View Full Version : What good is it if it isn't for everybody?
chipcom
10-12-05, 11:04 AM
Not a pipe dream on either account. Portland mandates new road projects to set aside a specific percentage of the budget for cycling facilities. Road widening is part of this. This law even survived a recent attack a couple years ago.
In the summer, I believe we have donuts and coffee at the top of one of our bridges, free for crossing cyclists. Beer probably wouldn't fly, though pizza might.
Chocolate chip cookies are a must, what kind of cyclist doesn't automatically think of chocolate chip cookies when planning refreshments? Blasphemy I tell ya, pure blasphemy.
Daily Commute
10-12-05, 01:17 PM
. . . In the summer, I believe we have donuts and coffee at the top of one of our bridges, free for crossing cyclists. Beer probably wouldn't fly, though pizza might.
As long as you have them wrapped around your finger, why don't you see if you can get them to hand out cash as you pass? Consider it a reverse toll.
Brian Ratliff
10-12-05, 01:49 PM
As long as you have them wrapped around your finger, why don't you see if you can get them to hand out cash as you pass? Consider it a reverse toll.
I don't know about cash, but a tax credit would be nice. I should say that I have only heard about his second hand, since none of my cycling takes me across this bridge. I don't think it is put on by the city either, I think it is the BTA, a local bike advocacy group.
Daily Commute
10-12-05, 02:59 PM
I don't know about cash, but a tax credit would be nice. I should say that I have only heard about his second hand, since none of my cycling takes me across this bridge. I don't think it is put on by the city either, I think it is the BTA, a local bike advocacy group.
The tax credit (or at least deduction) idea has been around for a very long time. It's probably introduced in every Congress. I've never heard of it getting beyond stage of being introduced as a bill.
I-Like-To-Bike
10-12-05, 03:43 PM
Not a pipe dream on either account. Portland mandates new road projects to set aside a specific percentage of the budget for cycling facilities. Road widening is part of this. This law even survived a recent attack a couple years ago.
In the summer, I believe we have donuts and coffee at the top of one of our bridges, free for crossing cyclists. Beer probably wouldn't fly, though pizza might.
New road projects in built up urban areas are as rare today as hen's teeth unless associated with an urban renewal/destruction project. The widening of existing streets in built up urban areas by acquiring additional right of way through purchase, eminent domain, or elimination of existing sidewalks for the "benefit" of cyclists, without adding any additional lanes for facilitating additional motorized traffic, is even less likely.
Donuts and coffee are good and I heartilly endorse that program; though I'd endorse pizza and beer giveaways even more.
No Hat Al
10-12-05, 10:10 PM
Am I VC? I hug the curb when I can. I love the bike paths. Slow on footpaths, with eyes on sticks for the intersections. No helmet because I get so hot I get "off my face". Out in the traffic if there is room. But I drove for a living for a decade, and a lot of motorists are blind or stupid or both and I like to stay out of their way.
On the topic of helmets, according to some data, about a third of cyclists gave up when helmets were made compulsory here. I did for 9 years, but I missed riding so much I am out there again pedalling happily away.
Newcastle representin', yo!
[Temporary thread hijack]
Al, we'll have to start a Fat Cyclists of Newy club. All the other locals I know from the forums are part of the Fit Cyclists of the Central Coast club. Skinny bastids!
[Normal programming resumes here]
CommuterRun
10-13-05, 04:26 AM
Around here, if you don't ride as a vehicle, you're not riding.
There are only two highways, that I'm aware of, that have bike lanes. Both are on short stretches of a few of my regular routes. One of these highways has no bike lanes across bridges. No highways around here have more than two lanes. Out of towns, speed limits are 45-60 MPH. With the exception of the two highways with bike lanes, the rest are substandardly narrow by DOT standards. None of the highways here have paved shoulders. Most of the residential roads are unpaved sand.
The best way I have found to get around is to dress in bright colors, use flashing taillights during the day, steady on at night, get in the right tire wear path of the right lane and never yield to vehicles approaching from behind. Force them to either slow down or move over into the on-coming lane. Approaching intersections, blind curves with no passing zones and crossing bridges with no bike lane, take the center or a little left of center of the right lane.
The drivers here are very good about slowing when necessary and completely changing lanes when passing.
anchojoe
10-13-05, 03:26 PM
I might not have a proper view of vehicular cycling, but I don't think being a vehicular cyclist means that you are automatically equal to motor traffic. I don't think it means that you have to feel comfortable riding on any road at any time of day. I don't think it means that you are automatically safe, or that every road is equally as safe as any other. Most of all, I don't think it means you are a coward, or that you suffer from a phobia if you choose to avoid a certain stretch of road or traffic situation.
I prefer to see vehicular cycling as a tool that gives cyclists more freedom to use the roads we already have, instead of feeling restricted to sidewalks, paths or bicycle facilities. The fact that many advocates of vehicular cycling have strong opinions against bicycle facilities does not mean all cyclists who practice vehicular cycling must restrict themselves from using them.
The skill of practicing vehicular cycling should open up possibilities, not close them.
You know I don't really have a horse in this race, but I gotta get my two cents worth. Operating your bike like a vehicle is pretty much a necessity when you are mixing it up with cars, trucks, busses, etc. But I have to say it isn't much fun for me. It's not fun when I drive my car and it is much less so when I ride my bike. A bike is not a car, and that's why I love them, that's the beauty of it! And I don't see the joy in riding your bike like you drive a car. You all may ride your bike however you like, it's not up to me.
