Noah Budnick: "excited" to lead anti-car special interest group
.jpg)
As the new executive director of the city's Bicycle Coalition, Noah Budnick shares Leah Shahum's preference for the language of hype. He refers to the "incredible energy" of the anti-car movement around the country, and he's "so excited" to be in San Francisco. Shahum's comment is also hyper: Budnick has "tremendous experience" and will be a "terrific new leader, she is "excited" about his ability.
Shahum shouldn't be a hard act to follow, since her long reign as head of the coalition has been characterized by arrogance, stupidity, and outright lies.
The Bicycle Coalition's press release includes this baloney:
Under her leadership, the number of people biking in San Francisco has skyrocketed (97% from 2006-2013), protected bikeways have been added across the city, and bicycling has become a core issue in creating a more livable city. She leaves the SF Bicycle Coalition to pursue a fellowship studying Vision Zero initiatives in Europe.
It's a lie that "people biking" in the city has "skyrocketed" 97%, since that's a reference to the last city bicycle count report, a survey that's only done once a year during commute hours. It doesn't measure the number of people riding bikes overall in the city; it only counts people riding to and from work on that particular day. And where are all those "protected bikeways" in the city? I know of one on the Panhandle but not any others.
This is a problem that the bike zealots have always had---knowing the difference between their own hype and reality. From Streetsblog's story on Budnick:
Budnick once debated with Rob Anderson, who sued SF over its 2009 Bike Plan (delaying it for years), on a 2008 edition of National Public Radio’s “Talk of the Nation.” He was also featured alongside Anderson and Shahum in a Wall Street Journal article on the issue at the time.
Actually, we sued in 2005 over the 2004 version of the Bicycle Plan, not the 2009 version (See Judge Busch's decision, wherein he all but called the city liars for their lame argument). And Budnick was not in that Wall Street Journal story. Streetsblog provides a link to the story but apparently didn't bother to read it. I don't remember Budnick at all from a radio program that allowed me little time to say anything, which wasn't surprising, since NPR usually upholds the prog party line.
This kind of ass-kissing on Streetsblog by Budnick probably didn't hurt his application for the job:
Last month, Streetsblog USA interviewed Budnick about the TA-hosted Vision Zero Symposium, a first-of-its-kind national event held in NYC. “In San Francisco,” he said, “the broad coalition and engagement on Vision Zero is impressive...I think what they’ve done in San Francisco with the Vision Zero coalition is good work for us to note.”
On Vision Zero, the rhetoric is outrunning the reality. Budnick:
It starts with a simple matter of leadership, which is stating that traffic deaths and serious injuries are preventable. They’re not accidents. That change in thinking is an incredibly important first step....When the leadership acknowledges that all traffic deaths and serious injuries are preventable, then you can move past these policy debates about whether or not zero is appropriate, and you can start from a strong moral position.
Meaning that you supposedly seize the high moral ground with this absurdity, since obviously not all traffic injury accidents are preventable; people will sometimes indulge in unsafe behavior, regardless of how well city streets are designed. This kind of hyperbole just makes Budnick and Shahum sound like hyped-up megaphones for their anti-car special interest group.
For someone supposedly concerned about the safety of city streets, Shahum has had nothing to say about that UC study that found the city has a radically flawed method of counting cycling accidents. You would think that someone pushing Vision Zero would be outraged at that gross incompetence about the safety of her membership.
By coming to grips with that study and its implications, Budnick could signal that his regime at the Bicycle Coalition is going to be different than Shahum's.
Bike guy John Murphy comments to the Streetsblog story: "I keenly look forward to the Rob Anderson blog post on this one. His tears of sadness are so delicious."
Why would I be sad about a leadership change at this special interest group? Like Budnick and Shahum, Murphy is probably just "excited."
Shahum shouldn't be a hard act to follow, since her long reign as head of the coalition has been characterized by arrogance, stupidity, and outright lies.
The Bicycle Coalition's press release includes this baloney:
Under her leadership, the number of people biking in San Francisco has skyrocketed (97% from 2006-2013), protected bikeways have been added across the city, and bicycling has become a core issue in creating a more livable city. She leaves the SF Bicycle Coalition to pursue a fellowship studying Vision Zero initiatives in Europe.
It's a lie that "people biking" in the city has "skyrocketed" 97%, since that's a reference to the last city bicycle count report, a survey that's only done once a year during commute hours. It doesn't measure the number of people riding bikes overall in the city; it only counts people riding to and from work on that particular day. And where are all those "protected bikeways" in the city? I know of one on the Panhandle but not any others.
This is a problem that the bike zealots have always had---knowing the difference between their own hype and reality. From Streetsblog's story on Budnick:
Budnick once debated with Rob Anderson, who sued SF over its 2009 Bike Plan (delaying it for years), on a 2008 edition of National Public Radio’s “Talk of the Nation.” He was also featured alongside Anderson and Shahum in a Wall Street Journal article on the issue at the time.
Actually, we sued in 2005 over the 2004 version of the Bicycle Plan, not the 2009 version (See Judge Busch's decision, wherein he all but called the city liars for their lame argument). And Budnick was not in that Wall Street Journal story. Streetsblog provides a link to the story but apparently didn't bother to read it. I don't remember Budnick at all from a radio program that allowed me little time to say anything, which wasn't surprising, since NPR usually upholds the prog party line.
