ALL cyclists means just that... By advocating, we are speaking in behalf of the cycling community as a whole...ALL - usually to non cyclists in the general public and decision making bodies, which is why it is important to present a united front... Education can address those who don't ride lawfully, safely, or via some else's subjective idea of what is the 'right' way.

+another one

To me, it's advocating for all cyclists, as opposed to advocating for specific cycling behaviors or styles.

Ensuring that all cyclists are legally allowed to use the roads. Ensuring that all cyclists are taught how to cycle safely, and that motorists are taught how to drive safely around cyclists. Ensuring that all cyclists are safely able to ride wherever they want to go.

it is important to present a united front rather than look like a bunch of people who can't even agree amongst themselves. Education can address those who don't ride lawfully, safely, or via some else's subjective idea of what is the 'right' way.

No argument here on this point.

If a bunch of bicyclists can't even come to a simple agreement on this prinicpal there's little hope the rest of the world can solve the litany of problems it has. In which case, what's the point of these endless debates. Our time would be better spent out riding our bikes or tuning them up for our next ride or spending time with our families or doing our laundry. If we want to argue about bike stuff let's save the fights for steel vs aluminum or who makes the better MTB fork or best tire. In terms of actually impacting legislation and making change there still aren't enough of us out there to break into factions.


The weak point of your argument is that non-cyclists will probably never take us seriously unless we are serious.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems the majority of the posts I'm seeing in this thread do take this quite seriously despite the occasional attempt to inject some levity into the discussion, which I, for one, think is desperately needed. Since less serious cyclists are not represented here there's little point in arguing as if they were reading these threads.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems the majority of the posts I'm seeing in this thread do take this quite seriously despite the occasional attempt to inject some levity into the discussion, which I, for one, think is desperately needed. Since less serious cyclists are not represented here there's little point in arguing as if they were reading these threads.
Sorry I didn't make my point clear. I meant that non-cyclists will not take us seriously unless we are serious about riding safely and reliably. In other words, I don't see how we can advocate for cycling that is done in a way that risks the cyclist or others.

That is why I think that safety education of cyclists is necessary, even fundamental, to cycling advocacy. As cycling becomes more popular, there is a danger that our "right" to use the roads will be taken away if it is perceived that we are a threat to ourselves and others.

I will not advocate for the "rights of ALL cyclists" if those are construed to mean the right to ride on the wrong side, bomb through intersections, etc. Will you?

How does one advocate for a cyclist who wants to blow through red lights on busy intersections?

Bicycling advocacy to me is convincing people that riding bikes is not just a sport or done for recreation, but rather, a very viable form of transportation and those wierd-looking cyling clothes are optional, not mandatory :p. Convincing them that yes, bikes can be fashionable and yes, you can ride without the aid of special shoes. Convincing them that, yes, I am riding with my Diesel jeans and Steve Madden shoes.

Why just roadways? Or perhaps you are just using that as a generic term to describe any 'way' that a bicycle can travel on?

I do also advocate on cyclists' behalf regarding the design of off-road paths, so that they work better for cyclists than they would if they were designed just for pedestrians, although such paths make up a small percentage of the cycling miles where I live. I also advocate for better design and location of bike parking, and for cyclists to have the privilege of taking bikes on transit or into buildings. Thanks for pointing out the importance of a wider scope.

-Steve Goodridge

I don't know...I'd sure like to adocate the stuffing out of those wrong way cyclists who want to force me into choosing whether to hit them head-on or swerve out into the car traffic! And there is nothing "subjective" about saying that wrong way riders are riding wrong.

The weak point of your argument is that non-cyclists will probably never take us seriously unless we are serious. That means driving our bikes in a safe and reliable manner, not endangering ourselves, each other, or the precious cagers. I do believe that cycling is going to become a lot more popular in the next decade, and if we can't police ourselves, somebody else is going to do it for us.

Exactly, we have to police ourselves...but when advancing our cause to others we must show a united front. Come on, seriously, when advocating cycling to a public body or the general public, how often do you see someone jump up and advocate for the right to disobey the law or not use lights, etc? This whole argument against advocating for all cyclists is a strawman.

How does one advocate for a cyclist who wants to blow through red lights on busy intersections?

Do they even advocate for themselves? Come on, you guys are being silly and really displaying the problem with the current state of cycling advocacy.

Sorry I didn't make my point clear. I meant that non-cyclists will not take us seriously unless we are serious about riding safely and reliably. In other words, I don't see how we can advocate for cycling that is done in a way that risks the cyclist or others.

That is why I think that safety education of cyclists is necessary, even fundamental, to cycling advocacy. As cycling becomes more popular, there is a danger that our "right" to use the roads will be taken away if it is perceived that we are a threat to ourselves and others.

