Originally Posted by
buzzman
My research consists of personal experience, which dates back to membership in, what was then, LAW back in the early '70's. I was also actively involved in several New England organizations as well. In the late 70's the schism began and despite the fact that I was a cyclist that rode exclusively on the road and was, dare I say "militant" about my right to the road I could not abide the closed mindedness and lack of creative thinking on the part of so many of my fellow advocates. I admittedly moved out of advocacy work and club riding because I simply could not put up with the posturing and attitude on the part of riders who seemed to have forgotten all too quickly that the bicycle is a flexible machine that can be used in a variety of environments and in a variety of ways and to advocate only for road riders of a particular type ultimately served no one.
Although I continued to cycle I watched the promise of a bicycling renaissance fade into the past during the 80's through the present day. LAB continued, for much of that time, to focus more or less exclusively on the rights and education of road cyclists and for that I appreciate their efforts but it did little to promote cycling nor did it promote weaving cycling into the fabric of our transportation infrastructure or future models- in fact many of the LAB leaders saw this as a "pipe dream" and not worth pursuing and actively worked to block such efforts.
AFter some period of time members who were more willing to embrace bike ways, bike lanes, bike paths and integration of cycling facilities into urban renewal and redesign efforts gathered support and wrested control away from what has now resurfaced as LAB reform. Now the fight to regain control is back again because those members are unwilling to abandon the narrow minded philosophy that had it's heyday of popularity in the late 70's and into the 80's.
you're right. I would not be voting because I gave up my LAB membership years ago and put my efforts and support to organizations that have a broader perspective. And yes, you're right again if LAB reform became LAB they would indeed be a minority among groups because they would represent such a narrow spectrum of cyclists.
Precisely why I, and others like me, have abandoned LAB and at this point would almost rather see it fall into the hands of the LAB reformers and move to inevitable extinction like a weary old dinosaur.
This is such negative thinking about the very premise of LAB reform it exemplifies perfectly why they are pulling the momentum of present LAB down the drain. You see yourselves as the most persecuted, the most misunderstood and the most right.
#1- Lots of us ride "vehiculary". We do it every day. We've done for as many miles and for as many years as any of the LAB reformers. And we do it just as well. The issue is not "vehicular cycling". There's nothing wrong with learning to ride a bicycle as a vehicle on the road.
#2- Why is it on one hand that LAB reformers claim that LAB doesn't represent cyclists and yet claim to be such a minority among cyclists? This I don't get.
some of what you say above I can understand and relate to- to a degree. But talk about "cyclist-inferiority"- your complaints reek of it. I ride every day in a city that would not rate as terribly "bicycle friendly" and am subject to many of the "discriminations" you cite in your post but when it comes down to it I just ride my bike. When we give up our cars it doesn't take long to forget that driving a car has tremendous disadvantages that could almost seem like persecution and discrimination. Let's say I drive into Harvard Square in Cambridge to Christmas shop. I find a 1 hour parking meter and I run back to feed it every hour. Only to discover that I have a parking ticket anyway- it's not legal to keep feeding the meter, legally I should drive around and find a new spot. As a cyclist I see those inconveniences as part of why I don't drive much. But when I do use a car it feels so wrong. But places like Harvard Square are none to friendly to cars, bikes or pedestrians but with some creative redesign it could accommodate 2 out of 3 by reducing the number of cars that can come into the area. LAB reform would promote that the cyclists just ride on the road with the cars, neglect the needs of pedestrians- ain't none of our business- and not see bicycling as part of and solution to a larger picture and problem. Organizations like "Livable Streets" would address the issues more wholistically.
Yes, you're guessing about cyclist apathy.
Yes, you could be wrong and yes, there are other causes.
