Advocacy & Safety - League of American Bicyclists - Fraud?

On October 20th I joined the League of American Bicyclists at the Advocate level. I pretty much joined to get the the cool water bottle that comes with Advocate level or higher membership.

Since then, I've sent at least two e-mails to bikeleague@bikeleague.org inquiring about the water bottle I have not yet received, and I've been completely ignored.

Has anyone else joined at that level? Has anyone else actually received the promised water bottle? Or is this all a sham to get people to join?

Hardly seems worth the bother as a scam. Water bottles are cheap at the wholesale end of things. It costs more to mail them than the bottle costs.

I'm new to the "cycling community" myself, and I was thinking of joining LAB -- but then I ran across these guys: http://www.labreform.org/

If they're right, LAB has money troubles and management issues. Could be your water bottle got lost in all the chaos that supposedly swirls around them these days.

I would really like to know more about LAB and the LAB/LAB Reform split controversy, if anyone has opinions -- or even better, factual information.

Interesting link to the LAB reform site, never looked at a criticism of the LAB....

I had dinner last night with a friend of mine who runs a youth group for the Salvation Army, and he compared the salaries of the UnitedWay chair (m/l $350,000 a year) and other 'charitable' CEO compensation to the Salvation Army's chief officer's compensation ($13,000 annually)

If their heart was in it, the LAB's CEO would be acting gratis or at a much lower salary until their deficit spending was corrected...

I don't have any specifics about the LAB, but it should be for the wheelmen first and the lobbying/executive compensation second.

Interesting link to the LAB reform site, never looked at a criticism of the LAB...

I agree. I wish I'd seen that site before I dropped my $50.

This thread saved me a few bucks.

I don't understand all the issues yet. I understand some people belong to both LAB and LAB/reform?

I don't understand all the issues yet. I understand some people belong to both LAB and LAB/reform?
You understand correctly. Lab-Reform consists for the most part of a couple of dozen (AFAIK) disgruntled LAB members, some of them life members, some of whom were formerly officials of the organization. One was the former president of the organization, John Forester. All are on the outs with the current organization. Some are ardent disciples of Forester brand advocacy such as Bruce Rosar. All seem intent in emphasizing the promotion of Vehicular Cycling™ training as the top priority for LAB. If you agree that the promotion of the interests of club cyclists, and selling Forester brand Vehicular Cycling™ educational programs are the chief priorities for a national cycling organization, Lab-Reform is for you.

So, ILTB -- are you pro-LAB? Are you a member?

I like the League's history, and I'm basically in favor of their stated core goals (http://www.bikeleague.org/about/index.html):
"Changing the look of America, town by town, city by city by encouraging communities to provide better facilities for cyclists and publicly rewarding them for doing so."

This sounds pretty good, but how do you answer the criticism that they reward any facilities ("facilities" means bike lanes 95% of the time, doesn't it?), regardless of whether the facilities are well- or poorly-designed?


"Providing materials and training courses to help people feel more secure about getting on their bikes."

The phrase "to help people feel more secure" is troubling. Shouldn't this be "to help people bicycle more safely"? You know, actually safe, instead of just seemingly? But maybe that's just semantics. The courses described on the Bike Ed Course Descriptions page (http://www.bikeleague.org/educenter/courses.htm) look a lot like VC to me.


"Leadership at the national, state and local levels."

This is what cycling needs, and the most attractive thing these guys bring to the table. Is their leadership effective?


"National sponsorship of Bike Month and Bike to Work Day."

I'm in favor of anything to get more people cycling and aware of cycling, but to me every day is Bike to Work Day and there are 12 Bike Months each year!

I also notice that LAB is active in dealing with legal issues, which seems to me a top priority for cycling advocacy.

So at least in theory they're on the right track, but they also seem to have some issues. Not answering e-mails is a warning sign, as far as I'm concerned. LAB reform's concerns about financial management, Board/bylaw policies and so forth, also seem well-founded. I'd like to hear opinions (and dare I hope -- facts) from people who know what's going on.

I'm all in favor of reform from within -- that's what LAB Reform advocates -- but I'd like to know whether that's a necessary or realistic goal.

I'm not trying to talk anyone out of joining LAB; I just want more opinions -- and if possible, information -- before I join.

This thread saved me a few bucks.

I joined the League as a life memer, back in the early 80's. (yes, I am older than most members here. Soon, I can post in the 50+ area. :p )

My advice right now: Keep your money in your pocket. It's not the same League I joined years ago when it was truly a cyclist's advocacy group. The new president of the LAB is former Bicycling magazine publisher Mike Greehan. I don't know if this is good or not.

I've heard about the League's money problems, and internal schisms. I think it is even possible that the League could even go under. Have any of you heard that membership has been on the decline for the past five years?

You understand correctly. Lab-Reform consists for the most part of a couple of dozen (AFAIK) disgruntled LAB members, some of them life members, some of whom were formerly officials of the organization. One was the former president of the organization, John Forester. All are on the outs with the current organization. Some are ardent disciples of Forester brand advocacy such as Bruce Rosar. All seem intent in emphasizing the promotion of Vehicular Cycling™ training as the top priority for LAB. If you agree that the promotion of the interests of club cyclists, and selling Forester brand Vehicular Cycling™ educational programs are the chief priorities for a national cycling organization, Lab-Reform is for you.

I love the trademarking ILTB - you and I are seeing eye-to-eye way too much lately...we best pick a fight soon or people will talk! ;)

I joined the League as a life memer, back in the early 80's. (yes, I am older than most members here. Soon, I can post in the 50+ area. :p )

My advice right now: Keep your money in your pocket. It's not the same League I joined years ago when it was truly a cyclist's advocacy group. The new president of the LAB is former Bicycling magazine publisher Mike Greehan. I don't know if this is good or not.

I've heard about the League's money problems, and internal schisms. I think it is even possible that the League could even go under. Have any of you heard that membership has been on the decline for the past five years?

Back when they were "Wheelmen" it was OK, now it is all about how to play the lobby game, while forgetting the individual cyclist.

Frankly I was shocked to see the change from Wheelmen to LAB... it started the whole road to political decline.

Back when they were "Wheelmen" it was OK, now it is all about how to play the lobby game, while forgetting the individual cyclist.

Frankly I was shocked to see the change from Wheelmen to LAB... it started the whole road to political decline.

Same thing happened to the NRA, which is why I am an ex-life member. OMG do I have to die to be an ex-life member? <looks over my shoulder nervously>

If any organization is in the red, and its executive director and board chooses salaries over financial stability, trouble is brewing on those balance books!


I think cyclists need a voice. Too bad the LAB is the best? choice.

If any organization is in the red, and its executive director and board chooses salaries over financial stability, trouble is brewing on those balance books!


I think cyclists need a voice. Too bad the LAB is the best? choice.


I tend to agree... what other organizations exist...

I was only familiar with Wheelmen. I understand that there is an American Bicycle something out there also...

If any organization is in the red, and its executive director and board chooses salaries over financial stability, trouble is brewing on those balance books!
I thought this was SOP for Fortune 500 companies! ;)

Back when they were "Wheelmen" it was OK, now it is all about how to play the lobby game, while forgetting the individual cyclist.

Frankly I was shocked to see the change from Wheelmen to LAB... it started the whole road to political decline.

I think you are right. In his writings, Forester has called several ex-LAB executive directors "incompetent". Sadly, I think he may have been on to something.

I wonder what the League members of 1890's would think of the League today?

I am a member of The San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. I'd rather send my money to a local advocacy group where the benefits to ME and other SF cyclists are more immediate, and less of the money gets chewed up in beaurocracy and politics.

I am a member of The San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. I'd rather send my money to a local advocacy group where the benefits to ME and other SF cyclists are more immediate, and less of the money gets chewed up in beaurocracy and politics.

I am of similar opinion, better to spend money locally. For Oregon cyclists, that would be the
Bicycle Transportation Alliance (http://www.bta4bikes.org/).

I am of similar opinion, better to spend money locally. For Oregon cyclists, that would be the
Bicycle Transportation Alliance (http://www.bta4bikes.org/).

I've got to chime in and agree here too. "Think globally, act locally" works as well for cycling as it does for other movements.

