RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
From The Other Paper:
Bikes: What’s there to fight about?
By Lyndsey TeterThe story begins in 1991, when the Central Ohio Biking Advocacy Coalition was formed. It worked behind the scenes—maybe a little too behind the scenes—to advocate for cyclists. Jump ahead to 2007, when cyclists Meredith Joy and her boyfriend, Mike Reed, initially put the words “consider” and “biking” together. The pair built an online community serving urban hipsters that ultimately became the stronger voice, and merged with Central Ohio Biking Advocacy Coalition early in 2008.
Jeff Stephens was hired as executive director of the new group. Joy served as the non-profit’s board president and “donated the website that was previously made to the new group,” Stephens said. That’s when things got weird.
Interesting,
I’ve been a part of several “rights” groups, fighting for just causes, equal rights, heath or political concerns, etc. There always seems to be a lot of infighting within these groups. I wonder if it is a nature of the beast that you must be a person of conviction that’s willing to stick to your guns, having the unintended consequence of creating conflict with other people that have the same drives, but, slightly different viewpoints within the same group.
I applaud them all – I think it an undervalued character asset when someone is moved to action by their beliefs and passions (as opposed to bitching about it)
- Devo
I can see how the leadership positions in both groups have a different way of approaching the same challenge, and how this translates into splitting in order to cater to specific segments of the community that can help achieve their goals. But I’d understand it more if the group had a ginormous constituency to maintain momentum for the cause after the split. For supporters of both groups, it may just add another org. to the list, more events to put on the ol’ calendar, and another website to check infrequently. More targetted marketing may attract more supporters, but will each group have enough support to make an impact now?
Is it an oversimplification to say that one group wanted to get something done and the other one wanted to have some good clean hipster fun? Because that’s what I took from that article.
It’s also written by the Other Paper, so take it with a grain of salt. Mike or Meredith can speak for themselves and some of the reasoning, but as it pointed there are a few cities with dual bike orgs.
I think it can work. For myself, I found at times that I would go to a CB meeting where they were doing some planning or some idea soliciting and I would find myself checking my thoughts with: Well CB is more of an advocacy group, so we probably can’t do that.
I think for bike advocacy to work you need a mix of both. You need the back room policy work that’s going to make this a better city to bike around (although most of Columbus is pretty decent, we just some refinements here and there) AND you need the cultural side of things. I think a lot of the issues folks have with cyclist could be solved or mitigated by showing fellow cyclists that they are a part of a larger community and their actions reflect back on us.
I became a better cyclist, in part, when I started getting on CB and chatting with other cyclists and meeting up at different events. I would like more things happening that will get people on bikes without being preachy. That’s not to say CB/COBAC ever came across that way, but it can have that perception.
I plan on staying involved with both groups as best I can. I have sent an email to Jeff offering my help for the mapping project. We have several folks of the YB crowd and several of the CB crowd working together on bike to work week.
Time will only tell…
I would like to say it has been my privilege to work with many, many people and organizations in Columbus a variety of issues and projects. I intend to continue my community involvement in the area of cycling (and others) and I think you would be hard pressed to find someone who has worked with me who would describe me as duplicitous, dishonest, or as someone who puts myself or an agenda above the truth.
Technology is crucial to advocacy for any cause, as is a more sophisticated understanding of how and why people use online tools and the qualitative and quantitative measures of that use. It is important for effective leaders to understand this.
Though it was my countless hours, ideas, and creative and technical know-how that helped (alongside others) to build the brand that is “Consider Biking” I haven’t said much about this whole thing. Since Mr. Stephens has chosen to disparage something I’ve personally worked pretty hard on (fewer than 10% of cyclists use it, hard to navigate, didn’t server as a resource, and participants give out inaccurate information) I guess I will go ahead and weigh in.
Mr. Stephens is trashing my work, and the tools and the community I’ve helped to build as ineffective or inconsequential. Why it was a good idea to merge with such an ineffective community and also use (including himself) such an ineffective message board over the last year, and to continue to do business under a name largely built on top of all of that ineffectiveness is a puzzle to me. Mind you, that he is mudslinging despite a mutual non-disparagement agreement in places as part of the resolution to a threatened lawsuit. I’m not a party to that lawsuit nor the non-trash-talking-agreement so maybe he sees my efforts, work, and creations as fair game for disparagement.
I’m no lawyer, nor do a have a boardroom full of lawyers to sick on someone. But I can google ‘defamation’ and see fairly quickly that ‘defamatory language’ is defined as language that causes one to be “lowered in the estimation of the community”. I believe Mr. Stephens’s words, if accurately reported, serve to marginalize me, my work and contribution to the community, as well as the asset I’ve helped to create in the form of an online community (and therefore impacting the ability to monetize that asset in the future should I opt to do that).
Moreover, Mr. Stephens’s comments serve to marginalize every member who has contributed to that online community as well.
Every member of that community who has contributed to the message board- sharing information in good faith (100% accurate every time or not), encouraging new riders, supporting local businesses who support cyclists, organizing or volunteering for events or rides, and on and on- they all own a piece of that online community. They all helped create it. That’s how it goes online with distributed content and decentralized leadership. So, when you attempt to undermine a community’s voice you are undermining each of those individual voices. When you choose to marginalize the contribution of a community, you choose to marginalize the contribution of the individuals who make up that community.
With regard to the claim that fewer than 10% of cyclists used the message board. Is that a fact or just conjecture meant to imply verifiable assertion of fact? I ask for two reasons. First, because I would love to see the facts supporting this claim. I can cite literature indicating that from 45% up to 99% of a given online community users can be ‘lurkers’- someone who has never posted or hasn’t posted much or in quite some time. I can also cite literature indicating that there is no differential in “empowering outcomes” between online ‘lurkers’ and ‘posters’- those who start or reply to online topics. Further, it is impossible to accurately identify our online users as offline cyclists or not (posters or lurkers) unless they self identify- and not all of them do. If you don’t have facts to support these claims (which would require some compelling analytics and even beyond that- back end access to the site’s Web Server) then I believe Mr. Stephens is implying a provable factual assertion without basis, damaging my reputation, and lowering the estimation of me and this online community- also known as slander or defamation in the parlance of the day.
Because I believe it is foolish (and telling) to threaten litigation over issues easily resolved with a simple conversation, rather than threaten a slander lawsuit I’m simply going to request that Mr. Stephens and Consider Biking stop using defamatory language that serves to marginalize me, my work, and the community I helped build and am proud to call myself a member of.
Just to recap too very positive experiences out of the message board from the last year:
1) The Justin Project, which started as a discussion in the wake of a young man here in Columbus being hit by a drunk, off duty cop. It eventually morphed into a fund raising effort to purchase a new bike for Justin. Working with B1, the money was raised and Justin and his mom were contacted.
2) Critical Manners. What started as a very lively (cough) debate here on CU was carried over to CB. Myself, Tricia, Jeff and others-through the message board, email and offline work-put together a group ride through parts of Columbus with the intent of following basic road rules and offer teaching moments to less experienced cyclists. Our first ride was about 20 cyclists (I think more) strong and our second, before winter really hit, featured about 8-10 of us. Tricia plans on using the ride as part of program she is doing with the Westerville Bike Club.
when will mommy and daddy stop fighting?
*tears*
quite frankly, i tried my best to tip-toe around this story so that no one would be sued. i don’t think he was defaming you, mike. he was saying that not all cyclists utilize the forum and that sometimes posts are inaccurate.
both things are true, right?
as for whether or not it’s hard to navigate, that depends on how familiar you are with message boards and software, right?
this is me trying to unfan the flames. and if that doesn’t work — knife fight on Gay Street? considering the time and emotions involved on either side, i think that’s the only way to put this to bed.
as for you mr. twowheels, are you saying you had a bad experience with TOP? ;)
i knew it was you, andrew. you broka ma heart.
