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

[Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory]

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)