Dear Kirk, Good try to show that bicycle advocacy crosses all boundaries and the "rights of others." Certainly advocacy groups tend to work in that way. Particularly when all the members and the purpose is of "one mind." Advocacy groups are not concerned with the questions of "other's rights" or whether or not their "minority" should hold sway. After all, that is what a "pressure group" is all about. But, once again, that is effective when the "pressure goup" is of "one mind."
Maybe the BFW IS OF ONE MIND. Certainly most who write about this question here are much of one mind in that "they ride bikes" and the world had better "shape up." Maybe the group should "promote bicycling" to others who do not bicycle. I contend that bicycling in the rural areas has been on the decline for years. For seventeen years while I have assembled and run a "totally free" annual time-trial race, called the LOUIS REED TEN MILE TIME TRIAL, only a handful or two bother to come. It is a race for everybody on any kind of bicycle and where a person "only races himself." The few years I have tried to promote this race on "bikies" nobody from Madison or the list has come. We hardly have more riders that the corner guard volunteers in numbers. I don't claim that this alone points to the decline in the road bicycle, but I simply do not see any bicycles when I am out riding in the countryside. Certainly an "advocacy group" has a mission to advocate with the power structure as it exists. It is silly to point fingers at my comments and suggest there is STATE control in most advocacy directions and is part of advocacy. We must deal with reality and the power structures as they exist. But I point out that is not the same as advocating controls against one group at the expense of another. BFW should not pit their "city cousins against their country cousins" over land rights and broader issues. And this is particularly true when the issue has no direct bicycle connection, but merely addresses one's view on interpreting, "quality of life." Working for "top-down" STATE controls in the hopes that will encourage bicycle use is putting the horse before the cart. If more people ride bikes, bike friendly communities will AUTOMATICALLY follow. Of course there should be bicycle infrastructure "in reason." And that will encourage children to ride bicycles more and longer. It has been pointed out that consumers of houses are hasty and don't demand in their own interest. Well, educate them on the advantages of bicycle trails in their neighborhoods and they will demand them. Right now consumers of new houses in most cases don't even demand sidewalks. Children are driven to activities. If their parents are "shown" how sidewalks and bike trails could contribute, such would be universally demanded of and offered in new development. After people do populate a "cul de sac" community without even sidewalks, and then they BECOME BICYCLE CONSCIOUS, they will demand that their local politicians build with their "tax pie" bicycle infrastructure. Regardless of our drumbeat about how "unhealthy" Americans are, we are still in an age where personal health and exercise resonates with most adults. It is to this "market" a bicycle advocacy group should direct itself. There are only so many ways to exercise and if given a choice most might choose the "bicycle" over other means--that was the case with me. And in cities, the advocacy promotion subset is work commuting, the primary issue in Madison. Eric _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
