[sustran] Re: anyone know anything about bike parking in buildings
regulations?
Joao Lacerda
jglacerda at ta.org.br
Thu Nov 27 03:51:39 JST 2008
Walter,
Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo here in Brazil have laws to promote bike
parking in places that atract a lot of people. Mainly shopping malls
and alike.
Also, underground parking facilities in Rio must offer bicycle
parking. We at Transporte Ativo were able to turn this law into
reality by pressing the owners to obey what their obligations
concerning bicycles was.
First the law in Rio that makes shopping malls and alike to have
proper parking facilities for bicycles:
Lei complementar Nº 77, de 22 de ABRIL de 2005
And the law in São Paulo, that talks about places that attract people
in general.
LEI Nº 13.995, de 10 de JUNHO de 2005
I tend to like this kind of legislation a lot, but here and Brazil
they only worked with pressure from groups that encourage bicycle use.
Ask me if you need some help with the portuguese. And here is how we
did it:
http://www.ta.org.br/site/area/cinelandia/Cinelandia.htm
First a visit along with the local media. Then a test during September
22nd, later, they finally gave us the infra-structure. The best
parking facility in town, that charges you for it. Another underground
parking made the infra-structure without our intervention and doesn't
charge the cyclists for it. Surely the example made then do it by
themselves.
All the best,
--------------------------------
João Guilherme Lacerda
Transporte Ativo - São Paulo
www.ta.org.br
htttp://blog.ta.org.br
On Nov 26, 2008, at 4:31 PM, Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory wrote:
> Hi Walter,
>
> I believe San Francisco has a regulation which requires buildings with
> freight elevators to allow bikes.... and I think a related one which
> mandates showers in new buildings and renovations.
>
> Andy?
>
> Also, I would suggest that the TA people contact the Durst
> organisation
> about One Bryant, their new big high-profile midtown Manhattan "green"
> office building which will have bike parking and no car parking.
>
> - T
>
> Zvi Leve wrote:
>> Walter,
>>
>> The City of Montreal has recently updated their municipal
>> by-laws<http://ville.montreal.qc.ca/portal/page?_pageid=2762,3101322&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
>> >to
>> include "provisions regarding parking requirements for bicycles upon
>> the
>> construction, extension or change of use of a building." There are
>> also new
>> by-laws concerning the *maximum* number of on-site parking
>> spaces<http://ville.montreal.qc.ca/portal/page?_pageid=2762,3101308&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
>> >which
>> can be built with new developments!
>>
>> Both of these by-laws are applied at the 'Borough' level, which
>> means that
>> each sector of the city if free to apply their own standards.
>>
>> Still too early to know how much of an impact these by-laws will
>> have.
>> Montreal has always had relatively numbers of bicyclists, but this is
>> primarily due to socio-economic factors (ie students, artists and
>> other low
>> income households), more than anything else. In recent years the
>> number of
>> cars on the island (of Montreal) has been going up quickly. An
>> influx of
>> (relatively) wealthier people to inner-core neighbourhoods,
>> compounded with
>> the vicious cycle of transit fare increases and service cuts, has
>> been
>> behind this increase.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Zvi
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Walter Hook <whook at itdp.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Does anyone know of cities with regulations that require
>>> commercial and/or
>>> residential buildings to allow people to bring bicycles into their
>>> buildings
>>> or provide some parking for them? TA is trying to introduce such
>>> a bill in
>>> New York City, and I am unaware of any precedent.
>>>
>>> Best
>>>
>>> walter
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org at list.jca.apc.org
>>> [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook <sustran-discuss-bounces
>>> %2Bwhook>=
>>> itdp.org at list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf
>>> Of Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory
>>> Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 12:25 PM
>>> To: Sustran Resource Centre
>>> Subject: [sustran] Re: 'Get Visible' video - response to Todd
>>>
>>> Amy Walker/Momentum Magazine wrote:
>>>
>>>> Todd,
>>>>
>>>> The premise of the video is "if you want to be seen while riding at
>>>> night, get some lights/reflectors on."
>>>>
>>>> There is absolutely no implied message of "you get what you
>>>> deserve if
>>>> you get hit" Ever. Period.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your interest - and happy riding!
>>>>
>>>> Amy
>>>>
>>> Hi Amy,
>>>
>>> It is clear to me that any message of that sort was not
>>> intentional, but
>>> what the video showed was a level of illumination (technology)
>>> beyond
>>> what is required, and so I would not be surprised if some people
>>> interpreted it - even subconsciously - as a recommendation to take
>>> that
>>> degree of action in regards to their own safety whilst cycling.
>>> Would it
>>> be possible to see if this is really the case?
>>>
>>> If the video was about a government health authority recommending
>>> drinking a certain amount of water everyday, it could show people
>>> having
>>> water fights, going swimming, and so on. Fun imagery perhaps, and
>>> appropriate to convey the importance of water. But not precise
>>> enough
>>> for an actual regulation.
>>>
>>> Imagine the equivalent of "get some lights/reflectors on" directed
>>> towards motorists in regards to the lighting or other critical
>>> safety
>>> equipment in their vehicles. A message like that would not be taken
>>> seriously. In addition, there may in fact be requirements for the
>>> maximum illumination possible for motorised road vehicles.
>>>
>>> I am sure you understand how important imagery and text are in
>>> delivering messages, especially those which can relate
>>> specifically to a
>>> road traffic regulation. So it seems like it would have been
>>> helpful to
>>> at the very least make those regulations clear - and the
>>> importance of
>>> following them - in a video like this, which I am also sure you
>>> could
>>> have done in a very fun and non-preachy manner.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your hard work,
>>> T
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think I was clear - and sorry if I was not - that I think
>>>>> cyclists
>>>>> should absolutely use the legal minimum. I was not recommending
>>>>> invisibility. Wearing black is great if your bike is lit up
>>>>> according
>>>>> to law. The issue about DRLs (daytime running lights) is like
>>>>> everything beyond requirements proposed in the video (except the
>>>>> shorts) a distraction figuratively and literally-speaking. Also,
>>>>> cars
>>>>> are big, go fast, cant manouver or stop so quick... DRLs are a bad
>>>>> analogy. On a dull, rainy winter afternoon cars need to slow
>>>>> down - a
>>>>> lot! - and not have DRLs which make their drivers think they can
>>>>> go
>>>>> as fast as before.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure, obviously in carfree cities bikes may only need front and
>>>>> rear
>>>>> lights to be seen by pedestrians and none of the rest, so
>>>>> accepting
>>>>> the additional reflectors etc. is already a concession to a failed
>>>>> surface transport system. You did not respond to my thoughts about
>>>>> something recommended - or what drivers like - becoming something
>>>>> mandatory. Even without the unfortunate Darwin comment - the
>>>>> mostly
>>>>> selfless act of choosing to ride a bike outweighs any
>>>>> irresponsibility of not being lit up - I find it troubling that
>>>>> you
>>>>> seem to think that others who are not lit beyond what is
>>>>> required and
>>>>> are hit, etc. get what they deserve. In a much more gentle way
>>>>> that
>>>>> is of course the main premise of the video.
>>>>>
>>>>> - T
>>>>>
>>>>> Ron Richings wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Todd
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not one of the makers of the video, but I do have a couple
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> seconds
>>>>>> of face time in it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think that the message is confused at all. Visible is
>>>>>> safer
>>>>>> than
>>>>>> invisible, and there are many ways to make yourself seen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As a cyclist and driver, every time that I see (barely and
>>>>>> usually
>>>>>> at the
>>>>>> last minute) a person riding a bike at night with no light nor
>>>>>> reflective
>>>>>> material, and often wearing dark clothes, I get cranky and
>>>>>> wonder --
>>>>>> WHY ??
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Aside from its Darwinian value in 'thinning the herd' of cyclists
>>>>>> too dumb
>>>>>> to survive, there is little to recommend invisibility at night.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the video gets even a few of those cyclists to change their
>>>>>> ways,
>>>>>> it will
>>>>>> have done a useful job.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Too much visibility? A bit hard to imagine in reality. Of course
>>>>>> parts of
>>>>>> the video are 'over the top'. We don't really expect people to
>>>>>> wear
>>>>>> brightly reflective shorts. And most wouldn't look nearly as
>>>>>> good in
>>>>>> them
>>>>>> as the B:C:Clettes do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Beyond what you describe as the legal minimum, when I ride at
>>>>>> night you
>>>>>> would see:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A bright yellow jacket with retro-reflective strips on the front,
>>>>>> back, and arms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A silver helmet with retro-reflective strips visible from all
>>>>>> angles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On my recumbent bike, several retro-reflective strips on the
>>>>>> frame,
>>>>>> fenders, mirror backs, rear bag, and in some circumstances
>>>>>> reflective
>>>>>> material on the pole and body of a rear flag arrangement that
>>>>>> rises to
>>>>>> three feet above my head. I may also put a couple of small
>>>>>> blinkies at
>>>>>> the top of the pole.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Too much? Am I endangering other cyclists ? I don't think so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There was a similar line of peculiar argument used to justify
>>>>>> the odd
>>>>>> approach that British cycling groups took in opposing daytime
>>>>>> running lights
>>>>>> for cars. Since the cars would be more visible, then cyclists and
>>>>>> others
>>>>>> will be comparatively less visible, so running lights should
>>>>>> not be
>>>>>> used.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As someone who lives in a country where such running lights
>>>>>> have been
>>>>>> standard for over 20 years, their contribution to safety vastly
>>>>>> exceeds any
>>>>>> drawbacks that they may have. Being able to see a car
>>>>>> approaching on a
>>>>>> rainy, dull, winter afternoon makes me safer. And of course those
>>>>>> running
>>>>>> lights very effectively 'light up' the retro-reflective strips
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> many
>>>>>> cyclists have on their bikes and clothing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Many car drivers are notably inattentive, particular at night. If
>>>>>> they are
>>>>>> to have any chance of avoiding you, they first have to see you.
>>>>>> And of
>>>>>> course if I am to avoid other cyclists, I too have to see them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And if a cyclist feels that is not enough, then a couple of
>>>>>> inexpensive LED
>>>>>> blinkies will make them considerably more visible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does this endanger cyclists who have no lights and minimal
>>>>>> reflectors while
>>>>>> riding a dark bicycle and wearing dark clothes? I don't think
>>>>>> so - that
>>>>>> really rests with them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Certainly none of this changes the motorist's legal obligation
>>>>>> to pay
>>>>>> attention. But as a practical matter I would rather be bright
>>>>>> and alive
>>>>>> than minimally legal and dead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I would encourage everyone to watch the video and "Get
>>>>>> Visible".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ron Richings
>>>>>> Vancouver, BC
>>>>>> Canada
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory [mailto:edelman at greenidea.eu
>>>>>> ]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First of all I sincerely admire all the work that went into
>>>>>> making this
>>>>>> video. It was cheesy on purpose, but that did not distract from
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> serious
>>>>>> message. It only emphasized it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unfortunately the message is totally confused. One of the worst
>>>>>> things that
>>>>>> any cycling advocate or activist can do is support more
>>>>>> illumination
>>>>>> then
>>>>>> what is required by law in most places (front white headlight and
>>>>>> reflector,
>>>>>> rear red taillight and reflector, reflectors on the pedals, and
>>>>>> reflectors
>>>>>> on the spokes or reflectorised sidewalls on the tyres --
>>>>>> practically an
>>>>>> international standard if we just work at it a little harder).
>>>>>> All
>>>>>> of these
>>>>>> extra decorations are lovely - though perhaps some of it is not
>>>>>> particularly
>>>>>> eco-friendly to manufacture - but by conflating what is generally
>>>>>> required
>>>>>> with all the other stuff the video proposes an unreasonable
>>>>>> amount of
>>>>>> responsibility for the cyclist for his or her own safety.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Moreover, if one cyclist is "lit up like a Christmas tree" and
>>>>>> another
>>>>>> cyclist nearby is not, the latter becomes relatively invisible!
>>>>>> This
>>>>>> also
>>>>>> applies in general, over time, i.e. if a driver gets used to
>>>>>> cyclists
>>>>>> glowing like a discotheque then they will not see the others.
>>>>>> Next
>>>>>> thing that will happen is that wearing something like a
>>>>>> reflective vest
>>>>>> becomes required. It is similar to what happens with helmets, and
>>>>>> some of us
>>>>>> know too well how this can throw a spanner in the works of a
>>>>>> proposed public
>>>>>> bike programme (e.g. in Vancouver.).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, reflectors are not designed to help pedestrians see
>>>>>> cyclists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Everyone wants to protect themselves and their loved ones - I
>>>>>> think
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> mandatory vests and helmets for children is worth considering -
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> hyperillumination is selfish and just hurts the others who are
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> so lit
>>>>>> up. Banning private cars in cities is the only sustainable
>>>>>> solution,
>>>>>> but the
>>>>>> real issues of any car reformation programme include speed, the
>>>>>> weight of
>>>>>> cars, the hardness of bonnets and windscreens, and all the
>>>>>> things a
>>>>>> driver
>>>>>> can legally do in their car while moving, to name just a few.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I propose that the fine folks in BC take their video off the
>>>>>> web
>>>>>> before
>>>>>> the lessons it tries to teach kill or injure someone, and
>>>>>> either do one
>>>>>> featuring only what is required by law, or on the other side of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> coin:
>>>>>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJenAE4e6EE> or
>>>>>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPzbc1uUcXA> and then we would
>>>>>> need
>>>>>> not to
>>>>>> change the lyrics too much.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - T
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> --
>>> --------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Todd Edelman
>>> Green Idea Factory
>>>
>>> Urbanstr. 45
>>> D-10967 Berlin
>>> Germany
>>>
>>> Skype: toddedelman
>>> Mobile: ++49 0162 814 4081
>>> Home/Office: ++49 030 7554 0001
>>>
>>> edelman at greenidea.eu
>>> www.greenidea.eu
>>> www.flickr.com/photos/edelman
>>>
>>> Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network
>>> www.worldcarfree.net
>>>
>>> CAR is over. If you want it.
>>>
>>> "Fort mit der Autostadt und was Neues hingebaut!"
>>> - B. Brecht (with slight modification)
>>>
>>> --
>>> --------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Todd Edelman
>>> Green Idea Factory
>>>
>>> Urbanstr. 45
>>> D-10967 Berlin
>>> Germany
>>>
>>> Skype: toddedelman
>>> Mobile: ++49 0162 814 4081
>>> Home/Office: ++49 030 7554 0001
>>>
>>> edelman at greenidea.eu
>>> www.greenidea.eu
>>> www.flickr.com/photos/edelman
>>>
>>> Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network
>>> www.worldcarfree.net
>>>
>>> CAR is over. If you want it.
>>>
>>> "Fort mit der Autostadt und was Neues hingebaut!"
>>> - B. Brecht (with slight modification)
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>> IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via
>>> YAHOOGROUPS.
>>>
>>> Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-
>>> discuss to
>>> join
>>> the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The
>>> yahoogroups
>>> version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real
>>> sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like
>>> you can).
>>> Apologies for the confusing arrangement.
>>>
>>> ================================================================
>>> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
>>> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing
>>> countries
>>> (the 'Global South').
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>> IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via
>>> YAHOOGROUPS.
>>>
>>> Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-
>>> discuss to
>>> join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The
>>> yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot
>>> post to the
>>> real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem
>>> like you
>>> can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement.
>>>
>>> ================================================================
>>> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
>>> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing
>>> countries
>>> (the 'Global South').
>>>
>>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via
>> YAHOOGROUPS.
>>
>> Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-
>> discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership
>> rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members'
>> there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the
>> yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the
>> confusing arrangement.
>>
>> ================================================================
>> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
>> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing
>> countries (the 'Global South').
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Todd Edelman
> Green Idea Factory
>
> Urbanstr. 45
> D-10967 Berlin
> Germany
>
> Skype: toddedelman
> Mobile: ++49 0162 814 4081
> Home/Office: ++49 030 7554 0001
>
> edelman at greenidea.eu
> www.greenidea.eu
> www.flickr.com/photos/edelman
>
> Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network
> www.worldcarfree.net
>
> CAR is over. If you want it.
>
> "Fort mit der Autostadt und was Neues hingebaut!"
> - B. Brecht (with slight modification)
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via
> YAHOOGROUPS.
>
> Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss
> to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The
> yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post
> to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it
> seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement.
>
> ================================================================
> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing
> countries (the 'Global South').
>
More information about the Sustran-discuss
mailing list