Mar 03 '08 - 874 W, 2 I - Vote Good + 11 :: Bad - 11 bicycle advocacy: FAIL. Bike Activism, WANT!
Published March 3, 2008 by C.I.C.L.E.
By Alex Thompson
Photo: A poster concerning parking from a recent transportation workshop organized by the City of Santa Monica
My good friend and fellow Bikerowave volunteer David Pulsipher criticized the behavior of cyclist's at a February 20th's LA Bike Master Plan meeting. I disagree with David, the time for quiet discourse with city staff has past. That is why I and others assertively criticized presenters - it was the right thing to do.
Where has low volume friendly advocacy gotten LA the last 2 years? Nowhere. The bulk of the 1996 & 2002 Bike Master Plans have not been implemented, and city officials are still touting death traps like Sepulveda as "bike ways". Since 2002, within the 469 square miles of LA, the city has added 7 miles of "bike ways" per year, which works out to 79 feet per square mile per year. Their slogan should be "Deadly bike network slated for 2050!" Despite our alleged friends within the city, the Planning Department isn't doing us any favors.
When the city ignores our needs we first look to infrastructure advocates, such as the well funded LACBC, for aid. Unfortunately, the LACBC has failed to win improvements for cyclists. Meanwhile, social bike organizers, all volunteers, have built a huge bike culture in Los Angeles. CICLE, volunteer run, has built a website which informs cyclists and is a powerful pulpit for setting the agenda. The three bike collectives - Bike Oven, Bike Kitchen, and Bikerowave - coordinate cohorts of volunteers to conduct direct outreach on a daily basis. Thousands of bikers participate in Midnight Ridazz rides organized by volunteers.
Why are funded infrastructure advocates failing when social bike organizers are succeeding? Because their tactics, derived from the early days of bicycle advocacy, are outmoded.
Without mass support from cyclists the lone bicycle advocate did the best he could: he made nice with public officials. The bicycle advocate's only hope was that out of the goodness of their hearts' officials would make the changes he desired. The context dictated his methods. For years this was the context for cyclists in Los Angeles - few of them, disconnected, limited to whispering advocacy from the back of the room.
There is a huge base of cyclists in Los Angeles now. They're better networked and they're furious with lethal cycling conditions and insensitive civil servants. The social bike organizers who created this base have learned to continuously grow and engage the community. They understand how to catalyze mass participation. They set the stage for a breed of political cyclist new to LA: the Bike Activist.
The Bike Activist concerns herself with enabling a mass movement of cyclists to get what they need. With the skills of the social bike organizer she mobilizes political pressure to implement the dreams of the bicycle advocate. Her goal is participation on a massive scale, so she doesn't discuss politics quietly over coffee, she boisterously argues means and ends next to the keg with bikers. When she meets with a city official the room is crowded with the implied presence of hundreds of cyclists. Even if it's uncomfortable, the Bike Activist employs confrontation as one of her tools. After all, from confrontation comes a desire for resolution, and resolution entails improvements for the people she serves, bikers.
In the midst of the rancor Wednesday night an LACBC board member cornered me to explain that confrontational criticism is a mistake. He argues that "we've got a lot of friends on the inside, and we don't want to offend them." That's the bicycle advocate's way of thinking. He assumes that he has no political base. With that frame of mind, token positions and friendship become cheap means to pacify bicycle advocates.
The Bike Activist thinks differently. This is the big city, so officials don't consult their MySpace friend network to make decisions. Instead they balance the political pressures they face, or they lose their job. The Bike Activist knows this, and since she speaks to the critical masses, she has the capability to apply political pressure. She recognizes that uncritical deference is not the basis for a true friendship. Instead, communication and respect are the basis of true political friendships, just as in normal friendship.
One Department of Transportation official made the deference to political pressure very clear. That official repeatedly rejected ideas to make room for cyclists on Pico or Olympic as physically impossible. There's nothing physically impossible about such proposals, there's plenty of roadspace. That official has so internalized the political pressures that she believes the politically difficult to be physically impossible.
Cyclists challenged that official, which is appropriate and necessary. Even more importantly, we must challenge "friends" who disrespectfully present us with a false opportunity to comment on the update of a flawed plan - a plan which departments have casually ignored. It is time for Bike Activists pick up the tattered dreams of bicycle advocates and rush to the front lines to lead the charge.
Would you like to contribute to C.I.C.L.E.? Do you a have bike-related article, news story, event, idea, suggestion, etc...? Check out our submissions page.
“Going along to get along” is an old, tired and ineffective strategy that has yielded the cycling community no ground.
Our very existence on the streets is a confrontational slap in the face of our transportation status quo.
Even getting in line for a bowl of porridge is perceived as “pushy” and asking for seconds is just downright aggressive.
If demanding “equality” is simply not one’s style, at least support those who are willing to step up and fight the good fight.
See you on the Streets!
SoapBoxLA (Email) (URL) - March 04 '08 - 00:07
75 cyclist make a little noise at a Bicycle Master Plan Workshop and a debate breaks out over appropriate tactics.Cyclists in L.A. have such a long distance to go before being considered equal users of the road. We should be throwing everything we can into the battle. And it’s a battle.
Go Activism!
Enci (Email) (URL) - March 04 '08 - 01:13
It’s time to attack the purveyors of garbage information in our society. The mainstream media. We are seeing the bike activist break out of his/her shell and embrace cultivated yet aggressive tactics to get heard and to get notoriety. It’s time to simply stand up and say. “Hey fucko, gimme my piece of the road. I doth not party nicely!”\n\nwe need to confront the corporations where it hits them. during their “fluffy feel good” bullshit pieces that pretend to be eco-friendly while behind our backs they are working covertly with their pulsating throbbing highly funded team of lawyers. \n\nI agree 100% The New School is here. FUNs. Midnight Ridazz, C.R.A.N.K. Mob, TREN WAY, Armadillos, Fluffaz, Cruz With Us, Los Angelopes, Cubcamp, Lil Pups, Black Lung, Armed Librarians, Sins and Sprockets. Fucking bike for our right to party.com\n\ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGT63Muoy..Rhode Bloch - March 04 '08 - 03:23
To paraphrase a popular song, “I’m not ready to make nice….I’m not gonna back down”. Better yet, in the words of Malcom X, “it’s time to stop singin’ and start swingin’”.Thom (Email) - March 04 '08 - 09:56
the time for quiet discourse with city staff has pastin my article, i was not advocating “quiet discourse,” rather – honest and respectful discourse. having worked in/with/for government at the city, regional and federal level – its been my experience that the people who get things done are the ones who seek to promote rational discourse with those across the aisle from them… not the knee-jerks.
i think there is a time when confrontational tactics are necessary, and at the bike meeting i don’t think they were/are.
“every little girl thinks her doll is the best. don’t tear it to shreds to prove it’s made of sawdust. give her a new one, and she’ll leave the old.”
i think if you give people respect and then show concern, conviction, and compassion for what you are advocating – it’s more effective than combativeness. especially at a meeting where everyone was essentially supporting the same thing. everyone there wanted more bikes on the road, to make la a better place to bike, etc.
david p. (Email) (URL) - March 04 '08 - 09:57
Here’s the challenge. Let’s have Planning & LADOT hold a meeting for the community in a building that has bike parking, that is located on a street with a well maintained curb lane, free of pot-holes and debris, all supported by a well-trained law-enforcement department, well-attended because they actually reached out to the community and that opens with a vision for the Bicycle Master Plan.Until they can do that, I think they need to be evaluated on their performance.
As for the past four Bicycle Master Plan Workshops:
They were unable to find a single location that had bike parking. (props for the temporary solutions but the lack of bike parking, in spite of LAMC requirements, indicates failure to perform since the last BMP)
The streets we took to the four meetings were some of the least hospitable streets in Los Angeles. Vermont – potholes so deep they have safety cones in them? Santa Monica Boulevard – bike lanes that don’t get street cleaning, littered with broken glass and then ending abruptly dropping cyclists in the middle of four westbound lanes. Van Nuys – curb lane deterioration so bad that the gutter pan starts to look attractive. Anaheim Boulevard – a bike lane over the Bridge in Wilmington so littered we didn’t realize it was a bike lane until the sand cleared and we saw the text (“ike ane”) and then we continued on, dodging hubcaps, auto parts and lumber.
Make no mistake, unless the Bicycle Master Plan starts off with the simple and fundamental premise that “Cyclists are EQUAL Users of the Road” then the BMP fails.
SoapBoxLA (Email) (URL) - March 04 '08 - 10:43
I agree steve – the conditions of the roads to the meeting are indicative of poor infrastructure and implementation of the previous plan. i think that somewhere the city council and mayors office are more at fault for this than the people in the city, on our side, working for the cause.thoughts?
david p. (Email) (URL) - March 04 '08 - 11:41
I don’t really feel that this is a black and white issue. I value the different perspectives stemming from both camps, and there’s definitely a time and place for different methods and tactics.In previous commentary filed under David’s piece, there was much talk about using anger as a method for building the movement and creating change. Utilizing anger as a catalyzing force can be very effective. And I recognize the value in it, but I also recognize that not everyone feels comfortable operating from that platform. Anger is a difficult emotion to carry for the long term. And the long-term effort is what we’re in. Let’s see, it took Copenhagen about 40 years to get to where they are today. That pretty much takes me to the end of my days—if I’m lucky.
For me, it’s not healthy or even desirable to vibe off that adrenaline-rich state for the long-term. It’s not that I believe in selling out to local bureaucrats and compromising on the vision—I believe in taking a stance that is resolute yet diplomatic. At the same time I recognize that this is my ‘thing’, and perhaps not your ‘thing’—and we can and do coexist. And like chocolate and vanilla, our contrasting flavors can even be complimentary.
I’m not yet convinced that we’ve explored or exhausted all of our options with regards to bike advocacy here regionally—quite the contrary. This is the first time I’ve witnessed such a growth of the cycling community here in Los Angeles, and in my mind, we’re just getting started. There is tremendous diversity in our community, and this is something to celebrate. It’s vital that the face and force of the cycling community remain varied, and while our voice can be focused, it can simultaneously retain diversity and complexity. Our differences can be our strength.
Shay (Email) (URL) - March 04 '08 - 12:20
preach it sista shay.david p. (Email) (URL) - March 04 '08 - 12:42
By focusing on the confrontation we’re all missing the point a little bit.The core message here is that activists need a diverse set of tools so that they are able to use the appropriate tool for each situation. The bicycle advocate fails because he employs only one tool – make friends one on one. That simply isn’t working anymore, so he’s failing.
What I’m suggesting is that we can become effective again by adding to our tool set, and being willing to use a the right tools at the right time. When it comes to infrastructure advocacy here’s some tools we need to remember to use:
– mass participation – speaking to people’s sense of being ignored – if people are angry, use that energy to get them engaged – confrontation, public criticism – FUN (Roadblock is apt to remind us of that)
These are tools many have overlooked because in the past they wouldn’t work = we didn’t have the mass base to utilize those tools effectively. Now we do.
Bike Activists need to employ a holistic approach.
Now, to what Shay and David are saying:
Ok, David is saying that we ought to have a respectful discourse with the city. Shay is saying she doesn’t believe that avoiding anger & tensions is selling out. Agreed. However, the situation in Los Angeles (just the city, not the region) is thus:
1) We have sold out as a community. Not David or Shay or CICLE – certainly, but collectively. The major advocacy org is primarily funded by gov’t grants, and so they’re in a bad position to seriously criticize. Many of the most prominent advocates sit on appointed positions of the LABAC afraid to make any noise on behalf of cyclists. Within the community many think that firm criticism is impolite, rather than simply assertive. As a community we’ve been co-opted, in part by our own insecurities.
2) We can’t have a respectful dialog, because city staff don’t respect us. This was abundantly clear when at the West LA meeting, instead of taking seriously the complaints of bikers, city staff repeatedly told us why we cannot have what we’re asking for. City staff have not responded to the requests for more meetings, or to requests for documentation regarding the grant. In essence we’re being ignored, or when we cannot be ignored, treated like children.
What’s the appropriate tool for getting city staff to respect us and be responsive? I think that it is necessarily negative confrontation. They are ignoring us because they don’t think we are significant. Therefore they are not planning to enable cyclists, at least not where they have other pressures to deal with.
If staff made substantial improvements for cyclists we could give staff a positive indication of our significance by trumpeting those improvements. They’re not going to do that without a big big push. They made this clear when they repeatedly shot down suggestions at each meeting. Furthermore, our own community would not resonate with a trumpeting of the greatness of Planning or DOT.
Our community is angry and cycnical, and rightly so. They have mistreated, overlooked, treated as children, and in some cases betrayed by their own advocates. It’s not right for us as activists to invalidate those emotions = we have no place to criticize those feelings. We should acknowledge the feelings and use them to motivate change. We need to get our community engaged, and the first step is focusing those emotions toward change. We need to create a feeling amongst city staff that ignoring cyclists has negative consequences. Hence, for now, confrontation is often the appropriate tool.
Alex Thompson (Email) (URL) - March 04 '08 - 15:21
Emotion will get you nowhere without money to back it.mtbchick (Email) (URL) - March 04 '08 - 23:52
MTBchick,That’s pithy. Critical Masses have inspired thousands to ride more in this city with next to nothing in capital support. Can you elaborate on what you mean by “emotion will get you nowhere without the money to back it”?
Alex Thompson (Email) (URL) - March 05 '08 - 13:03
“The bicycle advocate fails…”This is a blanket statement, and an unfair one. Perhaps certain people who classify themselves as advocates have failed, and we both know that we are passionately disappointed and angry at that failure. But that failure does not happen because they are advocates, they fail because they are “poor” advocates.
The activist is just as likely to succeed as s/he is to fail—just like the advocate. It’s a common thread we both hang from; that potential for both failure and success.
Has Transportation Alternatives or SFBC failed? These are powerful advocacy organizations, ones I would love to have here in LA. I think many would agree that if TA were in town, we would be pretty damn happy about it. While we may have some complaints, we wouldn’t necessarily feel that our concerns and wants were not being represented downtown.
We could also just as easily be underrepresented or misrepresented by an activist organization. Many activist groups have riled up the troops, made grand promises only to disappear and leave people with that ‘sinking-ship’ feeling.
So while I am glad to see the fire and the strong efforts being made by the “activist”, I think it is time to temper the divisive language for it only serves to mislead our ‘community’ into thinking that only advocates fail and only activists succeed. This is simply untrue.
Liz Elliott (Email) (URL) - March 05 '08 - 14:36
I think mtbchick is on to something.To mount an effective political campaign, bicycling activists will need some source (or sources) of funding.
In New York, the NYC Streets Rennaisance has an internet millionaire paying people to cover this issue.
A scattered volunteer effort that involves only the interests of cyclists is not a winning proposition at the ballot box. We need the backing of different groups – health industry/insurance companies (more bikes = lower rates of car crashes), labor unions (building for bikes = construction contracts), and environmental groups (more bikes, less cars!).
I could go on.
What I am getting at is this: we need a staff of activists to build contact lists, arrange parties and rides, design t-shirts, signs, and web-sites. Fortunately, we’ve already go some alternative transportation writers pumping out actual reporting on issues not covered anywhere in the local media – that can be a big hurdle in making an issue important politically.
Imagine being hired for a job, and your job description is as follows: “Ensure that funding for bicycle projects increases by X%”. Or, “Get the following ordinance passed into law”. How about, “See to it that transit agency policy is changed to measure bikes, pedestrians, and transit users the equal of automobiles”.
Getting these things done requires a few people with a source of money to pay for their living expenses and to cover the costs of mounting non-bicycle related political campaigns.
lesterlute (Email) (URL) - March 05 '08 - 14:43
Even CM needs someones money sometime, just handing out a flyer cost somebody doughredskel (Email) - March 05 '08 - 15:53
redskel,I know that! I’ve probably spent $500 on fliers in the last 3 years. But still, does this compare to the quarter million dollar budget of LACBC? Or the $450K contract that Alta Planning is being paid to redo the LA Bicycle Master Plan? Critical Mass leans on volunteers and passion and accomplishes a feat in mobilizing a social movement for next to nothing in $.
Alex Thompson (Email) (URL) - March 05 '08 - 21:34
the only thing that is needed is FUNding. the rest comes from facts on the ground.Rhode Bloch - March 06 '08 - 16:06
I am responding on behalf of Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition, with a reminder that we’re all on the same side here. There is room in our amazing diverse cycling community for a variety of approaches to creating change. Confrontational or cooperative, these strategies are both completely valid and necessary. We are a chorus of voices trying to inspire and create change, and if some of those voices are angry, then yes, some of our audience will certainly listen to that. But that’s not everyone. And some cyclists I’ve heard from just can’t get behind a confrontational strategy. A two-pronged approach, employing tactics on both sides of this debate, has been effective in New York and San Francisco, and I believe those are good models for us to follow.But you cannot choose for people; they are only going to do what feels right to them. Alex, I’m not about to try to convince you to adopt my and LACBC’s cooperative approach. And you should know that not everyone in LA’s range of cycling sub-groups will pick up and rally around yours. We need BOTH to be effective on a large scale, and we obviously have a lot of work to do.
Those on this list know cycling is the solution to so many problems, and that conditions could be and should be soooo much better in L.A. We all put a great deal of energy into that, in our own ways. But if you direct your blame or anger at a segment of your own community, at an organization that exists for the very same reason you do what you do, that is doing an unfortunate disservice to our entire cycling community.
As for your description of LACBC as “well funded”, I can tell you, from the inside, that is simply not the case. Our annual budget is not even close to the quarter million figure you are quoting. Like many non-profits (we’re a 501©(3) org), we tiptoe along the razor’s edge of financial promise and despair. Yes, we have programs (bike lockers) and projects (transit hub planning with improvements for bicyclists and pedestrians – yes, that’s cooperation at work) that are funded by Metro grants. But much is expected in return for those grants, and they do not amount to much operational income for the organization. For that, LACBC relies on memberships, the generosity of our donors and business partners, and the annual Los Angeles River Ride in June (which is no small feat). Our territory is the entire county, the most populous county in the nation BTW, and that is why growing LACBC membership is a major priority. Every single LACBC member helps us roll towards a goal of being a statistically-significant interest group among 10 million L.A. County residents. Every member counts.
Keep fighting the good fight, Alex. But please remember: we’re all on two wheels here, and we’re in this together.
Jen Klausner (Email) (URL) - March 06 '08 - 18:03
Struggling to keep up with being a volunteer bicycle advocate/activist on a very limited personal budget is certainly a major issue for me. That is why I am increasingly pissed-off at our so-called “friends” in city government who secure funds and draft plans, but are never accountable for making any objectively measurable progress. Having worked with marketing departments and salespeople, I can tell you that they are responsible for backing up their strategies with solid demographic data and achieving goals, or they are fired. We need to hold our representatives up to a similar standard, especially considering it is taxpayer money they are frittering away.angle - March 06 '08 - 18:06
angle, i didn’t make the connection between the friends and the marketing salespeople story… could you flush that out a little better? i’m interested in what you are talking about.jen – you really assessed the situation well. great thoughts.
david p. (Email) (URL) - March 07 '08 - 09:57
Um ya. I read this piece right up to the point the author started in with the, “herself”, “her”, “she”, crap like this was a N.O.W. meeting or something. I get it. For the entirety of human history women have suffered at the hands of men never referring to them in the press. Ya, ya, ya. You go girl.Some of your readers are men. Some men might find your grade-school feminism off-putting. Is this story about cycling in L.A., or yet another men-suck piece from a leftist-extremist? Get politics out of my sport!
Vance (Email) (URL) - March 07 '08 - 10:11
vance – it was written by a man. fyi.david p. (Email) (URL) - March 07 '08 - 11:15
The writer is male. So now that you know that, read the piece again and let us know what you think of the piece itself, regardless of gender. Do you agree or disagree with the authors sentiments?Liz (Email) - March 07 '08 - 11:23
Vance – I double dog dare you to publicly eat crow for this slip on your blog. Double dog dare, you can’t resist! I’ll link to it if you do.So yeah, just throw down on that whole gender thing. I’m definitely a dude. Still the whole gender thing bears explaining. I chose to give the idealized methodologies gender for a few reasons. I think that it provides an easy way to refer to one model or the other, and nicely handles the problem in English that ungendered pronouns are awkward. I think it makes the idealized types more memorable. You’ll see the same thing in the game Go where one player (white stones) will be referred to as “she” and the other (black stones) player as “he” in discussions of pro games. I’m unoriginal.
I chose to assign the Bike Activist female gender because, if I had done it the other way, a lot more people would be pissed, and because my mom would have kicked my ass. Also, because I think that people still push the misguided notion that confrontation is a male approach and cooperation is a female approach. The four people most taking me to task in this thread are women . . .
Alex Thompson (Email) (URL) - March 07 '08 - 11:54
It took Malcolm and Martin to create the synergy that caused a change in the social systems here…I agree with the LACBC statement. Diverse styles and tactics towards shared goals should be encourged.freewheeler (Email) - March 07 '08 - 12:01
Get politics out of my sport!not to beat a dead horse… but… it’s much more than a sport.
david p. (Email) (URL) - March 07 '08 - 12:30
Freewheeler,Other people have made this comparison before (you know who you are.) I think MLK would be embarrassed by the flexibility of our backbone in LA. MLK led marches where people were jailed, sprayed with firehoses, and he was himself jailed several times. He, together with horrible conditions, inspired and catalyzed that level of participation. LACBC is in no way analogous to MLK or the movement he facilitated. The most militant bikers are a flimsy nothing by comparison. X and MLK both pushed so hard that they were vilified by the mainstream and assassinated. So, ummm, bad comparison?
Alex Thompson (Email) (URL) - March 07 '08 - 13:01
Alex… you’re totally right. No effort coming from the LA bike community, (as of yet), matches those spearheaded by MLK or X. As you know, I have used this comparison in the past, but only to illustrate the point that different political platforms and strategies can be equally effective—each engaging different segments of the community and applying political pressure in different ways. In other words… Viva the effective Bike Advocate AND the effective Bike Activist!!Shay (Email) (URL) - March 07 '08 - 14:44
ummm Shay, it’s bicycle advocate, not Bike Advocate. I’ll thank you not to crush my carefully framed words. Death to freedom of speech!Word – I know what you and Freewheeler mean . . .
The thing is, I think that the difference between the X’s camp and MLK’s camp was much more rhetorical than anything else. The fact is MLK’s camp put their ass on the line, and so did X’s. Both sides carried a big stick, their main disagreement was in how to present the issue (in my view.) We need more big sticks. (how very male of me)
Alex Thompson (Email) (URL) - March 07 '08 - 14:50
car-rots! car-rots!david p. (Email) (URL) - March 07 '08 - 15:17
Vance wrote:Get politics out of my sport!
Get your “sport” out of my transportation alternative.
And man up, already, and eat that crow, will you please? You fearless, contrarian, un-PC hunk of man, you.
Pea Sea (Email) - March 08 '08 - 02:43
Your wish is my command Mr. Thompson! Here ya go:\ http://vance.blogsavy.com/2008/03/08/ruf.. don’t you allow anchor tags in your comments? Afraid some one is going to source you? Turn your trackbacks on too, newb. Like you’ve got to worry about spame! heheVance (URL) - March 08 '08 - 08:26
Oh for Pete’s sakehttp://vance.blogsavy.com/2008/03/08/ruf..
Vance (URL) - March 08 '08 - 08:28
Alex, thanks for the write up!\n\nI was also concerned by the tone of discourse exchanged by the city’s bike planners and cyclist at the santa monica workshop (which wasn’t much of a “workshop” if you ask me). But it did remind me that most movements of change don’t occur because people are complacent and happy. In my experiences anger often is a reslut of pain (Nothing like the singe of a red hot poker to get you off your ass!), and after reading about the death of LA rider Harvey Hetland this past week, is it hard to deny the pain is real? The city’s planners can’t possilbly fix this problem with band-aids (“let’s focus on filling the bike route “gaps”’) and expect me to take it as good policy and planning. \n\nIt’s ture, the methods of advocay have to change to include the grassroots/activist as a legit political strategy. Right now, the city is unwilling to accept that into their model, and thus, the potential of failure is high. \n\n- Siku \nI consider myself a very friendly person, when I don’t have worry about Granny in my lane edging me out into the curb.