Doing the same things on your bike as you did when you had a car- this is an illusion. A bicycle is a vehicle but it's not the same as a car. When I can get my bike to go from 0-60 in less than 10 seconds, ride in the snow and rain without rain gear, mittens and not be cold or get wet, carry 3-4 other passengers and still go up hill at 55 mph, get rammed from the side by a car going 30 and get off my bike uninjured to inspect the damage I'll try to do the same things on my bike as I do in my car. Other than that- it's a vehicle when it's on the road but it ain't no car.
yeah, riding vehicularly is obviously right on most roads. How "vehicularly" is interpreted is open to a wide range, whether it's always a pleasant experience to ride vehicularly on some roads is open to interpretation as well. I don't particularly like feeling like I'm fighting for my right to the road and fighting for my life on certain narrow, high traffic volumed poorly designed roads and highways. And why the correctness of riding vehicularly precludes support of facilities escapes me.
Finally, I'm glad that there are cyclists so insistent on maintaining our rights to ride on the roads. They are a necessary part of the voice of cycling advocacy it's just a shame when they think they should be the only voice.
Buzzman, your account of events is reasonably accurate; after all, you and I are seeing the opposite sides of the same coin. However, we disagree about the results that can be expected from the programs that are in place, or, for that matter, about the programs that have a reasonable chance of being instituted. This is because, in my view, the programs that you advocate both contain deep contradictions in themselves and fail to meet the facts of the real world.
Consider first the real world. You write that in the 1980s you had hope for a bicycling renaissance, in which LAB might have had a leading part. Whatever might be the details of LAB's internal affairs, consider what actually occurred in the real world of American cities. Ostensible American policy and programs since the middle 1970s, by both governments and societal organizations, have favored bicycle transportation as you consider it, with results that are insignificant in relation to total transportation. The explanation is pretty simple; most American cities have developed as automotive cities in which personal motor travel is so useful that the proportion of trips that are best made by bicycle has shrunk. You happen to live in the American city that is least suited to automotive transportation, but which, the appeal of automotive transportation being as strong as it is, has suffered from great congestion.
That congestion should be beneficial from your point of view, because that congestion makes motoring more difficult and, therefore, makes bicycle transportation more competitive. You have, indeed, so argued in this group. However, instead of being reasonable about this, you argue the reverse, that you don't like the congestion and present three desires about this. First, you wish that the cars were not present. However, you haven't presented a program of motoring exclusion that has any political chance. Second, you wish for additional space that would be devoted to bicycle transportation separated from motor traffic. However, the problem being both insufficient space and traffic patterns, there aren't enough such spaces left to serve as a bicycle transportation system. Third, you wish to divide the existing roadway space to provide separate streams of bicycle and motor traffic. This has two problems, one local and one general. In typical Boston area streets there is barely sufficient roadway width for one stream, so when that is divided we get door-zone bike lanes. However, the general problem is that the supposed motor and bicycle streams are not streams at all, but movements of individual vehicles that ought to move according to the rules of the road, and trying to divide the roadway width as if these were two different streams destroys that proper operation, leading to collisions.
You write, buzzman, that you have always cycled in the vehicular style and appreciate that some people and organizations are interested in preserving the right to do so. I take it that you have good reasons for cycling in the vehicular style, but if you have such good reasons, why is it that you are not advocating for a road system that is better suited to cycling in the vehicular style? I don't consider that your advocacy of bike paths is a conflict with vehicular cycling, because bike path traffic does not operate according to the rules of the road, and in some locations and times bike paths provide a useful transportation service. I do say, though, that in the typical urban area bike paths cannot provide a bicycle transportation system, so that advocacy for such should limit itself to only that which is useful. In distinction to advocacy of bike paths is your advocacy of bike lanes, which clearly contradict the rules of the road and therefore contradict vehicular cycling. Since bike lanes contradict the rules of the road, then, in those locations and times when the contradiction exists, you must either follow the rules of the road and disobey the bike lane, or you must obey the bike lane and disobey the rules of the road. I don't know which you prefer to do, but the contradiction exists. So I ask you: Why do you advocate bike lanes instead of advocating vehicular cycling on roads that are better suited to vehicular cycling?