Advocacy & Safety - Is Triple-A (AAA) anti-cyclist?

I came across this organization recently, the Better World Club. They seem to offer a roadside assistance plan to compete with AAA. They also point out a number of things AAA has done that are anti-environmental and anti-cyclist (opposing rails to trails programs?).

http://www.betterworldclub.com/competition/aaa.htm

I was just wondering if anyone can support or dispute the claims made by BWC. I'm currently a AAA member and am considering switching to these folks when my membership runs out later this year.

Scott

They are very pro-motorist. That pro-motorist attitude may at times put them in conflict with cyclists best interests.

Can't understand them being against rails-to-trails, doesn't seem like it would have much to do with cars...?

Recently, a AAA agent set up a booth at my job and sold contracts at a discount.

On the booth, they had a bicycle users guide.

I asked the agent if AAA covered bicycles and she said they cover " all vehicles " except for Recreational Vehicles (which requires an additional fee on top of the base fee and this is essentially for motorcycles).

So if I get a flat, they should come out and help me swap the tube and fill up the tire for me ... lol

They are very pro-motorist. That pro-motorist attitude may at times put them in conflict with cyclists best interests.

I have been an ACSC (AAA's Southern California division, where it all started) member for more than 30 years because they offer what the best automobile, homeowner, and liability insurance packages available. I have occasionally crossed verbal swords with the administration, such as when they opposed a piece of legislation which would have helped to clarify bicyclists' rights to use the road. I would far rather be a dues-paying, voting, dissident member of an organization than an outsider-complainer. (As a political centrist, I find that neither major political party speaks for me, but I have always registered with one of the majors to avoid being disenfranchised in the primary elections.)

Do I consider the AAA anti-bicycing? No. Do certain members of the AAA's management team need an education regarding bicyclists' rights and responsibilities and positive contributions to our society? Absolutely yes!

I asked the agent if AAA covered bicycles and she said they cover " all vehicles " except for Recreational Vehicles (which requires an additional fee on top of the base fee and this is essentially for motorcycles).

That seems pretty vague. Most non-cycling Americans would classify bicycles as recreational vehicles. Especially if even motorcycles are so classified, which kind of surprises me.


So if I get a flat, they should come out and help me swap the tube and fill up the tire for me ... lol

That sounds like the case to me. Let us know how that works out! :D

AAA does NOT in fact offer bike services, despite whatever a salesperson might have said; call the service number and ask for service, and you'll learn that really quickly. They also lobby hard against improved fuel-efficiency standards, tighter highway regulations, rails-to-trails, speed limits, etc. I was a member for YEARS, but no longer am, after having read several articles and position papers and looking into their lobbying activities...

Not a member of BWC, either, but I might well join up!

I contacted AAA and they don't offer bicycle assistance.

The carbon-offset thing always struck me a bogus, so I don't really want to buy into it:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48e334ce-f355-11db-9845-000b5df10621.html

Other than that complaint, BWC seems like a bike-friendly service.

the AAA fights very hard at the national, state and local levels to make sure that all gas tax revenues go to facilities for cars, trucks and other motor vehicles, and that no part of the gas tax revenues go to transit, bike or ped facilities (even though many transit, bike and ped facilities also indirectly benefit motorists).

the AAA fights very hard at the national, state and local levels to make sure that all gas tax revenues go to facilities for cars, trucks and other motor vehicles, and that no part of the gas tax revenues go to transit, bike or ped facilities (even though many transit, bike and ped facilities also indirectly benefit motorists).
I'd say bikes benefit cars directly. Nothing frees up the roads for driving like reducing the number of cars. Can't say I've ever seen a situation where only 3 bikes could get through on a light cycle during rush hour. Less than 2 cars on a light cycle is commonplace.

I'd say bikes benefit cars directly. Nothing frees up the roads for driving like reducing the number of cars. Can't say I've ever seen a situation where only 3 bikes could get through on a light cycle during rush hour. Less than 2 cars on a light cycle is commonplace.

Yeah but logic to these folks who only think "zoom zoom" is asking a bit much.

"I gotta wait for those darn law breaking bikers." is pretty much the prevailing mentality.

AAA was one of the groups that opposed California’s bike safety bill. I saved excerpts here: http://www.baltimorespokes.org/article.php?story=20070130203305695&query=AAA

The Canadian equivalent, the CAA, recently had a dramatic turnaround, and their new policy endorses all automotive alternatives to ease gridlock.

This was a welcome departure from their previous policy, which included lobbying to fill in Lake Ontario to build another freeway (seriously).

I don't think they're particularly anti-bicycle as much as they are pro-car.

Like me, I'm not particularly anti-car as much as I am pro-bike.

They are very pro-motorist. That pro-motorist attitude may at times put them in conflict with cyclists best interests.


I don't think they're particularly anti-bicycle as much as they are pro-car.

Like me, I'm not particularly anti-car as much as I am pro-bike.
+1. I won't join AAA partly for these reasons (also, their roadside coverage is a ripoff), but advocating your interests is as American as apple pie. We shouldn't be offended that motorists lobby for motorists' interests. We should respond by lobbying for our own.

Does it come as a to a shock to anyone here that the American Automobile Association doesn't put cyclists' needs at the top of their agenda?

Does it come as a to a shock to anyone here that the American Automobile Association doesn't put cyclists' needs at the top of their agenda?

I was wondering when someone would point this out. AAA was organized by motorists to support and promote the use of motor vehicles. Why would we even expect them provide service to a non-motor vehicle? They would probably not send a tow truck out to help you if you lost a sole on one of your shoes while hiking along the side of the road, either.

Looking to the AAA for cycling support is a little like looking to the NFL for support of your local peewee soccer team. Related, yes, but, no direct connection.

Caruso

I think he meant motorcycles like dirt bikes... Or Quads.

I was wondering when someone would point this out. AAA was organized by motorists to support and promote the use of motor vehicles. Why would we even expect them provide service to a non-motor vehicle? They would probably not send a tow truck out to help you if you lost a sole on one of your shoes while hiking along the side of the road, either.

Looking to the AAA for cycling support is a little like looking to the NFL for support of your local peewee soccer team. Related, yes, but, no direct connection.

Caruso


Theres a diff between not offering support to a cyclist on the side of the road and trying to stop laws being passed that help cyclists or a letter writing campaign to try and cut funding or prevent funding for making road ways safer or creating more mups etc.

Which laws, which letters.
None of it surprising, really. The AAA was not chartered with us cyclists in mind, so, I am not surprised.

Caruso

Which laws, which letters.
None of it surprising, really. The AAA was not charted with us cyclists in mind, so, I am not surprised.

Caruso

Exactly. If someone were to research those claims further, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find out the the "anti-rails-to-trails" campaign involved a stretch of rail that they wanted converted into a road (y'know, for cars). Remember, there are two sides to every story, and of course the Better World Club is going to try to paint their competition in the worst possible light. I'm not defending AAA, I'm just sayin'...

I heard on the news this morning someone complaining that if less money were spent on building bike paths and more on inspecting/repairing bridges, the Minneapolis collapse might have been avoided. Now, that had nothing to do with AAA, but it is a very disappointing to see that sort of association being put forth.

Caruso

if less money was spent on the war in Iraq is probably a much better comparison

I heard on the news this morning someone complaining that if less money were spent on building bike paths and more on inspecting/repairing bridges, the Minneapolis collapse might have been avoided. Now, that had nothing to do with AAA, but it is a very disappointing to see that sort of association being put forth.

Caruso

If more people carpooled, rode bikes, walked and took mass transit, our bridges and other infrastructure would be in better shape and wouldn't need so many repairs. For that matter, if more people drove cars instead of SUVs our bridges and roads would be in better shape.

AAA supports wide shoulders on state roads. which, if reading between the lines of the dodging about shoulder riding going on by john forester in the VC subforum, supports bicycling on roads quite vehicularily.

