Re: Official position on specific bike lane style?

[Jeffrey FRIEDMAN]

I would like to make the fairly bland point that the "bike" distribution list is not an official communication mechanism of the BCGP.  While many of the individuals on the list are affiliated with the BCGP, the list is really just a great forum for discussing bicycle issues in the Philadelphia region.   Therefore, in the future, I would suggest that if anybody seeks the BCGP's "official" position on an issue, they contact the BCGP directly.  These e-mail conversations are great because they allow people to share substantive information as well as vent, but ultimately the most effective way for an individual to communicate with the BCGP would be through a more direct approach, such as contacting the office by telephone or mail.   Just my two cents.   Jeff Friedman   >>> Peter Rosenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08/15/02 01:15PM >>> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Greetings. Thanks again, Peter, for your interest. Can  you please state the > nature and form that this "national discussion" will take?  Will there be > illustrations? Where is it happening?  Who is moderating it? Will it be > archived?   How will it be/is it being distributed? By "representing the > region's position," do you mean the BCGP's, yours, or the local streets > authorities'? I meant the BCGP's, but it would be useful to know the streets authority position if they have one. I already know my opinion. I was surprised that there is concern in representing an official position. As a public bicycling organization that generally supports facilities, I would have thought that they would want to make their opinion public. Sue put out a rather long email on this, but I wasn't sure if she wanted it to represent the Coalition or was just her opinion. I was also  surprised that the Coalition would want to know detailed information about who is using it before releasing information. I wanted an "official" opinion, as opposed to individual opinions, simply because I felt this was the best approach to get a representative viewpoint. I realize that the Coalition is a collection of individuals, all with their own opinions and positions, so it may well be that the Coalition simply doesn't know what the consensus is on this particular lane design. I realize that most people in the Coalition, like myself, are contributing their time and don't have large quantities of it. If it is too controversial or too large an effort for the Coalition to state a position on the safety of these particular facilities, or they feel that details of facilities and their safety are not a particular concern of the Coalition, so that they feel such an effort is not justified, then fine. I'm sorry if I didn't mention what the information was for. I had thought I had in the earlier emails on this discussion and didn't think it was important for this request. My mistake. The discussion I referred to is taking place within the Bicycle Transportation Institute with inputs through BTI members from certain regional planning groups across the country. The BTI is a fairly new organization trying to support safe and effective bicycle transportation in this country. Many members of the BTI board are very experienced in the field of bicycle transportation and have been effective in the past in helping maintain safe bicycling. The result of all of this will, hopefully, be an analysis by the BTI on views on door-zone bike lanes across the country as well as a position paper by the BTI on safe and proper design regarding lanes and parked cars. That's what I will push for. No date is yet specified for the outputs. Like the Coalition, all the members are very busy. But the board of the BTI is made up of very effective people. I am hoping for something this year. When it is generated, I will make sure the Coalition gets a copy. Because I think the Bike Coalition is a major player in facility design and facility support in this region, I thought that it was important that their position was represented. If the Coalition supports the current design of door-zone bike lanes, and can articulate reasons they are useful and safe facilities, I feel that the BTI should be aware of this support. BTI should then look at the reasoning given by the Coalition and make sure they can address the reasoning. This will result in an analysis that will have broader interest to bicycling organizations across the nation. I am acting unofficially and not as a representative of the BTI. But I hope to widen their review of opinions to result in a presentation that will be more effective by responding to a wider variety of viewpoints. > What is the "carrot" (benefit) for > the BCGP and the bicycling community in continuing this discussion? Directly, there is no carrot. But I hope in the long run safer bicycling. In this case, I (and others) feel that there is a very significant safety concern in this particular lane design. I have assumed that the Coalition is interested in issues of safety. The official standards for this situation are conflicting and do not offer proper guidance. Hopefully, BTI can get the guide lines clarified with the result of safer lanes. No guarantees, but I feel trying to achieve safer bicycling facilities is worth the effort for the potential gain. >   In the absence of these, I can't see any real reason to spend further time > researching this issue for the sake of an email discussion. ... > My opinion is that until we have it, any further debate > is unproductive. > > thanks and cheers >   McGettigan I agree that email discussions are often unproductive. So I hope, but cannot guarantee, that a productive output results from all this effort. I feel that the safety issue is strong enough that people should take time out to support this effort. -Peter Rosenfeld ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the Bicycle Coalition of the Delaware Valley list named "bike." To subscribe or unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.