Advocacy & Safety - Advocacy priorities

I want help coming up with 10 candidates for what cycling advocacy should be advocating, and then have a poll on those 10.

So let's brainstorm here. We can only have 10 items. What do you think those should be? These seem obvious choices to me:

- protecting the rights of cyclists to the roads
- cyclist-friendly road conditions (pot holes fixed, lights reacting to cyclists, etc.)
- Convenient/reasonable access to all reasonable destinations (e.g., getting to Oakland from San Francisco across the SF Bay qualifies, but getting to the top of Half Dome does not).

That's off the top of my head and only meant to get the brainstorming going. What else?

Once we have a consensus on what 10 good candidates are, I'll set up a poll where everyone can vote on their top 3 (if you have a differing opinion on how many each person should be able to vote on -- 1? 2? 5? 10? -- we should hash that out now too).

Any debate in this thread should be minimal, if any. It's just about putting together a list for all of us to vote on. Thanks.

Edit: Please make your suggestions before the end of Thursday 12/08, preferably sooner. I will issue the poll based on the outcome of this thread on Friday 12/09. In the mean time, I will post updates to the list that incorporate the latest suggestions from time to time.

Edit: deadline extended I don't have the inclination to consolidate the results of this thread yet, so let's give it a few more days. Say Tuesday, 12/13.

- spread the word: make cycling more popular + work towards a more cyclist-friendly community
- improving cycling laws

- bicycle safety education

More secure bike parking, like lockers.

- spread the word: make cycling more popular + work towards a more cyclist-friendly community
- improving cycling laws
Would you agree the second one, improving cycling laws, is covered under "protecting cyclist rights"? Would this statement cover it...

Protecting cyclist rights to travel on the roadway as vehicle drivers.

Or are you thinking of something else?

I agree making cycling more popular is a good candidate.

Cyclist-friendly is a controversial term (what's "cyclist-friendly" to one may not be to another). Do you want to expand on this a bit? Or are you okay with using LAB's use of the term (meaning PnP... paint and paths).

Protecting cyclist rights to travel on the roadway as vehicle drivers.


No, it should just be, 'protecting cyclists rights to travel on the roadway.'

It should also include raising public awareness of bicyclists as transportation,

and it should endorse more well designed bicycle facilities.


my vote for a slogan we could ALL rally around

"Bikes- First on the Road"

- Criticize bad cyclists, the ones you see on the road and think: "no wonder drivers don't like cyclists!".

If it's going to be a fair poll, surely it would have to include bike facilities.

The proposed ROUGH DRAFT list so far:


protecting the rights of cyclists to travel on the roads.
protecting cyclist rights to travel on the roadway as vehicle drivers.
cyclist-friendly road conditions (pot holes fixed, lights reacting to cyclists, etc.)
Convenient/reasonable access to all reasonable destinations (e.g., getting to Oakland from San Francisco across the SF Bay qualifies, but getting to the top of Half Dome does not).
Promote cycling as an activity.
Road cycling safety education.
Secure bike parking, like lockers.
Promoting creation and/or improvement of segregated facilities, including bike lanes.
Promoting creation and/or improvement of segregated facilities, not including bike lanes.
Admonish non-vehicular cyclist behavior on roadways.


We also have "improve cycling laws", which I think is too vague.

That's 10 already, but there's room for many others to make suggestions about additions, deletions and changes to this list. There's no hurry, so I'll just pick Thursday 12/8 as the deadline, and I'll create the poll on Friday 12/9.

I think the term "bike facilities" can include a lot of things. As a poster from Uppsala said in the Portland thread, in Uppsala bike facilities include parking, bikeways, etc. Choosing between "bike parking" and "bikeways" is unnecessarily creating a false choice between two elements of "bike facilities."

If it's going to be a fair poll...
Tee Hee. Fair poll? What do you think such polls represent besides entertainment value? Especially as conducted by this specific pollster/cross examiner.

Promote cycling as basic transportation for people and their cargo, especially in urban areas. Would include commuting (bike-to-work) and integrating bikes with mass transit.

Good point on facilities. The intent in 8.9 above is to mean facilities used for cycle travel (as opposed to parking, special signals, etc.). I'll either say "travel facilities", or include a small glossary of terms in the OP of the poll.

ILTB - why does it matter who posts it? Doesn't the content of the poll determine its fairness, rather than who posts it?

Cyclist-friendly is a controversial term (what's "cyclist-friendly" to one may not be to another). Do you want to expand on this a bit? Or are you okay with using LAB's use of the term (meaning PnP... paint and paths).

PnP is not what I meant. I guess I shouldn't have used cyclist-friendly. What I meant was making people more aware of cyclists... people as in drivers, primarily. Educate drivers on the rights of cyclists and teach them to expect cyclists to be on the road. I think it falls under Protecting cyclist rights to travel on the roads.

I think you have a big omission in your draft. How about ENFORCEMENT OF CURRENT TRAFFIC LAWS? How many cyclists would see an immediate safety benefit from stricter enforcement of speed limits, for example?

I'll add it to the list, but when choosing the top 3 I think each of us should consider what impact bicycle advocates could actually have on actually bringing about significant progress in the given area.

That is, even if we bicycling advocates spent 100% of our time and resources lobbying for stricter enforcement of current traffic laws, would anything significantly change? Is it reasonable to expect that we could encourage enough increase in enforcument to actually impact motorist behavior? If not, then why spend any time and resources on it? I don't mean to divert this thread to discuss this particular topic; it's just some questions to consider.

I think you have a big omission in your draft. How about ENFORCEMENT OF CURRENT TRAFFIC LAWS? How many cyclists would see an immediate safety benefit from stricter enforcement of speed limits, for example?

I agree, but it shouldn't be one sided, the enforcment should include unlawful cyclists. Bicycle cops, etc.

I can see it's going to be tough to do this with only 10 options available in a BF poll.

Please keep in mind how we might be able to consolidate to keep it to 10. One thought is to have several polls, and then a final run-off poll. Or something like that.

I agree, but it shouldn't be one sided, the enforcment should include unlawful cyclists. Bicycle cops, etc.

No doubt. :)

I can see it's going to be tough to do this with only 10 options available in a BF poll.

Please keep in mind how we might be able to consolidate to keep it to 10. One thought is to have several polls, and then a final run-off poll. Or something like that.

So up the options. Why limit to 10? It's an arbitrary number and if there are more than 10 issues, it's going to make you choose between the "10th and 11th or 10th out of 20" choices people lay down, which limits the polling pool.

10 is the limit imposed by the software running this joint, not by me!

10 is the limit imposed by the software running this joint, not by me!

Ahh...bummer.

The proposed ROUGH DRAFT list so far:


protecting the rights of cyclists to travel on the roads.
protecting cyclist rights to travel on the roadway as vehicle drivers.
cyclist-friendly road conditions (pot holes fixed, lights reacting to cyclists, etc.)
Convenient/reasonable access to all reasonable destinations (e.g., getting to Oakland from San Francisco across the SF Bay qualifies, but getting to the top of Half Dome does not).
Promote cycling as an activity.
Road cycling safety education.
Secure bike parking, like lockers.
Promoting creation and/or improvement of segregated facilities, including bike lanes.
Promoting creation and/or improvement of segregated facilities, not including bike lanes.
Admonish non-vehicular cyclist behavior on roadways.


You could free up some space for more options by elminating number 2 (because number 1 covers it without clouding the issue with a loaded term) and eliminating number 10. You could replace "enforce all traffic laws for everyone" for number 10.

I'd change "promote cycling as an activity" to simply "promote cycling". Who cares whether you promote it as an activity or as a means for transportation or as a means for better health so long as you promote it!

I'd also remove your loaded terms "segregated facilities". If you include all the loaded, VC baggage terms as usual this will just be another one of your typical threads.

Oh, what am I saying? Of course it'll be just another one of your typical threads. Go ahead. Leave all that loaded terminology in there.

I don't mean to divert this thread to discuss this particular topic; it's just some questions to consider.
Of course, you DO mean to divert this thread/poll to meet your desire to proselytize your version of VC advocacy at every opportunity, just like every other thread and poll that you initiate or try to usurp.