I will not advocate for the "rights of ALL cyclists" if those are construed to mean the right to ride on the wrong side, bomb through intersections, etc. Will you?

Advocating for ALL cyclists is a general statement, just like advocating for equal voting rights for ALL is a general statement that does not necessarlily include advocating for voting rights for convicted felons.

OK, in the spirit of compromise for those who wish to nitpick the term ALL - amend it to state ALL CYCLISTS WHO OBEY THE LAW - can everyone agree to that much?

OK, in the spirit of compromise for those who wish to nitpick the term ALL - amend it to state ALL CYCLISTS WHO OBEY THE LAW - can everyone agree to that much?
The spirit is noble but trying to reach a reasonable compromise with Vehicular Cycling™ idealogues is a waste of time.

Their advocacy program of relentless proselytizing for their narrow concerns ("educating" everybody else who is considered lawless or incompetent until properly "educated", and obstructionism based on their own hysterical anti-bike lane rhetoric) allows no compromise with the "incompetent" non-true believers. Hence the campaign to drown out all discussion with more of the same posts from the same crew to assure that primacy is given to the interests of the self proclaimed High and Mighty Experienced High Mileage Road Cyclists who promote VC™ hucksterism and call it bicycling advocacy.

How does one advocate for a cyclist who wants to blow through red lights on busy intersections?
By encouraging law enforcement to educate the cyclist with a citation.

OK, in the spirit of compromise for those who wish to nitpick the term ALL - amend it to state ALL CYCLISTS WHO OBEY THE LAW - can everyone agree to that much?
Not if the law says I have to ride in an unsafe bike lane.

Edit: One key advocacy question is what should the law be. What activities that are illegal now should be made legal?

OK, in the spirit of compromise for those who wish to nitpick the term ALL - amend it to state ALL CYCLISTS WHO OBEY THE LAW - can everyone agree to that much?
No. And the only reason I'm harping on it is because I think you're missing the point rather than just disagreeing with the point, which I could handle. Sorry, I'm not explaining myself very well. :)

The point is, all the advocating for ALL cyclists won't do much good if the larger public is convinced that we are dangerous scofflaws. Furthermore, we risk losing the most precious right we now have, which is the right to travel as traffic, with only a few restrictions, on the same infrastructure that motor vehicles use.

This is because, as our ranks swell with new riders (most of whom seem to be urban utilitarian cyclists who just plain ride wrong), the public will notice an upsurge in violations and crashes.

Politicians being what they are, the "solution" they propose will not be, "We must spend tax dollars to educate these poor cyclists before they all kill themselves." Their solution will more likely be, "We must get ALL cyclists off the road before they ALL kill themselves."

The best analogy is hunting. 40 or 50 years ago there were serious efforts by the politicians and the public to severely restrict hunting. The reason? Too many hunters, farmers, and their cows and dogs were being killed by the many new and incompetent hunters. The solution? Hunting advocates voluntarily set up gun safety courses for kids and new hunters. The result? We still have hunting, and also far fewer hunting accidents. The same thing with power boating. Many years ago, politicians wanted to require operator licences for power boaters because of high injury rates. Boating advocates instead began safety classes that led to certification rather than mandated licensure.

You (and most others) say that education and advocacy are separate issues. I say that advocacy begins with education; education is fundamental to advocacy. We will not be taken seriously by the public and by politicians until we are able to provide credible road training to new cyclists.

I do also advocate on cyclists' behalf regarding the design of off-road paths, so that they work better for cyclists than they would if they were designed just for pedestrians, although such paths make up a small percentage of the cycling miles where I live. I also advocate for better design and location of bike parking, and for cyclists to have the privilege of taking bikes on transit or into buildings. Thanks for pointing out the importance of a wider scope.

-Steve Goodridge
And don't forget the mountain bikers. Sometimes their access to trails has been restricted, and several advocacy groups have been effective at getting trails opened or reopened.

How does one advocate for a cyclist who wants to blow through red lights on busy intersections?

We can only begin with ourselves. By riding responsibly. Setting a good example. Yes, I see bike messengers and other cyclists in downtown Boston traffic who weave their way through intersections at high speeds (often helmetless, which makes me wince) but then I see automobile drivers break rules like crazy as well. Cab drivers in particular. For both the messengers and the cab drivers their ability to move as swiftly through the city as possible is directly related to their paycheck so they have the extra motivation to do something that I think even responsible riders would like to do- ignore a red light when there is gridlock in an intersection.

