Does LAB belong in Bikes Belong?

The Alliance for Biking & Walking, Bikes Belong, and the League of American Bicyclists — the three largest national bicycling advocacy organizations — intend to merge into one group.

Tim Blumenthal, head of the industry-backed Bikes Belong, will lead the new organization.

This is very concerning.

The claim is that this strange merger might create a stronger, more effective organization. But the opposite seems much more likely.

First off, i'm very worried about the fact that we will have fewer voices, even if there is a possibility that the only remaining voice is a little bigger.

I think it's been great having Bikes Belong in the mix these last few years. Finally having an industry voice was very valuable and it worked well with the League. But to let it take over our 100 year old advocacy organization -- that is a disaster. LAB has always been the check and balance on the bicycle industry, and often pressured the industry to focus more on transportation than various unnecessary dead ends. But now the industry is going to actually run LAB?  Bikes Belong, formed primary by Trek and often guided by the League, is a relatively recent attempt by the American bicycle corporations to advance bicycling. It is an industry group supporting a pro-industry agenda.

For over a century (the entire history of the bicycle!) the LAB/LAW name was the gold standard. They were steadfast and dependable in their strong and thoughtful support for all cyclists.  While by no means perfect, they are one of the most effective organizations i know of.  Not only are they responsible for bicycles being allowed by law on every street in every State (the main advocacy push of the 1970s) but they also advocated for and got PAVED STREETS! (The main advocacy push of the 1890s!)  Now it is proposed that they became simply an arm of the bicycle manufacturing companies?

Mature movements have many voices with different perspectives. That is essential. That diversity is a good thing.  In the last few years it seemed that we (the bicycle movement) were finally maturing. I love that flowering:  the multiple different groups and sub-movements,  many voices of many different bicyclists, different perspectives and viewpoints. Consolidating into only one voice seems like a terrible step backwards from that maturity, marginalizing us yet again, not only on the local scene but on the national scene. At least on the national level we have always, always had someone we could depend on to stand up for us: The League of American Bicyclists. Ooops!

We do want the bike industry in the public sphere, talking to Congress and localities and we need the League speaking out -- they are the most important organization in the history of bicycling.   And we need them to be independent of the bike industry, to work with it but also to put pressure on it.


Secondly, mixing the Alliance for Biking and Walking in with the big bike organizations is clearly a big setback for both pedestrian advocacy, which will be overwhelmed by the bikes, and for cycling advocacy. Cycling's two biggest voices, soon to be only one voice, will have to make time and room for pedestrian issues. That could feel like (and could really be) an afterthought, and that would be a tragedy for pedestrians. Or it could cut into the ability to speak for the nation's bicyclists, which would also be terrible. Pedestrians, that's ALL OF US, need a strong national voice, it's hard to imagine how that voice will survive this merger.



Third, and worst, by lumping cyclists and pedestrians into a single block, we send the message to the opposition that we're all the same, with the same crazy demands trying to interfere with the 'normal' drivers. It makes it sound like we're just a bunch of irrational anti-car people with no clear message.

It perpetuates the idea that bikes and pedestrians are the same, with the same needs, ignoring the fact that, while most cyclists support pedestrian issues, and some pedestrians support bike issues, our space (in the city) our needs and our priorities are not only very different but very often in conflict. These conflicts will only increase as urban cycling increases. It is important for all of us that all of those needs are addressed full time by strong voices for both bikes and pedestrians.


The fact that industry rep Blumenthal will be CEO, not Executive Director indicates that the players themselves do not see this as a non-profit organization. Does that mean they also don't see it as a membership organization? Or are they just trying to get the extensive, activist membership to support the for-profit bike industry?

Since the 1890s The League has been a membership based organization. They have used that strength, as the voice of REAL cyclists, to effect great change.  Again, it is the idea that MANY VOICES are stronger than just one.  For decades, the bicycle industry just wanted to focus on new inventions and expensive toys. The industry is largely responsible for the widespread idea that bicycling is recreational only. It abandoned transportation cycling in the 1960s and pushed hard AGAINST transportation cycling throughout the 1990s, pushing people to buy over-engineered mountain bikes, and the 2000s forcing everyone towards farcical racing machines. These mistakes are at the core of many of the issues we struggle with today.

The League of American Bicyclists has been our steadfast voice throughout this: representing bicyclists and pushing back against the industry. Now they are merging with, and probably being consumed by a private industry group? How do you do that with a membership organization? I don't understand.


Andy Clark, the president of LAB says on his blog that none of the groups are in trouble, and that no programs will be reduced, no one laid off.

But we all know that mergers never happen because everyone is strong: they happen because one or more players are weak. When there is no good purpose for this surprise announcement, and a lot of concerns, i have to ask: why now? What is the pressing need to weaken our strongest voice and silence the chorus in favor of a monolithic voice of private industry?

Invisible Routes

A friend thanked me today for showing him a new cycling route last week. He said it with a significant amount of surprise. He's a very experienced cyclist. We had ridden a pleasant route on a neighborhood street, bypassing a bad arterial with almost constant conflicts. At the time i had to take some shit for not riding on the really bad street we usually ride on. This is not the first time.

I am truly baffled by this.

There is finally some talk on the internet about driver privilege. It's about time! I feel like i've been a lone voice for a long time, and frankly not a very effective voice. I'm glad the discussion is spreading. It's time cyclists stopped blaming themselves.

It worries me how many cyclists both fall victim to this kind of thinking, and by repeating it, propagate it further. I know many cyclists, car-free, bike transportation people, who insist on riding on the most unpleasant roads... "because we can". I am very capable of riding in heavy car traffic, i've done it successfully for over 30 years. I know the law well and i know we have a right to do it. A legal right and a moral right.

I passionately believe, as i have for 40 years, that bikes are transportation not toys. I believe... i know that we are equal to (and often superior) to cars. These ideas are becoming more widespread, as they should.

But why are so many cyclists afraid to admit that bicycling is fun?!? Why do so many cyclists make such a strong effort to make their own ride unpleasant? It's like they think we have to suffer for it to be acceptable... just because people in cars are suffering. Maybe they think if they admit that riding is fun they will somehow lose the right to be part of the transportation system? That's an understandable unconscious fear i think we all struggle with. (There's a future blog post in that idea.)

But that concern is based in the cultural idea that we, as cyclists, are doing something inherently wrong and it seems many of us feel we have to pay for that by suffering as much as possible. What's so wrong with riding down a pleasant street instead of jumping into the middle of an angry polluted mob of death machines?

I'm not saying we shouldn't be on major streets, and i don't want to be mis-construed in any way that makes it seem like i'm trying to move bikes down the hierarchy below cars. Bicycles should be allowed on any street and streets through shopping districts should be made as (truly) bicycle friendly as possible. But really, as cyclists, we need to be a lot better at route finding. Enjoying the commute makes cycling more legitimate, not less.

I'm not talking about doubling the distance or anything. On occasion the more pleasant routes are a tad longer, usually they are the same distance -- and even when they are longer, a quarter of a mile here and there seems well worth it to me. (I like riding my bike!) There are a few cases where the nasty route is considerably shorter, but that's rare. And in many of those cases, considering all the factors, i would still advocate for the pleasant route.

I don't understand why cyclists absolutely freak out when a pleasant route is suggested over a nasty one. The resistance is huge. And it happens almost every time i suggest one. I automatically brace myself for it now. They often shut me down before i finish the sentence, like i'm being vulgar, or more likely, breaking a taboo.

They never come right out and say it, but it's clear that many cyclists think there is some kind of surrender involved in riding a quiet, pleasant route rather than a miserable route full of cars. As if it were a moral lapse, a spiritual sacrifice, an ideological flaw, a personal weakness or a political capitulation to commute by bike and actually enjoy it.

Perhaps they have a unresolved feeling transplanted from other modes that commuting, getting from one place to another, is supposed to be very unpleasant, so if they actually enjoy it, they are cheating, not doing it right; might as well just forget it and drive a car. And that's the experienced riders, most new or prospective cyclists, after they get over their surprise that there ARE other routes, react with concern to a suggestion of a residential route for fear that it might be longer or more hilly. I understand that fear, although i think it is misplaced in a couple of ways: it's often not longer and so what if it is!

Strangely i find that when pushed into the more pleasant route, most people prefer it, but they feel very guilty! Time and distance aside, there is just so much more benefit from riding the backstreets. It's better exercise, great experiences, educational and just fun. It is living well.

Sometimes in our car-head, motorist privileged culture people just forget that there is any landscape, any city scape, any neighborhood, any real estate that is not on major streets. Everything else becomes invisible. This is a serious mistake.

I'm not saying we should NEVER ride on arterials, and i'm not even saying that pleasant routes are as fast from A to B as the ugly ones (although the in the majority of the cases any time savings is far less than 'optimum' claims).  I am not suggesting we should ALWAYS ride pleasant routes but i am surprised at how many cyclists refuse to EVER ride pleasant routes.

So i'm not suffering. I'm not wishing i was in a car and i'm not wishing i was on that highway fighting with cars. I'm enjoying seeing, experiencing, learning about and enjoying my city, the people, the weather, the landscape and my ride through it. I absolutely love experiencing these streets, being a part of these neighborhoods. Being there. It's why i ride.

The Air Horn

I have this air horn for my bicycle. It was given to me -- it was kind of a joke, kind of an award. I don't think it was a comment on how i ride -- I hope not.

The horn mounts on the handlebars. It's connected to a bottle that fits into a water bottle cage, you pump air into it with a bike pump, pump to a really high pressure. It's loud. It's REALLY loud. I don't like to be close to it.

About a week ago i mounted it on the newly painted bike. Mounting it was also kind of a joke -- i was going to be riding with the folks who gave it to me. They laughed when they saw it. I honked it a few times for fun, in industrial areas away from homes or people. The cyclists with me didn't want to be in front of me when i honked it.

I rode with it for a week. I never once used it for it's intended purpose. But i thought about it a lot. I didn't actually ever think about using it, but i thought about the horn.

There are lots of minor conflicts daily with motorists who are distracted, aggressive or clueless. But all of those, even the frustrating ones, i handle without the need for sounding like an 18 wheeler. Sometimes i get annoyed, mostly i just stay alert and take action. I rarely, if ever, get into a verbal conflict.

So riding along i started thinking about how this thing might be used. There are really only two ways: prophylactic or punitive.

It could be used as a prophylactic measure -- to prevent something. If something was about to happen i might use it to try to prevent a conflict. A loud burst on the horn might, perhaps, alert a driver who was doing something crazy, like the Taxi cab last week that was baring down on me on a one lane residential street. But in those situations i'm more concerned with taking evasive action, my finger does not naturally go looking for the horn button while i'm getting out of the way.

Or it could be used as a punitive measure -- in anger, after someone threatened me and the danger had passed. Punishment. The other night a Cadillac switched to my side of the street flipped their bright lights and drove straight at me. I could've blasted the horn as i squeezed by them. But my being a jerk because they were a jerk would not make it better. That's not who i want to be.

Today a car ran a stop sign in front of me, didn't slow down, didn't even pretend to stop. THIS. This was the only situation where it might make sense to use the horn. But i didn't. I yelled, but my natural reaction was to take evasive action and keep both hands on the bars.

It's a fun thing but there really is no good time to use it. I removed it from the bike today. If i'm ever in a parade maybe i'll put it back on.

Bicycle Advocacy Made Simple

I've been told i should write a book about Bicycling and Bicycle Advocacy and i may just do that. I have a lot to say. But the more i think about it all, the simpler it becomes. In fact, i find the same basic kernel at the heart of each and every argument about minutia.

A few years ago on a very long ride i realized that i could put everything that is important for cycling on a T-shirt. It would include the distilled message that fully explains what Cyclists need to know and follow, as well as what Motorists need to know and follow.

On the back, for Motorists it would say:
ADULTS CAN WAIT THEIR TURN. And on the front, for Cyclists, it would say... exactly the same thing.