Advocacy & Safety - Cycling advocates on bicycles are absurd?

I seem to have ignited a firestorm in a new advocacy group I'm interested in working with.

This group has adopted a mission statement to advocate for cycling as transportation, and the infrastructure and cultural changes required to facilitate that.

This is right up my alley since I've been car-free for 11 years.

Where the controversy lies is that at every meeting I've attended, I'm the only one who has arrived by bicycle.

Yes, this is a group of cycling for transportation advocates who drive cars to their own meetings. Further, they drive cars to the DOT meetings where they advocate for bike lanes.

I suggested that this was inconsistent with the mission statement, and that riding bikes instead might make a stronger statement. In other words, practice what you preach, or set examples by your actions.

A founding member wrote me, "This is absurd. We would eliminate 98% or more of the bicycle advocates."

Am I missing something here?

Do I need to buy a car in order to advocate for cycling as transportation?

Well, did you imply that anyone arriving by car should be excluded? If you merely suggested that they practice what they preach, I don't see how that'd eliminate anybody.

At the last public meeting regarding the upcoming Anchorage Bike Plan, the racks at the library were full. I saw more bikes there than I see at the height of summer.

You're advocating the use to bicycles to bicycle advocates. If they're giving you a hard time about it, I hate to think how the general public would react. You've got an uphill climb there for sure.

I ride to as many bicycle transportation-related meetings as I can. I'm usually the only one doing so, and I believe it has increased my credibility. But still, I can't always travel by bike when time is tight.

I suggest that you use positive framing to encourage other advocates to act as role models and to demonstrate the viability of bicycle transportation. Don't make anybody feel bad for taking their car; just make them imagine feeling better doing it by bike.

welcome to the wunnerful world of politics where feeling good by facade is more important than leadership by example. :thumb:

Steve is right...you gotta make them see the advantages of leading by example without seeming to question their dedication.

Maybe they're demonstrating how much bike lanes are needed, since even the bike advocates can't get around by bike???:rolleyes:

Maybe they're demonstrating how much bike lanes are needed, since even the bike advocates can't get around by bike???

Clearly not. For example:

http://www.bikeforums.net/image.php?u=55787&dateline=1204495228

What's really aggravating is when transportation-related public meetings are held at locations with no secure bike parking.

:bang::wtf:

.......I suggested that this was inconsistent with the mission statement, and that riding bikes instead might make a stronger statement. In other words, practice what you preach, or set examples by your actions.

A founding member wrote me, "This is absurd. We would eliminate 98% or more of the bicycle advocates."

Am I missing something here?

Do I need to buy a car in order to advocate for cycling as transportation?

Well, lets see. How many BICYCLES are on the track at the Indianopolis 500, as support vehicles? None.
How many CARS are on the route of the tour de france, as support vehicles? Plenty.
Is the latter hypocritical?

Bicycles may be superior at some functions....touring, local commuting, recreation. Cars may be superior at others... This logic seems to be curiously incapable of penetrating the spandex mafiosi brain.

roughstuff

I have been the only person riding to a bike advocacy meeting as well. Maybe they thought the OP was proposing everyone go car free. A lot of people have a limit as to how far they will ride, and don't like riding at night. I prefer to have those people working on my behalf and forgive their transportation choices.

How far are they going for the meetings? I imagine a lot of people might like to have bike lanes in order to go a mile or two on a nice day to the grocery store down the street, but don't want to ride 10 miles to where the meetings are.

Also, maybe they'd ride AFTER they get the lanes they want...

What's really aggravating is when transportation-related public meetings are held at locations with no secure bike parking.

:bang::wtf:

Or at hours that would be impossible to get to if one has a job and used a bike for transportation.

Locally we used to have advocacy meetings in a location and at a time that I could bike to. Now the meetings are downtown, no way I can make it in the time allotted.

Of course this isn't an issue of non committed cycling advocates, but of cities laid out for motor transportation vice human powered transit.

I also ran into a local train system that would not permit full working days, due to the schedules of the train... the last train left the station at 5:10PM... such are the idiotic situations of a society that assumes no one would bother using the train to really go to and from work. :rolleyes:

Well, lets see. How many BICYCLES are on the track at the Indianopolis 500, as support vehicles? None.
How many CARS are on the route of the tour de france, as support vehicles? Plenty.
Is the latter hypocritical?

Bicycles may be superior at some functions....touring, local commuting, recreation. Cars may be superior at others... This logic seems to be curiously incapable of penetrating the spandex mafiosi brain.

roughstuff

Cars do have their place... but do we have to use cars for everything... that is my issue... that in an auto-centric society, cycling and even walking are often "not permitted" by design.

Of course the irony of your statement above is that there ARE bicycles used in the factories where cars are made. Go figure.

Try getting these people to list why they couldnt ride their bikes to the meeting. Then that may show what type of infrastructure is the most needed. If you look at the Roadie forum it seems that many drive their cars to the start of a bike ride.

Also, maybe they'd ride AFTER they get the lanes they want...

Yeah, but if everyone was like that there would be no need to get the lanes in the first place as the Government couldn't see anyone who would use it. Honestly, how many people say they would do something, but when given the opportunity they don't? Loads.

Apparently Fort Worth is more bike friendly than the LAB likes to admit. Whenever there is a public hearing on transportation or cycling, there are always dozens of cyclists in attendance, many of whom rode to the meeting. Here's a scene from last month's city council meeting where they approved the bike plan for the next 25 years. All the yellow and orange shirted folks are cyclists

http://fortworthology.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Bike-Friendly-Fort-Worth-Ride-to-City-Hall-2-9-2010-44.jpg

(I hotlinked that from a blog and I'm not sure if he allows hotlinking; here is a link to the full article (http://fortworthology.com/2010/02/10/city-council-unanimously-approves-bike-fort-worth-plan-plus-photos-from-bike-friendly-fort-worth-ride/).

Simple - your group are a bunch of cagers who generally ride for recreation, and wouldn't understand half of the discussions on A&S if you explained it to them.

-Kurt

Apparently Fort Worth is more bike friendly than the LAB likes to admit. Whenever there is a public hearing on transportation or cycling, there are always dozens of cyclists in attendance, many of whom rode to the meeting. Here's a scene from last month's city council meeting where they approved the bike plan for the next 25 years. All the yellow and orange shirted folks are cyclists


(I hotlinked that from a blog and I'm not sure if he allows hotlinking; here is a link to the full article (http://fortworthology.com/2010/02/10/city-council-unanimously-approves-bike-fort-worth-plan-plus-photos-from-bike-friendly-fort-worth-ride/).

Wow, pretty amazing. I grew up in Fort Worth and actually rode a bike to school from the time I was 9 years old until I got my first car at age 16... then, at 18 I started cycling again.

Back then the only thing that make Fort Worth "bike friendly" was the lack of a lot of traffic in the area where I lived. Of course, as the city grew, the traffic increased... places I rode back then as a kid are rather "sketchy" today.

The Trinity Trails didn't exist back then, but Trinity Park was quite ridable, again due to the general lack of traffic (back in my day, hippies also filled areas of the park... it was that long ago). The Trinity Trails are not much more than a set of recreation bike paths that don't offer much in the way of transportation connections.

My mother lives out in Benbrook these days (which has grown substantially since I was a kid and rode old Granbury road out to the lake via the old two lane blacktop) Near her place now are the only bike lanes I have ever seen in Fort Worth. Not very impressive.

It sounds like things are changing again... I hope that once more kids will feel safe and comfortable biking to school, just as much as I did, back in the day when I used to ride to Westcliff elementary. (is that even still there?)

