"Is an anti-bike fraud being committed in your name" blog post from biking in L.A.
01-12-12, 06:15 PM
#1
totally louche
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
"Is an anti-bike fraud being committed in your name" blog post from biking in L.A.
is an anti bike fraud being committed in your name?
Fascinating, thoroughly disgusting and shocking story of anti-bicycling 'advocacy' being committed in California....
I've long suspected C.A.B.O. of being a sham, committed to thwarting bicycle progress in California.....
Apparently, so does the "Biking in LA" blogger.
Fascinating, thoroughly disgusting and shocking story of anti-bicycling 'advocacy' being committed in California....
I've long suspected C.A.B.O. of being a sham, committed to thwarting bicycle progress in California.....
Apparently, so does the "Biking in LA" blogger.
Originally Posted by Biking in L.A.
when that so-called advocacy runs counter to the interests, safety and desires of the overwhelming majority of California cyclists, I feel I have no choice but to speak up and point the finger.
Especially when it purports to be done in our name.
That’s exactly what happened this week when CABO — the California Association of Bicycling Organizations — successfully opposed AB 819, a bill in the state assembly that, in its original intent, would have allowed California counties and municipalities to implement advances in bicycling infrastructure that have been proven to work in other places......
Despite their protestations to the contrary, CABO isn’t the state’s leading bike advocacy group. Or even one of the leading groups.
In fact, I suspect they are a fraud.
Especially when it purports to be done in our name.
That’s exactly what happened this week when CABO — the California Association of Bicycling Organizations — successfully opposed AB 819, a bill in the state assembly that, in its original intent, would have allowed California counties and municipalities to implement advances in bicycling infrastructure that have been proven to work in other places......
Despite their protestations to the contrary, CABO isn’t the state’s leading bike advocacy group. Or even one of the leading groups.
In fact, I suspect they are a fraud.
Last edited by Bekologist; 01-12-12 at 06:19 PM.
01-12-12, 06:55 PM
#2
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
Hold on... while indeed CABO may not be representing all cyclists (cyclists are a very diverse group and are largely poorly represented at the legislative level.)
CABO reports that it does support an updated version of 819. From their website:
https://www.cabobike.org/2012/01/11/c...mbly-bill-819/
Perhaps the best line in the statement above is this: We agree, however, that Caltrans has been too conservative in its approach to bikeway design...
CABO reports that it does support an updated version of 819. From their website:
In our letter to Assemblymember Wieckowski, we expressed opposition to Assembly Bill 819 unless amended. AB819 will be amended, and CABO is now in support.
AB 819 would have permitted local agencies to follow “innovative” bikeway design guidelines from sources other than the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, as currently mandated by law. The reasoning for our opposition is in the Assembly Transportation Committee analysis, quoted from our letter:
We are always open to innovative ideas, but a number of facility innovations that initially seem attractive also appear to present significant safety issues. The available research on these facilities is not always reliable, despite being cited in a guide produced by a private organization. Legitimizing these designs, in effect, by statute, rather than by technical review, could expose bicyclists to potentially dangerous facilities.
We agree, however, that Caltrans has been too conservative in its approach to bikeway design, and we would enthusiastically support an alternative approach that would provide an efficient process for experimenting with new designs. A Caltrans sanctioned experimental procedure would relieve local agencies of liability for nonstandard designs; it would enable experimentation with innovative and improved designs in a controlled and rigorous manner that would be consistent across jurisdictions; and it would provide reliable information for revision of the Highway Design Manual.
As indicated in the bill analysis, the Assembly Transportation Committee recommended that AB819 be amended to specifically require procedures allowing local agencies to request Caltrans to consider innovative and modified bikeway project designs, and the author and sponsor of the bill have agreed to these amendments. This addresses our concerns above, and so CABO is now in support of AB819.
AB 819 would have permitted local agencies to follow “innovative” bikeway design guidelines from sources other than the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, as currently mandated by law. The reasoning for our opposition is in the Assembly Transportation Committee analysis, quoted from our letter:
We are always open to innovative ideas, but a number of facility innovations that initially seem attractive also appear to present significant safety issues. The available research on these facilities is not always reliable, despite being cited in a guide produced by a private organization. Legitimizing these designs, in effect, by statute, rather than by technical review, could expose bicyclists to potentially dangerous facilities.
We agree, however, that Caltrans has been too conservative in its approach to bikeway design, and we would enthusiastically support an alternative approach that would provide an efficient process for experimenting with new designs. A Caltrans sanctioned experimental procedure would relieve local agencies of liability for nonstandard designs; it would enable experimentation with innovative and improved designs in a controlled and rigorous manner that would be consistent across jurisdictions; and it would provide reliable information for revision of the Highway Design Manual.
As indicated in the bill analysis, the Assembly Transportation Committee recommended that AB819 be amended to specifically require procedures allowing local agencies to request Caltrans to consider innovative and modified bikeway project designs, and the author and sponsor of the bill have agreed to these amendments. This addresses our concerns above, and so CABO is now in support of AB819.
Perhaps the best line in the statement above is this: We agree, however, that Caltrans has been too conservative in its approach to bikeway design...
01-12-12, 07:39 PM
#3
Cycle Year Round
I am glad there are some cycling groups willing to work to ensure facilities are safe rather than just throwing them out there.
__________________
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
01-12-12, 08:18 PM
#4
totally louche
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
Hold on... while indeed CABO may not be representing all cyclists (cyclists are a very diverse group and are largely poorly represented at the legislative level.)
CABO reports that it does support an updated version of 819. From their website:
https://www.cabobike.org/2012/01/11/c...mbly-bill-819/
Perhaps the best line in the statement above is this: We agree, however, that Caltrans has been too conservative in its approach to bikeway design...
CABO reports that it does support an updated version of 819. From their website:
https://www.cabobike.org/2012/01/11/c...mbly-bill-819/
Perhaps the best line in the statement above is this: We agree, however, that Caltrans has been too conservative in its approach to bikeway design...
I'm reporting the impression a few seem to get about CABO, that they appear to perhaps be representing a MINORITY of bicycle interests, and not the voice of the bona fide and the majority of bicycling advocates in California, and what's actually being advocated for.
Here's what streetblog san francisco had to say about CABO's 'revised' bill......
Originally Posted by streetsblog sf
"But the bill’s reach could be limited by an amendment proposed by the California Association of Bicycle Organizations (CABO), a smaller coalition which argues that using outside guidelines for bikeways could be problematic. Their alternative proposal, which will be considered at a State Assembly Transportation Committee hearing on Monday, would only allow new types of bike facilities to be established under an experimentation process within Caltrans.
somethings' rotten in California, standing in the way of progressive planning for bike traffic. tying new bikeway implementation up in CALTRANS vetting is, like the original blogpost indicates, likely to add years of delay to better road and bikeway designs for California cyclists.
Last edited by Bekologist; 01-12-12 at 08:41 PM.
01-12-12, 08:28 PM
#5
Banned
Great, letting one of the state governmet agencies that helped nix our 3 foot rule, continue being the sole governing body that sets our minimum infrastructure standards. Hopefully the California D.O.T will make a mandatory requirement of their engineers to bicycle the same cycling infrastructure they design.
01-12-12, 08:46 PM
#6
totally louche
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
CABO wouldn't want
these catching on in california, how would the bicyclists be expected to 'take the lane' just like motor vehicles?
these catching on in california, how would the bicyclists be expected to 'take the lane' just like motor vehicles?
01-12-12, 08:46 PM
#7
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,788
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
I dunno why we're worried about it, it's not like California (or Texas, for that matter) are REALLY still part of the USA, anyway..........................
Standing,
And
Remaining
Calm
As the
Stupidity
Mounts..............
Standing,
And
Remaining
Calm
As the
Stupidity
Mounts..............
01-12-12, 08:52 PM
#8
Cycle Year Round
More of your "any facility no matter how unsafe, bike belong" BS.
__________________
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
01-12-12, 08:55 PM
#9
totally louche
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
????
my hate?
BS?
dude, catch a grip.
aloha.
my hate?
BS?
dude, catch a grip.aloha.
01-12-12, 09:00 PM
#10
Cycle Year Round
CABO worked for a better bill and then supported the bill.
Yet you claim things are rotten.
Yet you claim things are rotten.
__________________
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
01-12-12, 09:16 PM
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Bay Area, Calif.
Posts: 7,239
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 659 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
6 Posts
Maybe it would be good for experimental designs to be properly vetted so that such contradictions with other statutes as well as any other safety concerns can be identified and dealt with before they are implemented.
01-13-12, 12:15 AM
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 7,048
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 509 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times
in
8 Posts
The motorists shown parked there shouldn't want that catching on either since under California Vehicle Code, Section 21460 b) they are prohibited from driving across the double parallel white lines shown to the left of the bike lane.
Maybe it would be good for experimental designs to be properly vetted so that such contradictions with other statutes as well as any other safety concerns can be identified and dealt with before they are implemented.
Maybe it would be good for experimental designs to be properly vetted so that such contradictions with other statutes as well as any other safety concerns can be identified and dealt with before they are implemented.
Of course, all of this knicker-twisting might have been unnecessary if Cal-Trans had been allowed to keep its bike division at the end of Jerry Brown's last term as governor back in '82.
01-13-12, 07:33 AM
#13
totally louche
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
CABO also misrepresents themselves as the voice of california bike advocacy organizations, yet the largest bike advocacy organizations in California do not belong to CABO, and do not support CABO's efforts in the state house.
read the article.
01-13-12, 07:45 AM
#14
Fair Weather Cyclist
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 147
Bikes: R&M Frog, Moulton TSR
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
It amuses me that people assume all cyclists have the same opinions on cycling-related legislation.
01-13-12, 07:55 AM
#15
totally louche
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
who thinks that? However, bike advocacy organizations come together and build a consensus in policy direction in california, and other states. Unified support for AB819 coming out of the California Bike Summit is an example.
well, there's mainstream, and there's fringe. CABO's efforts run counter to the efforts of most bicycle advocacy organizations in California, and most mainstream cyclists.
Originally Posted by bikinginLA
....while CABO’s opposition to AB 819 may or may not reflect the desires of its members, it’s far from the desires of most bike advocates in the state, as well as that of most mainstream cyclists.
Yet CABO continues to lobby state officials and legislators, purporting to speak on your behalf, while actively opposing your interests.
Yet CABO continues to lobby state officials and legislators, purporting to speak on your behalf, while actively opposing your interests.
Last edited by Bekologist; 01-13-12 at 07:59 AM.
01-13-12, 09:45 AM
#16
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
So the fact is, vehicular cycling works well at low traffic speeds... 25-35MPH, but as traffic speeds are faster, the likelihood of being treated as a driver of a vehicle diminishes, such that at highway speeds, cyclists are seen more as obstacles than as vehicles (with drivers.) It is particularly on these high speed roads that some form of alternative, other than riding in a VC manner, becomes increasingly necessary.
01-13-12, 12:02 PM
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 600
Bikes: All-City Space Horse!
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
It is a better bill if you don't want anything done, which appears to be what CABO is after. If you want new design implemented then it is not a better bill. CALTRANS is known for dragging their feet when it come to these issues.
01-13-12, 12:06 PM
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 600
Bikes: All-City Space Horse!
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
You know... that whole VC thing is something of a logical fallacy: "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles." While that statement in of itself is true, it is a logical argument with some built in "IFs." The biggest "IF" is being treated as "the driver of a vehicle..." a cyclist by themselves may act in the best manner of a driver of a vehicle, but there is no guarantee he will be treated so in kind. In fact, the faster the motor vehicle traffic on the road in question, the less chance the cyclist will be treated as a driver of a vehicle. Forester himself even discusses this (although in his typical roundabout manner). Forester outlines that when there is a speed difference of 15MPH or greater between cyclist and motorist, negotiation becomes difficult (you are treated less as an equal user of the road). Forester then goes on to even illustrate how a cyclist should shift into pedestrian mode when traffic is too fast or heavy (by making a three point left turn, rather than a vehicular turn).
So the fact is, vehicular cycling works well at low traffic speeds... 25-35MPH, but as traffic speeds are faster, the likelihood of being treated as a driver of a vehicle diminishes, such that at highway speeds, cyclists are seen more as obstacles than as vehicles (with drivers.) It is particularly on these high speed roads that some form of alternative, other than riding in a VC manner, becomes increasingly necessary.
So the fact is, vehicular cycling works well at low traffic speeds... 25-35MPH, but as traffic speeds are faster, the likelihood of being treated as a driver of a vehicle diminishes, such that at highway speeds, cyclists are seen more as obstacles than as vehicles (with drivers.) It is particularly on these high speed roads that some form of alternative, other than riding in a VC manner, becomes increasingly necessary.
01-13-12, 01:03 PM
#19
totally louche
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
Originally Posted by weshigh
It is a better bill if you don't want anything done, which appears to be what CABO is after. If you want new design implemented then it is not a better bill. CALTRANS is known for dragging their feet when it come to these issues.
What shouldn't be lost in this discussion is CABO's underhanded obstructionism of progressive bicycle advocacy efforts in California, and that CABO's advocacy stance is NOT representative of the majority of bike advocacy organizations in California.
quoting the original blogpost from Biking in L.A. ....
Originally Posted by bikinginLAblog
Despite their protestations to the contrary, CABO isn’t the state’s leading bike advocacy group. Or even one of the leading groups.
Last edited by Bekologist; 01-13-12 at 01:07 PM.
01-13-12, 01:11 PM
#21
totally louche
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
CABO successfully killed a bill streamlining the process allowing these and other types of innovative bikeway facilities to be built up by locales in California, instead relegating them to years of study in strictly controlled studies before being allowed statewide.
i agree, its one heck of a good looking bikelane.
i agree, its one heck of a good looking bikelane.
01-13-12, 01:28 PM
#22
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
01-13-12, 01:37 PM
#23
Banned
01-13-12, 01:42 PM
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: San Jose (Willow Glen) Ca
Posts: 9,842
Bikes: Kirk Custom JK Special, '84 Team Miyata,(dura ace old school) 80?? SR Semi-Pro 600 Arabesque
Mentioned: 106 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2337 Post(s)
Liked 2,820 Times
in
1,540 Posts
ok never mind all the other stuff...... to me this is good, usefull, practical, cost effective "infrastructure". Does not preclude VC style riding if needed, but in the case here it is not needed not wishy washy like sharrows, not sub standard in width, position or safety
__________________
Life is too short not to ride the best bike you have, as much as you can
(looking for Torpado Super light frame/fork or for Raleigh International frame fork 58cm)
Life is too short not to ride the best bike you have, as much as you can
(looking for Torpado Super light frame/fork or for Raleigh International frame fork 58cm)
01-13-12, 03:28 PM
#25
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
I did a bit of research, and followed the photo link back to the original source, which is the Silicon Valley Bike Coalition. They feature this bike lane on one of their pages...
https://bikesiliconvalley.org/area-re...infrastructure The bike lane is in Redwood City, on Veterans Boulevard, not far from the Police Station.
Doing a bit more research, I hoped to find a connection between CABO and the Silicon Valley Bike Coalition... and while there is historically a connection... I cannot show that there is current communication and reciprocity. On the other hand, a strong supporter of the San Diego County Bike Coalition Jim Baross is the president of the group. Here is a link to one of their recent meetings with a state Senator. https://www.cabobike.org/2010/01/16/226/#more-226 CABO only meets 3 times a year.