Advocacy & Safety - Advocacy....a proposal

Advocacy: the act or process of advocating or supporting a cause or proposal

Here is a simple proposal, as to the best way to be an effective advocate for cycling. The goal is to increase the number of cyclists and to change the perception of cycling from a recreational activity to being a mainstream activity, such that anytime there is a political decision that relates to cycling the decision makers are cyclists, know cyclist, have constituents that are cyclists. It won’t be magic it won’t be overnight, but it will work

1) Ride your bike, lots. Not just on trails, training or recreational. Commute, even if it is one day a week or one way once a week. Use your bike (get a clunker if needed) for errands and utillity runs, anything under 2 miles one way or 5 pounds and you would be amazed at how little you need to use your car. Ride with your kids, ride with friends, ride, ride, ride Ride in your kit, ride in normal clothes.

2) Be visible and positive, part of this is riding, part of this is lights and reflectors, part of this is participation in the political process , part of this is talking to your co workers, friends, neighbors, etc. about cycling

3) Follow traffic laws (at least pretty closely)...no running red lights, period. Stop at signs, or at least slow almost to a stop and really stop if another vehicle has the right of way. This means for all rides, including Critical mass, fast training rides, etc..

4) Help and encourage others to ride. Help a neighbor fix their old bike….show someone how to change a flat . Offer to commute with someone not comfortable riding off the sidewalk.

5) Wear a helmet. There is no real downside (except for bad hair :)) and there is upside in many accidents. It shows responsibility (and if your kids wear helmets…so should you). And for all the arguments about helmets .please go to the helmets cramp my style thread.

6) Ride and act with courtesy, but assert your right on the road.

7) Quit whining about what an oppressed minority we are and why drivers should follow laws but we shouldn’t. Bottom line is drivers are the majority…..the only way to change is to get more cyclists out there.

If in doubt go back to number 1….Ride and be counted

Here is a simple proposal, as to the best way to be an effective advocate for cycling. The goal is to increase the number of cyclists and to change the perception of cycling from a recreational activity to being a mainstream activity,

Agree with a lot of what you have said. But I hear this a lot in relation to bike lanes--that getting more people cycling will encourage even more to cycle. I dont buy it.

When you see a traffic jam, does it make you want to go jump in the car?
When there is a long line at the bank, do you think "I just have to go there"?


More people cycling is not necessarily a good thing. If those people are crazy, wrong way, law breaking, or scared to actually go anywhere cyclists.

we need quality not quantity.

.....we need quality not quantity.

As the Russians said (with regard to their inferior, but more numerous nukes) quantity has a quality all its own!

roughstuff

5) Wear a helmet. There is no real downside (except for bad hair :)) and there is upside in many accidents. It shows responsibility (and if your kids wear helmets…so should you). And for all the arguments about helmets .please go to the helmets cramp my style thread.

Wearing a helmet will suggest that biking is a dangerous activity that requires special safety equipment. This will not encourage more people to get on their bikes.

Wearing a helmet will suggest that biking is a dangerous activity that requires special safety equipment. This will not encourage more people to get on their bikes.

Just about all activities require some sort of "specialized" safety equipment. Football requires pads and helmets yet thousands across this great nation play it. Baseball requires helmets for the team at bat. Motor racing (car, truck, motorcycle) all require flame retardant suits, and helmets.

Wearing a helmet will suggest that biking is a dangerous activity that requires special safety equipment. This will not encourage more people to get on their bikes.



Encouraging motorists to be careful and look twice to prevent right hooks, or give three 3 feet passing room, will suggest that cycling is a dangerous activity that needs special roadway treatment.

These actions by drivers will not encourage more people to get on their bikes..... :(


roughstuff

When you see a traffic jam, does it make you want to go jump in the car?
When there is a long line at the bank, do you think "I just have to go there"?


