I am home from a weekend away. I attended the
I am Traffic Colloquium in Orlando, along with forty-some of my best internet friends, sentient cyclists all.
I Am Traffic, which I will use as a working name for the group in the short term (the formal name has not been determined), is based on several principles, many of which are summed in discussion of the Six Es:
There are SIX Es, not the traditional five, and the most important of them is Equality. Indeed, I personally feel (and some seem to agree, although we haven't pushed for formal adoption of this belief) that Equality is the "Super-E" of the group. By this, I mean that equality in education and enforcement, and equity (not exactly equality, but related) in engineering and encouragement, along with equality and equity in evaluation, reach paramount importance. Nothing less is acceptable.
Some years ago, when the "Five-Es" list was promulgated by the League of American Bicyclists, there was a push for the sixth E to be Equality. The League has not done well at keeping to that concept, that since the laws in every state of the Union say that a bicycle operator is a driver of a vehicle (or device, in some states), such cyclist has the full right and responsibility of movement on the public roads. Of course, other laws go on to restrict cyclists' rights to use the roads as elements of traffic, and in all cases, such laws put cyclists at risk to enhance the perceived convenience of faster (and thus presumed more legitimate) traffic.
The traditional "Five Es," with some annotation:
Education: Teaching folks how to use the shared public space called our road system is all but nonexistent, at least in a formal sense. People learn bad habits from parents or friends or society at large, and those lessons lead to a LOT of prejudicial behaviors and myths. Educating cyclists is important, but we cannot forget that educating law enforcement officers, motorists, jurists, and policy-makers is also important.
Enforcement: I will not defend blatant lawbreaking by cyclists. At the same time, I read many accounts from riders who experience biases against cyclists behaving as defensive drivers of their vehicles when dealing with law enforcement officers who are, at best, badly trained in traffic law. That judges also fail to recognize that cyclists are operators of vehicles with stunning frequency is deplorable.
Engineering: We are happy to endorse well-designed bike-focused infrastructure. Sadly, there is little out there that meets this level of quality. Well-designed infrastructure does NOT violate safe movement principles. A through bike lane to the right of a lane from which a motorist may make a right turn is in direct violation of safe movement principles. Such a "bike lane" in proximity to a line of parallel-parked cars is doubly so. It really is that simple.
Encouragement: Too many folks think cycling is some combination of: hard, exhausting, ludicrously hazardous, rude to other road users, inconvenient...the list goes on and on. We aim to help folks see how easy it can be, how being part of traffic is NOT rude, but actually more polite than "hugging the curb," how safe it is when one controls one's own actions, and so on. It's amazing what can be done with a bicycle!
Evaluation: Too much of the evaluation we have so far is looking to the wrong data set. Simply counting bike users going through an intersection doesn't tell us much, and is too subject to error (inadvertent or otherwise). To evaluate either a policy or a facility, we need to know things like, "How was this intersection navigated before, by cyclists exhibiting edge, driver, or pedestrian behavior?" and "How are edge-, driver-, or pedestrian-behaving cyclists using it after it's built?"
We had presentations about Cycling Savvy and its origins and philosophy, law enforcement and bicycle use, a
program that teaches engineers about how bicycles operate as part of traffic and how to design accordingly, and a program for kids called "
Journeys from Home" that is absolutely top-notch in how it teaches movement as communication.
On the second day, we did some brainstorming on a vision statement and a mission statement. The original vision statement is quite good (Our Vision: That drivers of human-powered vehicles are Expected and Respected as a normal part of traffic.), but is it good enough? What mission statement do we want? Many ideas were floated about, and the word-smithing is yet to be done. Creating a lasting organization with the goals we have in mind is not a simple task, and putting forward the right messages in our vision and mission statements helps others see what we are on about. We discussed high-altitude views on what sort of business model we wish to adopt and some of the nuances between a couple of choices open to us, what our goals as an organization are, what our name should be, how our governance will be structured, and how we will get the details sorted. A board was chosen to assemble Articles of Incorporation and a draft of the bylaws for membership approval. There has been some discussion over who is or is not a member at this point, with incomplete resolution (I am confident that some ideas on this will come out of the board's efforts).
We even get some local input via that formation board: Jenn is one of the five members!