I'm not trying to excuse their irresponsible actions but I see the fundamental issue here as too many private automobiles in too little space. The cyclist who blows through intersections is often responding to the ludicrousness of all that gridlock. Think about it. What makes riding in any city in America a nightmare? Private cars vying for on street parking, double parked trucks trying to deliver goods, cabs fighting through traffic. We have to first advocate for reducing private automobile use in congested urban areas. In cities like Boston there is no way of widening existing streets and roads, no way of adding more streets- they've been twisting and turning since their origin as cowpaths in the late 1600's. I would advocate closing some of them to private auto use entirely. This is something that would benefit all cyclists including those who currently blow through intersections. Then I would advocate for the enforcement of citations against cyclists who disobey traffic laws.

Not if the law says I have to ride in an unsafe bike lane.

Edit: One key advocacy question is what should the law be. What activities that are illegal now should be made legal?

One key part of advocacy is presenting a united front...no wonder cyclists in general have no effective advocates...you are all too busy fighting with each other and trying to advance narrow agendas rather than seeing the big picture. Screw compromise...shoulda learned from my years in politics that you can't compromise with extremists.

Just wtf do you expect to NOT have laws made restricting your right to the road when you have alienated the majority of your support base who might have given you the numbers required for someone to pay attention to your concerns? Nooo, your too busy nitpicking and not only painting yourself into a fringe group corner, but causing people who should be supporting you to actively oppose you. Real freaking bright...sounds like some cycling advocates have taken a cue from the NRA on how to alienate their base.

Sorry dude, this isn't directed at you personally, you just happened to display some of what is so wrong with current cycling advocacy groups.

I remember a thread that tried to come to a consensus on bike lanes. I proposed that bike lane skeptics tame their skepticism in return for bike lane proponents supporting laws that would make bike lane use optional. The OP shot it down immediately. So much for compromise.

When it comes to bike lanes, the real extremists who are literally painting cyclists into a corner are the ones trying to stripe lanes on 25 mph roads.

It means a few different things, I'll try to cover what comes to mind:
1.It means always treading a fine line in traffic, being "in the moment" and not woolgathering. Judging whether you are as far to the right as possible, unless it affects my personal safety, trying not to piss off motorists with some VC-hardliner nonsense, but at the same time not be a pushover, and remembering that some "cagers" will always dislike you on sight, just because. Trying to remember to act as if I am invisible as often as possible, because it seems like everytime I've almost been hit, it's been head-on or t-boned, so I try not to take anything for granted, even though I'm lit up like a Christmas tree, nowadays. I tend to be introspective, so cycling is good therapy for me to concentrate on the here-and-now.

2. It means politely telling the guy I work with, who I've inspired to start cycling, that it would be more cost effective to get a new bike than to try to polish the dual suspension turd he got from Wally-World. I tried to break it to him to get his $100 back, and buy a $200 Giant. Well guess what? After buying new cranks,(the ones that came on it had chainrings so bad the chain would slip off if you put any sort of tension on the drivetrain, LOL,) saddle, pedals,(the plastic ones broke,LOL,) and derailleurs, he has far exceeded the price of a new LBS-bike. Kudos to him for sticking with it and not being dicouraged, but I'm sure we lose a lot of potential cyclists this way, because they think it's one big mechanical problem/money pit with the department store bikes.

3. It means that, while I respect everyone's cycling and reason for cycling, I'd like to take a sniper rifle and blow Mr."Riding at 3AM in black clothing with no reflectors or light's" head off. Of course, the same goes for Mr."I'm a fat turd with a carbon fiber bike and I'm gonna lecture you about what a 'real cyclist' wants in a bike." -He's toast, too.

4. It means I'm talking with some friends in the local punk rock community about starting up a long-overdue bicycle co-op. I'll keep y'all informed.

5. It means Chipcom, I just don't swing that way, so quit sending me love letters. You're a nice guy and all, but dang... :)

In short then, you believe advocacy is practiced only among folks who are already cyclists of one variety or another?

Solidarity is a powerful, even primal, force, to be sure, probably honed by evolution because those who defend the tribe, no matter what, probably have a better chance of survival. But, like any force, it can be misused. Good cops covering up the actions of bad cops is a good example of what I mean. In the end, law enforcement suffers from this kind of extreme solidarity. Patriotism taken to an extreme - citizens looking the other way with regard to the unjust actions of their government - is another example of solidarity going too far. Do I need to mention how lemmings take solidarity a bit too far? Unfortunately, I see a lot of this kind of self-defeating extreme solidarity among cycling advocates, including many expressions of it in countless posts on this forum, and you have to look no further than this thread:


To me, it's advocating for all cyclists, as opposed to advocating for specific cycling behaviors or styles.


One key part of advocacy is presenting a united front...
What Budster and Chipcom are talking about is advocacy for bicyclists, all bicyclists, as an extreme form of solidarity, not bicycling advocacy.

I applaud Chipcom's latest amendment... it's a step in the right direction... but it's still about bicyclist advocacy, and solidarity, rather than bicycling advocacy.

Not much to be honest.

No. And the only reason I'm harping on it is because I think you're missing the point rather than just disagreeing with the point, which I could handle. Sorry, I'm not explaining myself very well. :)

The point is, all the advocating for ALL cyclists won't do much good if the larger public is convinced that we are dangerous scofflaws. Furthermore, we risk losing the most precious right we now have, which is the right to travel as traffic, with only a few restrictions, on the same infrastructure that motor vehicles use.

This is because, as our ranks swell with new riders (most of whom seem to be urban utilitarian cyclists who just plain ride wrong), the public will notice an upsurge in violations and crashes.

Politicians being what they are, the "solution" they propose will not be, "We must spend tax dollars to educate these poor cyclists before they all kill themselves." Their solution will more likely be, "We must get ALL cyclists off the road before they ALL kill themselves."

The best analogy is hunting. 40 or 50 years ago there were serious efforts by the politicians and the public to severely restrict hunting. The reason? Too many hunters, farmers, and their cows and dogs were being killed by the many new and incompetent hunters. The solution? Hunting advocates voluntarily set up gun safety courses for kids and new hunters. The result? We still have hunting, and also far fewer hunting accidents. The same thing with power boating. Many years ago, politicians wanted to require operator licences for power boaters because of high injury rates. Boating advocates instead began safety classes that led to certification rather than mandated licensure.

You (and most others) say that education and advocacy are separate issues. I say that advocacy begins with education; education is fundamental to advocacy. We will not be taken seriously by the public and by politicians until we are able to provide credible road training to new cyclists.


I understand where you are coming from...it's leadership by example. But that is keeping our own house in order...we can't just not advocate cycling to the world because we are waiting to make our own community perfect...guess what, we'd never get there. The same thing happens in Information Technology. We always want to stop and get our systems organized, documented, upgraded, etc. etc. because we are scared that further additions of systems is like building on a house of cards...but guess what, business goes on and require those new systems to operate. Our job is to support the business, business doesn't support IT. The same goes for cycling advocacy...the advocates job is to support and promote cycling for cyclists, just because the cycling community isn't perfect doesn't mean that the job can wait until they are. Both active advocacy and cleaning up our house has to be accomplished concurrently, not consecutively. That's why I try to seperate advocacy - which is promotion and lobbying of the public and public bodies, and education, which is cleaning up our own house.

you just happened to display some of what is so wrong with current cycling advocacy groups.

sad but true.

I fear we'll go the way of The Shakers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers) who created such rigid rules of conduct they eventually choked themselves out of existence. (but they made some real nice furniture while they were around)

Yeah, I give up...I shoulda known better. I got out of politics and advocacy for a reason that an old mentor explained simply: "You can't help people that don't want to be helped". I'm gonna ride my bike, call a spade a spade and be the klass klown when the urge hits me, and leave all you expert advocates to show me how you are gonna have an impact on anything without broad support from your own constituency.

ad·vo·ca·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dv-k-s)
n.
The act of pleading or arguing in favor of something, such as a cause, idea, or policy; active support.

[Download Now or Buy the Book]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Is it advocacy to argue and plead only amongst ourselves? Or, do we need to take action and advocate and speak with those who set the rules, make the policy or interpret public opinion? The latter is a lot of work!

I ride with the proper equipment in as safe and friendly a manner as possible. I hope that folks who see me on my bike, or dressed in cycling clothes, also see a friendly, humble, helpful and courteous person who is willing to chat about cycling when asked.

I'm far too lazy to be an actual advocate as the dictionary describes it. City council calls to the public letters to the editor, etc., that's work! How many of us are actually advocates?

That's why I try to seperate advocacy - which is promotion and lobbying of the public and public bodies, and education, which is cleaning up our own house.
Hmm... Consider this account of a recent episode in Los Angeles (it was forwarded to our coalition's mailing list):


While leading a weekly group of 100+ riders, descending Mulholland Hwy at nearly 40 MPH a CHP officer pulled up behind us and used his PA to order us out of the roadway. At the time of his request, I was riding on the edge stripe. The shoulder lane was minimal, perhaps, just a couple of feet and in poor condition. The lane width is probably 12 feet. In my opinion, I was riding in the furthest right position on the road in regards to safety. I understand the street was signed for 35 MPH so I was slightly over the speed limit. But realistically speaking I/we were moving at the "normal flow of traffic". Anyway, as we approached another rider I merged left 2 feet to overtake the slower rider. This sent the CHP officer into a road rage. The CHP officer then ordered the entire group to pull to the side of the road.

