Read this paper (http://www.gonecycling.com/commuter/aspects.htm), entitled The Social and Emotional Aspects of Transportation Cycling (http://www.gonecycling.com/commuter/aspects.htm), by Bruce A. Mol (c) 2002, then answer the poll.
http://www.gonecycling.com/commuter/aspects.htm
Excerpt:
Four Types of Transportation Cyclists and how they respond to training:
1. Vigilant cyclists have undeveloped physical skills and an appreciation for the social responsibilities of cycling. They are motivated to develop their skills and social responsibilities by taking courses, reading and riding with others.
2. Veloquent cyclists have both the physical skills and a high regard for the social responsibilities of cycling in traffic. They are motivated to develop their own skills and social responsibilities as well as help develop other cyclists, and society at large, through cycling advocacy, courses, reading and riding with others.
3. Vagabond cyclists have neither the skills nor understanding of social responsibilities when on a bicycle. Most are reluctant users of bicycles. Where mental illness is not a problem, vagabond cyclists may develop the physical skills and a social conscience to ride appropriately in traffic but their ability to obtain regular food, clothing, shelter as well as meaningful employment must first be addressed.
4. The least predictable of the four types of transportation cyclist is the volatile cyclists. Volatile cyclists are physically skilled individuals who are either unaware or uncaring of the social responsibilities of cycling. Unaware volatile cyclists do not participate in cycling courses because feel there is nothing more to learn about cycling. Training programs should expose the unaware volatile cyclists to personal and social development rather than skill development. The self-development of this cyclist will, most likely, come with time (age) and experience (trial and error).
Uncaring volatile cyclists are both skilled and anti-social. Their careless application of social responsibilities may be due to sub-cultural affiliations that repudiate the social norms of cycling. Development of the uncaring volatile cyclists would be challenging and is not within the realm of current cycling education programs.
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
I would have voted for vagabond cylclist because I have a bit of wanderlust, but after reading that I'm glad I didn't.
closetbiker
I know Bruce Mol, who wrote the paper. He is part of our local advocacy groups here and is quite an asset for them.
I liked the paper.
I put myself down as Veloquent, of course.
Helmet Head
ok, who's the vagabond???
Hawkear
ok, who's the vagabond???
I don't know, but there are a bunch of them on the Santa Ana River Trail, living under the bridges.
genec
oops, I may wanna change my vote... However...
This really fits my thinking: "Cyclists who believe other road users are unaware of cyclists remain vigilant at all times and ride as if motorists can’t see them. There are two variants of this context: 1) cars are dangerous and 2) traffic is a war where riding is the battle."
Casper mode I call it. No matter what I do to make myself visible, I still notice that some motorists just cannot see cyclists. (guess they just refuse to "believe")
Interesting article, but without solutions... reminds me of the "thinking out of the box" mentality that came out of HP years ago... They mentioned how important it was to "think outside the box," and what all the warm fuzzy benefits were... and then went on being HP just as they always had. Similar to the Japanese management training seminars just a few years before... here is the model, it works there, but good luck implementing it.
Oh well... I'm OK, You're OK.
Helmet Head
Gene - You would see eye to eye with Robert Hurst (The Art of Urban Cycling).
lilHinault
Vigilent hoping to become veloquent (love that word!) here.
OneTinSloth
i was once volatile, but i recognized that in order to get respect on the road, i have to give it, and i do. i voted veloquent. life is too short to be volatile.
moxfyre
i was once volatile, but i recognized that in order to get respect on the road, i have to give it, and i do. i voted veloquent. life is too short to be volatile.
I'm similar. I was a "volatile cyclist" in college. Eventually I realized this was dangerous when I moved to a big city area and got more involved in cycling and realized how many benefits there are to cycling.
recursive
I'm similar. I was a "volatile cyclist" in college. Eventually I realized this was dangerous when I moved to a big city area and got more involved in cycling and realized how many benefits there are to cycling.
I was also a volatile in college, dangerously weaving through pedestrians and parking lots. I fell a lot and rode beater bikes. Since then I have gotten into cycling properly and am very conscious of "politics" of road usage.
AverageCommuter
I would have voted for vagabond cylclist because I have a bit of wanderlust, but after reading that I'm glad I didn't.
I'm with you. I'd have chosen vagabond too but I had a feeling the word wasn't being used correctly. I think It would have been more accurate for the author to use the term "vagrant cyclist" instead.
