LAB?
David L. Johnson
LAB. I'd like to hear both sides of the story.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | More people object to wearing fur than leather because it is
_`\(,_ | safer to harrass rich white women than motorcycle gangs.
(_)/ (_) |
Curtis L. Russell
<david....@lehigh.edu> wrote:
>We have heard some alarming things about the changes in the governance of
>LAB. I'd like to hear both sides of the story.
One side is at www.labreform.org . Many of these people have been
involved in the LAB before me, and I go back to the 70s (member and
volunteer at the old Baltimore HQs when John Cornelius was there) and
have been a life member since the 80s.
Outside of the issue with the direction that LAB appears to have gone
(away from membership, club and on-road riding and toward raising
money through government subsidies for bike lanes and bike trail
facilities - and almost completely away from local advocacy and
bicycling education), the other main issue is how the board was packed
to weight the board to support the current ruling clique.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
frkrygow
Yes, one side is www.labreform.org
I can't understand what other side there would be.
Perhaps the most charitable way to portray the actions of the current
board* is that they don't want LAB to get in financial trouble again.
That's the _only_ excuse I can think of, and it seems to me a poor one.
Reasonably competent management would have prevented the financial
problems of the past, without taking away member benefits and involvement.
Someone needs to be fighting for our legal rights to the road. For
decades, that was the League of American Bicyclists (or, before its name
change, the League of American Wheelmen).
Now it seems we're on our own.
*Understand, some members of the current board are fine. But the
majority clique now in control is certainly not.
--
-------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]
David L. Johnson
>>We have heard some alarming things about the changes in the governance of
>>LAB. I'd like to hear both sides of the story.
>
> One side is at www.labreform.org . Many of these people have been
> involved in the LAB before me, and I go back to the 70s (member and
> volunteer at the old Baltimore HQs when John Cornelius was there) and
> have been a life member since the 80s.
>
> Outside of the issue with the direction that LAB appears to have gone
> (away from membership, club and on-road riding and toward raising
> money through government subsidies for bike lanes and bike trail
> facilities - and almost completely away from local advocacy and
> bicycling education), the other main issue is how the board was packed
> to weight the board to support the current ruling clique.
This is, unfortunately, what I have heard from others. Is there someone
who can support the new LAB position? I know I could get something from
their Website, but I want a human face to this. I want to know there is
possibly a good, supportable argument for what LAB appears to be doing.
Frankly, what I have seen so far does not look good for the organization.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not
_`\(,_ | certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to
(_)/ (_) | reality. -- Albert Einstein
LioNiNoiL a t Netscape_D0T_NeT
> We have heard some alarming things about the changes in
> the governance of LAB. I'd like to hear both sides of the story.
The governance of the League Formerly Known As American Wheelmen went to
Hell in a handcart in the Eighties, and has not recovered since.
Curtis L. Russell
<do....@use.this.net> wrote:
>The governance of the League Formerly Known As American Wheelmen went to
>Hell in a handcart in the Eighties, and has not recovered since.
Late 80s, but mostly the 90s. Agree with the rest of the sentiment.
Steven Goodridge
> (away from membership, club and on-road riding and toward raising
> money through government subsidies for bike lanes and bike trail
> facilities - and almost completely away from local advocacy and
> bicycling education), the other main issue is how the board was packed
> to weight the board to support the current ruling clique.
Our local cycling club has become increasingly disappointed with LAB,
and is looking for an alternative source for insurance for rides. A
few local League Cycling Instructors are looking for an alternative to
LAB to insure their classes on proper roadway cycling. There is also
wide interest among LCIs in finding another, more
road-cyclist-friendly organization to take over the Effective Cycling
education program.
LAB appears to now be under the control of professional lobbyists for
the bicycle industry, bikeway planners, and bikeway developers. These
groups have a very different agenda from that which best serves
competent cyclists. The bicycle industry agenda is to sell more bikes,
most of which will need to be sold to people who currently aren't very
interested in cycling. The bikeway lobby agenda is to re-engineer the
highways to segregate, via stripes and sidepaths behind curbs,
cyclists from motor traffic, with the idea that this will greatly
increase cycling by people who don't cycle now, and increase
employment of bikeway planners. They believe that spreading the
propoganda that segregation by vehicle type within the highway
right-of-way makes cycling much safer will increase cycling by novices
on bikeways and increase demand for bikeways; the bicycle industry
believes that this activity will consequently sell more bikes.
Competent road cyclists, on the other hand, support the LAB's past
policy of promoting cyclists' rights and responsibilities as drivers
of vehicles. The vehicular cycling principle, that cyclists fair best
when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles, is the
foundation of the Effective Cycling education program, which LAB ran.
Vehicular cycling requires integration with other traffic by following
the same rules of the road. Where it is desirable to allow for easier
overtaking of cyclists by motorists, vehicular cyclists promote wider
outside lanes; however, segregation by vehicle type on ordinary
streets is undesirable and contrary to the principles of vehicular
cycling because of the conflicts it causes for cyclists, especially at
intersections.
The LAB's recent promotion of bikeways that segregate by vehicle type
on ordinary streets conflicts with the mission of education of the
public about safe and efficient integrated cycling practices according
to the vehicular cycling principle. Awful road designs like
sidewalk-style bike paths, door-zone bike lanes, and blue-colored
crosswalk-style bike lanes that veer across travel lanes are what the
LAB now promotes (bikeways for the sake of bikeways) despite their
hazards to cyclists and their contradiction to the teachings of the
Efective Cycling program. Recent changes at the LAB are designed to
reduce the ability of members - competent cyclists, in particular -
from interfering with the controlling parties from continuing with
their pro-bikeway agenda.
Note that vehicular cyclists don't oppose bike paths like rail-trails
that are in their own right of way, but these are a small percentage
of the bikeways that are likely to be built, most of which will
involve vehicle-type-segregation within ordinary street rights of way.
Ordinary streets are the most important bicycle facilities for useful
travel by bike.
I see two ways to fix the situation: remove the pro-segregation lobby
from the leadership of LAB and return control to member cyclists, or
create a new organization that is accountable to the best interests of
competent cyclists.
-Steve Goodridge
http://humantransport.org/bicycledriving/
Luigi de Guzman
Goodridge) wrote:
>I see two ways to fix the situation: remove the pro-segregation lobby
>from the leadership of LAB and return control to member cyclists, or
>create a new organization that is accountable to the best interests of
>competent cyclists.
I'll back a new organization. Reform of an organization that has
already been bought by industry and has decided to live in Washington
may be impossible.
-Luigi
>
>-Steve Goodridge
>http://humantransport.org/bicycledriving/
Curtis L. Russell
<luigi...@cox.net> wrote:
>I'll back a new organization. Reform of an organization that has
>already been bought by industry and has decided to live in Washington
>may be impossible.
>
>-Luigi
The start toward financial reform would be to move the offices from
downtown Washington DC, more or less, to one of the older Columbia, MD
corporate parks. Pretty much the equivalent of where they were before,
near Baltimore, before ED Gil decided to use LAW as a growth
organization (and failed dramatically). He moved the offices to a new
location in South Baltimore where a museum was supposed to be created
as well; then ED Jodie Newman and Pres. Earl Jones led their troops
into downtown DC. Like many denizens of DC, they HAVE to constantly
hunt and grub for money, because the cost of a DC location gives
little alternative.
OK, maybe what we really need to do is move it all the way back to the
midwest, so the temptation of DC goes away altogether. Hire one
lobbyist and keep things in perspective.
Mike Jacoubowsky
> >from the leadership of LAB and return control to member cyclists, or
> >create a new organization that is accountable to the best interests of
> >competent cyclists.
>
> I'll back a new organization. Reform of an organization that has
> already been bought by industry and has decided to live in Washington
> may be impossible.
Oh my goodness. Having been to Washington DC for the Bike Summit March
3-5th, and watching nearly 400 people, the majority of whom were *not* from
the industry, work very hard to promote the idea that cycling isn't
something that should be planned or legislated out of our lives, I have to
take strong issue, even offense, at that statement.
The LAB may not be the organization it used to be, and may no longer be
serving the needs people here are bringing up. That's a problem. But to
denigrate their efforts to keep us on the road and to promote cycling as a
means for kids to walk to school? And to at least imply that it's sold out
as they've tried to get more industry people involved... I do find that
personally offensive.
I visited with six different legislators on March 4th, always as part of a
team in which I was in awe of the work of advocates who selflessly give of
their time and are not part of the cycling industry. I can approach their
passion for cycling, but not the delivery of their message nor the time they
put into it. On the other hand, the legislators pay a lot more attention to
a message that's delivered from a coalition of different types of
constituents, and the presence of small-business (and large-business) owners
does, indeed, give more credibility to the cause.
Are the industry people there out of a selfless desire to help the cause?
ABSOLUTELY NOT! I'm scared to death that, if something isn't done to get
kids more physically active and consider walking or riding to school, our
roads are going to become even more congested (and unsafe to ride), and the
next generation of young adults are going to be so physically inactive that
I won't have a customer base a few years down the road.
And this "competent cyclist" bit is especially galling. I dunno, gee, I've
been riding a whole lot of miles for the past 33 years, but maybe not enough
to be competent. Certainly not enough, apparently, to get me past my
childish desires to have intersections designed with cyclists in mind, roads
with shoulders, laws that make it illegal to exclude cyclists on normal
roads, inclusion of cyclists requirements on a new roadway by default rather
than exception, etc. Oh, and if we can get a few more people out of SUVs, I
wouldn't mind that either.
But obviously I'm not a "competent cyclist." Just a really ticked off one
at the moment.
The LAB may have problems, but their lobbying efforts are, I feel,
extraordinarily important *and* effective at making the US a better place to
ride a bike. Providing, apparently, that you're an INcompetent cyclist.
Please count me as one.
By the way, I set up a web page that other INcompetent cyclists might want
to check out, to see what's being done.
http://www.chainreaction.com/dcbikesummit04.htm
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Luigi de Guzman" <luigi...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:gob360d57kmlfbvrt...@4ax.com...
Luigi de Guzman
<mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >I see two ways to fix the situation: remove the pro-segregation lobby
>> >from the leadership of LAB and return control to member cyclists, or
>> >create a new organization that is accountable to the best interests of
>> >competent cyclists.
>>
>> I'll back a new organization. Reform of an organization that has
>> already been bought by industry and has decided to live in Washington
>> may be impossible.
>
>Oh my goodness. Having been to Washington DC for the Bike Summit March
>3-5th, and watching nearly 400 people, the majority of whom were *not* from
>the industry, work very hard to promote the idea that cycling isn't
>something that should be planned or legislated out of our lives, I have to
>take strong issue, even offense, at that statement.
>
>The LAB may not be the organization it used to be, and may no longer be
>serving the needs people here are bringing up. That's a problem. But to
>denigrate their efforts to keep us on the road and to promote cycling as a
>means for kids to walk to school? And to at least imply that it's sold out
>as they've tried to get more industry people involved... I do find that
>personally offensive.
What a lot of people are looking for is an organization that is
responsive and responsible to its membership. I'm not directly
affiliated with LAB and I feel no reason to be. Affiliating to LAB is
handing cash over to a lobbying organization downtown. I don't see
rallies, membership activities, solidarity, cameraderie.
The LAB has become a lobbying organization--and while that may be
important, people are also looking for an organization of cyclists,
not just an organization for cyclists. The CTC in the UK might be the
perfect example of an organization of cyclists--along with their
considerable lobbying abilities at Westminster, they are organized all
the way down to the village level, and, through their local
organizations, sponsor rallies, cycle training, insurance, legal
advice, weekend rides--as well as visible local advocacy. They have
been tireless in defending the road rights of British cyclists, and
the CTC membership as a whole seems to have a sense of ownership of
the movement.
-Luigi
Democratic centralism is no democracy at all
Curtis L. Russell
<mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>And this "competent cyclist" bit is especially galling. I dunno, gee, I've
>been riding a whole lot of miles for the past 33 years, but maybe not enough
>to be competent. Certainly not enough, apparently, to get me past my
>childish desires to have intersections designed with cyclists in mind, roads
>with shoulders, laws that make it illegal to exclude cyclists on normal
>roads, inclusion of cyclists requirements on a new roadway by default rather
>than exception, etc. Oh, and if we can get a few more people out of SUVs, I
>wouldn't mind that either.
Except for isolated cases, this is not what LAB works toward.
They give awards to communities based on facilities built, not how
well they promote on-road cycling. They have given an award to a
community that has a required use law on the books.
The entire ISTEA process is weighted in most, if not all, states to
produce additional off-road facilities in the form of MUPs. While
there are provisions to enhance roads with the improvements that you
mention, these rarely make it through the state processes, generally
'owned' by the equivalent of the State Highway Administration. The
SHAs generally require a project approach, with ownership. Unless you
live in a jurisdiction with a strong internal framework that moves
roadway improvements through the state process, you will see no ISTEA
funds spent on shoulders, gutter improvement and the like.
So the improvement of all roadways fall to local on-road advocates,
with support provided by improvements to the AASHTO standards (as it
is a industry reference). LAB rarely will intervene in these processes
and, as they are largely divorced from bike clubs not in the immediate
area of DC, they have no pipeline to provide local advocacy. And they
are unwilling to endorse local advocates as they are not under the
complete control of LAB.
Local roads are not national advocacy, so LAB is not involved. Local
roads are a local advocacy, and LAB has no local advocacy. LAB removes
seats on the board voted on by members and replaces them with giveaway
seats to industry and loyal supporters. LAB has no local agenda - only
a national agenda, and 'improving' LAB by receiving funds is higher on
their list than improving your local roadway.