The group complied and began slowing and moving into the shoulder lane. At this point the officer sped in front of me, abruptly pulled to the right, (now being in front of me) and then applied the brakes extremely hard. (leaving skid marks on the roadway). The group and myself, not expecting such an unpredictable maneuver, wound up running into the back of the officer's car. The injuries to the riders were all minor, cuts/bruises etc. (but who wants to race a 15 lb bike, applying sprinting forces to a machine that has had unengineered forces applied to the forks, handle bars and head tube). Numerous, CHP officers flooded the scene and none of them were willing to pull out their CA VC so I could read 21202 with them and discuss the situation. One officer said, " I don't care about the letter of the law. The spirit of the law says cyclists need to stay out of the way of cars". The SGT on scene said he was too upset by the situation to discuss the matter. But he did claim that we have just seen the end of group bicycle rides in California.
I think the CHP officer's quote, "I don't care about the letter of the law. The spirit of the law says cyclists need to stay out of the way of cars", is most revealing. Not because it reflects the opinion of this one CHP officer, but because it reflects the opinion of the vast majority of Americans, including the opinion of many cyclists, as indicated by the manner in which they ride.

If changing the widespread opinion that "cyclists need to stay out of the way of cars" is not the prime goal of bicycling advocacy, then I don't know what is. The reason there is conflict in the advocacy community is because those who do not recognize the high priority of this goal cannot appreciate the significance of the counter effects of other initiatives, like supporting segregated facilities for cyclists. How can we argue against the notion that cyclists should stay out of the way of cars while "advocating" for facilities whose purpose is to keep cyclists out of the way of cars?

I agree we need to clean up our own house, but I think we need to start there. We can't do it in parallel because the two goals - advocating for the right of cyclists to get in the way of motorists and advocating for facilities whose purpose is to keep cyclists out of the way of motorists - are diametrically opposite.

show me how you are gonna have an impact on anything without broad support from your own constituency.
There is no lack of broad and strong (and unfortunately in many cases not deeply thought out) advocacy in these parts for bike lanes, bike paths, etc. Even strong support for bike lanes to the right of lanes from which 80% of drivers turn right from, support for buttons on the sidewalk curb to press to get a green light (which are pointless if you are going straight or left) support for inductive sensors in the bike lane (which then means that the travel lanes sensors don't need to work for bikes) and on and on. Lots of support here for facilities as Arizona attracts or encourages lots of year round cyclist. Results are that local cities are silver level bike friendly, etc. due to number of miles of bike lanes on streets (but not number bike lanes on streets that actually may benefit from them)

So in private locally I discuss and sometimes open up other cyclists eyes that all these facilities may not neccessarily be better, but as I also don't want to be anti-social so I don't pubicly disrupt the 'united front' for cycling advocacy.

As far as on line, I don't view disagrement to be public in the sense of how the views are officially or formally presented to the non-cycling world, instead I see these forums as the place where ideas are developed, discussed, understood.

Al

So in private locally I discuss and sometimes open up other cyclists eyes that all these facilities may not neccessarily be better, but as I also don't want to be anti-social so I don't pubicly disrupt the 'united front' for cycling advocacy.

As far as on line, I don't view disagrement to be public in the sense of how the views are officially or formally presented to the non-cycling world, instead I see these forums as the place where ideas are developed, discussed, understood.
Exactly. +1

Some local advocates passed out free blinkies to cyclists who didn't have them. They passed them out directly by standing on the bike path that leads to a major employer and simply handing them out, and indirectly by giving them to major employers to give to employees that need them.

That very day I saw people who I would normally see only on the bike path or sidewalk riding on the street like a legitmate vehicle. I didn't even know they had done the giveaway, but I noticed the results that very day.

They could have just preached and looked down on people who don't ride the "right" way, but instead they found a barrier that prevents people from riding safely and broke that barrier down.

Next they're going to give out headlights.

I think removing the obstacles to a) people cycling at all, and b) people cycling unsafely is good advocacy.

Diane, I agree with you. Please do not think that what any of us do on this forum is all that we do for cycling advocacy. I see this as a place, among others, for advocates to hash out the issues and differences with each other. This forum is not advocacy per se. This forum is talking about bicycling advocacy.

I hope all forum members belong to their local advocacy group.

Hmm, that gives me an idea for a poll...

Yeah, I give up...I shoulda known better. I got out of politics and advocacy for a reason that an old mentor explained simply: "You can't help people that don't want to be helped". I'm gonna ride my bike, call a spade a spade and be the klass klown when the urge hits me, and leave all you expert advocates to show me how you are gonna have an impact on anything without broad support from your own constituency.
I think you're being a little unrealistic here. I've been involved with many political groups, which are really advocacy groups of a different color. In the civil rights movement there were disputes about voter enfranchisement vs. economic equality. In the anti-Vietnam war movement it was about peaceful protest vs. violent tactics. In gay rights it was political contributions vs. outrageous street protest. These differences were hashed out in loud and LONG (days, even weeks) meetings and caucuses. In the end all of these diverse groups reached concensus, presented a united front and were at least partially successful. The biggest challenge isn't reaching agreement, it's keeping everybody on topic.

This forum looks pretty tame in comparison. :)

OF COURSE we're going to have different ideas and disagree about the emphasis we should place on them. That's what politics is! You can bow out now if you want, but don't come whining about the results later if you do.

. How can we argue against the notion that cyclists should stay out of the way of cars while "advocating" for facilities whose purpose is to keep cyclists out of the way of cars?
I agree we need to clean up our own house, but I think we need to start there. We can't do it in parallel because the two goals - advocating for the right of cyclists to get in the way of motorists and advocating for facilities whose purpose is to keep cyclists out of the way of motorists - are diametrically opposite.

So help me out here Helmet Head.

In Boston one of the options I have as a cyclist is to ride in every day on the MDC Bike Path (http://www.bikexprt.com/massfacil/boston/esplanade.htm). This is a flawed cycling facility as John Allen rightly points out on the linked web page. Adjacent and partially visible in some of the photos is Storrow Drive, a narrow (absolutely no shoulder and high curb) high-speed roadway that sees an extremely high volume of traffic. Boston drivers are notoriously aggressive and Storrow Drive is a challenge for even the boldest of drivers- the actual speed limit as posted is, I think 35 or 40, but in reality if there's no one in front of you and you drive that slow you'll be blown off the road. I choose to ride the bike path on most mornings and evenings and, if conditions like snow or ice exist or it's just too packed with pedestrians, slow cyclists etc., I take Commonwealth Avenue or Beacon Street, roads that are highly congested with slower traffic and lined with parked cars and jaywalking pedestrians but a fairly reasonable alternative. This is to me the most common sense approach to commuting in Boston.

On occasion I will be astounded to see a cyclist exercising his (I've yet to see a female cyclist do this) right to ride on Storrow Drive. Generally the cyclists who do this are dressed in spandex cycling clothes riding high end equipment and they are riding like a "vehicle". Though this is "legal" it is undoubtedly one of the stupidest things I've ever seen. (if my description of this roadway is inadequate to convey how ridiculous this is I'll shoot a photo at my next opportunity). Now if I'm thinking that way- and I've bicycled 100's of thousands of miles in my lifetime- what are all those Boston drivers thinking? The irony is that I am often travelling as fast, if not faster, on the bike path in my street clothes on a bike costing less than a 1/3 of what they're riding. Not to generalize but they tend to be riders who "look the part" but aren't real strong riders.

So my questions are: Is this the kind of riding you're advocating for? And when we talk about advocating for all cyclists are we advocating as much for this idiot, who is not breaking the law, as we are for the idiot who blows through an intersection, breaking the law?

Buzzman,

That guy in spandex cycling clothes could have been John Allen!

Honestly, I don't understand why you think it's stupid for him to do what he's doing. You will have to spell it out for me.

I'm sure dirvers of other slow vehicles use this road from time to time. Perhaps bulldozers or other construction equipment. Maybe even a touristy horse and carriage, or a visiting Amish. What's wrong or stupid about operating any relatively slow vehicle on this road? Or is there something uniquely different about doing so with a bicycle?

Buzzman,
Honestly, I don't understand why you think it's stupid for him to do what he's doing. You will have to spell it out for me. I'm sure dirvers of other slow vehicles use this road from time to time. Perhaps bulldozers or other construction equipment. Maybe even a touristy horse and carriage, or a visiting Amish. What's wrong or stupid about operating any relatively slow vehicle on this road? Or is there something uniquely different about doing so with a bicycle?

I doubt John rides Storrow Drive but next time I see him I'll ask if he does, as well as whether he encourages cyclists to do so.

Storrow Drive does not allow bulldozers or contruction equipment because it was designed for passenger cars only and is not only too narrow but has limited overhead clearance, which prohibits trucks of any kind. In my 25 years of living in Boston and cycling next to Storrow Drive, other than seeing an occasional truck jammed in place beneath an overpass, I have yet to see any other kind of slow moving vehicle other than these very few cyclists travelling on this road.

I guess my point is what does that kind of riding accomplish? It gets you to your location no faster than the bike path or other alternative streets and it is just as rare to see a cyclist on this road today as it was 25 years ago so it's not like everybody else was so inspired by this kind of riding they got out there and joined him.

HH with regard to Storrow Drive and in a similar comparison... how would you go from the Mission Bay Visitor's Center to Ocean Beach?

There is a bike path (although the quality is marginal in some locations) and then there is Sea World Drive past the interchange at West Mission Bay Drive to the narrow laned bridge that crosses the San Diego River where Sunset Cliffs Boulevard merges.

For those that do not know the area: Sea World Drive is a 50MPH road that has several merge on and merge off lanes that are similar to hiway on and off ramps. It also has a bike lane on part of the road as well as a parallel bike path with cyclist controlled traffic lights.

I've pointed out this discussion to John Allen, who will hopefully clarify. But something he wrote recently might help shed some light on where he will be coming from:



I'll speak from my own experience: I did once have a somewhat fatalistic attitude about cycling, based choices such as riding in the door zone that I knew were hazardous but thought were less hazardous than the alternative. That ended when I read [John Forester's] book [Effective Cycling] -- 28 years ago -- and learned how to avoid, minimize and mitigate cycling's hazards. But almost immediately then, my experience of cycling in urban traffic no longer was darkened by fear, but rather became a satisfying exercise in control, mastery, mental concentration. Now I think about fearful cycling as it concerns other people rather than myself. Certainly, there are some cycling situations I avoid because I consider them hazardous -- riding on sidewalks, sidepaths, icy streets, at speed on rail trails, as well as the common traffic hazards to be avoided through vehicular technique. But the situations I avoid now correspond accurately to the actual hazards and so my decision when and where to ride is based on reason rather than fear. Yes, you're right, it's quite like motoring, though with the added satisfactions of getting exercise; being able to keep moving when traffic jams stop motor vehicles; being able to park closer to my destination; saving money; and feel that I am being a good citizen in several senses. And with the disadvantages of not being able to carry passengers or as much cargo, or travel as fast, or be inside a heated or cooled enclosure.

John S. Allen

HH with regard to Storrow Drive and in a similar comparison... how would you go from the Mission Bay Visitor's Center to Ocean Beach?

There is a bike path (although the quality is marginal in some locations) and then there is Sea World Drive past the interchange at West Mission Bay Drive to the narrow laned bridge that crosses the San Diego River where Sunset Cliffs Boulevard merges.

For those that do not know the area: Sea World Drive is a 50MPH road that has several merge on and merge off lanes that are similar to hiway on and off ramps. It also has a bike lane on part of the road as well as a parallel bike path with cyclist controlled traffic lights.
One of my favorite rides is out to Point Loma, which includes going through OB from MB. I've taken both the path, and Sea World Drive. In fact, the last time I did it, right as I was crossing over the big interchange, I got honked at by a pickup driver. I waved and smiled back at him, of course.

One of my favorite rides is out to Point Loma, which includes going through OB from MB. I've taken both the path, and Sea World Drive. In fact, the last time I did it, right as I was crossing over the big interchange, I got honked at by a pickup driver. I waved and smiled back at him, of course.

and I'm sure he's out riding a bike today thanks to you.

How can we argue against the notion that cyclists should stay out of the way of cars while "advocating" for facilities whose purpose is to keep cyclists out of the way of cars?

...We can't do it in parallel because the two goals - advocating for the right of cyclists to get in the way of motorists and advocating for facilities whose purpose is to keep cyclists out of the way of motorists - are diametrically opposite.
Not exactly.

There is a difference between cyclists who want to be separated from motor traffic and motorists who want to remove cyclists from the roads, or get them out of the way. As long as cyclists' privilege to use the common roadways are kept intact, there is no reason facility-oriented cyclists can't have their facilities. But as long as cyclists are divided on this no-win issue, non-cyclists will not get the message.

As you know, I prefer the roads, because in my experience, the quality is just better. But as long as my privilege to use the road is understood, I'm happy (and keep those bike lanes swept!)

One of my favorite rides is out to Point Loma, which includes going through OB from MB. I've taken both the path, and Sea World Drive. In fact, the last time I did it, right as I was crossing over the big interchange, I got honked at by a pickup driver. I waved and smiled back at him, of course.

Great, you've riden both and thus can compare and contrast. I have too, just these last holidays as a matter of fact... The fast road can be negotiated as well as the interchange, provided one really is aware of traffic and can work with it (helps if you really know exactly which roads you want). I also took the path (which I had long forgetten even existed) It was adequate for getting me where I wanted to go, but it did put me in "rolling pedestrian" mode many times and the repair of the path in certain areas is marginal, thus my skinny tire road bike did not like some stretches.

Now the reason I brought this up is that I took my wife on the path for a couple rides... she quite enjoyed her 10MPH jaunt down to OB... but I really could not see her trying to merge into the traffic on Sea World Drive while riding in that fashion. She was not blind to the traffic at all, but like many cyclists, her skill level were not up to facing 50MPH traffic. Thus the alternate path made more sense for her... as it would for other cyclists of that skill level.