Westcliff Elementary is still there. Nice part of town. Trail Lake is one of my main routes that I use and it does have a bike trail along the west side of the road (and a very wide lane on the other side). There is a branch of the Trinity Trail (kind of) that comes out there, through Foster Park & Overton Park: Ride the MUP north through Foster Park, it comes out on Overton Park East. Going north from there (I usually stay on the road but there is a paved MUP/sidwalk that runs through Overton Park), you can get onto a trail just south of Bellaire that follows the creek out to the Trinity River. From there you could ride all the way down to Benbrook Lake if you wanted to. (Alternately, you could go south to I-20, follow the access road to 183 access road, then go south on Bellaire; a trail branches off from there that goes directly to the lake.)

There is a new bridge over the Trinity planned that will connect the Tanglewood area (just east of Hulen) to the Trinity Trail system just south of Vickery & the train tracks. The new road bridge will include a separate span that will go across the Trinity River from one bank to the other, with connections to the roads and to the river trails. It looks like it may result in a signature view of Fort Worth.

Fort Worth still has just a few genuine bike lanes. They have dozens (perhaps hundreds?) of miles of bike routes established (and they work; I use them; they are generally neighborhood streets that parallel the main roads). Benbrook actually is more bike friendly, largely because there is a very active bike advocate there. He is so active, he recently got on the city council of Benbrook.

I ride my bike to work from just north of Crowley to west of Loop 820/north of I-30, a distance of about 17 miles each way. I use surface streets most of the way; I use the Trinity Trail a little bit. The Trail is actually a great route to commute from Benbrook to Downtown Ft Worth and a lot of people use it. It doesn't seem to have the congestion (most of the time, anyway) that MUPs in other cities do, I think because there is both a paved path for cyclists and a limestone path for walkers, joggers & dog walkers in the more popular sections of the trail.

I seem to have ignited a firestorm in a new advocacy group I'm interested in working with.

This group has adopted a mission statement to advocate for cycling as transportation, and the infrastructure and cultural changes required to facilitate that.

This is right up my alley since I've been car-free for 11 years.

Where the controversy lies is that at every meeting I've attended, I'm the only one who has arrived by bicycle.

Yes, this is a group of cycling for transportation advocates who drive cars to their own meetings. Further, they drive cars to the DOT meetings where they advocate for bike lanes.

I suggested that this was inconsistent with the mission statement, and that riding bikes instead might make a stronger statement. In other words, practice what you preach, or set examples by your actions.

A founding member wrote me, "This is absurd. We would eliminate 98% or more of the bicycle advocates."

Am I missing something here?

Do I need to buy a car in order to advocate for cycling as transportation?

Last summer when I attended the public meetings on the Friendship Trial between Tampa and St. Pete most of the people drove instead of riding. The meeting in St. Pete I was the only one (I think) who rode a bike. For the one in Tampa there were a few others but the majority arrived via their cars.

It would have made more sense to me if more had shown up on their bikes. But I guess that was expecting too much.

For the vast majority of people cars are better transportation devices than bikes. GASOLINE IS CHEAP.
We will use more bikes for transportation when it becomes too expensive to drive everywhere, and much much safer to bike.

Cars are better than bikes-while we have cheap energy.
Europeans bike because gas is $8/gal-same story for the Japanese.

Cost vs comfort/versatility is what determines which transportation device we use.

We won't seriously consider bikes for transportation while fuel is cheap. You are wasting your time with gas at $2.65/g. Won't happen until we have $6 gas.

With expensive gas cities will get serious about bike infrastructure-starting with secure places to park and lock them.

The Euros aren't ethically superior-they just pay more for gas-a lot more. Look at how quickly the Chinese abandon their bikes for cars-cheap gas!

Pray for a HUGE gasoline tax, if you want bike infrastructure.


Money talks, and then we walk( or ride).

Cars do have their place... but do we have to use cars for everything... that is my issue... that in an auto-centric society, cycling and even walking are often "not permitted" by design.

Of course the irony of your statement above is that there ARE bicycles used in the factories where cars are made. Go figure.

Isn't there a car commercial about that on TV now?

For the vast majority of people cars are better transportation devices than bikes. GASOLINE IS CHEAP.
We will use more bikes for transportation when it becomes too expensive to drive everywhere, and much much safer to bike.

Cars are better than bikes-while we have cheap energy.
Europeans bike because gas is $8/gal-same story for the Japanese.

Cost vs comfort/versatility is what determines which transportation device we use.

We won't seriously consider bikes for transportation while fuel is cheap. You are wasting your time with gas at $2.65/g. Won't happen until we have $6 gas.

With expensive gas cities will get serious about bike infrastructure-starting with secure places to park and lock them.

The Euros aren't ethically superior-they just pay more for gas-a lot more. Look at how quickly the Chinese abandon their bikes for cars-cheap gas!

Pray for a HUGE gasoline tax, if you want bike infrastructure.


Money talks, and then we walk( or ride).

One would think $5.00 a gallon gas would be something of an eye opener... so do we have to wait for the "apocalypse" of $8.00 a gallon gas, or should we plan for the future?

Regardless, communities might consider at least making some infrastructure a bit more bike friendly... who knows, maybe that will hold off the "apocalypse."

I do agree that the economics of transportation have a lot to do with the supremacy of the single occupant internal combustion vehicle. Summer of 2008 showed what will happen as fuel costs rise. More people started to use mass transit and cycle. See the thread in the Southeast forum "K Street Traffic" and there are several comments about the sudden rise in commuting by bicycle caused by two factors. Increased security in and around the mall making casual automotive use problematic and followed with the increase in fuel prices a few years later.

It still seems to be a chicken and egg problem, however. Without better and friendlier infrastructure for transportation by cycle, feet, roller skate, skate board, bus and rail people are going to travel in cars because it's comfortable and easy. Infrastructure includes not only paths and redesigned roads but lockers and showers in work places or a societal acceptance of sweat.

Westcliff Elementary is still there. Nice part of town. Trail Lake is one of my main routes that I use and it does have a bike trail along the west side of the road (and a very wide lane on the other side). There is a branch of the Trinity Trail (kind of) that comes out there, through Foster Park & Overton Park: Ride the MUP north through Foster Park, it comes out on Overton Park East. Going north from there (I usually stay on the road but there is a paved MUP/sidwalk that runs through Overton Park), you can get onto a trail just south of Bellaire that follows the creek out to the Trinity River. From there you could ride all the way down to Benbrook Lake if you wanted to. (Alternately, you could go south to I-20, follow the access road to 183 access road, then go south on Bellaire; a trail branches off from there that goes directly to the lake.)

There is a new bridge over the Trinity planned that will connect the Tanglewood area (just east of Hulen) to the Trinity Trail system just south of Vickery & the train tracks. The new road bridge will include a separate span that will go across the Trinity River from one bank to the other, with connections to the roads and to the river trails. It looks like it may result in a signature view of Fort Worth.

Fort Worth still has just a few genuine bike lanes. They have dozens (perhaps hundreds?) of miles of bike routes established (and they work; I use them; they are generally neighborhood streets that parallel the main roads). Benbrook actually is more bike friendly, largely because there is a very active bike advocate there. He is so active, he recently got on the city council of Benbrook.

I ride my bike to work from just north of Crowley to west of Loop 820/north of I-30, a distance of about 17 miles each way. I use surface streets most of the way; I use the Trinity Trail a little bit. The Trail is actually a great route to commute from Benbrook to Downtown Ft Worth and a lot of people use it. It doesn't seem to have the congestion (most of the time, anyway) that MUPs in other cities do, I think because there is both a paved path for cyclists and a limestone path for walkers, joggers & dog walkers in the more popular sections of the trail.

Wow... memories of my youth. Crowley road, Overton park, Foster Park, just to name a few... I went to Westcliff, then to McClean, we moved to near Hulen and Grandbury and I went to Southwest High School... and it was the ONLY thing out on that road at the time (can't remember the road name) Just across the street was nothing but wide open fields... Hulen had just opened up as a two lane blacktop from 820 to Granbury as I left for the Navy.

I have been back since, several times in fact... and I get totally lost as so much has changed... Camp Bowie Blvd is one of the few things that seems to remain constant... including all the brickwork.

Oddly enough I am having dinner with an old high school friend tonight.... he is out here on the coast for a business meeting.

I do agree that the economics of transportation have a lot to do with the supremacy of the single occupant internal combustion vehicle. Summer of 2008 showed what will happen as fuel costs rise. More people started to use mass transit and cycle. See the thread in the Southeast forum "K Street Traffic" and there are several comments about the sudden rise in commuting by bicycle caused by two factors. Increased security in and around the mall making casual automotive use problematic and followed with the increase in fuel prices a few years later.

It still seems to be a chicken and egg problem, however. Without better and friendlier infrastructure for transportation by cycle, feet, roller skate, skate board, bus and rail people are going to travel in cars because it's comfortable and easy. Infrastructure includes not only paths and redesigned roads but lockers and showers in work places or a societal acceptance of sweat.

Interestedly enough, it was the gas crisis of the early '70s that got me back on my bike... I remember gas going from 19 cents a gallon to over a dollar a gallon and not even being available... long lines at the pump were everywhere. I got the message.

Europeans bike because gas is $8/gal AND their cities are bikeable. Most of the city centers and surrounding areas have been set in stone since before cars existed, and there's a tradition of higher density living than there is in the US.

The US developed its culture in the era of wide open spaces, and the "dream" has always been to have a house on a big chunk of land of your own. Extrapolated, that means everyone is far from everything.

Where the controversy lies is that at every meeting I've attended, I'm the only one who has arrived by bicycle.

Yes, this is a group of cycling for transportation advocates who drive cars to their own meetings. Further, they drive cars to the DOT meetings where they advocate for bike lanes.

Do you know how many hours per week they spend on a bicycle and do any of them commute regularly? If not then they really don't have much of a basis for making any sort of informed decision about what would be useful for cyclists.

I harbor a deep suspicion that many of the appalling bike facilities I've seen have been constructed at the behest of people that believe that bikes are "good" and "green" but have spent precious little time actually using one.

Last year I went a couple of miles extra from my regular commuting route to participate in "Ride to Work Day" in Louisville.

I think I was the only person who was actually going to work. They had energy bars and water, etc. I guess I'll try it again this year, but I'm not too enthused.

tsl ... my partner on two wheels ... I can only advise you not to alienate this group, but gently guide them, so they can be the massive face of advocacy for the agenda best suited to what YOU and other real riders know is best.

Be a role model and a mentor, not a judge.

Would you prefer cycling advocates in cars or no cycling advocates at all? It's not like it is a paying job.

Do I need to buy a car in order to advocate for cycling as transportation?Well, are you currently advocating for cycling as transportation even without owning a car? If so, then it would seem that the answer to your hyperbole is "no".

That said, you certainly can still be a cycling advocate AND understand the usefulness of a car in getting around -- the two are not mutually exclusive. Though I do agree that the message comes across stronger if the advocates ride their bikes to the meetings ...

Here in Austin, any meeting that involves cycling advocacy tends to have bike after bike after bike locked up outside. Sure, some drive, but scores ride in too. (Of course, many of the cars parked outside have bike racks on them too ...)

Do you know how many hours per week they spend on a bicycle and do any of them commute regularly? If not then they really don't have much of a basis for making any sort of informed decision about what would be useful for cyclists.

I harbor a deep suspicion that many of the appalling bike facilities I've seen have been constructed at the behest of people that believe that bikes are "good" and "green" but have spent precious little time actually using one.

This is part of what I'm trying to keep from happening.

Bike parking facilities around here, for instance, are atrocious. There are wheel-bender racks from the 50s. At my grocery store they have some sort of plastic thing filled with sand--like a pool umbrella stand--that I'm supposed to lock my wheel to. There's one alarming example at a hospital. It was made of aluminum and not bolted down. It was like locking to a lawn chair. Weighed less than my bike. What kind of security is that?



tsl ... my partner on two wheels ... I can only advise you not to alienate this group, but gently guide them, so they can be the massive face of advocacy for the agenda best suited to what YOU and other real riders know is best.

Be a role model and a mentor, not a judge.

This is what I'm trying to be, but it's not going so well.

I related the story of one DOT meeting where I wasn't the only cycling advocate there, although I didn't know that. The others were camouflaged as drivers. Apparently the engineers didn't know it either.

After the meeting the DOT engineers came up to me and said, "We need you to help with this design. When can you meet with us?" None of the others who spoke up for cyclists were invited. This was on an extremely controversial expressway interchange known as a DDI, or Diverging Diamond Interchange.

At the time, none had been built in the US, so the engineers had no idea if they were safe at all for cyclists, and what sort of accommodations were needed for us. They had no baseline from which to work. I'm delighted to say that thus far, every single one of my suggestions have made it into the design. (See it here: https://www.nysdot.gov/590winton/ )

This is what I meant when I told them that maybe appearing at DOT meeting on a bike, with your helmet in your hand, was perhaps a more effective way of advocating for cyclists. It gives credibility.

Numbers are good. Words are good. Actions are better.

Sounds like you found yourself a bit of hypocrisy there, not absurdity.

Do you know how many hours per week they spend on a bicycle and do any of them commute regularly? If not then they really don't have much of a basis for making any sort of informed decision about what would be useful for cyclists.

I harbor a deep suspicion that many of the appalling bike facilities I've seen have been constructed at the behest of people that believe that bikes are "good" and "green" but have spent precious little time actually using one.

Sounds like the last bicycle workshop I went to, on where and what type of infrastructure to spend a 50 mil grant on, very few voted for any on road cycling improvements with the majority stating is as too dangerous to ride, and most voting for off road trails.

Apparently Fort Worth is more bike friendly than the LAB likes to admit. Whenever there is a public hearing on transportation or cycling, there are always dozens of cyclists in attendance, many of whom rode to the meeting. Here's a scene from last month's city council meeting where they approved the bike plan for the next 25 years. All the yellow and orange shirted folks are cyclists

(I hotlinked that from a blog and I'm not sure if he allows hotlinking; here is a link to the full article (http://fortworthology.com/2010/02/10/city-council-unanimously-approves-bike-fort-worth-plan-plus-photos-from-bike-friendly-fort-worth-ride/).

Now, that is the way to get things done..Proud of you Ft. Worth.. Mixed feelings about TSL's point..We all come with different levels of purity.. Are the meetings sometimes at night . Some of us are not night cyclists.. I prove my use of bikes as transportation almost everyday of the week.. I am sure many of those advocacy meetings , I'd make it by bike. Can't say I"d be a cycling purist all the time . It would depend upon the time of day, distance , and my schedule.
Heck, if some of the cities where I've lived ; if they had a turn out of cyclist's equal to what we saw in Ft. Worth, there would not be enough bike racks to hitch your bikes to. that is if, there are any at all.

I know a lot of fine advocates that drive but I think the point that is missed is if we are advocating bikes for transportation and if meetings are full of people who didn't bike, something is seriously wrong. It could be as simple as a bad meeting location or time. Possibly rotate locations to attract people who do ride as their primarily means.

Europeans bike because gas is $8/gal AND their cities are bikeable. Most of the city centers and surrounding areas have been set in stone since before cars existed, and there's a tradition of higher density living than there is in the US.

The US developed its culture in the era of wide open spaces, and the "dream" has always been to have a house on a big chunk of land of your own. Extrapolated, that means everyone is far from everything.

Actually many American cities, especially on the east coast were once walking cities too... later development of course either changed the city or was done in wider rings around the existing city core. We too once had cities that were quite bikeable, but chose to let the automobile guide our future, which modified many cities to become the auto havens they now are.

But just look at the cores of places like Boston, NYC, New Orleans, even San Francisco... they are hardly different from the cores of some European cities... Then we ripped through some of these cities with freeways and tore up whole neighborhoods to support the automobile. Even now San Francisco is claiming back core areas of that city where a major freeway once dumped traffic. Boston tried to preserve some of it's core with the Big Dig.

While all of this was happening, city fathers threw away the once useful trolleys, and other forms of public transit... all to give way to the private motor vehicle.

When I was 17 years old I joined up with a group of about 10 older bike riders who were forming a bike club- partly for advocacy purposes and partly for recreation. Virtually all of the meetings were held at night and about 12 miles from my home. I was usually the only one who rode to the meetings. When we began to have regular rides I was the one who rode to practically every ride and rode home afterwards. I never gave them any grief for driving their cars and I'm glad I didn't. That group of 10 eventually grew into one of the largest cycling clubs in the country, the Narragansett Bay Wheelmen, and does excellent work in advocacy.

Many of the original members expanded their own ideas of cycling outside of just recreation and began to use their bikes for transport but what was most important was that they lay the groundwork for newer members in greater numbers to use bikes in ways they had not quite always found themselves capable of doing.

Just ride to the meetings and if someone in the group lives nearby invite them to ride to the next meeting with you. Maybe the meeting locations could be more central?- you could suggest a new location for the meetings. Or you could organize group rides to the meetings- where you meet up at a location with your bikes and ride together. Be creative it sure beats being critical.

Distance darkness and time constraints all come into play.

I do have a question for the car free people. How do you get to rides and rallies a hundred miles or more from you home. I ride a recumbent, and the last rally I attended was 300 miles from home.

Apparently Fort Worth is more bike friendly than the LAB likes to admit. Whenever there is a public hearing on transportation or cycling, there are always dozens of cyclists in attendance, many of whom rode to the meeting. Here's a scene from last month's city council meeting where they approved the bike plan for the next 25 years. All the yellow and orange shirted folks are cyclists
Does a yellow shirt indicate that the "cyclist" within rode a bicycle to get to the meeting?

IMO, neither a yellow shirt nor riding a bike to a meeting indicates anyhing about who is/is not more knowledgeable about cyclists' requirements and priorities.

Distance darkness and time constraints all come into play.

I do have a question for the car free people. How do you get to rides and rallies a hundred miles or more from you home. I ride a recumbent, and the last rally I attended was 300 miles from home.

Check out the touring forum and stealth camping. I know some guys that do that, myself the furthest I've gone is 160 miles. It eats into vacation time but I like a lot of mini-vacations rather then one long one.

Last year I went a couple of miles extra from my regular commuting route to participate in "Ride to Work Day" in Louisville.

I think I was the only person who was actually going to work. They had energy bars and water, etc. I guess I'll try it again this year, but I'm not too enthused.

When I was physically able to, I rode to work on a Bike to Work Day once. People asked me why I didn't take the goodie bags that were handed out at the "stations" that were set up. Hey, I got to work BEFORE the stations were set up. What a coincidence-- the cycling advocates were not set up for people going to work early, and public transportation is not set up for people going to work early. Maybe there's a lesson in there somewhere for the transportation advocates.

Check out the touring forum and stealth camping. I know some guys that do that, myself the furthest I've gone is 160 miles. It eats into vacation time but I like a lot of mini-vacations rather then one long one.
Some people hike the Appalachian Trail and others like to climb mountains; relevance to pedestrian issues is nil. Same lack of relevance applies to vacation time bicycling pastimes when discussing metropolitan bicycling advocacy

Some people hike the Appalachian Trail and others like to climb mountains; relevance to pedestrian issues is nil. Same lack of relevance applies to vacation time bicycling pastimes when discussing metropolitan bicycling advocacy

The question was how to travel long distances to a rally car free. There could be important issues brought up at the State capital (for example) which could be very important to cyclists and very far away for some.

Unfortunately for cyclists, trails are important to some, urban commuting important to others, and just doing a short jaunt around the block with the kids is important to others. The sad bit is usually one POV wins at the expense of others. What's better for pedestrian use; countdown timers on all major streets or the Application Trail? I believe the correct answer is both. Cars are used both for utilitarian and recreational (vacation) use and the same should go for the other modes of travel as well.

I seem to have ignited a firestorm in a new advocacy group I'm interested in working with.

This group has adopted a mission statement to advocate for cycling as transportation, and the infrastructure and cultural changes required to facilitate that.

This is right up my alley since I've been car-free for 11 years.

Where the controversy lies is that at every meeting I've attended, I'm the only one who has arrived by bicycle.

Yes, this is a group of cycling for transportation advocates who drive cars to their own meetings. Further, they drive cars to the DOT meetings where they advocate for bike lanes.

I suggested that this was inconsistent with the mission statement, and that riding bikes instead might make a stronger statement. In other words, practice what you preach, or set examples by your actions.

A founding member wrote me, "This is absurd. We would eliminate 98% or more of the bicycle advocates."

Am I missing something here?

Do I need to buy a car in order to advocate for cycling as transportation?

Discredit them before they discredit cycling. I'm serious.

Well, lets see. How many BICYCLES are on the track at the Indianopolis 500, as support vehicles? None.
How many CARS are on the route of the tour de france, as support vehicles? Plenty.
Is the latter hypocritical?

Bicycles may be superior at some functions....touring, local commuting, recreation. Cars may be superior at others... This logic seems to be curiously incapable of penetrating the spandex mafiosi brain.

roughstuff

Bikes are good at moving individuals and small amounts of goods like papers. Why you think he's spandex clad because he gets around a city on a bicycle is beyond me.

You see cars at bike races for much the same reason you see semi's at nascar races. Plus some other reasons. No one ever said racing was about transportation.

Try getting these people to list why they couldnt ride their bikes to the meeting. Then that may show what type of infrastructure is the most needed. If you look at the Roadie forum it seems that many drive their cars to the start of a bike ride.

This seems like a really useful suggestion and nice way to bring it up.

Ask around the room at a meeting why everybody drove. If they have an excuse you've got something useful to try to solve. If they hum and ho about something or other and say "I guess I could have ridden" then you have somebody to politely suggest should ride for transportation if they're going to petition the city for money for that very thing.

A bike isn't a car, blah, blah...I don't recall anyone claiming it is.

The point is that the distances many people have to go each day could easily be covered by other, and in some ways superior, means, and that a car doesn't have to be critical to your daily life. It doesn't mean you can't own one, just that maybe we should lessen our dependence on and favoritism for them.

I usually laugh at people when they complain about parking in downtown Chicago. It isn't like there are other, well-known, dependable, cheap ways to do the same thing. The same for replacing a short commute by car with one by bike. You just have to convince most people that it's feasible.

It was an easy choice for me, since I don't like driving. Some people have different priorities, though, and most of them center around being lazy and not caring about the long-term effects of their choices. It's the same reason people have enough time to watch however many hours of TV a day, but none to exercise. They're also not rational enough (I'm feeling especially humanistic at the moment) to realize they could knock out both the commute and the daily exercise in less time than it would take to do both separately.

Honestly, when I was working in the city my bike commute was 45 min each way, regardless of time of day. Driving it took a coworker 25 min without much traffic.

1.5 hrs = commute + 1.5 hrs of moderate to vigorous exercise, or 50 minutes for just the commute? Essentially, you're getting 50 min of exercise without "wasting" your time later in the day to do it (or 1.5 hrs for the time investment of 40). If you value exercise, that's an efficient way to get it. Most days, I wish I worked further from home. I wouldn't have any choice but to exercise. If the weather were bad or I was hurt, the train is always right there.

I assume you do not want to require or even suggest that all members must ride to all meeting. What do you want to require/suggest?