From: JForester@cup.portal.com (John - Forester)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: US govt bikepath policy
Date: Wed,  7 Oct 92 10:38:29 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: na

                     WHAT IS U.S. CYCLNG POLICY?

   Bill Wilkinson, the head of the Bicycle Federation of America,
took great affront at my description of the policy of the Federal
Highway Administration as announced by its Administrator, Dr. Tom
Larson. He posted on another net a childishly angry response, but he
has now posted a moderate and coherent response, with an apology to
the net members. Hence the following.

   Well, Bill Wilkinson of the Bicycle Federation of America has
finally given two reasons for his defense of the U.S. government
policy about cycling, but they don't hold water.

   On the first we agree about the facts, but disagree about the
conclusion: "the growing support bicycling enjoys with the Congress,
with the Federal Highway Administration, and with a growing number of
transportation professionals." Certainly, public money is going into
bicycling projects to a greater extent than ever before. However, it
is dubious whether those funds will be spent for the good of
cyclists. The history is otherwise and the present indications aren't
any better, a subject which is best addressed under Bill's second
point.

   Bill's second point is that "[he] know[s] of no one involved in
serious efforts to enhance and encourage bicycling who is advocating
a policy of bikes-on-paths-only." That statement shows the narrowness
of his scope and the shallowness of his understanding. 

   Bill's narrow vision is shown by his ignorance of the anti-cyclist
forces that, historically, have always been more threatening than the
pro-cyclist forces. The traffic laws and design standards for bike
paths and bike lanes have been imposed on cyclists by the anti-
cyclist forces in the highway establishment with the intent of
clearing bicycles from the roadways for the convenience of motorists.
That is historical fact. Sure, the highway establishment always tried
to conceal its motive behind the claim of "bike safety," but since
the sum total of its actions were convenient for motorists but
extremely dangerous for cyclists, and the highway establishment
refused to reform, that claim has been proved to be false. The fact
that the general public, the transportation reformers, and the
environmentalists let themselves be persuaded by the bike safety
propaganda to support the anti-cyclist program shows only that they
don't understand what's going on. While their motives may be Simon-
pure they are suckers.

   Bill's shallow understanding is shown by his reference to a policy
of "bikes-on-paths-only." So far as I know, not even the worst
elements in the highway establishment seriously considered such a
policy. Remember, the highway establishment also pays for bike paths;
they aren't going to pay for bike paths alongside every road. All
they ever wanted is the freedom to exercise the power to have bike
paths wherever they think it convenient. That is one very important
point of contention that Bill doesn't understand. If we have the
right to use the roadways then the highway establishment must, in the
end, made the roadways safe and convenient for combined motoring and
cycling: wide outside lanes, safe drain grates, smooth shoulder
transitions, bicycle-responsive traffic signals and the rest. If we
don't have that right the highway establishment can spend the money
on bike paths instead, getting most of what it wants (we all know the
pressures exerted against cyclists who refuse to use bike paths)
while saying that it is taking care of us.

   Here is a bit of background to help you understand the substance
of the discussion about the policy of the Federal Highway Administra-
tion. Its administrator, Dr. Tom Larson, publicly announced (to much
publicity from the bikeway advocates) that cyclists were legitimate
highway users. However, Larson refused to answer when asked whether
cyclists were legitimate roadway users. The highway runs from
property line to property line, consisting of fence, dirt, ditch,
safety railing, sidewalk, bike path, retaining wall, and the like, as
well as the roadway. The roadway is that portion of the highway that
is improved and used for vehicular travel. Cyclists fare best when
they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles, using the roadways
with the status of drivers.

   I do not know the inner motives of Dr. Larson, the Administrator
of the Federal Highway Administration. For that matter he may not
know or understand his own motives in a case in which so much emotion
has always been involved. The facts and reasoning I have just given
provide the logical explanation for his position. I know of no other
explanation, and nobody else has suggested one. I oppose both the
final position and the reasoning that produces it. I maintain my
original conclusion that Dr. Larson's statements of the FHWA policy
are devious. They were issued with the intent to mislead the public
about the whole matter. Furthermore, I maintain that it is not rude,
but is entirely proper, indeed a duty, to point out when a public
servant acts in this manner. 

JForester@cup.portal.com               John Forester
                                       726 Madrone Ave
408-734-9426                           Sunnyvale CA 94086 USA
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc