Comments on: Should Bicycle and Pedestrian Organizations Merge? http://bikeblogs.org/sf/2008/10/03/should-bicycle-and-pedestrian-organizations-merge/ Biking in the Bay Fri, 18 May 2012 09:14:59 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Peter Smith http://bikeblogs.org/sf/2008/10/03/should-bicycle-and-pedestrian-organizations-merge/#comment-211 Peter Smith Mon, 06 Oct 2008 10:16:48 +0000 http://bikeblogs.org/sf/?p=156#comment-211 Thanks Dave - I did know about y'all (I visited the office for the Sunday Streets presser - thanks for helping to put that together!), but just decided not to mention every organization I could think of that could potentially merge. In my day to day involvement, I probably have just seen the walk and bike organizations the most, and have been concerned about trying to make sure both groups stay together, and really just try to be as perfectly cooperative as possible so we can keep focused on what was important to both groups. Austin had just the remnants of a walking advocacy group (http://walkaustin.org/ ), and as mentioned, folks were talking about putting together a new org that could speak for everyone. And I wonder if that's the 2 2 I didn't put together. If you are in a smaller town, or just one struggling to build an active/effective organization, it might make particular sense to represent both groups since there may be no other way to gain 'critical mass'. I also got the feeling that work from orgs like yours (and your namesake org down in Austin, at a domain with a slightly different spelling - http://liveablecity.org/ ) was finally starting to seep into the mainstream. If there are new combined walk/bike groups popping up more often than they used to (and I'm not sure that's the case), then I would suspect it's because folks have been learning, like me, that a lot of these goals we share are very closely related. I'll make sure I add y'all to the sidebar. http://www.livablecity.org/ Thanks Dave - I did know about y’all (I visited the office for the Sunday Streets presser - thanks for helping to put that together!), but just decided not to mention every organization I could think of that could potentially merge. In my day to day involvement, I probably have just seen the walk and bike organizations the most, and have been concerned about trying to make sure both groups stay together, and really just try to be as perfectly cooperative as possible so we can keep focused on what was important to both groups.

Austin had just the remnants of a walking advocacy group (http://walkaustin.org/ ), and as mentioned, folks were talking about putting together a new org that could speak for everyone. And I wonder if that’s the 2 2 I didn’t put together. If you are in a smaller town, or just one struggling to build an active/effective organization, it might make particular sense to represent both groups since there may be no other way to gain ‘critical mass’.

I also got the feeling that work from orgs like yours (and your namesake org down in Austin, at a domain with a slightly different spelling - http://liveablecity.org/ ) was finally starting to seep into the mainstream. If there are new combined walk/bike groups popping up more often than they used to (and I’m not sure that’s the case), then I would suspect it’s because folks have been learning, like me, that a lot of these goals we share are very closely related.

I’ll make sure I add y’all to the sidebar.
http://www.livablecity.org/

]]> By: Dave Snyder http://bikeblogs.org/sf/2008/10/03/should-bicycle-and-pedestrian-organizations-merge/#comment-210 Dave Snyder Mon, 06 Oct 2008 08:38:45 +0000 http://bikeblogs.org/sf/?p=156#comment-210 There already is an organization in San Francisco that combines the walking and bicycling agendas along with the overall transportation and land use reform agendas: Livable City. They, err, we, obviously need to do a better job of making our existence known. Dave There already is an organization in San Francisco that combines the walking and bicycling agendas along with the overall transportation and land use reform agendas: Livable City. They, err, we, obviously need to do a better job of making our existence known.

Dave

]]> By: turtles http://bikeblogs.org/sf/2008/10/03/should-bicycle-and-pedestrian-organizations-merge/#comment-203 turtles Sat, 04 Oct 2008 22:07:23 +0000 http://bikeblogs.org/sf/?p=156#comment-203 Here are my main issues, from the bike side: 1) I think the main issue with combining these two types of organizations into one would undermine the concept of bikes as vehicle-- we (bikes) are fighting daily to have full rights to the road and pedestrians are not supposed to be in the road, so that would be a huge conflict of interest. 2) Bike advocacy groups are already considered 'anti-car' -- and combining the two would only strengthen that slur. 3) There are two very different issues, which do occasionally merge-- but to try and rally people is already tough enough, so trying to get the bike commuters to 'stand up' for a crosswalk or walking path isn't going to work. You can only ask your members to do so much, and the more relevant the better. It'd be like a car advocacy group combining with a trucking advocacy group. Hey Pleasanton residents who work in Downtown SF- come support better access to the Port of Oakland... not quite... These arguments against are not intended as a condemnation of the idea overall or that we shouldn't EVER work together... but combining the organizations would be illogical to me. Also, I think you underestimate the relationship between SFBC and WalkSF-- and ABC is moving forward in a good way-- but there is so far to go around bikes already that it's not likely that will happen anytime soon. Here are my main issues, from the bike side:
1) I think the main issue with combining these two types of organizations into one would undermine the concept of bikes as vehicle– we (bikes) are fighting daily to have full rights to the road and pedestrians are not supposed to be in the road, so that would be a huge conflict of interest.

2) Bike advocacy groups are already considered ‘anti-car’ — and combining the two would only strengthen that slur.

3) There are two very different issues, which do occasionally merge– but to try and rally people is already tough enough, so trying to get the bike commuters to ’stand up’ for a crosswalk or walking path isn’t going to work. You can only ask your members to do so much, and the more relevant the better. It’d be like a car advocacy group combining with a trucking advocacy group. Hey Pleasanton residents who work in Downtown SF- come support better access to the Port of Oakland… not quite…

These arguments against are not intended as a condemnation of the idea overall or that we shouldn’t EVER work together… but combining the organizations would be illogical to me.

Also, I think you underestimate the relationship between SFBC and WalkSF– and ABC is moving forward in a good way– but there is so far to go around bikes already that it’s not likely that will happen anytime soon.

]]>