…in the mainstream cycling advocacy community.
From MSNBC:
Early in the article, about Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s bike crash:
The mayor, who said little on the topic during five years in office, is campaigning to make streets safer for cyclists after a parked cab abruptly pulled out across a bike lane, causing him to shatter an elbow.
And a while later:
Villaraigosa says the city needs to invest in bicycling infrastructure and focus on traffic safety enforcement to make streets safer for cyclists.
Cycling advocates believe more people would turn to pedal power if roads were safer. Frustrated by lack of progress, some have taken up guerrilla tactics by painting bike lanes and other cycling symbols on roads and street corners.
Hmmm. Bicycle facility encourages cyclist to ride in a position that increases the risk that a vehicle will pull across the cyclist’s path. Cyclist in said facility is hit by a vehicle turning across his path. Cyclists say: “We need more of those facilities!”
I’ve read a number of articles following the Villaraigosa crash and had the same reaction. The cognitive dissonance in bike facility advocacy always makes this scene come to my mind:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0x-fkSYDtUY
LOL!
Well, he is a politician working in government. And that’s how governments work. “Our previous efforts failed? Well, we’ll just do it again. And bigger.”
How exactly would he earn a bronze, silver or gold medal for his city by ignoring the LAB requirements?
To be fair, Eric; the League doesn’t _require_ door zone bike lanes, but they do give you credit for them towards your reward.
And they give credit for cycle tracks. And they give credit for contra-flows. Tsk. Such promiscuity.
It’s encouraging that Springfield MO earned a BFC award for wayfinding and other non-bike-lane encouragement programs.