Advocacy & Safety - Brilliant speech!

http://www.cars-suck.org/littera-scripta/LAB-talk.html

Lots of good in a small space.

Thanks for posting that.

The real problem we face is not poor visibility or bad signage or insufficient skills or inadequate equipment. The problem we face is... hatred.

As someone who's out on the streets almost every day, I couldn't agree more.

Is it just me, or does it seem like the tide is turning, and the bicycle advocacy is no longer about getting government to spend money on bike paths, but about changing attitudes?

It's diatribes like this that make me glad I am not a member of LAB.


There is nothing ailing the world that can’t be helped by more bicycling.

A silly statement, obviously made to a sympathetic audience to get them to start nodding ther heads. More bicycling will not create peace in Iraq. It won't reduce unemployment. It won't solve racial strife. It will not improve education. Bicycling will certainly improve fitness related problems, but to stretch that into a panacea for the world is hardly realistic.



Maybe I should give an example. Say the number of cyclists triples. Since three raised to the negative 0.6 power is roughly one-half, each tripling in cycling volume brings about a halving of each cyclist’s crash risk.

Now say the number of cyclists increases nine-fold, that is, triples twice. Then each cyclist’s crash risk is halved twice, i.e., it falls by three-fourths.

Another unrealistic set of statements. Except for brief fads, realistically increasing the number of cyclists three or nine-fold is very, very unlikely within our lifetimes.



The grossly disproportionate number of male cyclist-killers strongly suggests that driver aggression (and not just cyclist impulsiveness or incompetence) plays a significant role in killing bicycle-riders in New York City — a finding confirmed in a later report showing that the foremost behavior that’s killing cyclists is aggressive passing by drivers.

While driver agression certainly plays a role in cycling fatalities, how the speaker gets there simply based on the gender of motorists killing cyclists is beyond me. Since men supposedly outnumber women 75-25% in total number of drivers, it would only take a slight tendency for the male drivers to be in professions that require driving throughout the day (taxis, delivery trucks, busses, etc) for them to log a disproportionate number of miles driven. The speaker also did not note the percentage of NYC deaths caused by overtaking collisions versus collisions at intersections.



But safety in numbers works both ways: Critical Mass is generating new energy for cycling. Bringing in new riders. Providing training wheels, if you will, for cycling wannabes who find solo bike-riding too daunting. Creating a buzz for cycling. Providing a venue to dress up one’s bike — a “pimp my ride” for cycling. Getting cycling out of its geek ghetto into someplace more appealing to the 99% of people who don’t consider themselves “cyclists.”

Given the current police response to Critical Mass in NYC, I would hardly recommend CM as an introduction to cycling to the average person. Unless that person does not mind the possibility of getting arrested and having his/her bicycle impounded, CM is not the best choice. Better perhaps, would be to sign up to an organized charity ride where the novice cyclist can gain experience riding in traffic but also have the security of SAG support in the event of a mechanical problem. Getting arrested in a CM ride would likely end most novice cyclists' riding days.



The real problem we face is not poor visibility or bad signage or insufficient skills or inadequate equipment. The problem we face is... hatred.

This conficts with the earlier statements that more cyclists equals safer cycling. If the problem is truly hatred, then putting more cyclists on the road slowing down motorists will do little more than creates more animosity. My experience has been that the biggest problem I face with motorists is inattentiveness caused by the relative rarity of cyclists on the road. Cyclists are not exxpected, so motorists don't always notice us. For this problem, an increase in numbers of cyclists would definitely be effective.

Since reading the Mayer Hillman claim that benefits of cycling outweigh the risks of cycling by such a large margin in terms of life years gained (including the actuarial loss of life from road accidents) I've always thought (and said) it’s more dangerous not to ride a bike than to ride a bike.

It's also no suprise that males get into more problems than females and it's the driver aggression that is a problem that leads to breaking safety rules.

Also no suprise that the cultural aspect of cycling vs. driving is the big problem that leads to collisions.

The more cycling is accepted by a society, the safer it is for cyclists in that society.