I'm of the opinion AAA supports some of my interests as a bicyclist- taking state roads with substandard shoulders and improving them, which indirectly improves bicycling safety.

if less money was spent on the war in Iraq is probably a much better comparison
Or less money spent on social programs that do nothing but keep poor people poor.
Please stop adding political views into threads that don't need it. I come to these forums to learn about cycling, not to get into political arguments.

I would far rather be a dues-paying, voting, dissident member of an organization than an outsider-complainer.
Word

Or less money spent on social programs that do nothing but keep poor people poor.
Please stop adding political views into threads that don't need it. I come to these forums to learn about cycling, not to get into political arguments.
I don't think he was referring to the political nature of spending less in Iraq, but rather the amount of money necessary to rehabilitate our national highway infrastructure. In those terms, the scale of what we spend on Iraq is a far more accurate comparison than the peanuts we spend on MUPs. I think it's just that most people don't yet understand how much money we will need to spend to make our bridges and highways (as a system) safe again, so they think that by eliminating spending on something we really don't spend all that much on, there will be plenty of money to inspect and fix bridges and such. That's just not true. It's kind of like when you ask a 6 year old how much they think a car costs, and they say $100 because they can't fathom higher values than that.

AAA has been of great assistance for my automobile-specific requirements. I join other groups for my bicycle, and other groups regarding my motorcycle usage. No complaints with any of them.

Why not join a car club that does service bike calls--
http://www.betterworldclub.com/
http://www.betterworldclub.com/bicycles/index.htm
http://www.autosafety.org/article.php?scid=77&did=783

I don't think he was referring to the political nature of spending less in Iraq, but rather the amount of money necessary to rehabilitate our national highway infrastructure. I do think so. If your opinion was the case, the poster could have easily have said something about using more tax money to improve the infrastructure, instead of saying to lessen the funding of a certain program to use for another. I like BF, but I am getting tired of all the political views being thrown into threads when they are not needed. There are political forums for this, there is even a forum here you can do this, I just don't read that one. I come here to learn about cycling and cycling related topics.

Sorry for hijacking this thread, now back to AAA.

I don't think he was referring to the political nature of spending less in Iraq, but rather the amount of money necessary to rehabilitate our national highway infrastructure. I do think so. If your opinion was the case, the poster could have easily have said something about using more tax money to improve the infrastructure, instead of saying to lessen the funding of a certain program to use for another. I like BF, but I am getting tired of all the political views being thrown into threads when they are not needed. There are political forums for this, there is even a forum here you can do this, I just don't read that one. I come here to learn about cycling and cycling related topics.

Sorry for hijacking this thread, now back to AAA.

Or less money spent on social programs that do nothing but keep poor people poor.
Please stop adding political views into threads that don't need it. I come to these forums to learn about cycling, not to get into political arguments.

Funny, when we call it welfare and social security and education we get all uptight about it and call it hand outs and ways to 'keep people poor', but when we give our tax $$ to corporations (who are arguably in some of the most advantageous positions in society, and they aren't even people) we call it 'free market', 'incentives', 'capitalism' etc. etc.

I'm not sure you'll be able to separate cycling from politics in the A&S forum. You might want to read some other subforums - much of 'advocacy' relates to politics, and supposedly, part of what makes us 'free' and this counrty 'great' to live in (speaking for US readers) is our ability to debate and fight and die for the right for other people to have their own practices and views on religion, politics, etc. etc. If we truly live in a democracy, politics should be a part of our everyday life - starting primarily from the local, and working up to the state and national sphere.

If its not... well, we're sort of just accepting the way things come down from above... no?