The LAB site always struck me as a bit pretentious anyway. Especially what they think passes for an example of their "History" or lack thereof. All it sez is "We built the national highway system".....for more "History" click here...lead to a charming letter with absolutely no meat on the bone whatsoever. Also an admission that they succeeded in having bicyclists needs considered seriously during the planning and implementation of the national highway system. A far cry from building it, I'd rather modest honesty from anyone claiming to represent me. Sensationalistic crap to get my $50.00 just doesn't fly, but they are in Washington :)

but they are in Washington :)

As if Washington has been a seat of wonderful decisions, of late...

:d

You understand correctly. Lab-Reform consists for the most part of a couple of dozen (AFAIK) disgruntled LAB members, some of them life members, some of whom were formerly officials of the organization. One was the former president of the organization, John Forester. All are on the outs with the current organization. Some are ardent disciples of Forester brand advocacy such as Bruce Rosar. All seem intent in emphasizing the promotion of Vehicular Cycling™ training as the top priority for LAB. If you agree that the promotion of the interests of club cyclists, and selling Forester brand Vehicular Cycling™ educational programs are the chief priorities for a national cycling organization, Lab-Reform is for you.
Oh, so this is where VC comes from. Scary.

You understand correctly. Lab-Reform consists for the most part of a couple of dozen (AFAIK) disgruntled LAB members, some of them life members, some of whom were formerly officials of the organization. One was the former president of the organization, John Forester. All are on the outs with the current organization. Some are ardent disciples of Forester brand advocacy such as Bruce Rosar. All seem intent in emphasizing the promotion of Vehicular Cycling™ training as the top priority for LAB. If you agree that the promotion of the interests of club cyclists, and selling Forester brand Vehicular Cycling™ educational programs are the chief priorities for a national cycling organization, Lab-Reform is for you.

You covered it pretty well, I have been around awhile myself and a longtime LAB member. Fred Oswald owns the reform LAB website. he ran for a LAB region 4 seat a few years ago, lost, claimed the board rigged the election and has been pitching a fit ever since. He is a Forrester diciple.
John Forrester and his supporters are very much anti-bike lane and anti-bikepath, they advocate that bicycles are traffic like automobiles and should be treated as such. Their idea is that if we allow the government to build seperate facilties that we will eventually be forced off the roads completely.I agree with their philosophy to an extent. But reality is a b!tch. IMO, that mantra worked ok back in the 70 and 80's but todays heavily traveled roads and poor surface conditions now make seperate facilities often a more practical and sometimes safer alternative in many urban areas


The current LAB board is more political and some come from political backgrounds. They take a broader approach of advocating not only for the right of access to public highways but also they are heavily involved in lobby for cycling's share of ISTEA ( intermodal surface transportation efficiency act)money What ISTEA does is require a portion of federal highway money be used for bicycle, pedestrian and public transit. For 2005 ISTEA authorized cycling and pedestrian related funding is about 3 billion (I am working from memory that figure may be off a few zeros) for cycling projects ISTEA usually covers 80% of the cost with state and local picking up 20%. Voters love railtrails and bike paths these days and politicians know that. That helps get LAB's foot in the door of these politicans and allows the LAB to push these guys on other cycling related issues.
As mentioned before the LAB is involved in this Kentucky tort case in which a cyclis was injured when he was forced off the road by a pickup pulling a trailer A jury ruled that the cylist should have gotten off the road and let the trailer pass. The case is on it's way to the Kentucky Supreme Court. if the cyclist ultimately loses if could have far reaching negative effects for cyclists right to be on public roads. LAB does pack a little weight.
Also previously mentioned: Forrester and his friends when they were running the LAB(or LAW then) they were focused on selling John's "Effective Cycling"™ it is now rebranded as Vehicular Cycling™. I took the effective cycling course 15 years ago and it is worthwhile especially to cyclists not experienced in dealing with traffic.
I can find a lot of fault with LAB. But until someone comes up with a more effective national representive I am going to continue to support them.

I think you are right. In his writings, Forester has called several ex-LAB executive directors "incompetent". Sadly, I think he may have been on to something.

I wonder what the League members of 1890's would think of the League today?
They might wish their similar backward thinking fossil Forester was back in charge.

Of course Forester called several ex-LAB executive directors "incompetent," he calls everybody who disagrees with him an "incompetent."