Even if you buy his arguement that more bicycling is good, and more bicycling is good for cyclists, he takes a giant leap from that to "let's get to work". Let's get to work on what? Increasing the popularity of bicycling? Sure... easier said than done. We need ideas, ideas that work. Komanoff has nothing to offer beyond his hand wringing. And that slam on Effective Cycling did not go unnoticed: "My point now — my hope in our time together today — is to broaden your mission; to expand it from safe cycling and effective cycling to more cycling."

Coming to Amazon soon... "More Cycling" by Charles Komanoff. An impressive treatise comprised of 599 blank pages...

Serge

Hmmmm, "Brilliant Speech". Isn't that what church members said after Jim Jones gave the reasons to move from San Francisco to Guyana?

I'm so disappointed. The web page was generated from Open Office, the Linux alternative to MS Office. And yet the HTML code was still quite awful.

Oh, you guys care about content. Ok.


Safety-in-numbers means that none of the things we talk about for individual safety — helmets, blinkies, Effective CyclingTR — will improve the safety of the individual cyclist as much as increasing the number of cyclists on our roads.

I think we'll still need helmets, blinkies and good cycling skills. After all, there will aways be people who drive, such as truck drivers and workmen.

I'm curious about his gender statisics. 75% of the drivers in New York are men? Really? And 93% of the drivers who killed a cyclist were men. Well, if that is true, is it aggression or simply poor driving skills to blame? Everybody knows women are better drivers. ;)

Anyway, more cyclists can't hurt anything. Viva la Bike Week!

Yeah I agree with most of it, overall it's a good speech so I felt like posting it here. Mnyeah.

I love your "burning calories made of cheese and wine, not oil and soldiars" thing BTW.

It's diatribes like this that make me glad I am not a member of LAB.


Taking a nice positive attitude eh...




A silly statement, obviously made to a sympathetic audience to get them to start nodding ther heads. More bicycling will not create peace in Iraq. It won't reduce unemployment. It won't solve racial strife. It will not improve education. Bicycling will certainly improve fitness related problems, but to stretch that into a panacea for the world is hardly realistic.



OK lets look at some of these issues... Lessee, why are we in IRAQ again... oh yeah... WMD... riiiiiiight. Those were never found. How about unruly dictator. OK sure, but what gave him power in the first place? Could it be the quest for oil and some friendly handshakes with a major power. Gee, if it weren't for that pesky "quest for oil" thing...

Reduce unemployement. OK, maybe you are right on that one... unless more bike shops open up, and perhaps more messengers are used...

Racial strife, no maybe not... but get out of your car and present your face to others around you and perhaps, just perhaps something as simple as a smile might invoke a more humanistic view than darkened windows cruising through a neighborhood.

Improve education. Well, exercise does help the mind, and increase productivity, so I think you lost on that one.

Speaking of exercise... how about just improving the general health of this fat fast food loving nation... Side effects of obesity are rapidly growing to be the number one health issues in this country.

Then there are other benefits that you failed to even consider... such as cleaner air, less noise, less land fills from old tires, less heaps of metals that may or may not ever be recycled. Perhaps greater sense of community.

This is not to say that cycling will reduce all ills man faces, but I bet it will do a lot more positive than motoring does... which oddly enough doesn't improve racial strife, or education or a whole host of things either... :)

I can see this theard getting ugly.

I'll watch from the front row.:D

CHEERS.

Mark

Even if you buy his arguement that more bicycling is good, and more bicycling is good for cyclists, he takes a giant leap from that to "let's get to work". Let's get to work on what? Increasing the popularity of bicycling? Sure... easier said than done. We need ideas, ideas that work. Komanoff has nothing to offer beyond his hand wringing. And that slam on Effective Cycling did not go unnoticed: "My point now — my hope in our time together today — is to broaden your mission; to expand it from safe cycling and effective cycling to more cycling."

Coming to Amazon soon... "More Cycling" by Charles Komanoff. An impressive treatise comprised of 599 blank pages...

Serge

Serge, chill out! He's not dissing effective cycling... he's arguing that encouraging it isn't the bike advocate's ONLY job, and that getting more people on the road is ALSO useful. Note his use of the word "expand" rather than the word "change". I sometimes think you lie up at night thinking up new ways to inject your EC arguments in places where they're total nonsequiters...

This is not to say that cycling will reduce all ills man faces...

So in the end you agree with me that the speakers statement was incorrect.

I'm so disappointed. The web page was generated from Open Office, the Linux alternative to MS Office. And yet the HTML code was still quite awful.

Awful? Other than some redundant and unnecessary styles, and the use of the font tag, it's really pretty reasonable. It certainly cannot come close to competing with MS Office generated HTML in terms of sheer craptacularity. I'm no OSS zealot, but come on, admit it, it wasn't that bad. :p

I'm so disappointed. The web page was generated from Open Office, the Linux alternative to MS Office. And yet the HTML code was still quite awful.

Oh, you guys care about content. Ok.

I think it's worth pointing out to everyone that Open Office is available for more than Linux (pointing this out for others, I'm sure you know this). You can get it for Linux, Windows, Macintosh, FreeBSD, and Solaris.

It's diatribes like this that make me glad I am not a member of LAB.
A silly statement, obviously made to a sympathetic audience to get them to start nodding ther heads. More bicycling will not create peace in Iraq. It won't reduce unemployment. It won't solve racial strife. It will not improve education. Bicycling will certainly improve fitness related problems, but to stretch that into a panacea for the world is hardly realistic.

Yeah, you're right, reduced dependency on petroleum and better health would suck. Stupid bicyclists. :rolleyes:

I estimate by bicycling my relatively short commute daily, I save approximately 300 gallons of gasoline per year. Imagine how much could be saved in this country if more people used bicycles for commuting.

I also haven't had to take a sick day in over three years. How many work production hours are wasted due to illness/poor health?

I can see this theard getting ugly.

I'll watch from the front row.:D

CHEERS.

Mark


yeah i can pretty much garentee it will

the people who are anti car useualy seem pretty hatefull about any opposing veiws
and the people who dont think becoming a socialist nation and forcing everyone to give up their cars seem to get caught up in the general animosity

then what basically happens is both sides of the argument will make up a bunch of statistics and generally try to prove they are right or in some cases "smarter" and it will go on for 5 pages.

basically its a bunch of people that will never meet each other going to all ends to try to prove they are right hoping to impress other people who dont really care

and apparently from reading other threads like this alot of the arguments come down to the good old" im a better person than you argument" either soeone thinks they are a better person cause they never use a motor vehicle or they think they are a better person because they are "smarter" (AKA they make up statistics and or attack typos and incorrect spelling, but only after running short of insults)


personally i feel if you use a bike for everything you do , good for you you made that choice it doesnt effect how good of a person you are but if you do it cause you like it keep it up.
if you drive a car and only ride to relax or have fun ,good for you you made that choice it doesnt effect how good of a person you are but if you do it cause you like it keep it up.

you cant only do things because you think it makes you seem like a better person to other people because in all reality my guess 90% of people could care less about being a good person then 8% of th remainder are only conserned with apearring to be a good person to "impress other people" and theres a few left who try to do good things to be a good person cause it feels good inside but those type really dont care who knows what they do.


now on the subject of this speech .
i feel that that entire website seems rather hatefull as alot of anti car stuff is, i think that guy who wrote it probably has some unresolved issues and needs to see a shrink. but im not saying more people riding bikes wouldnt be great but you cant force people to live "your life". i know people with the same affliction they call people who arent exactly like them "those people" and tend to make up groups to catagorise these individuals. people have the right to be individuals and should allwyas be judged as individuals.

but i hope after these people have their little anti car vs car war thread they can reflect on it and see the issue from both sides wether they are too stubborn to admit it or not

lifes too short to hold this agression twards anything that isnt exactly like you or your lifestyle.

He lost me when he started throwing probabilities around.

Probabilities are OK when you are trying to figure out the odds of pulling the blue ball out of a jar of red balls, but when you take into account the variances due to cyclists' skill levels and motorists' skill levels and road conditions and weather conditions and time of day probablilities become meaningless.

