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