Does anyone, besides the members of LAB-Reform, believe the answer to improving LAB is to have individuals like John Forester, Bruce Rosar and similar single track Vehicular Cycling™ dogmatists present the case for cyclists and improved cycling conditions to decision makers in government? Is selling Vehicular Cycling™Educational Programs, and a policy consisting of hysterical ranting about bicycling facilities really the solution to improving the LAB organization, or the #1 priority for advocates of bicycling? IMO representation by such Vehicular Cycling™ crusaders is bicycling advocacy's and bicyclists' worse nightmare.

There are several LAB 'certified instructors' here in Cleveland.
I was pretty impressed that we had so many and even considered joining and paying the fee to become an instructor until I saw one of them lead a group of kids the wrong way down a one way street during a social ride.
After observing how the classes were run locally I came to the conclusion that it is a pretty loose organization that's more interested in your wallet than monitoring what's being tought.

Enjoy

Looking at VC on the web, Forrester's (?) website, there's NOTHING of any worth there....its as if they want to have a copyrighted hold on bicycling technique, so you have to PAY to get the goods. 'goods' being how to ride a bike!

ILTB, what do you think is the answer to improving LAB? Or do you think it's fine as is? Are you a member? Would you recommend becoming a LAB member?

ILTB, what do you think is the answer to improving LAB? Or do you think it's fine as is? Are you a member? Would you recommend becoming a LAB member?
My comments were not a critique of the LAB organization. I accuratly pointed out the agenda (sell Vehicular Cycling™Education Programs/badmouth cycling facilities and those who use them) and hypocrisy of the disgruntled Forester acolytes who make up the listed membership of the LAB-Reform group. Anything that LAB does to distance itself from cycling snobs and conspiracy oriented lunatics is a good thing.

Yes, you've made the point over and over that you're anti- Forester/Helmet Head style VC. And you've also made it clear that you are anti- LAB Reform (the organization). Understood.

Are you pro-LAB? Do you think it's a good idea, or a bad one, for someone to join LAB?

I doubt many would recommend not joining a pro cycling advocacy group, if you can spare the fitty. It doesn't seem like they'd have too much use for someones time if they have it to spare. Time and energy are always spent better locally IMO

Yes, you've made the point over and over that you're anti- Forester/Helmet Head style VC. And you've also made it clear that you are anti- LAB Reform (the organization). Understood.

Are you pro-LAB? Do you think it's a good idea, or a bad one, for someone to join LAB?
Like SamHouston wrote: I doubt many would recommend not joining a national cyclist advocacy group, if they can spare the fifty and that time and energy are spent better locally on local issues. The National organization is important for lobbying for available national funding/legislation as appropriate. Promoting Forester Brand programs fit nowhere on the national level. Local people can decide for themselves if they want such programs inflicted on them.[/QUOTE]

So guess what came in the mail today, the very next day after I made my initial post? Yup, you guessed it, my LAB water bottle.

Huh.

LAB is splitting at the seams because there are two opposite political forces at work within the organization. One is the experienced cyclists, i.e. recreational cycling enthusiasts and commuters, who promote safer and more efficient road sharing and access to all ordinary roadways according to the ordinary traffic laws that have applied to cyclists for a century, and the other is the facilities advocates who promote cycling-specific engineering to separate and segregate cyclists from other drivers wherever possible, regardless of the actual operational impacts on cyclists, under the belief that the most important cycling population is the population that doesn't ride now. There are overlaps between these groups; some of the cyclists who focus on education and enforcement also endorse some properly designed cycling-oriented engineering improvements where they don't interfere with the ordinary rules of the road, and some of the facilities advocates accept the notion that facilities don't really improve safety over proper roadway cycling, but promote the less objectionable bicycle-specific facilities with the belief that these will encourage cycling by novices.

Unfortunately, the extreme end of facility advocacy has recently taken over the majority of LAB's board of directors, and it has devolved into a lobbying organization for the bicycle industry, which believes that segregated facilities help sell bikes to novices, and for anti-car political activists who wish to divert public money away from facilities that may be used by automobile drivers as an effort to replace car trips with non-car trips. The problem with this is that much of the pro-segregation lobbying effort directly contradicts the cyclist advocates' safer-road-sharing/universal road access message, and the segregated facilities themselves often force or encourage cyclists to operate contrary to the techniques that LAB has been teaching for years in its road cycling courses. How can one part of the LAB lobby for public money to build more two-way sidewalk-type "bike paths" with all of the driveway and intersection conflicts they harbor, while another part teaches cyclists to stay off the sidewalk and use the roadway because the roadway is generally safer and more efficient for cycling? How can they effectively oppose laws requiring cyclists to use sidewalk-type paths when they are so busy promoting sidewalk-type paths as being required to make cycling safe?

I recently joined LAB so that I could become certified to teach the LAB Road courses, which cover how to ride on roadways safely and efficiently in accordance with the ordinary traffic laws for drivers. I enjoy helping novice cyclists start cycling and expanding their range of destinations and activities. I have found that teaching people how to "drive" a bike allows them to enjoy and accomplish much more bicycle travel than focusing on the engineering of a few select street segments. ILTB's implication of profit motive on the part of vehicular cycling (i.e. lawful bicycle driving) education advocates is laughable. Vehicular cycling is no more proprietary than the ordinary rules of the road. I find that the LAB's course does a good job of presenting bicycle driving principles to novices, and having a national organization in charge of maintaining the course and certifying instructors improves the quality of the class and improves the public's confidence in it. I also spend a great deal of personal time attending public meetings and workshops on transportation facility design to make the design of our road system more pleasant for cycling, (i.e. more space for safe and easy passing on busy roads, smoother and cleaner road surfaces, traffic signals that detect bikes, etc.). However, I joined LAB Reform out of concern that LAB has lost its way by endorsing certain engineering approaches that seriously conflict with best roadway bicycling practices as I understand them, and generally eroding their ability to serve the cycling population at large.

-Steve Goodridge

So Steve, would you recommend that someone join LAB and LAB Reform, for the reasons you outlined?

BTW -- I submitted my information weeks ago to join the North Carolina Coalition for Bicycle Driving, but I haven't heard a word since. Should I re-submit my info?

So guess what came in the mail today, the very next day after I made my initial post? Yup, you guessed it, my LAB water bottle.

Huh.
Did they ever respond to your e-mails?

Like SamHouston wrote: I doubt many would recommend not joining a national cyclist advocacy group, if they can spare the fifty and that time and energy are spent better locally on local issues. The National organization is important for lobbying for available national funding/legislation as appropriate. Promoting Forester Brand programs fit nowhere on the national level. Local people can decide for themselves
if they want such programs inflicted on them.
That makes good sense. Living in the boonies, I don't have a truly local organization (maybe I should see about starting something), but I am trying to become involved at the state level. I'm also leaning heavily towards joining LAB, because, though they may have faults, they are the voice of cycling at the national level. Thanks for your input.

Did they ever respond to your e-mails?

Nope. Not a one. The water bottle just... showed up.

*shrug*

LAB is splitting at the seams because there are two opposite political forces at work within the organization. One is the experienced cyclists, i.e. recreational cycling enthusiasts and commuters, who promote safer and more efficient road sharing and access to all ordinary roadways according to the ordinary traffic laws that have applied to cyclists for a century, and the other is the facilities advocates who promote cycling-specific engineering to separate and segregate cyclists from other drivers wherever possible, regardless of the actual operational impacts on cyclists, under the belief that the most important cycling population is the population that doesn't ride now.

Why not break this "split" down to even simpler terms, The Respectable High Mileage Road Cyclists/Real Cycling Advocates who promote VC™ vs. the favorite straw men of the Forester acolytes - facilities advocates for non existent cyclists. Where do people who are not Club Riding Roadie Cyclists (with unknown commuting habits) nor promoters of VC™ Education Schemes fit into your dichotomy of cyclists or LAB?

"Operational impact on cyclists"? Maybe Steve should break that "problem" down. One that doesn't require wacky references to Jim Crow metaphors, or the fevered nightmares of VC™ legal theorists.