Lars Lehtonen
>> >I see two ways to fix the situation: remove the pro-segregation lobby
>> >from the leadership of LAB and return control to member cyclists, or
>> >create a new organization that is accountable to the best interests of
>> >competent cyclists.
>>
>> I'll back a new organization. Reform of an organization that has
>> already been bought by industry and has decided to live in Washington
>> may be impossible.
>
>Oh my goodness. Having been to Washington DC for the Bike Summit March
>3-5th, and watching nearly 400 people, the majority of whom were *not* from
>the industry, work very hard to promote the idea that cycling isn't
>something that should be planned or legislated out of our lives, I have to
>take strong issue, even offense, at that statement.
You're from the industry. All the ones that work for LAB, Bikes Belong,
or any of innumerable "bicycle coalitions" are largely funded by the
sporting-goods lobby.
>The LAB may not be the organization it used to be, and may no longer be
>serving the needs people here are bringing up. That's a problem. But to
>denigrate their efforts to keep us on the road and to promote cycling as a
>means for kids to walk to school?
I'll denigrate it. Paths are more dangerous than the street. The real
problem with kids getting to school is at the local school board level.
Some districts don't allow children to ride their bikes to class.
> And to at least imply that it's sold out
>as they've tried to get more industry people involved... I do find that
>personally offensive.
I don't see why you're offended, they're doing everything they can to
make you money. I'm sure you've been to Interbike, so I'm sure you are
well aware that "the industry" is a pack of chainsmoking KMT types from
Taiwan.
>I visited with six different legislators on March 4th, always as part of a
>team in which I was in awe of the work of advocates who selflessly give of
>their time and are not part of the cycling industry.
Save for their nonprofits being supported by said industry almost in
entirety.
See:
<http://www.trekbikes.com/news/news_detail.jsp?articleId=981&category=hot_news>
>I can approach their
>passion for cycling, but not the delivery of their message nor the time they
>put into it. On the other hand, the legislators pay a lot more attention to
>a message that's delivered from a coalition of different types of
>constituents, and the presence of small-business (and large-business) owners
>does, indeed, give more credibility to the cause.
Here is where I call bullshit. Agitation for bikeways always cites,
"the reason people don't ride is because there is nowhere safe to do
it." I highly doubt that there is a definable constituency of people in
this country writing their congressmen occasionally to opine, "We've
been wanting to buy a bike now for three or four years, but still
haven't made the plunge because there is no path system in our town."
Modern bike advocacy is about enriching you and yours.
>Are the industry people there out of a selfless desire to help the cause?
>ABSOLUTELY NOT! I'm scared to death that, if something isn't done to get
>kids more physically active and consider walking or riding to school, our
>roads are going to become even more congested (and unsafe to ride), and the
>next generation of young adults are going to be so physically inactive that
>I won't have a customer base a few years down the road.
Yep. I don't want my tax dollars spent to keep you on carbon. Pay for
your trips to France yourself.
>And this "competent cyclist" bit is especially galling. I dunno, gee, I've
>been riding a whole lot of miles for the past 33 years, but maybe not enough
>to be competent. Certainly not enough, apparently, to get me past my
>childish desires to have intersections designed with cyclists in mind, roads
>with shoulders, laws that make it illegal to exclude cyclists on normal
>roads, inclusion of cyclists requirements on a new roadway by default rather
>than exception, etc. Oh, and if we can get a few more people out of SUVs, I
>wouldn't mind that either.
Intersections work already. Roads without shoulders inconvenience
motorists, not the cyclist taking the lane. The LAB is high if it
thinks that putting up MUPs doesn't increase roadway restrictions.
Why do you want them out of SUVs? So they have more money to spend on
bikes?
>But obviously I'm not a "competent cyclist." Just a really ticked off one
>at the moment.
Your indignation is baseless.
>The LAB may have problems, but their lobbying efforts are, I feel,
>extraordinarily important *and* effective at making the US a better place to
>ride a bike. Providing, apparently, that you're an INcompetent cyclist.
>Please count me as one.
They're trying to make the US a better place to sell a bike.
---
Lars
Karen M.
> >The governance of the League Formerly Known As American Wheelmen went to
> >Hell in a handcart in the Eighties, and has not recovered since.
Curtis added:
> Late 80s, but mostly the 90s. Agree with the rest of the sentiment.
You're misremembering the BICYCLE USA fiasco in 1984. Not to
mention the Kod*k Liberty Ride Fiasco the following year.
--Karen M.
former staffer, left in '86
Curtis L. Russell
wrote:
> You're misremembering the BICYCLE USA fiasco in 1984. Not to
>mention the Kod*k Liberty Ride Fiasco the following year.
>
>--Karen M.
>former staffer, left in '86
Not completely. But that wasn't continuous - there was a period of
about 8 years where things settled down, the GEARs were well run and
no one tried to spend money to make money.
Then Gil Clark came in and tried to make it back to the big time by
making LAW what it wasn't. But at least he put on about three really
good GEARs...
Jodie came in with a clueless staff (Gil fired everyone from the 8
years when things more or less worked OK as a club and member
organization again) and everyone wandered around until Earl came on
board. Earl was Gil writ small, and we ended up with a small version
of what Gil wanted - no club support, GEARs going down the tubes, club
programs ignored and mismanaged until the clubs stopped participating,
then the programs cut because there was no participation. (Example was
the patch program - popular when the patches were managed to help
rides and clubs. Then Gil and Jodie oversold the patches to the bike
clubs 'on consignment' and then refused to take them back and finished
by not writing refunds for months.)
The last ruling clique came in with all the good will it could use.
Jodie and Earl were gone and there was hope. And it turns out that
they were a bunch of kids with no institutional memory, bound to take
LAB the last few steps of the Gil and Earl path. No real club support,
virutally no club programs, education going no where fast, no
connection to clubs or club riders, and in no way answerable to the
members. But the money raising machine runs smoothly and the staff
gets to smooze with the politicos and what they consider to be the
bigwigs.
Although I started the LAB-reform mailing list some 12 or so years ago
with some measure of hope, I think now that replacement is a better
idea. I hear indirectly (so I don't know it as fact) that some of the
bigger clubs are disenchanted with LAB and may be the source of the
birth of a national club/membership based organization that supports
nationally and locally on-road riding and advocacy. Its something that
I'm willing to put money into.
Frank Miles
Curtis L. Russell <cur...@the-md-russells.org> wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 10:54:49 -0500, Luigi de Guzman
><luigi...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>I'll back a new organization. Reform of an organization that has
>>already been bought by industry and has decided to live in Washington
>>may be impossible.
It is debatable which would be more difficult or unlikely to succeed.
As ineffectual as LAB might seem, and as ineffective in using members'
$$, do we have a better solution (without LAB)?
>The start toward financial reform would be to move the offices from
>downtown Washington DC, more or less, to one of the older Columbia, MD
>corporate parks. Pretty much the equivalent of where they were before,
>near Baltimore, before ED Gil decided to use LAW as a growth
>organization (and failed dramatically). He moved the offices to a new
>location in South Baltimore where a museum was supposed to be created
>as well; then ED Jodie Newman and Pres. Earl Jones led their troops
>into downtown DC. Like many denizens of DC, they HAVE to constantly
>hunt and grub for money, because the cost of a DC location gives
>little alternative.
In 1980, Phyllis Harmon was voted out, and John Forrester voted in.
At that time LAB was being changed from a folksy club-riding organization
to something that was far more proactive in terms of ensuring bicyclists'
rights to the road. It was an exciting time to be involved, even at
the lowest levels. Subsequently the offices were moved to Baltimore.
IMHO LAB has mostly done all right until relatively recent times. It's
still small enough that it is possible that members acting together might
have an impact. Change such as this won't be easy, there will be pain
just as there was in 1980.
>OK, maybe what we really need to do is move it all the way back to the
>midwest, so the temptation of DC goes away altogether. Hire one
>lobbyist and keep things in perspective.
IMHO we need a DC presence, just shouldn't consider this the world.
We need to get enough attention from someone on the board -- particularly
with enough clout so that the LAB magazine could be used to bring up these
issues with rank and file members. Right now most members are unaware of
these issues -- as I was a short while ago.
-frank
--
Frank Miles
Lars Lehtonen <pub...@orangecircle.org> wrote:
[snip]
>>{MikeJ}
>>The LAB may not be the organization it used to be, and may no longer be
>>serving the needs people here are bringing up. That's a problem. But to
>>denigrate their efforts to keep us on the road and to promote cycling as a
>>means for kids to walk to school?
>
>I'll denigrate it. Paths are more dangerous than the street. The real
>problem with kids getting to school is at the local school board level.
>Some districts don't allow children to ride their bikes to class.
Huh? Where did he talk about bike paths? Most of the legal/lobbying action
I've seen from LAB involves _roads_. Their web site deals with issues of
bikes on roads. Sure, there are many misguided communities making bike
paths. Why tar LAB with someone else's brush?
[snip]
>They're trying to make the US a better place to sell a bike.
This is not necessarily a completely bad idea. No reason to bite the
hand of the bike dealers and manufacturers, though we need to control
(and fund) our own (riders') organization.
-frank
--
Curtis L. Russell
>It is debatable which would be more difficult or unlikely to succeed.
>As ineffectual as LAB might seem, and as ineffective in using members'
>$$, do we have a better solution (without LAB)?
Not now, because we're still agonizing about LAB. The fact is, though,
that even when LAW was relatively popular among bicycling clubs
nationwide and there were multiple club programs, LAW was not all that
well known among the rank and file of members. LAW was concerned
about their lack of name recognition back in the 80s.
I doubt that LAB is now the best known cycling group. Adventure
Cycling is probably better known than LAB and, unfortunately IMO, if
people across the U.S. were asked to name a bicycling organization,
more would probably name Rail to Trails than LAB, Adventure Cycling
and USCF combined. And, yes, I'm fully aware that they aren't a
cycling organization...
Which means (assuming that I am correct) that there is more a void
than a replacement to consider. Yes, LAB will remain the better known
organization in Washington, DC. It is, afterall, a lobbying
organization in fact if not technically, and not a membership oriented
organization at all. Their web site is far more about what you can do
for LAB than what they can do for you, at least directly. (Of course,
if you keep sending them money, they will attain cycling Nirvana.)
The local jurisdictions, the states and the clubs are ripe to be
'taken' from LAB IMO. A grass-roots local advocacy organization
supported nationally via the Internet, and a real interest in the
needs of clubs would go a long way to setting up a new organization.
I'm a life member of LAB, a former volunteer and involved with LAB up
through the end of the Jodie days. But what is left is not LAW and it
isn't LAB as it was expected to be back in the early 90s. It is a
self-perpetuating industry shill. And a shell of what it could have
been.
No, I don't thinkthe members can take it back, although I will support
any effort to try to do so. I think that it isn't a waste of time to
explore a new organization, as long as we remain aware that it could
go either way at this point - a truly new organization or a
replacement within LAB itself.
FWIW, a lot of people more directly involved than I in the period
between John F being forced out (1982?) and the mini-restoration (sort
of 1984 through 1986 as I remember it) would say that the 80s weren't
all good.
Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles
some doing. Nevertheless, I did change the subject, to try and stay within
the spirit of things. :>)
> Paths are more dangerous than the street. The real
> problem with kids getting to school is at the local school board level.
> Some districts don't allow children to ride their bikes to class.
The "Complete Streets" initiative has nothing to do with taking people off
of roads and putting them onto bike paths.
And you are correct that there are schools that actually don't allow kids to
ride. Part of "Safe Routes to Schools" is to identify these schools and
change that mind-set. I included many links on the web page I put up that
explain this much better than I ever could.
> You're from the industry. All the ones that work for LAB, Bikes Belong,
> or any of innumerable "bicycle coalitions" are largely funded by the
> sporting-goods lobby.
Therefor I'm evil. Part of the "sporting-goods" lobby, whatever that is.
Of the nearly-400 people at the DC Bike Summit, there were very few who
weren't active cyclists, and I doubt that much, if any funding comes from an
all-ecompassing "sporting-goods lobby." Why? Because they would rather
people were spending their money on guns, or snowboards, or roller blades,
or whatever. We're all about cycling. Just cycling. Nothing but cycling.
Actually, that's a lie; we also promote walking as a non-vehicular form of
transportation as well.
> I don't see why you're offended, they're doing everything they can to
> make you money. I'm sure you've been to Interbike, so I'm sure you are
> well aware that "the industry" is a pack of chainsmoking KMT types from
> Taiwan.
Interbike isn't terribly thrilling to me, for the reasons you mention. I'm
planning on skipping it this coming year, spending the $$$ where I believe
it makes more sense... at the DC Bike Summit. Even this past year I spent
only one day at Interbike. By the way, what is it that Interbike is doing
to make me money? Near as I can tell, they only come up with ways to spend
it.
> See:
>
<http://www.trekbikes.com/news/news_detail.jsp?articleId=981&category=hot_ne
ws>
>
> >I can approach their
> >passion for cycling, but not the delivery of their message nor the time
they
> >put into it. On the other hand, the legislators pay a lot more attention
to
> >a message that's delivered from a coalition of different types of
> >constituents, and the presence of small-business (and large-business)
owners
> >does, indeed, give more credibility to the cause.
>
> Here is where I call bullshit. Agitation for bikeways always cites,
> "the reason people don't ride is because there is nowhere safe to do
> it." I highly doubt that there is a definable constituency of people in
> this country writing their congressmen occasionally to opine, "We've
> been wanting to buy a bike now for three or four years, but still
> haven't made the plunge because there is no path system in our town."
> Modern bike advocacy is about enriching you and yours.
One of the primary reasons people don't take up cycling is because it's
inconvenient or unsafe to do so. We've built our cities around the
automobile, and are now suffering greatly for it. And it's not about people
not spending a lot of money on a new bike so they'll ride; most everybody
already has one. Bikes are hardly a rare item; they're just not used. *I*
think the world would be a better place if more people rode bikes and fewer
people drove cars. That's just my thinking. And I'm arrogant enough to
believe that *your* world, if you ride a bike, would also benefit from more
people riding bikes and fewer people driving cars.
Does that enrich me financially? Well, sure, it keeps my two shops in
business. So I guess I'm an evil tool of capitalism. What would you have
me do instead?
> Yep. I don't want my tax dollars spent to keep you on carbon. Pay for
> your trips to France yourself.
I don't recall putting out a collection plate. People are free to spend
their money wherever they wish. If I don't provide them with something they
want, they'll spend their money elsewhere. Not just at a different bike
shop, but maybe something entirely different. That's the whole point. If
we make cycling inconvenient (or allow it to stay so), people will choose to
do something else. Maybe they'll take up hunting. Or scuba. Or travel.
Or buy a bigger car. Or a faster computer. It's a choice, and I feel the
world would be a better place if more people made the choice to ride. You
can (and do) argue that it's entirely for my own financial gain. If enough
other people (my customers) agree with you, then I'll go out of business,
which apparently will make your world a better place.
> Why do you want them out of SUVs? So they have more money to spend on
> bikes?
Because I think the world's a better place if more people are out cycling
and fewer people driving to their destinations. My financial incentives for
attending the DC Bike Summit are extremely long-range; more likely I could
make far more money if I invested the same amount of $$$, time & effort
looking at ways to sell more product at the shop.
--Mike--
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Frank Knox
"Luigi de Guzman" <luigi...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:gob360d57kmlfbvrt...@4ax.com...
> On 24 Mar 2004 06:58:47 -0800, sggo...@mindspring.com (Steven
> Goodridge) wrote:
>
> >I see two ways to fix the situation: remove the pro-segregation lobby
> >from the leadership of LAB and return control to member cyclists, or
> >create a new organization that is accountable to the best interests of
> >competent cyclists.
>
> I'll back a new organization. Reform of an organization that has
> already been bought by industry and has decided to live in Washington
> may be impossible.
>
> -Luigi
>
Organizations go thorough changes and phases just like people do.
There's still a League of American Wheelmen in there somewhere.
btw:
In part because of my efforts, my club affiliated with the League last year.
Luigi de Guzman
Um, really? No evidence of the grassroots activities of that
legendary organization has reached me.
-Luigi
Steven Goodridge
> The entire ISTEA process is weighted in most, if not all, states to
> produce additional off-road facilities in the form of MUPs. While
> there are provisions to enhance roads with the improvements that you
> mention, these rarely make it through the state processes, generally
> 'owned' by the equivalent of the State Highway Administration. The
> SHAs generally require a project approach, with ownership. Unless you
> live in a jurisdiction with a strong internal framework that moves
> roadway improvements through the state process, you will see no ISTEA
> funds spent on shoulders, gutter improvement and the like.
>
> So the improvement of all roadways fall to local on-road advocates,
> with support provided by improvements to the AASHTO standards (as it
> is a industry reference). LAB rarely will intervene in these processes
> and, as they are largely divorced from bike clubs not in the immediate
> area of DC, they have no pipeline to provide local advocacy. And they
> are unwilling to endorse local advocates as they are not under the
> complete control of LAB.
Exactly. Although it is theoretically possible that TEA money can be
used for wide outside lanes, bicycle-sensitive signals, and
education/enforcement to improve safety for road cyclists, the
political reality is that TEA money is mostly channeled to
sidewalk-type paths. That's great for pedestrians, but not good for
competent road cyclists, especially when road cyclists are
increasingly harassed for using the roadway instead of the paths, and
lawmakers like those in Iowa (Senate File 2032) try to force cyclists
to use the paths.
LAB cannot vigorously support roadway access rights for cyclists while
simultaneously promoting the funding of sidepaths for "bike safety".
The messages contradict one another. Are roadways the best place for
cyclists or not? Competent cyclists believe they are, but the new
leadership of LAB is backing off from that position because paths to
keep cyclists out of the way of motorists are where the money is.
Similarly, competent cyclists believe that cycling outside of the door
zone is the safest technique for cyclists. But the new leadership of
LAB supports bike lane standards that allow door-zone bike lanes,
because adding segregation striping anywhere and everywhere possible
to keep cyclists out of the way of motorists is where the money is.
-Steve Goodridge
Lars Lehtonen
thing under control:
According to Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>:
>
>> Paths are more dangerous than the street. The real
>> problem with kids getting to school is at the local school board level.
>> Some districts don't allow children to ride their bikes to class.
>
>The "Complete Streets" initiative has nothing to do with taking people off
>of roads and putting them onto bike paths.
I still have no faith in the ability of traffic engineers to lay down a
good bike lane, and I find the concept inherently suspect. If Complete
Streets means ticketing the hell out of motorists that harass cyclists,
I'm all for it. I'm reflexively against whatever it is because I assume
it will be all about wrongheaded stripe- painting and some signs.
>And you are correct that there are schools that actually don't allow kids to
>ride. Part of "Safe Routes to Schools" is to identify these schools and
>change that mind-set. I included many links on the web page I put up that
>explain this much better than I ever could.
Then why are Washington-based lobbyists pushing this? How do bike paths
affect interstate travel, exactly?
>> You're from the industry. All the ones that work for LAB, Bikes Belong,
>> or any of innumerable "bicycle coalitions" are largely funded by the
>> sporting-goods lobby.
>
>Therefor I'm evil.
No, I didn't say that. The primary interest of bike advocates is
financial though. There are some that would fall under the rubric of
"useful idiots," folks that are pro-cyclist but haven't been
sufficiently rigorous about defining the difference between what's good
for cyclists and what's good for sporting goods manufacturers.
> Part of the "sporting-goods" lobby, whatever that is.
I'm trying to reaffirm the bike business is a trade like any other and
is as equally subject to greed and avarice as any other business. There
are plenty of good folks in the business as well, guys like yourself who
should be commended for all the time you spend on these newsgroups
helping people with bike questions that are obviously never going to
find their way into your shop. I'm just trying to knock the undeserved
halo off the bike business, it is an enterprise like any other.
>I doubt that much, if any funding comes from an
>all-ecompassing "sporting-goods lobby."
All of the money for badges at Interbike goes to Bikes Belong. Most
manufacturers tack on a surcharge for employee purchases that is
forwarded to Bikes Belong. The MBAs that run bike companies come and go
from all of the other branches of outdoor equipment. The Burkes came
from running an appliance store.
> Why? Because they would rather
>people were spending their money on guns, or snowboards, or roller blades,
>or whatever. We're all about cycling. Just cycling. Nothing but cycling.
And walkers and rollerbladers on the MUPs. The LAB has been actively
allying itself with those groups.
>Actually, that's a lie; we also promote walking as a non-vehicular form of
>transportation as well.
I think that's at best a tenuous connection. Bikes behave roughly
nothing like a pedestrian and shouldn't be stuck on the same
right-of-way.
>> I don't see why you're offended, they're doing everything they can to
>> make you money. I'm sure you've been to Interbike, so I'm sure you are
>> well aware that "the industry" is a pack of chainsmoking KMT types from
>> Taiwan.
>
>Interbike isn't terribly thrilling to me, for the reasons you mention. I'm
>planning on skipping it this coming year, spending the $$$ where I believe
>it makes more sense... at the DC Bike Summit. Even this past year I spent
>only one day at Interbike. By the way, what is it that Interbike is doing
>to make me money? Near as I can tell, they only come up with ways to spend
>it.
I didn't say Interbike makes you money, I pointed out that "The
Industry" could in large measure give a rat's ass about bicyling, save
for the fact that they inherited the family fishing
reel/bicycle/vcr/radio factory.
[snip]
>> >put into it. On the other hand, the legislators pay a lot more attention
>to
>> >a message that's delivered from a coalition of different types of
>> >constituents, and the presence of small-business (and large-business)
>owners
>> >does, indeed, give more credibility to the cause.
>>
>> Here is where I call bullshit. Agitation for bikeways always cites,
>> "the reason people don't ride is because there is nowhere safe to do
>> it." I highly doubt that there is a definable constituency of people in
>> this country writing their congressmen occasionally to opine, "We've
>> been wanting to buy a bike now for three or four years, but still
>> haven't made the plunge because there is no path system in our town."
>> Modern bike advocacy is about enriching you and yours.
>
>One of the primary reasons people don't take up cycling is because it's
>inconvenient or unsafe to do so. We've built our cities around the
>automobile, and are now suffering greatly for it. And it's not about people
>not spending a lot of money on a new bike so they'll ride; most everybody
>already has one. Bikes are hardly a rare item; they're just not used. *I*
>think the world would be a better place if more people rode bikes and fewer
>people drove cars. That's just my thinking. And I'm arrogant enough to
>believe that *your* world, if you ride a bike, would also benefit from more
>people riding bikes and fewer people driving cars.
But where's the democratic groundswell of support? These measures are
for industry, by industry. It's paternalistic.
>Does that enrich me financially? Well, sure, it keeps my two shops in
>business. So I guess I'm an evil tool of capitalism. What would you have
>me do instead?
I'm all for you selling bikes, I'm in fact all for anyone selling bikes.
I like markets.
>> Yep. I don't want my tax dollars spent to keep you on carbon. Pay for
>> your trips to France yourself.
>
>I don't recall putting out a collection plate.
So long as you are pushing the Federal Government to build paths to
enrich your business, you are. If you plowed your own profits into MUPs
and lane-striping I wouldn't accuse you of being a part of a special
interest in the perjorative sense.
> People are free to spend
>their money wherever they wish.
Not with taxes, they aren't.
[snip]
>can (and do) argue that it's entirely for my own financial gain. If enough
>other people (my customers) agree with you, then I'll go out of business,
>which apparently will make your world a better place.
Again, sell lots of bikes! I'm not against business or money, I'm
against business going to Washington to stack the deck to its own
interest.
>> Why do you want them out of SUVs? So they have more money to spend on
>> bikes?
>
>Because I think the world's a better place if more people are out cycling
>and fewer people driving to their destinations. My financial incentives for
>attending the DC Bike Summit are extremely long-range; more likely I could
>make far more money if I invested the same amount of $$$, time & effort
>looking at ways to sell more product at the shop.
I think the best way to introduce folks to cycling is from the
grassroots. It's slower going, but less likely to create faddish booms
and is most certainly less statist and more American.
---
Lars
Erik Freitag
... The complete explanation of why bike shops, lobbyists and capitalism
are evil ...
Don't worry Mike. Those of us in the underground still think LBSs are a
good idea and we hope you keep spending your extra money trying to improve
things for cyclists. If you happen to make a few bucks in the process,
we'll get over it.
Please no more MUPs.
Yours Truly,
- Local Bicyclists -- I know I speak for everyone
Mike Jacoubowsky
Count me as another who dislikes MUPs. I'm not even in favor of the current
off-road network, in which there are trails that are strictly for hikers,
trails that are strictly for hikers & equestrians, but all trails that I'm
aware of that are open to Mtn Bikes are also open to everyone else as well.
But that's not what the "Complete Streets" initiative is all about anyway.
There's an assumption that bikes belong on the roads, and that the roads
need to be designed to accommodate them. This accommodation should be by
default, rather than require cyclists to be aware of everything that's
coming up and attend the various planning meetings or else our needs aren't
even considered.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Erik Freitag" <erik.f...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.03.25...@pobox.com...
R15757
<< Bikes behave roughly
nothing like a pedestrian and shouldn't be stuck on the same
right-of-way. >>
This is a common sort of statement among the "competent road cyclist" set, and
I think it reveals an intransigence that is at the root of the current LAB
versus LAB-reform conflict.
The competent road cyclists would essentially like to see cyclists banned from
all sidewalks and MUPs, just like motor vehicles. What they are advocating is a
step backward.
Looking at the big picture, cyclists currently enjoy more freedom and access
than any other type of road user. This is largely due to the cyclists' ability
to roll in two separate worlds: pedestrian and vehicular. This dual access
(albeit limited) represents a great advantage for cyclists, especially in dense
urban areas. For example, a cycle-commuter coming into Manhattan from Brooklyn
at rush hour can beat the most aggressive cab driver into town. Take away the
MUP across the bridge, and the cyclist's advantage disappears.
Many of the new generation of fully separated MUPs are very useful to
transportational/utility cyclists. I can't speak for everybody but I don't
appreciate the competent road cyclists' holy war against them.
Robert
Lars Lehtonen
>On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 04:48:19 +0000, Lars Lehtonen wrote:
>
>... The complete explanation of why bike shops, lobbyists and capitalism
>are evil ...
I think this is a mischaracterization. If I had to distill my post, it
would be:
Bike-selling is a business like any other, and its lobbying efforts
circumvent democracy just like any other trade that gains influence in
government by the expenditure of money. The clamor for bicycle
facilities emanates not from voters but primarily from a small
constituency of monied interests. The environmental and quality-of-life
arguments advanced by the business are the voice of marketing, not
mission.
TO WIT:
Take the case of the Olken family of Brookline, Mass.
Richard Olken is the executive director of the Bikes Belong
Coalition, an industry-sponsored advocacy group. His son,
George, is a very fit high school cross-country runner. Even
so, Mr. Olken usually drives his son to school, though it's
only a mile away.
Why? Because, like many teenagers, George cuts it close in
the morning, plus he carries 15 to 20 pounds of books in his
backpack. Nevertheless, the senior Olken has learned through
Bikes Belong that cycling to school appeals to youngsters.
Atkin, Ross. 2000. "State of the Spokes." The Christian
Science Monitor. August 2.
>Don't worry Mike. Those of us in the underground still think LBSs are a
>good idea and we hope you keep spending your extra money trying to improve
>things for cyclists.
Hear, hear. Have fun spending your money, but please don't spend my
money on a river path in Missouri, if you don't mind. I wouldn't use it
even if I lived there.
>If you happen to make a few bucks in the process,
>we'll get over it.
I'd much rather see money in Mike's pocket than in a PAC controlled by
corporate interests. There *is* a sporting goods lobby with its own
supporting industry:
In other news, Bikes Belong hired the public relations agency
Ann Taylor Communications, whose clients have included Master
Card, Pro Cycling, Gillette, Ironman and NASCAR.
BRAIN. 2003. "Bikes Belong Raises Half Million, Tops Last
Year's Numbers." Bicycle Retailer and Industry News. May 8.
<http://www.bicycleretailer.com/bicycleretailer/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1883375>.
>Please no more MUPs.
I'm looking for more enforcement and better education, instead of a
quixotic quest to remake the streets of America to a standard that is of
dubious utility.
---
Lars
Lars Lehtonen
[snip snip]
>[Cyclists] roll in two separate worlds: pedestrian and vehicular.
>This dual access
>(albeit limited) represents a great advantage for cyclists, especially in dense
>urban areas. For example, a cycle-commuter coming into Manhattan from Brooklyn
>at rush hour can beat the most aggressive cab driver into town. Take away the
>MUP across the bridge, and the cyclist's advantage disappears.
I've ridden that MUP, and I didn't like it. The walkers don't stay to
the left as the striping demands and must constantly be shooed out of the
way. I would have rather ridden on the road surface proper. Is lane
splitting illegal in NY? It is OK to do so here in California.
>Many of the new generation of fully separated MUPs are very useful to
>transportational/utility cyclists.
Mandated separation requires enforcement, which I don't see the LAB or
any other industry groups pushing for. Do the cops ever ticket the
throngs of pedestrians on the Brooklyn Bridge that tread (or just veer
at the last moment) into the sanctity of the bicycle lane? This isn't
entirely rhetorical, I'm interested if the answer is yes. I've only
ridden it once.
>I can't speak for everybody but I don't
>appreciate the competent road cyclists' holy war against them.
Facilities are inferior to roads, and their presence precludes a ban on
roadway cycling. Try riding on the Benjamin Franklin Parkway in
Philadelphia: though it is a 35 mph surface road, it is closed to
cyclists during rush hour because there is a narrow waterfront path
adjacent. Never mind that it clogged with walkers, rollerbladers,
and stroller-pushers. There are multiple places where it is intersected
by driveways.
Even if you ride on the thing during legit hours, *every* car that
passes will honk. People will roll down their windows and yell an
profanity-laden instruction to get off the road and onto the bike path.
---
Lars
Tom Keats
Lars Lehtonen <pub...@orangecircle.org> writes:
>>... The complete explanation of why bike shops, lobbyists and capitalism
>>are evil ...
>
> I think this is a mischaracterization. If I had to distill my post, it
> would be:
>
> Bike-selling is a business like any other, and its lobbying efforts
> circumvent democracy just like any other trade that gains influence in
> government by the expenditure of money. The clamor for bicycle
> facilities emanates not from voters but primarily from a small
> constituency of monied interests. The environmental and quality-of-life
> arguments advanced by the business are the voice of marketing, not
> mission.
It almost sounds like you've recently watched the docu-movie,
"The Corporation" :-)
...
>>Please no more MUPs.
>
> I'm looking for more enforcement and better education, instead of a
> quixotic quest to remake the streets of America to a standard that is of
> dubious utility.
But some streets /are/ so poorly accommodating of bicycle traffic
because the designers (and local governments that approve their
proposals) were just too car-centric, and just a little fixing-up
or adjustment would make things much better for all street/road
users, including cyclists. Accommodating cars is a given.
Unfortunately, cyclists have to pipe up until the folx who
design, build and approve road improvements realize we exist
and don't dismiss us as inconsequential. Pedestrians get an
even rawer deal.
Cyclists really do need to be considered more than has historically
been the case when roads & streets are built or improved -- if not
to ensure that those roads & streets are cycling-friendly, then
at least to ensure that they don't become cycling-hostile because
of a few, lousy, heartbreaking oversights, ignorances or neglects.
I think local-level organized cycling advocacy is good in that regard.
And I consider that when such advocacy groups insist on bike lanes
and other fancy bike facilities, they're tactically aiming high,
because they realize that the Powers-That-Be will typically give
somewhat less than what is asked for. If they ask for a lot, maybe
they'll (we'll) get just enough, as well as be taken more seriously
than if we went hat-in-hand to City Hall and humbly requested trite
little details like a particular storm drain grate being turned
sideways, or a crack in the pavement somewhere be patched. I think
a lot of that high-falootin' cycling advocacy rhetoric is really
just for haggling purposes. I might be wrong, though. I'll leave
other people's opinions to their own devilry. I've got enuff of
my own.
cheers,
Tom
--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
Tom Keats
r15...@aol.com (R15757) writes:
> Looking at the big picture, cyclists currently enjoy more freedom and access
> than any other type of road user. This is largely due to the cyclists' ability
> to roll in two separate worlds: pedestrian and vehicular. This dual access
> (albeit limited) represents a great advantage for cyclists, especially in dense
> urban areas.
That's why I find what's-his-name's concept of cycling as
"Folk Transportation" so appealing.
Steven Goodridge
> Huh? Where did he talk about bike paths? Most of the legal/lobbying
action
> I've seen from LAB involves _roads_. Their web site deals with issues of
> bikes on roads. Sure, there are many misguided communities making bike
> paths. Why tar LAB with someone else's brush?
Every time I open LAB's web site, I get a pop-up ad showing a cyclist riding
contra-flow on the sidewalk. Is this the kind of cycling LAB wants to
promote?
The TEA money that LAB lobbying so hard for goes primarily to sidewalk-type
paths, and secondarily to segregation striping on roads without widening.
For an example of the second, check out the door-zone bike lane on the front
page of the America Bikes wepage on "complete the streets" :
http://www.americabikes.org/bicycleaccomodation_factsheet_completestreets.asp
America Bikes believes that no street is complete without a segregation
stripe telling cyclists where to ride, in this case in the door zone of
parked cars. Who is America Bikes? Compare their street address with LAB.
LAB does not appear to be advocating for competent cycling; they appear to
be advocating for bikeways that encourage comparatively unsafe, inefficient,
inconvenient cycling.
-Steve Goodridge
Steven Goodridge
> But that's not what the "Complete Streets" initiative is all about anyway.
> There's an assumption that bikes belong on the roads, and that the roads
> need to be designed to accommodate them. This accommodation should be by
> default, rather than require cyclists to be aware of everything that's
> coming up and attend the various planning meetings or else our needs
aren't
> even considered.
"Complete the Streets" is mostly about sidewalks. It's not a cyclist
initiative, it's a pedestrian/bicycle initiative, and peds outnumber
cyclists, so the primary mission is more sidewalks.
As for engineering for roadway cyclists, check out what the "Complete the
Streets" advocates at America Bikes consider the ideal road treatment to
highlight on their front page:
http://www.americabikes.org/bicycleaccomodation_factsheet_completestreets.asp
A door-zone bike lane! Their mission is to segregate wherever possible, at
any cost, and with little understanding of the impact on competent cycling.
With friends like these, who needs enemies? Until they change their ways and
stop advocating truly awful engineering that shows complete ignorance of
proper cycling and the causes of injuries to cyclists, I cannot accept their
agenda.
-Steve Goodridge
Steven Goodridge
"R15757" <r15...@aol.com> wrote
> The competent road cyclists would essentially like to see cyclists banned
from
> all sidewalks and MUPs, just like motor vehicles.
No, we don't. We simply want our right to use the ordinary travel lanes
preserved. We object to the efforts to coerce us onto sidepaths and into
door-zone bike lanes, since these facilities are inferior to good roads.
If cyclists like the one in the pop-up ad on LAB's web site insist on riding
on sidewalks against the flow of traffic, and as a result get smacked at
intersections (this is the leading cause of Car-bike crashes where I live,
according to police reports) then I think the proper response is better
education of the public, not prohibitions on sidewalk use. That's why I
object to LAB's promotion of sidewalk cycling and the erosion of their
educational mission about proper bicycle driving.
-Steve Goodridge
Curtis L. Russell
>This is a common sort of statement among the "competent road cyclist" set, and
>I think it reveals an intransigence that is at the root of the current LAB
>versus LAB-reform conflict.
>
>The competent road cyclists would essentially like to see cyclists banned from
>all sidewalks and MUPs, just like motor vehicles. What they are advocating is a
>step backward.
Your guess is wrong. Most of the people most behind LAB Reform are
concerned with LAB no longer supporting an bicycling education program
in any meaningful way. That LAB is spending most of its money on a
lobby and facility agenda is a problem primarily because it means that
they are doing very little in advocating for on-road riding and
bicycling education. And these are the traditions of LAB, not MUP
building and promotion.
If you've attended public meetings on facilities, you would know that
there is little needed in support from a national organization. If 30
people show up, often the numbers are: 25 parents, grandparents and
very casual cyclists that want bike paths. The other 5 are planners
willing to give them those paths. I was at a meeting that had close to
60 people and only about 5 were for on-raod improvements - and three
were runners from the Annapolis Striders and not cyclists at all. The
rest wanted a MUP in downtown Annapolis.
And it the meeting isn't about facilities, no one shows up.
MUPs alteady have all the support they need. They will be built, well
or badly, and the only position LAB needs to take on them is to make
them as safe as is possible - which is to continue fully funding
competent bicycling experts to the AASHTO board. What they have done
is alienate some of the true experts because they don't sufficiently
support the current agenda of LAB.
What cyclists need is advocacy for on-road riders. No grandparents
show up for that. If they do, they cluck and fret that anyone would be
so stupid as to ride on the road.
Mark Hickey
>We object to the efforts to coerce us onto sidepaths and into
>door-zone bike lanes, since these facilities are inferior to good roads.
This is often, but not always the case. For example, here in the
Phoenix, Arizona east valley, there is a fairly comprehensive system
of actual wide, useful bike LANES that I ride all the time. Rather
than boring everyone with the details, I'll just suggest taking a look
at the Maricopa County bike plan - I think it could serve as a model
for any metropolitan area...
http://www.mcdot.maricopa.gov/bicycle/BikePlan/bikeplan.PDF
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
Luigi de Guzman
wrote:
<snip>
>Even if you ride on the thing during legit hours, *every* car that
>passes will honk. People will roll down their windows and yell an
>profanity-laden instruction to get off the road and onto the bike path.
Ah, the City of Brotherly Love, the City that Booed Santa Claus!
Of course that's not just a Philly problem. "Get on the F-ing
sidewalk!" is a common refrain. The only way to change that mindset
is grassroots education and involvement, and Washington lobbying
doesn't do that.
I don't necessarily object to a Washington presence I guess. I'm just
more concerned with getting the message out to the people, and that
means education, education, education.
I can only do what I can with my brothers and anyone else I come into
contact with.
-Luigi
Doug Huffman
Reasonable-regulation Association. LAB, NRA and politicians are analogous
in their need to 'stay in power'/get re-elected/stay 'solvent'. They all
suck.
Steven Goodridge
> But some streets /are/ so poorly accommodating of bicycle traffic
> because the designers (and local governments that approve their
> proposals) were just too car-centric, and just a little fixing-up
> or adjustment would make things much better for all street/road
> users, including cyclists.
...
> Cyclists really do need to be considered more than has historically
> been the case when roads & streets are built or improved -- if not
> to ensure that those roads & streets are cycling-friendly, then
> at least to ensure that they don't become cycling-hostile because
> of a few, lousy, heartbreaking oversights, ignorances or neglects.
I agreee; I think most of the improvements needed are subtle. On busy
roads with high speeds, wide (14', 15', 16', or wider) outside through
lanes are better than the narrow lanes that the DOTs usually squeeze
in. Avoiding high-speed free-flowing exit/entrance merge lanes at
ordinary street junctions is better for cyclists. Detecting cyclists
at traffic signals is better for cyclists.
> I think local-level organized cycling advocacy is good in that regard.
> And I consider that when such advocacy groups insist on bike lanes
> and other fancy bike facilities, they're tactically aiming high,
> because they realize that the Powers-That-Be will typically give
> somewhat less than what is asked for. If they ask for a lot, maybe
> they'll (we'll) get just enough,
I worry that when the national advocacy groups promote segregation
facilities, such as bike lane striping and paths, they may intend the
least problematic designs, such as wide bike lanes on bridges and
highways with very few junctions, or rail trails, but what the DOTs
actually build as a "compromise" will often be very narrow bike lanes
on streets with lots of junctions, door-zone bike lanes, and sidepaths
on streets with numerous intersections. I think it's better to
establish best practices - i.e. treating cyclists as drivers of
vehicles entitled to the travel lanes - rather than promoting any and
all segregation constructs for the sake of segregation by mode. The
former results in thoughtful engineering to accommodate bicycle
driving; the latter results in separate-but-unequal inferiour
facilities.
See http://www.bicycledriving.com
and the engineering section of the library at
http://www/humantransport.org/bicycledriving/
for more information.
-Steve Goodridge
Dane Jackson
> On 25 Mar 2004 08:57:04 GMT, Lars Lehtonen <pub...@orangecircle.org>
> wrote:
> <snip>
>>Even if you ride on the thing during legit hours, *every* car that
>>passes will honk. People will roll down their windows and yell an
>>profanity-laden instruction to get off the road and onto the bike path.
> Ah, the City of Brotherly Love, the City that Booed Santa Claus!
My brother prefers the phrase "City of Brotherly Gunfire". Killing
you with kindness and all-that. ;)
--
Dane Jackson - z u v e m b i @ u n i x b i g o t s . o r g
The goys have proven the following theorem...
-- Physicist John von Neumann, at the start of a classroom
lecture.
Luigi de Guzman
wrote:
>Luigi de Guzman <luigi...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On 25 Mar 2004 08:57:04 GMT, Lars Lehtonen <pub...@orangecircle.org>
>> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>Even if you ride on the thing during legit hours, *every* car that
>>>passes will honk. People will roll down their windows and yell an
>>>profanity-laden instruction to get off the road and onto the bike path.
>
>> Ah, the City of Brotherly Love, the City that Booed Santa Claus!
>
>My brother prefers the phrase "City of Brotherly Gunfire". Killing
>you with kindness and all-that. ;)
brings new humour to the military euphemism: "Fratricidal casualties"
-Luigi
Matt O'Toole
>> Please no more MUPs.
>
> Count me as another who dislikes MUPs.
I'm all for MUPs -- but *not* as a substitute for cyclist-friendly roads. (And
mandatory sidepath laws are the tool of the devil.) MUPs are a great extra,
though.
> I'm not even in favor of the
> current off-road network, in which there are trails that are strictly
> for hikers, trails that are strictly for hikers & equestrians, but
> all trails that I'm aware of that are open to Mtn Bikes are also open
> to everyone else as well.
Though I've been an avid mountain biker for the last 15 years, I sympathize with
hikers who don't want to be looking over their shoulder every 17 seconds. I
don't know what it's like up where you live, but down in southern CA the trail
traffic is so heavy this is not an exaggeration. In my experience, the
restrictions only exist on trails in and near town where traffic is heaviest.
If you're really bored with local trails, just pedal your sorry butt a little
further up into the mountains where there's a lifetime of unrestricted riding.
Sometimes sharing the trails means giving a few away.
Plus, some horses are still spooked by bikes. This is rare out west where most
horses have been well-socialized, but around here some of them have never "met"
anyone outside their immediate family. Strangers freak them out enough, let
alone strangers on wheels, with freaky, multicolored skin, and inscrutable,
alien-looking eyes.
> But that's not what the "Complete Streets" initiative is all about
> anyway. There's an assumption that bikes belong on the roads, and
> that the roads need to be designed to accommodate them. This
> accommodation should be by default, rather than require cyclists to
> be aware of everything that's coming up and attend the various
> planning meetings or else our needs aren't even considered.
Exactly. It's always nice to have a national standard or established best
practices to point to, when the local yokels are about to do things their own
way.
Matt O.
H. M. Leary
Luigi de Guzman <luigi...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:33:11 GMT, Dane Jackson <da...@unseen.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >Luigi de Guzman <luigi...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On 25 Mar 2004 08:57:04 GMT, Lars Lehtonen <pub...@orangecircle.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> <snip>
> >>>Even if you ride on the thing during legit hours, *every* car that
> >>>passes will honk. People will roll down their windows and yell an
> >>>profanity-laden instruction to get off the road and onto the bike path.
> >
> >> Ah, the City of Brotherly Love, the City that Booed Santa Claus!
> >
> >My brother prefers the phrase "City of Brotherly Gunfire". Killing
> >you with kindness and all-that. ;)
>
> brings new humour to the military euphemism: "Fratricidal casualties"
>
> -Luigi
YO! Luigiii!
Being from Philly.....
BOOOOOOOOO!
--
"Freedom Is a Light for Which Many Have Died in Darkness"
- Tomb of the unknown - American Revolution
Matt O'Toole
> Looking at the big picture, cyclists currently enjoy more freedom and
> access than any other type of road user. This is largely due to the
> cyclists' ability to roll in two separate worlds: pedestrian and
> vehicular. This dual access (albeit limited) represents a great
> advantage for cyclists, especially in dense urban areas. For example,
> a cycle-commuter coming into Manhattan from Brooklyn at rush hour can
> beat the most aggressive cab driver into town. Take away the MUP
> across the bridge, and the cyclist's advantage disappears.
>
> Many of the new generation of fully separated MUPs are very useful to
> transportational/utility cyclists. I can't speak for everybody but I
> don't appreciate the competent road cyclists' holy war against them.
I agree. There are several MUPs in Orange County, CA, which run through
underpasses at major intersections, allowing cyclists to avoid the traffic
lights. They run along rivers/culverts, powerline rights of way, and through
greenbelts, providing tremendous shortcuts. Here on the east coast, many
rail-trails work the same way. The waterfront paths in Vancouver, BC are pretty
amazing too.
Even the beachfront paths in CA can be great time savers, despite the speed
limits and heavy pedestrian traffic. A friend of mine commutes on the bike path
from Manhattan Beach to Santa Monica College. Even going slowly, it's quicker
than dealing with the traffic lights on neighboring streets.
MUPs are a good thing. Not only are they useful for transportation, they get
people out on bikes who would not ride otherwise. As I've said before,
mandatory sidepath laws are tools of the devil, but that's a separate issue and
not an indictment of MUPs.
Matt O.
Luigi de Guzman
<miki...@forgedabit.net> wrote:
>In article <v836605g4f0lavrp1...@4ax.com>,
> Luigi de Guzman <luigi...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:33:11 GMT, Dane Jackson <da...@unseen.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Luigi de Guzman <luigi...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> On 25 Mar 2004 08:57:04 GMT, Lars Lehtonen <pub...@orangecircle.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> <snip>
>> >>>Even if you ride on the thing during legit hours, *every* car that
>> >>>passes will honk. People will roll down their windows and yell an
>> >>>profanity-laden instruction to get off the road and onto the bike path.
>> >
>> >> Ah, the City of Brotherly Love, the City that Booed Santa Claus!
>> >
>> >My brother prefers the phrase "City of Brotherly Gunfire". Killing
>> >you with kindness and all-that. ;)
>>
>> brings new humour to the military euphemism: "Fratricidal casualties"
>>
>> -Luigi
>
>YO! Luigiii!
>
>Being from Philly.....
>
>BOOOOOOOOO!
Can someone confirm or deny the rumours that there is a magistrate's
court *in* the stadium in Philly, to deal with disorderly fans?
Perhaps our British friends could learn a lesson: deal with the
hooligans on-site!
-Luigi
Mike Jacoubowsky
> >door-zone bike lanes, since these facilities are inferior to good roads.
>
> This is often, but not always the case. For example, here in the
> Phoenix, Arizona east valley, there is a fairly comprehensive system
> of actual wide, useful bike LANES that I ride all the time. Rather
> than boring everyone with the details, I'll just suggest taking a look
> at the Maricopa County bike plan - I think it could serve as a model
> for any metropolitan area...
>
> http://www.mcdot.maricopa.gov/bicycle/BikePlan/bikeplan.PDF
Mark: One of the best presentations was by the head of Arizona's DOT. He's
been pushing hard to make sure that the accommodations for cyclists are
within the normal transportation framework, not segregated. There is a need
for both, but never at the exclusion of cyclists from the streets.
The AASHTO folk (the national oversight agency for all state DOTs) are
incorporating useful, on-the-street cycling accommodation as the routine way
to build roads. They are *not* advocating separate-but-equal (not!) bike
routes.
The times are changing. There are many people at state DOTs who understand
the needs of the "competent" cyclist.
Curtis L. Russell
<mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>The AASHTO folk (the national oversight agency for all state DOTs) are
>incorporating useful, on-the-street cycling accommodation as the routine way
>to build roads. They are *not* advocating separate-but-equal (not!) bike
>routes.
They're not really an oversight agency. They set standards that states
can choose to ignore for state roads if they choose. The big advantage
in changing AASHTO regs is that they ARE standards - if someone makes
a MUP that doesn't meet the standards, they are likely to have that
used in a lawsuit. OTOH, that isn't a major concern of states or
counties, and many of them use different standards (especially for
country roads, where many like to ride) and also hand out variances to
the builders like candy.
Still, as THE standard, it is the easiest place to have a profound
effect on construction of roads and related across the U.S. of A. A
lot of jurisdictions will defer to AASHTO when building something new
and outside of their norm. AASHTO participation is definitely an
activity that LAB should support to the maximum level possible.
H. M. Leary
Luigi de Guzman <luigi...@cox.net> wrote:
snip
> >>
> >> -Luigi
> >
> >YO! Luigiii!
> >
> >Being from Philly.....
> >
> >BOOOOOOOOO!
>
> Can someone confirm or deny the rumours that there is a magistrate's
> court *in* the stadium in Philly, to deal with disorderly fans?
>
> Perhaps our British friends could learn a lesson: deal with the
> hooligans on-site!
>
> -Luigi
Yes, there was one in Veterans Stadium, but we blew that stadium this past
Sunday!
HAND
Curtis L. Russell
<miki...@forgedabit.net> wrote:
>> Can someone confirm or deny the rumours that there is a magistrate's
>> court *in* the stadium in Philly, to deal with disorderly fans?
>>
>> Perhaps our British friends could learn a lesson: deal with the
>> hooligans on-site!
>>
>> -Luigi
>
>Yes, there was one in Veterans Stadium, but we blew that stadium this past
>Sunday!
>
>HAND
All but the New York and Baltimore fans were allowed to leave first...
Wayne Pein
> Oh my goodness. Having been to Washington DC for the Bike Summit March
> 3-5th, and watching nearly 400 people, the majority of whom were *not* from
> the industry, work very hard to promote the idea that cycling isn't
> something that should be planned or legislated out of our lives, I have to
> take strong issue, even offense, at that statement.
>
> The LAB may not be the organization it used to be, and may no longer be
> serving the needs people here are bringing up. That's a problem. But to
> denigrate their efforts to keep us on the road and to promote cycling as a
> means for kids to walk to school? And to at least imply that it's sold out
> as they've tried to get more industry people involved... I do find that
> personally offensive.
>
> I visited with six different legislators on March 4th, always as part of a
> team in which I was in awe of the work of advocates who selflessly give of
> their time and are not part of the cycling industry. I can approach their
> passion for cycling, but not the delivery of their message nor the time they
> put into it. On the other hand, the legislators pay a lot more attention to
> a message that's delivered from a coalition of different types of
> constituents, and the presence of small-business (and large-business) owners
> does, indeed, give more credibility to the cause.
>
> Are the industry people there out of a selfless desire to help the cause?
> ABSOLUTELY NOT! I'm scared to death that, if something isn't done to get
> kids more physically active and consider walking or riding to school, our
> roads are going to become even more congested (and unsafe to ride), and the
> next generation of young adults are going to be so physically inactive that
> I won't have a customer base a few years down the road.
So how do you propose to do that? Do you espouse bike lanes to make parents
think its safe for kids to ride bikes?
>
>
> And this "competent cyclist" bit is especially galling. I dunno, gee, I've
> been riding a whole lot of miles for the past 33 years, but maybe not enough
> to be competent. Certainly not enough, apparently, to get me past my
> childish desires to have intersections designed with cyclists in mind,
Bicycle sensitive traffic loops? What else?
> roads
> with shoulders,
Shoulders are not for operating, on although amply wide, smooth, and clean ones
on rural roads are reasonable.
> laws that make it illegal to exclude cyclists on normal
> roads, inclusion of cyclists requirements on a new roadway by default rather
> than exception, etc.
What is your proposition? Every road that I know of is amply wide to fit my 2 ft
wide bicycle.
> Oh, and if we can get a few more people out of SUVs, I
> wouldn't mind that either.
This is anti car agenda. It is not pro bike agenda.
>
>
> But obviously I'm not a "competent cyclist." Just a really ticked off one
> at the moment.
I'd characterize you a well meaning but misguided.
Wayne
Lars Lehtonen
>It almost sounds like you've recently watched the docu-movie,
>"The Corporation" :-)
I don't have a TV, alas. But I have watched Microsoft pretty closely
for some years now, and it has shaken my once-firm belief in
lassiez-faire capitalism. Korten was also a big influence:
<http://www.bookfinder.us/review8/1887208046.html>
[snip]
>I think local-level organized cycling advocacy is good in that regard.
>And I consider that when such advocacy groups insist on bike lanes
>and other fancy bike facilities, they're tactically aiming high,
>because they realize that the Powers-That-Be will typically give
>somewhat less than what is asked for. If they ask for a lot, maybe
>they'll (we'll) get just enough, as well as be taken more seriously
>than if we went hat-in-hand to City Hall and humbly requested trite
>little details like a particular storm drain grate being turned
>sideways, or a crack in the pavement somewhere be patched.
These guys are after Federal dollars, though. They've been quite
explicit:
Rich Olken, Bikes Belong's executive director, told more
than 75 people at an international cycling advocacy symposium
that his group leveraged $500,000 into more than $225 million
worth of federally funded cycling projects in three years.
The $500,000 came from membership dues in the advocacy group.
BRAIN. 2002. "Olken Speaks On Bikes Belong's Progress in Milan."
BRAIN. September 27.
<http://www.bicycleretailer.com/bicycleretailer/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1720792>
>I think
>a lot of that high-falootin' cycling advocacy rhetoric is really
>just for haggling purposes. I might be wrong, though. I'll leave
>other people's opinions to their own devilry. I've got enuff of
>my own.