I have to disagree with you here. Your analogy is flawed. Seeing a car stuck in traffic, or people standing in line at a bank does not equate to seeing someone riding down the street on a bicycle, as neither are fun. Now if you said when you see someone skiing down a hill or out for a run some may think "I'd like to do that too?

or When you see someone having a beer does it make you want to have one too? I'd say yes.

Hold your line

depends on what kind of beer and on the person drinking it

Yes:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_UfRUAd7FIfk/RcEQ5MekMTI/AAAAAAAAAFI/OR5RGUyQq0M/s400/beer_girls.jpg

No:
http://polishbumsblog.blox.pl/resource/bej_ztrollowany.JPG

3) Follow traffic laws (at least pretty closely)...no running red lights, period. Stop at signs, or at least slow almost to a stop and really stop if another vehicle has the right of way. This means for all rides, including Critical mass, fast training rides, etc..

while i agree that being aware of stop-indicators is a good safety practice, i'm not really sure how this point works in favour of cycling advocacy.

again, bicycles are different than cars: they have a different set of strengths and weaknesses. what is going to make cycling appealing is seeing cyclists highlight the strengths of the bike -- filtering for instance -- rather than showing off the weaknesses, ie. piss-poor acceleration off the stop line.

to put it more succinctly, i'll crib what a co-worker told me when i commented on him taking up cycle commuting: "i got sick and tired of having you whizz past me on the way home every day, so i went and got a bike of my own."

and now, having read over my post, i realize that i sound like a prize ass who finds the one point to complain about and totally ignores all the good stuff the op said.

for the record: with the minor exception of point 3, i think this is exactly what advocacy -- real advocacy that affects real change -- is about.

the endless, kafkaesque squabbling over the minutiae of cycle law is not effective advocacy. the safety nanny-ism that leads to always seeming to blame cyclists for getting hit by cars is not advocacy. the lame, lame, lame psa's produced by cycling groups that do for the image of biking what aadac ads in the eighties did for non-smoking are not advocacy.

5) Wear a ... ~argument deleted~. And for all the arguments about helmets .please go to the helmets cramp my style thread.



Yeah. I'll be right there waiting for ya! :D

1) Ride your bike, lots. Not just on trails, training or recreational. Commute, even if it is one day a week or one way once a week. Use your bike (get a clunker if needed) for errands and utillity runs, anything under 2 miles one way or 5 pounds and you would be amazed at how little you need to use your car. Ride with your kids, ride with friends, ride, ride, ride Ride in your kit, ride in normal clothes.

2) Be visible and positive, part of this is riding, part of this is lights and reflectors, part of this is participation in the political process , part of this is talking to your co workers, friends, neighbors, etc. about cycling

3) Follow traffic laws (at least pretty closely)...no running red lights, period. Stop at signs, or at least slow almost to a stop and really stop if another vehicle has the right of way. This means for all rides, including Critical mass, fast training rides, etc..

4) Help and encourage others to ride. Help a neighbor fix their old bike….show someone how to change a flat . Offer to commute with someone not comfortable riding off the sidewalk.

5) Wear a helmet. There is no real downside (except for bad hair :)) and there is upside in many accidents. It shows responsibility (and if your kids wear helmets…so should you). And for all the arguments about helmets .please go to the helmets cramp my style thread.

6) Ride and act with courtesy, but assert your right on the road.

7) Quit whining about what an oppressed minority we are and why drivers should follow laws but we shouldn’t. Bottom line is drivers are the majority…..the only way to change is to get more cyclists out there.

8) write newspapers relentlessly in support of cycling until the editor gives in and gives you your own column!

while i agree that being aware of stop-indicators is a good safety practice, i'm not really sure how this point works in favour of cycling advocacy.
."

frymaster, IMO it is important to advocacy as I have proposed, because otherwise we get the "why should we take cyclists seriously you are all a bunch of yahoos who run lights and stops signs" reducing the take cyclists seriously factor......also I believe it is a real safety issue...... I did try to nuance it a bit from rigid stop and put foot down at every sign ..ok reflecting how i ride which is pretty conservative.......

a Small study from san jose, ca (with no major bias that i am aware of...I know some of the players) indicates that bicycles runing lights/stops are a major cause of car bike collisions.... take it for what it is worth ..small sample http://www.sanjoseca.gov/transportation/bikeped/SupportFiles/bikeped/2007%20Annual%20Report.pdf

8) write newspapers relentlessly in support of cycling until the editor gives in and gives you your own column!

