Advocacy Consensus

36 views
Skip to first unread message

Neal

unread,
Nov 3, 2012, 5:06:51 PM11/3/12
to bicycle...@googlegroups.com
Hello All,
 

 
 
JT Lyons had a nice post on the SD Bicyclist Forum suggesting a meeting at his store - Moment Cycle - to work on arriving at a consenus of sorts to lobby for cycling improvements.
 
My 2 cents .............. FWIW .....
I think we need to start with goals ... a mission statement .... and then support the elements that demonstrate the fullfillment of the goals.
If we can agree on where we are going then the tools to get us there can be evaluated, agreed upon, and we can work on implementing them.
Tools such as BMUFL signs, surface improvements, sharrows, infrastructure, enforcement, education .... and the like need to be measured as to how they affect our goals.
Fortunately there are many different bicycle traffic improvement systems in play in various cities and as time passes each will demonstrate their relative effectivness.
What are possible goals to strive for? ... feel free to add - delete - reorder as desired.
1. Free Beer (Unlikely .... I have not found much that is truly free in this world .... but free beer is worthy of a concerted effort to locate it) ...... :)
2. Safety .... most schools of thought can get behind safety and it is subject to a metric to measure the validity of various experiments and facilities.
3. Increase in cycling share ..... often measured by gross cycling counts and increase in female share.
4. Ease and speed of getting from A to B .......... better routing for bicycles ..... cycle short cuts.
5. Lighter - faster - more visible - more inexpensive - more readily available - no flat tires >>>>> bicycles.
6. (your goals go here)
Here is an example of a city working to achieve it's goals:

The Seattle Department of Transportation recently released it’s report on the State of the Seattle Bicycling Environment. In essence, the report is a look at how well the city is implementing the 2007 Bicycle Master Plan, and includes data-supported advice for how the current plan update can improve on the old plan.

So, how are we doing? Well, we’re doing very well on one of the most important goals: Safety.

Using downtown bike commute counts as a key for changes in cycling numbers (though it is flawed, the downtown hand-counts are the only consistent data point we have going back years), the number of bike-involved collisions has not kept up with the growth in the total number of people cycling. In fact, Seattle is far ahead of the 2007 plan’s goal of reducing the collision rate by one third. This suggests we are not only on the right track, but that we should set a more ambitious goal in the plan update.

 

As more people cycle, riding a bike gets safer for everyone. And one key to getting more people to bike? Cycle tracks and neighborhood greenways, says the report:

(Read the full report for more information)
 
ps: 
 
I found some Free Beer!!
9 Nov 2012 1700 -2000 at Road Runner Sale Carlsbad Store ..........
No foolin' - is this a great place to live or what??
 
What do you think?
 
 
Cheers,
Neal

Sara R

unread,
Nov 3, 2012, 10:28:31 PM11/3/12
to bicycle...@googlegroups.com
The one thing that seems to be continuously overlooked is bicycle parking.  Secure bicycle parking.

Neal

unread,
Nov 4, 2012, 1:00:04 AM11/4/12
to bicycle...@googlegroups.com

On Saturday, November 3, 2012 7:28:31 PM UTC-7, Sara R wrote:

The one thing that seems to be continuously overlooked is bicycle parking.  Secure bicycle parking.

Hello Sara and All,

It would seem so from the first picture showing bicycles being racked on a fence -
 
However if you page further through the report you will see modern bicycle racks being installed. 
 

 
 
And as noted in the referenced StateOfSeattle report on the Seattle Bicycle Master Plan:
 
I think Seattle is meeting the needs of the end users and the plan at 3,806 bike racks installed and counting toward 6000 - however I am not sure about the security of those racks as that often depends on the security of the bicycle locking system.

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Nov 4, 2012, 12:08:24 PM11/4/12
to bicycle...@googlegroups.com
Neal's first serious goal was "Safety."  Yet I believe that the push for bicycle safety is founded on myths.  One is the myth that riding a bike is an unusually dangerous activity, an activity which should be feared.  Another is the myth that cycling needs lots of special measures to be made acceptably safe.  Those myths can be disproven by logic and by unbiased examination of available data.

I don't know of another activity whose enthusiasts work hard to gain new recruits, while simultaneously portraying their activity as too dangerous.  That seems unique to bicycling, and it seems a bit schizophrenic. I think we have more to gain from spreading the word that bicycling is actually very safe, and that its benefits definitely outweigh its detriments, even for normal riding on normal streets wearing normal clothes. 

If, despite the data, you feel compelled to cry for increased safety, at least phrase it as "making cycling even safer."