This isn't about City Hall, it's about Federal subsidy for the bike
business:
Bikes Belong was conceived in 1996 to win reauthorization
of federal transportation funding for bicycle projects.
After victory in 1998, Bikes Belong became strictly
industry led and funded with the sole mission of "putting
more people on bikes more often through TEA-21"
Total Bike. 2001. "Bikes Belong and Bicycle Council Merge."
Total Bike. June 4. <http://www.totalbike.com/news/article/169/>
---
Lars
Zoot Katz
<Y%E8c.18952$bX5....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, "Matt O'Toole"
<ma...@deltanet.com> wrote:
>The waterfront paths in Vancouver, BC are pretty
>amazing too.
It's difficult to incorporate those into a commuter route since they
basically follow the shoreline. I don't know that they'd be a useful
shortcut to anywhere except the park. They're FMUPs to nowhere.
OTOH, the "bike route" system of traffic calmed streets, connector
paths and bike lanes works better. The best thing about the whole PNW
area is the number of cyclists visible on the cities' streets.
--
zk
David L. Johnson
>
> Can someone confirm or deny the rumours that there is a magistrate's
> court *in* the stadium in Philly, to deal with disorderly fans?
Well, there was. Judicial efficiency. However, since that stadium was
blown up last weekend (we are assured that it was not terrism), the
court is no longer active. I don't know whether they will put the court
back in. Since there are now two venues, one for baseball and one for
football, I wonder which one they would put the court in, anyway.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | "What am I on? I'm on my bike, six hours a day, busting my ass.
_`\(,_ | What are you on?" --Lance Armstrong
(_)/ (_) |
Matthew
"David L. Johnson" <david....@lehigh.edu> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.03.25...@lehigh.edu...
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 13:03:35 -0500, Luigi de Guzman wrote:
>
> >
> > Can someone confirm or deny the rumours that there is a magistrate's
> > court *in* the stadium in Philly, to deal with disorderly fans?
>
> Well, there was. Judicial efficiency. However, since that stadium was
> blown up last weekend (we are assured that it was not terrism), the
> court is no longer active. I don't know whether they will put the court
> back in. Since there are now two venues, one for baseball and one for
> football, I wonder which one they would put the court in, anyway.
>
Luigi de Guzman
wrote:
Visible, daily cyclist presence has an effect on motorist attitudes.
The PNW is a good place to ride, I suspect, because so many people
*do* ride in the first place. They then bring their needs as
road-users to local government, and things go.
So, NAFTA-living PNW'ers: how do you get people on the road??
-Luigi
Rick Warner
>
> Mark: One of the best presentations was by the head of Arizona's DOT. He's
> been pushing hard to make sure that the accommodations for cyclists are
> within the normal transportation framework, not segregated. There is a need
> for both, but never at the exclusion of cyclists from the streets.
>
> The AASHTO folk (the national oversight agency for all state DOTs) are
> incorporating useful, on-the-street cycling accommodation as the routine way
> to build roads. They are *not* advocating separate-but-equal (not!) bike
> routes.
>
> The times are changing. There are many people at state DOTs who understand
> the needs of the "competent" cyclist.
Mike,
Let's take this closer to home, where you and I live. Where was LAB
in the
hearings for AB1408 last year, the original AB1408 that actually made
meaningful
changes to the CVC related to bicyclists, not the gutted and weakened
AB1408
which I am just as happy did not pass since other than allowing
recumbent riders
to have high handlebars it did zilch. CHP, and to a small degree
CalTrans,
were major opponents and it was left to the local advocacy groups to
try
to dispel the misinformation those state agencies were giving
legislators ..
things like 'being doored is not a major hazard for cyclists ...'.
Fooey.
That was an instance where, in the most populous state a national
organization could have stood forth and helped to bring light on the
matter, but frankly I
did not see it happening. Did I blink?
- rick
Zoot Katz
<a9q6605ddg06d837p...@4ax.com>,
>>paths and bike lanes works better. The best thing about the whole PNW
>>area is the number of cyclists visible on the cities' streets.
>
>Visible, daily cyclist presence has an effect on motorist attitudes.
>The PNW is a good place to ride, I suspect, because so many people
>*do* ride in the first place. They then bring their needs as
>road-users to local government, and things go.
>
increases driver awareness of bicyclists. Bicyclists in sufficient
numbers represent a voting block local politicians can't ignore.
>So, NAFTA-living PNW'ers: how do you get people on the road??
>
You need lots of hills and plenty of rain to grow cyclists.
I think it has to do with our moderate climate. Never does it get
extremely hot and humid or cold with snow. I guess having generally
wider roads than older Eastern cities helps too.
--
zk
jeffbonny
>Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:52:56 GMT,
><Y%E8c.18952$bX5....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, "Matt O'Toole"
><ma...@deltanet.com> wrote:
>
>>The waterfront paths in Vancouver, BC are pretty
>>amazing too.
>
>It's difficult to incorporate those into a commuter route since they
>basically follow the shoreline. I don't know that they'd be a useful
>shortcut to anywhere except the park. They're FMUPs to nowhere.
I use 'em quite a bit working on Granville Island and
Yaletown/Downtown. The main problem using them to commute is that
etiquette demands taking the full on, hammer down pace to the street
as one shares these paths with pedestrians, bladers, dogs etc.
>OTOH, the "bike route" system of traffic calmed streets, connector
>paths and bike lanes works better. The best thing about the whole PNW
>area is the number of cyclists visible on the cities' streets.
Yep.
jeffb
Tom Kunich
news:4060...@news.ysu.edu...
> Curtis L. Russell wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 10:56:48 -0500, "David L. Johnson"
> > <david....@lehigh.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>We have heard some alarming things about the changes in the governance
of
> >>LAB. I'd like to hear both sides of the story.
> >
> >
> > One side is at www.labreform.org . Many of these people have been
> > involved in the LAB before me, and I go back to the 70s (member and
> > volunteer at the old Baltimore HQs when John Cornelius was there) and
> > have been a life member since the 80s.
> >
> > Outside of the issue with the direction that LAB appears to have gone
> > (away from membership, club and on-road riding and toward raising
> > money through government subsidies for bike lanes and bike trail
> > facilities - and almost completely away from local advocacy and
> > bicycling education), the other main issue is how the board was packed
> > to weight the board to support the current ruling clique.
>
> Yes, one side is www.labreform.org
>
> I can't understand what other side there would be.
>
> Perhaps the most charitable way to portray the actions of the current
> board* is that they don't want LAB to get in financial trouble again.
> That's the _only_ excuse I can think of, and it seems to me a poor one.
> Reasonably competent management would have prevented the financial
> problems of the past, without taking away member benefits and involvement.
>
> Someone needs to be fighting for our legal rights to the road. For
> decades, that was the League of American Bicyclists (or, before its name
> change, the League of American Wheelmen).
>
> Now it seems we're on our own.
Quite frankly Frank(ly) I stopped paying the slightest attention to them
when they changed the name from Wheelmen to Bicyclists. That showed pretty
plainly what their agenda was.
Karen M.
> In 1980, Phyllis Harmon was voted out, and John Forrester voted in.
> At that time LAB was being changed from a folksy club-riding organization
> to something that was far more proactive in terms of ensuring bicyclists'
> rights to the road. It was an exciting time to be involved, even at
> the lowest levels. Subsequently the offices were moved to Baltimore.
The move to Baltimore was caused by the directors looking around at
each other, after voting Phyllis out, and saying "now what?" IIRC the
Chicago-based staff all quit in protest of PH being removed, leaving
an association without employees. At the time Christine Manor was
making a habit of attending board meetings, when asked she expressed
an interest in running the organization, and she lived in Baltimore.
DC was not an issue at all.
IIRC this occurred in 1979. By 1980 the magazine no longer looked
like something composed on a typewriter and a mimeograph machine.
HTH
--Karen M.
who recalls seeing orders for patches pouring in during the summers of
'84-86, when merchandise sales virtualy kept the assn afloat
Matt O'Toole
> Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:52:56 GMT,
> <Y%E8c.18952$bX5....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, "Matt O'Toole"
> <ma...@deltanet.com> wrote:
>
>> The waterfront paths in Vancouver, BC are pretty
>> amazing too.
>
> It's difficult to incorporate those into a commuter route since they
> basically follow the shoreline. I don't know that they'd be a useful
> shortcut to anywhere except the park. They're FMUPs to nowhere.
I guess that depends on where you live and where you work, but I've seen plenty
of people on them who look like they're commuting. Personally, I've found the
one along False Creek pretty handy for getting out to Home Depot from Granville
Island.
> OTOH, the "bike route" system of traffic calmed streets, connector
> paths and bike lanes works better. The best thing about the whole PNW
> area is the number of cyclists visible on the cities' streets.
Absolutely. Even in Bellingham, where it rains right through the summer, I see
more bikes than in southern CA. And it's for transportation, not just
recreation. I've read that Victoria has the highest percentage of bike
commuters in North America.
Matt O.
Steven Goodridge
"Mike Jacoubowsky"
> The AASHTO folk (the national oversight agency for all state DOTs) are
> incorporating useful, on-the-street cycling accommodation as the routine
way
> to build roads. They are *not* advocating separate-but-equal (not!) bike
> routes.
Note, however, that even bike lane stripes are a form of segregation, while
the same pavement width without the stripe does not separate by user class.
I think there may be some situations where the operational advantages of
bike lane stripes may outweigh the disadvantages - perhaps on the highest
speed roads with the fewest junctions - but on many streets I strongly
believe the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. The city where I live
recently added bike lane stripes to some two-lane streets that previously
had wide (16' or wider) lanes and were previously great for cycling. The
stripes were put right where I usually positioned my bike tires. Since then,
the four or five feet of bike lane space on these roads has filled with
debris that ordinarily gets swept off the road by the movement of cars. When
cyclists ride outside the bike lane to avoid the debris, they get harassed
by motorists. Before the stripes, riding in the exact same road position did
not result in harassment. The city has agreed to sweep the lanes more often,
but not often enough, and not well enough, and we know that will end next
time the budget gets tight.
Here are some pictures and comments:
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/carystripes/carystripes.htm
I wish that AASHTO would simply recommend 15'-16' wide outside through lanes
on busy roads as the default accommodation for motorists to more easily
overtake cyclists. Where I live, bike lanes are separate-but-unequal to
shared lanes, and don't respect the finer points of destination positioning
at intersections or speed positioning on descents. I believe bike lane
striping is being promoted for purposes of political visibility, not to
improve operational conditions for cyclists (and there's no reasonably
scientific evidence that the stripes improve safety for cyclists). I see the
promotion of bike lanes by default as segregation for the sake of
segregation, and I think it's counter-productive for cyclists.
-Steve Goodridge
Matt O'Toole
> Visible, daily cyclist presence has an effect on motorist attitudes.
> The PNW is a good place to ride, I suspect, because so many people
> *do* ride in the first place. They then bring their needs as
> road-users to local government, and things go.
> So, NAFTA-living PNW'ers: how do you get people on the road??
Send their jobs to Mexico so they're too poor to afford cars? :-)
Matt O.
Luigi de Guzman
wrote:
>Luigi de Guzman wrote:
I was hoping nobody was going to turn this into another zoo, but I
guess it's an election year, so.
Everybody b*tches endlessly about migration. Then, when development
happens elsewhere, everyone b*ches endlessly about competition.
-Luigi
Steven Goodridge
"Rick Warner" <rickw...@earthlink.net> wrote
> Where was LAB in the
> hearings for AB1408 last year,
> it was left to the local advocacy groups to try
> to dispel the misinformation those state agencies were giving legislators
..
> things like 'being doored is not a major hazard for cyclists ...'.
> Fooey.
> That was an instance where, in the most populous state a national
> organization could have stood forth and helped to bring light on the
> matter, but frankly I did not see it happening. Did I blink?
Have you seen the door-zone bike lanes that LAB's lobbying arm, America
Bikes, promotes? Take a look at the picture of one on the front page of
their web site for "Complete the Streets", i.e. what the LAB's new
leadership wants done to your streets:
http://www.americabikes.org/bicycleaccomodation_factsheet_completestreets.asp
If there are any doubts about America Bikes' connection to the LAB, compare
the street addresses and boards of directors for the two organizations.
Why would an organization controlled by people who promote door-zone bike
lanes say that riding in the door zone is anything but safe?
-Steve Goodridge
(Be sure to see
http://humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/door_zone.pdf )
Mike Jacoubowsky
lanes
> on busy roads as the default accommodation for motorists to more easily
> overtake cyclists. Where I live, bike lanes are separate-but-unequal to
> shared lanes, and don't respect the finer points of destination
positioning
> at intersections or speed positioning on descents. I believe bike lane
> striping is being promoted for purposes of political visibility, not to
> improve operational conditions for cyclists (and there's no reasonably
> scientific evidence that the stripes improve safety for cyclists). I see
the
> promotion of bike lanes by default as segregation for the sake of
> segregation, and I think it's counter-productive for cyclists.
Wider vehicle lanes (without striping for bikes) has been studied, and
invariably, the wider the lane, the faster the cars travel. This is not
always a good thing, particularly for bikes.
In many communities, lanes are being made narrower (without any
consideration being given to bicyclists) simply as a "traffic calming"
device.
Matt O'Toole
Geez Luigi, I hope you're not taking me seriously. I even put a smiley on that!
Matt O.
Claire Petersky
news:a9q6605ddg06d837p...@4ax.com...
> So, NAFTA-living PNW'ers: how do you get people on the road??
STP?
