LAB?

We have heard some alarming things about the changes in the governance of
LAB. I'd like to hear both sides of the story.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | More people object to wearing fur than leather because it is
_`\(,_ | safer to harrass rich white women than motorcycle gangs.
(_)/ (_) |

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 10:56:48 -0500, "David L. Johnson"
wrote:

We have heard some alarming things about the changes in the governance of
LAB. I'd like to hear both sides of the story.

One side is at www.labreform.org . Many of these people have been
involved in the LAB before me, and I go back to the 70s (member and
volunteer at the old Baltimore HQs when John Cornelius was there) and
have been a life member since the 80s.

Outside of the issue with the direction that LAB appears to have gone
(away from membership, club and on-road riding and toward raising
money through government subsidies for bike lanes and bike trail
facilities - and almost completely away from local advocacy and
bicycling education), the other main issue is how the board was packed
to weight the board to support the current ruling clique.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Curtis L. Russell wrote:

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 10:56:48 -0500, "David L. Johnson"
wrote:


We have heard some alarming things about the changes in the governance of
LAB. I'd like to hear both sides of the story.


One side is at www.labreform.org . Many of these people have been
involved in the LAB before me, and I go back to the 70s (member and
volunteer at the old Baltimore HQs when John Cornelius was there) and
have been a life member since the 80s.

Outside of the issue with the direction that LAB appears to have gone
(away from membership, club and on-road riding and toward raising
money through government subsidies for bike lanes and bike trail
facilities - and almost completely away from local advocacy and
bicycling education), the other main issue is how the board was packed
to weight the board to support the current ruling clique.

Yes, one side is www.labreform.org

I can't understand what other side there would be.

Perhaps the most charitable way to portray the actions of the current
board* is that they don't want LAB to get in financial trouble again.
That's the _only_ excuse I can think of, and it seems to me a poor one.
Reasonably competent management would have prevented the financial
problems of the past, without taking away member benefits and involvement.

Someone needs to be fighting for our legal rights to the road. For
decades, that was the League of American Bicyclists (or, before its name
change, the League of American Wheelmen).

Now it seems we're on our own.



*Understand, some members of the current board are fine. But the
majority clique now in control is certainly not.

--
-------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 11:45:43 -0500, Curtis L. Russell wrote:

We have heard some alarming things about the changes in the governance of
LAB. I'd like to hear both sides of the story.

One side is at www.labreform.org . Many of these people have been
involved in the LAB before me, and I go back to the 70s (member and
volunteer at the old Baltimore HQs when John Cornelius was there) and
have been a life member since the 80s.

Outside of the issue with the direction that LAB appears to have gone
(away from membership, club and on-road riding and toward raising
money through government subsidies for bike lanes and bike trail
facilities - and almost completely away from local advocacy and
bicycling education), the other main issue is how the board was packed
to weight the board to support the current ruling clique.

This is, unfortunately, what I*have heard from others. Is there someone
who can support the new LAB position? I know I could get something from
their Website, but I want a human face to this. I want to know there is
possibly a good, supportable argument for what LAB appears to be doing.

Frankly, what I*have seen so far does not look good for the organization.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not
_`\(,_ | certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to
(_)/ (_) | reality. -- Albert Einstein

David L. Johnson wrote:

We have heard some alarming things about the changes in
the governance of LAB. I'd like to hear both sides of the story.

The governance of the League Formerly Known As American Wheelmen went to
Hell in a handcart in the Eighties, and has not recovered since.

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 22:05:07 -0800, LioNiNoiL a t Netscape_D0T_NeT
wrote:

The governance of the League Formerly Known As American Wheelmen went to
Hell in a handcart in the Eighties, and has not recovered since.

Late 80s, but mostly the 90s. Agree with the rest of the sentiment.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Curtis L. Russell wrote
Outside of the issue with the direction that LAB appears to have gone
(away from membership, club and on-road riding and toward raising
money through government subsidies for bike lanes and bike trail
facilities - and almost completely away from local advocacy and
bicycling education), the other main issue is how the board was packed
to weight the board to support the current ruling clique.

Our local cycling club has become increasingly disappointed with LAB,
and is looking for an alternative source for insurance for rides. A
few local League Cycling Instructors are looking for an alternative to
LAB to insure their classes on proper roadway cycling. There is also
wide interest among LCIs in finding another, more
road-cyclist-friendly organization to take over the Effective Cycling
education program.

LAB appears to now be under the control of professional lobbyists for
the bicycle industry, bikeway planners, and bikeway developers. These
groups have a very different agenda from that which best serves
competent cyclists. The bicycle industry agenda is to sell more bikes,
most of which will need to be sold to people who currently aren't very
interested in cycling. The bikeway lobby agenda is to re-engineer the
highways to segregate, via stripes and sidepaths behind curbs,
cyclists from motor traffic, with the idea that this will greatly
increase cycling by people who don't cycle now, and increase
employment of bikeway planners. They believe that spreading the
propoganda that segregation by vehicle type within the highway
right-of-way makes cycling much safer will increase cycling by novices
on bikeways and increase demand for bikeways; the bicycle industry
believes that this activity will consequently sell more bikes.

Competent road cyclists, on the other hand, support the LAB's past
policy of promoting cyclists' rights and responsibilities as drivers
of vehicles. The vehicular cycling principle, that cyclists fair best
when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles, is the
foundation of the Effective Cycling education program, which LAB ran.
Vehicular cycling requires integration with other traffic by following
the same rules of the road. Where it is desirable to allow for easier
overtaking of cyclists by motorists, vehicular cyclists promote wider
outside lanes; however, segregation by vehicle type on ordinary
streets is undesirable and contrary to the principles of vehicular
cycling because of the conflicts it causes for cyclists, especially at
intersections.

The LAB's recent promotion of bikeways that segregate by vehicle type
on ordinary streets conflicts with the mission of education of the
public about safe and efficient integrated cycling practices according
to the vehicular cycling principle. Awful road designs like
sidewalk-style bike paths, door-zone bike lanes, and blue-colored
crosswalk-style bike lanes that veer across travel lanes are what the
LAB now promotes (bikeways for the sake of bikeways) despite their
hazards to cyclists and their contradiction to the teachings of the
Efective Cycling program. Recent changes at the LAB are designed to
reduce the ability of members - competent cyclists, in particular -
from interfering with the controlling parties from continuing with
their pro-bikeway agenda.

Note that vehicular cyclists don't oppose bike paths like rail-trails
that are in their own right of way, but these are a small percentage
of the bikeways that are likely to be built, most of which will
involve vehicle-type-segregation within ordinary street rights of way.
Ordinary streets are the most important bicycle facilities for useful
travel by bike.

I see two ways to fix the situation: remove the pro-segregation lobby
from the leadership of LAB and return control to member cyclists, or
create a new organization that is accountable to the best interests of
competent cyclists.

-Steve Goodridge
http://humantransport.org/bicycledriving/

On 24 Mar 2004 06:58:47 -0800, (Steven
Goodridge) wrote:

I see two ways to fix the situation: remove the pro-segregation lobby
from the leadership of LAB and return control to member cyclists, or
create a new organization that is accountable to the best interests of
competent cyclists.

I'll back a new organization. Reform of an organization that has
already been bought by industry and has decided to live in Washington
may be impossible.

-Luigi


-Steve Goodridge
http://humantransport.org/bicycledriving/

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 10:54:49 -0500, Luigi de Guzman
wrote:

I'll back a new organization. Reform of an organization that has
already been bought by industry and has decided to live in Washington
may be impossible.

-Luigi

The start toward financial reform would be to move the offices from
downtown Washington DC, more or less, to one of the older Columbia, MD
corporate parks. Pretty much the equivalent of where they were before,
near Baltimore, before ED Gil decided to use LAW as a growth
organization (and failed dramatically). He moved the offices to a new
location in South Baltimore where a museum was supposed to be created
as well; then ED Jodie Newman and Pres. Earl Jones led their troops
into downtown DC. Like many denizens of DC, they HAVE to constantly
hunt and grub for money, because the cost of a DC location gives
little alternative.

OK, maybe what we really need to do is move it all the way back to the
midwest, so the temptation of DC goes away altogether. Hire one
lobbyist and keep things in perspective.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

I see two ways to fix the situation: remove the pro-segregation lobby
from the leadership of LAB and return control to member cyclists, or
create a new organization that is accountable to the best interests of
competent cyclists.

I'll back a new organization. Reform of an organization that has
already been bought by industry and has decided to live in Washington
may be impossible.

Oh my goodness. Having been to Washington DC for the Bike Summit March
3-5th, and watching nearly 400 people, the majority of whom were *not* from
the industry, work very hard to promote the idea that cycling isn't
something that should be planned or legislated out of our lives, I have to
take strong issue, even offense, at that statement.

The LAB may not be the organization it used to be, and may no longer be
serving the needs people here are bringing up. That's a problem. But to
denigrate their efforts to keep us on the road and to promote cycling as a
means for kids to walk to school? And to at least imply that it's sold out
as they've tried to get more industry people involved... I do find that
personally offensive.

I visited with six different legislators on March 4th, always as part of a
team in which I was in awe of the work of advocates who selflessly give of
their time and are not part of the cycling industry. I can approach their
passion for cycling, but not the delivery of their message nor the time they
put into it. On the other hand, the legislators pay a lot more attention to
a message that's delivered from a coalition of different types of
constituents, and the presence of small-business (and large-business) owners
does, indeed, give more credibility to the cause.

Are the industry people there out of a selfless desire to help the cause?
ABSOLUTELY NOT! I'm scared to death that, if something isn't done to get
kids more physically active and consider walking or riding to school, our
roads are going to become even more congested (and unsafe to ride), and the
next generation of young adults are going to be so physically inactive that
I won't have a customer base a few years down the road.

And this "competent cyclist" bit is especially galling. I dunno, gee, I've
been riding a whole lot of miles for the past 33 years, but maybe not enough
to be competent. Certainly not enough, apparently, to get me past my
childish desires to have intersections designed with cyclists in mind, roads
with shoulders, laws that make it illegal to exclude cyclists on normal
roads, inclusion of cyclists requirements on a new roadway by default rather
than exception, etc. Oh, and if we can get a few more people out of SUVs, I
wouldn't mind that either.

But obviously I'm not a "competent cyclist." Just a really ticked off one
at the moment.

The LAB may have problems, but their lobbying efforts are, I feel,
extraordinarily important *and* effective at making the US a better place to
ride a bike. Providing, apparently, that you're an INcompetent cyclist.
Please count me as one.

By the way, I set up a web page that other INcompetent cyclists might want
to check out, to see what's being done.
http://www.chainreaction.com/dcbikesummit04.htm

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"Luigi de Guzman" wrote in message
...
On 24 Mar 2004 06:58:47 -0800, (Steven
Goodridge) wrote:

I see two ways to fix the situation: remove the pro-segregation lobby
from the leadership of LAB and return control to member cyclists, or
create a new organization that is accountable to the best interests of
competent cyclists.

I'll back a new organization. Reform of an organization that has
already been bought by industry and has decided to live in Washington
may be impossible.

-Luigi


-Steve Goodridge
http://humantransport.org/bicycledriving/