Sample candidate survey for State-level office, version 3

[bikinginla]

Here are the revised questions for candidates for state-level office
— great input, Eric and Rye, and everyone who contributed on the first
round.

Despite Damien's efforts, we didn't get the questions we needed from
the Livable Streets group, so I tried writing a couple of my own to
cover parking policy and transportation funding.

If these look good, we can forward them to the Assembly candidates in
the South Bay race where our endorsement was requested. I'd also
suggest submitting these to the three major gubernatorial candidates
to try and get them on the record before the primary, and posting it
on the website (bikevotela.org) for any other candidates who might be
interested.


1. What do you consider the problems facing bicyclists in California,
and how would you suggest that the laws affecting traffic and
bicycling be modified to encourage greater participation in bicycling
and increase safety for bike riders?

2. What role do you feel bicycles and other forms of active
transportation should play in California’s transportation and health
policies?

3. Do you believe the rights and responsibilities of bicyclists are
appropriately enforced in California, and what, if any, legislative or
policy changes should be made at the state level to reduce conflicts
among road users?

4. Many people seem to be unaware of, or misunderstand, the laws
regarding bicycling in California. Do you believe a state-sponsored
educational campaign is warranted; and if so, what form should it
take, what should it communicate and how would you pay for it?

5. Recently, improvements in bicycling infrastructure in San Francisco
were delayed for a number of years due to a lawsuit under the
California Environmental Quality Act; other jurisdictions have cited
the CEQA’s preference for avoiding vehicular congestion or the risk of
such lawsuits in delaying or denying infrastructure improvements to
support and encourage bicycling. Do you believe this is an appropriate
interpretation of CEQA, or if not, how would you suggest changing it
to avoid such issues in the future?

6. How do you believe current parking policies impact the livability
of our cities, and what changes would you suggest making to encourage
alternate forms of transportation and improve safety, access and
mobility for all road users?

7. Automotive transportation has traditionally received the
overwhelming majority of transportation funding in California. How
would you suggest changing the way transportation funds are collected
and/or apportioned to encourage alternative forms of transportation?

8. Why do you believe you deserve the endorsement of the League Of
Bicycling Voters LA; and why should California voters — bicycling or
otherwise — support your candidacy?


--
Subscription settings: http://groups.google.com/group/bikevotela/subscribe?hl=en

[James Haygood]

great distillation. my comments, for what they're worth.

i'd move question #2, to spot #1. it seems the most overall 'how should bikes fit in' question. those are the answers in want to hear.

then i'd drop #3, since it's kind of covered in #1, and i'd just stay with the positive, not open up any 'yeah but many bikers are troublemakers' line of thinking.

then i'd move #7 (autos get all the funding) to spot #2. it seems like another great over-arching 'where do you stand' question.

then i'd move up #6 (livable cities) to #3. it's another 'vision' type question, which i like. my goal in this would be to find out if a candidate has a 'sure, we'll build a few bikes lanes' mentality or if they have a 'we need to transform our thinking on land use and transportation' mentality. i'd vote for the latter. heck i'd volunteer for the latter...

thanks for all your effort on this.

jh

[patrick]

Having been away the past couple of weeks, I feel somewhat hesitant to
weigh in after so much good work has already been done regarding this
effort. Nonetheless, I’m not so hesitant that I won’t offer my
thoughts.
I am a great believer in a less-is-more approach. Many of the
questions crafted so far seem too detailed for the general
electorate. Some politicians may even see more risk than reward in
responding to questions they deem too technical and narrow. In
addition, asking simpler, straight forward questions allow us to get a
better feel for the candidate’s true grasp of the issues. With these
thoughts in mind, I offer this streamlined questionnaire.

1. What do you consider the problems facing cyclists in California,
and how would you encourage greater safety for cyclists?
2. What are the primary steps that can be taken on the state level to
promote greater safety for all road users?
3. What role should bicycling play in the State's transportation and
health policy?
4. What role do you believe bicycles can play in reducing traffic
congestion and improving the health of Californians?
5. Do you believe the rights and responsibilities of bicyclists are
appropriately enforced in California?
6. Why do you believe you deserve the endorsement of the League of
Bicycling Voters LA?