--
Warm Regards,
Claire Petersky
Please replace earthlink for mouse-potato and .net for .com
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky
frkrygow
> ... The city where I live
> recently added bike lane stripes to some two-lane streets that previously
> had wide (16' or wider) lanes and were previously great for cycling. The
> stripes were put right where I usually positioned my bike tires. Since then,
> the four or five feet of bike lane space on these roads has filled with
> debris that ordinarily gets swept off the road by the movement of cars. When
> cyclists ride outside the bike lane to avoid the debris, they get harassed
> by motorists.
My limited experience with bike lanes confirms what Steven says. Last
summer, we rode into Portland OR from the east. Not being from the
area, I followed the recommended roads shown on a free map I'd been given.
It became obvious that the "recommended" roads were the ones with the
bike lanes, and for mile after city mile, I was calling out "Glass!"
"Trash!" "Glass!" "Rock!" "Gravel!" "Glass!"
Finally, at one point, the "recommended" roads made a detour jog to the
north. We said "Heck with that" and just stayed on the westbound road
we were riding. Suddenly we were without the bike lane.
It was so much better! We still had plenty of lane width for safe
passing, and in the few places it was gone, we were still treated
courteously. But there was NO trash or glass in the road!
Previously, a bike "activist" in Portland told me the city will sweep a
bike lane immediately, if you send in a little postcard requesting it.
But in my experience, that's not working well enough. And lots of other
cities will never have the budget to run such a program.
> I wish that AASHTO would simply recommend 15'-16' wide outside through lanes
> on busy roads as the default accommodation for motorists to more easily
> overtake cyclists.
Yes!
--
-------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]
frkrygow
> The competent road cyclists would essentially like to see cyclists banned from
> all sidewalks and MUPs, just like motor vehicles. What they are advocating is a
> step backward.
What a strange statement!
First, it seems to me that sidewalks are a poor choice for cycling. If
there are pedestrians, the ped conflicts are frequent and can be severe.
If there are no pedestrians, the conflicts with crossing motorists can
be even worse. Surely you're aware of the greatly increased danger of
sidewalk cycling, compared to the roadway? (At least, if the cyclist is
older than about 10.)
Second, I've never heard any cyclist (but you) claim that they wanted to
see cyclists banned from MUPs. Where did you get that idea?
For myself: I think an empty MUP can sometimes be a pleasant ride. A
few of them can be useful as shortcuts. I actually instigated the
paving of such a short, useful shortcut in my village.
But most MUPs, in my experience, go from nowhere to nowhere. They serve
only negligible transportation purposes. Unless they're out in the
remote country, they get clogged with dog walkers, five-abreast
strollers, skaters, joggers and the like. And if they are out in the
remote country, they usually serve no purpose that isn't handled better
by an adjacent road.
Still, if people want them built, that's fine by me. But for most of
them, don't pretend they're anything but linear parks. Pay for them out
of park funding, not out of transportation funding.
And never, ever say that cyclists _must_ use them.
Ryan Cousineau
Here's how I did it and am doing it:
One day I looked at my gut and my bank account, and realized that riding
to work would wound two birds with one stone. So I rode my bike to work.
And it hurt like crazy!
It stopped hurting so much after a few months.
My father, a former bike-commuter in the early 80s, realized he needed
some exercise too, so he started riding my brother's mountain bike to
work (it wasn't doing anything else). Some time after, I purchased the
Pinarello, which was set up for commuting at the time (!). It was my
third commuter bike, since I had purchased an incredible Mikado tourer a
few months after I started riding to work, and it was a great commuter
bike.
It was at this point I noticed my father had stopped riding, more or
less, throughout the winter. Well, here I was with two bikes with
fenders and racks, and so I gave the Mikado to my dad, which got him
back on the road again. I find I have to kickstart him every 8 months or
so, usually by giving him a piece of interesting equipment (new bike,
clipless pedals, new shoes) that he has to try out. We're both gear
junkies.
Now, since I don't have enough bikes to give away one to everyone I
know, I have a new strategy for this year. Right now, I'm building a
shed.
The next step is a dandy: the shed will hold most of my bikes, my bike
parts, and my workshop (it's an 8x10 shed). Once it's up, I'll invite
everyone who has recently said to me "yeah, I should get riding my bike
again..." to my ad-hoc bike fixing festival, probably late April or
early May.
This works out because I love wrenching bikes, I have a few spare bikes,
and thanks to some purchases, some scrounging, and my brother finding
the motherlode of bike-shop tools, I have the tools for almost any bike
repair short of BB facing.
After the wrenching is done, I will invite all attendees to go for a
ride. It so happens that there is a totally unintimidating MUP that runs
for about 6 km not far from my house. Sure, it's a dreaded MUP, but this
is going to be a group ride for what in some cases are complete
bike-tyros. I fully expect people for whom cycling has not been a part
of adulthood. And with the ride out of the way, people will come back to
my place, and go home. Maybe some stragglers will hang around for a
cocktail.
So, that's my plan. I'll let you know how it works out.
--
Ryan Cousineau, rcou...@sfu.ca http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine/wiredcola/
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club
Ryan Cousineau
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Please no more MUPs.
>
> Count me as another who dislikes MUPs. I'm not even in favor of the current
> off-road network, in which there are trails that are strictly for hikers,
> trails that are strictly for hikers & equestrians, but all trails that I'm
> aware of that are open to Mtn Bikes are also open to everyone else as well.
Yes, but. At least around here, there are so many trails and the bike
trails are so bike-focused (amazing what a few stunts can do to make
hikers feel unwelcome :), that hikers don't use the serious bike trails.
R15757
<< Why would an organization controlled by people who promote door-zone bike
lanes say that riding in the door zone is anything but safe? >>
About these famous "door-zone bike lanes," a little bit of clarification is
needed. While there are many striped bike lanes that lie partially in the door
zone, there are very few that lie _entirely_ in the DZ. In other words, they
are almost universally wide enough that a rider can cruise on the left side of
the bike lane and stay out of the DZ. If someone is in the DZ, they still have
only themselves to blame.
That said, I don't see much if any practical benefit from on-street bike lanes.
Their popularity is a puzzle.
Robert
R15757
<< > The competent road cyclists would essentially like to see cyclists banned
from
> all sidewalks and MUPs, just like motor vehicles. What they are advocating is
a
> step backward.
What a strange statement!
First, it seems to me that sidewalks are a poor choice for cycling. If
there are pedestrians, the ped conflicts are frequent and can be severe.
If there are no pedestrians, the conflicts with crossing motorists can
be even worse. Surely you're aware of the greatly increased danger of
sidewalk cycling, compared to the roadway? (At least, if the cyclist is
older than about 10.)
Second, I've never heard any cyclist (but you) claim that they wanted to
see cyclists banned from MUPs. Where did you get that idea? >>
Of course they would never say it like that, but that is the logical conclusion
of the religious dogma of "competent road cyclists." Bikes belong on the roads,
blah, blah, blah. In their ideal world, no adult bicyclist would be found on
the MUPs, much less the sidewalks.
In the real world, however, urban cyclists use MUPs and even sidewalks very
often and to great advantage. Like everything else, there is a right way and a
wrong way to do it.
Many cyclists are also using and abusing these surfaces unthinkingly, and their
absent-minded anarchy is reflected in the accident statistics.
<< But most MUPs, in my experience, go from nowhere to nowhere. They serve
only negligible transportation purposes. <snip>>>
In cities, a fully separated MUP that flows under all major streets and crosses
no intersections becomes a great asset to all types of cyclists. The lack of
stops makes this type of facility superior to street riding--if the MUP is
taking us near where we need to go, that is. It's there if you need it, kind of
like the chain whip in my tool box.
<< Still, if people want them built, that's fine by me. But for most of
them, don't pretend they're anything but linear parks. Pay for them out
of park funding, not out of transportation funding. >>
Can't agree with that. The MUPs around here are packed with bike commuters.
They use the MUPs because the MUPs are the most efficient and practical option.
Let me repeat, no red lights or stop signs along its entire length. The
pedestrians are accustomed to fast-moving cyclists in close proximity, vice
versa.
<< And never, ever say that cyclists _must_ use them. >>
Agreed. But that is a sidepath thing, not a fully-separated MUP thing. It would
be nice if the competent road cyclists could add a layer of nuance to their
diatribe.
Robert
Dennis P. Harris
sggo...@mindspring.com (Steven Goodridge) wrote:
> I see two ways to fix the situation: remove the pro-segregation lobby
> from the leadership of LAB and return control to member cyclists, or
> create a new organization that is accountable to the best interests of
> competent cyclists.
>
it appear that since the slimeballs that ruined this great
organization have made it very hard to extricate them, the latter
may be necessary.
got any ideas for the name of this new rider-run organization?
Dennis P. Harris
Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> The LAB may not be the organization it used to be, and may no longer be
> serving the needs people here are bringing up. That's a problem. But to
> denigrate their efforts to keep us on the road
anybody advocating segregated bikeways is not making an effort to
"keep us on the road". advocating anything but SAFE VEHICULAR
CYCLING FACILITIES does otherwise.
Doug Huffman
correct and to the point.
Personally I prefer LAWheelmen.
"Dennis P. Harris" <NO_SPAM_T...@gci.net> wrote in message
news:7d8860toq9c6vv9gn...@4ax.com...
Dennis P. Harris
Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> The times are changing. There are many people at state DOTs who understand
> the needs of the "competent" cyclist.
>
not in alaska. not with our "build roads to nowhere" governor
murkowski.
Dennis P. Harris
(R15757) wrote:
> Of course they would never say it like that, but that is the logical conclusion
> of the religious dogma of "competent road cyclists." Bikes belong on the roads,
> blah, blah, blah. In their ideal world, no adult bicyclist would be found on
> the MUPs, much less the sidewalks.
i don't know why you try to twist what someone said into
something they definitely did NOT say. none of us have ever said
that. please stop lying about what people said.
Curtis L. Russell
>Agreed. But that is a sidepath thing, not a fully-separated MUP thing. It would
>be nice if the competent road cyclists could add a layer of nuance to their
>diatribe.
No. If a MUP is close enough, it can be and will be used as an excuse
to not accomodate cyclists on the roadway that is parallel. I have
exactly that situation near me, where they took away shoulder and put
guardrails flush with the curbs with the excuse that the MUP was
available for cyclists. It moves away from the roadway so you have to
go out of your way to use it, is is substandard, and it isn't
maintained in bad weather, but it is an excuse to make the roadway
unusable.
And it is amusing to see you suggest someone else should add nuance to
their diatribes. They do and you ignore it as if your prejudice
against VC cyclists should always trump what they actually say
themselves.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
Ryan Cousineau
r15...@aol.com (R15757) wrote:
1) gives cars and cyclists alike a clear demarcation where the cyclists
know the cars almost certainly won't enter their path and the cars know
vice versa. This is a great confidence booster for cyclists not yet
ready for the exhiliration of feeling a car judge the gap _perfectly_,
and not knock them off their bike with their mirror by a couple of
inches.
2) by narrowing the roadway, it has a natural cautioning and slowing
effect on the cars. Because they perceive that they can't just wander
from ditch to median now, the drivers stay between the lines.
Steven Goodridge
> Wider vehicle lanes (without striping for bikes) has been studied, and
> invariably, the wider the lane, the faster the cars travel. This is not
> always a good thing, particularly for bikes.
My survey of the professional highway engineering literature leads me
to opposite conclusions. If the lane is narrowed by nothing other than
a stripe, speeds are as likely to increase as decrease, especially in
darkness, due to the retroreflective properties of the striping. For
instance, in 1999 the Institute of Transportation Engineers published
"Traffic Calming: State of the Practice", (FHWA-RD-99-135) a report on
experiences with traffic calming in the US & Canada. From the section
titled "Centerline and Edgeline Striping":
>
"Painting an edgeline several feet from the pavement edge has the
effect of visually narrowing the roadway....In theory, the perceived
narrowing could cause a modest speed reduction, just as a real
narrowing causes a modest speed reduction. The theory is not borne out
by empirical studies. Results from Howard County, MD, Beaverton, OR,
and San Antonio, TX, suggest that vehicle operating speeds are as
likely to increase as decrease with striping. One explanation is that
centerlines and edgelines define the vehicle travel path more clearly,
creating a gun barrel effect.
Results from the aforementioned studies could be dismissed because
even with the narrowings, pavement and lane widths remained
substantial. Yet, results from Orlando, FL, where travel lanes were
taken down to 9 feet, showed speeds to be unaffected (see figure
5.47).27 This psychoperceptioncontrol was not "tricking" anyone and
hence was removed from both the centerline and edgelines."
>
If the distance across the lane from traffic on the left to a curb or
parked cars on the right is narrow, this can indeed cause drivers to
slow down because there is less usable asphalt. However, by definition
that will reduce space for overtaking cyclists, and reduce cyclist
comfort on busy roads. Narrow lanes are appropriate for very
low-volume streets where the occasional motorist can easily move into
the oncoming lane to pass a cyclist, and on very low-speed downtown
streets, where traffic is moving at near enough to the speed of the
average cyclist that political friction is reduced.
-Steve Goodridge
Steven Goodridge
> About these famous "door-zone bike lanes," a little bit of clarification is
> needed. While there are many striped bike lanes that lie partially in the door
> zone, there are very few that lie _entirely_ in the DZ. In other words, they
> are almost universally wide enough that a rider can cruise on the left side of
> the bike lane and stay out of the DZ. If someone is in the DZ, they still have
> only themselves to blame.
Tell that to Dana Laird's family.
Bike lane proponents claim that bike lanes encourage cycling by
novices and tell them where to ride. It can be seen that many novices
do indeed ride in the middle of the lane, well inside the reach of car
doors.
