“Takeover” and “support” are not necessarily one and the same….

What you are describing is the problem with non-profit organizations (even community-minded ones, even – gasp! – bicycle advocacy groups) taking over quasi-governmental functions, even though they are not government agencies. The built-in checks and balances of our brilliantly-designed democratic system go instantly out the window, replaced instead by a reliance on non-profit “leaders’” goodwill and good judgment.

I have long thought that the slow takeover of governmental functions by NGO’s is a very dangerous trend both locally and worldwide — and I say this as a committed environmentalist and bicyclist. Theoretically, we’ve already paid for the improvements you describe, in the form of taxes. And the people responsible for making those improvements are theoretically held accountable by a system called democratic elections. But when government spending priorities are so skewed that even the paltry amount we voters voted to allocate for transit in California gets stolen out of the budget by our legitimately-elected governor, groups like “Bicycle Friendly Communities, Inc.” spring up to fill the vaccuum, and companies like Trek start giving money to them, instead of working to get the right people elected who will make the safety of their non-driving constituents top priority. Then the kinds of conflict of interest you describe are a logical next step.

I honestly believe that until we stop this madness and start putting our energies back into holding government officials responsible for the health and safety of their constituents — the basic reasons why they are elected in the first place — the situation will only continue to get worse. That’s why I’ve virtually stopped ALL donations to non-profit groups, even the “good” ones.

Trek is now actively supporting transportation cycling.  The new Fisher Simple City, which is supposedly going into production, is perfect for the casual commuter. It looks like there will be other additions to the bike line up that are actually func…

1. A local bike shop “Joe’s Bike Shop” provides funding for local bicycling advocacy.
2. County asks for input from bicyclists on input for proposed trail. Option A goes by “Joe’s Bike Shop.” Option B goes by the competitor’s bike shop. At the meeting to discuss this, bike club members all clearly like Option B better (for whatever reasons), but then Joe (who owns Joe’s Bike Shop) makes veiled threats about pulling support unless they vote for Option A.
3. Bike Club caves and votes for Joe’s option.
4. Bike Club is now clearly a marketing arm for Joe’s Bike Shop and no longer serves the interests of all cyclists in the area.

This is a true story. So, is bike dealer support of local advocacy a good thing or not?