Good idea....a very specific example of 2 Be visible :)

Wearing a helmet will suggest that biking is a dangerous activity that requires special safety equipment. This will not encourage more people to get on their bikes.

Much like seatbelts scare people away from driving cars, I take it...

people will never be scared of driving cars because everybody thinks they're a better driver than everybody else.... (plus it's just too much fun driving fast)

Advocacy: the act or process of advocating or supporting a cause or proposal

Here is a simple proposal, as to the best way to be an effective advocate for cycling. The goal is to increase the number of cyclists and to change the perception of cycling from a recreational activity to being a mainstream activity, such that anytime there is a political decision that relates to cycling the decision makers are cyclists, know cyclist, have constituents that are cyclists. It won’t be magic it won’t be overnight, but it will work.

Normal people riding normal bikes doing normal things will make cycling normal (kinda like it is in most of the world)

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/bottleneck/images/2008/08/08/copenhagen_rush_hour.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/163/410766301_bb40b322de.jpghttp://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QD5J-lhOPc0/SbjWAvay0JI/AAAAAAAAAGA/DH4e8EvRoL8/s320/pn4b_amsterdam_bicycle_many_Small.jpg

http://www.definitivecaribbean.com/admin/images/imagelibrary/13477_Music-Rasta-and-bananas-in-_normal.jpghttp://i.treehugger.com/files/th_images/beijing-bicycle1.jpghttp://cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/green-trad-basket-lady.jpg

http://www.ski-epic.com/amsterdam_bicycles/pp2s_amsterdam_bicycle_old.jpghttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3147/2545928365_c63c786efa_o.jpg

Much like seatbelts scare people away from driving cars, I take it...
Do you really believe that this is a valid point, or are you just being snarky?

Assuming this argument was made in good faith, I should point out that: (1) we don't need any incentives to getting people to use cars; (2) people tend to feel that they don't have alternatives to riding in cars and, most importantly, (3) studies have shown that mandatory helmet laws reduce cycling by 30%. Mandatory seat belt laws don't reduce driving at all.

Leaving aside any discussion of the dubious utility of helmets, I just don't understand why, given the clearly demonstrated evidence that mandatory helmet laws reduce cycling dramatically, someone would suggest that we could *increase* the number of bikers by riding with helmets.

And, as closetbiker pointed out, in places where cycling is an everyday part of life, helmet use tends to be very low. Without, somehow, there being a corresponding increase in the number of brain injuries.

To increase the number of cyclists, the best thing to do would be to have a large number of cyclists out wearing normal clothing, taking normal trips, and doing normal errands by bike. Preferably even on upright bikes, where they can look people in the eye as they ride past.

I can't find anything to fault with your list. I do believe that there are a few situations where a bike should behave differently than a car, but for the most part I think that we can gain respect by interacting with them co-operatively. Though I can't offer proof, I'll assert that I'm treated pretty well by the motorists and that I think the reason is because I act as though they can trust me. Part of it, also, is my "look". I'm a blue jeans and T-shirt/sweatshirt rider. I make sure, though, that they're not faded and old looking. (They're so inexpensive that no one really needs to wear old ones, anyway) Unless it's high-noon I wear a reflective safety vest. I also (mostly) wear a helmet. I use hand signals and bodly language that makes my intent easy to see. The result (I think) is that I look like an everyday guy who is using a few items of clothing specific to this particular activity and who can be trusted to be level-headed. At least that's my aim. It seems to be working.

If the motorists viewed all bicyclists as such, then I think we'd be better accepted.

But I don't mean to say "You must do this!". But we could view it as a suggestion.

And, as closetbiker pointed out, in places where cycling is an everyday part of life, helmet use tends to be very low. Without, somehow, there being a corresponding increase in the number of brain injuries.

Here isn't there, and there isn't here. If some people are scared off by helmets, then IMO it's a good thing because those people obviously have no business mixing with motorized traffic on our streets. They can stay on the MUP where it's "safe".

isn't it in cycling advocacy's interest to foster an attitude that moves more towards the attitude they have there?

...drivers are the majority…..the only way to change is to get more cyclists out there….Ride and be counted

:thumb:

our benefits are tied to the numbers of participants

http://www.citeulike.org/user/mokgand/article/905719


The likelihood that a given person walking or bicycling will be struck by a motorist varies inversely with the amount of walking or bicycling. This pattern is consistent across communities of varying size, from specific intersections to cities and countries, and across time periods.

Sounds good to me.

I think the biggest thing is to ride, and not be a jackass about it.

#4 can actually be used to get someone riding. It's a sales technique: Give them something and they'll be guilted into giving back. To follow up you ask your neighbor, with the now fixed bicycle, to come along on an easy weekend ride. He may feel obliged to go because you fixed his bicycle without asking for anything. You can't say "I'll fix it if you ride with me." That doesn't work.

In my opinion what bicycle advocacy is missing is advertisement. In a given day you probably see 2-3 automobile ads. Good, bad, offensive, or great they remind you: "Automobile, automobile." Everyone you know drives a car, and your neighbor just bought a new one. How many things say "bicycle" in your day? So, anything you can do to broadcast the word bicycle in a way that isn't negative is probably beneficial.

You never know when you're gonna start someone thinking: "I need to get in shape, I'll ride to work!"

A lot of what you mention works toward this. Just riding on roads does it to everyone that passes.

When there is a long line at the bank, do you think "I just have to go there"?



Yes, that's exactly what everyone thinks. Then they think "wait, I don't need to go to the bank today!"

It's all about reminding them of the thing they forgot. It's why coca-cola advertises.

Here isn't there, and there isn't here. If some people are scared off by helmets, then IMO it's a good thing because those people obviously have no business mixing with motorized traffic on our streets. They can stay on the MUP where it's "safe".

You are entitled to your point of view, of course. And this POV will put us well on the way to decreasing the number of cyclists.

But I don't think that the OP was trying to decrease the number of cyclists. I think he was interested in increasing the number.

30 years or so ago, Copenhagen had very few cyclists, and people were skeptical that the city's cycling initiatives would do anything to change the behavior of car-centric Copenhageners. (I am not making this up.) So I don't see how the fact that they are "there" and we are "here" has any particular relevance to anything. If we want to increase the number of cyclists, we should look at what places that have successfully increased the number of cyclists have done.

...I don't see how the fact that they are "there" and we are "here" has any particular relevance to anything. If we want to increase the number of cyclists, we should look at what places that have successfully increased the number of cyclists have done.

I agree. We have a choice to promote travel by bicycle and considering the many benefits of travel by bicycle we can see what's worked, what hasn't and what we should do.

from, http://www.i-sustain.com/learningCenter/Publication/Creating%20a%20Bicycle%20Culture%20-%20DJC%20Article.htm


Copenhagen is a beautiful northern European city, with 1.8 million people in the greater metropolitan area. With continuous bike paths, overflowing bike racks and grandmas whizzing by on their 3-speeds, it would be natural for visitors to assume that it has always been a bicycling city.

However, the truth is that bicycling peaked in the 1950s and reached an all time low by the 1970s. It has only been through the concerted and sustained efforts of politicians, planners and traffic engineers that Copenhagen has become a city of bicycles.

Cycling is an integral part of mainstream planning, and bike paths and other bike-friendly facilities are a part of the planning of every new or rebuilt road. Copenhagen's road infrastructure network has not increased since the 1970s and miles driven per year have decreased by 10 percent over the same period of time.

so, we've concluded that...

1. advocacy should mean encouraging more people to ride bikes
2. helmets may or may not dissuade cycling, but the freedom to choose is probably a good thing
3. infrastructure is nice
4. the more cyclists, the safer
5. looking like a 'normal' (ugh, i hate that word) person on a bike makes riding the bike look more normal than looking like a hipster or spandex fred
6. being polite to others (motorists, peds &c) gives cycling a nice aura that helps adoption.
7. closetbiker's avatar always makes me think "look, it's gerry hannah from the subhumans"... although i have no data to support this notion.

7. closetbiker's avatar always makes me think "look, it's gerry hannah from the subhumans"... although i have no data to support this notion.

Oh c'mon! I'm from the same era and the same time frame, but I didn't go to jail for taking part in a bombing! (can you say, "domestic terrorist"?)

The band I played in was considered by Gerry's fans as the polar opposite of what he was involved in although to the general public, we were part of the same "revolution" of independent recordings. The difference between us was we were signed to A&M records after they heard our self-produced record and Gerry's groups continued to self produce.

my band http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-td5LsqOt_I (Check out my yellow pants and ski-boots!)

The Subhumans http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uG2TmOUJyg&feature=related

and besides, even though we played the same bass (for a time), my hair looked far more like Farrah's, than Gerrys (and anyway, I was trying to emulate Roger Glover)

http://mazeofthoughts.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/farrah_fawcett.jpghttp://dondenton.ca/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/gerry-hannah-x.jpghttp://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk295/quadro13/006RogerGlover.jpg

hm. i read this before your edit and was about 80% convinced you were talking about the payolas with a distant, distant second guess at 54-40.... and was basically just waiting to go home and check the labels on the ol' record collection to confirm a&m-ness

We recorded at Little Mountain sound with Ron Obvious (now working Bryan Adams Studio in Gastown, Vancouver). Bob Rock was the other engineer (Payolas) and we were good friends.

The Payolas opened for us a couple of times.

54-40 were the "new" guys at the time. I was getting out when they were getting in.

We're on a couple of sites

http://www.canadianbands.ca/Brandon%20Wolf.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_Bentall_and_the_Legendary_Hearts

A&M-ness...

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1180/1088873938_7187b7d4b9_o.jpg

a friend at work (who collects records) found one of ours in the bargain bin for something like a buck.

i strongly believe i have a legendary hearts cassette somewhere...

More Canadian (Vancouver) music/cycling trivia.

Prisms' (a best selling band from the late 70's) singer (Ron Tabak) died on 25 December 1984, one day after a brain hemorrhage he suffered from a cycling accident.

(I think -not sure- he was drunk at the time he had the collision with the car)

Ok if this is devolving into a Canadian pop music discussion.....how about appreciation for 2 blasts from the past....

"Sweet City Woman" the stampeders

And Edward Bear and the "Last song" series (and the last song wasn't)

and if you want to devolve further....how about quirky shows on canadian tv:

The Friendly Giant (wonderful show)
The magic boomerang (aussie import)
Skippy the Kangaroo (aussie import)
Hangtown 10 (may not be right...about a bunch of kids with a fort...another aussie import)
"totally forgot the name" but a show about a french hero who uses a biblical sling as a weapon
The Don Tremaine show
The old dutch potato chip show

I'm from montana, but got the Lethbridge alberta tv station better the Great falls stations...so for many year I watched canadian tv.

and in high school candian AM stations had better music than the local stations...


back to the original point: ride your bike.....do a utility run and have fun

Mr. Dressup?

http://www.edithjolicoeur.com/attachments/Image/Mr_Dressup.jpg

Don Messer's Jubilee?

https://www.gov.ns.ca/nsarm/virtual/messer/images/20.jpg

(I think Sweet City Woman was the first song I learned on guitar)

*ride lots*

Just about all activities require some sort of "specialized" safety equipment. Football requires pads and helmets yet thousands across this great nation play it. Baseball requires helmets for the team at bat. Motor racing (car, truck, motorcycle) all require flame retardant suits, and helmets.

didn't you read the part where he said we are trying to change the image of cycling from a recreational activity or sport to a normal everyday activity, or did you just skip over that?

The proper attire for normal everyday cycling is your normal everyday clothes. work in an office? then it's a business suit or business casual, depending...work in a blue collar profession? then it's jeans and a T-shirt, and so on...

Here's a great lecture advocating cycling

Cycling for Everyone

John Pucher, professor of planning and public policy, Rutgers University
May 15, 2008, Vancouver

http://www.sfu.ca/city/city_pgm_video020.htm


"If you ask the general population why they don't cycle, the number one reason, by far, is the perception that cycling is unsafe"

"the Dutch, Danes and Germans do not wear ~, yet have a much higher degree of safety"

"the director of cycling for the city of Amsterdam, also for the city of Groningen and for the nationwide cycling federation all said they are so much against ~ use law because we feel it it discourages cycling"


Wearing a ~ will suggest that biking is a dangerous activity...

"Certain" proponents exaggerate the risks of cycling, thus deterring many people who then see cycling as dangerous and one of the very few things that has definitively been shown to improve the safety of cyclists, is having more cyclists on the road.

and again... if you want to encourage humans to do or not do something the absolute worst thing you can do is pass a law limiting or restricting said behaviour. doing so only replaces a meaningful shift in attitude with a dull and mindless compliance.

witness smoking.

no, seriously, go witness it. you can see it happening in windswept parking lots in -40 weather. why are all the smokers out there in the cold and wind? because the law probably states that they can't smoke inside or within x meters of a door or within radar-sighting distance of anyone under 18 or whatever the law is. of course, these laws are designed to harass smokers into becoming non-smokers and, of course, they do no such thing. if you passed a law that said smokers could only partake on the top of a speeding train there'd be line-ups six deep waiting to leap on the passing amtrack express.

now, having said that, you will probably notice that every time you mention smoking to a smoker (provided you're not a pompous ass about it, of course), the first thing they always do is apologize profusely for their habit and swear they're planning on quitting pending this or that pre-condition. they are aware that culturally smoking is not really acceptable and are apologetic about violating this social guideline.

so what do we conclude from this: the law enforces compliance (smoking in the parking lot) and cultural acceptance (or non-acceptance as the case may be) is actually presented as a motivator for change (whether the change ever happens, of course, is a different story... but the motivation exists nonetheless).

this, of course, can be easily extrapolated bike helmets. if we make helmet-wearing the law, people will grudgingly comply... probably by taking their cars and leaving both bike and helmet in the garage. if we make wearing a helmet the social norm, well, then people might actually do it, and enjoy it.

that's your challenge for today. go get on with it.

I find exaggerating the risks of cycling, while ignoring cyclings benefits, runs counter to advocating for cycling.

Mr. Dressup?

http://www.edithjolicoeur.com/attachments/Image/Mr_Dressup.jpg

Don Messer's Jubilee?

https://www.gov.ns.ca/nsarm/virtual/messer/images/20.jpg

(I think Sweet City Woman was the first song I learned on guitar)

*ride lots*

The Tab Hunter show

and there was a show featuring maritime music (nova scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland) that I recall as being pretty good.

I can't remember Tab Hunter, but who can forget The Tommy Hunter Show?

http://www.lightfoot.ca/hunter81.jpg

You are entitled to your point of view, of course. And this POV will put us well on the way to decreasing the number of cyclists.

That would be numerically impossible. There are perhaps 4 or 5 of us. ('roadies' don't count) I don't meet any other people with even the slightest bit of interest in riding a bike around town.

I have absolutely NO interest whatsoever in 'advocating' the wrong kind of people causing chaos by noodling around in traffic on clunky bikes without helmets. This kind of irresponsible behavior will cause responsible bikers a major headache, and may see us legislated off the road altogether. Responsible cycling behavior has to fit the realities of the location.


30 years or so ago, Copenhagen had very few cyclists...

I'm not in Europe, so all this Euro-talk is irrelevant.

it's only irrelevant if you have no interest in improving conditions for cycling where you live.

I find exaggerating the risks of cycling, while ignoring cyclings benefits, runs counter to advocating for cycling.

I knew I shouldn't have mentioned the H word. Despite all the passion on this subject (myself included) I truly think it is not the critical driver one way or the other.

Ok, back to the main point: ride ride ride. First as this is BF,we are not representative of the genreal publiic, but I am willing to bet that there are lot of us who do lots of recreational biking (go out for exercise, do group ride, go do some single track) but never do an errand (go grab cream for coffee, go to the drugstore, etc) or commute.

I used to never do errands, because my "nice" bike was not set up to just throw a leg over and go, at minimum I needed to put on the elf shoes. So I rebuilt an old bike a couple of years ago.....(I've posted it more than a few times) that I could just hop on and ride.

I have been counting other cyclists on my commute this week and i see 1 or 2 or maybe 3. Admittedly this is summer vacation season and my workplace is not located with ton's of other business, but we are talking flat commute, good bike lanes,(curtner and Leigh ave for san jose types) and weather that can't be beat. it is simply sad not to see more commuters.

so if you don't have a bike you can just ride......go hit craigslist or checkout shops for last years models and add to you stable....

ride and have fun

I can't remember Tab Hunter, but who can forget The Tommy Hunter Show?



OK so my memory is going...It was a long time ago, I was little and the tv was black and white ;)

I knew I shouldn't have mentioned the H word. Despite all the passion on this subject (myself included) I truly think it is not the critical driver one way or the other.

Ok, back to the main point: ride ride ride. First as this is BF,we are not representative of the genreal publiic, but I am willing to bet that there are lot of us who do lots of recreational biking (go out for exercise, do group ride, go do some single track) but never do an errand (go grab cream for coffee, go to the drugstore, etc) or commute.

I used to never do errands, because my "nice" bike was not set up to just throw a leg over and go, at minimum I needed to put on the elf shoes. So I rebuilt an old bike a couple of years ago.....(I've posted it more than a few times) that I could just hop on and ride.

I have been counting other cyclists on my commute this week and i see 1 or 2 or maybe 3. Admittedly this is summer vacation season and my workplace is not located with ton's of other business, but we are talking flat commute, good bike lanes,(curtner and Leigh ave for san jose types) and weather that can't be beat. it is simply sad not to see more commuters.

so if you don't have a bike you can just ride......go hit craigslist or checkout shops for last years models and add to you stable....

ride and have fun

I've made a concerted effort to run errands on my bike for the past few years.

Always commuted, but there are lots of other trips where I can use the bike, and now I do.

"the best way to be an effective advocate for cycling" is to advocate for elimination of zoning laws that reduce housing density. A bicycle is a tool people who live within 3mi or so of their objective use for tranpsortation.

I knew I shouldn't have mentioned the H word. Despite all the passion on this subject (myself included) I truly think it is not the critical driver one way or the other.

You are correct

"the best way to be an effective advocate for cycling" is to advocate for elimination of zoning laws that reduce housing density. A bicycle is a tool people who live within 3mi or so of their objective use for tranpsortation.

I've lived in low housing density areas most of my life and it was never a problem. Low density of housing meant low density of cars, fewer busy intersections and usually wide streets with no parking on the sides. It's more about how the transportation infrastructure and community structure are designed (or in the present case not designed). In the US you'll never get housing within 3 miles of anything (except public transportation nodes if you're lucky) in this day and age. It just isn't possible.