>
> Since you say you will "continue," perhaps you could show us what
> you have done. I would love to see literature you have published,
> people who have joined in your cause, etc. Since I have joined this
> list, you have posted more often than anyone else, repeating the same
> tired old arguments that, right or wrong, we have already heard from
> you over and over. It would be impressive to see that you have time to
> continue your fine advocacy and still inundate the rest of us with
> your
> contentions. Is there a website to which we could turn?
>
> Waiting with bated breath,
> -ds
>


I don't have a website for advocacy issues.

Because the 'mainstream' is as it is there is no
advocacy organization at this time in which I can
be an active member.

I have done lots of public meeting over the years.

Writing is not my strong suit, but my 'literature'
is my posting to these lists and letters to the
editor.

I have been active or an officer in my local bike clubs
for years.

I try and give as much support as my time allows
to the local person who has started a bicycle commuter
group.

Ken

On 31 Oct 2007 at 21:57, Kenneth O'Brien wrote:

>
> On Oct 31, 2007, at 5:58 PM, John Forester wrote:

> > That's fine, Ken, go your own way with your own organization.

> Here's what I plan to do instead:
>
> As bicyclist advocacy groups form and think about forming,
> I will continue to explain the importance of focusing
> bicycling advocacy efforts and why I believe that is the
> best path forward.

Since you say you will "continue," perhaps you could show us what
you have done. I would love to see literature you have published,
people who have joined in your cause, etc. Since I have joined this
list, you have posted more often than anyone else, repeating the same
tired old arguments that, right or wrong, we have already heard from
you over and over. It would be impressive to see that you have time to
continue your fine advocacy and still inundate the rest of us with your
contentions. Is there a website to which we could turn?

Waiting with bated breath,
-ds

On Oct 31, 2007, at 5:58 PM, John Forester wrote:

> Kenneth O'Brien responded to the ollowing question: "So, as a
> bicyclist I can't advocate for an added standard lane?"
>
> Ken's reply: "As part of a bicyclist advocacy organization I would
> support - no."
>
> That's fine, Ken, go your own way with your own organization.


Here's what I plan to do instead:

As bicyclist advocacy groups form and think about forming,
I will continue to explain the importance of focusing
bicycling advocacy efforts and why I believe that is the
best path forward. Hopefully that will help direct and focus the
efforts, and get bicyclist advocates to drop making
alienating, extraneous efforts part of bicyclist advocacy
efforts.


> You
> demands are more than we care to obey.

There are myriad places people who believe as you do about
the larger transportation issues can take and advocate your
beliefs.

There are myriad places people who want to see this or that
specific roadway widened can take their advocacy for that.

If it is the mainstream view, you have no problem. Your efforts
in those myriad other places and organizations will carry
the day.

These efforts do not have to be part of bicyclist advocacy. There will
be a number of benefits - both practical and philosophical - that will
fall from not making them part of bicyclist advocacy.

Perhaps you can't handle not making your extraneous beliefs
about macro-transportation policy issues part of every single
effort you are involved in, but I hope to find more and more people
open to the practicality - and even benefit - of  focusing
bicyclist advocacy, and avoiding extraneous issues that alienate
potential allies and broad support for the important
targeted issues of "act and treat" type advocacy.


Ken

Kenneth O'Brien responded to the ollowing question: "So, as a
bicyclist I can't advocate for an added standard lane?"

Ken's reply: "As part of a bicyclist advocacy organization I would
support - no."

That's fine, Ken, go your own way with your own organization. You
demands are more than we care to obey.

John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St.
Lemon Grove, CA 91945-2306
619-644-5481 www.johnforester.com

On Oct 31, 2007, at 5:26 PM, Wayne Pein wrote:

> Kenneth O'Brien wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 31, 2007, at 4:19 PM, Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>>> The road really needs to be 4 lanes to handle capacity,
>>
>> Bicyclist advocacy I support must not weigh in at
>> all about what this or any roadway might 'need' with
>> respect to capacity and other service measures.
>
> So, as a bicyclist I can't advocate for an added standard lane?

As part of a bicyclist advocacy organization I would
support - no.

Ken

Kenneth O'Brien wrote:

>
>
>
> On Oct 31, 2007, at 4:19 PM, Wayne Pein wrote:

>  > The road really needs to be 4 lanes to handle capacity,
>
> Bicyclist advocacy I support must not weigh in at
> all about what this or any roadway might 'need' with
> respect to capacity and other service measures.

So, as a bicyclist I can't advocate for an added standard lane?

Wayne

On Oct 31, 2007, at 4:19 PM, Wayne Pein wrote:

> kob2@... wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> The question of what is or is not a 'good road' as far
>>>> as macro configuration issues like arterial design versus
>>>> secondary, capacity and other service measures, freeway
>>>> versus grid, etc. etc. etc. are issues that bicyclist
>>>> advocacy should say exactly ZERO about.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, cyclists live in a vacuum?
>>
>> No. They live in the real world, where the low
>> occupancy vehicle facility part of the transportation
>> infrastructure is really really really really really
>> really really really well treated right now - and
>> will continue to be, way into the future (plus
>> or minus 2, 3, 4... 'reallys' perhaps.) The addition
>> or subtraction of those 'reallys' is a larger
>> and contentious debate that bicyclist advocates
>> can and should stay out of in pursuit of "act and
>> treat" type advocacy.
>>
>> Ken
>
> My bicycle is a low occupancy vehicle.
>
> Here's the way it works in the real world.
>
> A narrow two lane road gets increasing motor traffic. I've been riding
> on it for 20 years. The pnp brigade whines for bike lanes or
> shoulders.

Oppose bikelanes. If some other organization fights for
and wins roadway widening - fight for designs that
recognize bicyclists as users of normal travel lane
space.


> The road really needs to be 4 lanes to handle capacity,

Bicyclist advocacy I support must not weigh in at
all about what this or any roadway might 'need' with
respect to capacity and other service measures.

> but the anti
> motorists think that somehow everyone who doesn't ride our fare free
> transit will suddenly start doing so, or will ride their bikes. So the
> forces align and the road gets 3 ft shoulders next to the existing
> 10-11
> ft lanes.

Again, a good bicyclist advocacy effort is education that design
should encourage everybody to see bicyclist as user of
normal travel lane space.

Ken

kob2@... wrote:

>
>
>
>
>  >> The question of what is or is not a 'good road' as far
>  >> as macro configuration issues like arterial design versus
>  >> secondary, capacity and other service measures, freeway
>  >> versus grid, etc. etc. etc. are issues that bicyclist
>  >> advocacy should say exactly ZERO about.
>  >>
>  >
>  >So, cyclists live in a vacuum?
>
> No. They live in the real world, where the low
> occupancy vehicle facility part of the transportation
> infrastructure is really really really really really
> really really really well treated right now - and
> will continue to be, way into the future (plus
> or minus 2, 3, 4... 'reallys' perhaps.) The addition
> or subtraction of those 'reallys' is a larger
> and contentious debate that bicyclist advocates
> can and should stay out of in pursuit of "act and
> treat" type advocacy.
>
> Ken

My bicycle is a low occupancy vehicle.

Here's the way it works in the real world.

A narrow two lane road gets increasing motor traffic. I've been riding
on it for 20 years. The pnp brigade whines for bike lanes or shoulders.
The road really needs to be 4 lanes to handle capacity, but the anti
motorists think that somehow everyone who doesn't ride our fare free
transit will suddenly start doing so, or will ride their bikes. So the
forces align and the road gets 3 ft shoulders next to the existing 10-11
ft lanes.

Wayne

>> The question of what is or is not a 'good road' as far
>> as macro configuration issues like arterial design versus
>> secondary, capacity and other service measures, freeway
>> versus grid, etc. etc. etc. are issues that bicyclist
>> advocacy should say exactly ZERO about.
>>
>
>So, cyclists live in a vacuum?

No. They live in the real world, where the low
occupancy vehicle facility part of the transportation
infrastructure is really really really really really
really really really well treated right now - and
will continue to be, way into the future (plus
or minus 2, 3, 4... 'reallys' perhaps.) The addition
or subtraction of those 'reallys' is a larger
and contentious debate that bicyclist advocates
can and should stay out of in pursuit of "act and
treat" type advocacy.

Ken


--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web.com – Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft®
Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail

kob2@... wrote:


> The question of what is or is not a 'good road' as far
> as macro configuration issues like arterial design versus
> secondary, capacity and other service measures, freeway
> versus grid, etc. etc. etc. are issues that bicyclist
> advocacy should say exactly ZERO about.
>

So, cyclists live in a vacuum?

Wayne

Just as "war is the health of the state," polarization is what keeps the
politics of power ahead of the politics of reason. The most extremist
members of any group commanding the most attention, demanding
that people "take sides" when the truth usually lies in between.

Thus there is merit to saying that we should keep a narrow focus, but
there is also merit to the notion that those who are bound by a broader
vision tend to be more effective. There is merit to saying that we are
up against a mindless anti-motoring control-freak agenda, but there is
also merit to the argument that we have, in fact, created an irrationally
auto-dependent society.

"Taking sides" when simplistic answers are put forward in response to
such complex questions is inevitably wrong. This is not just because
people fail to get it right, but because there are factions with agendas
that run contrary to getting it right. Sometimes the hidden agenda is
power and control or ill-gotten gain, but it is just as often vainglory,
chest-thumping, solidarity or rebellion.

As it happens, I give seminars on a variety of land-use issues, and one
of them is "How to Fund Transportation Locally." The sub-title is,
"Why current funding methods generate sprawl at the expense of
urban and small-town citizens who walk and bicycle to work." People
with John Forester's outlook might be quick to assume that this
seminar supports the anti-motoring crowd, and in some it does. Yet it
opposes bike lanes, state and federal funding for mass transit as well
as for highways, smart growth laws, CAFE standards, anti-SUV
sentiments and a host of command-and-control measures.

I can post details of my approach sometime, for, as I said, it would be
useful those who are working together to learn about broader visions
that they might embrace. At the same time, it should not be necessary
for people to agree on anything but the thing they are working on.
Quite often, when we see people relentlessly disagreeing on point
after point, we find that these people are not actually doing much
productive work on any issues. Although they will disagree with that
as well, it becomes obvious that, had they been doing productive
work, they would have picked up something of a clue as to how
productive people resolve their differences.

-ds

>At 03:53 AM 10/31/2007, Kenneth O'Brien wrote: "Deciding where to
>direct transportation funds and capacity and service design of the
>road net is not a advocacy effort we should say anything about."

>It is in our interest to have good roads.

It is in our bicyclist-specific interest to have good
roadway surfaces; to not have designs that use ideas
like vehicle-type-specific lanes or sidepaths;  to
oppose many other 'bikeway' and 'bicycle facility'
detailed design ideas.

We should target these issues with vigor.

The question of what is or is not a 'good road' as far
as macro configuration issues like arterial design versus
secondary, capacity and other service measures, freeway
versus grid, etc. etc. etc. are issues that bicyclist
advocacy should say exactly ZERO about.


> If we stay completely out
>of the road decision process, then its decisions will be made without
>reference to vehicular cyclists at all,

As mentioned above - no, not stay completely out

(1)Promote good roadway surfaces

(2)Oppose designs that use ideas like vehicle-type-specific
lanes or sidepaths; oppose the family of other 'bikeway' and
'bicycle facility'  detailed design ideas.

> Vehicular cyclists need to be even more active in the road
>decision process, so that the roads will serve us better.

Roads serve us really really really really well now. There is
little reason to be active in the macro transportation
decision making environment as a bicyclist, and a number of
good reasons not to be.

> And we need
>to be seen as different from the anti-motoring bikeway advocates.

We need to be seen as different from bikeway advocates, on the
issues pertinent to targeted "act and treat" advocacy.

Ken


--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web.com – What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you?
http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint

At 03:53 AM 10/31/2007, Kenneth O'Brien wrote: "Deciding where to
direct transportation funds and capacity and service design of the
road net is not a advocacy effort we should say anything about."

It is in our interest to have good roads. If we stay completely out
of the road decision process, then its decisions will be made without
reference to vehicular cyclists at all, although, as we must
recognize, the combination of the motoring forces and the
anti-motoring forces that has powered the bikeway program will remain
powerful. Vehicular cyclists need to be even more active in the road
decision process, so that the roads will serve us better. And we need
to be seen as different from the anti-motoring bikeway advocates.


John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St.
Lemon Grove, CA 91945-2306
619-644-5481 www.johnforester.com

At 09:16 PM 10/30/2007, Herman I. May wrote the material quoted below.

Exposing a bit more of LAB's management errors was only small part of
the purpose of my posting. The major part was to show that we
vehicular cyclists are up against an anti-motoring power that is far
more organized and far more widespread than are we vehicular
cyclists. That is what the survey showed, because LAB had little or
nothing to do with creating the survey; they merely took advantage of
it. (So far as I know; I may be wrong, but I'm being conservative
here.) So far as society is concerned, the anti-motorists have
ensured that all cyclists are seen as part of that anti-motoring
power. We vehicular cyclists need good roads, as do motorists. It is
important that we vehicular cyclists are seen as different from the
anti-motoring groups and willing to work with those who also are
interested in good roads. If we do not achieve this kind of
recognition, we will continue to be completely isolated from both the
good roads groups and the anti-motoring groups, unable to accomplish anything.

Furthermore, the survey shows that while the anti-motoring forces use
bicycle transportation as a weapon, that is only part of their
effort. They operate a powerful propaganda machine with subjects
ranging from mere sneering at suburban living to diversion of highway
funds for rail transit to severe housing restrictions. If we are to
succeed with a vehicular-cycling program we must also counter the
other anti-motoring arguments on their own turf, so that we can be
seen as what we are, not as what the rest of society thinks about cyclists.


>With all due respect, I guess I still fail to see the relevance to
>vehicular cycling. All of the points you make, John, have been hashed
>an rehashed on this list. Do we really need constant reminding of how
>the LAB has lost touch with its origins?
>
>There remain sycophants, apologists and the odd, naively optimistic
>hanger-on among the members of this list. I think the majority of us,
>though, have long abandoned support of the LAB; due precisely to this
>sort of illogical and schizophrenic support of policies and programs
>which are counterproductive to vehicular cycling advocacy. There is
>only so much money one can afford to dump into an organization which
>pays lip-service to vehicular cycling, yet throws its support behind
>these dubious studies and associated principles.
>
>Just like the occasional "exposure" of Ken's supposed ulterior motives
>when it comes to his particular flavor of advocacy (along with the
>tangential arguments, pro and con, regarding helmets, mirrors and the
>like), can we not abandon criticism of the LAB (with associated
>consumption of bandwidth) and focus instead on real, meaningful
>vehicular cycling advocacy?
>
>I could have saved the time I invested generating my earlier response
>if I had known it was yet another ridicule of the LAB.
>
>Herman

John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St.
Lemon Grove, CA 91945-2306
619-644-5481 www.johnforester.com

>Any anti-transit efforts I do are merely counterstrikes to the pro
>transit efforts of anti motorists, some of whom are in bicycling
>organizations/groups. Further, my particular so-called anti transit
>efforts merely point out the indisputable truths of its existence.

