Vehicular Cycling (VC) - LAB Reform News – LAB Elections

At the risk of blowing my cover as an anti-motoring/cycling inferioritist I present the following at least so LAB members can be informed on the issues. I encourage all LAB members to write to the candidates of their region about issues that they feel are important.


We are now in election season, with four director seats up for grabs. All members can vote for the "At-Large" seat and you can vote for the other seats if you live in region 2, 3 or 5. Below is a brief summary of our recommendations. For details, please see http://www.labreform.org/2008election/

At Large (all LAB members can vote for this spot)
LAB Reform Endorsed Candidate: Hans van Naerssen,

Region 2: DC, DE, MD, NJ, PA, and WV
Bill Hoffman, LAB Reform Endorsed Candidate

Region 3: AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, PR, SC, TN, and VA
Bruce Rosar, LAB Reform Endorsed Candidate

Region 5: AR, AZ, CO, IA, KS, LA, MN, MO, MT, NE, ND, NM, OK, SD, TX, UT, WI, and WY
Harry Brull (incumbent and not opposed)

We added have several articles to the LAB Reform web site since we last wrote and we've revised many of the others. First, here are the main sections:

"Home" page http://www.labreform.org/
2008 Election http://www.labreform.org/2008election/
Education Section http://www.labreform.org/education/
Bicycle Blunders & Smarter Solutions http://www.labreform.org/blunders/index.html

Here are some new articles:

Why Move Out of Washington http://www.labreform.org/move.htm
Who's Elitist? http://www.labreform.org/elitism.htm
Armadillos and Cyclists http://www.labreform.org/education/armadillo.htm

Please tell other cyclists about LAB governance and advocacy problems. Try to get articles in club newsletters and get links to us on websites. --- And please vote for our candidates.

Thank you
Fred Oswald
for LAB Reform

there goes the neighborhood.:(

Similar divisive tactics as those employed by LAB reform helped to paralyze, cripple and eventually weaken one of the unions I belong to. It's been painful to watch as a highly motivated agenda-oriented minority wears down membership by reframing arguments and preventing progressive dialogue by holding up on points of order and ridiculous minutiae that moves nothing forward. In the case of a union it can put one's earnings, health care and pension in serious jeapordy. But the stakes can also be really high in elections like these that decide how we are represented as a cycling community.

Eventually the more open minded flexible individuals give up because every argument is reframed in the most polarizing context possible by the "reformers". Organizations that depend on voluntary participation of membership are particuarly prone to these tactics- it works! Eventually the minority takes control of boards and the organization's administrative agenda. Membership tends to drop and membership involvement and voluntary activity tends to diminish along with it. The organization may remain vocal for a period of time but grows more and more ineffective because in truth it represents the smallest possible constituency of the original organization.

For those who may be seduced by the seemingly black and white simplification of issues I'd suggest some open-minded skepticism as you review the presentation of issues by LAB reform. There are often clear differences between how those they have targeted as the "opposition" present their points of view and how they are presented by LAW reform. It's worth it to do some balanced research.

While I don't focus on the same minutiae as several other members of LAB Reform, I am convinced that their primary motivation is to serve the interests of LAB members better than they are currently being served, and consequently strengthen the membership.

I suspect their challenges to those currently in charge of LAB are responsible for LAB's very recent increase in attention to protecting rights of cyclists on our existing roadways. By comparison, LAB's unfortunate trend had been increasingly toward serving the interests of bicycle manufacturers and bike path planners no matter how poorly their products performed for LAB members.

I’m just going to say I like being informed about the issues. Reading the candidates response to the questioner is very informative no matter what side of the fence you are on.

I'm a member but I haven't heard of the Reform group/movement. What's their deal?

Well there is the history that started the group and that gets rather ugly on both sides in my humble opinion but I think for the most part both sides are over the ugly bit but it still brings up some knee jerk reactions.

You can follow the links in the OP to get more detail but I follow the group mainly because they stress VC and education.

This is the best link of the lot:
http://www.labreform.org/2008election/questionnaire.htm

Nice layout and you just read about the questions and candidates responses.


Anyway like a lot of things in life I am not 100% in either camp but as Steve suggested it does seem as if the pressure from LAB Reform has created some positive changes in LAB. I’m not sure if I would be happy if LAB Reform took over LAB but a compromise position seems like the idealistic place in my view.

there goes the neighborhood.:(

Similar divisive tactics as those employed by LAB reform helped to paralyze, cripple and eventually weaken one of the unions I belong to. It's been painful to watch as a highly motivated agenda-oriented minority wears down membership by reframing arguments and preventing progressive dialogue by holding up on points of order and ridiculous minutiae that moves nothing forward. In the case of a union it can put one's earnings, health care and pension in serious jeapordy. But the stakes can also be really high in elections like these that decide how we are represented as a cycling community.

Eventually the more open minded flexible individuals give up because every argument is reframed in the most polarizing context possible by the "reformers". Organizations that depend on voluntary participation of membership are particuarly prone to these tactics- it works! Eventually the minority takes control of boards and the organization's administrative agenda. Membership tends to drop and membership involvement and voluntary activity tends to diminish along with it. The organization may remain vocal for a period of time but grows more and more ineffective because in truth it represents the smallest possible constituency of the original organization.

For those who may be seduced by the seemingly black and white simplification of issues I'd suggest some open-minded skepticism as you review the presentation of issues by LAB reform. There are often clear differences between how those they have targeted as the "opposition" present their points of view and how they are presented by LAW reform. It's worth it to do some balanced research.

I initially approached their website and articles with lots of skepticism, yet I'm forced to agree with much of their viewpoints because nearly all of them corroborate with my experiences with bicycle transportation in Eugene (a silver-level Bicycle Friendly Community). I'll accept your contrary opinion, but hear mine out.

In Eugene we have some seriously dangerous bike facilities. My own experiences have proved this to me, and accident statistics here seem to confirm it. Our modal share has decreased by 2.5% since 1990 (and is predicted to continue to fall) and our accident rate is increasing. Bike planning and advocacy is mostly squeezing in bike lanes on substandard roads and expanding our multi-use trail network at great expense. There are no provisions whatsoever for education, and you can easily see that by taking a stroll through downtown and observing the behavior of the average cyclist (mostly "rolling pedestrians" here).

I'll name off a few bad approaches Eugene has taken that LAB reform points out: bike lanes on steep hills, a huge abundance of "door-zone" bike lanes, mixing pedestrians and cyclists (we've had a noticeable amount of bike-ped collisions over the years), poor street maintenance (largely in the name of discouraging driving, as far as I can tell) and no education or participation with law enforcement. With all the things I've noticed here, then confirmed on their website, it makes it very apparent to me that there are some serious problems with LAB. Yeah it's not black and white (and notice how LAB reform has pointed out the good things that LAB has done, they're not so black and white either). But as for a political agenda, they seem mostly to be focusing on improving safety above all else. That and the fact that they're running on a fraction of the monetary resources that LAB has available makes it difficult for me to accept that this is all a political show.

The article on BFC spoke the loudest to me. Even before I read that, I had thought that Eugene's silver-level rating was a joke. Eugene I suppose is bike friendly (as in recreational riding on MUTs), but cyclist friendly it is not. The hostile atmosphere and militant drivers here make this town rather unpleasant for true bicycle transportation and commuting. The measures taken to separate bicycle traffic from motor traffic as much as possible only seem to reinforce the social expectation that bikes shouldn't be on normal roadways, which greatly hampers my ability to get where I need to go. I say good luck to LAB reform.

there goes the neighborhood.:(

Similar divisive tactics as those employed by LAB reform helped to paralyze, cripple and eventually weaken one of the unions I belong to. It's been painful to watch as a highly motivated agenda-oriented minority wears down membership by reframing arguments and preventing progressive dialogue by holding up on points of order and ridiculous minutiae that moves nothing forward. In the case of a union it can put one's earnings, health care and pension in serious jeapordy. But the stakes can also be really high in elections like these that decide how we are represented as a cycling community.

Eventually the more open minded flexible individuals give up because every argument is reframed in the most polarizing context possible by the "reformers". Organizations that depend on voluntary participation of membership are particuarly prone to these tactics- it works! Eventually the minority takes control of boards and the organization's administrative agenda. Membership tends to drop and membership involvement and voluntary activity tends to diminish along with it. The organization may remain vocal for a period of time but grows more and more ineffective because in truth it represents the smallest possible constituency of the original organization.

For those who may be seduced by the seemingly black and white simplification of issues I'd suggest some open-minded skepticism as you review the presentation of issues by LAB reform. There are often clear differences between how those they have targeted as the "opposition" present their points of view and how they are presented by LAW reform. It's worth it to do some balanced research.

It appears that your attempt to hijack this thread by writing the most polarizing post in it, failed. That's because, if you spent more time out in the real world meeting real cyclists instead of attacking them from behind a keyboard, you wouldn't be so ignorant of such things as the fact that cyclists have LA[W]reform-endorsed candidate Bill Hoffman to thank for the access that was opened up through certain freeway-only bottlenecks in Pennsylvania. I've been using one of them, rt. 22/322 north of Harrisburg, on my sporadic rides downstate since before it became a freeway, and I'm thankful to him for being able to continue to use it including on my way to some of the events that I've met him at.

Are you even a member of the League, Mr. Buzzman? I'm Life Member #502.

there goes the neighborhood.:(

Similar divisive tactics as those employed by LAB reform helped to paralyze, cripple and eventually weaken one of the unions I belong to. It's been painful to watch as a highly motivated agenda-oriented minority wears down membership by reframing arguments and preventing progressive dialogue by holding up on points of order and ridiculous minutiae that moves nothing forward. In the case of a union it can put one's earnings, health care and pension in serious jeapordy. But the stakes can also be really high in elections like these that decide how we are represented as a cycling community.

Eventually the more open minded flexible individuals give up because every argument is reframed in the most polarizing context possible by the "reformers". Organizations that depend on voluntary participation of membership are particuarly prone to these tactics- it works! Eventually the minority takes control of boards and the organization's administrative agenda. Membership tends to drop and membership involvement and voluntary activity tends to diminish along with it. The organization may remain vocal for a period of time but grows more and more ineffective because in truth it represents the smallest possible constituency of the original organization.

For those who may be seduced by the seemingly black and white simplification of issues I'd suggest some open-minded skepticism as you review the presentation of issues by LAB reform. There are often clear differences between how those they have targeted as the "opposition" present their points of view and how they are presented by LAW reform. It's worth it to do some balanced research.

Indeed, this issue of divisiveness needs to be discussed in a truthful way. It is quite true, as buzzman writes, that in a membership organization a small group that is organized around a strict policy and agenda can take control of the organization and redirect it to new ends. Frequently, membership drops and voluntary activity tends to diminish with it. The League of American Wheelmen, now doing business as the League of American Bicyclists, is a textbook example of that process; well, not exactly, not just one example, but several in succession. The original LAW died before World War 1, as members defected to motoring. I am talking about the recreated LAW that has existed since the Great Depression, when it was recreated because economic conditions restored respectability to bicycle touring. LAW existed as a membership organization that served the interests of the cyclists who were its members, serving them with many volunteer-operated services that provided services that cyclists want. For that matter, the whole organization was entirely volunteer operated for many years.