I would then include a list of suggested subjects important to the
bicycling community that the candidate may, or may not, want to
consider when formulating their answers. That list could include:

Educational programs for drivers and bicyclists
Vulnerable User Laws
Helmet use
Bicycle licensing
Three foot passing distance
“Idaho Stop” laws
bicycle law training for peace officers
“Failure to see” as a legal defense
Liability exemption for defects in Class 1 bike paths
Livable streets
Surface street speed limits
Funding for all forms of transportation
CicLAvia

Presenting these questions and subjects in a neutral way, without
telegraphing the answers we expect, puts a greater burden on the
candidate to show their knowledge, attitude and commitment.

Patrick

[James Haygood]

right on. this fits the "i'd have made it shorter if i had more time" concept.

[ubrayj02]

I cannot stress enough my opposition to vulnerable user laws
(meaningless) and to mandatory helmet use laws/helmet use campaigns.
These are two counter productive policies.

Vulnerable user laws are unenforceable.

Helmet laws/helmet "safety" campaigns have been shown to do one thing:
reduce the number of people cycling.

Having seen a fair number of these surveys, I can tell you that they
make as much impression on a legislator as yet another certificate of
appreciation. They matter only when the questionnaire matters to a lot
of other people behind it's creation.

Thus, we are creating a platform for political/spiritual/psychological
engagement with a body of voting cyclists in L.A. The issues we
discuss need to be written for our people. There is no need for a
neutral tone. We need to take a stand, gather our forces, and see if
we can scare/convince those running for office to do our bidding.

[patrick]

History is replete with candidates for election telling one interest
group exactly what it wants to hear and going down the block to tell
an opposing interest group exactly what they want to hear. In my
opinion, prior iterations of the questionnaire make it easy for a
candidate to just pronounce his/her agreement with our points and then
move on to troll for other voters.
I too am opposed to vulnerable user laws and mandatory helmet laws,
along with bicycle licensing. They are included on my list to help us
identify which candidates truly understand what is important to us.
Leaving the questions more broad (if the word neutral offends)
actually requires more of the candidate in terms of demonstrating
support for bicycle issues
At this stage, with less than 40 members, we should be realistic about
how much we can “scare/convince” candidates to “do our bidding.”
However, if we can prove our ability to accurately and honestly
identify bike friendly candidates and disseminate our findings, we can
have a real impact on this and future elections. Once we have
identified favorable candidates there is no reason we can’t follow up
with more detailed and demanding questions.

Patrick

[Gary Kavanagh]

I just wanted to throw in since there seems to be resistance to it, that I am fully in support of vulnerable user laws. They may be difficult to enforce, but they create a means of defense for an injured cyclists in the event of a civil lawsuit by adding ammunition of violations on the part of the motorist. It is common place in European countries for there to be laws that place special protections on pedestrians and cyclists and place more responsibility on drivers, who are the ones doing the killing and maiming on the roads. If you get doored and there is a law that explicitly makes dooring a fineble offense, your chances of being fully compensated by their insurance is going to be a lot better. Whether police hand out tickets or not, or never do a "sting" for such laws, they can still be a means of defense after the fact in civil court, and if enough people start getting sued, maybe they will think twice before doing these actions.

--
-Gary Kavanagh
garyridesbikes.blogspot.com

[ubrayj02]

> At this stage, with less than 40 members, we should be realistic about
> how much we can “scare/convince” candidates to “do our bidding.”
> However, if we can prove our ability to accurately and honestly
> identify bike friendly candidates and disseminate our findings, we can
> have a real impact on this and future elections.

If we can do this:
"Accurately and honestly identify bike friendly candidates and
disseminate our findings"

Then we can do this:
"'Scare/convince' candidates to 'do our bidding.'"

The candidate survey is a point of contact with elected officials that
gives us something to talk about with other people. How the candidate
perceives the survey won't matter as much as our networked power
around the survey.

