Have you ever heard of General Smedley Butler? He was a major public figure in the 1930′s. He was disgusted by the corrupt profiteering he witnessed during WWI, and stumped around the US beginning in 1930, giving a speech entitled “War is a Racket”. He published a written version as a small book in 1935. Pro-Nazi “isolationists” tried to use him as their figurehead in a 1933 fascist coup plot against Roosevelt, but that collapsed when Butler refused to go along with it and blew the whistle on it before a congressional committee.

This is Butler’s definition of a racket:

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small ‘inside’ group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many.

Does that ring a bell?

I was just reading the NACTO guidelines. About bike lanes, they claim that bike lanes are good because they reduce uncertainty about where bicyclists should be on the road, and should be expected to be on the road. And at present, this is how the public and uninformed advocates perceive them. Yet in fact, bike lanes do exactly the opposite, by promoting the false doctrine that there is a single correct lateral position for bicyclists and creating increased confusion about where bicyclists should be, especially on intersection approaches, where it matters the most.

Note the door zone bikelane leading to a “sucicide slot” at the intersection in the photo above-right. (Location: SW Barbur Blvd in Portland, OR,–Ryan Conrad photo)

Segregated sidepaths and buffered bike lanes are even worse, because you can’t get out of them.

And a small number of people make money off these bogus safety measures, and actively promote the lie.

That is a racket.

Mark Ortiz

Some good will possibly die if this bill passes as written. We could be hamstrung in defending against poor rumble strip placement and bridges lacking cycling access, as mentioned in a comment on the LAB Blog by Bill Hoffman. I’d add to that list that there should be Federal drivers that we have qualified people on state DOTs who know something about bicycling and can push for good roads–although I’ll probably take some flak here for saying that due to some of the more dubious things foisted on cyclists by planning funded under Federal programs or pass-throughs–the emphasis should be on quality, not quantity. I would like to see Federal standards on shoulder quality in rural areas. Even under current law, New Mexico kills cyclists with impunity on badly designed state bike routes.  For that matter I would like to see Federal standards protecting our right to the road so a cyclist on a transcontinental (i.e., interstate) journey doesn’t have to worry about Black Hawk, Colorado (a worry recently brought close to home in Albuquerque when the cycling community, including LAB, fought off an attempt to ban cycling on a perfectly good road). Finally, in a nation as dispersed as ours and where much of 20th Century urban architecture has focused on automobile based mobility, I really do think we need to address how we will integrate more sustainable modes into our national consciousness, as a national security  as well as public health issue.  That is one role I would like to see us not leave to landscape architects or auto-centric policy makers.

But cycling will not die. We don’t need to save it but we do need to nurture it. We do need to keep the baby and toss the bathwater, when it comes to Federal programs.  Let’s make sure the cycling community doesn’t form a circular firing squad on this topic.

The differences between the the Netherlands and the USA include: more compact cities which result in shorter trips suitable for short bicycle rides; lower urban traffic speeds [30 mph maximum on urban surface roads with 75% of residential streets at 18 mph] and with speed limits strictly enforced; slower bicycling speeds [We call this “accelerated walking”, often on slow “omafiet” bicycles.]; flat terrain; disincentives to urban driving such as very limited parking; and very high gasoline prices [currently about $7.76/gallon]. There are many more differences, all which contribute to the Dutch situation. The bicycle facilities are just a secondary effect.

By ignoring these important cultural, environmental and legal differences, American bicycle advocates make cycling more dangerous, more difficult and less useful. The door zone bike lane shown above represents one of the ways that facilities make cycling more dangerous.

A similar mode of thinking was the Cargo Cult in New Guinea. During World War 2, the islanders observed Navy personnel sitting at desks and shuffling paper. Eventually planes and ships full of cargo would arrive. After the war, when the Navy left and the cargo stopped coming, they tried to revive the cargo by imitating these actions, building crude runways and mock airplanes as shown at right. They also set up alters where they would ritualistically shuffle paper. But the ships never came in.

American facility advocates seem to be following a similar cult. They copy form — like the crude copy of an airplane — without understanding function. That’s how we end up with door zone bike lanes and dangerous sidepaths.

Richard Feynman, the famous American physicist, discussed the Cargo Cult approach to making sense of observations and said: “[W]e really ought to look into theories that don’t work, and science that isn’t science.”

Peter Rosenfeld

Collingswood, NJ

Please be careful what you ask for; please re-think asking for more bicycle lanes.

Four inches of paint cannot think for you. Four inches of paint is an illusion of safety, not real safety.

Driving your bicycle as as normal part of traffic is already safe.

What is the purpose of a bicycle lane? As far as I am aware there are two:

1) To keep you from using the road that is rightfully yours. Car drivers use the road by privilege after receiving permission from the state (driver’s license and license plate for the car). Bicyclists use the road by right. No permission is necessary. And no bicycle registration fees are necessary because our bicycles do no harm to the road. Our bicycles also do not kill 35+ thousand people per year. Lanes are an effective way to keep you shunted to the side so that car drivers can ignore you.

2) To encourage more people to ride bicycles. Notice the interesting contradiction between these two reasons. Some bicycle advocates want more lanes because they want more people to ride bicycles. Some novices like bicycle lanes because they have yet to learn how to effectively and safely drive their bicycles in traffic. A big problem arises, however, when lanes are painted that are actually more dangerous than the road — door-zone lanes for example.

The full article has a link to an interesting video Why You Should Avoid the Door Zone.

Durango is a Silver-level bicycle friendly community. Lots of people are biking there. It did seem quite accomodating. Our hotel, the lovely Rochester, even had a fleet of cruisers that could be signed out.

But why, I kept asking, are some of its quiet, wide city streets striped with door zone bike lanes? There is often plenty of room to “share the road”. Why consign cyclists to the door zone in a bicycle-friendly community? Some of those bike lanes were absolutely unnecessary and if anything, took away from Durango’s bicyclist-friendliness.

More here, on my own site.
http://labikes.blogspot.com/2011/06/durango-co-door-zone-bike-lanes.html

As soon as I stopped over the loop wire, I heard a distorted announcement about the specials. Then a young lady asked for my order.

When I turned the corner of the building and rolled up to the payment window, she did a double take on seeing my bicycle and went back to ask others whether I was allowed at the drive-up window. She came back to announce “We’ll serve you today but don’t do it again”.

I told her that my bike is a legal vehicle and mumbled something about prejudiced based on ignorance as I paid for the sandwich.

When I went to the pick-up window, I saw a fellow who looked and acted like a manager. I mentioned the trouble at the payment window. He said “no problem” and that bicycles, motorcycles, cars, etc. could all use the drive thru.

So far this is turning out better than the last time I went to a drive-thru. Several years ago, I was denied service at a Wendy’s in Cleveland. When I protested, I was warned they would call police. I’ve not been to a Wendy’s since.

I plan to follow up with MacDonald’s to see whether the corporation is concerned about turning away customers. Stay tuned

— Fred

The only worthwhile League program I see now is Smart Cycling, the education program. Unfortunately, education is the poor stepchild of “encouragement”. The worst of these encouragement programs is Bicycle Fiendish Communities, which, among its many evils, undermines the educational program.

There is a better education program that does not suffer the handicap of a board hostile to cyclists who act as drivers. See Cycling Savvy

I had kept my membership until now in hopes that reform candidates would win the League back to members’ control. For the 2010 election, we made a vigorous effort to collect petition signatures to get our three candidates on the ballot. However, certain League officials resorted to shameful conduct to obstruct the petition drive. You can see details at labreform.org

Despite blatantly obstructive behavior by certain League officials, our petition candidates got about as many signatures as the top vote-getter in the actual election. If the election process had been run fairly, they undoubtedly would have won their seats.

More than 400 signatures was not enough to get on the ballot because of sneak bylaws changes made in 2003. (The bylaws changes followed another election scandal.) The latest board election makes it obvious that the hostile takeover of the League has succeeded.

The League is no longer a democratic organization. although it pretends to be one.

I’ve had enough. I’m joining the lengthening list of *former* League members some of whom asked “What took you so long.” We can keep in touch through forums that support our goals, such as Chainguard, bicycledriving and, of course, LAB Reform.

Fred Oswald
cycle-safety.com
bikelaws.org
labreform.org

Update: Eli Damon published letters from two more recent ex-League members on his blog Cycles

Some of these dangers are shown in More Misplaced Advocacy: What’s wrong with this picture? and Bicycle Blunders and Smarter Solutions: Blunders in Planning, Engineering & Facilities. The photo below shows a door zone bike lane — a known danger.

So let’s think about that. The last time I had an injury from cycling was 1982. Not a bad safety record. In that respect, and that respect only, I do shamelessly insist that most cyclists should ride more like I do.

There are some things that follow from that. Injury-reducing behaviors should be encouraged. Injury-increasing behaviors should be discouraged.

Normally we find ourselves talking about how facilities and/or education affect cyclist behavior. But today I want to focus on a smaller issue and see if I can bury it. This issue is the smaller differences in riding behavior among knowledgeable, aware cyclists.

There are some things a cyclist should never do: one should never ride facing traffic, never ride at night without lights, never blast through stop lights at busy intersections.

But knowledgeable cyclists can get so caught up in their personal way of doing things that they make absolute stands on things that are minor judgment calls.

The judgment call that inspired this essay was about when to hold one’s position in a lane, versus when to take a position farther to the right to facilitate overtaking by motorists.

Knowledgeable cyclists understand the basics: if you claim more space, overtaking motorists give you a wider berth when passing. They see from a farther distance back that they can’t just skim by you, and they begin their lane-changing (or lane-straddling) maneuver earlier.

An assertive cycling position also helps motorists, making them less likely to make a mistake.

Some times, it’s just fine to ride farther to the right. Other times, you may use a combination of the two positions, called “Control and release” by the authors of the Cyclingsavvy.org educational program.

But when you get into an e-mail discussion about what you’d do on a particular road, it gets awkward. E-mail can be a less gracious discussion forum. It’s hard to write a truly complete picture of the roadway situation. And different people will make different judgment calls.

What works best is to think in terms of tools and options.

Lane position is a tool. Letting people overtake is an option.

What we want people to understand are the benefits and downsides of various tools and options, not to think “I must do XYZ all the time to be doctrine-pure.” In my own cycling, I sometimes ride to facilitate overtaking. However, on some roads, I insist on riding in the left-most position for specific reasons (avoiding poor pavement, better positioning as I approach intersections and discouraging unsafe passing).

There are other tools that can inspire heated debate. A partial list: Rear view mirrors. (They give handy information, but some people use them to enable unwarranted paranoia.) Hand signals to overtaking motorists. (Sometimes can be a well-appreciated courtesy, sometimes can be misinterpreted or followed poorly.) Filtering forward. (Has hazards that many riders don’t understand and therefore they can’t manage those hazards, but it also can speed up your trip time.)

I have read many passionate discussions about these issues. The discussions underscore something I strongly believe: none of the people who really understand this stuff are at significant risk for a bicycle/motor vehicle collision. Aware cyclists may ride slightly differently from one another, but they all understand how to interact with other road users well enough to keep their butts safe. That understanding is far more important than the differences in their behaviors.

This, by the way, holds true for many paint and path advocates: they are personally safe because they understand the risks. We’ve ‘splained those risks to them, and many of them reveal a reasonably acute understanding of those risks in their personal riding style and in their conversation.. (However, I differ with the paint-and-path people who do not feel a moral obligation to explain the risks to the novice. The belief, which some of them hold, that novice cyclists can simply follow the magic paint, has been proven wrong, body bag after body bag.) The attitude that most cyclists cannot
learn good techniques is elitist and unethical.

What matters is that you have insight and understanding—not rigid adherence to a particular technique.

From a League email:

From: League of American Bicyclists
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 09:35:23 -0700
Subject: The League Headset _ Vol. 1, Issue 2

Board Election Results

The polls closed a few days ago; the preferential voting calculations have been made; candidates have been notified…and the results are in. Diane Albert, Alison Hill Graves and Steve Durrant join incumbents Harry Brull and Hans van Naerssen  on the League’s board. Thanks to all seven of the candidates who ran for the open positions. We will officially announce the results in Monday’s American Bicyclist e-newsletter update, and we’ll post the voting numbers and explanation of the voting system on the website. A total of 560 members cast their votes – a small percentage, for sure, but a 30 percent increase over prior elections.