Unfortunately, the extreme end of facility advocacy has recently taken over the majority of LAB's board of directors, and it has devolved into a lobbying organization for the bicycle industry, which believes that segregated facilities help sell bikes to novices, and for anti-car political activists who wish to divert public money away from facilities that may be used by automobile drivers as an effort to replace car trips with non-car trips.
Yeah sure Steve, you think the other guys are the extremists.
Can you point out which directors are the anti-car activists, or where I can find some of that anti-car political activity in LAB materials/web site? I know that problem exists in the fevered writings of Forester and some of his associates but have not seen it in LAB publications or its website.


I recently joined LAB so that I could become certified to teach the LAB Road courses, which cover how to ride on roadways safely and efficiently in accordance with the ordinary traffic laws for drivers. I enjoy helping novice cyclists start cycling and expanding their range of destinations and activities. I have found that teaching people how to "drive" a bike allows them to enjoy and accomplish much more bicycle travel than focusing on the engineering of a few select street segments. ILTB's implication of profit motive on the part of vehicular cycling (i.e. lawful bicycle driving) education advocates is laughable.

The profit motive "implication" is your straw man. The VC™ "salesmen" seem far more interested in ego tripping than monetary gain. Your personal efforts at helping novice cyclists are laudable but nothing is more laughable than offering the blue sky alternatives of road widening and retrofitting WOL's onto urban streets for the benefit of commuting, transportional, or youth bicyclists.


I joined LAB Reform out of concern that LAB has lost its way by endorsing certain engineering approaches that seriously conflict with best roadway bicycling practices as I understand them, and generally eroding their ability to serve the cycling population at large.
You seem to have a problem making the distinction between the interests (real and imagined concerns) of your beloved Experienced High Mileage Road Cyclists who also promote (for whatever reason) "best roadway bicycling practices" (AKA VC™ dogma), and the interests of the cycling population at large.

Why not break this "split" down to even simpler terms, The Respectable High Mileage Road Cyclists/Real Cycling Advocates who promote VC™ vs. the favorite straw men of the Forester acolytes - facilities advocates for non existent cyclists. Where do people who are not Club Riding Roadie Cyclists (with unknown commuting habits) nor promoters of VC™ Education Schemes fit into your dichotomy of cyclists or LAB?



Where do you fit... what are your riding habits and beliefs. Are you simply a frustrated sidewalk cyclist on an X-Mart bike or what...

I don't want to know where you used to ride or live, I want to know what riding you do now. Is it off-road only, so the concerns of road riding cyclists don't even effect you, or do you only ride on some software game in a dark basement?

What do you advocate other then your own brand of "common sense?"

Where do you fit... what are your riding habits and beliefs. Are you simply a frustrated sidewalk cyclist on an X-Mart bike or what...

I don't want to know where you used to ride or live, I want to know what riding you do now. Is it off-road only, so the concerns of road riding cyclists don't even effect you, or do you only ride on some software game in a dark basement?

What do you advocate other then your own brand of "common sense?"
6 miles of 55 mph road plus 6miles of uneventful small city traffic, each way every work day; all year. Pictures do not include scenes from the 5-5:45AM time period in the morning when I am on the highway section due to no lighting except for headlights for the morning commute.

Pictures are included of the unrideable shoulder (last two weeks covered in ice and snow) as well as skid marks of truck tractor unit that ended up in the medial strip after slamming its brakes on a millisecond before hitting me as I bailed out to the right at the same millisecond.
http://img276.imageshack.us/img276/2933/rt3429pk.th.jpg (http://img276.imageshack.us/my.php?image=rt3429pk.jpg)

http://img427.imageshack.us/img427/4977/rt34trucks3fg.th.jpg (http://img427.imageshack.us/my.php?image=rt34trucks3fg.jpg)

http://img322.imageshack.us/img322/1485/truckson3438id.th.jpg (http://img322.imageshack.us/my.php?image=truckson3438id.jpg)

http://img445.imageshack.us/img445/3687/capandstones3rs.th.jpg (http://img445.imageshack.us/my.php?image=capandstones3rs.jpg)

http://img307.imageshack.us/img307/6918/blacktruck0dg.th.jpg (http://img307.imageshack.us/my.php?image=blacktruck0dg.jpg)

http://img307.imageshack.us/img307/3829/greentruck1ag.th.jpg (http://img307.imageshack.us/my.php?image=greentruck1ag.jpg)

http://img307.imageshack.us/img307/6056/redcar8jt.th.jpg (http://img307.imageshack.us/my.php?image=redcar8jt.jpg)

http://img307.imageshack.us/img307/8514/shoulder7ms.th.jpg (http://img307.imageshack.us/my.php?image=shoulder7ms.jpg)

http://img307.imageshack.us/img307/3343/whitecar4jz.th.jpg (http://img307.imageshack.us/my.php?image=whitecar4jz.jpg)

http://img307.imageshack.us/img307/1708/yellowtruck6eq.th.jpg (http://img307.imageshack.us/my.php?image=yellowtruck6eq.jpg)

http://img333.imageshack.us/img333/5455/skidmark5ck.th.jpg (http://img333.imageshack.us/my.php?image=skidmark5ck.jpg)

http://img333.imageshack.us/img333/6818/skidmark22hi.th.jpg (http://img333.imageshack.us/my.php?image=skidmark22hi.jpg)

I advocate ignoring safety and advocacy advice from Goodweather club riding know-it-alls on the subject of cycling anywhere but in their own backyards.

This organization is over 120 years old. In the 1890's, it was the strongest lobbying force in America for paved roads...more people needed paved roads for bikes than needed them for motor vehicles.

Today, lobbying for cycling is as fun as herding cats. The hundred million people who cycle on Saturday in their own neighborhoods, in parks, and on bike trails have very different goals than the two or three million people who ride three hundred fifty days a year to and from their jobs and use bikes as their primary form of daily transportation. And, the 10,000 or so guys who think they are the next Lance Armstrong have only contempt for those folks who ride thirty pound bikes, loaded down with bags of groceries. If you aren't on a 16 pound bike, you ain't worth a dogpile.

The net result: although the majority of Americans age twenty to age fifty own a bike, as a lobbying force, cycling ranks somewhere below the "Independence for Guam" movement.

6 miles of 55 mph road plus 6miles of uneventful small city traffic, each way every work day; all year. Pictures do not include scenes from the 5-5:45AM time period in the morning when I am on the highway section due to no lighting except for headlights for the morning commute.

Pictures are included of the unrideable shoulder (last two weeks covered in ice and snow) as well as skid marks of truck tractor unit that ended up in the medial strip after slamming its brakes on a millisecond before hitting me as I bailed out to the right at the same millisecond.

I advocate ignoring safety and advocacy advice from Goodweather club riding know-it-alls on the subject of cycling anywhere but in their own backyards.


OK, now we have established a base line... and you and I actually both agree that that conditions are different all over... and everyone does not face both the same traffic nor use the same bike.

I for instance am quite glad I do not face the dense inner city traffic of NYC, and certainly what works there in NYC may not work on the 55MPH roads you ride, or the 65MPH roads I ride.

Now what (for the sake of this forum) do you "advocate," beyond your advice to ignore the "Goodweather club riding know-it-alls?"

This organization is over 120 years old. In the 1890's, it was the strongest lobbying force in America for paved roads...more people needed paved roads for bikes than needed them for motor vehicles.

Today, lobbying for cycling is as fun as herding cats. The hundred million people who cycle on Saturday in their own neighborhoods, in parks, and on bike trails have very different goals than the two or three million people who ride three hundred fifty days a year to and from their jobs and use bikes as their primary form of daily transportation. And, the 10,000 or so guys who think they are the next Lance Armstrong have only contempt for those folks who ride thirty pound bikes, loaded down with bags of groceries. If you aren't on a 16 pound bike, you ain't worth a dogpile.

The net result: although the majority of Americans age twenty to age fifty own a bike, as a lobbying force, cycling ranks somewhere below the "Independence for Guam" movement.


Very well stated... +1. Good observation of the status quo.

Today, lobbying for cycling is as fun as herding cats. The hundred million people who cycle on Saturday in their own neighborhoods, in parks, and on bike trails have very different goals than the two or three million people who ride three hundred fifty days a year to and from their jobs and use bikes as their primary form of daily transportation. And, the 10,000 or so guys who think they are the next Lance Armstrong have only contempt for those folks who ride thirty pound bikes, loaded down with bags of groceries. If you aren't on a 16 pound bike, you ain't worth a dogpile.

The net result: although the majority of Americans age twenty to age fifty own a bike, as a lobbying force, cycling ranks somewhere below the "Independence for Guam" movement.
True, but there is a fourth group, a subsection of the third (the next Lance Armstrongs) that dominates the "lobbying" seen on this Forum. Self described Experienced High Mileage Road Cyclists who feel compelled to preach the word of the VC™ scriptures to the other three groups.

My advocacy suggestion is to cast out these obstructionists from any national advocacy group and any local group where they represent only a handful of club riders with an obsesion to promote a specialized education agenda. Reason: their counterproductive obstruction efforts as well as loony segregationist BS cause harm to all other cyclists and probably don't even help themselves.

6 miles of 55 mph road plus 6miles of uneventful small city traffic, each way every work day; all year. Pictures do not include scenes from the 5-5:45AM time period in the morning when I am on the highway section due to no lighting except for headlights for the morning commute.

Pictures are included of the unrideable shoulder (last two weeks covered in ice and snow) as well as skid marks of truck tractor unit that ended up in the medial strip after slamming its brakes on a millisecond before hitting me as I bailed out to the right at the same millisecond.

I advocate ignoring safety and advocacy advice from Goodweather club riding know-it-alls on the subject of cycling anywhere but in their own backyards.
Just to clarify where you stand ... say someone who lives near you and works near you wants to start cycling to work. This person knows you're a cyclist and wants your assistance. How would you help?

Just to clarify where you stand ... say someone who lives near you and works near you wants to start cycling to work. This person knows you're a cyclist and wants your assistance. How would you help?
I am the only one who bikes to the plant where I work with its approx. 900 employees. There is no public transportation, and only about 5 people live in walking distance. I don't waste my time trying to convince anyone else what a good idea it would be for them to cycle on the only road to the plant. When people ask why I do it, I tell them the truth, I do it because I love to Bike; I'd like it better if the road conditions were better; but like sex, it is always good, sometimes better.

No one has asked, and I don't expect anyone will, but if someone would like to try, I'd recommend a good mirror, several independently powered rear lights, mounted high. Plus bright shirt (I wear alert shirts or a reflective vest when cycling in daylight. I'd like to ride with that person because the extra rider would add more visability/safety for both of us. Type of bike for anyone else, except for lighting is machts nichts to me. Dress with whatever is comfortable and in cold weather it is better to be warm with sweat, than cold.

Thanks for asking.

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/8767/ragazzi13ajun052vd.th.jpg (http://img507.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ragazzi13ajun052vd.jpg)

Amazing... Has ILTB proven his street cred yet? Seriously, I thought only teenage boys did this kind of ... er... pencil measuring contest.


...but like sex, it is always good, sometimes better.

Perfect.

Amazing... Has ILTB proven his street cred yet? Seriously, I thought only teenage boys did this kind of ... er... pencil measuring contest.


It wasn't a matter of measuring anything... but simply trying to see what the world looks like through his eyes... "walking a mile in his shoes," so to speak.

ILTB has typically posted a rather negative response to some comments by some posters here. I simply wanted to know two things...

1. What kind of riding does he do that doesn't involve BL or VC or even speed limits... (as these very issues he has attacked directly).

2. What he does advocate... as this is an advocacy forum... so what positive thoughts might he have.

As far as #1, he painted a picture of his commute... and it is vastly different from what I do and what someone in NYC might do... further, he also alluded to why he is not likely to see others on his roads, and why he might find some traffic "blending/merging" concepts that others have suggested as foolhardy. There is for instance no way I would try certain techniques on his 55MPH roads...

And at the same token it is unlikely that he can relate to the inner city jam that bike messengers feel.

On the other hand, he might like it if the truckers he faces were just a bit more tolerant or a bit more slower on those roads he uses... or perhaps there was a bit more shoulder... any of which are all things that many of us might advocate for.

Sorry if it seemed like some sort of measuring session... it was nothing more then me trying to relate.

I'd recommend a good mirror, several independently powered rear lights, mounted high.

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/8767/ragazzi13ajun052vd.th.jpg (http://img507.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ragazzi13ajun052vd.jpg)

Is that an LD-1000 up top? Bright little suckers, ain't they? Good side visibility too.