The surveys we used to get (when I was in the Assembly) from teachers'
and nurses' unions mattered a lot because these groups signaled a
voting block (and a donor block). The unions organized their votes and
their dollars. That organization made the candidate survey relevant.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: this survey should really be
written for people we're trying to engage with in the general public,
or within the cycling scene. Deciding what issues are going to pull
the most people into this should be decided upon in real life (or in
some weird online poll system or this forum). The more people we get
engaged in the process, the more weight we'll have politically even if
our ideas are totally bonkers and unrealistic.

[ubrayj02]

> It is common place in European countries for there to be laws
> that place special protections on pedestrians and cyclists and place more
> responsibility on drivers, who are the ones doing the killing and maiming on
> the roads.

To address this, we need to reform the way that liability is assigned
in a traffic crash. If a vulnerable user law can do that, then I'm all
for it.

[bikinginla]

I've been sitting back and observing this conversation to let everyone
else have a say before I jump back in. And oddly, you guys seem to
have done all the hard work for me.

James, I liked your suggestions, but yeah, Patrick nailed it. Those
questions are short, simple and to the point; hats off to you, because
simplicity is hard to pull off. Unless we have major disagreement, I
say let's go forward with these questions.

However, I'd recommend against the added list of issues. When I was
asking similar questions in the 5th Council District, non-leading
questions seemed to get the best responses, and really showed who knew
their stuff — and perhaps more important, who didn't. Let's keep it
simple and let them try to impress us.

And as Patrick mentioned, we're a small group just getting formed
right now. Hopefully, we'll be a lot bigger after the 15th, and able
to apply more pressure; for now, I think we're doing a lot just
getting this out to a few campaigns and, with a little luck, making
our first endorsement.

As for the vulnerable user question, I lean towards Josef's position.
I'd like to get to a point where we could pass a European-style law
here in California that would automatically assign more liability to
the driver of the more dangerous vehicle. As we move forward, we
should develop a list of positions we can ask candidates to adopt as
we pressure them "to do our bidding." And I would fully expect anyone
we help get into office to be willing to sponsor/support legislation
to meet our objectives.

And Gary, good to see you here — congratulations on the wedding!

[Rye Baerg]

If we want to start weighing in on local politics this week would be a
good time to start. I attended the council meeting today and they
voted yes to give bike and peds 10% of Measure R for the next year.
It still needs to get through the mayors office though.
For more detail...
http://lacbc.wordpress.com/2010/04/28/councilmembers-support-10-for-bikes-and-peds/

--
Rye Baerg
UCLA Urban Planning 2011

[Damien Newton]

The Mayor's Office fought for the 10% to stay in committee when it looked as though Councilman Smith was going to overwhelm the Westside Councilmen with his "logic" that 10% of people don't bike.  Not worried at all about his signature. - D

--
Damien Newton
la.streetsblog.org
323-774-8828

[patrick]

I am humbled by the group's appreciation for my limited input and
defer to all as to how they want to go forward. Ted, I agree about
deleting the suggested subject list. It was my way to make the
questionaire as inclusive of this group's discussion points as
possible. Once expanded, it could serve as a good guide with which we
can "score" candidate responses.
I also agree, that with time so short we should move forward with what
we have so that we can also focus on these quickly developing local
issues.

Patrick

On Apr 29, 8:43 am, Damien Newton <theday...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Mayor's Office fought for the 10% to stay in committee when it looked as
> though Councilman Smith was going to overwhelm the Westside Councilmen with
> his "logic" that 10% of people don't bike.  Not worried at all about his
> signature. - D
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 11:34 PM, Rye Baerg <rba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If we want to start weighing in on local politics this week would be a
> > good time to start.  I attended the council meeting today and they
> > voted yes to give bike and peds 10% of Measure R for the next year.
> > It still needs to get through the mayors office though.
> > For more detail...
>

> >http://lacbc.wordpress.com/2010/04/28/councilmembers-support-10-for-b...
>
> > On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 10:14 PM, bikinginla <bikingi...@mindspring.com>

> 323-774-8828- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -