Any form of road transportation, old or new, that travels faster than a walking pace — horseback rider, animal-drawn vehicle, bicycle, pedicab, moped, larger and faster motor vehicle — is incompatible with use of streets for play and must operate according to rules of the road, or else be reduced to a walking pace. Multi-use paths and so-called shared-space schemes impose the same constraint. The confusion in the minds of the public of “vehicle” with “motor vehicle” and of bicyclists with pedestrians fuels the popularity of bicycle facilities which mix bicyclists and pedestrians, or which compel bicyclists to operate like pedestrians at driveways and intersections.

The vision of liberation of space for pedestrians is compelling, but if we are going to throw out the bathwater — overuse and misuse of motor vehicles — let’s not throw out the baby — roads, and rules of the road, that allow bicycling to be competitive with other modes of transportation.

Actually, quite often I have seen the baby thrown out while the bathwater remains — with “protected” bikeways that force bicyclists into conflict with motor vehicles at every driveway and intersection, to give one example.

Fortunately, there are measures such as bicycle boulevards (streets with bicycle-permeable barriers and diverters that allow only local access by cars and trucks); sections of path connecting neighborhood to neighborhood; signalization and enforcement to slow motor traffic; etc. — but above all, empowerment of bicyclists through knowledge of vehicular cycling techniques and social marketing — which offer an alternative.

Disclaimer: I am the author of that little yellow book to which Keri refers, and so I have a small vested interest in the ability of bicyclists to operate according to the rules of the road. But mostly, I just want bicyclists, myself included, to be able to travel safely at the speeds their legs can propel them, speeds which make bicycling advantageous and which provide a meaningful amount of physical exercise. That’s 25 mph at the 99.44th percentile, folks, except on steep downhills. Is that too much to ask for?

I agree, if we’re ever going to accomplish this, there needs to be political will to change it at the top levels of city and county government.

Motorists’ awareness of pedestrians will change drastically when the motorists’ behavior is modified through strict law enforcement. Take a walk in Boston or San Francisco and you can see how aware motorists are of pedestrians, making these places a safer and more pleasant environment for walkers.

I believe the answer is a top-down mandate to enforce the existing laws regarding yield-to and stop-for pedestrians at all crosswalks, marked or unmarked. We need to work with our local governments to alter the mindset of traffic officers. This change in mindset must come from the top, working from the mayor and commissioners to the chief of police to the officers on our streets. We can, and I’m optimistic we will, improve motorists’ behavior and attitude towards pedestrians, and that they will see pedestrians as also having rights-of-way in our streets.

Social Intelligence (Goleman)
The Art of Woo (Shell)
The Biology of Transcendence (Pearce)
Predictably Irrational (Ariely)

Human motivation: The training I mentioned was also very helpful to me in that regard. They put a lot of emphasis on self-interest, which sounds negative, but like it or not, is key to making alliances. You identify the self-interest of others (and this training company had specific interviewing techniques for doing this), and you thereby discover the reasons that that person might have to work with you, and what you have to offer to them. A trait of very successful people is that they are clear on their own self-interest, and on how any decision they need to make will advance it or not. This is especially important to realize when, in the course of your activism, you need to interact with people more powerful than yourself, whether as an ally or an opponent.

It was also very helpful in making me clarify and really own my own self-interest. The training was targeted mainly to congregation-based organizers, and religious people often have quite a hard time with the concept of self-interest, because it sounds like “selfish”. There’s this idea that actions have to be completely selfless to be pure. But in the end, you have to identify what you really value, which doesn’t have to be money or material things, but maybe a vision of what the world should be, along with those specific areas where you have skills and resources to contribute. That’s your motivation and basis for deciding what you get involved with and what you leave for others, because one person can’t do everything.

I would add that when you’re rich you can afford to reach a lot of people with blunt, simple, uncreative messages (see: Fox News). When you’re not so rich you have to be very creative and have a thorough understanding of the media and human motivations.

On power: I participated in some community organizer training in Chicago once in the mid-90′s (no, I didn’t see Obama there) that I thought really defined power very well and very simply. Power is either organized money or organized people. Big business and wealthy individuals have the organized money and know how to use it. So the goal of public groups going up against the organized money has to be organized people, hence community organizing.

And to add to that,

Mighk’s essays were very much an inspiration to me when I began researching bicycling advocacy. If you google, him, you’ll get a bunch of them published on various sites around the web. Or, there’s a great PDF compilation on the FBA website.

The result?? Less freedom and less cars on the road.

All I can say is good riddance to the cars. As for freedom?? I will keep riding my bike and move around town just fine thanks.