U.S. Congressman Earl Blumenauer will kick off Interbike in Las Vegas next month. His presence will put advocacy front and center at North America’s largest bike trade show. Blumenauer will be joined by Interbike Show Director Andy Tompkins and Bikes Belong Coalition President Tim Blumenthal at a press conference to open the show on September 22nd.
Here’s an excerpt from a statement by Interbike:
“The purpose of the press conference is to welcome the industry to Interbike 2010, share information about the industry’s show and its future direction, and hear from Blumenauer and Blumenthal on the state of cycling legislation and future government activity on behalf of bicycling.
Blumenauer’s visit comes at a critical time as the U.S. government continues to work on the next transportation bill, which will set the tone for cycling infrastructure investments during the next six years. The Congressman will outline where bicycling stands, and where it’s going. He will pinpoint what the industry can do to support the cause. Following the press conference, Blumenauer will spend the day at Interbike visiting with the industry.”
In addition to his speech to open the show, Blumenauer will be the guest of honor at a BikesPAC fundraising reception hosted by Bikes Belong the night before the press conference.
The press conference will be held Wednesday, September 22, 8:00 a.m. I will be in attendance and will share a full report. This is great news for bike advocates as Blumenauer’s presence will help the industry recognize the vital importance of becoming involved in advocacy on the national level.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
Considering how much each American family pays in monetary and social costs, the nation’s motor-vehicle based transportation system is simply not providing enough of a benefit.
Non-motorized transportation options are not about lifestyle choices. They are a requirement for our society to live through the next few decades.
I like the direction that the industry is taking. While it is good to have the next generation of racing and off-road technology on-hand, it’s even better to see the evolution of functional bikes as transportation. The presence of Blumenauer sends a clear message.
And yet they hold this event at one of the most car-dependent cities in the country. If the irony of that doesn’t get hammered to every participant, then they’re just playing games there.
Wonderful–I don’t live in Earl’s district, but he truly is every American cyclist’s representative.
All seriousness aside, I wasn’t aware that 8am even existed at Interbike!
bikes belong is an industry group that is trying to push recreational cycling. i do not find it at all reassuring that tim blumenthal is sharing a press conference with rep. blumenauer.
are,
You’ve made that claim about Bikes Belong several times now, but it’s simply not true.
Bikes Belong promotes all types of riding. In addition to recreational riding, they also fund the Safe Routes to School National Partnership and they have funded countless grassroots advocacy groups throughout the US with their grant programs.
They also have a program to help US planners and advocates visit Europe to learn and bring back lessons. They are a key part of the bike movement. Sure I may not like everything they do, but your characterization of their work is absolutely unfair and inaccurate.
I’m curious why you have a beef with them?
i wouldn’t say beef. i worked with tim blumenthal on a senate staffer meeting at the league summit, back in ought three. but with respect to my assertion that bikes belong has a primarily recreational agenda, i wrote up a response on my blog the last time you called me out on this, in december:
http://taking-the-lane.blogspot.com/2009/12/whose-agenda.html
look at the grant history and tell me this is transportation.
RE: “TAKING THE LANE: A PROJECT TO REPEAL OREGON’S FAR TO THE RIGHT AND MANDATORY SIDEPATH LAWS”
Why stop there?
http://www.bikewalk.org/pdfs/trafficcontrol_backtobasics.pdf
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2008/vanderbilt.pdf
http://www.usroads.com/journals/p/rilj/9801/ri980102.htm
Recreational cycling is a reasonable, and necessary, step for people to transition from motorized to non-motorized transportation modes. Hard data is a bit hard to come by on the subject, but there are indications that increases in recreational cycling result in proportional increases in cycling commuters.
The all-or-nothing elitist attitude in some cycling circles has done serious damage to the cycling movement. Get people on a bike first before demanding they bike commute everyday.
i really do not think it is elitist to say that people who use bikes for transportation on roads ought to be allowed to do so without being pushed to the side and corralled into striped lanes. bikes belong funds primarily offroad projects and provides a very significant chunk of the total operating budget of the league of american bicyclists, which rewards cities for striping lanes and putting people onto multiple use paths. on other threads you are seeing the pedestrian pushback against cyclists using MUPs for transportation. if we get a sufficiently pervasive system of sidepaths, yes you will see increased mode share, but the cyclists who have been used to fending for themselves on the streets will no longer be permitted to do so. to me this is an equity issue, and is not elitist.
“…but the cyclists who have been used to fending for themselves on the streets will no longer be permitted to do so. …” are #11
There seem to be few reports of instances that suggest this is actually happening. People that ride bikes in Portland have access to nearly every roadway with the exception of some sections of highways. Used responsibly and with consideration for other traffic on the road, if they want or need to take the lane, they can and do, and rarely it seems, with any hassle from the police.
Across the nation, there are isolated instances where police officers occasionally confront and direct cyclists to ride as far to the right as possible, such as that of the cyclist Reed Bates down in Texas;
The-negative-trajectory-of-the-Reed-Bates-case/ Bekologist/Bikeforums
Introducing people that have never biked (or did but gave it up long ago as something they were grudgingly obliged to do), to biking, through recreational outings, is a great way to open eyes to the appeal of cycling for day to day practical use.
all i can tell you, wsbob, is that the existing mandatory sidepath law, 814.420, refers to a “bicycle lane or bicycle path adjacent to or near the roadway.” you put a “path” anywhere “near” a roadway, two things are going to happen: motorists are going to have a much higher expectation that you belong over there, and the letter of the law will absolutely not be on your side. thanks for the link to the commentary on reed bates, which does make an interesting argument against repeal of the far to the right law (a somewhat different critter). beko’s concern is that you might throw the exceptions out with the bathwater, but of course this is not really necessary. you can get rid of the “far to the right as practicable” language, and simply say that cyclists are subject to the slow moving vehicle law, with the following exceptions, and keep all the exceptions.
bikes belong wants to sell bicycles, and i say fine, you got a thriving bike industry i will have access to parts, no problem. but they have expressed little or no interest in transportation, and they provide a huge chunk of LAB’s total budget, and LAB is not saying squat about mandatory sidepath laws, QED.
wsbob (#12) – “few reports of instances” – what about ODOT’s proposal to ban cyclists from additional highways? Outside the Portland bubble, how about that town in Colorado which has banned bikes? What about the other instances in the news lately that Jonathan has covered.
The more crowded the roads get, and the more people live farther from work due to economic or other factors, the greater the push there will be from the automotive majority to eliminate other road users.
Matt…were you referring to the ODOT proposal maus wrote a story about in ’06?:
Update on highway bike ban proposal/Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) on April 5th, 2006
Proposal didn’t seem like it went anywhere. Any news on efforts to get it going again?
I didn’t mention Black Rock, because it seems to be such an aberration in the general trend of things. The way that town chose to address a situation they perceived as a problem was bizarre on a level that I don’t see much of the U.S. embracing.
The St Charles County/Missouri/County councilman Joe Brazil story seemed similar situation in some respects.:
Missouri county considers biking ban (and why you should care)/Jonathan Maus 2010
also discussed at bikeforums:
Bicycle ban proposed in Missouri county…/fosmith/bikeforums
I don’t believe that people will widely accept or seize upon the ban of bikes from the roads as a viable means of reducing traffic congestion, or even an acceptable means of improving road safety people that ride bikes. From the standpoint of solving congestion problems, I think that if not readily in support of bike travel, people are able to recognize that roads need to be well equipped with shoulders or sidewalks to allow for travel by walking. Most recently on the westside last week, there was a horrific car-pedestrian collision that served as a reminder of this:
Teen struck in hit-and-run dies from injuries/Oregonian/published: Friday, August 27
Beaverton teenager killed by car in Cedar Mill grew produce with classmates/Wendy Owen/Oregonian/Friday, August 27