Siku - March 08 '08 - 11:45
(Fair Disclosure: Jen Klausner is the Executive Director of the LACBC, and Alex Thompson is co-founder of Bikerowave)Jen,
I want to respond to your comments. You write that:
“if you direct your blame or anger at a segment of your own community . . . that is doing an unfortunate disservice to our entire cycling community.”
I’m not sure it’s fair to say I have directed my anger at LACBC with this essay. I have strongly criticized LACBC’s cooperative approach, but if the LACBC tightly associates criticism to anger, then the organization is sicker than I thought.
I have many times directed my energy ineffectively, as CICLE can attest. My first two years of attempts at bike activism were nearly complete failures. The key is in being willing to change your approach when it is clear it is not working. Any advocate who chooses to reevaluate their effectiveness, and change course on the basis of that evaluation, has my deepest respect.
This is the thought process that first led me to question the tactics of bicycle advocates in LA. Ask these questions: What are the predominant tactics employed by bike infrastructure advocates in LA? What is the state of bike infrastructure now as compared to 3 or 5 years ago? The primary tactics have been “cooperative”, and the state of bike infrastructure is nearly unchanged.
It’s tempting to start in with “but conditions didn’t favor . . .”, other qualifications as to why the present approach is unsuccessful, or speculation that success is just around the corner. The hard truth is that we are not succeeding on the infrastructure front as a community. It is time to try something different.
Though LACBC’s approach benefits from the positive connotation that goes with “cooperative”, that approach is not succeeding. Criticism of that approach suffers from the belief that criticism is divisive. The word divisive’s primary meaning is that which divides, and it is only from establishing a clear division between tactics that we are comfortable with, and tactics which can succeed in our context, that we can hope to bring change.
So, while I’m not angry with advocates who employ failing methodologies, I am irritated by the tendency of LACBC leadership to stifle criticism of their organization. It strikes me as unnecessarily defensive and insecure. Only an organization which is secure enough to accept and evaluate criticism, admit it’s failures, and adapt to changing circumstances, can lead this community.
Alex Thompson (Email) (URL) - March 08 '08 - 18:47
david p.:\n\nThe point I was trying to make about sales and marketing people is that they have predetermined goals that they are expected to reach (increase ad sales by 12%, increase circulation by 8%), and they are either rewarded for making those goals (bonuses or other perks), or they are penalized for consistently underperforming (reduced pay, eventual firing). Sales and financial records for the company are used to track the progress of each individual or team, and the employees use extensive market research and demographic information to help them target their efforts.\n\nIn contrast, our bicycle representatives in city government are drafting yet another Bicycle Master Plan, without being able to substantiate how effective the last one was. I can tell you from reading the 1996 plan posted online that there are provisions in there that saddle City Planning and the LADOT with the responsibility of getting statistical data about bicycle usage on the present bikeways we have, which would be invaluable for determining if the existing facilities are working. When I asked about this at the Westside meeting, Michelle Mowery of the LADOT responded by saying that this data was not gathered because the traffic-counting organization (who were supposed to do bicycle counts simultaneously) went out of business, so it never got done (over the course of 12 years). There are numerous other potentially useful action items in the old plan that never got done as well, and I expect that there are excuses like this for all of them.\n\nSo, we continue to throw a substantial amount of public money and resources into drafting a Bicycle Master Plan that may or may not be effective in achieving our goals, with responsibilities for action given to various city entities with no threat of repercussions if they are not followed through on. I suspect this is the case because the real purpose of the Bicycle Master Plan is to secure funding for the city agencies that create infrastructure; it’s a requirement for the city to have a Master Plan if they want to get state money from sources like the Bicycle Transportation Account. In essence, the primary purpose of the Bicycle Master Plan is simply to facilitate infrastructure projects, whether they are good for cyclists or not.\n\nAnyone getting angry yet?angle - March 08 '08 - 20:03
angle,i just don’t believe this:
In essence, the primary purpose of the Bicycle Master Plan is simply to facilitate infrastructure projects, whether they are good for cyclists or not
especially if bicyclists, like us… are the ones requesting the infrastructure projects. our collective experience has so much more depth than field research performed by city staff – it’s why our participation is so crucial
david p. (Email) (URL) - March 09 '08 - 10:10
david:\n\nYou are, of course, free to believe whatever you wish. However, I would urge you to base your opinions on the performance of the previous Bicycle Master Plans, the evidence you have before you on the streets of L.A., and the actions – not the words – of the city representatives who are supposed to be advocating for the needs of cyclists. I do not question the fact that there are some good, progressive ideas put forth by Alta Planning about bicycle infrastructure for the Plan update, but as I keep saying, there are a multitude of great ideas in the 1996 Plan, none of which have ever been implemented. Ask yourself: have the many, many decades of effort into creating Bicycle Master Plans resulted in safe, well-designed streets that encourage non-cyclists to consider using a bicycle for errands or maybe to commute to work? Have the past decades of public input into the Plans resulted in active cyclists getting infrastructure they find useful? How many of our city bicycle representatives actually “walk the walk” by using bicycles for transportation?\n\nIn my opinion, we do not have another decade to waste with these ineffectual policies and procedures. There are immense problems with energy and oil supplies, the environment, our economy and L.A.’s exploding population looming on the immediate horizon. Getting people to use alternative forms of transportation in our city can help deal with some of these issues, but it will require much more than a few miles of lonely bike lanes scattered across the region to pull people out of their cars. At some point, a significant part of our population will not be able to afford to drive a car every day. By that time, it will be far too late to start thinking about how to create an effective alternate transportation system.\n\nJust for fun, here’s another critical assessment of the Bicycle Master Plan process:\n\ http://ubrayj02.blogspot.com/2008/02/la-.. here’s a link to the 1996 Bicycle Master Plan (a fascinating read!), posted at the LADOT site:\n\ http://www.ci.la.ca.us/PLN/Cwd/GnlPln/Tr..angle - March 09 '08 - 21:49
We would remember it always… when, early in 2008, cyclists of many views and convictions carried on a complex debate about how we should proceed as activists and advocates. This debate, though a bit rocky at first, eventually brought the bicycling community together and marked the beginning of an era of renewed strength and direction… And, thus, our Velorution was victorious!rob - March 10 '08 - 10:27
Here, here!Liz Elliott - Co-Director CICLE (Email) (URL) - March 10 '08 - 10:37
Arguing about bike activism is sooo last week. I flamed Vance here:West Coast Bike Blog War = Copious LULZ.
Alex Thompson (Email) (URL) - March 10 '08 - 19:54
holy political diatribe batman!\n\nGreat discussion on methodology and tactics. Thanks for hosting the discourse CICLE! I admit I know little of LA’s history, but as a comparison our (PDX) historically aggressive Bicycle Transportation Alliance has, according to most bikers who have been with them for 10+ years, lost most of its teeth. As much as I would love to lay the blame with some lazy Executive Director, the fact is the membership has become more and more suburban, with urban bike punks rarely paying dues or advocating for specific ideas. Does this relate? I don’t know, but generally organization that work for money pay attention to who is paying.\n\n-revphil (Email) (URL) - April 23 '08 - 04:59
EFF YOU PREVIEW COMMENT BUTTON! EFF YOU TO—- Tartarus!revphil (Email) (URL) - April 23 '08 - 06:25
Hi. Please join the Bicycle to Work! LinkedIn networking group. Members pledge that they will try to ride their bicycle to work or on an errand at least once a week. Although the benefits should be obvious, let me outline them here.Right now people in the industrialized world are facing two very grave problems: obesity and a growing scarcity of oil. Compounding this problem is the new food shortage brought about, in part, by the conversion of food cropland to bio-fuel crop production. Most people feel powerless to help, but there is one thing that we can do. Ride our bicycles to work.
If everyone would agree to ride their bikes to work one day per week we could cut oil consumption by as much as 10-15%. No one would argue that riding a bike burns more calories than driving the car. Although popular politically right now, most bio-fuels consume more energy than they produce. We would be much better to eat those bio-crops then use our own energy to transport us around.
So spread the word. Make it a movement! Bicycle to work one day a week and do your part to cut back obesity and the overuse of oil and precious cropland.
Just go to my profile at http://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffreylsteve.. and you can click on the group to be included. While you are there, don’t forget to ask to link to my network of more than 7,000,000 like-minded professionals. I accept all invitations and look forward to meeting you.
Jeff
jeff (Email) - April 23 '08 - 08:15