I would be interested to know what information was considered inaccurate. You’ll find a wide range of discussions that have and are taking place on the board. I found folks were pretty good about noting their own lack of knowledge and would often ask someone to step forward if they had the correct info. I would often offer my take, but was very careful to acknowledge my take might not be the best. Jeff, especially, and others with a bit more of an ear at Council and around Columbus were pretty good at correcting anything that was mistaken.
I want to be very careful in how I say this, but I do think CB/COBAC missed an opportunity with the inclusion of the message board and formation of CB to really build a community of cyclists here in the city. Most of the offical events were what you would expect from a policy/advocacy orginization. Staffing booths at events, meeting at a library or coffee shop to hash out the next steps and so on. CB is doing great work and will continue to do great work here. But outside of Bike to Work Week ’08, very little seemed to be done on the official side towards building a cohesive community.
So I don’t think it’s so much mommy and daddy fighting. It’s 2 distinct groups of very passionate folks who want the same thing-they just want to go about it in a different way. I would venture to speculate that some of it is generational, but it’s not a perfect way of looking at it.
As to the other paper, I just have a very skeptical outlook on most things and tend to want to look at the different sides. It’s the historian in me. Your take is just one side of a complex issue, as is mine, Mike’s and anyone else.
If you go to Yaybikes you can see Meredith’s as well.
Lyndsey, I appreciated your reporting on this. I think it was fair and not intended to incite. I completely acknowldege you for that. I think this is important since people have piled on you in the past.
This isn’t the first time that this kind of thing has happened. This kind of language is not an isolated incident. I can cite that something similar was hinted at in a December 31st Consider BIking “newsletter” and stated in this way, “We’ll be more than a forum to voice your opinion…” – this was post schism and was the first sign of what is becoming a trend of speaking ill toward me and my work. I have no way of knowing what else is being said and to whom. That is a hell of a way to pay back the role I played in creating Consider Biking- and make no mistake that merging with CB arguably saved COBAC from extinction- not to mention hours and hours of my work and resources over the past few years. I have a track record of building and collaborating on successful projects (Junctionview, Counchfire, Agora, Consider Biking, The Bike Art Show (Bike + Art = Show), B2WW 2008, Independent’s Day, Earth Day 2007 & 2008, The Green CBus web site, The C-Note Art Show, the soon-to-be-a-phenomenon that is indiecolumbus.com, etc. believe me- I could go on) and I won’t stand for someone going around saying things that undermine the hard earned capital I’ve built with people in our community.
Simple fact. Consider Biking’s online presence was largely borrowing something I built while sitting on top of the message board forum. I wrote the code. I did the work and it was this work and the community it created that attracted COBAC to a merger in the first place. Now, in some revisionist history Consider Biking & Jeff Stephens is trashing me and my work in the press? That is a hell of a way to repay someone. Others may choose nicities or silence in the face of injustice, but let me share this truth from the rooftops- this is wrong, and I will never, ever work with this group nor support it’s initiatives or goals in any way, shape or form with the current leadership in place. No way.
As far as trying to unfan the flames with humor… You know, I do tons of work pro bono. Tons. However, I do occasionally make part of my living doing freelance work on the Internets. You think these kinds of statments don’t damage me in the eyes of the community be implying that assets I build are of marginal use and utility? Or locally here in the real world when I go to pitch a sponsor for the upcoming Bike Art show I could easily see asking someone for $5,000- I’ve done it before and I’m not afraid to ask for the unreasonable. Do you think these statements help that cause or hurt it if the potential sponsor begins to believe that the work I do doesn’t create real value in return for their contribution?
My actions and the communities I’ve contributed to and helped to build speak for what I want (and the real, tangible value in those things for the members of these communities, sponsors and participants of events, and Columbus at large). I can only speak for myself, but don’t include me in the camp of people who want the same thing as Consider BIking. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Problems with Jeff’s comments:
1. Cyclists didn’t show up to advocate. Jeff was often running his own back room agenda, chasing cameras, reporters and people in suits. His agenda was not developed from within the cycling community. Of course people aren’t going to show up if you’re not fighting for what they want. Or if you don’t even know what they want. Or suppose people tell you what they want, and you ignore them because that’s not what you want to hear?
