"Lars Lehtonen" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> According to Mike Jacoubowsky <
[email protected]>:
> >I just got back from the Bike Summit in Washington DC, where for three intensive days we dealt
> >with legislative issues pertaining to cycling and met with nearly all senators and
> >representatives. California, my home state, had 22 people there, 3 of them bicycle retailers.
>
> Can I be thankful that the industry wasn't better represented? [see below]
Am I supposed to apologize for having been there?
>
> >But Georgia, a relatively small state in comparison, put together a massive effort and
had
> >17 in attendance, about half of them retailers. A very impressive
showing,
> >organized by a couple of dealers who decided that certain aspects of
cycling
> >in Georgia "sucked" and they needed to do something about it.
>
> Looking at Georgia's website on the subject of TEA-21 I see nothing about bicycles. Did they not
> spend any of the Federal money available to them for bike projects?
>
<http://www.dot.state.ga.us/specialsubjects/tea-21/index.shtml>
From that same website-
a.. Promote non-motorized transportation as a means of congestion mitigation.
b.. Promote non-motorized transportation as an environmentally friendly means of mobility.
c.. Promote connectivity of non-motorized facilities with other modes of transportation.
d.. Promote bicycling and walking as mobility options in urban and rural areas of the state.
e.. Develop a transportation network of primary bicycle routes throughout the state to
provide connectivity for intrastate and interstate bicycle travel.
f.. Promote establishment of U.S. numbered bicycle routes in Georgia as part of a national
network of bicycle routes.
g.. Encourage economic development opportunities that enhance bicycle and
pedestrian mobility.
Doesn't sound like such bad stuff to me.
>
> >If you're interested in the agenda, a rather large .pdf file can be downloaded here-
> >
https://league2.securesites.com/events/summit_schedule_program03.pdf
>
> I'm afraid to look.
>
> >It was sponsored by BikesBelong (www.BikesBelong.org)
>
> Aren't BikesBelong the guys that think redevelopment of parks is a good use of Transportation
> dollars? I had some good stats from their site, but they've moved stuff around so I can't find the
> article in which they laud the priorities of TEA-21. I recall that Texas and Maine had bike
> education programs for kids, but the rest of the stuff was about spending Federal money on local
> projects with tangental connections to bicycles.
You've got something seriously twisted around. One of the major points to the lobbying effort was to
try and require that bicycle and pedestrian monies set aside in TEA-21 didn't get diverted into such
tangential projects. We had an extensive list of such things; there are some truly horrific
examples, from most states.
>
> This is the disingenuous side of business again making itself known. Recall the article about
> Segway subsidy that said "`One of the reasons Dean moved to New Hampshire was he loved the 'live
> free or die' motto. Keep government out,' said Brian Toohey, a vice president at Kamen's company.
> `But to make this technology widely available, we need government help.'" (VandeHei 2003). Isn't
> that why Kamen gets awarded patents? The bike industry is behaving the same way. While cyclists
> (such as myself and I would assume BikesBelong) oppose registration fees, the Industry is looking
> for handouts.
What does the Segway have to do with any of this? Because Segway is a business, and they've done
evil things, *all* businesses have an evil agenda?
>
> From BikesBelong:
>
> [BICYCLE] ADVOCACY
> * Its a business opportunity
> * Its not about charity or being nice
> * A chance to align allies with similar goals
> * Its both urgent and important
> * Its also a necessity
>
> HERE'S WHY
>
> * Imagine there was no Oberstar, ISTEA, TEA-21, etc.
> * Industry needs would still exist: o decent margins for retailers o market growth requires
> promotion o safety, education, co-existence on roadways o industry cooperation o working
> together
>
> NOW ADD THESE UNPRECEDENTED OPPORTUNITIES
>
> * We sell the remedy to much of what ails our society
> * We need to act on these opportunities: o Livable Communities o Health Community o
> ISTEA/TEA-21 o Traffic congestion o Can you say Oberstar?
>
>
<http://bikesbelong.org/site/page.cfm?PageID=24>
>
> This reads, "How do we make more money?" followed by "sell the remedy," not "provide the remedy."
> This is analagous to the auto industry that looks to sell warmed-over leaf-sprung trucks first
> with after-the-fact pitches about "crashworthiness," "visibility," and "load carrying-capability."
OF COURSE it's about making money! The bicycle business is just that- a business. And it's a
business that feels threatened by a new generation of Americans who drive three blocks and eat
terribly, and are rapidly becoming obese and sedentary. It's a business that wonders if it will have
any customers ten years down the road, if things keep going the way they are.
But is it so bad when the things the industry wants are things that will make it safer & easier to
ride a bike or walk to the store? Is it so bad that the industry wants to see people more active &
healthy? Is it so bad that SOMEBODY (the bike industry) wants to mobilize and create a force of
change to counter that offered by the automotive & fast food folk?
>
> In recent years the Bike Industry has churned out expensive suspended toys for the well-to-do,
> marginal and gimmick-laden imitation suspended toys for the poor, and increasingly proprietary
> devices for the middle segment. The Bike Industry has done nothing to keep large players like
> Performance/Nashbar/Supergo from consolidating the high end of the playing field. The Bike
> Industry is gladly cannibalizing mid-range small-business sales by pumping shinier product into
> big box stores.
For parts of the industry, this is true. But those parts were not represented at the Bike Summit,
nor do I think it likely they'll get behind its goals. They're more interested in the next-quarter's
profits than any long-term issues that don't have an immediate payoff.
>
> To buy a generator hub for my bike I had to turn to the grey market. Manufacturers and retailers
> excuse themselves from safety regulations by selling bikes without pedals.
Grey market for a generator hub? I thought Sheldon sold them and, last I heard, he was legit. As for
bikes without pedals, sorry, that has absolutely nothing to do with safety regulations. Where did
somebody fly that idea? Just about every high-end pedal on the market has available a reflector
carrier that can be attached for use as original equipment on bikes. Pedals on high-end bikes were
dropped for two reasons- First, it's difficult to know what type of system a customer will want (as
if we can't swap them out?) and second, it saves them a few dollars. But it's not about safety
regulations.
>
> The industry has been all-too-happy to see cycling marginalized as a mere sport. With the
> promotion of Downhilling and Urban BMX it degrades cycling even lower: now it is sold as a stunt.
Agreed! But part of the industry is working to change that.
>
> Color me unimpressed with the bike industry. I'd be glad if they would leave Washington alone.
> They could easily win my support if they would turn away from stressing recreation to attract
> potential sales leads and start doing something for extant cyclists. Why does no one speak of
> doing anything about dysfunctional traffic light sensors? What about a program to prosecute
> drivers that act agressively toward cyclists?
Are you aware that the standard DOT road guides now include standard, mainstream info & requirements
for light sensors, not to mention all manner of other ways in which cyclists need to be
accommodated? This is a change that cycling advocates worked very hard for a very long time to get,
and should eventually make your life better.
As for you, personally, no, the industry is not dependent upon you. Given the tone of your piece,
I'm not sure whether to suggest you take that personally or not! But it is dependent upon very large
numbers of people like you, and if we don't get started creating those new cyclists, people like you
are never going to be taken seriously.
>
> Oh yeah, the bike industry already has my money and doesn't want to hear from me again until my
> bike breaks or their marketers trick me into needing something new.
For part of the industry that may be true. But BikesBelong is a bit more forward-thinking than that.
They recognize the need to make cycling mainstream, as it is, for example, in Amsterdam. That's not
the flashy, glitzy part that you apparently abhor, so you must wonder what's in it for them? Simple.
The wider the base of cyclists, the more flashy & glitzy stuff you sell. Make life better for the
commuter and you'll sell more carbon-fiber superbikes. Make a family think about a rails-to-trails
outing instead of playing video games at home, and you just might create a more sympathetic driver
when they're out in their SUVs.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
