Bike Outreach Opportunities.

[dbb]

@lordofthemark 96334 wrote:

Just to clarify, in Virginia bike law is (mostly) made in Richmond. The City of Alexandria cannot choose to allow Idaho stops. Virginia Bicycling Federation usually takes the lead in lobbying the legislature. WABA usually supports their efforts. This past session Va law was changed to require drivers to give 3 feet when passing (previously it had been 2 feet) This year I assume that the dooring bill and the due care when following bill will come up again.

While Alexandria can’t choose to permit (by ordinance) Idaho stops, they can through enforcement do something rational. Casual observation at any stop sign or intersection that permits right on red would show a large portion of the motorists doing some form of rolling stop/California stop where the speeds (and certainly momentum) are well above the speed of a cyclist doing a momentary stop/stutter stop/track stand, none of which involve touching the ground. The individual officers have a tremendous amount of discretion on what gets enforced, as demonstrated by the fact you see some latitude on speed enforcement. I would be cool with a total enforcement blitz at an intersection where all peds, cyclists and motorists got enforced upon. the problem is that you would have a “storage” or “target servicing” problem

I agree that we need to push hard for legislative changes and if this effort serves to bring us together on that task, so much the better.

[mstone]

@lordofthemark 96320 wrote:

to the extent it is at all rational, is connected to the behavior of folks on Union Street.

The opposition is based on parking and the ability to drive fast without the presence of bikes, everything else is window dressing to make that reality seem less iniquitous. If WABA believes that stop sign behavior is a serious issue on its own, so be it–but to justify the campaign by suggesting that opponents have a legitimate reason to oppose safety improvements because of unrelated behavior is a mistake both morally and tactically.

@lordofthemark 96322 wrote:

Should we pass on taking action that will, realistically, advance biking politically, for the sake of taking a moral stand on what is a proper argument?

It will not realistically advance biking politically. You absolutely will not get to 100% compliance (in any human endeavor, ever), and you’ve legitimized non-compliance as a basis for opposition. FAIL. That’s not a moral position, that’s a pragmatic one. (Though I would like to see more emphasis on morality when it comes to how we build out infrastructure.)

[lordofthemark]

@mstone 96343 wrote:

The opposition is based on parking and the ability to drive fast without the presence of bikes, everything else is window dressing to make that reality seem less iniquitous. If WABA believes that stop sign behavior is a serious issue on its own, so be it–but to justify the campaign by suggesting that opponents have a legitimate reason to oppose safety improvements because of unrelated behavior is a mistake both morally and tactically.

It will not realistically advance biking politically. You absolutely will not get to 100% compliance (in any human endeavor, ever), and you’ve legitimized non-compliance as a basis for opposition. FAIL. That’s not a moral position, that’s a pragmatic one. (Though I would like to see more emphasis on morality when it comes to how we build out infrastructure.)

As to the first its simply not true. A few individuals at the bike ped update meeting were anti-bike, but supported measures to reduce auto speeds (unfortunately unrealistic measures given the Dillon rule) and improve walking at the expense of driving. Alexandria is not Fairfax – we do have folks, especially in old town, who do not bike, and who value walking more than driving. There are others (like the folks on King Street NW of Old Town) for whom its all about parking or driving, and sometimes those groups overlap, but I think its incorrect to categorize all opposition as windshield perspective and its not politically wise to ignore real differences among the opposition.

As for the second, of course WABA is not saying “look at us, we are discouraging improper cycling, now can you PLEASE build some cycle tracks in exchange” They are simply asking cyclists to be PALs. Period. The political advantage of that is something for us to discuss among cycling advocates.

As for the enforcement question, I simply do not know enough yet to comment on that.

And note – on the WABA rsources issue, I don’t know enough either – maybe it would be better to focus more on sending someone to work with Kidical Mass. I don’t know. There are always questions about the best use of resources.

[mstone]

@lordofthemark 96345 wrote:

As to the first its simply not true. A few individuals at the bike ped update meeting were anti-bike, but supported measures to reduce auto speeds (unfortunately unrealistic measures given the Dillon rule) and improve walking at the expense of driving. Alexandria is not Fairfax – we do have folks, especially in old town, who do not bike, and who value walking more than driving. There are others (like the folks on King Street NW of Old Town) for whom its all about parking or driving, and sometimes those groups overlap, but I think its incorrect to categorize all opposition as windshield perspective and its not politically wise to ignore real differences among the opposition.[/quote]

You can believe that the anti-car+bike crowd is the politically significant constituency blocking bike safety improvements. I don’t.

