But it didn't work, right? He turned your attempt at preemption into a distraction from your point.
I don't know how best to handle these things, but what I might have said is something like, "<Why it's important that bus and bike lanes not be blocked.> <What you invented, the results.> <Would the city consider investing in an invention like mine, or else what are we going to do to reduce the rate at which these blockages occur?>"
FTR, I'm totally in favor of the automatic enforcement you describe! I'd also like to mostly or entirely remove free parking from the city.
From Abraham Lincoln in 1842, speaking about his preferred approach:
It is an old and a true maxim, that a "drop of honey catches more flies than a gallon of gall." So with men. If you would win a man to your cause, first convince him that you are his sincere friend. Therein is a drop of honey that catches his heart, which, say what he will, is the great highroad to his reason, and which, when once gained, you will find but little trouble in convincing his judgment of the justice of your cause, if indeed that cause really be a just one. On the contrary, assume to dictate to his judgment, or to command his action, or to mark him as one to be shunned and despised, and he will retreat within himself, close all the avenues to his head and his heart; and though your cause be naked truth itself, transformed to the heaviest lance, harder than steel, and sharper than steel can be made, and though you throw it with more than Herculean force and precision, you shall be no more be able to pierce him, than to penetrate the hard shell of a tortoise with a rye straw.
> A common expression would have us believe that ‘you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar’. But this is not true in the case of the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster (xkcd, 2007).
I don't think that applies here since the poster didn't disagree with the excerpt, they only pointed to a correction -- the fact that an aspect of conventional wisdom had been rendered untrue via research.
How happy were you with his answer? It seemed fairly reasonable, he pushed back a bit and matched your tone I think, but overall sounded like he's very much on your side to me regarding the larger problem. I feel like he deflected a little by emphasizing accidents over blockages, without acknowledging much that blockages push bikes into dangerous situations. But I'd probably agree that prioritizing safety over annoyances is reasonable.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If the goal was to imply to the audience listening that the mayor likes to pass people's issues onto the state instead of addressing them, then that goal was accomplished successfully. Not bringing it up would have simply resulted in the mayor passing the buck without the audience being aware of that context.
Calling a politician on a radio call in show is typically very unlikely to result in any actual action, on any issue, regardless of tact taken. Making the audience aware of the problem, and your distaste for the mayor's proposed solutions ,may be more useful to one's goals.
I also don't think pimping your product on a radio call in show is very tactful either.
I don't know how best to handle these things, but what I might have said is something like, "<Why it's important that bus and bike lanes not be blocked.> <What you invented, the results.> <Would the city consider investing in an invention like mine, or else what are we going to do to reduce the rate at which these blockages occur?>"
FTR, I'm totally in favor of the automatic enforcement you describe! I'd also like to mostly or entirely remove free parking from the city.