LAB and bike paths

In article <[email hidden]>,
"Veloise" <[email hidden]> writes:

....

Quoted message said:

The trouble with this message is that nobody who's not already
effectively cycling on the roads seems willing to believe it. Then
consider that the League's own marketing and outreach materials place a
heavy emphasis on safety and facilities in ways that reinforce the
popular misperception rather than disspell it.

No wonder I can't get anyone to sign up for my classes.

------------------------------
I'm frustrated here in NJ too. I have built it, but they won't come! I
can't tell you how many parents have told me that "their child already
knows how to ride a bicycle" when I talk to them about my summer bike
camps. They think that bicycle education is to teach someone how to
ride a two-wheeler. <sigh>

I'd like to see a real marketing campaign from HQ. They are determined
to create more LCI's. Without more marketing, there will just be more
of us searching for our audience.

I think a vigourous PSA campaign of "cycling safety tips"
(how to change lanes, 'n all that) would go a long way
toward giving transportational[*] cycling the street credibility
it currently lacks among the general public. And I'd expect the
LAB to have the resources to do just that. Such a campaign would
go beyond just preaching to the choir. It would serve to inform
everybody that cyclists have rights & responsibilities on the road,
it would heighten driver awareness of cyclists, it could reinforce
the application of safe practices among riders, and it might even
encourage some folks to take up riding.

Sounds good to me, anyways.

cheers,
Tom

[*] By "transportational" I loosely mean any riding on streets
and roads populated with motorized traffic, rather than in
bike lanes/paths.

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

"Veloise" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:1129220469.750569.53590
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

Quoted message said:

I heard the interview. I don't want to hit a hornet's nest here, but
how hard can it be to make this simple message the basic one for the
League: "We want our roads to be the best they can be for all road
users. While we're working to make improvements, League training can
teach you to ride in safety and comfort on the existing roads."

The trouble with this message is that nobody who's not already
effectively cycling on the roads seems willing to believe it. Then
consider that the League's own marketing and outreach materials place a
heavy emphasis on safety and facilities in ways that reinforce the
popular misperception rather than disspell it.

No wonder I can't get anyone to sign up for my classes.

Exactly. Anyone who isn't cycling on a road can't believe that it can be
done safely and effectively. My observation is that it takes six weeks of
slow, scary, nervous attempts and then a little switch goes off in your
head and you can co-exist easily. Bike Ed would probably ease that period,
I'm sure. 20 years ago or so, I used a series of New York Cycle club rated
rides to go from just a guy with a bike to century level, I still remember
every piece of advice I got.

Oddly enough, the six week adjustment period is about the same for a new
car driver, and they have regular drivers' ed. But prospective drivers
somehow have faith that the process works. Odd conundrum; good luck with
your class!

--ag

Tom Keats said:

And I'd expect the
LAB to have the resources to do just that.

The LAB is tiny and pretty close to being broke. It depends on the
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to fund many of its programs, and the
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is pretty much interested in cycling
advocacy rather than cyclist advocacy, which fits in with the RWJF
mission of promoting health.

RFM

Tom Keats said:

I think a vigourous PSA campaign of "cycling safety tips"
(how to change lanes, 'n all that) would go a long way
toward giving transportational[*] cycling the street credibility
it currently lacks among the general public. And I'd expect the
LAB to have the resources to do just that. Such a campaign would
go beyond just preaching to the choir. It would serve to inform
everybody that cyclists have rights & responsibilities on the road,
it would heighten driver awareness of cyclists, it could reinforce
the application of safe practices among riders, and it might even
encourage some folks to take up riding.

I agree completely.

I think the best teaching method is one-on-one, at least regarding the
speed the student learns. But regarding society as a whole, it's the
slowest.

TV, for all its faults, can reach a LOT of people quickly. LAB really
should be doing exactly what you say. People won't learn details well,
but if done properly, people can learn a lot.

And you can change their attitudes!

- Frank Krygowski

"Tom Keats" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
"Veloise" <[email hidden]> writes:

...

Quoted message said:

The trouble with this message is that nobody who's not already
effectively cycling on the roads seems willing to believe it. Then
consider that the League's own marketing and outreach materials place a
heavy emphasis on safety and facilities in ways that reinforce the
popular misperception rather than disspell it.