However, since then there have been successive takeover waves (with partial recovery interludes) by two different interests that happen to have a common agenda: the bicycle industry and the anti-motorists. The bicycle industry's initial interest was in selling more American-made bicycles through government regulation (the Federal CPSC bicycle design regulation). However, it later decided that influencing government to produce bikeways promised higher returns, and in this it found common ground with the anti-motorist bikeway promoters.

Through these processes, LAB has turned itself into no more than just another professionally operated lobbying organization, this one with the purpose of getting more money for bikeways. The volunteer-operated member services have practically disappeared, and those member services that still operate are not in the line of interest of the management, and get done badly because those operating them do not really understand what is needed.

So you see, buzzman, that while your observational hypothesis is accurate, the facts to which it applies are the opposite of what you thought.

There, I'm being patronizing again. However, I know nothing about your life beyond what you recently published in these discussioins, and far be it from me to criticize your choice of living style, because that is not really relevant to the description of what most people do and their motives in doing it. You apparently find it difficult to look beyond your own choices in life at the choices that the majority of other people have made, and their reasons for them. In discussions of this type, the individual example can be used to illustrate some particular point, but when discussing such matters as urban pattern it is necessary to largely consider the causes of that pattern, and, mostly, that has to refer to the actions and motives of the majority, or at least the majority of those producing the changes under discussion.

there goes the neighborhood.:(

Similar divisive tactics as those employed by LAB reform helped to paralyze, cripple and eventually weaken one of the unions I belong to. It's been painful to watch as a highly motivated agenda-oriented minority wears down membership by reframing arguments and preventing progressive dialogue by holding up on points of order and ridiculous minutiae that moves nothing forward. In the case of a union it can put one's earnings, health care and pension in serious jeapordy. But the stakes can also be really high in elections like these that decide how we are represented as a cycling community.

Eventually the more open minded flexible individuals give up because every argument is reframed in the most polarizing context possible by the "reformers". Organizations that depend on voluntary participation of membership are particuarly prone to these tactics- it works! Eventually the minority takes control of boards and the organization's administrative agenda. Membership tends to drop and membership involvement and voluntary activity tends to diminish along with it. The organization may remain vocal for a period of time but grows more and more ineffective because in truth it represents the smallest possible constituency of the original organization.

Buzzman,

I feel it is necessary to address this argument directly, because it is flawed. LAB now has 5 appointed board positions, does that not fall within the "divisive" tactics that you denigrade (and accuse LAB reform of)? Membership has also been falling, from what I can tell, for at least the last decade under this board. So the argument you apply to LAB reform can equally (and more strongly) be applied to those already controlling LAB. Do you even do any research into this stuff? Come on.

I find it interesting that you portray this as Armageddon for the current policies of LAB, yet at best LAB reform will likely get one, maybe two of their candidates elected. And then they still have to abolish the system of appointing members to the board, just to get the League back into the control of League members, likely by pure persuasion. If the league members decide they like the current policies (BFC, apparent lack of emphasis on education and legal rights, etc.), then guess what, that will happen because they will vote accordingly! Divisive LAB reform is not, even if they "took over" LAB, that would be the result of the voting members, which will probably not include you, but c'est la vie. And even if LAB reform became LAB, they'd still be a minority among groups that support the current policies (Bikes Belong, America Bikes, many bike manufacturers, etc.), so you can relax; all the "hard work" and segregated facilities won't be disappearing anytime soon.

I tend to lurk on this board because I don't care to get involved in the ideological bickering over bike lanes vs. wide curb lanes or whatever else. But from what I've observed, I'll probably be labeled accordingly as a "Foresterite" or "VCealot" or some similar bandwagon. But my support for LAB reform is based on my experiences and nothing else. I actually don't really care how other people ride (although I will offer voluntary advice, especially to friends and loved ones, and especially with regards to many of the dangerous facilities I've encountered as a cyclist). VC is a minority within a minority, so garnering public support (even support among all cyclists) is probably unlikely. The smaller the minority, the more it has to fight for it's rights for equality in the eyes of the law. There's so much negative press regarding VC that I won't even try to make it popular and convince those that oppose it that it's best for cyclists.

At this point in my life, as a car-free cyclist, equal treatment socially and legally are most important to me (although the former will probably come more slowly or to a lesser extent). Once I gave up driving a car and reading into traffic laws and bike-specific laws I realized how incredibly discriminatory and dangerous many of Oregon's laws are to cyclists. We have a mandatory bike lane law that forces me to break the law to avoid getting doored (although there are subtle exemption clauses that give me some extra "freedom", but the burden of legal proof still falls upon me if I get ticketed, and motorists certainly harass me with impunity). Eugene Police are very apathetic towards enforcing laws (the non-discriminatory ones) or recognizing the rights of cyclists, as demonstrated by own experiences as well as those of some of my friends. EPD militantly quelled Critical Mass into nothing here (which, OK, cite the cyclists fairly for breaking the traffic laws), but has no interest in citing motorists for accidents they cause and certainly not for harassing cyclists. One of my friends was left-hooked three years ago while riding through an intersection at night w/ a bright head light. Not only did EPD not care, but the motorist's insurance company tried to sue her (and tried to prove that she didn't have adequate lighting), then proceeded to continually harass her for the next year when they couldn't file suit. To pile insult upon injury, she had to pay her own medical expenses and her bike was totaled. That enough to prove to me the grim state of cyclist advocacy in my area. When I see euphemistic descriptions of Eugene's "bicycle friendliness", it gets pretty frustrating.

I'll be moving to Portland within the next month, simply to get into a city that at least has a healthier cycling atmosphere, but even the BTA has a rubbery spine when it comes to standing up for discrimination against cyclists. As far as I know, both the motorists involved in the two recent cyclist fatalities in Portland have not been cited (acknowledging the fact that the law they broke is a strange one, contrary to normal traffic operation, "not yielding to a bicyclist in a bicycle lane"). So the way I see it is I can trust the strange operating laws (IOW, blindly follow the bike lanes where ever they take me and expect motorists to yield) and I might get hit w/ no legal recourse (hopefully not killed), but I could just as easily get ticketed for avoiding the bike lanes and riding according to normal traffic operations, which means: NO LEGAL PROTECTION. For me, that's scary. Despite my love for cycling, that might be the only thing that turns me back to driving a car regularly for transportation. Sad.

I'm guessing that there is so much apparent apathy towards obtaining equality in rights and duties as cyclists among the general cycling population as being a result of either people being sorta into bicycle transportation (meaning they can go back to driving anytime they want) or that they just haven't experienced the discrimination that the current legal situation allows. But I could be wrong, there might be other causes. Giving up driving and attempting to do the same things on my bike as I did when I had a car has made it glaringly clear the legal rights I've given up with selling my car. So the most important thing to me is not convincing you or anybody else that VC is so obviously right, but to get equal legal rights I enjoyed (often without even noticing) as a motorist. I won't hold you or anyone else responsible for stymying that, but I'll do what I feel is necessary to achieve that, if it's at all possible.

]I'll be moving to Portland within the next month simply to get into a city that at least has a healthier cycling atmosphere, but even the BTA has a rubbery spine when it comes to standing up for discrimination against cyclists. As far as I know, both the motorists involved in the two recent cyclist fatalities in Portland have not been cited (acknowledging the fact that the law they broke is a strange one, contrary to normal traffic operation, "not yielding to a bicyclist in a bicycle lane"). So the way I see it is I can trust the strange operating laws (IOW, blindly follow the bike lanes where ever they take me and expect motorists to yield) and I might get hit w/ no legal recourse (hopefully not killed), but I could just as easily get ticketed for avoiding the bike lanes and riding according to normal traffic operations, which means: NO LEGAL PROTECTION. For me, that's scary. Despite my love for cycling, that might be the only thing that turns me back to driving a car regularly for transportation. Sad.

Bit of a sidenote here.

What I would like to know is how Portland has a "healthier cycling atmosphere" and why said "atmosphere" cannot be promulgated throughout the US?

John Forester is of the belief that one has to be anti-car for such a situation to exist; that the pro-bicycle situations in certain European cities exists primarily due to excessive automotive costs... IE fuel and other costs. Yet Portland is apparently an example of a pro-cycling city here in America with the same automotive infrastructure and costs as the rest of the nation, but it is perceived as pro-cycling.

What does Portland have that gives it a "healthier cycling atmosphere" and why can't that situation be extended to other places in America?

I suppose the other question is: Does Portland really have a "healthier cycling atmosphere?" Are there any real numbers to show that what is happening in Portland are due to what the cycling community is doing there, or is the "atmosphere" just a false impression? For instance what really is the situation with regard to police enforcement in say the deaths you mentioned? And what about the laws in general?

Yes all this is connected to the LAB issues of this thread... for indeed if change can be brought about in a positive way for cyclists by an organization like the LAB... then perhaps all this political pandering is worthy of our attention, whereas on the other hand, if it is just simply some group of administrators finding a niche in which they can practice their trade with little actual regard for the outcome... well that is another situation all together.

BTW hope you enjoy the move.

Bit of a sidenote here.

What I would like to know is how Portland has a "healthier cycling atmosphere" and why said "atmosphere" cannot be promulgated throughout the US?

John Forester is of the belief that one has to be anti-car for such a situation to exist; that the pro-bicycle situations in certain European cities exists primarily due to excessive automotive costs... IE fuel and other costs. Yet Portland is apparently an example of a pro-cycling city here in America with the same automotive infrastructure and costs as the rest of the nation, but it is perceived as pro-cycling.

What does Portland have that gives it a "healthier cycling atmosphere" and why can't that situation be extended to other places in America?

I suppose the other question is: Does Portland really have a "healthier cycling atmosphere?" Are there any real numbers to show that what is happening in Portland are due to what the cycling community is doing there, or is the "atmosphere" just a false impression? For instance what really is the situation with regard to police enforcement in say the deaths you mentioned? And what about the laws in general?

Yes all this is connected to the LAB issues of this thread... for indeed if change can be brought about in a positive way for cyclists by an organization like the LAB... then perhaps all this political pandering is worthy of our attention, whereas on the other hand, if it is just simply some group of administrators finding a niche in which they can practice their trade with little actual regard for the outcome... well that is another situation all together.

BTW hope you enjoy the move.

genec, you describe my view as: "John Forester is of the belief that one has to be anti-car for such a situation to exist; that the pro-bicycle situations in certain European cities exists primarily due to excessive automotive costs... IE fuel and other costs." Your statement is both technically correct and utterly misleading, demonstrating that you don't understand the issues. The fuel cost is the same throughout each European nation (different nations have different taxing systems, but within each the system is uniform), yet European urban development is occurring in the suburbs, just as in the USA. That would not occur if fuel cost were the dominant factor. The dominant cost is the "other costs", of which the primary cost is the time value of the driver. Cycling is popular in Antwerp because it is as fast as, or even faster, than motoring, and certainly is faster than walking, when counting door to door trip time. To some extent, the same situation exists in Boston, Manhattan (NYC), Philadelphia, and San Francisco, which are recognized as having a larger than typical bicycle mode share. In other words, it does not require that an anti-auto policy be present, because the situation is self-determining. Of course, such a policy may be present, but it is not necessary.