Fine. But the primary question is: are you willing to _not_
make any of these counterstrikes nor make claims for various
mass-transit related 'indisputable truths' while representing
any bicyclist advocacy organization official efforts?

Ken



--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web.com – What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you?
http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint

Kenneth O'Brien wrote:

>
>
>
> On Oct 30, 2007, at 5:57 PM, Wayne Pein wrote:

>  > Ooops. My bad. It's the other way around. There are many more
>  > potential
>  > bicyclists (and walkers) reduced by short haul transit than are
>  > created
>  > through multimodalism.
>
> OK, then he question is: Does your belief in this claim mean you
> would refuse to stay part of a bicyclist advocay organization that
> promoted racks and roll on service?

No. Given the existence of transit (a prerequesite for transit racks),
then having racks mitigates the inherent damage to bicycling.

>
> I would find that really unfortunate, but (tipping my hand in
> the negotiation process) I could live with dropping
> that advocacy effort. In turn I would expect you to take any
> of your opposition/discussion of mass transit to some other
> organization and not make it part of the bicyclist advocacy
> organization proceedings.
>
> Ken

Any anti-transit efforts I do are merely counterstrikes to the pro
transit efforts of anti motorists, some of whom are in bicycling
organizations/groups. Further, my particular so-called anti transit
efforts merely point out the indisputable truths of its existence.

Wayne

> > In this case it's don't inject contentious debate where you
> > do not need to!
>
> I suppose I need to point out to you that bicycling organizations from
> LAB on down to local pedestrians on wheels align themselves with
> transit in their war on motoring.

By the way - A description of the only thing that approximates
an 'alignment' with mass transit in the bicyclist advocacy/
bicyclist event activities work I have first-hand experience
with:

I'm on the committee of the Maine Bike Rally each year.

http://www.bikemaine.org/mainebikerally/index.html

For the last two years Go Maine

http://www.gomaine.org/

and the Downeaster

http://www.thedowneaster.com/

Have given us $1000's as sponsors of the event. Sponsorship
money gives us a safety net so no matter the weather
and final attendance we don't go into the red. Left over
funds are then either used for promotion or seed money
for next year's event, or is given back to the
participating non-profit organizations. Distributed money
then eventually gets donated to some bicyclist related cause,
because the organizations' operating and event expenses
are usually already covered.

In return for this sponsorship we gave Go Maine and Downeaster
benefits that looked pretty much like the benefits we gave to,
say, B&M Baked Beans and Subway, which were also sponsors:
banners, ads in booklet, table to set out literature, etc.

I think/hope a mass-transit hater would have a hard time
arguing against this specific 'alignment' if they were
part of the organizations putting this event together.

Ken

On Oct 30, 2007, at 11:09 PM, John Forester wrote:

>
> KOB argues that achieving his goal is difficult enough, while also
> arguing that it covers nothing else.

> Well, it covers much else. It
> covers vehicular cycling on roads insufficient for the traffic, which
> therefore will delay motorists,

Bicyclists rarely to never impact meaningful service
measures for roadways more than if they were in a typical
motor vehicle. We need to teach this, and to teach
that the occasional ebb and flow of traffic as it overtakes
motorists is not a significant safety issue and rarely
to never a significant service issue for the facility
where that happens.

Promoting the above advocacy positions is our
work. Deciding where to direct transportation funds
and capacity and service design of the road net
is not a advocacy effort we should say anything about.

> and it covers vehicular cycling on
> all lanes and in all traffic movements of freeways, as we have read
> in the past.

My bicyclist-access-to-freeway miles position is somewhat
more nuanced then this. It is  also  a lower priority
item in my bicyclist advocacy list of items. The primary place
it bumps up against how you want to go at it is: whatever path
freeway advocacy takes I don't want bicyclist advocates granting any
validation to bicyclist bans to freeways miles as a good and
legitimate thing.

> If that's not a really blatant anti-motoring program, I
> don't know what is.

Right now in this specific discussion it is an
anti-anti-mass-transit program.

> That's the kind of program that will be very
> divisive, giving the anti-motoring bicycle advocates all that they
> want except bikeways, while arousing the anger of the motorists.
>
> I repeat, KOB is an anti-motorist and he wants our cycling advocacy
> to conform to his anti-motoring agenda.

No. The specific problem here is that you have a very specific
belief about how the transportation should be put together. You
have decided that your VERY specific belief on this
point matches the 'mainstream' view. Your VERY specific
view includes the on/off switch of 'mainstream' versus 'anti-motoring'
with no other option... and those words saying all that needs
to be said on the subject. You insist all of this specific view
   _must_ be incorporated into bicyclist advocacy... I suppose
   so the 'mainstream' likes us.

I disagree that this will add up to effective advocacy going forward.