Just as "Storrow Drive" might be quite suitable for a skilled rider, and the alternate path for less skilled riders... the point is that the alternative offered the less skilled riders a way to get to their location... just like lesser skilled drivers often take surface streets rather then brave the freeways.

But the point is that both skilled and less skilled cyclists are still valid cyclists that should be advocated for... and perhaps the less skilled need advocacy more so, as the more skilled can easily make their way on the same roads as motorists.

Not exactly.

There is a difference between cyclists who want to be separated from motor traffic and motorists who want to remove cyclists from the roads, or get them out of the way. As long as cyclists' privilege to use the common roadways are kept intact, there is no reason facility-oriented cyclists can't have their facilities. But as long as cyclists are divided on this no-win issue, non-cyclists will not get the message.

As you know, I prefer the roads, because in my experience, the quality is just better. But as long as my privilege to use the road is understood, I'm happy (and keep those bike lanes swept!)

+1

Gene, I support many bike paths, including those between MB and OB, precisely for the benefit of folks like your wife.

Little Big Man, regardless of the reason why some cyclists might want bike lanes, the EFFECT of the very existence of the bike lane on a "shared" roadway for the vast majority is an official sanction of the notion that bicyclists should stay out of the way of cagers.

Just as "Storrow Drive" might be quite suitable for a skilled rider, and the alternate path for less skilled riders...

Riding the bike path safely in Boston actually requires considerable skill. Riding on Storrow Drive requires no special skills other than a complete lack of common sense. I am amazed that experienced cyclists are unwilling to admit that there are roads we have a legal right to ride on but would be insane to do so.

I'm amazed that an experienced cyclist thinks there are roads we have a legal right to ride on but would be insane to do so.

Yeah, I give up...I shoulda known better. I got out of politics and advocacy for a reason that an old mentor explained simply: "You can't help people that don't want to be helped". I'm gonna ride my bike, call a spade a spade and be the klass klown when the urge hits me, and leave all you expert advocates to show me how you are gonna have an impact on anything without broad support from your own constituency.
I suggest that this Forum Group sponsor a steel cage (no relation to a "Cager" cocoon) tag-team verbal death match between the two principal groups of expert/uncompromising advocates found posting on this Forum. All illogical arguments and BS statements permitted. Heck, otherwise what verbal weapons would they have to "fight" with?

In one corner: Would-be Che Guevaras of the counter culture re-Velo-tion, ready to smash the evil social order of the Cager Nation, with the bicycle as the principal weapon of destruction. Other weapons of these advocates are nut house economic/social screeds and condescension towards low-lifes who don't appreciate the pure simple life of a social/economic dropout.

In the other corner: The Vehicular Cycling™ proselytizers. No need to identify their modus operandi.

Winner to have exclusive use to the term "we" when discussing advocacy issues on this Forum. All others must either compromise and join the winner's "consensus" views, or be expelled into the nether world of Foo.

I'm amazed that an experienced cyclist thinks there are roads we have a legal right to ride on but would be insane to do so.
Just because you have a right to the road doesn't make every road safe enough to ride a bicycle on.

I would advocate to improve the MDC bike path.

I would advocate to making roads like Commonwealth Ave and Beacon Street more bike friendly- like enforced speed limits, share the road signs etc. I believe bike lanes would be counterproductive on these roads due to how narrow the lanes are.

While I support the cyclists' right to take a lane and ride on all roads I do not advocate by riding on roads like Storrow Drive and find it just as detrimental to bicycling advocacy as running red lights and riding on sidewalks.

Here is a photo of Storrow Drive. There is roughly an inch or two of space from the white line to what is a high curb on the right. The bike path is visible on the right under the trees. This is a "beauty shot of Storrow" and it's rare it is as lightly travelled as in this photo. Traffic moves at between 45 and 65 mph on this road with some regularity.

Storrow (http://massroads.com/image.php?subject=mdc_storrow_drive_outbound_2_20010728)

Riding the bike path safely in Boston actually requires considerable skill. Riding on Storrow Drive requires no special skills other than a complete lack of common sense. I am amazed that experienced cyclists are unwilling to admit that there are roads we have a legal right to ride on but would be insane to do so.
If you want a blow by blow encounter with the amazing extremes some "experienced cyclists" go to describe the ease and importance legal rights of cycling on roads with which they have no experience or knowledge try starting at this point:
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=1057214&postcount=221

part of this thread:
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=91307

and read the following posts til you get sick of the loony rhetoric.

Just because you have a right to the road doesn't make every road safe enough to ride a bicycle on.
I disagree. I think every road is safe to ride a bicycle on.

From the picture, Storrow Drive looks like a great place to bicycle for me.