No wonder I can't get anyone to sign up for my classes.

------------------------------
I'm frustrated here in NJ too. I have built it, but they won't come! I
can't tell you how many parents have told me that "their child already
knows how to ride a bicycle" when I talk to them about my summer bike
camps. They think that bicycle education is to teach someone how to
ride a two-wheeler. <sigh>

I'd like to see a real marketing campaign from HQ. They are determined
to create more LCI's. Without more marketing, there will just be more
of us searching for our audience.

I think a vigourous PSA campaign of "cycling safety tips"
(how to change lanes, 'n all that) would go a long way
toward giving transportational[*] cycling the street credibility
it currently lacks among the general public.

Another thing that would help with the credibility issue is sheer numbers.
If drivers encountered cyclists more frequently while driving, we'd come to
be seen as legitimate roadway users...especially if the cyclists they
encountered were doing things like riding to work, grocery shopping, etc.

Unfortunately, most cyclists encountered on the road are brightly clad lycra
wearing recreationalists (present company not excepted). This reinforces
the "toy" image of cycling.

IMO, every serious cyclist should have at least one "transport" bike in
their garage, and should use it at least a few times per week for commuting,
basic errands, etc. With today's gas prices, you can easily justify the
purchase.

~_-*
....G/ \G
http://www.CycliStats.com
CycliStats - Software for Cyclists

Quoted message said:

And I'd expect the
LAB to have the resources to do just that. Such a campaign would
go beyond just preaching to the choir. It would serve to inform
everybody that cyclists have rights & responsibilities on the road,
it would heighten driver awareness of cyclists, it could reinforce
the application of safe practices among riders, and it might even
encourage some folks to take up riding.

Sounds good to me, anyways.

cheers,
Tom

[*] By "transportational" I loosely mean any riding on streets
and roads populated with motorized traffic, rather than in
bike lanes/paths.

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

GaryG said:

Unfortunately, most cyclists encountered on the road are brightly clad lycra
wearing recreationalists (present company not excepted). This reinforces
the "toy" image of cycling.

Gary,

Car use isn't promoted because of their utilitarian, boring usefulness.
Cars are purchased for going on Sunday drives up mountain roads if the
advertising is to be believed. Around here in Colorado, recreation is a
huge part of road use: fishing, hiking, camping, 4-wheeling, hunting,
boating, skiing and so on.

Cyclist road rights should in no way be based on why we're using that
road.

RFM

Fritz M wrote:
Around here in Colorado, recreation is a

Quoted message said:

huge part of road use: fishing, hiking, camping, 4-wheeling, hunting,
boating, skiing and so on.

Cyclist road rights should in no way be based on why we're using that
road.

Add cycling to the list. A very nice aspect of recreational riding is
doing so in new and beautiful places. However, that often means using a
vehicle to get there.
I ride from my house most every day of the week, but it is nice to
drive to a farther away starting point and get to do different and
interesting rides.

GaryG said:

Another thing that would help with the credibility issue is sheer numbers.
If drivers encountered cyclists more frequently while driving, we'd come to
be seen as legitimate roadway users...especially if the cyclists they
encountered were doing things like riding to work, grocery shopping, etc.

Unfortunately, most cyclists encountered on the road are brightly clad lycra
wearing recreationalists (present company not excepted). This reinforces
the "toy" image of cycling.

?? I commute to work in lycra, showering and changing when I get there.
Does demonstrating that I'm a "serious" cyclist, worthy of the space I
occupy on the road, really require me to give up my padded shorts and get
my cotton clothes all sweaty (I sweat alot)? Does proving that the
purpose of my trip on the bike is not merely playful fun (heaven forbid
that anyone do something just for fun) really require me to give up the
clothing I find most comfortable for the activity? I naively thought
the fact that I am cycling to a Sunnyvale industrial park might be
sufficient to suggest that I might not be travelling there purely for
pleasure, though it isn't clear to me why pure pleasure-seekers in the
same industrial park would have less of a legitimate claim to the road
in any case.

To be honest, if I didn't get considerable pleasure even from my commute
I'd drive my car instead and save 20 minutes or so in each direction. I
would also point out that I get considerably more pleasure from riding in
the nearby mountains (something I do whenever I can sneak out of work early
enough) than I do from riding in Sunnyvale industrial parks. If I were
forced to choose between the commute and the mountains I'd give up the
commute in a flash.

I ride my bicycle because I like it. There is no where I go on the
bicycle that I couldn't get to some other way. I prefer the bicycle
simply because I enjoy it, whether the destination is somewhere
productive or no where in particular. I've gone to the trouble of
dragging a suitcase full of bicycle all over the planet just because I
like going for a ride when I get there. I feel no need to pretend that
I'm on the bicycle because I need it to get to work or carry my groceries,
because I don't. I, like most people in this country, have choices
for getting those things done; I choose the bicycle because it is
fun.

I realize that there is a stubbornly persistent strand of the founding
puritanism in this country that finds activity conducted for productive
ends (performed in plain, inconspicuous black-and-white or earth-tone
clothing) to be virtuous, but judges anything else as mere frivolity
worthy of a certain contempt. I think you should understand, however,
that if you want those crowds of cyclists on the road, you are
unlikely to sell many people on the activity based on how wonderful
bicycles are for grocery shopping. People will bother with bicycles
only if they enjoy riding them.

As such, I think your distain for "brightly clad lycra wearing
recreationalists" is self-defeating. If you take all people
riding bikes for the shear pleasure of doing so (whatever the
destination) off the street you'll be left with a few people
riding out their DUI convictions, or currently incapable of
affording a car, who find that the bus runs too infrequently
or inconveniently for their purposes. While the virtuousness
of their purely utilitarian use of the bicycle might be
commendable in your expressed view, there won't be enough of
them to matter.

Dennis Ferguson

To the original poster, next time they tell you "my kid already knows
how to ride", or "I" do, if applicable, ask them a few "basic" questions
about biking in traffic. Rules of the road, safe riding methods, Y'know,
the stuff "everyone knows" (every one of US, that is ;-3) ).

After they miss most of your carefully selected questions, maybe, just
maybe they might reconsider your class.

- -

"May you have the winds at your back,
And a really low gear for the hills!"

Chris Zacho ~ "Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

Chris'Z Corner
http://www.geocities.com/czcorner

Dennis Ferguson said:

GaryG said:

Unfortunately, most cyclists encountered on the road are brightly clad lycra
wearing recreationalists (present company not excepted). This reinforces
the "toy" image of cycling.

?? I commute to work in lycra, showering and changing when I get there.
Does demonstrating that I'm a "serious" cyclist, worthy of the space I
occupy on the road, really require me to give up my padded shorts and get
my cotton clothes all sweaty (I sweat alot)? Does proving that the
purpose of my trip on the bike is not merely playful fun (heaven forbid
that anyone do something just for fun) really require me to give up the
clothing I find most comfortable for the activity?

Hmm. I commute in my work clothes - that is, good slacks, dress shirt
(most days), dress shoes.

Obviously what we need here is a compromise. And obviously, the
perfect compromise is:

Brightly colored, lycra business attire!

How would the cagers react to _that?_ ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

Dennis Ferguson said:

GaryG said:

Unfortunately, most cyclists encountered on the road are brightly clad lycra
wearing recreationalists (present company not excepted). This reinforces
the "toy" image of cycling.

?? I commute to work in lycra, showering and changing when I get there.
Does demonstrating that I'm a "serious" cyclist, worthy of the space I
occupy on the road, really require me to give up my padded shorts and get
my cotton clothes all sweaty (I sweat alot)? Does proving that the
purpose of my trip on the bike is not merely playful fun (heaven forbid
that anyone do something just for fun) really require me to give up the
clothing I find most comfortable for the activity?

Hmm. I commute in my work clothes - that is, good slacks, dress shirt
(most days), dress shoes.

Obviously what we need here is a compromise. And obviously, the
perfect compromise is:

Brightly colored, lycra business attire!