Ken

On 20071030@1542CDT, John Forester <forester@...> wrote:

> This survey was the source of the article that LAB published in its
> latest newsletter. That article, and the survey, demonstrate the
> extent to which LAB management promotes anti-motoring policies with
> their necessary concomitant of bikeways intended to attract people
> who want to ride in some non-vehicular manner, thus providing
> official support for such cycling and producing further opposition to
> vehicular cycling.

With all due respect, I guess I still fail to see the relevance to
vehicular cycling. All of the points you make, John, have been hashed
an rehashed on this list. Do we really need constant reminding of how
the LAB has lost touch with its origins?

There remain sycophants, apologists and the odd, naively optimistic
hanger-on among the members of this list. I think the majority of us,
though, have long abandoned support of the LAB; due precisely to this
sort of illogical and schizophrenic support of policies and programs
which are counterproductive to vehicular cycling advocacy. There is
only so much money one can afford to dump into an organization which
pays lip-service to vehicular cycling, yet throws its support behind
these dubious studies and associated principles.

Just like the occasional "exposure" of Ken's supposed ulterior motives
when it comes to his particular flavor of advocacy (along with the
tangential arguments, pro and con, regarding helmets, mirrors and the
like), can we not abandon criticism of the LAB (with associated
consumption of bandwidth) and focus instead on real, meaningful
vehicular cycling advocacy?

I could have saved the time I invested generating my earlier response
if I had known it was yet another ridicule of the LAB.

Herman

John, tell us something we didn't know.

-ds

On 30 Oct 2007 at 20:09, John Forester wrote:

> KOB here defines his desired advocacy as being no more than:
> "I wish to create an effective advocacy, advocacting for
> educating that 'bicyclist fare best when they act and are
> treated as drivers of vehicles' and advocating for full
> bicyclist access to public roadways."
>
> KOB here states some of what he wants to be excluded:
> "Throwing on top of that the demand that society (and the
> members of the bicyclist advocacy organization) accept all
> the details of John Forester's extended set of beliefs about
> macro/global transportation issues and the historical flow of
> American development practices is a really really bad idea."
>
> KOB argues that achieving his goal is difficult enough, while
> also arguing that it covers nothing else. Well, it covers
> much else. It covers vehicular cycling on roads insufficient
> for the traffic, which therefore will delay motorists, and it
> covers vehicular cycling on all lanes and in all traffic
> movements of freeways, as we have read in the past. If that's
> not a really blatant anti-motoring program, I don't know what
> is. That's the kind of program that will be very divisive,
> giving the anti-motoring bicycle advocates all that they want
> except bikeways, while arousing the anger of the motorists.
>
> I repeat, KOB is an anti-motorist and he wants our cycling
> advocacy to conform to his anti-motoring agenda.
>
> As for what KOB terms my "extended set of beliefs about
> macro/global transportation issues and the historical flow of
> American development practices", I have been explaining
> mainstream thought in these matters. It is correct that there
> is a major division of opinion in these matters, between
> those who accept motoring and those who oppose motoring. I
> side with those who accept motoring, without necessarily
> praising all that it does. Motoring has become used so much
> because people in general find that using motoring enables
> them to lead lives in the way that they prefer. That is
> mainstream thought. Those who oppose motoring have to invent
> conspiracies of oil companies, automobile manufacturers, land
> developers, highway builders, and the like, who use their
> economic power to force people to live where they don't want
> to live and to live lives that are unpleasant, simply because
> the anti-motorists believe that people should like dense
> living in highly centered cities. The plain fact is that a
> large proportion of people don't want to live as the
> anti-motorists desire, and, in a prosperous society, they
> have the means to live in ways that they think better, which
> happen to depend on motoring. None of the supposed
> conspirators has the power to force large numbers of people
> to live as the anti-motorists desire. Any theory of living
> that requires such an unlikely and absurd conspiracy for its
> existence, a conspiracy for which no evidence exists, cannot
> be considered mainstream.
>
> I repeat, the anti-motorists, whether they advocate bikeways
> (as most do) or advocate vehicular cycling (as KOB does),
> force into the cycling controversy their anti-motoring
> agenda. Certainly, KOB tries to conceal his anti-motoring
> agenda, but it is there, just the same, and in a form that
> makes achievement of social recognition of vehicular cycling
> practically impossible. We vehicular cyclists have to
> understand all the issues, and work with those that benefit
> us, and work against those that disbenefit us.
>
> John Forester, MS, PE Bicycle Transportation Engineer 7585
> Church St. Lemon Grove, CA 91945-2306 619-644-5481
> www.johnforester.com

KOB here defines his desired advocacy as being no more than: "I wish
to create an effective advocacy, advocacting for educating that
'bicyclist fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of
vehicles' and advocating for full bicyclist access to public roadways."

KOB here states some of what he wants to be excluded: "Throwing on
top of that the demand that society (and the members of the bicyclist
advocacy organization) accept all the details of John Forester's
extended set of beliefs about macro/global transportation issues and
the historical flow of American development practices is a really
really bad idea."

KOB argues that achieving his goal is difficult enough, while also
arguing that it covers nothing else. Well, it covers much else. It
covers vehicular cycling on roads insufficient for the traffic, which
therefore will delay motorists, and it covers vehicular cycling on
all lanes and in all traffic movements of freeways, as we have read
in the past. If that's not a really blatant anti-motoring program, I
don't know what is. That's the kind of program that will be very
divisive, giving the anti-motoring bicycle advocates all that they
want except bikeways, while arousing the anger of the motorists.

I repeat, KOB is an anti-motorist and he wants our cycling advocacy
to conform to his anti-motoring agenda.

As for what KOB terms my "extended set of beliefs about macro/global
transportation issues and the historical flow of American development
practices", I have been explaining mainstream thought in these
matters. It is correct that there is a major division of opinion in
these matters, between those who accept motoring and those who oppose
motoring. I side with those who accept motoring, without necessarily
praising all that it does. Motoring has become used so much because
people in general find that using motoring enables them to lead lives
in the way that they prefer. That is mainstream thought. Those who
oppose motoring have to invent conspiracies of oil companies,
automobile manufacturers, land developers, highway builders, and the
like, who use their economic power to force people to live where they
don't want to live and to live lives that are unpleasant, simply
because the anti-motorists believe that people should like dense
living in highly centered cities. The plain fact is that a large
proportion of people don't want to live as the anti-motorists desire,
and, in a prosperous society, they have the means to live in ways
that they think better, which happen to depend on motoring. None of
the supposed conspirators has the power to force large numbers of
people to live as the anti-motorists desire. Any theory of living
that requires such an unlikely and absurd conspiracy for its
existence, a conspiracy for which no evidence exists, cannot be
considered mainstream.

I repeat, the anti-motorists, whether they advocate bikeways (as most
do) or advocate vehicular cycling (as KOB does), force into the
cycling controversy their anti-motoring agenda. Certainly, KOB tries
to conceal his anti-motoring agenda, but it is there, just the same,
and in a form that makes achievement of social recognition of
vehicular cycling practically impossible. We vehicular cyclists have
to understand all the issues, and work with those that benefit us,
and work against those that disbenefit us.

John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St.
Lemon Grove, CA 91945-2306
619-644-5481 www.johnforester.com

On Oct 30, 2007, at 8:52 PM, John Forester wrote:

> As we have seen, KOB wishes to command us to treat cycling as purely
> a cycling issue regarding vehicular cycling against bikeways, with no
> discussion of wider issues, such as road widening. He wishes to keep
> all other discussion out of the list.

With respect to bicyclist issues, I wish to create an effective
advocacy, advocacting for educating that "bicyclist fare best
when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles" and
advocating  for full bicyclist  access to  public roadways.

>
> It is reasonable to conclude that KOB's motivation is anti-motoring,
> and he wants to exclude all issues that pertain to motoring. I have
> noticed in other discussions the persistent, emotional, illogical,
> ideological argumentative styles of the anti-motorists. We have seen
> similar persistence in KOB's efforts in this group. We need to
> recognize him for what he is


The important point on this list, and for the cause of
vehicular bicycling, is that I am a person
who believes that bicyclists fare best when they act
and are treated as a driver of a vehicle.

>
> Unfortunately, we vehicular cyclists are up against a well-organized
> anti-motoring power that has bikeways as only one of its issues.

We need to target the bikeways then, and promote the idea
that the other stuff is not our issue to address.

>
> We vehicular cyclists must consider all the issues relevant to
> vehicular cycling to the extent to which we might have sufficient
> power to make favorable changes.

No. The effort  to get the society to accept  "bicyclist
fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles"
is job enough - and will have payback enough. Throwing
on top of that the demand that society (and the members of the
bicyclist advocacy organization) accept all the details of John
Forester's extended set of beliefs about  macro/global transportation
issues and the historical flow of American development
practices is a really really bad idea.

> Unless we include in our
> consideration the issues that the anti-motorist bicycle advocates
> bring to the table and to the public, we will never be able to  make
> a favorable impression. We have to be able to confront their
> arguments on their turf, or we lose.

We have to (1) target the issues that work against society accepting
"bicyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of
vehicles" ,  and (2) work against any restricting of our access to
the public
roadways.

Ken

As we have seen, KOB wishes to command us to treat cycling as purely
a cycling issue regarding vehicular cycling against bikeways, with no
discussion of wider issues, such as road widening. He wishes to keep
all other discussion out of the list.

It is reasonable to conclude that KOB's motivation is anti-motoring,
and he wants to exclude all issues that pertain to motoring. I have
noticed in other discussions the persistent, emotional, illogical,
ideological argumentative styles of the anti-motorists. We have seen
similar persistence in KOB's efforts in this group. We need to
recognize him for what he is (yes, ad hominem, precisely because this
is an issue of character rather than reason, which KOB refuses to follow).

Unfortunately, we vehicular cyclists are up against a well-organized
anti-motoring power that has bikeways as only one of its issues. That
power is using bicycling as a weapon against motoring, and when
issues regarding cycling are evaluated according to their
effectiveness against motoring, vehicular cyclists suffer.