And THAT is why YOUR polls are less than worthless, since only those willing to debate their answers with you will respond since you refuse to accept any answer that doesn't meet your agenda.

I'd change "promote cycling as an activity" to simply "promote cycling". Who cares whether you promote it as an activity or as a means for transportation or as a means for better health so long as you promote it!

This is the one thing I sort of disagree with in an otherwise measured and good post. I agree that just "promote cycling" is great, but I think something has to be changed about the cyclist image (in the US) regarding activity.

I feel that the media and the words-of-mouth generally devote no ink or breath whatsoever to cycling as a legitimate transportation or utility device, and its image in the zeitgeist is fixated around fashion and Lance, etcetera. It gets seen as a playtoy for fitness geeks in fluorescent lycra, or as the camel of the homeless and poor (very unfashionable in these ultraconsumerist times), or as a child's item, and I think that's partly why people have the ignorant "get off the road and take it on the park bike path" attitude and education about bikes.

If using cars less to do common things is possible to promote and enter into public consciousness, I'm all for it, including travel, shopping, and touring. Friends of mine were astounded that I rode 60 miles down to San Fran to visit a couple I know this summer, like it was a MASSIVE distance and I was crazy for doing it or something. It was an unbelievably easy and fun ride.

You could free up some space for more options by elminating number 2 (because number 1 covers it without clouding the issue with a loaded term)
I originally thought the same thing, but there is a subtle difference between 1 and 2. If we have advocacy for number 1 and not number 2, it might mean that we could be obligated to ride in the gutter in a narrow lane, get off the road when faster traffic approaches, do left turns as pedestrians, etc.



I'd also remove your loaded terms "segregated facilities". If you include all the loaded, VC baggage terms as usual this will just be another one of your typical threads.
I think "segregated" is an accurate term, but "separated" might get the same message across.

But in any event, I see a more pragmatic reason to remove "segregated" (or separated): not all facilities meet this criteria. Bike paths are clearly segregated. Sharrows are clearly not segregated. Bike lanes can be argued either way.

I feel that the media and the words-of-mouth generally devote no ink or breath whatsoever to cycling as a legitimate transportation or utility device, and its image in the zeitgeist is fixated around fashion and Lance, etcetera. It gets seen as a playtoy for fitness geeks in fluorescent lycra, or as the camel of the homeless and poor (very unfashionable in these ultraconsumerist times), or as a child's item, and I think that's partly why people have the ignorant "get off the road and take it on the park bike path" attitude and education about bikes.

+1 .... or for Alekhine, should I say 1 ... N-KB3. ;)

+1 .... or for Alekhine, should I say 1 ... N-KB3. ;)

:)

Gimme back my defense, you thief!

This is the one thing I sort of disagree with in an otherwise measured and good post. I agree that just "promote cycling" is great, but I think something has to be changed about the cyclist image (in the US) regarding activity.

I feel that the media and the words-of-mouth generally devote no ink or breath whatsoever to cycling as a legitimate transportation or utility device, and its image in the zeitgeist is fixated around fashion and Lance, etcetera. It gets seen as a playtoy for fitness geeks in fluorescent lycra, or as the camel of the homeless and poor (very unfashionable in these ultraconsumerist times), or as a child's item, and I think that's partly why people have the ignorant "get off the road and take it on the park bike path" attitude and education about bikes.

If using cars less to do common things is possible to promote and enter into public consciousness, I'm all for it, including travel, shopping, and touring. Friends of mine were astounded that I rode 60 miles down to San Fran to visit a couple I know this summer, like it was a MASSIVE distance and I was crazy for doing it or something. It was an unbelievably easy and fun ride.

I don't disagree with this at all. All I meant to say was that as an option in his poll, let's not qualify with words such as "as an activity" or whatever. Let's lump it all together: as an activity, as health and fitness, as traffic reduction, as environmentally helpful, as what cool people do or whatever. So that there is room for more items in our 10-only list.

In my area it's promoted mostly as an anti-traffic congestion/environmentally friendly option.

I think "segregated" is an accurate term, but "separated" might get the same message across...
A term such as "separate facilities" would get the point across without the negative connotations.

Diane is quite right. "Segregated facilities" is a loaded term which cannot be used if the poll is to be unbiased.