Well, of course if the subject is about government policy, then yes discuss it. This is the advocacy forum. That is why I said "political views into threads that don't need it". There is a difference between talking about your local government's policies that inhibit cycling and just bashing your political foes. I thought this forum was to help each other promote cycling and safety, not to turn into liberals vs. conservatives battle.
That does not help in any way, all it does is pull a thread into a us vs. them match. If you hate Bush or Pelosi, go ahead and talk about how they are destroying the US in a proper forum, but it doesn't help promote safety and advocacy. Unless Bush pushes for a law against bikes on federally funded streets or Pelosi tries to pass a mandatory federal helmet law, then go ahead and talk about that issue.

Well, of course if the subject is about government policy, then yes discuss it. This is the advocacy forum. That is why I said "political views into threads that don't need it". There is a difference between talking about your local government's policies that inhibit cycling and just bashing your political foes. I thought this forum was to help each other promote cycling and safety, not to turn into liberals vs. conservatives battle.
That does not help in any way, all it does is pull a thread into a us vs. them match. If you hate Bush or Pelosi, go ahead and talk about how they are destroying the US in a proper forum, but it doesn't help promote safety and advocacy. Unless Bush pushes for a law against bikes on federally funded streets or Pelosi tries to pass a mandatory federal helmet law, then go ahead and talk about that issue.

I don't think anyone made that sort of point. The point was made about spending money on a war that is costing billions of dollars a month vs. increased spending at home. No one mentioned Bush, Pelosi, Barrack, or Krusty the Klown.

This is helpful:

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/images/stories/chartspage/discretionaryfy07prop.gif

Note how little is spent on 'transportation'. (I'm digging to find out just what is considered 'transportation' in this chart.

From this (http://www.nationalpriorities.org/) website.

It is one thing for AAA to lobby for motoring interest and quite another to choose NOT to inform its members on its lobbying efforts. I also think it is a bit deceitful advertising as a roadside assistance program and using the membership roster to lobby for whatever the governing body wants without polling its members.

To me it would be like McDonalds saying everyone who visits McDonalds is for factory farming even those who just buy a cup of coffee or a salad. On one hand there is a logical connect to people wanting a cheaper meat product and there is also a disconnect in that they offer other goods that have nothing to do with factory farming. AAA is like that, there is some possibly that some of the membership is aligned to the issues but the bulk of its membership has joined for something totally different.

Its a bit anti environment too. (http://www.nrdc.org/amicus/01win/aaa/aaa.asp)


"A lot of people belong to AAA because they think it's a nice place to get Triptiks and traveler's checks," says Daniel Becker, director of Sierra Club's global warming and energy program. "What they don't know is that AAA is a lobbyist for more roads, more pollution, and more gas guzzling."


For example, AAA weighed in against the 1990 Clean Air Act, one of the most important environmental laws of the decade. A press release from its government and public affairs headquarters in Washington, D.C., claimed that the bill would "threaten the personal mobility of millions of Americans and jeopardize needed funds for new highway construction and safety improvements."

and possibly the best quote ever:


Comments Paul Billings of the American Lung Association, "Building more roads to solve an air pollution problem is like buying a larger pair of pants to solve an obesity problem."


more:


No assessment of AAA's environmental agenda is complete without a look at its participation in the American Highway Users Alliance.

For annual dues of somewhere between $25,000 and $49,999, AAA is a patron member of this powerful lobbying group. When Highway Users holds a meeting, it uses AAA's deluxe conference room, and around the table gathers an improbable group with a highly misleading name. AAA and several of its affiliate clubs are the only members of Highway Users with any serious claim to represent ordinary drivers. Among the other members are Ford, General Motors, Goodyear, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the Portland Cement Association, the Associated General Contractors of America, and a gaggle of truck and bus companies. More than three-quarters of the group's funding comes from companies that build roads or supply the vehicles and fuels that ply them. The progressive organization Common Cause investigated the biggest PAC donors in the highway lobby during the period 1987-1997, and found that seven of the top ten were members of Highway Users.


AAA is big business. It is a not-for-profit organization (though it does pay taxes). Nevertheless, every year the association and its affiliated clubs sell $6 billion worth of insurance, $2.4 billion worth of traveler's checks, and $3.4 billion worth of travel agency services. They book 2 million car rentals and generate $4 billion in credit card transactions. By pursuing the same goals as the auto, oil, and roadbuilding industries, AAA benefits directly. The more cars there are on the roads, and the more roads there are for those cars to travel, the more revenue it earns.

History lesson: AAA started out as an organization advocating for motoring, including better roads, better traffic laws, and promoting motoring as a fun and safe activity for average Americans. All the insurance and Trip-tiks came later.

AAA was modelled after the League of American Wheelmen, an organization advocating for bicyclists, including better roads, better traffic laws and promoting cycling as a fun and safe activity for average Americans. All the VC and bike lane stuff came later.

Funny how history repeats itself even as it changes so much!


BTW, I believe that the Better World Club actually does provide roadside assistance for bicyclists.

Every spring, the AAA newsletter for southern New England prints an advice piece for bicyclists. Generally, this advice piece is geared for parents who are trying to pull the kiddies away from the playstations for at least an afternoon. The advice is alright, offering such tips as always wearing a helmet, always ride with the flow of traffic, and using lights at night. Basically, stuff we all know. What it never does, is make a direct reference to any actual state bicycle laws. Why do I feel this is important? So people will know that there are actual laws for bicycles, and that the advice being given is not just a list of suggestions.

I don't think AAA is anti bicycle. But, I can think of no reason why they would be anti rail-trail, unless they believe that such projects divert funds from road maintenance. Anyone know for certain?

Can't understand them being against rails-to-trails, doesn't seem like it would have much to do with cars...?

Diversion of highway taxes from building/fixing roads and bridges does not have much to do with cars?

I was working on an old Schwinn last night when I noticed a small reflective sticker on the back of the rear fender. It had the Triple AAA logo on it and also said "Safe Bicycle Driver". I found it interesting that AAA not only made a bicycle specific sticker, but also used the word driver on it.

They are very pro-motorist. That pro-motorist attitude may at times put them in conflict with cyclists best interests.

No question. It's all about the coin to any corporation/business. It's up to us to convince them that their policies are fiscally harmful to the business. Sadly, that's the only way to change said policies.

... Brad

I suppose here's the answer.

http://support.railstotrails.org/site/PageServer?pagename=AAA

I was planning a bicycle tour earlier this year, so I went to AAA (my wife is a member) to get maps and a motel guide. The lady at the counter was embarrassed that they couldn't print me out a bicycle-specific route map. I wouldn't say AAA are 'anti-cyclist', but they certainly don't do anything specifically to help cyclists.

I'd say bikes benefit cars directly. Nothing frees up the roads for driving like reducing the number of cars. Can't say I've ever seen a situation where only 3 bikes could get through on a light cycle during rush hour. Less than 2 cars on a light cycle is commonplace.

I have. It was because of the cars (aka slow moving vehicles) in front of us, blocking the road.

The American Automobile Association (AAA) wants Congress to cut long-standing programs that support trails, biking and walking in order to divert those funds to the highway system.

I ride by there headquarters everyday, but tomorrow I will have a different view of them:notamused::notamused::notamused:

I don't think they are against bicyclists,they are pro cars.

They don't offer trip tickets for bikes anymore? They used too.

...They don't offer trip tickets for bikes anymore? They used too.

Not here in Maryland - at least not in the office I went to.

AAA does NOT in fact offer bike services, despite whatever a salesperson might have said; call the service number and ask for service, and you'll learn that really quickly. Even if they did, I wouldn't want most tow truck drivers anywhere near my bike.

Some argue that because they provide funding, despite the refent news to cut the funding, they are anti-cyclist because it is views as AAA wanting to get cyclists off of the roadways and onto the trails. Others argue they are not because they are doing something to help cyclists out.

I have a question about AAA. Do they have a specified policy that says they are working to get cyclists off the streets, for what ever reason? I don't mean someone's opinion that they are doing this based on what they stand for, or how it is interprited. I mean actual language in their mission, goals and values, etc. that states as much.