The League is now far short of our vision. Please help LAB Reform make this vision a reality.
Note 1: When the League finally got around to producing public service messages in 2004 (after radio shock jocks made “jokes” about assaulting cyclists) most of the messages were weak promotions for ride to work. The messages fail to mention that cyclists are drivers who belong on the roads. Return to text
Note 2: The quality of the League’s Education Program has largely been restored after disastrous mismanagement in 2000-2003. But more improvement is needed, especially in promoting Smart Cycling. Return to text
Note 3: The League’s position statement on bicycle facilities warns that “Poorly designed bike lanes and bike lane intersection treatments can have the same adverse effect [as bike sidepaths]. The adverse effects include the fact that “accidents occur at intersections; every driveway or side road is an intersection; and sidepaths greatly complicate those intersections in ways that impact safety.”
In addition: The complex intersections demand that the bicyclist proceed very gingerly, at slow speed, watching for intersecting traffic from unconventional directions. This fact is counter-intuitive, and some riders attracted to separated facilities are unaware of it.”
Unfortunately, the League has failed to withhold its endorsement of even the most dangerous separate facilities. The most egregious example is the “Bicycle Friendly Communities” program, which refuses to warn communities about these adverse effects. The League gives awards based on “how many miles of bike lanes do you have” rather than “how do you promote safety”. Return to text
Note 4: Our leaders are paternalistic (acting as parents who “know best”). In their arrogance, they cannot see it is really the members who know best. Appointed directors (we now cannot elect 5 of 12 or 42%) are more loyal to their appointers, than to members and they generally do not understand or appreciate League history. Return to text
Note 5: During the last few years, our board subverted the purposes of the League, then ignored people who objected and ostracized them for disloyalty if they persisted. The board and staff tightly control access to the membership. See A letter to the editor the LAB magazine editor refused to print and an article on Reforming Bike Laws that was promised for the spring or summer 2004 issue but never published. Then another promise to publish a similar article was made in early 2007. That promise was also broken.
However, we acknowledge the return of Letters to the Editor in the magazine, as well as the increase from four to six issues per year, as steps in the right direction. Also, in the 2007-8 election, LAB offered to send candidates’ campaign statements via email. We believe these were sent without any editing by the staff or Board. This, too, is commendable. Return to text
Note 6: The League supported fair cycling laws in 1982 by publishing an article rating state bicycle traffic laws: What’s the legal climate for bicyclists in your state?, in its magazine, then called American Wheelman. However, in 2003, the board refused to support a new program to rate bicycle traffic laws and promote reforms. One of the board members who opposed this project is still in office. We also find it outrageous that the League “honors” cities that ban cyclists from the roads in its Bicycle Friendly Communities program. Return to text
Note 7: The board has operated in secrecy to subvert members’ rights, such as by interfering in the 2003 election and by quietly eviscerating members’ rights by radically changing the Bylaws. Return to text
to join LAB Reform.
© Copyright 2005-2009 LAB Reform. Material may be copied with attribution.
Some material of others has been reproduced either under fair use guidelines or with permission of the original author.