LAB Reform Coalition to Reform LAB Return Control to Members and Restore Traditional Cycling Values

Why LAB Reform?

Why has the League abandoned our rights to the road?

In Ennis Texas (near Dallas) a cyclist named Reed “Chipseal” Bates was arrested for “riding a bicycle on the roadway”, later changed to “reckless operation” and jailed FOUR times.  Note, it is prima facie LEGAL under Texas law to ride on the roads he used.

So the League came rallying to his defense – right?  Well, not exactly.  The League refused to get involved.  League president Andy Clarke claimed there was a “perfectly rideable” shoulder.  League officials accuse Reed of being an extremist for not using it.  A “perfectly rideable shoulder” is like a perfectly usable seat — at the back of the bus.

Clarke claimed that the League offered to help.  (Unfortunately, they did not bother to tell Reed or his lawyer about their offer.)  Read what really happened here.

Ruthless recklessness

Chicago, which has many dangerous door zone bike lanes, has a BFC award despite falsifying the apparent sizes of cars & trucks depicted in scale drawings in its Bike Lane Design Guide, making them appear to be 20% smaller.  See one of the drawings from the Design Guide with the vehicles re-scaled to the correct size.

Chicago gives this irresponsible advice about door zone bike lanes:  “Keep track of traffic behind you so you’ll know whether you have enough room if you must swerve suddenly out of the ‘Door Zone’.”  What they should say is simply “Stay out of the door zone.”  If a bike lane is in the door zone, it is too dangerous to use.

Many other award recipients also have hazardous segregated facilities.  Indeed, having segregated facilities seems to be a requirement for receiving an award.  Even restricting cyclists’ right to the road is not a problem for BFC.

Bicycle Friendly Fiendish Communities:  Why are they leaving out cyclists? The League is failing in its responsibility to look out for the interests and well-being of its members (CYCLISTS) … by failing to criticize bad laws and dangerous facilities would be bad enough without giving rewards.  The League should be ACTIVELY out there putting a foot down on badly designed facilities, negligent AASHTO guidance, discriminatory laws and enforcement. Who’s really Looking Out for YOU?  It’s LAB Reform.  Please support us by telling others about us.  Link to this site in any web pages you write.  Mention us wherever appropriate in club newsletters and in blogs and mail lists. (No, we aren’t asking for money.  The League does more than enough of that.)

LAB Reform Goals:

1. Regain members control of the League by restoring their right to elect ALL directors
2. Restore access to the ballot and Bylaws via the petition and referendum
3. Remove the veil of secrecy over the actions of the board and staff
4. Allow members a reasonable process to remove unethical directors
5. Promote the best and safest practices of cycling
6. Stop promoting unsafe facilities
7. Protect the rights of cyclists
8. Revive member services

Why So Much Negativism?

If you haven’t been following these governance problems, you may have the impression that everything here has an unnecessarily negative or strident tone.  That’s not our intention, but the LAB leadership’s errors are so serious that we could not find a way to “sugar-coat” them.  Indeed, we wouldn’t bother with this effort if the problems weren’t serious.

For every criticism we’ve made against LAB, we’ve offered a practical and workable alternative.  Indeed, LAB has already adopted a few (too few) of our proposals (details elsewhere on this page and throughout this site).  But there is much more that needs to be fixed before LAB Reform can “go away”.  Among the most shameful LAB programs is Bicycle Friendly Communities, which has given awards to cities that build dangerous facilities, ban cyclists from important roads or maliciously prosecute cyclists for simply being on the road.

Please see the LAB Reform Vision

Serious Issues Remain About the Governance of the League

When outside interests seized control of the League a few years ago, the League largely abandoned its duty to protect our interests, thereby alienating its most dedicated members.  League membership declined about 14 percent between 1996 and 2002, a period when certain board members claimed their leadership “… nearly doubled the League’s membership“.  We suffered a further decline of ten percent in 2004-2005.  The membership decline continues.  We often hear from people who refuse to join the League, or have quit because of mis-management and ethical issues.  We even know a life member who is so disgusted with the League that he quit.

A large part of the “membership problem” is the fact that fewer than 10 percent of cycling club members belong to the League.  These are the people who should form the membership core.  We believe these club members would be the most loyal members of the League if the League would be loyal to them.

There are serious problems with League advocacy that is often harmful to members and that fails to promote the best and safest cycling practices.  The Bicycle Friendly Communities Program is especially troubling.

We have interesting articles by John Forester and John Schubert.  Forester lays out Policies for Restoration of the League of American Bicyclists.  Schubert issues a challenge to the “good” members of the board to reform the League.  What does it take to get the board to finally begin to listen — and admit serious mistakes?

Keep current on LAB Reform by visiting labreform.org and /labreform.org/wordpress/.

Did you know? Until the mid-1990s, League directors were member elected, and their home phone numbers were published in the League magazine.  Then four board positions were taken away from member election and moved to appointed positions, in an attempt to form alliances. When the bicycle industry lobby got some of its people on the LAB board they insisted that board members’ direct contact information be withheld from the membership.  This was never voted on; the administration simply did it. The four appointed positions grew to five in 2003 and to seven in 2010.  Also in 2003, the board quietly changed the rules for members to get on the ballot via petition.   The result of appointed members and an unreasonable petition requirement is that the board is answerable to the membership in theory only. Today, concerned members can contact their board members only by letter or e-mail.  They won’t necessarily be answered.

Please join us and help restore the BikeLeague to members.

Seriöse Casinos ohne Lizenz Deutschland

Webmasters:  Please link to LAB Reform.

© Copyright 2004-2017 LAB Reform.  Material may be copied with attribution.
Some material was reproduced either under fair use guidelines or with permission of the original author.
For comments, questions, contact fredoswald_AT_yahoo_DOT_com.
Minor revision Apr. 2017