Some members of the League of American Bicyclists are frustrated and disillusioned with the League due to its recent policies and actions, and are considering allowing their membership to expire. Ian Cooper and Mark Sauerwald are two such members. Each of them expressed their feeling in a letter to the League's Director of Membership, Scott Williams. I am publishing these letters below, with the authors' permission. (I have made a few minor corrections.)

Hello Scott,

Just a note to say thank you for sending me a reminder to renew my membership. However, I will not be renewing. I hope the League is interested to know why.

When I joined a year ago, I was perhaps naive in thinking that a cycling advocacy organization would be interested - fanatical even - about defending the rights of responsible cyclists. As the year progressed, I found that in many cases the League has a very limited view of who and what they're willing to support, and that the organization is more concerned with industry lobbying, supporting off-road bicycle infrastructure and getting new cyclists onto bikes, than it is with defending the rights of established cyclists to operate on the bicycle infrastructure that we've had for over a century (by which I mean the road). As I see it, the League seems only interested in defending cyclists who support the League's preferred mode of cycling - a mode that does not include those of us who are used to cycling lawfully and safely on the road.

A big turning point in my willingness to support the League came when I found that the organization had decided not to support Reed Bates in his appeal of convictions stemming from what was in my view a judge's misunderstanding of the law. Mr. Bates was, as far as I can tell, riding legally and safely on the road. He went to jail for committing the crime of being in the way of an inattentive driver (a crime which exists only in the judge's mind), and the LAB did nothing to help.

I believe that supporting a cyclist's right to ride a bicycle on the road should be the first priority of any cyclist advocacy group. I don't care that the League felt the Reed Bates case was a fight that could not be won. Some fights have to be fought, whether they are lost causes or not, and this was a big one.

The final straw was the actions that the League took to deny John Brooking, Eli Damon and Khalil Spencer from running for a place on the LAB board.   I do not want to be a member of an organization which is not responsive to its membership. This showed me that the LAB is no longer a democracy. As such, even though I want to work to bring LAB back to its mission, there is no longer any way to do that within the LAB.

As things stand, the LAB seems to feel that people who cycle on the road - those of us who commute to work, we who run errands on the bike, and those of us who do long-distance touring, are disposable. I guarantee you we are not! We may not buy as much bicycle gear as the League's favored 'weekend cyclists', and we may ride bicycles that are decades old and that we maintain ourselves without visiting a bike shop, but I assure you we are many - a silent majority, and we see quite clearly what the LAB is doing. The League ignores us at its peril.

I will continue to monitor the LAB, to see if it is able to turn around and become the advocacy group it was always meant to be. If it continues to be more of a bicycle industry lobbying group, and if it continues to support off-road infrastructure that marginalizes cycling, it will undoubtedly fall by the wayside and be replaced by another group that IS willing to fight for a cyclist's right to the road and that IS willing to fight for the truly safe cycling that can ONLY take place if bicyclists operate on the road like any other vehicle.

I hope that LAB is able to take a good hard look at its recent decisions, because I feel the future health of the organization is at stake. It would be a sad day indeed if the LAB's long history were to be cut short by a few years of ill-considered policy decisions.

--
Ian Cooper
Silver Spring, Maryland, USA

-

Scott
I have decided not to renew my membership in the LAB.   The reasons for this include:
1)  The failure of LAB to do anything to help support Reed Bates in his issues (I have read the note from Andy giving reasons, but I feel strongly that LAB should be defending my right to ride my bicycle on the roads before they do anything else).   If the LAB stands by silently as Reed is convicted of impeding traffic because he was asserting his right to ride a bicycle on the roadway, then they are in essence, condoning that judgement.  I cannot be a member of a group that would stand by without comment when my rights are being so abused.

2)  The refusal of LAB to allow Eli Damon, Khalil Spencer and John Brooking run for a seat on the LAB board.   Having been deprived of the opportunity to vote for someone who represents my views on the LAB board, I do not feel that I belong to the LAB as a member.

I sincerely hope that the LAB will evolve into an organization that advocates for the type of bicycle riding that is a part of my life, and if it does, I will be happy to join.   Unfortunately I do not feel represented by the league as it now stands.
Thank you
Mark Sauerwald

For more information on the election, see A Candidate's Experience. For more information on the Reed Bates case, see Persecution, Abandonment, and Betrayal: Comments on the Reed Bates Saga. I urge other League members to express their thoughts and feelings on the League's recent policies and actions to its directors and/or staff. I you are willing, I would be happy to publish your correspondence.