Now, regarding the rest of the list:  I'm much more interested in getting benign neglect than getting free beer.  That includes retention of the rights I now have, i.e. rights to every non-freeway road in the state.  I think maintaining our legal right to the road should be priority number one.  That includes soundly quashing any attempts to say "You must ride in _that_ facility," whatever it is.

While I personally have little problem with my next item, I think we could use better education of motorists, cops, judges, traffic engineers, real estate developers, etc. regarding our rights and needs.  If cyclists were always properly considered and respected, we'd probably have increased modal share, and we'd have far fewer cries for weird facilities.  We'd have fewer instances where (say) bridges over freeways were actively hostile to cyclists, or where shopping centers, schools etc. can't be accessed except via ugly, high-speed roads. We'd have fewer traffic signals that didn't detect waiting cyclists, and secure parking would be common. 

In fact, I'd propose immediately canceling the Green Paint budget item, and spending it all on "Bicyclists have a LEGAL right to the road!" publicity and education.

As for bikes that are lighter, faster, flat-free, etc. - that's nothing to advocate.  There are plenty of marketers and engineers working on those things. They'll improve at the pace of technology as long as there are people interested in buying them. 

- Frank Krygowski

John Forester

unread,
Nov 4, 2012, 4:10:38 PM11/4/12
to bicycle...@googlegroups.com
Frank is quite correct in arguing that cycling is a reasonably safe
activity when done properly. And he is puzzled by the actual situation:
"I don't know of another activity whose enthusiasts work hard to gain
new recruits, while simultaneously portraying their activity as too
dangerous." The answer to this puzzle is not to be found in safety
analyses but in psychological and sociological analyses, which show that
advocacy and danger are inextricably twisted together.

The first problem is that those who are such advocates are not
primarily motivated by the joy of cycling. Some are in bicycle advocacy
for money, obtained by selling bicycles or by selling bicycle planning
services. But most are largely motivated by what I call anti-motoring.
That is, opposition to motoring and to the life style that motoring
allows. This is their religion. That is why they keep inventing new
excuses for their bicycle advocacy: air pollution, obesity, oil
exhaustion, health, etc. These, if you will note, are everything but the
plain joy of cycling.

Americans have long had the view that same-direction motor traffic is
what makes cycling dangerous. I remember being told this view in the
1940s. This fear was created by motordom, as a means of frightening
cyclists off to the edge of the roads, or off them where paths were
built. Given this strong and ubiquitous fear, those who have reasons for
wanting people to switch trips from motor to bicycle transport had to
advocate bikeways that got bicycle traffic out of the way of
same-direction motor traffic. And to make their advocacy of bikeways
effective, to get more bikeways, they had to exaggerate the fear of
same-direction motor traffic. Each one feeds on the other.

And, of course, that is the reason that these bicycle advocates oppose
cycling in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of
vehicles, because that not only does not need bikeways but is opposed to
the argumentation that says cyclists need them.
--
John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St. Lemon Grove CA 91945-2306
619-644-54...@johnforester.com
www.johnforester.com


Rodney Rudinger

unread,
Nov 8, 2012, 3:20:54 PM11/8/12
to John Forester, bicycle...@googlegroups.com
I agree that safety need to be a priority and that getting from point A to point B efficiently and safely is also a priority.  We need a combination of better engineering, planning, and facilities, plus public education as to the rights and responsibilities of cyclists and motorists, not to mention penalties severe enough to discourage bullying and scofflaw behavior.  Blending two modes of transportation, one with a top speed on level ground of about 25 mph and a cruising speed of 15 to 20 mph with another mode capable of much higher speeds is going to be a problem and a challenge. Bicycle parking also needs to be looked at.  Most bicycle parking does not take into account that many times bicycles do not have kickstands or loading of the bike makes the kickstands inoperable.

619-644-5481forester@johnforester.com
www.johnforester.com

John Forester

unread,
Nov 8, 2012, 4:51:02 PM11/8/12
to bicycle...@googlegroups.com
I am sorry to have to write that Rodney's statement that we need everything to be better carries no meaning. Better? According to what principle? Does engineering, planning, facilities, education as to rights and responsibilities, that are all directed, as has been true for decades, at trying to accommodate the least competent cyclists really constitute improvement, betterment? Actions ought to be taken on the basis of accepted and published principles, rather than either randomly or, worse, on the basis of concealed principles. At the present time American actions regarding bicycle transportation are not guided by accepted and published principles.

Only rule: no personal commentary (please comment about content, not people)


Only rule: no personal commentary (please comment about content, not people)
 
-- 
John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St. Lemon Grove CA 91945-2306
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages