Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Subject: Re: Cycling and Environmentalism
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 21:46:06 -0500

Ed Ravin tells all cyclists:

 ER> The real question is how John Forester and cycling
environmentalists
 ER> disagree. Forester seems to see disagreements where none exist,

 Just because many environmentalists try to deny that they have any
differences
 with cyclists does not meant that these differences do not exist. I've
been to
 too many meetings in which environmentalists have with one breath told
us how
 wonderful it was that we rode bicycles, and with another breath said
something
 like, "of course we all agree that the only safe place to ride bicycles
is on
 off-road trails."

 JF> I say that doing good for cyclists by making cycling safer, faster,
more
 JF> convenient, with higher psychological rewards and with higher
social status
 JF> is likely to increase the amount of cycling done and decrease the
amount of
 JF> motoring done, which is a good effect.

 ER> Most bicycle advocates agree with this, especially about decreasing
the
 ER> amount of motoring.

 Ah, but most environmentalists who advocate cycling, but don't do it
 themselves, don't hold the same position. Making cycling safer and
faster
 are not on their agenda.

 ER> But when bicyclists actually begin to talk about how to reduce
automobile
 ER> usage, Forester turns ugly. He has written articles and letters to
Bicycle
 ER> USA claiming that bicycle advocates should not advocate against
cars,

 Reducing automobile traffic by voluntary usage of bicycles is not the
same
 thing as attacking the use or facilities for motorists.

 ER> Most bicycling advocacy organizations have a broad agenda -- they
want some
 ER> bike paths here, better roads there, bike parking in some other
places.

 I have been very actively pressuring such a "bicycling advocacy
organization,"
 the Houston Mayor's Taskforce on Bicycle Mobility. Yes, they have a
broad
 agenda for bike paths, bike parking and bicycle education, but not
better
 roads. The prevailing view of most of the members with significant
political
 authority is that the only thing that can be done for the road is to
post
 "Bike Route" signs on any good roads that they can find. Millions of
dollars
 are available for trail improvement, but somehow bicycles as
transportation
 is not considered important.

 ER> They also want metropolitan transportation planning agencies to
stop
 ER> promoting automobile transportation above all other options, and to
stop
 ER> building roadway infrastructure that encourages automobiling to
the
 ER> exclusion of anything else.

 Now I can see definite problems with an organization like that. I want
better
 roads. I want roads that have wide outside lanes, so that motorists can
safely
 pass bicyclists. I want intersection signals to work for bicyclists. I
want
 to see the redesign of roads that force the right lane to turn right at
every
 intersection. Most of my vision of better cycling includes better
roads.

 ER> They're also concerned about land use issues and the spread of
suburban
 ER> sprawl, which separates workplaces and homes so that non-automobile
travel
 ER> becomes untenable.

 This is a rather irrelevent issue to many cyclists that I know. If you
can
 find a job, even if you have to ride 30 miles to get there, you take
it. I
 know I have. If we could somehow legislate prosperity, and could
guarantee
 everyone a job within walking distance, now wouldn't that be nice? Get
 real!

 ER> I have yet to hear a single person from the bicycle advocacy
movement say
 ER> that cyclists should be kicked off the roads and forced to use
trails or
 ER> paths.

 We have a slightly different set of terminology. I consider myself to
be a
 bicycle advocate, and I know others, like Michael Carr who do, too.
However,
 we are not in the same camp as such organizations as G.H.A.S.P., who
 preach about how wonderful bicycling is, but of course they can't do
it
 themselves.

 ER> Bicycle advocates in NY City, for example, have long complained
about
 [lots of good things about real bicycle advocates deleted]
 ER> roadway development plans.

 ER> So why does Forester bash bicycle advocates?

 Forester is not upset about cycling organizations that advocate
improvements
 for cyclists, he is concerned about that same groups that I'm upset
about,
 groups that tell people to bicycle because it is good for the
environment,
 good for the political situation, etc.

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 The bicycle's function as a means of transport is much more important
than
 its use as a piece of sports equipment, a health device or a protest
symbol
 for the ecologically minded.
     --Rob van der Plas, THE PENGUIN BICYCLE HANDBOOK

       __ o    Howard Gerber   Two Wheelers: 713-682-6508
  . . <   \ .  USENET:  howard.gerber@urchin.fidonet.org
 :   : > :   : Fidonet: 1:106/88.0    PODNet: 93:9008/0.0
  ` `     ` `  Moderator of the Fidonet BIKENET echo

Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc