[sustran] Re: anyone know anything about bike parking in buildings regulations?

[Todd Alexander Litman]

See the "Bicycle Parking" chapter of our Online TDM Encyclopedia 
(http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm85.htm ) which includes a few examples of 
parking requirements incorporated into zoning codes. Please let me 
know if you find any good information to add.


Best wishes,
-Todd Litman

At 09:00 AM 26/11/2008, Walter Hook 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=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').


Sincerely,
Todd Alexander Litman
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org)
litman at vtpi.org
Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA
"Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"