Posts, email, and ideas related to bicycling and bicycle advocacy.
I post these mostly for my own convenience in being able to keep them archived and searchable, but if you get some use of them, more power to you!
Among other interesting items here is a fairly complete record of my involvement with the grassroots effort in support of the BikeKC initiative in the Summer of 2002.
You can find everything from press releases to letters to the city council to exhortations to other bicyclists to write letters to the editor. See what worked well and what caused us problems in the effort to pass BikeKC.
From my point of view, this was almost a picture-perfect grass-roots movement. The result was that BikeKC was passed on August 15th, 2002.
Now we have to work to make sure the plan becomes reality!
Most of that is in the 8/25/2002-8/31/2002 archive.
Subject: Re: BikeKC Passed Thursday
Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
> Huh? Bike lanes ARE dangerous. They collect all kinds of debris, they
Oh, dear. I've gone and mentioned the words "b*k* l*n*s" again,
setting the flamebots off on another automated feeding frenzy. I
should know better.
But let me throw out just one more little tidbit before standing firm
forever after in my resolve to Never Again Feed The Wild Animals (the
rangers assure me that although they look ferocious and smell yet
worse, when left alone in their native habitat they are actually quite
docile and survive well enough on a diet of bland native berries and
grubs, which they spend their day long collecting and digesting).
So let me expand on the following just a little, because it's kind of
funny and pathetic at the same time:
I wrote:
> He ranted for quite some time, in two separate meetings that day,
> about the terrible, mortal danger faced by bicyclists anywhere on any
> city street, especially on arterial roads, argued forcefully that all
> bicyclists should ride on "safe" off-road bike trails, waved around
> lurid headlines (from Foresterite web pages, which he totally
> misunderstood and misinterpreted) screaming B*K* L*N*S DANGEROUS FOR
> BICYCLISTS,
Mr. Ford handed out a printout of a web page that debated the relative
merits of bike lanes and wide curb lanes in a rather overexcited,
sensationalistic, and inflammatory way. Of course, the conclusion of
the thing was, "B*k* l*n*s = bad, unsafe; wide curb lanes = good,
safe".
First, before we all feel obligated to descend in a biting, clawing,
gouging, ripping, tearing, underhanded, underwear twisting attack on
my general intelligence, looks, and sexual interests, let me state for
the record that I personally agree with the general thrust of the
argument for wide curb lanes. But this particular web site, if it
really wished to be convincing and believable, could have been a
little more cautious and considered in its claims and a little less
lurid in its headlines.
At any rate, all that is moot because Mr. Ford obviously hadn't
understood the thrust of the argument on the web page at all.
Probably he hadn't even read it entirely. Because after he had
pointed to the headline of the page ("B*k* L*n*s Dangerous for
Cyclists" or something along those lines) as a lead-in to a long
speech about how b*k* l*n*s are the Spawn of Satan and anyone
promoting on-street cycling a merchant of death, one of the other
council members happened to ask a question about where cyclists would
ride on the routes without b*k* l*n*s.
Of course, the Public Works spokesman explained that on roads without
striped b*k* l*n*s, bicyclists would be sharing a lane with motorists.
Well, this set Mr. Ford off in a spluttering paroxysm of excitement.
"What!? Share a lane with a car? The very height of danger and
stupidity! Even worse than b*k* l*n*s!!!"
In other words, he exactly contradicting the argument of the web page
he had just distributed and heartily endorsed.
By the way, if you want to see some arguments for wide curb lanes that
are actually factually oriented and convincing, try
(By the way, in the story above, the quotes from Mr. Ford are not
exact--I don't have nearly the memory for that--but simply my general
recollection and re-construction of the thrust of his content and
tone. I'm sure I've exaggerated just a little. After all, what's the
point of telling a story about yourself if you can't make yourself
come off as a sainted figure personifying the wisdom of the ages,
while painting your opponent as the blustering pompous little ass you
wish he really were . . . )