I don't want to research this again (been there, done that), so I'll quote from a post I made back in the early part of June in the thread:
Vehicular Cycling Poll, who does it? (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=110081)

From post 103 of that thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=1225909#post1225909):


We can debate the difference between your dictionary definitions and what the dictionaries I've consulted say, and we can nit-pick about whether cyclists are a class or group, or whether bicycles are simply narrow vechicles with less power than other vehicles but, the bottom line is, "segregated" and "separated" are synonyms that mean essentially the same thing. To claim that "segregated" is somehow technically more correct than "separated" in reference to bike lanes is a bit disingenuous. Either term is technically correct.

The main difference between "segregated" and "separated", according to the dictionaries I consulted, is the association of the term "segregated" with racial segregation. The term "segregated" is used by bike lane opponents precisely because it is an emotionally-charged word with negative connotations. No one is likely to admit they favor a segregated facility...

If HH is creating a poll for propaganda purposes then, by all means, he should use the pejorative term "segregated facilities". While he's at it, maybe he can work in the terms "bicycle ghettos" and "opiate of the masses".

A term such as "separate facilities" would get the point across without the negative connotations.

Diane is quite right. "Segregated facilities" is a loaded term which cannot be used if the poll is to be unbiased.
Thanks for the info and thread link. I do think "segregated" is more appropriate than "separated", but I would only say "segregrated" if I were talking to someone in person and knew for sure that they didn't take it negatively, as in a racial context. Therefore, I agree that this poll should say "separate facilities" instead of "segregated facilities".

I too see redundancy in Nos 1 and 2.

This is the one thing I sort of disagree with in an otherwise measured and good post. I agree that just "promote cycling" is great, but I think something has to be changed about the cyclist image (in the US) regarding activity.

I feel that the media and the words-of-mouth generally devote no ink or breath whatsoever to cycling as a legitimate transportation or utility device, and its image in the zeitgeist is fixated around fashion and Lance, etcetera. It gets seen as a playtoy for fitness geeks in fluorescent lycra, or as the camel of the homeless and poor (very unfashionable in these ultraconsumerist times), or as a child's item, and I think that's partly why people have the ignorant "get off the road and take it on the park bike path" attitude and education about bikes.

If using cars less to do common things is possible to promote and enter into public consciousness, I'm all for it, including travel, shopping, and touring. Friends of mine were astounded that I rode 60 miles down to San Fran to visit a couple I know this summer, like it was a MASSIVE distance and I was crazy for doing it or something. It was an unbelievably easy and fun ride.
Thanks, Alekhine. This is what I was getting at in post # 12 too. I feel a little miffed that the OP hasn't responded to this issue of "promoting cycling as basic transportation for people and their cargo." Two of our subforums here deal with this issue (commuting and living carfree), and Bike-to-Work has been one of the most successful promotional campaigns of recent years.

What's wrong HH? Is this topic not controversial enough? Not esoteric enough?

How about just 'lobby for greater bicycle facilities' and leave it to the indivdual transporegions to determine their best blend of water fountains and dual door policies, i mean bike lanes, sharrows, wols, mups, electric mobility cooridors? (I think 'segregationism' is a frivolous wrench in the cogs of advocacy)


I also take issue at 'promoting bicycling as an activity' it should be: promote bicycling. On most of my trips I combine fitness, utility, transportation and recreation, all on the same ride, so where does my style of riding fit? is it recreational activity, or transportation? Do just part of my motivations for bicycling get lobbied for?

How about just 'lobby for greater bicycle facilities' and leave it to the indivdual transporegions to determine their best blend of water fountains and dual door policies, i mean bike lanes, sharrows, wols, mups, electric mobility cooridors? (I think 'segregationism' is a frivolous wrench in the cogs of advocacy)
I' won't use the 'S' word in the poll, and will try to remember not to use it in the future, though I can't think of a satisfactory substitute.



I also take issue at 'promoting bicycling as an activity' it should be: promote bicycling. On most of my trips I combine fitness, utility, transportation and recreation, all on the same ride, so where does my style of riding fit? is it recreational activity, or transportation? Do just part of my motivations for bicycling get lobbied for?
Whether bicycling for fitness, utility, transportation or recreation, it's an activity, is it not? I don't understand the objection.

The as an activity part was meant to differentiate the activity of bicycling from the bicycling business (selling bikes, bike parts, and related services). Advocacy is about promoting the activity, not the business. I thought that was worth clarifying, because sometimes it seems to get muddled. Is cycling for fitness not an activity? Cycling for utility? Transportation? Recreation? Again, I don't understand how you interpreted as an activity in order to find it objectionable.

I want help coming up with 10 candidates for what cycling advocacy should be advocating, and then have a poll on those 10.

So let's brainstorm here. We can only have 10 items. What do you think those should be? These seem obvious choices to me:

- protecting the rights of cyclists to the roads
- cyclist-friendly road conditions (pot holes fixed, lights reacting to cyclists, etc.)
- Convenient/reasonable access to all reasonable destinations (e.g., getting to Oakland from San Francisco across the SF Bay qualifies, but getting to the top of Half Dome does not).

That's off the top of my head and only meant to get the brainstorming going. What else?

Once we have a consensus on what 10 good candidates are, I'll set up a poll where everyone can vote on their top 3 (if you have a differing opinion on how many each person should be able to vote on -- 1? 2? 5? 10? -- we should hash that out now too).

Any debate in this thread should be minimal, if any. It's just about putting together a list for all of us to vote on. Thanks.

Edit: Please make your suggestions before the end of Thursday 12/08, preferably sooner. I will issue the poll based on the outcome of this thread on Friday 12/09. In the mean time, I will post updates to the list that incorporate the latest suggestions from time to time.


May I suggest you start with overall OBJECTIVES first.... this has already devolved into a discussion of tactics and specific issues... if you can't agree on objectives you won't be able to develop the strategies and tactics needed to achive your ends....

I think you have a big omission in your draft. How about ENFORCEMENT OF CURRENT TRAFFIC LAWS? How many cyclists would see an immediate safety benefit from stricter enforcement of speed limits, for example?
I have always said this (but my wife never seemed to care what I was talking about. :) )

Things like bicycle lockers, trails, lanes, right of way, etc falls under the Bicycle Facilities catagory. This covers everything that both the public & private sector should & could provide cyclists with. Because you are limiting this to only 10 I advse have Bicycle Facilities as one of them. Then maybe give a break down on what it covers in the body of the thread.

May I suggest you start with overall OBJECTIVES first.... this has already devolved into a discussion of tactics and specific issues... if you can't agree on objectives you won't be able to develop the strategies and tactics needed to achive your ends....
The purpose of this thread is to identify candidate OBJECTIVES of cycling advocacy, for the purpose of then voting on them to identify the top ones.

[...] 'segregationism' is a [...] wrench in the cogs of advocacyFortunately, we can remove that wrench by not advocating for the separation of people on a basis other than their own individual merit or performance (such as class, group or category). In the USA, people who have been so segregated are, by reason of the segregation, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/29.html#2)

The purpose of this thread is to identify candidate OBJECTIVES of cycling advocacy, for the purpose of then voting on them to identify the top ones.

give everyone a little time, HH, and this board will have 4 or 5 objectives OF bicycling advocacy, there won't be anything to vote on!


1)promote bicycling.
2)promote safe and fair acccomodation of bicycles as transportation. (this includes both roadway conditions/repair AND reasonable access)
3)defend rights of cyclists to travel on roadways.
4)lobby for greater bicycle facilities.
5)enforcement of traffic laws.

Did I miss anything?

I have to go back and reread the thread.

Did I miss anything?End discrimination between people traveling the public's roads on a basis other than their own individual merit or performance.

Things like bicycle lockers, trails, lanes, right of way, etc falls under the Bicycle Facilities catagory.
It is true that these are all facilities, but most people would associate the term "bicycle facilities" with trails and lanes. Perhaps we could call racks, lockers, and showers "end of trip facilities" to make it more clear?

What the heck are you talking about, Bruce Rosar?

No more bicyclist 'profiling' by the philadelphia PD?

End discrimination between people traveling the public's roads on a basis other than their own individual merit or performance.
Makes sense to me.

Sometimes this statement is used against "separate but equal" facilities for cyclists, but I don't see why cyclists can't maintain full legal status on our roads while also enjoying properly designed and maintained bicycle-specific facilities. Let's have our cake and eat it, too.

As long as bicycle facilites are not used as an excuse to take away cyclists' rights on all roads, as long as we can have both, why not? A bike lane is fine, but if it's got trash in it, I want the right to leave it and not be hassled by motorists.

In fact, I want to be treated the same on my bike as I am in my car, as long as I respect other road users as well. That means I can pick any lane, even if there is a good clean bike lane, as long as I'm not unduly obstructing faster vehicles, and for any reason that meets my needs.

What the heck are you talking about, Bruce Rosar?

No more bicyclist 'profiling' by the philadelphia PD?

:D

In his first post, Mr. Rosar was merely confirming the pejorative nature of the word "segregated" and its close association with racial discrimination. Mr. Rosar provides a link to a Fourteenth Amendment case which involves (you guessed it) race, not bicycles or bicyclists. Sadly, Mr. Rosar probably actually believes that separate facilities for bicycles are the same as or analogous to racial discrimination. In any case, we know exactly why the loaded term "segregated" is used so often by opponents of bicycle facilities.

Mr. Rosar's second post is more cryptic but I suspect that it is somehow related to the first.

----
On a slightly different topic:

Laws which discriminate against bicyclists include those which can be selectively enforced to harass bicyclists (what I call nuisance laws, some of which are well-intentioned but are generally bad for bicyclists):
mandatory helmet laws
mandatory license or registration laws
mandatory bike lane, sidewalk or MUP laws
laws which prohibit riding a bicycle on the sidewalk

I would put creating a contact point as high on the list. In the end everything else comes down to execution. Fixing dangerous conditions on raods or paths, be they potholes, design or drivers starts with identifying the problem. With the first two it means identifying the SPECIFIC problem. Cyclists are the best source to identify specific problems as it relates ot cyclists. I would say about 50% of the things we hope for still depend of local input by cyclists, without which the local community will not know what needs to get done.

End discrimination between people traveling the public's roads on a basis other than their own individual merit or performance.

This would be justification for keeping bicycles out of the regular lanes of travel on roads where bicyclist's average speed is less than that of cars.

I would put creating a contact point as high on the list. In the end everything else comes down to execution. Fixing dangerous conditions on raods or paths, be they potholes, design or drivers starts with identifying the problem. With the first two it means identifying the SPECIFIC problem. Cyclists are the best source to identify specific problems as it relates ot cyclists. I would say about 50% of the things we hope for still depend of local input by cyclists, without which the local community will not know what needs to get done.
This is good, but reminds me of something else. We should advocate for roadway design standards that take bikes into account by default. Generally the current situation is that traffic engineers take bikes into account only when they want to. An example would be a loop detector that doesn't change a red light to a green light for bikes. Rather that call the city each and every time to adjust a loop detector that won't change a light for me, it would be much easier for the design standards to require traffic engineers to specify detectors that work for bikes when the road is built or resurfaced.

Great push for a discussion. Unfortunately this is unappealing, even to the other sub-forums which represent an infinitesimal small # of people. Please don't take this personal but your preaching to the advisory committee- to the choir: in a tiny town.
The ideas/themes are the same ones sans internet discussed 20 years ago.
There is no consensus among bicycle advocates because there is no understanding/comprehension, of bikes as transportation to the average person.
Popular culture and political leverage are far more effective than bland counterintuitive (to most people) broad policy strokes that resemble coddling to a Nascar themed household.
This list has the appeal of "the new Food Pyramid of healthy eating" (U.S.) or the Fire Marshall's annual message about watering xmas trees.
Lets be creative pedalers:
1. A major character in a top rated show gets milk from the store on a bike! Desperate hosewives (housewives) pedal from intrigue.....
2. The guy from Titanic (environmental activist, I think) goes cross-country on a reality series. "You, Amish, I'm famous!?"
3. The barriers to entry, much like a web page, become orders of magnitude more divergent: bikes cost under $100, cars cost 90K including fees. Buy a house in a subdivision, pay for the road, school, utilities, maintenance, security, or a free bike trail.