If the DOT knows that bike lanes will attract novices, and some
portion of the bike lane is dangerous to use, then the DOT should mark
off that portion to discourage novice cyclists from riding too far
right. The bike lane should start at that position, outside the door
zone.
I think it's bad design to mark a bike lane that requires cyclists to
ride its left edge, effectively constraining cyclists to a sliver of
roadway between traffic overtaking at close distance and the threat of
opening doors. Without the stripe compelling cyclists to stay right,
the cyclist is free to move farther to the left, using the full travel
lane if required, and drivers overtake more carefully.
-Steve Goodridge
Matt O'Toole
> I know! I know. The League of American Wheelers. Accurate,
> politically correct and to the point.
>
> Personally I prefer LAWheelmen.
There's already one of those in Los Angeles.
Matt O.
Steven Goodridge
> Their popularity is a puzzle.
The main purpose of door zone bike lanes is to maximize the number
stripe-miles that a city can claim they have produced as "bicycle
facilities". Quality is irrelevant to those bikeway advocates and
politicians who measure "bicycle friendliness" in facility-miles.
The alternate purpose is to encourage cyclists to ride close enough to
parked car doors that motorists can more easily overtake them, i.e. to
boost motorists' convenience by restricting cyclists' operating space
to overlap with that portion of the pavement that motorists would not
use themselves, for fear of collision with opening doors.
-Steve Goodridge
Curtis L. Russell
wrote:
>> Personally I prefer LAWheelmen.
>
>There's already one of those in Los Angeles.
Well, there still is one underlying LAB, League of American
Bicyclists. As it has been (except for a preriod or two of dormancy)
for more than one hundred years, the League of American Wheelmen. The
Bicyclists substittution as a 'business as' name was pushed through by
Gil Clark.
Doubt a new organization could get away with LAWheelers, but what the
hell, its only a $ 100 filing fee or so,
Tom Keats
Lars Lehtonen <pub...@orangecircle.org> writes:
> This isn't about City Hall,
My point is, I believe City Hall and the local level is exactly
where cycling advocacy belongs. When federal monies go /directly/
toward promoting and advancing cycling, I can see that sooner
or later a national cycling policy would become implemented.
That's not necessarily a good thing. In fact, it might
be downright scary, as a federal cycling policy could very
well end up being immutably carved in stone. I think the
bottom-up approach (from the local level, going upward) has
more flexibility and adjustability to it, and less risk of
being perpetually locked-in to bad policy.
On the other hand, I understand there are motorists' groups
who will lobby federal administratia for generally increased
speed limits -- which in certain areas could be deleterious
for cycling. Cyclists might need some sort of national level
counter-lobbying organization as a foil to the likes of the
AAA et al.
Rather than a monolithic organization that appoints itself to
represent cyclists all over the country, I think a consortium
of local advocacy groups, elected as a blanket organization to
represent cyclists' interests would be much more effective in
terms of addressing real cycling issues. This would also preserve
that bottom-up approach. Anyhow, it would certainly be different
from the LAB's top-down approach, where they will "allow" affiliate
memberships from smaller, localized groups who are willing to toe
the LAB's line.
cheers,
Tom
--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
Steven Goodridge
> >Second, I've never heard any cyclist (but you) claim that they wanted to
> >see cyclists banned from MUPs. Where did you get that idea? >>
>
>
> Of course they would never say it like that, but that is the logical conclusion
> of the religious dogma of "competent road cyclists." Bikes belong on the roads,
> blah, blah, blah. In their ideal world, no adult bicyclist would be found on
> the MUPs, much less the sidewalks.
Your "logical" conclusion is faulty. As a competent road cyclist and
bike commuter who has fought to successfully overturn a local
mandatory-sidepath-use ordinance in his home town, I do support
multi-use paths that are in their own right of way. Here is my proof
of support for such, on my personal web site:
http://sggoodri.home.mindspring.com/sidewalks/greenways.htm
The city of Cary calls paths in their own right of way (like rail
trails and lakefront paths) "greenways." Cary's planning staff define
"multi-use-paths" as sidewalk-style sidepaths. But other cities use
different terminology. Paths in their own right of way have fewer
junction conflicts, and are supplemental to on-street routes, which is
nice. But there are only a few places in any given city where such
separate-corridor facilities can be built. Once those are built out,
cities often turn to building sidepaths to increase their
"facility-miles". Many cities have demonstrated that any sidewalk
location can easily become an awful designated sidepath.
> Agreed. But that is a sidepath thing, not a fully-separated MUP thing. It would
> be nice if the competent road cyclists could add a layer of nuance to their
> diatribe.
I've been quite clear in my use of "sidepath" and "sidewalk-style
paths" in my own opposition to designated paths that parallel streets
and the laws to force cyclists to use them instead of the roadway.
-Steve Goodridge (who cycle-commutes on busy 45 mph shoulderless
roads, but enjoys towing his son in a trailer on the Black Creek
Greenway)
Claire Petersky
news:4063...@news.ysu.edu...
> It became obvious that the "recommended" roads were the ones with the
> bike lanes, and for mile after city mile, I was calling out "Glass!"
> "Trash!" "Glass!" "Rock!" "Gravel!" "Glass!"
> Previously, a bike "activist" in Portland told me the city will sweep a
> bike lane immediately, if you send in a little postcard requesting it.
> But in my experience, that's not working well enough. And lots of other
> cities will never have the budget to run such a program.
Our city sweeps "bike routes" (whether or not they have a bike lane) twice a
month. Is this unusual?
When a load of tack strips (I dk if that's exactly what they're called --
those wooden boards with carpet tacks embedded in them that they use for
laying carpet) fell into the road a couple of weeks ago, they were
splintered up and mostly swept into the bike lane. Both the all-vehicle lane
and the bike lane had board fragments and loose tacks in them. I emailed the
city when I got into work, and by the PM commute home the whole thing was
swept up.
Is this responsiveness also unusual?
S o r n i
> "frkrygow" <"frkrygow"@omitcc.ysu.edu> wrote in message
> news:4063...@news.ysu.edu...
>
>> It became obvious that the "recommended" roads were the ones with the
>> bike lanes, and for mile after city mile, I was calling out "Glass!"
>> "Trash!" "Glass!" "Rock!" "Gravel!" "Glass!"
>
>> Previously, a bike "activist" in Portland told me the city will
>> sweep a bike lane immediately, if you send in a little postcard
>> requesting it. But in my experience, that's not working well enough.
>> And lots of other cities will never have the budget to run such a
>> program.
>
> Our city sweeps "bike routes" (whether or not they have a bike lane)
> twice a month. Is this unusual?
Yes.
> When a load of tack strips (I dk if that's exactly what they're
> called -- those wooden boards with carpet tacks embedded in them that
> they use for laying carpet) fell into the road a couple of weeks ago,
> they were splintered up and mostly swept into the bike lane. Both the
> all-vehicle lane and the bike lane had board fragments and loose
> tacks in them. I emailed the city when I got into work, and by the PM
> commute home the whole thing was swept up.
>
> Is this responsiveness also unusual?
Yes.
Bill "same glass field down hill from me for a month now" S.
Terry Morse
> Have you seen the door-zone bike lanes that LAB's lobbying arm, America
> Bikes, promotes? Take a look at the picture of one on the front page of
> their web site for "Complete the Streets", i.e. what the LAB's new
> leadership wants done to your streets:
> http://www.americabikes.org/bicycleaccomodation_factsheet_completestreets.asp
That's not a photo of a door zone bike lane. I've seen door zone
bike lanes, and that's not one of them. That's a
beyond-the-door-zone bike lane, very different.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/
Terry Morse
> That said, I don't see much if any practical benefit from on-street bike
> lanes.
> Their popularity is a puzzle.
I have some direct experience that contrasts bike lane and non-bike
lane riding. I have almost never been "buzzed", honked at, or yelled
at when riding in a bike lane. I am regularly "buzzed", honked at,
and yelled at by motorists on roads without a bike lane.
I was riding last Tuesday with another rider, two-abreast(*) fullin
in a bike lane. No hassles from cars. We turned onto a street with
an equally wide lane, and we are almost immediately buzzed by an
angry driver who had to swerve far towards the curb to successfully
"buzz" us.
* riding two-abreast is legal in California
Matt O'Toole
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 15:58:15 GMT, "Matt O'Toole" <ma...@deltanet.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> Personally I prefer LAWheelmen.
>>
>> There's already one of those in Los Angeles.
>
> Well, there still is one underlying LAB, League of American
> Bicyclists. As it has been (except for a preriod or two of dormancy)
> for more than one hundred years, the League of American Wheelmen. The
> Bicyclists substittution as a 'business as' name was pushed through by
> Gil Clark.
I wonder if they LAB still actually owns "League of American Wheelmen"!
Sometimes this stuff gets overlooked -- even Microsoft forgot to renew their
domain name registration one year, and was saved by a good samaritan who sent in
the $35!
> Doubt a new organization could get away with LAWheelers, but what the
> hell, its only a $ 100 filing fee or so,
I'm sure the Los Angeles Wheelmen has a few obnoxious Hollywood lawyers among
their ranks, ready to "defend" their name! Good club though, BTW.
Matt O.
Mike Latondresse
news:rcousine-373BA6...@morgoth.sfu.ca:
>
> Yes, but. At least around here, there are so many trails and the
> bike trails are so bike-focused (amazing what a few stunts can do
> to make hikers feel unwelcome :), that hikers don't use the
> serious bike trails.
>
Thats because the serious bike trails are so steep you can't walk
them...hard to hike 10+ foot drop-offs.
Terry Morse
> Quite frankly Frank(ly) I stopped paying the slightest attention to them
> when they changed the name from Wheelmen to Bicyclists. That showed pretty
> plainly what their agenda was.
Huh? Removing an obvious gender bias from their name revealed some
sort of anti-male agenda?
Curtis L. Russell
wrote:
>I wonder if they LAB still actually owns "League of American Wheelmen"!
>Sometimes this stuff gets overlooked -- even Microsoft forgot to renew their
>domain name registration one year, and was saved by a good samaritan who sent in
>the $35!
Different issue.They are incorporated as League of American Wheelmen
and as long as they pay the annual fee, they keep the name. Fail to
pay the fee and they'll lose the name eventually - when the
corporation is dissolved by whatever state has their registration.
For non-profits, most states are rather patient. I've seen some go
along for 4 or 5 years before the state sent them a warning letter.
The League of American Bicyclists is what they d/b/a only.
Curtis L. Russell
wrote:
>That's not a photo of a door zone bike lane. I've seen door zone
>bike lanes, and that's not one of them. That's a
>beyond-the-door-zone bike lane, very different.
Really? Because if you ride at the far left of the lane, you are out
of reach? Perhaps you should get a bit more familiar with the
terminology.
If you ride in the middle of that lane, you can be doored, especially
if the parked vehicles are trucks and SUVs and not the narrow
automobiles shown. And that rider is to the left of the lane, not in
the middle. Not all would make that choice.
This is a door zone bike lane.
Wayne Pein
You make the mistake of ascribing correlation with causality. Perhaps the
motorist buzzed you because in his distorted mind you were not where you were
supposed to be: on a road with bike lanes. In other words, the proliferation
of BLs has taught motorists that there is a special place for bicyclists. I've
been told "This ain't a biking road" by a motorist who said there were no BLs
there so I shouldn't be on it.
Wayne
Curtis L. Russell
wrote:
>Huh? Removing an obvious gender bias from their name revealed some
>sort of anti-male agenda?
No - that presumption is yours. 'Wheelmen' referred to riders of the
road, even in the 1890s when the roads weren't all that hot. (FWIW,
these 'sexist' wheelmen were among the early points of liberation in
lifestyle for women). 'Bicyclists' pretty much is anyone riding a
bike, whereever.
It wasn't elitist, but it wasn't directed toward anyone that had
purchased a bike that morning at Walmart. It assumed that bicycling
was part of your life style. It was a national club of people
interested in bicycling, that had bicycles as part of their life.
LAB is now a fund-raising organization and is interested in any thing
tangentally related to bicycling. That may be the organization that
you want to be a member of, but it isn't the organization once
organized around bike riders, bike clubs and GEARs.
coll...@comcast.net
> > I was riding last Tuesday with another rider, two-abreast(*) fullin
> > in a bike lane. No hassles from cars. We turned onto a street with
> > an equally wide lane, and we are almost immediately buzzed by an
> > angry driver who had to swerve far towards the curb to successfully
> > "buzz" us.
>
> motorist buzzed you because in his distorted mind you were not where you were
> supposed to be: on a road with bike lanes. In other words, the proliferation
> of BLs has taught motorists that there is a special place for bicyclists. I've
> been told "This ain't a biking road" by a motorist who said there were no BLs
> there so I shouldn't be on it.
What does "buzz"ing mean? When they blaze by with only about 3 inches of
space between you?
Once a woman in an SUV swerved suddenly into my bike lane as I was exiting
from my apartment complex parking lot. It was early enough that she was
the only one on the road, and she kept riding in the bike lane for about 50
yards. I didn't see anything in the road, nor any reason for her to swerve
into the bike lane. I am not sure whether she was driving inattentively or
whether she was trying to intimidate me. Sure got my blood pumping though!
Ben
--
Never wear your best pants when you go to fight for freedom.
Wayne Pein
>
>
> What does "buzz"ing mean? When they blaze by with only about 3 inches of
> space between you?
Yes. There are no set definitions for speed and distance though. People have
different perceptions of what is appropriate or not. It's too close and too fast,
and they wouldn't do it to their own kid (or other family member) on a bike.
Wayne