I believe if we want to put the "odds" in our favor, education-for everyone sharing the road-is the key.

lifes too short to hold this agression twards anything that isnt exactly like you or your lifestyle.
Your response seems to resemble this remark :rolleyes:

So in the end you agree with me that the speakers statement was incorrect.

That is right... his opening remark contained an absolute... which was probably wrong... but then your snappy come back needed work too.

What should we expect to read on a website entitled http://cars-suck.org/ ? I would rather read material on a website entitled something like, "bikes-belong.org."

(Actually, cars DO suck [air] (the engine is basically a big air pump), and with today's catalytic converters, the exhaust from a hydrogen- or methane-powered vehicle may actually be cleaner than the local ambient urban atmosphere.)

Charles Komanoff has probably done more real bike advocacy in the real world than all of y'all blowing hot air and spreading negative vibes about his presentation and his web site on this thread. So lighten up, y'all!

BTW, Mr. Komanoff's is a cofounder of Transportation Alternatives in NYC and his current organization is called Right of Way, not Cars Suck, and the web address 'bikes belong' already belongs to someone else...

http://www.rightofway.org/
http://bikesbelong.org/site/index.cfm

Charles Komanoff has probably done more real bike advocacy ...

Please define "real bike advocacy".

Yeah, you're right, reduced dependency on petroleum and better health would suck. Stupid bicyclists. :rolleyes:

I said nothing of the sort and if you reread my words you quoted, you will realize it.

Charles Komanoff has probably done more real bike advocacy in the real world than all of y'all blowing hot air and spreading negative vibes about his presentation and his web site on this thread. So lighten up, y'all!

BTW, Mr. Komanoff's is a cofounder of Transportation Alternatives in NYC and his current organization is called Right of Way, not Cars Suck, and the web address 'bikes belong' already belongs to someone else...

http://www.rightofway.org/
http://bikesbelong.org/site/index.cfm

Believe it or not, it is possible to be a bicycle advocate while disagreeing with poor speeches by other bicycle advocates. I for one think that it is not helpful to cyclists when prominent 'real advocates' make rediculous statements about how all the worlds problems can be remedied by bicycling (like in paradise China?), recommend that novice cyclists ride in NYC Critical Mass (and get arrested?), and claim that male agression is the root of cycling safety problems (sexist, even if he is male).

Please define "real bike advocacy".
Not someone who spends all their time squabbling with other cyclists on the internet about the "only" proper way to ride a bike.

Are you guys bike advocates? To me, that means advocating the sale of bikes.

I'm a bicycling advocate.

Are you guys bike advocates? To me, that means advocating the sale of bikes.

I'm a bicycling advocate.
:rolleyes:

I can see this theard getting ugly.

I'll watch from the front row.:D

CHEERS.

Mark

I hope you're wearing your helmet, Dutchy. Bodies could start flying into the front row any minute now.

im a bicycle commuter but im an advocate in the sense that i belive everyone has a right to cycle in traffic, but im not anti car in any sense

Are you guys bike advocates? To me, that means advocating the sale of bikes.

I'm a bicycling advocate.

no, that means you're an advocate for the bicycling business, like a lobbyist. what about recycling used bikes so that more people, low income people can get to work or every kid can have abike. or redusing the number of ars on the road so that we have a livable environment. bicycling more to curb obesity. just being for business makes you soudn like a yuppie. and ab ig f you to supcom and spine of hortus. is this car hater angry enough for ya

forgot to say i liked the speech

I'm an advocate for bicyclists. Inclusive. :)

I said nothing of the sort and if you reread my words you quoted, you will realize it.

Yes, you're correct. My response was a knee-jerk reaction based on the pessimistic tone emanating from your initial post. My apologies.

I am one of those wackos who believes if more people used bicycles for transportation and fitness the world would be a better place.

no, that means you're an advocate for the bicycling business, like a lobbyist. what about recycling used bikes so that more people, low income people can get to work or every kid can have abike. or redusing the number of ars on the road so that we have a livable environment. bicycling more to curb obesity. just being for business makes you soudn like a yuppie. and ab ig f you to supcom and spine of hortus. is this car hater angry enough for ya

I guess the speaker was correct after all. The problem really is hatred.