You also describe Portland as follows: "Yet Portland is apparently an example of a pro-cycling city here in America with the same automotive infrastructure and costs as the rest of the nation, but it is perceived as pro-cycling." That is not so. Portland OR is the large American city with the most aggressive anti-motoring policy, practices, and achievement. It's City Council has declared that it wants to emulate cities such as Amsterdam. However, what has occurred naturally in Amsterdam (simply because it is a walking city in the automotive age) cannot naturally occur in Portland. Therefore, the city has had to deliberately make motoring and parking in the urban center very difficult and congested. Other aspects of the anti-motoring policy have increased the motoring trip length so much that people and industry move away to more convenient locations.

It is reasonable to raise the question of whether or not Portland actually has a pro-cyclist policy. I say that it does not. Portland's anti-motoring policy can achieve results (I don't say success; Portland is a disfunctional city) only by acting in accordance with the popular superstitions about bicycling. Wherever there is a conflict between popular superstition and cyclist safety, the city chooses to path of dangerous superstition. That is the nasty corner into which the anti-motoring policy pushes a city that is naturally automotive in an automotive society.

genec, you suggest that: "...[F]or indeed if change can be brought about in a positive way for cyclists by an organization like the LAB... then perhaps all this political pandering is worthy of our attention ..."

Well, yes, that is the aim of the LAB reform group, to return LAB to paying attention to the interests of cyclists rather than to anti-motoring, as has its management directed it for the last twenty years or so.

Buzzman,
... Do you even do any research into this stuff? Come on.

My research consists of personal experience, which dates back to membership in, what was then, LAW back in the early '70's. I was also actively involved in several New England organizations as well. In the late 70's the schism began and despite the fact that I was a cyclist that rode exclusively on the road and was, dare I say "militant" about my right to the road I could not abide the closed mindedness and lack of creative thinking on the part of so many of my fellow advocates. I admittedly moved out of advocacy work and club riding because I simply could not put up with the posturing and attitude on the part of riders who seemed to have forgotten all too quickly that the bicycle is a flexible machine that can be used in a variety of environments and in a variety of ways and to advocate only for road riders of a particular type ultimately served no one.

Although I continued to cycle I watched the promise of a bicycling renaissance fade into the past during the 80's through the present day. LAB continued, for much of that time, to focus more or less exclusively on the rights and education of road cyclists and for that I appreciate their efforts but it did little to promote cycling nor did it promote weaving cycling into the fabric of our transportation infrastructure or future models- in fact many of the LAB leaders saw this as a "pipe dream" and not worth pursuing and actively worked to block such efforts.

AFter some period of time members who were more willing to embrace bike ways, bike lanes, bike paths and integration of cycling facilities into urban renewal and redesign efforts gathered support and wrested control away from what has now resurfaced as LAB reform. Now the fight to regain control is back again because those members are unwilling to abandon the narrow minded philosophy that had it's heyday of popularity in the late 70's and into the 80's.



...even if they "took over" LAB, that would be the result of the voting members, which will probably not include you, but c'est la vie. And even if LAB reform became LAB, they'd still be a minority among groups that support the current policies (Bikes Belong, America Bikes, many bike manufacturers, etc.), so you can relax; all the "hard work" and segregated facilities won't be disappearing anytime soon.

you're right. I would not be voting because I gave up my LAB membership years ago and put my efforts and support to organizations that have a broader perspective. And yes, you're right again if LAB reform became LAB they would indeed be a minority among groups because they would represent such a narrow spectrum of cyclists.


I tend to lurk on this board because I don't care to get involved in the ideological bickering over bike lanes vs. wide curb lanes or whatever else.

Precisely why I, and others like me, have abandoned LAB and at this point would almost rather see it fall into the hands of the LAB reformers and move to inevitable extinction like a weary old dinosaur.



VC is a minority within a minority, so garnering public support (even support among all cyclists) is probably unlikely. The smaller the minority, the more it has to fight for it's rights for equality in the eyes of the law. There's so much negative press regarding VC that I won't even try to make it popular and convince those that oppose it that it's best for cyclists.

This is such negative thinking about the very premise of LAB reform it exemplifies perfectly why they are pulling the momentum of present LAB down the drain. You see yourselves as the most persecuted, the most misunderstood and the most right.

#1- Lots of us ride "vehiculary". We do it every day. We've done for as many miles and for as many years as any of the LAB reformers. And we do it just as well. The issue is not "vehicular cycling". There's nothing wrong with learning to ride a bicycle as a vehicle on the road.

#2- Why is it on one hand that LAB reformers claim that LAB doesn't represent cyclists and yet claim to be such a minority among cyclists? This I don't get.



At this point in my life, as a car-free cyclist, equal treatment socially and legally are most important to me (although the former will probably come more slowly or to a lesser extent). Once I gave up driving a car and reading into traffic laws and bike-specific laws I realized how incredibly discriminatory and dangerous many of Oregon's laws are to cyclists. We have a mandatory bike lane law that forces me to break the law to avoid getting doored (although there are subtle exemption clauses that give me some extra "freedom", but the burden of legal proof still falls upon me if I get ticketed, and motorists certainly harass me with impunity). Eugene Police are very apathetic towards enforcing laws (the non-discriminatory ones) or recognizing the rights of cyclists, as demonstrated by own experiences as well as those of some of my friends. EPD militantly quelled Critical Mass into nothing here (which, OK, cite the cyclists fairly for breaking the traffic laws), but has no interest in citing motorists for accidents they cause and certainly not for harassing cyclists. One of my friends was left-hooked three years ago while riding through an intersection at night w/ a bright head light. Not only did EPD not care, but the motorist's insurance company tried to sue her (and tried to prove that she didn't have adequate lighting), then proceeded to continually harass her for the next year when they couldn't file suit. To pile insult upon injury, she had to pay her own medical expenses and her bike was totaled. That enough to prove to me the grim state of cyclist advocacy in my area. When I see euphemistic descriptions of Eugene's "bicycle friendliness", it gets pretty frustrating.

some of what you say above I can understand and relate to- to a degree. But talk about "cyclist-inferiority"- your complaints reek of it. I ride every day in a city that would not rate as terribly "bicycle friendly" and am subject to many of the "discriminations" you cite in your post but when it comes down to it I just ride my bike. When we give up our cars it doesn't take long to forget that driving a car has tremendous disadvantages that could almost seem like persecution and discrimination. Let's say I drive into Harvard Square in Cambridge to Christmas shop. I find a 1 hour parking meter and I run back to feed it every hour. Only to discover that I have a parking ticket anyway- it's not legal to keep feeding the meter, legally I should drive around and find a new spot. As a cyclist I see those inconveniences as part of why I don't drive much. But when I do use a car it feels so wrong. But places like Harvard Square are none to friendly to cars, bikes or pedestrians but with some creative redesign it could accommodate 2 out of 3 by reducing the number of cars that can come into the area. LAB reform would promote that the cyclists just ride on the road with the cars, neglect the needs of pedestrians- ain't none of our business- and not see bicycling as part of and solution to a larger picture and problem. Organizations like "Livable Streets" would address the issues more wholistically.




I'm guessing that there is so much apparent apathy towards obtaining equality in rights and duties as cyclists among the general cycling population as being a result of either people being sorta into bicycle transportation (meaning they can go back to driving anytime they want) or that they just haven't experienced the discrimination that the current legal situation allows. But I could be wrong, there might be other causes. Giving up driving and attempting to do the same things on my bike as I did when I had a car has made it glaringly clear the legal rights I've given up with selling my car. So the most important thing to me is not convincing you or anybody else that VC is so obviously right, but to get equal legal rights I enjoyed (often without even noticing) as a motorist. I won't hold you or anyone else responsible for stymying that, but I'll do what I feel is necessary to achieve that, if it's at all possible.

Yes, you're guessing about cyclist apathy.

Yes, you could be wrong and yes, there are other causes.

Doing the same things on your bike as you did when you had a car- this is an illusion. A bicycle is a vehicle but it's not the same as a car. When I can get my bike to go from 0-60 in less than 10 seconds, ride in the snow and rain without rain gear, mittens and not be cold or get wet, carry 3-4 other passengers and still go up hill at 55 mph, get rammed from the side by a car going 30 and get off my bike uninjured to inspect the damage I'll try to do the same things on my bike as I do in my car. Other than that- it's a vehicle when it's on the road but it ain't no car.

yeah, riding vehicularly is obviously right on most roads. How "vehicularly" is interpreted is open to a wide range, whether it's always a pleasant experience to ride vehicularly on some roads is open to interpretation as well. I don't particularly like feeling like I'm fighting for my right to the road and fighting for my life on certain narrow, high traffic volumed poorly designed roads and highways. And why the correctness of riding vehicularly precludes support of facilities escapes me.

Finally, I'm glad that there are cyclists so insistent on maintaining our rights to ride on the roads. They are a necessary part of the voice of cycling advocacy it's just a shame when they think they should be the only voice.

genec, you describe my view as: "John Forester is of the belief that one has to be anti-car for such a situation to exist; that the pro-bicycle situations in certain European cities exists primarily due to excessive automotive costs... IE fuel and other costs." Your statement is both technically correct and utterly misleading, demonstrating that you don't understand the issues.

Thanks once again for illustrating that you feel that anyone that is pro bicycle must be anti-car.

If there was anything misleading about my statements it was simply that I chose to not be as verbose as you. Your biases are well documented.

LAB Reformers need to recognize the validity of bicycling infrastructure IMO.

jhon is sooo inflamatory....


It is reasonable to raise the question of whether or not Portland actually has a pro-cyclist policy. I say that it does not. Portland's anti-motoring policy can achieve results (I don't say success; Portland is a disfunctional city) only by acting in accordance with the popular superstitions about bicycling. Wherever there is a conflict between popular superstition and cyclist safety, the city chooses to path of dangerous superstition. That is the nasty corner into which the anti-motoring policy pushes a city that is naturally automotive in an automotive society.

WOW, how far out is that? my cheeks are burning I'm laughing so hard.


Does Portland really have a "healthier cycling atmosphere?"

Yes, Gene.....Portland DOES have a healthier cycling atmosphere.

Thanks once again for illustrating that you feel that anyone that is pro bicycle must be anti-car.

If there was anything misleading about my statements it was simply that I chose to not be as verbose as you. Your biases are well documented.

Your statement is incorrect, demonstrating once again that you have your own specific, but unacknowledged, bias. One can be pro-cyclist, as I am, without being anti-motoring, but because I do not present anti-motoring arguments you assume that I cannot be pro-cyclist. What you see as pro-bicycle I recognize as being as much anti-motoring as pro-cycling.