We vehicular cyclists must consider all the issues relevant to
vehicular cycling to the extent to which we might have sufficient
power to make favorable changes. Unless we include in our
consideration the issues that the anti-motorist bicycle advocates
bring to the table and to the public, we will never be able to  make
a favorable impression. We have to be able to confront their
arguments on their turf, or we lose.

John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St.
Lemon Grove, CA 91945-2306
619-644-5481 www.johnforester.com

On Oct 30, 2007, at 6:12 PM, Wayne Pein wrote:

> kob2@... wrote:
>
>> In this case it's don't inject contentious debate where you
>> do not need to!
>
> I suppose I need to point out to you that bicycling organizations from
> LAB on down to local pedestrians on wheels align themselves with
> transit
> in their war on motoring.



> Thus, the contentious debate has already been
> injected.

Because people push for racks on buses and roll on
service on trains? That has always seemed like
reasonable  advocacy to me. I would have hoped at least
_that_ wouldn't have been all that contentious.

But as a concession to the rabid mass transit haters (if
they show themselves as a large enough contingent in
the bicycling advocacy organization, and get worked up enough
about rack and roll-on advocacy) I would be willing to
drop that specific rack+roll-on advocacy as a concession
to them.

Give me some more details of this 'alignment.' If it somehow
runs right up against the idea that bicyclists fare best
when they act and are treated as the drivers of vehicles,
or says we need a bikelane. I will help you fight off that
element of the 'alignment' shoulder to shoulder. I just
don't see how it would, though. They are a whole
different and separable issue; your claim on this
just does add up to me.

I have already stated that I would be willing to drop rack+roll-on issue
in my official organization efforts (an arguably very-bicyclist-specific
effort ) - so _of_course_ I would be willing to see any "ride-the-bus"
promotion and similar extraneous to bicycling programs dropped
from the organization efforts.


> In order to counteract the pnp brigade one must fight them on all
> fronts

Well no. You should fight them on the pnp front, not the mass
transit front. If they are talking transit they aren't talking pnp -
or bicycling really. Therefore you don't need to fight them while
wearing your bicyclist advocacy hat once they open the mass
transit front. You can sit it out, or take your opposition to that idea
to some other organization.

>


> and that means debunking their myths about the benefits of
> transit

First, pnp is pnp. It is not mass transit. Not sure why you
feel you must confound the two.

Second, I repeat, no "debunking" of mass transit related 'myths'
to be done by my bicyclist advocacy organization. Contentious
extraneous issues are to be ignored.

Ken

On Oct 30, 2007, at 6:05 PM, John Forester wrote:

>
> Because the modes competitive to motoring are bicycling, walking, and
> mass transit, these are the modes advocated by anti-motorists. We see
> before us Ken's first statement (to my knowledge) that advocacy of
> mass transit absolutely must be part of any bicycling organization in
> which Ken will maintain membership.

No incorrect. Not what was written.

Here is what I wrote: Attempting to make cases against
mass transit or bad mouthing mass transit in any way
must not be part of efforts of a bicyclist advocacy  organization
I support.


> What's this to do with vehicular cycling? Vehicular cyclists need
> good roads, and those who oppose motoring want to spend
> transportation funds on other matters entirely. Vehicular cyclists
> should oppose such diversion of transportation funds.

Bicyclist advocacy should target "act and treat."

Bicyclist advocacy should not take one very specific
view on the overall issues of macro-transportation
system. Making claims about what is and is not
a 'diversion' is taking just such a specific stand.

>
> As for urban design, it is quite obvious that the cost of rebuilding
> our cities to the patterns of 1920 and earlier and of re-organizing
> our employment, commercial, professional, and social activities to
> suit would be enormous. It might happen over a long time, it might
> never happen. The power of the cycling lobby to affect this
> situation, pro or con, is substantially zero. Vehicular cyclists need
> to consider how best to operate in the urban environments that we
> have, and what direction to use our lobbying power to improve the
> operating characteristics of those environments for lawful,
> competent cyclists.
>

That can be done by targeting "act and treat" advocacy.

Bicycling advocacy should not take specific stands on mass transit and
macro transportation policy.

Ken

On Oct 30, 2007, at 5:57 PM, Wayne Pein wrote:

> kob2@... wrote:
>
>
>>> The number of potential bicyclists (and walkers) reduced by short
>>> haul
>>> transit pales in comparison to the intermodal benefits. Of
>>> course, that
>>> depends precisely on the definition of short haul.
>>
>> Ah, so you are with me on this effort? Good.
>>
>
> Ooops. My bad. It's the other way around. There are many more
> potential
> bicyclists (and walkers) reduced by short haul transit than are
> created
> through multimodalism.

OK, then he question is: Does your belief in this claim mean you
would refuse to stay part of a bicyclist advocay organization that
promoted racks and roll on service?

I would find that really unfortunate, but (tipping my hand in
the negotiation process) I could live with dropping
that advocacy effort. In turn I would expect you to take any
of your opposition/discussion of mass transit to some other
organization and not make it part of the bicyclist advocacy
organization proceedings.

Ken

kob2@... wrote:

> In this case it's don't inject contentious debate where you
> do not need to!

I suppose I need to point out to you that bicycling organizations from
LAB on down to local pedestrians on wheels align themselves with transit
in their war on motoring. Thus, the contentious debate has already been
injected. In order to counteract the pnp brigade one must fight them on
all fronts, and that means debunking their myths about the benefits of
transit and how it supposedly benefits bicycling. To be sure there are
some benefits of transit in certain situations, but wholesale adoration
of transit by bicycling groups should be opposed.

Wayne

Ken O'Brien's statement regarding mass transit, quoted below,
illustrates the difficulties of Ken's typical position. Although Ken
has never actually disclosed his position, I think it reasonable to
conclude that he opposes motoring while advocating vehicular cycling.
In this, he differs from most anti-motorists in that he does not
desire bikeways to attract motorists to bicycle transportation.
However, his writing presents all the other attributes of the
anti-motoring view, though he has tried to keep such discussion out
of this discussion group when the subject of road widening has been raised.

Because the modes competitive to motoring are bicycling, walking, and
mass transit, these are the modes advocated by anti-motorists. We see
before us Ken's first statement (to my knowledge) that advocacy of
mass transit absolutely must be part of any bicycling organization in
which Ken will maintain membership.

Our decentralized cities are made possible by motoring. Those who
oppose motoring have to advocate returning to the urban designs of no
later than 1920, and, in fact, they do so. The questionnaire that LAB
supports was designed to elicit such responses.

However, here is the catch. The freedom of movement that is provided
by the private car has enabled us to develop our cities in a
decentralized and suburban way. Unfortunately for cyclists, this has
increased trip distances, reducing the proportion of all trips that
are suitable for bicycle transportation, and increasing the
desirability of traveling by major arterials instead of side streets.
This change has also been very bad for mass transit, because mass
transit works well only for cities with one concentrated urban
center. No mass transit can operate in any of our cities on passenger
fares alone; they all require subsidies. This effect is worse for the
rail types of transit than for the bus types; rail transit requires
greater passenger volume and greater concentration of it than does
bus transit. As a result, the subsidies paid per rail passenger-mile
are of the order of ten times the subsidies paid per bus passenger
mile, and these funds come out of the transportation dollar. The true
value of mass transit is to serve those who do not have access to
auto transportation, and such transportation ought to be organized as
the best compromise between service to those persons and the cost to
society in general.

What's this to do with vehicular cycling? Vehicular cyclists need
good roads, and those who oppose motoring want to spend
transportation funds on other matters entirely. Vehicular cyclists
should oppose such diversion of transportation funds.

As for urban design, it is quite obvious that the cost of rebuilding
our cities to the patterns of 1920 and earlier and of re-organizing
our employment, commercial, professional, and social activities to
suit would be enormous. It might happen over a long time, it might
never happen. The power of the cycling lobby to affect this
situation, pro or con, is substantially zero. Vehicular cyclists need
to consider how best to operate in the urban environments that we
have, and what direction to use our lobbying power to improve the
operating characteristics of those environments for lawful, competent cyclists.


At 01:05 PM 10/30/2007, kob2@... wrote:

>I would pull my support from any bicyclist advocacy organization
>that made any anti-mass-transit statement of any kind, whether
>supposedly scientifically supported or not.
>
>If the organization wanted to discuss a program to make
>bus driver/bicyclist operation interaction/education better,
>fine. However,if the bicyclist organization started any
>'competition for funds' or 'hard on pavement' or similar kind
>of talk, I would be out of there.
>
>I would hope that a bicyclist advocacy organization could
>coelesce around various kinds of intermodal type
>advocacy - like racks and roll on service. However if
>anti-mass transit feeling within the bicyclist advocacy
>organization is more than insignificant and strong enough
>such that it manifests itself as oppostion to the bicyclist
>advocacy organization doing intermodal advocacy, I could probably
>be talked out of my push for the organization doing intermodal
>advocacy - as a consession to the faction that feels so
>strongly against mass transit.
>
>Ken

John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St.
Lemon Grove, CA 91945-2306
619-644-5481 www.johnforester.com

At 07:33 AM 10/30/2007, Herman I. May asked: "What has this survey to
do with vehicular cycling?"

This survey was the source of the article that LAB published in its
latest newsletter. That article, and the survey, demonstrate the
extent to which LAB management promotes anti-motoring policies with
their necessary concomitant of bikeways intended to attract people
who want to ride in some non-vehicular manner, thus providing
official support for such cycling and producing further opposition to
vehicular cycling.

John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St.
Lemon Grove, CA 91945-2306
619-644-5481 www.johnforester.com

kob2@... wrote:


>  >The number of potential bicyclists (and walkers) reduced by short haul
>  >transit pales in comparison to the intermodal benefits. Of course, that
>  >depends precisely on the definition of short haul.
>
> Ah, so you are with me on this effort? Good.
>

Ooops. My bad. It's the other way around. There are many more potential
bicyclists (and walkers) reduced by short haul transit than are created
through multimodalism.

Wayne