In the past several years, Oregon bicyclists and bicycle advocates have shared the satisfaction of being on the crest of the upsurge in all things bike. Our state and its cities have received a number of awards and honors for being bicycle friendly due primarily to the temperate weather, hard-working planners and transportation officials, excellent stewardship by bicycle organizations, (like the Bicycle Transportation Alliance) and the luck of having a generally accepting population which has by and large acquiesced in Oregon’s attempts to transition from a timber-based state to one having a high-tech and recreation-based economy. As a new generation of leadership has emerged in bicycle related organizations, professional planners and bicycle industry representatives have naturally attempted to participate in shaping the bicycle movement. These new elements in the bike world have combined to create trouble in our traditional family.
Over the last two years, a divisive but exciting struggle has been occurring within America’s premiere bicycle membership organization, the League of American Bicyclists (LAB) (which began as the League of American Wheelman [LAW] – the name was changed to the gender neutral “League of American Bicyclists” [LAB].) Since its founding in 1890, the LAW has championed the rights of cyclists who were then riding the first crest in bicycle use. Bicycle riders led the Good Roads Movement, published the first touring maps (including an excellent map we have hanging in our office which was originally created in 1896 and shows the many bicycling clubs existing within Portland in 1896), and organized tours and races. LAW membership topped out at 102,000 in 1898 and then followed the decline in bicycle riding with lower membership numbers as the automobile became the king of the highway. The League was quiescent until the bike mini-boom of the 1970s reinvigorated the bicycle industry and increased the numbers of riders, the LAW then enjoyed a resurgence of membership and activities. A number of bicycle activists stepped forward who incorporated the principles of the Good Roads Movement in championing bicyclists’ rights to use roadways like other vehicles, maintaining that the safest way to ride a bike is to act like, and be treated like a vehicle. These visionaries re-invigorated the traditional LAW view that bikes were serious transportation vehicles which deserved equal rights to the road. They vigorously defended against any restrictions on where we choose to ride, including urging us to the traffic lane when necessary to ride safely.
However, within the “bicycle community,” (which has grown considerably since the 1970s in numbers, political influence, and the impact within the organization of special interests such as manufacturer friendly industry representatives), the sometimes cantankerous voices of bicycling’s “visionaries” began to rankle folks who felt that the main job of the LAB was to “promote” the use of bicycles. Various strains of bicycle advocacy have since developed as our numbers have increased and our usage has become more diverse to include mountain bike riding as well as town use. In addition, the bicycle has developed as somewhat of a revolutionary vehicle in that many alternative lifestyle people have come to embrace it as an alternative to mainstream car culture. The Critical Mass Movement is one wing of the outgrowth of the constituents within our ranks.
Within the LAB, often referred to as the “League,” its visionaries chafed under the ‘feel good” tendencies of the bicycle industry representatives and the bureaucratic paternalism evident in some designs of urban bicycle facilities which transferred bicycles away from other vehicles into unequal and poorly designed bicycle paths or lanes.
The dispute within the League came to a head in 2003 when the LAB board conducted an election and a change in bylaws that infuriated the LAB visionaries. They complained that the new LAB board was moving the organization so far from the principle of including bicycles in the roadway that the LAB was no longer useful as an advocate for bicyclists’ rights. A group entitled LAB Reform was formed to advocate, among other things, for a return to a more vigorous defense of the right of bicycle riders to ride on the roadway. The LAB Reform movement urged a return to, or further development of, the Effective Cycling Bike Education and Certification Program, and a thorough review of the LAB’s positions accepting creation of separate facilities like bike lanes and any training which taught riders to look for “safer” alternatives to riding in the roadway.
LAB Reform charged that current LAB programs fostered a separate and unequal position for bicyclists. Their current platform is contained at www.labreform.org. Aside from modest procedural changes, the reformers are urging bicyclists to return to a model for coexistence with motorized vehicular traffic that firmly puts bicyclists back in the roadway. The reformers argue that the LAB’s Bicycle Friendly Communities Program embraces communities that have actually disserved bicyclists by restricting access to public roadways and building unsafe bicycle facilities which interfere with motorized transportation and actually increase the risk of injury to bicyclists. These ideas have been presented in a harsh tone and have created disharmony within the organization and discomfort for the current leadership of LAB which has meanwhile been attempting to promote positive ideas about bicycle riding and capitalize upon positive themes, such as what is made available by Lance Armstrong’s willingness to include the LAB within his promotion machine by creating free high quality public service videos for the League. The LAB Reform attacks have caused the LAB directorship to attempt to keep a positive focus in the organization’s work, and, at least at first, to treat the loud complaints as an internal family matter not to be shared with the outside world.
Fortunately, the LAB Reformers and the LAB Board have reached a truce of sorts. The most contentious accusations about process within the LAB have been withdrawn in exchange for certain procedural changes agreed to by the Board in October of 2004. The LAB reformers are now fielding a slate of candidates for the 2005 LAB Board elections who will put forward a platform that fully embraces the positions taken by the reform group.
The disagreement and debate within the LAB is representative of the disparate forces at work within America’s bicycle community. While the tendency for some folks may be to distance themselves from the League and any unpleasantness associated with this conflict within its family of riders, it is imperative that bicyclists must figure out where we stand on the issues, and tell the League what we want. We need to recognize that the LAB’s conflict reflects bigger issues within the bicycle community. The debate in the League requires that we join the League and provide it with our support. While it is true that our numbers are up, it is also true that the “bicycle movement” is complex and cannot be expected to maintain its vitality and relevance with a feel good approach to bicycle advocacy. While in some ways the discord in LAB is about the style and tone to be used in promotion of bicycle riding, the stridency of the LAB reformers has served to get people thinking about who we are, why we exist, and where we are going. Unfortunately, the current leadership within the LAB has chosen not to engage with the reformers in public debate within the public eye (at least not within the LAB membership magazine or the organization’s website www.bikeleague.org). Now is no time to stay on the sidelines and avoid the unpleasantness. As bicycle riders we need to embrace the debate and educate ourselves about why it is that the League exists in the first place and why creating separate facilities for bicyclists may ultimately be our own undoing. The provocative ideas put forward by the LAB reformers deserve our attention, but the League also deserves our support. Attached below is a League membership form. Join the League, join the family, make your views known!