I am one of those wackos who believes if more people used bicycles for transportation and fitness the world would be a better place.

I agree with you there.

I am one of those wackos who believes if more people used bicycles for transportation and fitness the world would be a better place.

I agree with you there.



Well I agree with that too... and I think that really was the tone of the original speech... even though it was a bit hyperbolistic in the opening sentences... I really think the author was just trying to get the point across that no matter how or why you do it, cycling is generally a good thing and darn it... get the word out.

keep that sentence exactly like that and dont change a word and ill agreeif more people used bikes for transportation the world would be a better place if motor vehicles were limited to work purposes like hauling and such (nobody is gonna pull 6 tons of bricks on their bike so you cant cut out cars all together) but instead require special licenses for each type of motor vehicle to make sure people who did drive were specialised in that type of vehicle

unfortunatly that will probably never happen because you cant just force something like that on people . it has to be their choice.

Yup. We're all in this together, or we're all in this alone.

"Think of bicycles as rideable art that can just about save the world". ~Grant Petersen, owner, Rivendell Bicycle Works

:)

Non-rideable bicycle art:

http://steveadamsomaha.tripod.com/LinBicycles/Home.html

:)

personally i feel if you use a bike for everything you do , good for you you made that choice it doesnt effect how good of a person you are but if you do it cause you like it keep it up.
if you drive a car and only ride to relax or have fun ,good for you you made that choice it doesnt effect how good of a person you are but if you do it cause you like it keep it up.


The choices you make in your life concerning the amount of unrenewable resources you consume, the risk you put others in, and the affect you have on the health of the comminity don't have a bearing on what kind of person you are? I don't think people that drive cars are all bad. Many are ignorant of alternatives, and those that drive unnecessarily or dangerously (all unnecessary driving is inheritly dangerous) are doing something bad. People that sacrifice comfort and convenience to forgo such a wasteful form of transportaion are doing something good. Good and bad exist, and the choices we make determine what kind of person we are.

if more people used bikes for transportation the world would be a better place if motor vehicles were limited to work purposes like hauling and such (nobody is gonna pull 6 tons of bricks on their bike so you cant cut out cars all together) but instead require special licenses for each type of motor vehicle to make sure people who did drive were specialised in that type of vehicle

unfortunatly that will probably never happen because you cant just force something like that on people . it has to be their choice.

You probably think that it's acceptable for some people to eat meat too. :rolleyes:


;)

The choices you make in your life concerning the amount of unrenewable resources you consume, the risk you put others in, and the affect you have on the health of the comminity don't have a bearing on what kind of person you are? I don't think people that drive cars are all bad. Many are ignorant of alternatives, and those that drive unnecessarily or dangerously (all unnecessary driving is inheritly dangerous) are doing something bad. People that sacrifice comfort and convenience to forgo such a wasteful form of transportaion are doing something good. Good and bad exist, and the choices we make determine what kind of person we are.I think you're right and I think you understood the speech better than most other posters. To the extent that we have choices, our choices are always an expression of our moral values. However, one is not free to choose unless one is aware that choices exist. Most Americans are not yet aware that alternatives to the automobile exist, so they are not free to choose bicycles. Bicycle advocacy should be first and foremost about informing people that cycling is a viable alternative. In other words, like the speech said, we need to be attracting more people to cycling. If you don't like CM, get involved in Bike to Work Week, or the League, or person-to-person persuasion. Compared to persuading others to cycle, all the other arguments--bike lanes, helmets, recovery drinks and chain lubes--are fun but secondary. If we succeed at spreading the word, we will probably be able to solve our other differences (or just live happily with them). Finally, as the speech suggested, people who begin by making intelligent choices about transportation will soon be making choices about oil wars, healthy lifestyles, waste, pollution, and many other problems that plague us now. I don't think that cycling is the end of our problems, but for many of us it is the beginning of a problem solving approach.

There is a significant portion of the population, perhaps as high as 90%, or even higher, that simply is not willing to sweat in order to simply get from A to B.

What about them?

There is a significant portion of the population, perhaps as high as 90%, or even higher, that simply is not willing to sweat in order to simply get from A to B.

What about them?

They'll be forced to, eventually, once the oil hits peak production (I reckon within 10 years), then things go all haywire and kooky. And the US, with virtually its entire economy based on the automobile, will be forced to wake up to reality (I know, many other countries will be pretty screwed as well). Oh they'll be sweating all right, sweating good and proper.

In the meantime, let them wallow in their ignorance while ruining the planet for everybody else. You can't change the world, so just start preparing for the looming chaos and enjoy the ride while you can.

Sure, I sound like some ranting raving hippie doomsayer lunatic now. Just wait...

They'll be forced to, eventually, once the oil hits peak production (I reckon within 10 years), ...
Thanks for the tip. I guess I'll buy a bunch of oil futures and be a billionaire within 10 years, eh?

What about all the idiots selling oil at $50/barrel today, when, if you're right, they should be able to get 10 or 100x that in just a few years? Yeah, the oil execs are so dumb. They have no idea how little oil is out there, what the reserves are, what the ramifications are, or how to make real money. :rolleyes:

Thanks for the tip. I guess I'll buy a bunch of oil futures and be a billionaire within 10 years, eh?

What about all the idiots selling oil at $50/barrel today, when, if you're right, they should be able to get 10 or 100x that in just a few years? Yeah, the oil execs are so dumb. They have no idea how little oil is out there, what the reserves are, what the ramifications are, or how to make real money. :rolleyes:

Right, just like the execs just a few years ago that were only selling for $20 a barrel...

Sorry, but "long term view" has never been a great American corporate virtue. Some have it, but most are just after what they can get right now.

ROLLING EVEN BIGGER EYES.

Thanks for the tip. I guess I'll buy a bunch of oil futures and be a billionaire within 10 years, eh?

What about all the idiots selling oil at $50/barrel today, when, if you're right, they should be able to get 10 or 100x that in just a few years? Yeah, the oil execs are so dumb. They have no idea how little oil is out there, what the reserves are, what the ramifications are, or how to make real money. :rolleyes:

It's not the idiots selling the oil, it's the idiots buying the oil.

Any further ranting on my part would only serve to amuse me and annoy you. Hell, even that unqualified assumption of mine has probably ticked you off. Or maybe that one.

Anyway, the world is going to hell in a handbasket, and you're welcome to disagree with me. (I am right, though. You know it to be true :p) Hey cowboy, you enjoy yourself. I know I am.

I don't think people that drive cars are all bad. Many are ignorant of alternatives, and those that drive unnecessarily or dangerously (all unnecessary driving is inheritly dangerous) are doing something bad. People that sacrifice comfort and convenience to forgo such a wasteful form of transportaion are doing something good. Good and bad exist, and the choices we make determine what kind of person we are.

Thats an interesting statement. I thought most of you socialist tree-huggin save the planet types were also part of the "there is no truth" crowd. The people who say there is no right or wrong--only shades of gray and nuance; we can never truly "know" something. These are the same people who disdain (and rightfully so) being told how to live their personal lives, but then contend its "immoral" to make money. I love how people pick and choose their principles to suit whatever issue for which they are advocating.

Despite my disagreement with most of the people here on this issue, I dotn think you all are "bad" people. I inderstand your viewpoint but simply disagree with it. What i dont understand is how all you "tolerant" lefties can have such a vehement hatred for people who actually ride their bikes, try and be responsible, but yet dont agree with you rhetoric and agenda. Isnt the important thing to get more people out riding.
Its rhetoric like that post that the majority of people consider to be radical. Whether that view is right or wrong, people nonethless hold it and get turned off to cycling. After reading that you wonder why most peopel think people who commute are crazy radicals. All i'm saying, is that you would bring more people over to your side if you dropped the rage against the machine rhetoric.