Anyway, I may have converted one of my coworkers to cycle commuting, so that's nice.
lala
I know many volatile cyclists!
slagjumper
I selected Veloquent. However, I am not sure that a bunch of skilled socially goody-goodies are going to be the most effective way to change the laws or non-biking driver’s attitudes. I do think that there is a better chance of surviving if you are a Veloquent in general.
I disagree with the latent premise about advocacy. Just because I conform to societal biking behavior—does not mean that laws or motorist’s opinions will change. Or that there aren’t other factors that will cause quicker change—like expensive fuel or bike placement adds or radical Vagabond bike protests.
Since there are far more motorists, they define the societal behavior of bikers. It is a tiny bit like being black in a whiteman’s land. Bikers are playing on motorist’s terms not ours. Motorist’s opinions of bikers and road design are two examples. Bikers are largely only seen in stereotypic ways. I would argue that motorists don’t really notice the biker who stays with traffic, waiting behind buses and such for lights to change. No -- the motorists only notice the bad seeds aka Vagabond and Volitiles.
Also since the roads are designed for cars not bikes it may be foolish for a Veloq to consider that a street or traffic element is designed for the safety of bikers. Rather that a poorly timed traffic light, or wide grate or road design, weather conditions, speed of traffic, time of day, etc will often dictate that normal societal behavior should be ignored or circumvented for safety. In my daily commute there are many examples of – you should ride the sidewalk here, another place you should not follow the flow of traffic, but cross the street, briefly go the wrong way, jump on the curb. Still other point where you should blow off the light, now then you’ll have 30 second headstart and no traffic will interfere with you. (Oh if only Pittsburgh could be a bit more bike freindly like Madison)
If you are actually still reading this I would suggest a one to one approach to advocacy and safety. One bike, one car, person to person. Become a real person to the driver not just a stereotype. Yesterday as I passed to the left of an SUV about to make an illegal right on red, (as I was about to shamelessly exploit a walk sign), I said, “I think that it is no right turn on red here”, then buzzed across the street. The guy waited. I did not yell but was friendly. I did not consider him a traitor to the human race because he is out of shape and drives an Exxon and military troop supporting, gas guzzling car.
genec
Gene - You would see eye to eye with Robert Hurst (The Art of Urban Cycling).
Yeah, I tend to agree with him and should probably get the book... someone else wrote a great short paragraph here a while back that I think also exemplifies the urban cyclist... it was a piece about how most folks don't notice the urban cyclist as they really are stealthy creatures, using their size and abilities, like a panther, to zip through the urban jungle... making use of what ever resources are available.
I was also thinking about the negative aspects of what Mol stated and implied... about how this tends to be stress producing... My reflection on it is that it is highly defensive. While one may find generally, motorists are predictable, the individual motorist can easily break the mold, and it is those odd individuals that can make or break your ride. All it takes is one...
genec
I selected Veloquent. However, I am not sure that a bunch of skilled socially goody-goodies are going to be the most effective way to change the laws or non-biking driver’s attitudes. I do think that there is a better chance of surviving if you are a Veloquent in general.
I disagree with the latent premise about advocacy. Just because I conform to societal biking behavior—does not mean that laws or motorist’s opinions will change. Or that there aren’t other factors that will cause quicker change—like expensive fuel or bike placement adds or radical Vagabond bike protests.
Since there are far more motorists, they define the societal behavior of bikers. It is a tiny bit like being black in a whiteman’s land. Bikers are playing on motorist’s terms not ours. Motorist’s opinions of bikers and road design are two examples. Bikers are largely only seen in stereotypic ways. I would argue that motorists don’t really notice the biker who stays with traffic, waiting behind buses and such for lights to change. No -- the motorists only notice the bad seeds aka Vagabond and Volitiles.
Also since the roads are designed for cars not bikes it may be foolish for a Veloq to consider that a street or traffic element is designed for the safety of bikers. Rather that a poorly timed traffic light, or wide grate or road design, weather conditions, speed of traffic, time of day, etc will often dictate that normal societal behavior should be ignored or circumvented for safety. In my daily commute there are many examples of – you should ride the sidewalk here, another place you should not follow the flow of traffic, but cross the street, briefly go the wrong way, jump on the curb. Still other point where you should blow off the light, now then you’ll have 30 second headstart and no traffic will interfere with you. (Oh if only Pittsburgh could be a bit more bike freindly like Madison)
If you are actually still reading this I would suggest a one to one approach to advocacy and safety. One bike, one car, person to person. Become a real person to the driver not just a stereotype. Yesterday as I passed to the left of an SUV about to make an illegal right on red, (as I was about to shamelessly exploit a walk sign), I said, “I think that it is no right turn on red here”, then buzzed across the street. The guy waited. I did not yell but was friendly. I did not consider him a traitor to the human race because he is out of shape and drives an Exxon and military troop supporting, gas guzzling car.
Nicely said... and yes I read all the way to the bottom... I think your response goes hand in hand with not flipping off drivers, but responding to them in ways that break down "defenses" such as waving in a friendly way... you then are acknowledging them, but at the same time offering a totally non-confrontational response.
I also agree highly with your thinking (although you may get flammed for the metaphor) about cyclists in the motorists world. Sadly, that is exactly what it is. We don't really "all get along... "
JRA
I'm Volatile - the least predictable of the four types.
I was Vigilant for many years. Then I became Veloquent. I'm less idealistic now and my Volatile side, which was always there, predominates.
I've been three of the four types but it seems I may never experience what it is like to be a Vagabond Cyclist. At this point I'm unqualified.
Aren't labels great?
I disagree with the latent premise about advocacy.I think I disagree, too. There are some implied value judgements that I'm not sure I share. (I guess that's what makes me Volatile.)
It's an interesting article.
I definately believe that cycling well is cycling advocacy.
Treespeed
Fairly decent article, and I agree with the main premise that cycling well is cycling advocacy. Though I do not enjoy the post-modernist jargon the author uses to lend a scientific bent to his theories, does he really need to say, "inter-actionist context" when roadway would have sufficed and made his meanings much clearer to the reader.
This psuedo scientific bent is made even more ridiculous by his pigeon holing of transportation cyclists into four molds to bolster his theory. While an interesting discussion point, his argument that volatile cyclists are, "The least predictable..." is not backed by any research. Bruce is saying that physically skilled, and one would imagine experienced cyclists are the least predictable because they don't attend classes or read cycling literature. I'm sorry, but this is an unsupportable position, and from Mol's following paragraph a position rooted in intellectual elitism, "sub-cultural affiliations, antisocial?"
This is one of the ongoing problems of cycling education/advocacy groups that constantly rears it's ugly head on these forums, the need to create an us and them mentality. We see it all the time in language that divides, "those other cyclists, posers, cagers, volatile cyclists." It is inflammatory, you don't see Mol labeling his Veloquent cyclists as Busybody Cyclists. At the heart of this argument is the belief that there is only one way to cycle and to learn how to cycle, and further that educators like Mol, Forrester, etc. hold the only keys to this knowledge.
I'm sure that Mol would argue that by writing on this forum, I'm being Veloquent, though my tone is surely volatile. My worry, in the end, is that my kids will not have the freedom to develop their own skills, or be taught by me, but will instead have to take a class from some self labeled expert to get a license to ride a bike.
Finally, Serge, I found it interesting that you posted this article because in the third to the last paragraph Mol seems to be arguing in favor of bike lanes. "It is important that other facilities co-exist with major traffic routes, where cyclists can hone their skills in an environment that favours cyclists and reduces interaction with motorists." Or at the very least he is referring to MUP's.
-Marcus.
Helmet Head
Also since the roads are designed for cars not bikes it may be foolish for a Veloq to consider that a street or traffic element is designed for the safety of bikers. Rather that a poorly timed traffic light, or wide grate or road design, weather conditions, speed of traffic, time of day, etc will often dictate that normal societal behavior should be ignored or circumvented for safety. In my daily commute there are many examples of – you should ride the sidewalk here, another place you should not follow the flow of traffic, but cross the street, briefly go the wrong way, jump on the curb. Still other point where you should blow off the light, now then you’ll have 30 second headstart and no traffic will interfere with you. (Oh if only Pittsburgh could be a bit more bike freindly like Madison)
Amazing. I strongly disagree with every statement in this paragraph.
Roads were designed for bikes before cars were even invented. They've been expanded to accomodate more cars, but none of this expansion has compromised their appropriateness for cycling. In fact, I suspect it's no harder, if not easier, to get from just about any points A to B by bike today than it was in the cycling heydey of the 1890s.
Poorly timed lights are a minor nuisance. If you're in half decent shape, you should be able to get across any intersection in about the same time as a car.
Wide grates are not even an issue if you ride where you're supposed to ride - outside of the gutter, for one.
Road design, weather conditions, speed of traffic, the cyclist's speed, the cyclist's destination, ambient light and plenty of other factors and conditions certainly affect the cyclist, but mostly in terms of choosing the appropriate lane position.
No commute should ever require riding on a sidewalk, go against the flow of traffic, jumping curbs, etc. And you should never blow a red to get a 30 second headstart. If you ride vehicularly, traffic won't interfere with you anyway.
I strongly recommend that you pick up a copy of the book Effective Cycling by John Forester, give it a good read, and a lot of thought.
Serge
sbhikes
This psuedo scientific bent is made even more ridiculous by his pigeon holing of transportation cyclists into four molds to bolster his theory.
As I was riding home from work yesterday I was thinking about this thread (boy do I need to get a life!) and the word that kept popping up was pigeon hole. That's why I didn't vote.
Amazing. I strongly disagree with every statement in this paragraph.
Roads were designed for bikes before cars were even invented. They've been expanded to accomodate more cars, but none of this expansion has compromised their appropriateness for cycling. In fact, I suspect it's no harder, if not easier, to get from just about any points A to B by bike today than it was in the cycling heydey of the 1890s.
It doesn't matter what they were designed for way back then. We're not riding those same roads anymore. We're all riding new ones, all designed to accomodate cars first before all else.
Poorly timed lights are a minor nuisance. If you're in half decent shape, you should be able to get across any intersection in about the same time as a car.
..If you're in half decent shape. That's quite a high bar to set. What if you aren't in half decent shape?
Wide grates are not even an issue if you ride where you're supposed to ride - outside of the gutter, for one.
Unless they put them outside of the gutter. They put all kinds of stuff all over the street that interferes with the safe operation of a bicycle. How about those lovely steel plates spanning the entire street, for one example?
Road design, weather conditions, speed of traffic, the cyclist's speed, the cyclist's destination, ambient light and plenty of other factors and conditions certainly affect the cyclist, but mostly in terms of choosing the appropriate lane position.
So, if I adjust my lane position I can change the weather and the ambient light?
No commute should ever require riding on a sidewalk, go against the flow of traffic, jumping curbs, etc. And you should never blow a red to get a 30 second headstart. If you ride vehicularly, traffic won't interfere with you anyway.
I agree with this up to a point. Always/never statements just don't work in the real world. I've got a place in town where I usually take the sidewalk. Faster riders usually don't, and I don't always take the sidewalk either, but on some days and under some conditions it's easier for me. And yes I understand the risks, and yes it'd probably be better if I didn't, but sometimes I want easy not PC.
genec
Amazing. I strongly disagree with every statement in this paragraph.
Roads were designed for bikes before cars were even invented. They've been expanded to accomodate more cars, but none of this expansion has compromised their appropriateness for cycling. In fact, I suspect it's no harder, if not easier, to get from just about any points A to B by bike today than it was in the cycling heydey of the 1890s.
Poorly timed lights are a minor nuisance. If you're in half decent shape, you should be able to get across any intersection in about the same time as a car.
Wide grates are not even an issue if you ride where you're supposed to ride - outside of the gutter, for one.
Road design, weather conditions, speed of traffic, the cyclist's speed, the cyclist's destination, ambient light and plenty of other factors and conditions certainly affect the cyclist, but mostly in terms of choosing the appropriate lane position.
No commute should ever require riding on a sidewalk, go against the flow of traffic, jumping curbs, etc. And you should never blow a red to get a 30 second headstart. If you ride vehicularly, traffic won't interfere with you anyway.
I strongly recommend that you pick up a copy of the book Effective Cycling by John Forester, give it a good read, and a lot of thought.
Serge
Gotta step in here... Grand assumptions you make there Serge... That a cyclist has to be in some sort of "half decent shape" excludes those that may not be in "half decent shape" from being "valid cyclists," eh?
You also assume that all drain grates are placed only at the sides of road... in some older areas of the US, drain grates can be quite large... and extend past just the gutter... just like in some areas of the US, there exist "cable cars."
And while the original roads were improved for bikes, automobiles and the roads have long since taken over.
And as far as "curbs and sidewalks..." I know of at least two bike paths that facillate commuting that required both jumping curbs and riding across sidewalks...
Be the world so wonderful that all these and pot holes, metal plates and freeway riding did not exist, but nay, it is sadly true...
I-Like-To-Bike
Fairly decent article, and I agree with the main premise that cycling well is cycling advocacy. Though I do not enjoy the post-modernist jargon the author uses to lend a scientific bent to his theories, does he really need to say, "inter-actionist context" when roadway would have sufficed and made his meanings much clearer to the reader.
This psuedo scientific bent is made even more ridiculous by his pigeon holing of transportation cyclists into four molds to bolster his theory. While an interesting discussion point, his argument that volatile cyclists are, "The least predictable..." is not backed by any research. Bruce is saying that physically skilled, and one would imagine experienced cyclists are the least predictable because they don't attend classes or read cycling literature. I'm sorry, but this is an unsupportable position, and from Mol's following paragraph a position rooted in intellectual elitism, "sub-cultural affiliations, antisocial?"
This is one of the ongoing problems of cycling education/advocacy groups that constantly rears it's ugly head on these forums, the need to create an us and them mentality. We see it all the time in language that divides, "those other cyclists, posers, cagers, volatile cyclists." It is inflammatory, you don't see Mol labeling his Veloquent cyclists as Busybody Cyclists. At the heart of this argument is the belief that there is only one way to cycle and to learn how to cycle, and further that educators like Mol, Forrester, etc. hold the only keys to this knowledge.
I'm sure that Mol would argue that by writing on this forum, I'm being Veloquent, though my tone is surely volatile. My worry, in the end, is that my kids will not have the freedom to develop their own skills, or be taught by me, but will instead have to take a class from some self labeled expert to get a license to ride a bike.
I agree with Marcus/Treespeed's observations above except for value of the original article.
I found the article starting off as a slightly cleaned up version of Forester dogma, but by the end nothing more than another VC proselytizer's screed of psycho-babble, assumptions, personal opinions, and prejudice that the author's believes are indeed true for all cyclists and motorists, and blatant contempt for cyclists who have not yet been born again with the approved brand of education.
Instead of describing all cyclists who don't fit the approved VC profile, or don't whole heartedly endorse rigid dogma as - "incompetents" suffering from "phobia" and "superstitions", Mol substitutes the label "irresponsible" (socially and personally) for those who don't practice the "eloquent cycling style" that he is promoting.
Mol presumptuously assumes that all cyclists have a personal and social responsiibility to comply with HIS standards, and assigns various derisive labels to those who do not. Mol sinks to Forester's level in describing those who don't share his views, cycling priorities, and alleged "skills" as either being mentally ill or vagabonds trying to score their next handout.
Marcus/Treespeed points out correctly that none of this "stuff" is backed by any research at all.
IMO the article is just more of the same old -same old, from the same old "SERIOUS" Cyclist crowd that believes that they alone possess all true cycling wisdom and goodness.
JRA
Amazing. I strongly disagree with every statement in this paragraph.It is amazing. I disagree with some of what you said and agree with slagjumper.
Roads were designed for bikes before cars were even invented.I think roads were originally designed for pedestrians, later for horses, beasts of burden, carriages, wagons and carts. Some roads were first paved to accomodate bicycles but the period during which the bicycle was a primary design vehicle for roads lasted only a short time. It ended about a hundred years ago and might as well be ancient history.
Wide grates are not even an issue if you ride where you're supposed to ride - outside of the gutter, for one.Where I'm "supposed to ride" I've encountered bicycle traps (grates with wide openings) well out into the road - like in the middle of the travel lane. I've also encountered grates that go across the entire roadway.
I strongly recommend that you pick up a copy of the book Effective Cycling by John Forester, give it a good read, and a lot of thought.Thanks for the advice. I've heard that Forester knows everything and I just can't wait to read and study the gospel of the great one.
nick burns
How about vigilante cyclist? :D
dynaryder
For the poll - I voted volatile. Sorry folks,but after 20 yrs of riding motorcycles(8 in the Wash DC area),and now cycling around DC,I've become pretty jaded. In this area,alot of folks couldn't care less about the other motorists,much like the bikes and cycles.
For the article - I thought it came off a little snooty. Too much unnecessary techno-babble when plain words would have sufficed. And I'm sorry,but "raising peoples' awareness" of a problem doesn't always make a big impact.
For slagjumper and Treespeed - good on yer fellas. Posts like yours are what will keep me coming back to this forum. I'd look forward to reading articles from you two.
rs_woods
I guess I fall under volatile, although I make sure motorists around me know exactly what I'm about to do before I do it, especially if it's radical or illegal. if i think they didn't get the signal or don't see what i'm doing, i wait until they're gone or the "proper" channel becomes available. whichever comes first.
Treespeed
For slagjumper and Treespeed - good on yer fellas. Posts like yours are what will keep me coming back to this forum. I'd look forward to reading articles from you two.
Thank you for the compliment. There is a lot of good writing in this forum and despite my best intentions I seem to be learning a lot, even from folks that I disagree with like Serge.