dynodonn 

Looks like not much has changed in the 3 years since this thread was started, AAA is all about motorists and their vehicles.

Fasteryoufool

I don't know about now, but years ago when I got my first motorcycle, AAA didn't cover motorcycles and I couldn't add mine to my policy. Had to get insurance elsewhere.

Then they tried to triple our policy rates by listing me as the primary driver of the car because I was the higher risk driver. My wife at the time said "How can he be the higher risk driver?! He hardly ever drives the car. He rides his motorcycle or his bicycle everywhere. "

The agent said "He can't ride a motorcycle. We don't cover motorcycles."

Duh, supergenius.

We dropped them like an ugly blind date.

ianbrettcooper

They raised my wife's rate this year because some bright spark at AAA decided that, since we're married, I must be a driver too, so they have to charge us for the extra driver. The fact that I've never owned a driving license didn't seem to matter. We eventually got the fees reversed, but I'm pretty sure the AAA folks still think we're somehow cheating them out of the money.

Wankers!

And my wife still won't consider going with another company (the Better World Club), because she has this idea that, since she's been with AAA since she was a teen, changing would somehow be breaking a grand and beloved tradition.

The Human Car

AAA Mid-Atlantic has deviated from the main AAA HQ and is actively anti-bike. They have been protesting bike lanes in DC as taking away space from cars and other such nonsense and now are now trying their hand on lobbing the Federal Government not to fund bike/ped projects.

Complain to the main AAA offices (about what the Mid-Atlantic division is doing) and you will get a very supportive stance for cycling. It's just AAA Mid-Atlantic that is the Black Sheep right now.

kjmillig

I'm not a member of AAA and never have been, and based on the info here I don't ever plan on being. How in the world can an automotive organization be actively or passively against Rails to Trails? I just can't get my head around the idea that they would be opposed to a system that gets some bicycles OFF the road. For that matter, why would they oppose any legislation that attempts to make roads safer for all users? Go figure.

ianbrettcooper

Well, these issues are debatable. Getting bicycles off the road is not necessarily a good thing for cyclists, as fewer cyclists on the road has actually been shown to make road cycling LESS safe, and we all have to use the road to a great extent. For a number of reasons, I'm with AAA on the issue of keeping cyclists on the streets where they belong, which is why I had to hold my nose while I signed the Rails to Trails petition. One of the reasons I signed was that although AAA effectively supports my viewpoint, I very much doubt the organization does what it does because it is looking out for cyclists' interests.

cab chaser

I have a friend who works at the better world club, he tells me that AAA directly opposes pretty much anything that the highway and automobile industry sees as a threat, including bicycles. I tend to believe him.

ianbrettcooper

If that's the case, shutting down funding for trails would be a very strange way of getting bicycles off the road, since, as far as I can see, it would tend to have the exact opposite effect. Fewer trails = more cyclists using roads.

cab chaser

You're thinking like a bicyclist :-P

The Human Car

Seriously, we are supposed to just disappear. Of course motorists worse nightmare is if all the people using alt transportation started using cars.

crhilton

I kind of doubt it. It might push us back to the days when there were cyclists (people who ride a bike) and people who won't touch one. Right now we've got a lot of people getting into cycling with the trails and finding other places to ride as they grow more confident and decide they like riding.

I think they're functioning as a gateway drug.

ianbrettcooper

I actually think bike trails' functionality as a 'gateway drug' (as you put it) is overrated. I see far more kids and rookie adult cyclists tootling around the quiet neighborhood streets than I see on bike trails. As I see it, trails actually make it less likely for some cyclists to graduate to roads because trails allow them a level of freedom that is sufficient for many people. I think a lot of cyclists see bikes as nothing more than a toy that they take to their local trail every weekend. Commuters, on the other hand, get their education on quiet residential streets, not on trails.

ianbrettcooper

Just spotted this in regard to Natasha Pettigrew's death earlier this week:

So it seems the folks at AAA are (at least on the issue of safety) not against cyclists. Here they seem to be 100% for putting car drivers who kill in jail.

RobertHurst

That certainly seems to be the case around these parts.

More trails = more cyclists = more people using bikes as transportation = more cyclists on the roads = less money for AAA.

cab chaser

If that's true, it kicks ass.

SBRDude

I agree. I understand that they are competing for funds, but there is something unseemly about lobbying the government to divert funds being used to help cycling become more safe. It would kind of be like publicly lobbying the government to stop spending so much money on cancer research in favor of some other terrible disease.

socalrider

I have State Farm now, but back in the 80's had AAA and was hit on my bike in a hit and run incident, few broken teeth and bones and they covered me under there policy and took care of the medical. So my one experience with them is a positive one..

genec

Actually more like asking the government to stop spending "so much money*" on cancer research in favor of spending it on the defense budget.

*The real irony in both these cases (monies to motoring or monies to defense) is that "so much money" DOES go to things like motoring and defense.

SBRDude

We have AAA for travel stuff, not insurance. I like it for what it is. They also saved us over $1k on a trip to Disney world, so I have to give them credit for that. I agree with the person on one of these AAA threads who said its good to be a dissident member of an organization.

slowandsteady

Around here we have the DRPA(Delaware River Port Authority). They recently spent $100,000,000 on a new soccer stadium. What does soccer have to do with maintaining the bridges that span the Delware river? I have no idea. so, while they were spending millions on pet projects, they let the bridges rust. Here is a picture of one. This is the sort of thing that happens all the time in government. One man's war is another man's soccer stadium. Government is rife with pet projects and inefficiencies at the expense of our safety.

ianbrettcooper

Again, opinion in the cycling community is divided regarding whether trails make cycling safer overall. Certainly it makes cycling seem safer for those who use trails. But funds spent on roads (where most cycling is done) might well have a much greater impact on cycling safety, and there's an argument to be made that AAA lobbying to divert funds to roads from trails might accomplish that.

myrridin

This is a complete mischaracterization of what the AAA are doing, which shouldn't be surprising since the rails to trails organization started this with a mis-characterization.

To use your terminology, what the AAA is opposing is using funding collected and allocated for cancer research and diverting it to be spent on defense.

That is what the ever growing unfunded mandates, like the rails to trails supported programs are. A redirection of funds from the purpose for which their collection was originally authorized to someones pet project. If these rails to trails projects are so important, what is wrong with expecting congress to authorize them and pay for them from the general fund (or even better authorize additional taxes to avoid expecting out great grandchildren to pay for them)?

myrridin

The bold highlight is an interesting claim. Do you have any cites for this, or are you just pulling it from the proverbial rectal orifice?

genec

So are you implying that most cycling IS not done on roads?

myrridin

No, I am implying nothing of the kind. I don't know where most cycling occurs, which is why I asked for a cite. If the claim, is as I expect something he is making up, it has no value to me, but if there is some actual evidence then it becomes a useful piece of information.