This kind of ass-kissing on Streetsblog by Budnick probably didn't hurt his application for the job:
Last month, Streetsblog USA interviewed Budnick about the TA-hosted Vision Zero Symposium, a first-of-its-kind national event held in NYC. “In San Francisco,” he said, “the broad coalition and engagement on Vision Zero is impressive...I think what they’ve done in San Francisco with the Vision Zero coalition is good work for us to note.”
On Vision Zero, the rhetoric is outrunning the reality. Budnick:
It starts with a simple matter of leadership, which is stating that traffic deaths and serious injuries are preventable. They’re not accidents. That change in thinking is an incredibly important first step....When the leadership acknowledges that all traffic deaths and serious injuries are preventable, then you can move past these policy debates about whether or not zero is appropriate, and you can start from a strong moral position.
Meaning that you supposedly seize the high moral ground with this absurdity, since obviously not all traffic injury accidents are preventable; people will sometimes indulge in unsafe behavior, regardless of how well city streets are designed. This kind of hyperbole just makes Budnick and Shahum sound like hyped-up megaphones for their anti-car special interest group.
For someone supposedly concerned about the safety of city streets, Shahum has had nothing to say about that UC study that found the city has a radically flawed method of counting cycling accidents. You would think that someone pushing Vision Zero would be outraged at that gross incompetence about the safety of her membership.
By coming to grips with that study and its implications, Budnick could signal that his regime at the Bicycle Coalition is going to be different than Shahum's.
Bike guy John Murphy comments to the Streetsblog story: "I keenly look forward to the Rob Anderson blog post on this one. His tears of sadness are so delicious."
Why would I be sad about a leadership change at this special interest group? Like Budnick and Shahum, Murphy is probably just "excited."
Labels: Anti-Car, Bicycle Coalition, Bicycle Count Report, Bicycle Plan, Cycling and Safety, Language, Leah Shahum, Noah Budnick, Streetsblog, UC Study, Vision Zero
posted by Rob Anderson @ 1:52 PM
11 comments
11 Comments:
The current episode of cyclical bicycling fad is hitting the wall. Evangelists like him and their propaganda machine, the Washington lobby known as The League of American Bicyclists are getting more desperate to keep it going, much like Lance Armstrong and the USPS racing team cheated to keep going. Gasoline prices are down. Large population peaks like baby boomers are getting too arthritic to ride and are more in need of handicapped parking than bike racks and lanes. Bike share programs like NYC's Citibike have year over year declines in membership and needed a bail out.
PS. Rob, if you are curious what the anti-car propaganda machine pumps out and the agendas they promote for the year, subscribe to emails from the League of American Bicyclists. What they advocate then gets echoed by all the local groups and countless bloggers. Its just like watching Democrats or Republicans repeating the same messages each of their comrades speak.
Hey Rob, has anyone spat in your face today? 'cause you sure do deserve it!
Does Amelie Le Moullac haunt your nightmares Rob? Because you killed her, just as sure as if you had run her over yourself. I hope she haunts you. You deserve it.
No, you must be mistaken. I find no mention of this person in my Diary of a Serial Killer.
How so? She was killed by a truck making a turn off Folsom Street while she was riding her bike. Exactly what "improvement" to that street would have prevented that accident? As long as cyclists in SF are sharing the streets with trucks, buses, and cars this kind of accident will happen.
"How so? She was killed by a truck making a turn off Folsom Street while she was riding her bike. Exactly what "improvement" to that street would have prevented that accident?"
Protected bike lane and not allowing large trucks whose drivers can't see where they're turning onto our streets.
Has a protected bike lane been proposed for Folsom? Nope. Besides, she was hit in the intersection, since the truck driver was making a right turn onto Sixth Street. All our goods here in SF are delivered by trucks. Maybe the Bicycle Coalition can arrange to get that done with bikes.
A better idea: don't ride a bike in the city, since this is the kind of accident that can happen as long as cyclists share streets with motor vehicles, that is forever.
That turn from Folsom onto Sixth has already been fixed. Not with a protected bike lane but with some paint which created a right-turn-only lane to the right of the bike lane.
I used to be right-hooked here on my bike almost daily. Now I haven't seen a right-hook turn there in more than 12 months.
This inexpensive type of improvement at busy interections would probably do more for cyclist security than 100 miles of segregated bike lanes.
Someday maybe someone at the MTA or the bike coalition will explain to me why they speak and write nothing about right-hook turns and the simple fix available to deal with them.
When is the last time a cyclist was killed in Amsterdam? You are a liar Rob and you know you lie. The only question is, why do you do it?
Was Amsterdam even mentioned in this post? But cyclists do die in Amsterdam like they do everywhere else:
"Amsterdam is Netherlands' most dangerous city for cyclists, pedestrians"
And the fatality rate there is 1/6th of that in San Francisco. Dedicated bike lanes with separate signals would have saved her life. But you have opposed this at every step. Her death lies clearly on your door.
Post a Comment
<< Home