John Forester, the man Bicycle Segregationists love to hate, has issued a very interesting Bicycle Policy Statement for wide discussion. The following is from his website, www.johnforester.com.
Fight for Your Right to Cycle Properly!
The right of cyclists to cycle properly and safely is disappearing. If you don't fight to preserve it, it will disappear.
Since 1944, American society has disapproved of lawful, competent cycling. It was then that bicycles were removed from the class of vehicles and became "devices" whose riders became subject to three discriminatory laws prohibiting cyclists from exercising the full rights of drivers of vehicles. These laws prohibited cycling away from the edge of the roadway, from riding outside of bike lanes, or for using the roadway at all if a path usable by bicycles was nearby. The bikeway system was devised by motorists to provide the physical enforcement of these laws that, motorists think, make bicycling safe by keeping "their" roads clear of bicycles. The environmentalists were suckered into this bogus safety argument and now demand bikeways to make bicycle transportation safe and popular. With the government spending more and more money on bikeway programs, lawful and competent cyclists are being more and more limited to operating on bikeways that are unsuitable for lawful and competent cycling. As long as bikeways are tied to the three discriminatory laws, bikeway promotion is carrying out the motorists' intent of discriminating against cyclists for their own convenience.
Most of the rest of this website explains the advantages of lawful, competent cycling and the engineering and safety defects inherent in doing anything else. That is all support for what must be done now, fighting for repeal of the three discriminatory anti-cyclist traffic laws. Vehicular cyclists and bikeway cyclists must join forces to reform the national policy for bicycle transportation so that it serves cyclists rather than serving the convenience of motorists.
The policy statement for this effort is linked here.
Distribute this statement.
Endorse this policy.
Vote for politicians who legislate for good cycling.
Vote against politicians who use bikeways to serve motorist convenience.
The discussion lamp is lit, but please read the policy statement first.
6 comments:
FYI - your link is bad (http://www.blogger.com/%20http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Government/Policy%20Issue.pdf) Should be http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Government/Policy%20Issue.pdf
Thanks! Fixed!
Something has changed in Blogger that is causing me to get their prefix attached. I've noticed a few little new glitches with them lately in other areas.
Note to self: check links before publishing.
Does such a politician exist in North Texas? Does such a view represent a majority even in LAB?
@Steve
"Does such a politician exist in North Texas?"
Forester is not a politician.
There are many vehicular cycling advocates like Forester in North Texas. Most of us hang out at Cycle*Dallas ...and, on occasion, The Gingerman. :-)
@Steve
"Does such a view represent a majority even in LAB?"
No, it does not and that is the problem. LAB was founded by true vehicular cyclists, but its message has been diluted through control by the PnP crowd. Forester's treatise, cited by PM, is a partial response to this trend.
Whether or not this view represents a majority of the opinion at LAB is irrelevant. Many of the more active, long-term members of LAB, who have parted ways with the current philosophies of that organization, are responsible for LAB Reform. Others of us have left the organization altogether and disavowed its legitimacy as our voice.
WRT politicians, I was referring to paragraph 5.2.3 - NOT Forester. I do not think that paragraph was aimed at The Gingerman. ;-)
5.2.3, in my opinion, is a pipe dream unless/until cycling organizations, such as LAB, at least go through the motions of supporting opposition to the three discriminatory laws instead of supporting meaningless passing laws and wasted (or worse than wasted) facility spending.
Yeah, you could accurately say I like the way LAB Reform wants things to be. The REAL trick is to figure out how they can actually succeed, or at least keep VC from being further marginalized...
Politicians follow the votes. Period. Especially if it's a block vote.
The first question is not really will politicians support this (because they will, if they sense that's where the votes are), but will any "bicycle advocacy" organizations and/or "bike clubs" endorse it?
Would BikeDFW?
Would FWBA? PBA? GDB? DORBA? The West Ft. Worth club whose president just got elected to city council (Benbrook?)? He's visited Cycle*Dallas before. Perhaps he'll visit again and let us know.
No point in even asking about TBC, I'm afraid.
The second question is, why would you support a club that wouldn't endorse this?
Every group that makes money off cyclists should be required to support this (MS, ADA, YMCA, whoever sponsors and benefits from charity rides) as a prerequisite. No group that wouldn't support this should get any support from concerned cyclists.
I won't, and haven't for years.
This document isn't perfect. Human hands produced it. So, my question to you, gentle readers, is this: Do you have problems with any f this? Do you agree? Disagree? Mostly agree? Can you endorse it? If not, why? If yes, why haven't you?
Post a Comment