Quote:

As for the second, of course WABA is not saying “look at us, we are discouraging improper cycling, now can you PLEASE build some cycle tracks in exchange” They are simply asking cyclists to be PALs. Period.

If WABA joined forces with some pedestrian group to simply raise awareness of bike + pedestrian safety issues (including, but not focused on, those where bikes affect pedestrian safety) I’d be all for it. (Note that actually finding pedestrian advocacy groups tends to be the hard part–cyclists are better organized. ) I think that pedestrians & cyclists should be natural allies on this, as our needs are largely identical. Emphasizing the common areas of interest would seem to be a more productive way to build bridges, while focusing on bikes as a particular pedestrian hazard is both jarring and silly. I think it’s also missing the point to focus on stop signs at all. Instead, the focus should be on ROW, giving pedestrians enough space, non-scary pass warnings, etc. WABA doesn’t need to focus only on areas where there’s a specific legal standard, and should be advocating an approach that puts consideration of other people’s safety ahead of purely legal arguments about how much you can get away with. (E.g., don’t just say that the law requires an audible signal, explain how it is important to signal from far enough away, that verbal calls can be misunderstood or perceived as hostile; explain to pedestrians that audible signals are required & intended to improve pedestrian safety, and that they shouldn’t be understood as a demand to get out of the way.) This is why I’m not really convinced about Arlington’s PAL campaign–I don’t think it puts enough emphasis on each individual’s responsibility to consider how their actions affect others and instead focuses on personal defensiveness and legalism.

[americancyclo]

@dasgeh 96331 wrote:

First off, your assumption is very, very wrong. I would say 95% of the adults on my rides aren’t even WABA members, and probably 75% don’t know what WABA is.

I thought you might have a better handle on that as Queen of Kidical

@dasgeh 96331 wrote:

You’re right that most WABA staffers don’t have kids — which is part of the reason WABA has had a HUGE blind spot when it comes to family biking. Look at the images of bikes on their walls, at their parties, in their materials. Almost no family bikes. It’s like long-tails and bakfiets and midtails and Madsens and child trailers don’t exist.

I wonder why this is?
WABA doesn’t have a budget to hire a family biking coordinator?
DC is a young, transient city and it’s more beneficial to focus on the younger kids with more expendable income?
We’re all myopic little twits?

@dasgeh 96331 wrote:

And so we (the KM organizers) asked WABA if they could maybe, at least once, send a staffer or two to a KM ride to see what it’s like, see what they’re missing, see all of the challenges we face on our crazy bikes.

That’s what I was curious about. Where you envisioned the partnership or hand-off happening. I wasn’t sure what kind of relationship you were hoping to have with WABA.

I noticed that on the SFBC page they have a Youth and Family Page that covers SRTS, A Family Biking Guide, Bike & Roll to School Week, and workshops. Maybe you (and me, among others) could ask for something like that from WABA. Who else could we look to for guidance? What kind of relationships do other Kidical organizers have with local cycling advocacy organizations?

@dasgeh 96331 wrote:

We asked 4 months and about 10 local KM rides ago. Instead, WABA staffers are out asking people to stop at stop signs.

So you see why I think WABA has its priorities off?

Speaking of…
[h=1]Priorities[/h] In 2013, WABA established a list of 10 regional priorities on which to focus our advocacy efforts. Read about those priorities below.

• Bike Parking and Commuter Amenities
• Capital Crescent Trail
• Metropolitan Branch Trail
• Northern Virginia U.S. Route 50
• Police Enforcement and Education
• Protected Bike Lanes
• Rock Creek Trail
• Safe Passages to School
• Southeastern Trail Corridor
• Washington, Baltimore & Annapolis Trail

[lordofthemark]

@mstone 96365 wrote:

You can believe that the anti-car+bike crowd is the politically significant constituency blocking bike safety improvements. I don’t.

If WABA joined forces with some pedestrian group to simply raise awareness of bike + pedestrian safety issues (including, but not focused on, those where bikes affect pedestrian safety) I’d be all for it. (Note that actually finding pedestrian advocacy groups tends to be the hard part–cyclists are better organized. ) I think that pedestrians & cyclists should be natural allies on this, as our needs are largely identical. Emphasizing the common areas of interest would seem to be a more productive way to build bridges, while focusing on bikes as a particular pedestrian hazard is both jarring and silly. I think it’s also missing the point to focus on stop signs at all. Instead, the focus should be on ROW, giving pedestrians enough space, non-scary pass warnings, etc. WABA doesn’t need to focus only on areas where there’s a specific legal standard, and should be advocating an approach that puts consideration of other people’s safety ahead of purely legal arguments about how much you can get away with. (E.g., don’t just say that the law requires an audible signal, explain how it is important to signal from far enough away, that verbal calls can be misunderstood or perceived as hostile; explain to pedestrians that audible signals are required & intended to improve pedestrian safety, and that they shouldn’t be understood as a demand to get out of the way.) This is why I’m not really convinced about Arlington’s PAL campaign–I don’t think it puts enough emphasis on each individual’s responsibility to consider how their actions affect others and instead focuses on personal defensiveness and legalism.

I think there are quite a few different constituencies with different interests – for such a small city, Alexandria seems to be a politically complex place.

As was noted at the bike plan update meeting, Alexandria is geographically diverse in its bike ped policy issues. The western half of the city is very much like Fairfax (from which it was annexed in the 1950s) traffic sewers, no grids, little accommodation to cyclists or peds. It will take a lot of infra to fix, including protected bike lanes, wider sidewalks, improved crossings, bulb outs, etc, etc. Some other in eastern Alexandria need a few more bike lanes, more bike parking, and filling a few gaps. Old Town has different issues – there is not a lot of sidewalk riding or really major need for new facilities (at least N-S) and not terribly much lane real estate to play with. There ARE a host of user conflicts – and while I agree the auto conflicts with bikes and peds are a much more dangerous isssue, I don’t think we lose anything (and potentially we gain something) by a modest effort to improve PAL behavior by cyclists on Union – and in fairness taking a MUT and routing it THROUGH (not merely terminating at) crowded urban streets is something of a recipe for trouble.

[mstone]

@lordofthemark 96380 wrote:

There ARE a host of user conflicts – and while I agree the auto conflicts with bikes and peds are a much more dangerous isssue, I don’t think we lose anything (and potentially we gain something) by a modest effort to improve PAL behavior by cyclists on Union

Or you can abandon the PAL slogan, which isn’t really all that relevant in that situation, and emphasize the much more topical message that everyone should slow down a bit and give other users more space. It isn’t legally required, but it goes a lot further toward actually addressing the concerns of the pedestrians, IMO.

[dasgeh]

@americancyclo 96370 wrote:

I wonder why this is?
WABA doesn’t have a budget to hire a family biking coordinator?
DC is a young, transient city and it’s more beneficial to focus on the younger kids with more expendable income?
We’re all myopic little twits?

That’s what I was curious about. Where you envisioned the partnership or hand-off happening. I wasn’t sure what kind of relationship you were hoping to have with WABA.

I noticed that on the SFBC page they have a Youth and Family Page that covers SRTS, A Family Biking Guide, Bike & Roll to School Week, and workshops. Maybe you (and me, among others) could ask for something like that from WABA. Who else could we look to for guidance? What kind of relationships do other Kidical organizers have with local cycling advocacy organizations?

So on the issue of why WABA has been blind to family biking: I get that it’s a non profit and family biking is relatively new in the eyes of bike advocacy generally. I’m frustrated because biking in DC is just past this point now. In downtown, there are longtails EVERYWHERE. There are Kidical Masses all over. I would have hoped WABA would have noticed. But they didn’t, so some of us have reached out. There were promising things said. A few things have been done, but not much. And again, it’s a matter of “you have time to do THIS, but not time to come on one KM ride?!?!?!” If they were busy training police forces around the region, I’d be more patient.

I’m not envisioning any one thing, just SOME attention. Prioritized over telling people to stop at stop signs.

Thanks for the link. Those are interesting (and kinda odd) priorities — some broad, and some very specific…

[Steve O]

@lordofthemark 96332 wrote:

As a side benefit, it may result in the cyclists being safer.

“May” being the operative word. Cyclists who roll stop signs are often the same people who drive, and in virtually all cases they use the same due care they use as drivers–balancing ability to see, hear, stop and go–and hopefully taking into account the danger their vehicle of choice poses to others. It is not necessary to stop on a bicycle to navigate an intersection with 100% safety. We all know that. The state of Idaho knows it the most. Enforcing stop signs for cyclists does not enhance the safety of cyclists one iota.

One possible exception:
In a few places with pedestrians, having police enforce the ROW for peds vs. bikes may make it slightly safer for them. And by extension the cyclists, since they, too, would likely be injured in a collision with a ped.

[dkel]

I’m surprised this WABA initiative is getting such a bad rap. How many threads have there been on this forum about the public’s perception that cyclists are scofflaws? One week after sharrows appeared in Falls Church City, a letter to the Editor of the Falls Church paper was published, stating that sharrows will give cyclists a sense of entitlement and will thereby increase the incidence of illegal cycling behavior. The writer concluded that local law enforcement should either crack down on cyclists, or remove the sharrows. We have an image problem, folks! I can appreciate that this initiative may not be the best use of WABA time and resources at this moment, given the other worthy issues mentioned in this thread. Personally, I think advocating for Idaho stops would be preferable to advocating full stops. But if WABA has an interest in improving cyclists’ image in the region, this initiative is a decent way to go about it. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar, and right now, I think we should be concerned with the lack of support we get from non-cyclists on the road and in the legislative process.

[dasgeh]

@dkel 96397 wrote:

I’m surprised this WABA initiative is getting such a bad rap. How many threads have there been on this forum about the public’s perception that cyclists are scofflaws? One week after sharrows appeared in Falls Church City, a letter to the Editor of the Falls Church paper was published, stating that sharrows will give cyclists a sense of entitlement and will thereby increase the incidence of illegal cycling behavior. The writer concluded that local law enforcement should either crack down on cyclists, or remove the sharrows. We have an image problem, folks! I can appreciate that this initiative may not be the best use of WABA time and resources at this moment, given the other worthy issues mentioned in this thread. Personally, I think advocating for Idaho stops would be preferable to advocating full stops. But if WABA has an interest in improving cyclists’ image in the region, this initiative is a decent way to go about it. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar, and right now, I think we should be concerned with the lack of support we get from non-cyclists on the road and in the legislative process.

But does this improve the image of cyclists? Or does this give the irrational cyclist-haters more fuel – they can point to this and say “even waba agrees that cyclists are scofflaws that need to be educated”?

[dkel]

@dasgeh 96398 wrote:

But does this improve the image of cyclists? Or does this give the irrational cyclist-haters more fuel – they can point to this and say “even waba agrees that cyclists are scofflaws that need to be educated”?

WABA (and probably everyone on this forum) would agree that scofflaw cyclists do need to be educated. Not all cyclists are scofflaws, obviously, but it’s the scofflaws that are ruining it for the rest of us. As far as “irrational cyclist-haters,” there’s likely no helping that; I think that for WABA to send a message that cyclists should respect the law reinforces the concept that not all cyclists are scofflaws.

The initiative may be flawed, but in the grand scheme, I think it is positive. It definitely needs to be combined with related advocacy, including many ideas mentioned in this thread.

[mstone]

@dkel 96397 wrote:

I’m surprised this WABA initiative is getting such a bad rap. How many threads have there been on this forum about the public’s perception that cyclists are scofflaws? One week after sharrows appeared in Falls Church City, a letter to the Editor of the Falls Church paper was published, stating that sharrows will give cyclists a sense of entitlement and will thereby increase the incidence of illegal cycling behavior. The writer concluded that local law enforcement should either crack down on cyclists, or remove the sharrows. We have an image problem, folks! I can appreciate that this initiative may not be the best use of WABA time and resources at this moment, given the other worthy issues mentioned in this thread. Personally, I think advocating for Idaho stops would be preferable to advocating full stops. But if WABA has an interest in improving cyclists’ image in the region, this initiative is a decent way to go about it. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar, and right now, I think we should be concerned with the lack of support we get from non-cyclists on the road and in the legislative process.

What’s the endgame? Do you think that WABAs initiative will get compliance up to 100%? If not, what level of compliance will make the haters stop hating? Obviously the people already not blowing through lights aren’t getting any credit for that. So do you believe there’s a magic point at which haters will believe that cyclists are “good enough”? I think that if the haters even notice this, they’ll just accept it as confirmation that cyclist behavior is so egregious that even the bicyclists agree that it’s worse than anything else on the road. Which is ridiculous, but this is not an argument based on logic or data.

How to get more support? Redirect the conversation back in a useful direction and stop letting the haters set the agenda. If one person can change the subject, why on earth would another person think it’s unreasonable to change it back? Focus on the areas where there is common ground with reasonable people and stay on topic.

[mstone]

@dkel 96400 wrote:

WABA (and probably everyone on this forum) would agree that scofflaw cyclists do need to be educated.[/quote]

Nope. I DO NOT CARE whether someone else is following the law if they are doing so in a way that doesn’t affect me or anyone else. (There’s obviously some room to argue over what actually affects other people, but that’s a conversation which should be based on data and is much more complicated than “educating the scofflaws”.)

Quote:

Not all cyclists are scofflaws, obviously, but it’s the scofflaws that are ruining it for the rest of us.

Really? Just like the speeders have ruined it for the motorists and blocked road improvements? This has absolutely nothing to do with scofflawism and is more an artifact of the general culture wars combined with a defense of historic privilege. You cannot win by making virtue a milestone, the only way to win is to make cyclists common enough that people ignore their problems just like they ignore other groups’ problems. I reject the premise that my rights depend on someone else’s behavior, and I’m not going to allow the discussion to be framed that way.

Quote:

As far as “irrational cyclist-haters,” there’s likely no helping that; I think that for WABA to send a message that cyclists should respect the law reinforces the concept that not all cyclists are scofflaws.

No, it just distracts WABA from its mission. Go poke around in AAA’s lobbying wing. You’ll find some nice platitudes about safety, and some specific initiatives around specific, limited things like drunk driving, seat belts, aggressive driving, etc. But you won’t find a significant amount of effort directed toward scolding motorists about not following all the laws all the time. Why? Because they’re good at advocacy, and going off-message is bad advocacy. But critics point out that cars speed, doesn’t AAA have to address that by starting a major campaign to send the message that nobody should ever speed? No: they brush off the issue with a sentence or two about how everyone needs to do their part, don’t get bogged down in talking about something that’s irrelevant to their agenda, and redirect back to their priorities. I think you’ll find precious few advocacy organizations that think making general criticisms of their constituency for the sake of image building is a path to success. I already suggested some more focused messages WABA could use, but there are others. Find specific actions by a small number of cyclists that put other people at risk, and focus on those. Make sure that they are things which most cyclists will agree are obviously bad (bonus points if nobody will actually admit doing the thing, let alone argue about it or defend it). Loudly educate the cyclist community not to do the thing, so as to set the agenda. When someone starts rambling about stop signs, you cut them off by agreeing that OF COURSE it’s important to do all the good things, but your real priority right now is making sure that nobody, whether on a bike or in a car or on roller blades, runs down little old ladies in crosswalks (or whatever). You focus on the things most important for not running down the crosswalk person. (Things like looking for pedestrians and giving them space are critical; putting two feet down at deserted intersections, not so much.) The vast majority of cyclists aren’t running people down and will agree it’s bad. (Bonus: they may also pick up some tips for reducing their chance of doing so by accident.) Non-cyclists can join the cyclists in focusing on the tiny minority that runs down little old ladies in crosswalks. You get to establish a social norm that running down old ladies is bad (and the common behaviors which aren’t hurting people aren’t a big deal). You have an objective which is actually achievable. (“Reduce pedestrian injuries caused by cyclists” vs “get all the cyclists to do all the good things all the time”.) That’s effective advocacy.

[dkel]

@mstone 96401 wrote:

What’s the endgame? Do you think that WABAs initiative will get compliance up to 100%? If not, what level of compliance will make the haters stop hating? Obviously the people already not blowing through lights aren’t getting any credit for that. So do you believe there’s a magic point at which haters will believe that cyclists are “good enough”? I think that if the haters even notice this, they’ll just accept it as confirmation that cyclist behavior is so egregious that even the bicyclists agree that it’s worse than anything else on the road. Which is ridiculous, but this is not an argument based on logic or data.

How to get more support? Redirect the conversation back in a useful direction and stop letting the haters set the agenda. If one person can change the subject, why on earth would another person think it’s unreasonable to change it back? Focus on the areas where there is common ground with reasonable people and stay on topic.

So what you’re saying is, absolutely nothing positive could ever possibly come from this WABA initiative.

[Author]

Posts