2. I totally agree with Mike. Jeff’s comments were totally inappropriate with respect to the forums. And good reporting, by the way: if the forums were such a small part of cycling, why were they willing to sue for it?
3. Understanding power. This is the problem with traditional technocratic advocacy. People who are inarticulate about power dynamics (race, gender, class, orientation) get into positions of power and then end up hurting a lot of people. If there’s one lesson I would take from this as a potential sponsor, I would be thinking, “how is it that a director can’t manage his human resources?” I mean, Meredith and Mike came with hundreds of hours of time put into the website, literally ready to hand it over and contribute with only a little cooperation. A year later, all three Consider Biking founding board members (Meredith, Austin, Chris) have resigned.
4. Jeff didn’t do a single thing that he created. He was always, and still is, jumping into other people’s projects to claim credit. It’s not just people in the organization or on the board who have seen this. I’ve heard comments from other people in the city who wear suits who are wary of him as well.
Oh, well. I’m still excited about the cycling community in columbus. Once you move past the Jeff Stephen’s in the world, you see that there are a ton of terrific folks out there. So get involved!
ah, the circular firing squad. Here’s a news flash TOP and Lyndsey in particular look for the simmering coals and fan the flames…my advice; grin and bear it, don’t get involved, there is a reason her medium is dying…btw when is TOP officially bankrupt and sold to the lowest bidder? Now there is a snarky Lyndsey Teter piece I look forward to
Maybe Walker can get a good deal on the presses and start a CU rag.
whoa.
I’ve been the first one to give Lyndsey a hard time when she was in the wrong (like the Mike Reed quotation incident)…but really? TOP is supposed to stay clear of “simmering coals” because someone might get upset???
I think that’s a super motto for journalism…
We love you guys…at least I do…
I much prefer TOP over most of the local traditional media.
+1 for TOP
At least they are writing about these types of stories.
I really don’t understand all the animosity on here for them. I also prefer them to any other local papers.
My hate on media in general is just how skewed things tend to come out.
Like the in depth investigations NBC4 did on light rail, the cost and really setting it up in a very negative light compared to their (non)treatment of the split project. TOP, for the most part, does a bit better job. But print and traditional media don’t have the ability to adapt as readily since they are confined to deadlines. This piece is an interesting look at the split, but you’ll probably get a much fuller picture in the weeks ahead here on CU and Yay Bikes as the threads on this story develop.
I’m going to something more positive. I’m done talking about this. We’ve all shown our true colors, let the court of public opinion be the judge.
I’m working on 3 things right now.
1) A new web site. Not Yay Bikes!, but cycling specific and it is going to be awesome. It will most likely link back to YB! which will continue to be an online forum for local cyclists to share ideas, information, and support. I welcome collaboration. PM me if you want input.
2) Bike to Work Week website. Last year’s site was pretty basic, yet people in Madison, WI were drooling over it for some reason. What ’til they get a load of the site this year. Input is welcome on that too. It is going to be awesome.
3) An online Bike There route mapping tool for generating Columbus Bike Maps. Conditions evolve over time, and it is impossible to give people ample time to feedback on maps in a traditional sense. This tool will allow people to rate roads as safe, unsafe, etc. and point out specific issues at specific times (construction, post-winter pot holes, tree down, etc.) – but I am combining this with an algorithm for finding shortest, and shortest safe routes given a set of way points along the way. Input on that is welcome, but the idea is to let the community build maps over time interactively. Something like http://ridethecity.com/ – a resource Jon Myers pointed me to a while back (thanks, Jon)
There are a couple of other interesting ideas incubating, but too early to talk about those.
So, yeah, a turn toward the more positive is in order. Thanks for all of the comments (public and private).
TOP is great until they call you for a story. :P