Month: November 2008

According to a Nov. 24th Bicycle Newswire article, "An upcoming National Park Service (NPS) rule change could greatly benefit mountain bicycling by improving the administrative process for opening trails to bicyclists. IMBA has been asking the agency to revise its policies since 1992, because the current ‘special regulations’ process is needlessly cumbersome and treats bicycles like motorized vehicles.
"The NPS has said the proposal for new rules will be formally announced later this year. IMBA hopes the enhanced procedure will allow park superintendents to make trail access decisions locally, instead of being tied to a Washington-based, multi-year regulatory journey. The new rule would treat bicycling like other non-motorized trail users, such as equestrians.
"The suggested NPS rule change would only apply to places where including bicycling is deemed non controversial, and would maintain current requirements for environmental review and public notice. Opening a trail to bicycling must be done in compliance with the National Park Service Organic Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Historic Preservation Act, and all NPS General Management Planning processes…"
Continue reading “NAT’L PARKS RULE CHANGE WOULD BENEFIT BICYCLING”

-> "Right now, the U.S. consumes about 10% of the world’s oil supply just to get back and forth to work. If we are able to reintroduce the bicycle into our communities, we are going to make it easier for people to break our addiction to oil. I have cycled to work in Washington, D.C., for 12 years. I’ve burned over 300,000 calories and saved $94,000 in car costs, 206 gallons of fuel, and 4800 pounds of carbon dioxide."
— Earl Blumenauer, U.S. House of Representatives (D., Ore.)
https://tinyurl.com/5up48j
-> "We go from shock to trance. You know, oil prices go up, gas prices at the pump go up, everybody goes into a flurry of activity. And then the prices go back down and suddenly we act like it’s not important…And, as a consequence, we never make any progress. It’s part of the addiction, all right. That has to be broken. Now is the time to break it."
— Barack Obama, President-Elect
https://tinyurl.com/6r3jqa
-> "When a cyclist is killed by a driver who was text-messaging someone, you read as much in the paper about how awful the driver feels. We’ve made driving so easy, accessible and convenient — and the system is so forgiving — that people can drive distracted at great speeds and mostly get away with it. But we’ve seen conclusively that not paying attention will cause bad things to happen; studies have shown that distracted driving is just as dangerous as driving drunk. We should be penalizing those people the same way that we treat drunk drivers."
— Andy Clarke, Executive Director, League of American Bicyclists
https://tinyurl.com/6aep22
Continue reading “QUOTES R US”

Here’s YOUR chance to tell President-elect Barack Obama and the new Congress what they need to know to take action to improve transportation next year.
What’s bugging you? Congestion? Safety? Potholes? Bumpy pavement? When it comes to America’s transportation system, there’s a lot riding on the future. Add YOUR voice to the debate.
[This is important to let them know bicycling issues are important on so many levels, safety should be a priority for all not just for motorist. Vulnerable road users make up over 15% of traffic fatalities but get less then 2% of the funding, this has to change! Powerful lobbies are trying to take every last penny away from us to insure only motoring is supported.
* Per US DOT survey 73% would welcome new and improved bicycle facilities#1
* Per NHTSA survey 89% of bike trips begin at a residence and only 7% at a recreational site#2
* Over 75% of all car trips in the US are for distances under ten miles and nearly 60% are for distances under five miles.#3
* Per recommendations of TFAH and RWJF increase access to safe, accessible places for physical activity in communities. Examples include creating and maintaining … bike lanes and providing incentives for smart growth designs that make communities more livable#4]
Continue reading “I told the president”

Originally Posted by MIT Press
Before the advent of the automobile, users of city streets were diverse and included children at play and pedestrians at large. By 1930, most streets were primarily motor thoroughfares where children did not belong and where pedestrians were condemned as "jaywalkers." In Fighting Traffic, Peter Norton argues that to accommodate automobiles, the American city required not only a physical change but also a social one: before the city could be reconstructed for the sake of motorists, its streets had to be socially reconstructed as places where motorists belonged. It was not an evolution, he writes, but a bloody and sometimes violent revolution.
Norton describes how street users struggled to define and redefine what streets were for. He examines developments in the crucial transitional years from the 1910s to the 1930s, uncovering a broad anti-automobile campaign that reviled motorists as "road hogs" or "speed demons" and cars as "juggernauts" or "death cars." He considers the perspectives of all users—pedestrians, police (who had to become "traffic cops"), street railways, downtown businesses, traffic engineers (who often saw cars as the problem, not the solution), and automobile promoters. He finds that pedestrians and parents campaigned in moral terms, fighting for "justice." Cities and downtown businesses tried to regulate traffic in the name of "efficiency." Automotive interest groups, meanwhile, legitimized their claim to the streets by invoking "freedom"—a rhetorical stance of particular power in the United States.
Fighting Traffic offers a new look at both the origins of the automotive city in America and how social groups shape technological change.
Continue reading “How the streets were made safe for cars!!”

Continue reading “Safety in Numbers.”

[I wounder if this can be done here.]
What and Why
The purpose of this action pamphlet is to encourage injured riders to create strong enforcement of bicyclist rights to the road in injury accidents by taking things into their own hands and using laws already on the books to charge and convict drivers in court for violation of the Rules of the Road.
In spite of the best of intentions law enforcement agencies do not have the resources or the legal understanding of laws relating to bicycles from a bicyclist perspective, to investigate and issue citations for traffic law violations in most injury accidents. For example, in Portland, Oregon’s most populous city known for its friendly attitude toward bike riders, city police maintain a departmental policy of facilitating exchange of information between the parties to an accident, but not investigating or issuing citations in traffic accidents unless one of the parties is placed into the area hospital Trauma system or the driver has a warrant or a suspended license. The Trauma system only takes the most serious injuries; entry triggers a police investigation including witness accounts and a scene diagram. However many bicycle accidents involve high energy transfers and serious injuries; yet no police investigation is provided-often an unpleasant surprise to many healing bike riders who later find out that it is their word against the motorist when it comes time to make an insurance claim.
Background
Police spokesmen have stated in the past that the Oregon statutes prohibit citation unless the cop witnesses commission of the offense. This is not technically correct because the law (ORS 810.410 (4) ) allows a police officer to issue a citation after an accident based on their own after the fact personal investigation. However, even if a police investigation of the accident is available, non-motorized roadway users may still not like the result because some police officers do not see these user groups as legitimate and rightful roadway users. This paternalistic attitude fails to accord full legal rights to the most vulnerable roadway users, those who because of their vulnerability (since they are not encased in sheet metal) most need vigilant protection of the law.
But, bicyclists must consider fully the high costs associated with more intensive traffic accident investigation by police. After all, the insurance adjuster/attorney system serve pretty well in sorting out who is at fault in most accidents. Police officers’ primary mission is to protect public safety; in the great majority of collisions fault is clear and investigation of accidents is more appropriately performed by claim adjusters in insurance companies. Regardless of where one draws the line, there is a point after which it is just more important for a cop to be working on a criminal case than answering a radio call to conduct a traffic investigation for an intersection collision.
We Can Do It Ourselves
And, without requiring any change in law or policy, Oregon bicyclists already have the legal tools to initiate prosecution of traffic law breakers. Oregon law allows a citizen to initiate traffic violation prosecutions in state court, AND to have police help (per Oregon statute). After the initial report is taken and the citizen signs the Oregon Uniform Citation and Complaint, the completed paperwork is served on the bad driver summoning them to traffic court to face the charges in a non-jury trial in front of a traffic judge. The complaining citizen gives an informal presentation of the case, the judge hears evidence and testimony, and then decides. If convicted the bad driver receives a conviction and fine for a moving violation which is no different than one from a ticket issued by a police officer.
The process, known as a citizen "Initiation of Violation Proceeding " is important for bicyclists – we usually get banged up the most in a bike-car collision. Too many of these wrecks occur because drivers fail to yield to us or give us our legal share of the road. These drivers are among the most dangerous drivers on the road and it is important that their driving records reflect it. Also, Insurance adjusters frequently fail to give adequate recognition to bicyclist legal rights. Whether ignorant of the law or just hostile to bike riders, many insurance adjusters see a bike collision case and instinctively favor their insured motorist. Since only the most serious collisions involve law enforcement accident investigation, the bike rider who is hurt after a clear cut violation of the traffic law by a motorist is often disappointed to learn that the driver who was clearly admitting fault at the scene is now claiming that it was the bicyclist who violated the law. If the record contains a citation and traffic court conviction of the driver, then the insurance adjuster will be hard pressed to ignore the true liability picture.
Continue reading “Pedal Power”

By Jenny C. McCune • Bankrate.com
Need some guidance to get started on your eco-friendly commute?
Biking to work
Follow these 12 steps to ensure a safe and comfortable ride to work.
Tips before getting started
1. Start off easy
2. Don’t feel you have to go the distance
3. Figure out your route
4. Test it before you commute
5. Find a bike buddy
6. Learn the rules of the road for bicycles
7. Investigate parking
8. Devise a cleanup plan
9. Carry flat fix essentials
10. Learn emergency adjustments
11. Inspect your bike before every ride
12. Perform routine maintenance
Continue reading “12 steps to get your bike commute started”

Well it seems that I have gotten some notoriety courtesy of John Forester the author of “Effective Cycling”. So in response to his post on his site (link follows) here is my response:

Despite it being a normal day in most respects there was a discussion on Bike Forums (BF) that took on a surrealist bent, John Forester, the so called father of Vehicular Cycling (VC) was arguing to ride to the right side of the road and Bekologist (a bikeway advocate) was arguing to take the lane. Despite several admonishments (and) to John that the discussion was not about bikeways/bike lanes, John insisted on trolling that subject as well as insulting forum members and as a result was temporally banned.

I really have to question John’s understanding of the arguments presented if the “bikeway” advocates were not discussing bikeways but about when is taking the lane appropriate or not and John in his rebuttals kept bringing up bikeways.

What concerns me most is that John has stated that he supports a compromise position:

It seems to me the so called bikeways advocates that John is so critical of support this position and I find that disturbing.
Continue reading “John Forester vs. The Human Car”