LAB Reformers need to recognize the validity of bicycling infrastructure IMO.

And likewise those pushing bicycling infrastructure have to recognize the validity of road cycling and education.

The solution has to encompass both LAB and LAB Reform.

Your statement is incorrect, demonstrating once again that you have your own specific, but unacknowledged, bias. One can be pro-cyclist, as I am, without being anti-motoring, but because I do not present anti-motoring arguments you assume that I cannot be pro-cyclist. What you see as pro-bicycle I recognize as being as much anti-motoring as pro-cycling.

John if someone is riding a bike, they are not driving a motor vehicle at the same time... And if people chose to commute by bike, then likely they are not commuting by car. If those FACTS make me anti car, then so be it. But I am pro bike and the results of more bodies on bikes is very much likely fewer bodies in cars.

By the same token, if I promote the local trolley... does that too make me "anti-car?"

Try to let that sink in.

And likewise those pushing bicycling infrastructure have to recognize the validity of road cycling and education.

The solution has to encompass both LAB and LAB Reform.

You know "those pushing infrastructure" have never been anti education.

No where will you find any "pro facilities" folks saying education is useless now and forever... but you will find certain Vehicular Cyclists saying exactly that about facilities.

The pro facilities folks also tend to be positive about anything dealing with cycling.

You will find pro facilities folks questioning the education methods of the other groups... for instance I find the whole "tupperware party" model of LAB education to be a joke... as it tends to only find those cyclists that least need education... where as those in greatest need have no clue as to what they should be doing nor where assistance is available.

If the pro-education group was really proactive, no bikes would be sold without some form of literature pointing to education sources and the basics of proper cycling... as it is, lawyers have probably done more along this path than cycling advocates.

Just for grins, go out to a few LBSs and ask if they know of any form of education available for "safe cycling" for cyclists.

JF promotes the fastest and safest way to get from point A to point B by bike if and only if that bike trip has no purpose or utility because if that trip had a purpose or utility it would be replacing a car trip which would be anti-motoring. So any argument that mentions the practicality of cycling results in an anti-motoring argument and therefore it does not promote cycling. So therefore the only true way to promote cycling is promoting frivolous bike trips only. And the best way to promote frivolous bike trips is to promote the fastest and most unpleasant path to nowhere. This is how anti-anti-motoring = pro-cycling and why us mere mortals cannot make any sense out of JF arguments. Promoting cycling should include all uses of the bicycle wither recreational, utilitarian or transportational. Picking only one and declaring war on the other two serves no purpose

My research consists of personal experience, which dates back to membership in, what was then, LAW back in the early '70's. I was also actively involved in several New England organizations as well. In the late 70's the schism began and despite the fact that I was a cyclist that rode exclusively on the road and was, dare I say "militant" about my right to the road I could not abide the closed mindedness and lack of creative thinking on the part of so many of my fellow advocates. I admittedly moved out of advocacy work and club riding because I simply could not put up with the posturing and attitude on the part of riders who seemed to have forgotten all too quickly that the bicycle is a flexible machine that can be used in a variety of environments and in a variety of ways and to advocate only for road riders of a particular type ultimately served no one.

Although I continued to cycle I watched the promise of a bicycling renaissance fade into the past during the 80's through the present day. LAB continued, for much of that time, to focus more or less exclusively on the rights and education of road cyclists and for that I appreciate their efforts but it did little to promote cycling nor did it promote weaving cycling into the fabric of our transportation infrastructure or future models- in fact many of the LAB leaders saw this as a "pipe dream" and not worth pursuing and actively worked to block such efforts.

AFter some period of time members who were more willing to embrace bike ways, bike lanes, bike paths and integration of cycling facilities into urban renewal and redesign efforts gathered support and wrested control away from what has now resurfaced as LAB reform. Now the fight to regain control is back again because those members are unwilling to abandon the narrow minded philosophy that had it's heyday of popularity in the late 70's and into the 80's.




you're right. I would not be voting because I gave up my LAB membership years ago and put my efforts and support to organizations that have a broader perspective. And yes, you're right again if LAB reform became LAB they would indeed be a minority among groups because they would represent such a narrow spectrum of cyclists.



Precisely why I, and others like me, have abandoned LAB and at this point would almost rather see it fall into the hands of the LAB reformers and move to inevitable extinction like a weary old dinosaur.




This is such negative thinking about the very premise of LAB reform it exemplifies perfectly why they are pulling the momentum of present LAB down the drain. You see yourselves as the most persecuted, the most misunderstood and the most right.

#1- Lots of us ride "vehiculary". We do it every day. We've done for as many miles and for as many years as any of the LAB reformers. And we do it just as well. The issue is not "vehicular cycling". There's nothing wrong with learning to ride a bicycle as a vehicle on the road.

#2- Why is it on one hand that LAB reformers claim that LAB doesn't represent cyclists and yet claim to be such a minority among cyclists? This I don't get.




some of what you say above I can understand and relate to- to a degree. But talk about "cyclist-inferiority"- your complaints reek of it. I ride every day in a city that would not rate as terribly "bicycle friendly" and am subject to many of the "discriminations" you cite in your post but when it comes down to it I just ride my bike. When we give up our cars it doesn't take long to forget that driving a car has tremendous disadvantages that could almost seem like persecution and discrimination. Let's say I drive into Harvard Square in Cambridge to Christmas shop. I find a 1 hour parking meter and I run back to feed it every hour. Only to discover that I have a parking ticket anyway- it's not legal to keep feeding the meter, legally I should drive around and find a new spot. As a cyclist I see those inconveniences as part of why I don't drive much. But when I do use a car it feels so wrong. But places like Harvard Square are none to friendly to cars, bikes or pedestrians but with some creative redesign it could accommodate 2 out of 3 by reducing the number of cars that can come into the area. LAB reform would promote that the cyclists just ride on the road with the cars, neglect the needs of pedestrians- ain't none of our business- and not see bicycling as part of and solution to a larger picture and problem. Organizations like "Livable Streets" would address the issues more wholistically.





Yes, you're guessing about cyclist apathy.

Yes, you could be wrong and yes, there are other causes.

Doing the same things on your bike as you did when you had a car- this is an illusion. A bicycle is a vehicle but it's not the same as a car. When I can get my bike to go from 0-60 in less than 10 seconds, ride in the snow and rain without rain gear, mittens and not be cold or get wet, carry 3-4 other passengers and still go up hill at 55 mph, get rammed from the side by a car going 30 and get off my bike uninjured to inspect the damage I'll try to do the same things on my bike as I do in my car. Other than that- it's a vehicle when it's on the road but it ain't no car.

yeah, riding vehicularly is obviously right on most roads. How "vehicularly" is interpreted is open to a wide range, whether it's always a pleasant experience to ride vehicularly on some roads is open to interpretation as well. I don't particularly like feeling like I'm fighting for my right to the road and fighting for my life on certain narrow, high traffic volumed poorly designed roads and highways. And why the correctness of riding vehicularly precludes support of facilities escapes me.

Finally, I'm glad that there are cyclists so insistent on maintaining our rights to ride on the roads. They are a necessary part of the voice of cycling advocacy it's just a shame when they think they should be the only voice.

Buzzman, your account of events is reasonably accurate; after all, you and I are seeing the opposite sides of the same coin. However, we disagree about the results that can be expected from the programs that are in place, or, for that matter, about the programs that have a reasonable chance of being instituted. This is because, in my view, the programs that you advocate both contain deep contradictions in themselves and fail to meet the facts of the real world.

Consider first the real world. You write that in the 1980s you had hope for a bicycling renaissance, in which LAB might have had a leading part. Whatever might be the details of LAB's internal affairs, consider what actually occurred in the real world of American cities. Ostensible American policy and programs since the middle 1970s, by both governments and societal organizations, have favored bicycle transportation as you consider it, with results that are insignificant in relation to total transportation. The explanation is pretty simple; most American cities have developed as automotive cities in which personal motor travel is so useful that the proportion of trips that are best made by bicycle has shrunk. You happen to live in the American city that is least suited to automotive transportation, but which, the appeal of automotive transportation being as strong as it is, has suffered from great congestion.

That congestion should be beneficial from your point of view, because that congestion makes motoring more difficult and, therefore, makes bicycle transportation more competitive. You have, indeed, so argued in this group. However, instead of being reasonable about this, you argue the reverse, that you don't like the congestion and present three desires about this. First, you wish that the cars were not present. However, you haven't presented a program of motoring exclusion that has any political chance. Second, you wish for additional space that would be devoted to bicycle transportation separated from motor traffic. However, the problem being both insufficient space and traffic patterns, there aren't enough such spaces left to serve as a bicycle transportation system. Third, you wish to divide the existing roadway space to provide separate streams of bicycle and motor traffic. This has two problems, one local and one general. In typical Boston area streets there is barely sufficient roadway width for one stream, so when that is divided we get door-zone bike lanes. However, the general problem is that the supposed motor and bicycle streams are not streams at all, but movements of individual vehicles that ought to move according to the rules of the road, and trying to divide the roadway width as if these were two different streams destroys that proper operation, leading to collisions.

You write, buzzman, that you have always cycled in the vehicular style and appreciate that some people and organizations are interested in preserving the right to do so. I take it that you have good reasons for cycling in the vehicular style, but if you have such good reasons, why is it that you are not advocating for a road system that is better suited to cycling in the vehicular style? I don't consider that your advocacy of bike paths is a conflict with vehicular cycling, because bike path traffic does not operate according to the rules of the road, and in some locations and times bike paths provide a useful transportation service. I do say, though, that in the typical urban area bike paths cannot provide a bicycle transportation system, so that advocacy for such should limit itself to only that which is useful. In distinction to advocacy of bike paths is your advocacy of bike lanes, which clearly contradict the rules of the road and therefore contradict vehicular cycling. Since bike lanes contradict the rules of the road, then, in those locations and times when the contradiction exists, you must either follow the rules of the road and disobey the bike lane, or you must obey the bike lane and disobey the rules of the road. I don't know which you prefer to do, but the contradiction exists. So I ask you: Why do you advocate bike lanes instead of advocating vehicular cycling on roads that are better suited to vehicular cycling?

You know "those pushing infrastructure" have never been anti education.

No where will you find any "pro facilities" folks saying education is useless now and forever... but you will find certain Vehicular Cyclists saying exactly that about facilities.

The pro facilities folks also tend to be positive about anything dealing with cycling.

You will find pro facilities folks questioning the education methods of the other groups... for instance I find the whole "tupperware party" model of LAB education to be a joke... as it tends to only find those cyclists that least need education... where as those in greatest need have no clue as to what they should be doing nor where assistance is available.

If the pro-education group was really proactive, no bikes would be sold without some form of literature pointing to education sources and the basics of proper cycling... as it is, lawyers have probably done more along this path than cycling advocates.

Just for grins, go out to a few LBSs and ask if they know of any form of education available for "safe cycling" for cyclists.

I agree with much of what you wrote but there are critical education gaps that exist in at least some places. The most critical and almost universal gap IMHO is the lack of where bikes are allowed to be in the road for their safety in most drivers’ license tests. And some drivers’ manuals are lacking crucial points as well. In MD we have a defensive driving course that is required of professional drivers and those who are convicted of aggressive driving and it teaches that cyclists are hazards. Like that’s gong to help cyclists a lot. :rolleyes:

I have also seen education material out there that “cyclists must hug the line.” Not all educational programs are good.

Here in MD we have a law that says all bicycles sold must also come with a booklet of the regulations and laws that regulate the operation of bicycles and it basically stinks not to mention most LBS do not have it in stock. Do to complaints about this booklet the State has published a fairly descent booklet on safe bicycling but that info is not up on the State’s web site nor is it included in the packet of bike related stuff that they do send you. [Heavy sigh.]

Anyway while education is out there it still has a way to go and it needs to be pushed more then it has IMHO.

I agree with much of what you wrote but there are critical education gaps that exist in at least some places. The most critical and almost universal gap IMHO is the lack of where bikes are allowed to be in the road for their safety in most drivers’ license tests. And some drivers’ manuals are lacking crucial points as well. In MD we have a defensive driving course that is required of professional drivers and those who are convicted of aggressive driving and it teaches that cyclists are hazards. Like that’s gong to help cyclists a lot. :rolleyes:

I have also seen education material out there that “cyclists must hug the line.” Not all educational programs are good.

Here in MD we have a law that says all bicycles sold must also come with a booklet of the regulations and laws that regulate the operation of bicycles and it basically stinks not to mention most LBS do not have it in stock. Do to complaints about this booklet the State has published a fairly descent booklet on safe bicycling but that info is not up on the State’s web site nor is it included in the packet of bike related stuff that they do send you. [Heavy sigh.]

Anyway while education is out there it still has a way to go and it needs to be pushed more then it has IMHO.

Agreed on all counts...

But the bottom line premise still exists... there are those that advocate education only, and at the same time deny facilities.

Whereas facilities promoters don't tend to deny education.

So one group of "advocates" tends to deny the work of the other group of advocates... but the other group doesn't deny the work of the first. Thus we have the "great divide" in cycling advocacy.

Agreed on all counts...

But the bottom line premise still exists... there are those that advocate education only, and at the same time deny facilities.

Whereas facilities promoters don't tend to deny education.

So one group of "advocates" tends to deny the work of the other group of advocates... but the other group doesn't deny the work of the first. Thus we have the "great divide" in cycling advocacy.

The reason for this is that they are actually not supporters of cycling. They are actually supporters of the status quo, of motoring as primary transportation and as the transportation mode to build our cities and indeed our entire economies around.

They see cycling as interfering with motoring. All their cries of the cycling advocates being anti-motoring serves only to obscure the truth which is that they themselves are anti-cycling.

The reason for this is that they are actually not supporters of cycling. They are actually supporters of the status quo, of motoring as primary transportation and as the transportation mode to build our cities and indeed our entire economies around.

They see cycling as interfering with motoring. All their cries of the cycling advocates being anti-motoring serves only to obscure the truth which is that they themselves are anti-cycling.

I give you credit, Diane, for believing what you write, rather than being a deliberate liar. However, in view of what I have written so many times, and the record of my actions, you are claiming that I am a liar. Well, either I am a liar, or you are deluded, persistently delusional. The historic record speaks for itself, you are deluded.

Bit of a sidenote here.

What I would like to know is how Portland has a "healthier cycling atmosphere" and why said "atmosphere" cannot be promulgated throughout the US?

John Forester is of the belief that one has to be anti-car for such a situation to exist; that the pro-bicycle situations in certain European cities exists primarily due to excessive automotive costs... IE fuel and other costs. Yet Portland is apparently an example of a pro-cycling city here in America with the same automotive infrastructure and costs as the rest of the nation, but it is perceived as pro-cycling.

What does Portland have that gives it a "healthier cycling atmosphere" and why can't that situation be extended to other places in America?

I suppose the other question is: Does Portland really have a "healthier cycling atmosphere?" Are there any real numbers to show that what is happening in Portland are due to what the cycling community is doing there, or is the "atmosphere" just a false impression? For instance what really is the situation with regard to police enforcement in say the deaths you mentioned? And what about the laws in general?

Yes all this is connected to the LAB issues of this thread... for indeed if change can be brought about in a positive way for cyclists by an organization like the LAB... then perhaps all this political pandering is worthy of our attention, whereas on the other hand, if it is just simply some group of administrators finding a niche in which they can practice their trade with little actual regard for the outcome... well that is another situation all together.

BTW hope you enjoy the move.

Um, your question is rather vague and I honestly don't know the answer. There are many things that have influenced Portland's cycling culture. It's modal share has almost doubled in the last decade, while Eugene is continually shrinking. I think it has more to do with the almost weekly cycling events in Portland, many small frame builders converging within the city (and a recent frame builder's show) and the urban alt culture, among other things. Eugene specifically is a less dense, more suburbanized city with a weakening downtown culture and vibrancy and of course a large state university (UO). The MUTs here form the "core" of our bicycle transportation, which provides the only alternative for riding into downtown to riding on main arterials (which unfortunately have trash-filled bike lanes and some militant drivers). Cycling culture here is mostly a small niche of road racers, an "exclusive" mountain bike club and a handful of commuters. The rest are college students, who usually have no choice but to ride their bikes. Cycling is dying here, it's kinda sad.

I think issues with laws, police, accidents, etc. are still only a periphery issue in Portland, but I think they will start to come into the bigger picture of safety and legal rights. But that will probably take a lot, hopefully not too many more accidents or carnage. The lack of discussion over engineering and laws of the recent two fatalities (right hooks in BL) is disturbing, and I'm worried it will take more such accidents to stimulate some real discussion. The BTA is also very pro-bike lane, to the point that they've made some serious mistakes with their implementation. A number of their projects are "complete-the-streets" type, where they want to throw bike lanes in everywhere. One particularly dangerous one is on Hall Blvd. decending SE towards Greenway. They put a narrow bike lane (a number of years ago) on a ~6% downgrade and to the right of right-turning traffic (turning onto Greenway), insanity. Interstate road and Greeley is similar (not as steep) where Brett Jarolimek was killed. If you stay in the BL, you have to run a gauntlet of right-turning cars and trucks. Another woman was hit there a few weeks after Brett was killed and went to the hospital, and she claimed to have been riding pretty slow (~15mph). They closed Greeley after that (no right turns) to "investigate" the problem, but I think it should be pretty obvious. I don't think any of the motorists were cited, despite the strange yielding laws (John Allen describes this as elevating bike lanes to the legal status of crosswalks). You can't have BLs on steep hills, even AASHTO with it's overall weak recommendations regarding bikeway designs says a 4ft. wide bike lane has a designed speed of no more than 20 mph. That's not even considering intersection problems.

So we'll see, I might get more involved with the BTA to try and steer them away from the most dangerous bike lanes and designs and give some input, but just like on this board, it will probably be a minority viewpoint. As far as Oregon's laws, Fred Oswald (of LAB reform) gave Oregon a tentative D-rating (http://bikelaws.org/laws/Oregon.pdf) for it's bicycle traffic laws (might be an F+) right now.

I give you credit, Diane, for believing what you write, rather than being a deliberate liar. However, in view of what I have written so many times, and the record of my actions, you are claiming that I am a liar. Well, either I am a liar, or you are deluded, persistently delusional. The historic record speaks for itself, you are deluded.

:roflmao: Ya, just like you being on record as anti-anti-motoring is not pro-motoring. If that is not delusional I don't know what is. I’m sorry but you are also well noted when you don’t have a logical leg to stand on you resort to insults in violation of forum guidelines.

Agreed on all counts...

But the bottom line premise still exists... there are those that advocate education only, and at the same time deny facilities.

Whereas facilities promoters don't tend to deny education.

So one group of "advocates" tends to deny the work of the other group of advocates... but the other group doesn't deny the work of the first. Thus we have the "great divide" in cycling advocacy.

Umm … yes and no. Within the halls of Government where we need action to take place I see strong tendencies to undermine education and deny the usefulness of education and too many advocates just accept any small victory that they can get. IMHO the pressure needs to be turned up on the education side as a lot of Governments are not getting our message.

Precisely why I, and others like me, have abandoned LAB and at this point would almost rather see it fall into the hands of the LAB reformers and move to inevitable extinction like a weary old dinosaur.


Similar divisive tactics as those employed by LAB reform helped to paralyze, cripple and eventually weaken one of the unions I belong to

You seem to be contradicting yourself.


This is such negative thinking about the very premise of LAB reform it exemplifies perfectly why they are pulling the momentum of present LAB down the drain. You see yourselves as the most persecuted, the most misunderstood and the most right.

I was partly lamenting on my experiences. Please describe the forward momentum that LAB currently has going, I've seen nothing but bad things come of them lately.




#1- Lots of us ride "vehiculary". We do it every day. We've done for as many miles and for as many years as any of the LAB reformers. And we do it just as well. The issue is not "vehicular cycling". There's nothing wrong with learning to ride a bicycle as a vehicle on the road.


That's not the issue I was discussing. Simply riding "vehicularly" and advocating it as a recognized legal standard are two different things. I think many more people are VC (to some extent) than get involved with advocacy of the safety merits and legal rights. That's fine, and I just recognized that fact in my previous post. There's also plenty of people that see VC advocacy as destroying bike lanes, MUTs and throwing innocent women and children into heavy suburban arterial traffic (ok that's a bit of an exaggeration), but the smarter VC advocates recognize that immense public support is probably impossible (because of the aforementioned superstitions), so achieving equal status in the eyes of the law and law enforcement is probably the only way to allow those that choose to ride VC to do so without legal harassment. Everyone else can ride however they wish to.


#2- Why is it on one hand that LAB reformers claim that LAB doesn't represent cyclists and yet claim to be such a minority among cyclists? This I don't get.



I think it's quite simple, those that really care about legal rights and equality and the means with which to obtain them are the minority, which some people would call the real cyclists, but that probably comes off as elitist. But LAW traditionally comprised almost exclusively of cyclists like this; the current situation seems vague, with membership decreasing and member control of the board weakened, I really have no idea where the majority of LAB members stand.




some of what you say above I can understand and relate to- to a degree. But talk about "cyclist-inferiority"- your complaints reek of it. I ride every day in a city that would not rate as terribly "bicycle friendly" and am subject to many of the "discriminations" you cite in your post but when it comes down to it I just ride my bike. When we give up our cars it doesn't take long to forget that driving a car has tremendous disadvantages that could almost seem like persecution and discrimination. Let's say I drive into Harvard Square in Cambridge to Christmas shop. I find a 1 hour parking meter and I run back to feed it every hour. Only to discover that I have a parking ticket anyway- it's not legal to keep feeding the meter, legally I should drive around and find a new spot. As a cyclist I see those inconveniences as part of why I don't drive much. But when I do use a car it feels so wrong. But places like Harvard Square are none to friendly to cars, bikes or pedestrians but with some creative redesign it could accommodate 2 out of 3 by reducing the number of cars that can come into the area. LAB reform would promote that the cyclists just ride on the road with the cars, neglect the needs of pedestrians- ain't none of our business- and not see bicycling as part of and solution to a larger picture and problem. Organizations like "Livable Streets" would address the issues more wholistically.




