it is very efficient indeed, and could be keeping things in an inner circle too much. - Sure. We should be clear that it's an extra at the moment, but a very handy one for sharing news and ideas among some of the more involved people. It's interesting that the majority of the people who come to meetings regularly are following things online too. Well, you know, what that makes me wonder is how can we get more people to use the net like this. When we surveyed the membership we saw that the median salary is above the average for London, and by every measure we have a relatively affluent membership, so I think we'll find progressively more people getting themselves wired up to the net to benefit from this very efficient way of communication. - What about the membership issue in general? Is it unrealistic to think that a membership-based pressure group is ever going to appeal to a broader section of the population. Well, I imagine what you'll find is that a lot of LCC members are very active in other spheres, and if they've got the money, they're happy to spend it to get the magazine and be kept in touch with what's going on. Whereas for other people sixteen quid is a significant amount and it means that they will have foregone other opportunities. What would be good is if LCC centrally could deliver sixteen quid's worth of value, and not just information. Third party insurance is a value, as are the discounts in shops, but we should be looking to expand that. I think the people we should be chasing are the AA and the RAC. Yes, maybe we should work a bit more closely with the Environmental Transport Association, the 'green AA'. Anyway, thanks Douglas. Oh, while you're here, I've got this twinge in my knee...
|
|
|
Charlie
Lloyd adds, re: Douglas's comment on the membership fees and
value...
"Keen readers of the latest London Cyclist magazine will see that the membership rates have just gone up to 19.50 quid (or 9.50 if you are unwaged). This is the first rise in four years and is still much lower than similar campaigning organisations. Personally I think LCC central has delivered amazing value with the National Cycling Strategy, London Cycling Strategy, five million pounds for cycle routes this year etc. Happily the move now is towards more up front 'in your face' campaigns with the 20mph for London strategy and a lively bike week." |
|
|
Douglas replies: I think the point is: what is 16 (or 19.50)'s worth of value? I'm not saying the LCC's office don't do a good job within the tight budget that they work to: I'm saying, how do we involve people to whom 16.00 or 9.50 or 9.50 is a sum that is far from trivial? Unemployment in Hackney is 33% I'm told, yet when we surveyed Hackney members the respondents (who may not be representative) were largely white, had above average car ownership for Hackney, and above average incomes for London. This worries me: if we press for change at the council etc, they can accuse us of being a bunch of unrepresentative middle class eco freaks; yet we know for many reasons that a modal shift to cycling would benefit everyone, rich or poor. I'm much convinced by the work of Mancur Olsen, who argued that people get involved in politics for selfish reasons, but that good politics harnesses these for public good. The motoring organisations are a good example of this, funding their lobbying activities on the back of services like breakdown recovery, cheaper insurance and so on. I think we should take a leaf out of their book and provide a wider range of services. In addition to information, lobbying, and insurance/legal support, we could add: cycle consultancy and training, consumer quality ratings of cycle services suppliers, and cycle breakdown assistance, and market these in a commercial way. |