How would the cagers react to _that?_ ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

"Dennis Ferguson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

GaryG said:

Another thing that would help with the credibility issue is sheer

numbers.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If drivers encountered cyclists more frequently while driving, we'd come

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

be seen as legitimate roadway users...especially if the cyclists they
encountered were doing things like riding to work, grocery shopping,

etc.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Unfortunately, most cyclists encountered on the road are brightly clad

lycra

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

wearing recreationalists (present company not excepted). This

reinforces

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the "toy" image of cycling.

?? I commute to work in lycra, showering and changing when I get there.
Does demonstrating that I'm a "serious" cyclist, worthy of the space I
occupy on the road, really require me to give up my padded shorts and get
my cotton clothes all sweaty (I sweat alot)? Does proving that the
purpose of my trip on the bike is not merely playful fun (heaven forbid
that anyone do something just for fun) really require me to give up the
clothing I find most comfortable for the activity? I naively thought
the fact that I am cycling to a Sunnyvale industrial park might be
sufficient to suggest that I might not be travelling there purely for
pleasure, though it isn't clear to me why pure pleasure-seekers in the
same industrial park would have less of a legitimate claim to the road
in any case.

To be honest, if I didn't get considerable pleasure even from my commute
I'd drive my car instead and save 20 minutes or so in each direction. I
would also point out that I get considerably more pleasure from riding in
the nearby mountains (something I do whenever I can sneak out of work

early

Quoted message said:

enough) than I do from riding in Sunnyvale industrial parks. If I were
forced to choose between the commute and the mountains I'd give up the
commute in a flash.

I ride my bicycle because I like it. There is no where I go on the
bicycle that I couldn't get to some other way. I prefer the bicycle
simply because I enjoy it, whether the destination is somewhere
productive or no where in particular. I've gone to the trouble of
dragging a suitcase full of bicycle all over the planet just because I
like going for a ride when I get there. I feel no need to pretend that
I'm on the bicycle because I need it to get to work or carry my groceries,
because I don't. I, like most people in this country, have choices
for getting those things done; I choose the bicycle because it is
fun.

I realize that there is a stubbornly persistent strand of the founding
puritanism in this country that finds activity conducted for productive
ends (performed in plain, inconspicuous black-and-white or earth-tone
clothing) to be virtuous, but judges anything else as mere frivolity
worthy of a certain contempt. I think you should understand, however,
that if you want those crowds of cyclists on the road, you are
unlikely to sell many people on the activity based on how wonderful
bicycles are for grocery shopping. People will bother with bicycles
only if they enjoy riding them.

As such, I think your distain for "brightly clad lycra wearing
recreationalists" is self-defeating. If you take all people
riding bikes for the shear pleasure of doing so (whatever the
destination) off the street you'll be left with a few people
riding out their DUI convictions, or currently incapable of
affording a car, who find that the bus runs too infrequently
or inconveniently for their purposes. While the virtuousness
of their purely utilitarian use of the bicycle might be
commendable in your expressed view, there won't be enough of
them to matter.

Dennis Ferguson

I think you've taken offense and/or misread my intent. I too commute to
work in brightly colored lycra, and ride mostly for pleasure, and do not
"distain" [sic] recreational cyclists no matter how they dress.

However, when I was in Europe last summer, I noticed that there were many
more "utilitarian" cyclists on the road than one sees here. Their sheer
numbers mean that drivers are accustomed to seeing and dealing with cyclists
on the roadways. Because of these numbers, cyclists are treated with much
more respect there.

I was only opining that if more of us chose to use our bikes for utilitarian
purposes, we'd probably get more respect from drivers due to our increased
numbers on the road.

GG

Chris said:

To the original poster, next time they tell you "my kid already knows
how to ride", or "I" do, if applicable, ask them a few "basic" questions
about biking in traffic. Rules of the road, safe riding methods, Y'know,
the stuff "everyone knows" (every one of US, that is ;-3) ).

After they miss most of your carefully selected questions, maybe, just
maybe they might reconsider your class.

I will pass that along to the instructor whose quotes caught your
eye. (Three instructors made the comments, separated by ------- after
my intro. Most of my classes have been of the rally workshop variety; I
have yet to try marketing a stand-alone class.)

HTH

--Karen D.