Doing the same things on your bike as you did when you had a car- this is an illusion. A bicycle is a vehicle but it's not the same as a car. When I can get my bike to go from 0-60 in less than 10 seconds, ride in the snow and rain without rain gear, mittens and not be cold or get wet, carry 3-4 other passengers and still go up hill at 55 mph, get rammed from the side by a car going 30 and get off my bike uninjured to inspect the damage I'll try to do the same things on my bike as I do in my car. Other than that- it's a vehicle when it's on the road but it ain't no car.

I suffer from "cyclist-inferiority"? By wanting equal legal rights so that motorists would receive fair punishment for illegal driving that causes the hypothetical (and rare) accident you describe? And please spare me any "dead right" diatribe.

This is the apathy I was talking about. You seem to recognize the limitations of both cycling and driving a car, but you lump inferior legal rights into the modal disadvantages of cycling. You seem content with living with that, I'm not. I suppose we have different views as well as to the utility of cycling. I think I've done pretty well overall, the only problems I've encountered are unfriendly motorists/roads. The only real limitations I've encountered are long-distance travel, which I knew would be more difficult. Amtrak and Greyhound work alright for me, and I don't travel much in any case at this point in my life.




yeah, riding vehicularly is obviously right on most roads. How "vehicularly" is interpreted is open to a wide range, whether it's always a pleasant experience to ride vehicularly on some roads is open to interpretation as well. I don't particularly like feeling like I'm fighting for my right to the road and fighting for my life on certain narrow, high traffic volumed poorly designed roads and highways. And why the correctness of riding vehicularly precludes support of facilities escapes me.


The situation isn't as cut and dry as you describe. The issue of "facilities" is debatable. On a road like that I'd say widen the road and get a "share the road" campaign going, if necessary, others would say bike lanes. VC supports facilitating cyclists rather than simply building facilities. Sure, some bike lanes work OK, but the one's in my area are the worst of the worst, and exemplify the damage bike lanes can do to bicycle transportation when engineering is thrown out the window.


Finally, I'm glad that there are cyclists so insistent on maintaining our rights to ride on the roads. They are a necessary part of the voice of cycling advocacy it's just a shame when they think they should be the only voice.

Man, you are delusional. Maybe you should take your own advice and start seeing in shades of grey? LAB reform is focusing on many different issues, and the reality is, like I said before, they will form a minority within LAB if at all. There will be plenty of "other" viewpoints. The "only" voice you speak of it what LAB currently is, strengthened by the appointed board members.

Buzzman, I honestly can't figure out where you stand. On one hand you denigrate LAB reform and their views, yet admire those cyclists that stand up for our rights as if it's an admirable job people other than yourself should do; at no point do you connect the two together and admit that the LAB reform is intent on doing just that. Maybe you're just too politically jaded to separate the real issues from ideology, I don't know. For example, Fred Oswald has taken to the tedious task of evaluating state laws as they pertain to cyclists and has made some headway in Ohio, albeit slowly. He put together a cyclist-friendly program, which is a lot more detailed than the requirements for BFC. In 2006 Ohio repealed many of it's discriminatory laws, but it seems to have taken a lot of work. He is not paid to do this, so far as I can tell.

Among all of their criticism of LAB, they have also provided detailed recommendations and have taken many of the issues upon themselves when LAB fails to act (like the above examples), yet they make sure to commend LAB when the do act (most recently, I believe for LAB's modest resurgence of "share the road" campaigns). From all that I've read an learned from e-mail correspondence, they are doing a whole lot of the dirty work, the stuff that's difficult to do and obtains meager results for large amounts of effort. This is all stuff LAB does not currently do.

I give you credit, Diane, for believing what you write, rather than being a deliberate liar. However, in view of what I have written so many times, and the record of my actions, you are claiming that I am a liar. Well, either I am a liar, or you are deluded, persistently delusional. The historic record speaks for itself, you are deluded.

I donno John... you're the one that's talking out of both sides of your mouth with your continued support for motoring and those within the motoring community that believe that high speed roads are the ultimate answer.

You also are the one that equates nearly all pro cycling advocacy as an anti motoring stance... when clearly if one is using a bike there is physically no way to drive a car at the same time. So while a trip made by bike is pro bike, it is not anti car... except in your mind.

Further, nobody else here on BF has made up their own psychological maladies... the latter which puts you right into the same category as some delusional conspiracy theorists.

Diane on the other hand happens to prefer quiet bike paths for her commutes to work... and that is pretty consistent with folks that appreciate quiet walks. Hardly delusional at all.

Agreed on all counts...

But the bottom line premise still exists... there are those that advocate education only, and at the same time deny facilities.

Whereas facilities promoters don't tend to deny education.

So one group of "advocates" tends to deny the work of the other group of advocates... but the other group doesn't deny the work of the first. Thus we have the "great divide" in cycling advocacy.

This kind of specious illogical argument can be produced only by people whose agenda cannot operate in any other way.

One group advocates training of cyclists in safe operation while also advocating facilities and social structures designed to best accommodate such operation. The other group advocates special bicycle facilities that contradict safe operation and is, necessarily therefore, very reticent about training cyclists to disobey their desired facilities as is require for safe operation.

This kind of specious illogical argument can be produced only by people whose agenda cannot operate in any other way.

One group advocates training of cyclists in safe operation while also advocating facilities and social structures designed to best accommodate such operation. The other group advocates special bicycle facilities that contradict safe operation and is, necessarily therefore, very reticent about training cyclists to disobey their desired facilities as is require for safe operation.

No John... the group that advocates facilities for cyclists (you mean bathrooms, right?) really wants separate structures, but the auto centric mentality of folks like you and politicians supported by folks like you only allow the simplest bicycle structures (lines of paint) while endorsing free space for autos in the form of subsidized property (on street parking)...

I donno John... you're the one that's talking out of both sides of your mouth with your continued support for motoring and those within the motoring community that believe that high speed roads are the ultimate answer.

You also are the one that equates nearly all pro cycling advocacy as an anti motoring stance... when clearly if one is using a bike there is physically no way to drive a car at the same time. So while a trip made by bike is pro bike, it is not anti car... except in your mind.

Further, nobody else here on BF has made up their own psychological maladies... the latter which puts you right into the same category as some delusional conspiracy theorists.

Diane on the other hand happens to prefer quiet bike paths for her commutes to work... and that is pretty consistent with folks that appreciate quiet walks. Hardly delusional at all.

Genec, you know little of the facts but present absurd arguments as if you were well informed. I have never advocated motoring and for thirty-five years I have fought against those motorists and those motoring organizations who wish to impose their view of cycling upon cyclists. Furthermore, I have never "equate[d] nearly all pro cycling advocacy as an anti motoring stance..." I would hardly do that, would I, since I am an advocate for cyclists myself. I suppose that you think so because your concept of pro-bike advocacy is so tied up with advocacy of bikeways that you cannot separate the two. Bicycle paths cannot provide an adequate bicycle transportation system in an American city. Bicycle lanes contradict the rules of safe operation according to the rules of the road, and therefore create dangers. Of course some of us, the despised elitists, are sufficiently well-informed to obey the rules of the road instead of the bike-lane stripe, but that knowledge fails to penetrate to the general public, be they either motoring or cycling at the time.

I oppose that advocacy, for whatever purpose, that makes cycling harder to understand, more difficult, more confusing, and more dangerous, for both cyclists and motorists. That's an entirely reasonable proposition, is it not? I see two parties producing this dangerous advocacy. One party is the motoring organizations who invented the bikeway system to suit their idea of the low status of cyclists. The other party is that of the bicycle advocates whose motivation is to reduce motoring; they have adopted the motorists' program because they think it is popular with the general public. I fight against both of these views.

As for Diane, if you had understood anything I have written about her and her views, I have never said that she is deluded for desiring a quiet route to work. I wrote, specifically, that she was deluded about my views, despite the written and historical record of them.

You consider that my description of the acts and words of the bicycle activists makes me one of those despised and deluded conspiracy theorists. That's interesting, considering the continued demonstration of such that occurs in most of these posts, including the one of yours upon which these comments are directed. If you bicycle advocates had managed to produce thoughts that were both logical and in accord with reality, such a description, as a psychological malady, would never had been made necessary.

This kind of specious illogical argument can be produced only by people whose agenda cannot operate in any other way.

One group advocates training of cyclists in safe operation while also advocating facilities and social structures designed to best accommodate such operation. The other group advocates special bicycle facilities that contradict safe operation and is, necessarily therefore, very reticent about training cyclists to disobey their desired facilities as is require for safe operation.

Ah yes arguments based on a holistic approach is a really bad agenda but arguments that rely solely on a made up psychosis are far superior. :rolleyes:

Genec, you know little of the facts but present absurd arguments as if you were well informed. I have never advocated motoring and for thirty-five years I have fought against those motorists and those motoring organizations who wish to impose their view of cycling upon cyclists.

John I only know what I have seen over the last 35+ years with regard to cycling, and what I have seen recently with regard to your actions... the latter which is clearly and quite publicly displayed in the the ADC website.

Just in case any other cyclists reading this have not seen it... Here is John's picture and endorsement of the American Dream Coalition... http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/forester.html

And here are the ADC thoughts and goals: http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/AboutADC.htm

Be sure to check out the ADC thoughts about "automobility:" http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/automobility/automobility.html

I would have to say your support of the ADC is perhaps the clearest "advocation for motoring" I have ever seen.

No John... the group that advocates facilities for cyclists (you mean bathrooms, right?) really wants separate structures, but the auto centric mentality of folks like you and politicians supported by folks like you only allow the simplest bicycle structures (lines of paint) while endorsing free space for autos in the form of subsidized property (on street parking)...

More illogical argument in a thicket of barely understandable prose. But I will guess at your meaning.

You assert that cyclists such as myself allow only bike lanes instead of what you desire. Considering that I have been fighting bike lanes since I saw them being invented, that's absurd.

You also assert that cyclists such as myself endorse on-street parking. If any of us do so, that is entirely independent of our views about cycling. Would I object if parking were prohibited along the street on which I live? Certainly; I have close familiarity with such restrictions, and I dislike it when my guests, or my neighbors' guests, have no convenient way to accept our invitations.

You also assert that bicycle advocates "really want[s] separate structures", and that cyclists have prevented you from obtaining such. That's a silly argument, to say that we vehicular cyclists have such political power. The plain problem with "separate structures" is that there's no practical way to produce such in the urban areas where there might be sufficient traffic to justify them. We vehicular cyclists don't have to say anything; the engineering, financial, and social difficulties speak for themselves.

I have never advocated motoring ...

No you only have strongly advocated anti-anti-motoring and only in your mind does that equate to something other then not advocating motoring. Do the math! Your results are off.

You also assert that bicycle advocates "really want[s] separate structures", and that cyclists have prevented you from obtaining such. That's a silly argument, to say that we vehicular cyclists have such political power. The plain problem with "separate structures" is that there's no practical way to produce such in the urban areas where there might be sufficient traffic to justify them.

And yet oddly enough there is plenty of room for more roads, more freeway lanes and more parking... None of which have ever alleviated any congestion problem.

Oh and your earlier metaphor of hiways to phone lines shows how little you know of telecommunications... where circuit switching and other methods long ago eliminated the one line per user problems.

Ah yes arguments based on a holistic approach is a really bad agenda but arguments that rely solely on a made up psychosis are far superior. :rolleyes:

Holistic? Psychosis? Nothing about either of these in the posting to which Human Car refers.

John I only know what I have seen over the last 35+ years with regard to cycling, and what I have seen recently with regard to your actions... the latter which is clearly and quite publicly displayed in the the ADC website.

Just in case any other cyclists reading this have not seen it... Here is John's picture and endorsement of the American Dream Coalition... http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/forester.html

And here are the ADC thoughts and goals: http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/AboutADC.htm

Be sure to check out the ADC thoughts about "automobility:" http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/automobility/automobility.html

I would have to say your support of the ADC is perhaps the clearest "advocation for motoring" I have ever seen.

Endorsement of the American Dream Coalition? I have never endorsed that organization's goals as such. Indeed, there are some views of their members with which I profoundly disagree, but which are outside the scope of bicycling discussions. However, and this is important for bicycling discussions, I think that there are several ways in which they can be used to support the cause of cyclists.

The most obvious way is that they resist those changes to roads that make vehicular travel more difficult and more dangerous, changes which are commonly and ostensibly advocated as advantages to cyclists when, in fact, they make cycling more difficult and more dangerous.

The next most obvious way is that they support suburbia and suburban living, which is commonly and ostensibly denigrated as being disadvantageous to cyclists by those whose interest is reduction of motoring. Given the choice between living in a walking or streetcar city in which bicycle transportation is more useful or in a suburbia optimized for motor travel but in which bicycle transportation is less useful, the majority of people (in which I include myself) prefer suburbia. The choice is not about cycling; it is about all the other attributes that come along with the options. The objectionable part of this aspect of bicycle advocacy is the insistence that people should be forced to live in ways they don't like to suit the desires of bicycle advocates.

In short, the sport of cycling and the travel of bicycle transportation are only parts of life that have to be integrated into the other parts in the pattern that is individually most satisfying without stepping on other people's toes.

And yet oddly enough there is plenty of room for more roads, more freeway lanes and more parking... None of which have ever alleviated any congestion problem.

Oh and your earlier metaphor of hiways to phone lines shows how little you know of telecommunications... where circuit switching and other methods long ago eliminated the one line per user problems.

So, you are a believer in the induced traffic superstition. Well, that has been debated at length in the technical transportation press, with the result that it is considered to be no more than a superstition. The basic idea is that people largely move themselves and their goods for purposeful reasons, and when those reasons are satisfied there is no more demand. There is plenty of evidence for such a concept in those roads that are not filled with traffic. The increase in long-time demand for travel services occurs through general growth in population (and income in those places where this is significant), and only a small part of that increase is due to travel that is induced simply because road room is available.

I have no idea of your reference to my supposed equation of highways to phone lines; I have never employed such an analogy in technical discourse, although maybe in casual conversation (though I don't remember such).

I suffer from "cyclist-inferiority"? By wanting equal legal rights so that motorists would receive fair punishment for illegal driving that causes the hypothetical (and rare) accident you describe?

No, in fact, I agree with you about the legal rights issue-you'll get no argument from me there. Though the only accident I described- a from the side hit was in reference to the type of collision one might receive at an intersection- not all that rare a collision.

You suffer from "cyclist inferiority" because your focus is on:

"equal treatment socially"

you feel that the current system is

"incredibly discriminatory"

you feel that

"motorists certainly harass me with impunity"

and

"the only problems I've encountered are unfriendly motorists/roads"

Now, you must please forgive me for being so facetious in making reference to your "cyclist inferiority." It's just so ironic that should those same complaints be made by someone advocating for facilities the argument from the anti-facilities (VC+) is that they are suffering from a delusional phobia. So my use of the term was more in jest- something that does not come across quite as well in internet forums.;)


I really have no idea where the majority of LAB members stand.


Do you even do any research into this stuff? Come on.


You seem to be contradicting yourself.

You seem bent on describing those cyclists that ride in a vehicular manner and feel the right to ride on the road is something worth fighting for as a "minority"- why concentrate on separating them out of the general cycling public? Just as VC will certainly make use of bikeways when they suit them so will most cyclists wish to exercise their right to the road once in a while. Why not get in a mindset that unifies as opposed to one that divides cyclists. And I never said that advocating for our right to ride on the road is something I was unwilling to do. I have done it and will continue to do so and I support my cycling brethren who feel it is a priority. I just don't happen to agree with their assumption that supporting bikeways will be the end all be all of those rights.


Please describe the forward momentum that LAB currently has going,

As I said, I gave up my membership in LAB years ago due to the in fighting and obstructionist strategies employed by some members who I felt had a narrow and non-progressive vision. I don't think they've made all that much progress since.

A good example is the endless go-arounds you can read here in A & S in BF. I don't see that many of the bikeway promoting crowd saying they don't believe in VC or they don't think cyclists have a right to the road. And it's not like all of us who support facilities fit the model of "casual cyclist". Many of us have lots of road miles under our belts and intend to ride many more of them. I've found other organizations with less focus on the exclusive rights of road cyclists to be far more worth my time. They are more progressive, open minded and actually get some things accomplished.


I suppose we have different views as well as to the utility of cycling.

I'm so curious as to how you think we differ.



I honestly can't figure out where you stand.

If it's unclear from what I said here:


LAB continued, for much of that time, to focus more or less exclusively on the rights and education of road cyclists and for that I appreciate their efforts but it did little to promote cycling nor did it promote weaving cycling into the fabric of our transportation infrastructure or future models- in fact many of the LAB leaders saw this as a "pipe dream" and not worth pursuing and actively worked to block such efforts.

I will be even more specific for you here:

I stand for the rights of cyclists on the road

I stand for providing clear information to cyclists, motorists and other road users (ie. professional truckers, cab drivers etc) that educate them as to the rights of cyclists and practices that help the cyclist to use the existing road system as safely as possible

BUT

I also believe in the redesign of many of our urban centers to make them more conducive to pedestrian, cyclist and other alternatives to their current auto-centric design, which I feel is strangling many of our cities.

I believe in promoting use of available public space and areas like abandoned rail beds for use as cyclist exclusive (or MUP's) bikeways.

I support the implementation of well designed bike lanes when and if appropriate as well as the restriping and/or widening of existing highways and roads, where possible in order to accommodate cyclists and other slower moving traffic.

I support the integration of bicycling with the public transportation system and would encourage, states, municipalities and federal agencies to provide facilities to accommodate the mixed use of bicycling and public transport.

Unlike many of the VC proponents I do not find these things to be mutually exclusive. Read John Forester's responses to many of my posts in these forums and you'll see the degree to which he opposes much of what I have suggested above- if that is an example of LAB reform I want nothing to do with it.

You write, buzzman, that you have always cycled in the vehicular style and appreciate that some people and organizations are interested in preserving the right to do so. I take it that you have good reasons for cycling in the vehicular style, but if you have such good reasons, why is it that you are not advocating for a road system that is better suited to cycling in the vehicular style?

I never said I did not believe nor support modifications to the existing road system that would allow for more effective sharing of the road with cyclists who ride as a vehicle. I just don't put all my eggs in that basket.


I don't consider that your advocacy of bike paths is a conflict with vehicular cycling, because bike path traffic does not operate according to the rules of the road, and in some locations and times bike paths provide a useful transportation service. I do say, though, that in the typical urban area bike paths cannot provide a bicycle transportation system, so that advocacy for such should limit itself to only that which is useful.

I could get nit-picky here but will allow that we are in general agreement on the above.



In distinction to advocacy of bike paths is your advocacy of bike lanes, which clearly contradict the rules of the road and therefore contradict vehicular cycling. Since bike lanes contradict the rules of the road, then, in those locations and times when the contradiction exists, you must either follow the rules of the road and disobey the bike lane, or you must obey the bike lane and disobey the rules of the road. I don't know which you prefer to do, but the contradiction exists. So I ask you: Why do you advocate bike lanes instead of advocating vehicular cycling on roads that are better suited to vehicular cycling?

As far as I'm concerned a bike lane is simply a lane with a designated use exclusively for cyclists- a kind of "safe zone". Often I find that I am riding in pretty close proximity to where I might ride even if there were not a designated bike lane. In practicality bike lanes, especially in the US, are often treated with disregard by some motorists, double parking delivery trucks, pedestrians and the like. Therefore the lane is rendered unusable at times and the cyclist must move out of that lane and make use of other lanes, which are shared. The law may even clearly state and protect the exclusivity of the lane but motorists will ignore the law and block the lane in any case. But all travel lanes are subject to abuse by motorists. When not using the bike path into Boston I take Commonwealth Avenue. As it runs parallel to Newbury Street the right lane is often blocked by double parked cars, UPS trucks, contractors trucks, cabs etc. there is no bike lane but the same problem exists. When it does I simply shift into the other lane. I would do the same if it were a bike lane.

Here is an example of how I ride in Manhattan using a bike lane and the shared travel lanes. Perhaps you might disagree but I think it's an example of a combination of using a bike lane and riding vehicularly. If you can show me a similar video of you riding in similar circumstances I would be more willing to acquiesce to your "expertise" since I would believe you were coming from a place of personal experience and not theory nor conjecture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcIAluwR9ws

I think it's quite simple, those that really care about legal rights and equality and the means with which to obtain them are the minority, which some people would call the real cyclists, but that probably comes off as elitist.
Yes, there are some self appointed experts and legal wannabes who claim they hold the only "really care" card and truly believe that they are the only "Real Cyclists". And yes it is elitist; as well as pompous, arrogant and obnoxious. Carry on.

Unlike many of the VC proponents I do not find these things to be mutually exclusive. Read John Forester's responses to many of my posts in these forums and you'll see the degree to which he opposes much of what I have suggested above- if that is an example of LAB reform I want nothing to do with it.

Read the postings of some of the members of LAB-Reform and it is quite apparent that LAB-Reform is hardly more than a stalking-horse of a few strident Vehicular Cyclists and disgruntled LCI's for using the LAB organization once again as a vehicle for promotion of John Forester Brand Education Programs.

snips

Here is an example of how I ride in Manhattan using a bike lane and the shared travel lanes. Perhaps you might disagree but I think it's an example of a combination of using a bike lane and riding vehicularly. If you can show me a similar video of you riding in similar circumstances I would be more willing to acquiesce to your "expertise" since I would believe you were coming from a place of personal experience and not theory nor conjecture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcIAluwR9ws

I observed that video sequence. All it shows is the straight-ahead view from a cyclist's viewpoint of riding in normal city traffic. Nothing unusual there, and the traffic is not particularly heavy. The video shows nothing of the cyclist's traffic technique, only the path that he followed, sometimes in a bike lane and sometimes outside a bike lane, acting as if the bike-lane stripe is not there, which is precisely what I have always recommended. That is, the vehicular cyclist sometimes obeys the bike-lane stripe and sometimes disobeys it, which is the point that I have always made and with which you think that you disagree. Aside from the trip around Columbus Circle, the cyclist made no turns at all, seemed never to encounter turning traffic. So what's your point?

If you want to discover my traffic-cycling technique, you have only to view either Bicycling Safely on the Road or Effective Cycling Video. I wrote and directed both of these, and did some of the cycling also.

snips

As far as I'm concerned a bike lane is simply a lane with a designated use exclusively for cyclists- a kind of "safe zone". Often I find that I am riding in pretty close proximity to where I might ride even if there were not a designated bike lane. In practicality bike lanes, especially in the US, are often treated with disregard by some motorists, double parking delivery trucks, pedestrians and the like. Therefore the lane is rendered unusable at times and the cyclist must move out of that lane and make use of other lanes, which are shared. The law may even clearly state and protect the exclusivity of the lane but motorists will ignore the law and block the lane in any case. But all travel lanes are subject to abuse by motorists. When not using the bike path into Boston I take Commonwealth Avenue. As it runs parallel to Newbury Street the right lane is often blocked by double parked cars, UPS trucks, contractors trucks, cabs etc. there is no bike lane but the same problem exists. When it does I simply shift into the other lane. I would do the same if it were a bike lane.

snips

[/URL]

Your justification for bike lanes is that they form a safe zone for cyclists. Safe from what, buzzman?

You also argue that even where bike lanes are present, the cyclist needs to operate in the vehicular cycling manner. The cyclist who took the video that you referenced showed no signs of being intimidated by his own actions, by whether or not he was in the bike lane. So much as appeared merely showed that he moved outside the bike lane whenever he saw fit to do so.

So you don't need bike lanes. Similarly, any person who operates in the vehicular manner doesn't need bike lanes. Who are the persons who you think need bike lanes? If there aren't such persons, why do you advocate bike lanes?

I can see why they sent jhon packing from the LAB.

snips

If it's unclear from what I said here:

I will be even more specific for you here:

I stand for the rights of cyclists on the road

I stand for providing clear information to cyclists, motorists and other road users (ie. professional truckers, cab drivers etc) that educate them as to the rights of cyclists and practices that help the cyclist to use the existing road system as safely as possible

BUT

I also believe in the redesign of many of our urban centers to make them more conducive to pedestrian, cyclist and other alternatives to their current auto-centric design, which I feel is strangling many of our cities.

I believe in promoting use of available public space and areas like abandoned rail beds for use as cyclist exclusive (or MUP's) bikeways.

I support the implementation of well designed bike lanes when and if appropriate as well as the restriping and/or widening of existing highways and roads, where possible in order to accommodate cyclists and other slower moving traffic.

I support the integration of bicycling with the public transportation system and would encourage, states, municipalities and federal agencies to provide facilities to accommodate the mixed use of bicycling and public transport.

Unlike many of the VC proponents I do not find these things to be mutually exclusive. Read John Forester's responses to many of my posts in these forums and you'll see the degree to which he opposes much of what I have suggested above- if that is an example of LAB reform I want nothing to do with it.

Well, there is a problem that buzzman's stands contain mutual contradictions. First, the least controversial.

His support for rails-to-trails conversions is non-controversial; these don't affect road cycling. However, I oppose the kind of rtt propaganda advocating these as the safer alternative to bicycle transportation on the road; some are safer, some are not; some are transportationally useful, some are not.

His support for mixed-mode bike-mass-transit integration is somewhat controversial, the degree of controversy depending on the additional cost to the public for each such trip, which varies greatly from insignificant to something like ten times the ticket cost. The utility of each such trip depends, of course, on the opinion of the cyclist.

Now for buzzman's more controversial stands.

On one hand, he supports a policy that cyclists have rights to use the roadway, but he doesn't say the manner in which cyclists should be allowed to use the roadway. Does he mean only in the vehicular manner, or does he mean in some other manner as well?

However, he supports spreading the information "as to the rights of cyclists and practices that help the cyclist to use the existing road system as safely as possible", which strongly implies, though he doesn't say so, that the public should be made aware that cyclists should operate in the vehicular manner. In other words, he supports public knowledge that cyclists should operate in the vehicular manner. Does this mean that this is a public policy? If not, how does he explain the contradiction between approving more than one method of using the roadways?

Buzzman supports both bike lanes, with the qualification of being well-designed and appropriate, and what appear to be wide outside lanes and roadway widening to accommodate slow-moving traffic. From my point of view, the wide outside lane stand is not controversial because wide outside lanes do not contradict the rules of the road. But buzzman's support for bike-lanes contains its own contradictions. First, such lanes contradict the rules of the road. But, considering his own qualifications of being well-designed and where appropriate, these qualifications are extremely controversial. The characteristic of being well-designed means that the object is very good at performing its intended purpose. However, nobody knows what the purpose of a bike lane is, so that without knowing that purpose one cannot say whether any particular example is well-designed and, equally, one cannot set design standards for such objects. And without knowing what the purpose is, one cannot determine the appropriate locations for installing such objects. So, on one hand, buzzman supports facilities that improve roadway operation in the manner accepted as best, while on the other hand he supports facilities that apparently are based on contradicting such operation although they have never been properly defined to specify whether they do or don't.

Another of buzzman's stands is the following statement: "I also believe in the redesign of many of our urban centers to make them more conducive to pedestrian, cyclist and other alternatives to their current auto-centric design, which I feel is strangling many of our cities." What does one make of such a muddled statement? What can one make of such? For example, Houston TX is often cited as being the American city with the most auto-centric design, yet Houston is also never cited as being strangled by that design. On the other hand, if buzzman is referring to his home city of Boston, the problems associated with that city are those caused by the fact that it has about the least auto-centered pattern of any large American city, being a walking city that got improved only to the streetcar level.

To put things rather crudely, if the congestion of motor traffic is the problem, then there are two ways to solve that. The first is to increase the capacity of the road system to handle the traffic generated by drivers who want to arrive. The second is to reduce the attraction of the city so that no more drivers will be attracted than the road system will carry without congestion. As has been remarked in similar discussions long before this, either solution involves wrecking-ball therapy.

It is apparent that buzzman has some other idea in mind, no matter how fuzzy. I guess that he is thinking of cities such as Boston. He would like to better accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic than is done at present. For pedestrian traffic, as I recall, the center of Boston has plenty of sidewalks, and plenty of traffic signals. To what else does buzzman refer? For bicycle traffic, admittedly the motor-traffic congestion also delays cyclists to some extent. Wide outside lanes would permit a limited improvement in the ability of cyclists to filter forward; bike lanes would do the same, but with a greater increase in confusion and danger. Both would require substantial allocation of roadway width, which is very limited in such cities as Boston.

I suspect that when buzzman refers to "the redesign of many of our urban centers" he intends to mean designs that greatly restrict the motor traffic that is permitted to enter. Well, that's fine, except that it will meet strong objections from those whose business activity depends on access by motor traffic. If they can do so, they will move elsewhere, thus carrying out what I referred to above as the second method of reducing congestion.

I observed that video sequence... So what's your point?

My point is that a bike lane does not preclude riding vehicularly. I've ridden in NYC with and without bike lanes. I prefer having the bike lane. As can be observed you can see that I sometimes have to circumvent motorists illegally blocking the lane but NYC traffic tends to congest into chaos and the lane is often preferable to filtering through that traffic.

I did not say you would not agree but that you might. I'm sorry but despite your lengthy posts I sometimes don't quite garner the gist of your meaning either. So what's your beef with bike lanes if they can be used as you see me using them in that video? I'm certainly not the only cyclist in NYC who prefers the city now that they have been introduced. My only complaint about them is the blatant disregard with which many motorists use them.


It is apparent that buzzman has some other idea in mind, no matter how fuzzy. I guess that he is thinking of cities such as Boston. He would like to better accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic than is done at present. For pedestrian traffic, as I recall, the center of Boston has plenty of sidewalks, and plenty of traffic signals. To what else does buzzman refer? For bicycle traffic, admittedly the motor-traffic congestion also delays cyclists to some extent. Wide outside lanes would permit a limited improvement in the ability of cyclists to filter forward; bike lanes would do the same, but with a greater increase in confusion and danger. Both would require substantial allocation of roadway width, which is very limited in such cities as Boston.

I suspect that when buzzman refers to "the redesign of many of our urban centers" he intends to mean designs that greatly restrict the motor traffic that is permitted to enter. Well, that's fine, except that it will meet strong objections from those whose business activity depends on access by motor traffic. If they can do so, they will move elsewhere, thus carrying out what I referred to above as the second method of reducing congestion.

I'll continue to add more specifics. Below are some of the efforts Livable Streets Alliance (http://www.livablestreets.info/front_page) has successfully made on one of the streets I use daily. The reconstruction of Commonwealth Avenue is almost complete between BU West and Kenmore Square. What's interesting is that the restriping has not yet been done and it's been an excellent study in how traffic responds to the widening of the road and the lanes without striping. The traffic has always been dangerous on Comm Ave.- the widening without striping has definitely contributed to an increase in traffic speed and aggressive driving. It will be interesting to note whether the bike lane slows and manages the traffic effectively. The drivers are particularly aggressive at the BU Bridge intersection where cyclists must take what amounts to a center lane position to safely go straight down Comm Ave with fast moving traffic moving on the cyclists' left and right. Without striping it's been pretty amazing to experience the sudden increase in aggression on the part of drivers' who have been coping with the slow downs due to construction.


Commonwealth Avenue to have Bicycle Lanes. Over a year ago, LivableStreets Alliance kicked off an advocacy effort to improve what we believed to be a dangerous design for the reconstruction of the intersection at Comm. Ave. and the BU Bridge. In collaboration with WalkBoston, Adaptive Environments, and MassBike, we have been diligently working with the City to get changes that would make the area safer for cyclists, pedestrians, and transit riders. One result of our efforts has been a commitment by the City to design bicycle lanes as part of the effort to improve bicycle accommodation in the area. LivableStreets will be given the opportunity to review the plan when it is drafted. Another win has been the agreement by the City to consider closing the second turn lane that has been added to improve car flow at the expense of pedestrians. Say thank you to Boston for listening and taking action! Email btd@cityofboston.gov.

For more info on what kinds of efforts are being made in Boston I suggest you visit the Livable Streets Alliance (http://www.livablestreets.info/front_page)- particularly if my posts appear to be too "fuzzy" in terms of objectives and means to achieve them.


it will meet strong objections from those whose business activity depends on access by motor traffic. If they can do so, they will move elsewhere...

Please refer to me evidence of efforts like those suggested by Livable Streets causing a reduction in property values or "business activity" in a city like Boston or NYC.