LAB?

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 22:16:14 GMT, "Frank Knox"
wrote:


"Luigi de Guzman" wrote in message
.. .
On 24 Mar 2004 06:58:47 -0800, (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

Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Organizations go thorough changes and phases just like people do.
There's still a League of American Wheelmen in there somewhere.

Um, really? No evidence of the grassroots activities of that
legendary organization has reached me.

-Luigi

Curtis L. Russell wrote:

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

Thanks for the quick reply. I'm going to snip liberally to keep this
thing under control:

According to Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles :

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 bull****. 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

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 04:48:19 +0000, Lars Lehtonen wrote:

.... 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

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.

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" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 04:48:19 +0000, Lars Lehtonen wrote:

... 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

Lars Lehtonen wrote in part:

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

According to Erik Freitag :
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

According to R15757 :
[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

In article ,
Lars Lehtonen 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

In article ,
(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.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca