On Oct 11, 2007, at 10:38 PM, John Forester wrote:

> Bob Bayn's story is typical of the committed bicycle advocates. They
> are committed to the ideology that persuading many motorists to
> switch many trips from motoring to bicycling is supremely important.
> I have argued for decades that there is plenty of evidence that they
> don't care about the safety of those they persuade.

Fine and appropriate to bring to the discussion of
how bicyclist advocacy is to more forward on
bicyclist focused advocacy.


> We have to also
> recognize that this matter is not only about bikeways, but includes
> all the other aspects of anti-motoring activity, such as opposition
> to suburban living, to large retail shops, to greater freedom in
> choice of jobs and residences, unrealistic support for mass transit,
> and many associated items. Such people dream of returning to the
> world of America before 1950, or even earlier, and they firmly
> believe that only conspiracies of oil companies, land developers,
> auto manufacturers, and the like have forced Americans to buy
> suburban houses that they don't like.

Drop all this or you are the one bringing _your_ baggage
into the bicyclist specific advocacy.

>
> The League itself has long been too closely associated with such
> ideology.
>
> There is a proposal being considered to get the bicycle advocates and
> the vehicular cyclists to ally themselves under the banner of
> cyclists' rights to the road, in order to win repeal of the mandatory
> bikeway and side-of-the-road laws, which do harm to both vehicular
> cyclists and bicycle advocates. Such an alliance will have to steer
> clear of all the anti-motoring baggage of the bicycle advocacy
> ideology to have any chance in the legislative arenas in which
> motorists are predominant. That will be very difficult; I'm one of
> those trying to work out such an arrangement.
>

You are going to have to drop your baggage too if you are going to
try and bring allies together on the focused target of bicyclist
specific
advocacy.

Ken