Yes, this is a world of many colors; just don't tell me what color I have to be.
More Freedom less Dogma
You know I don't really have a horse in this race, but I gotta get my two cents worth. Operating your bike like a vehicle is pretty much a necessity when you are mixing it up with cars, trucks, busses, etc. But I have to say it isn't much fun for me. It's not fun when I drive my car and it is much less so when I ride my bike. A bike is not a car, and that's why I love them, that's the beauty of it! And I don't see the joy in riding your bike like you drive a car. You all may ride your bike however you like, it's not up to me.
Yes, this is a world of many colors; just don't tell me what color I have to be.
More Freedom less Dogma
Umm, sure. This is advocacy. It is about where we want our efforts, and the results, to be. WHile there is room for 'all colors', if you view the bicycle as something useful... And I do.... then commuters have a higher prority than
bike paths. It boils down to money; politics often does.
There are a couple things missing from this silly thread. One is that with more riders, we can make the pie we divide larger. If we work together.
The other is that neither side is ever going to 'win'. I think most VC guys realise this. Cities often like bike paths better than dealing with difficult VC issues, so in the real world VC starts with a handicap.
We're in another bike boom. I have seen this before. We can bicker, or we can really make this work for us.
You know I don't really have a horse in this race, but I gotta get my two cents worth. Operating your bike like a vehicle is pretty much a necessity when you are mixing it up with cars, trucks, busses, etc. But I have to say it isn't much fun for me. It's not fun when I drive my car and it is much less so when I ride my bike. A bike is not a car, and that's why I love them, that's the beauty of it! And I don't see the joy in riding your bike like you drive a car. You all may ride your bike however you like, it's not up to me.
Yes, this is a world of many colors; just don't tell me what color I have to be.
More Freedom less DogmaTo me and a lot of others, it is fun to ride my bike in traffic. It's also fun to ride my bike other places. I'm not one-sided. I guess you are.
You think a bike is a toy. It is a toy. It is also a tool.
I ride some places for fun. I also ride to work, the store, doctor appoointments, the movies, out to eat, shopping, the credit union, Social Security office, my friend's houses, insurance agent, etc., etc., etc. To tell the truth, I ride my bike almost every place I go. This might be hard for you to understand, but sometimes I have to be serious about cycling and advocacy. If this does not seem important to you, that's just fine. I certainly don't tell you how to feel about your bike! Actually, there are some real snotty undertones in your post.
anchojoe
10-14-05, 08:09 AM
[QUOTE=Roody]To me and a lot of others, it is fun to ride my bike in traffic. It's also fun to ride my bike other places. I'm not one-sided. I guess you are. You think a bike is a toy. It is a toy. It is also a tool.
I ride some places for fun. I also ride to work, the store, doctor appoointments, the movies, out to eat, shopping, the credit union, Social Security office, my friend's houses, insurance agent, etc., etc., etc. To tell the truth, I ride my bike almost every place I go. This might be hard for you to understand, but sometimes I have to be serious about cycling and advocacy. If this does not seem important to you, that's just fine. I certainly don't tell you how to feel about your bike! Actually,there are some real snotty undertones in your post.
Please review
Please review
Upon review, I think my response was just as snotty as your post. Sorry.
anchojoe
10-14-05, 08:57 PM
Upon review, I think my response was just as snotty as your post. Sorry.
I think we agree on much, and share many common ideals.
Ride long, be safe, seek happiness.
carless
10-14-05, 09:56 PM
Why do people take their riding philosophy so personal? Is it concern for others safety, an obsessive trait, or an intellectual excercise?
Daily Commute
10-15-05, 03:56 AM
Why do people take their riding philosophy so personal? Is it concern for others safety, an obsessive trait, or an intellectual excercise?
Because others use their riding philosphy to create poorly-designed "bike facilities," and then they pass laws penalizing cyclists who ride on the road (like Portland, Oregon). The debate over how to make the road as safe as possible for cyclists has very real consequences.
Why do people take their riding philosophy so personal? Is it concern for others safety, an obsessive trait, or an intellectual excercise?
For me, I think it's "all of the above." I know that all my life, long before I rode a bike, I have been interested in traffic engineering and highway construction, so that makes it an intellectual exercize. I hate to get hurt meyself, and I hate to think of others getting hurt, so that enters into it. And I can't stand to see people doing something the stupid way, when it is usually easier to do it the smart way. That's the obsessive part. Not proud, just honest. :)
chipcom
10-15-05, 05:23 PM
Upon review, I think my response was just as snotty as your post. Sorry.
I guess he missed the sig. ;)
sbhikes
10-16-05, 06:53 PM
Around here, if you don't ride as a vehicle, you're not riding.
There are only two highways, that I'm aware of, that have bike lanes. Both are on short stretches of a few of my regular routes. One of these highways has no bike lanes across bridges. No highways around here have more than two lanes. Out of towns, speed limits are 45-60 MPH. With the exception of the two highways with bike lanes, the rest are substandardly narrow by DOT standards. None of the highways here have paved shoulders. Most of the residential roads are unpaved sand.
The best way I have found to get around is to dress in bright colors, use flashing taillights during the day, steady on at night, get in the right tire wear path of the right lane and never yield to vehicles approaching from behind. Force them to either slow down or move over into the on-coming lane. Approaching intersections, blind curves with no passing zones and crossing bridges with no bike lane, take the center or a little left of center of the right lane.
The drivers here are very good about slowing when necessary and completely changing lanes when passing.
Exactly. VC is a technique. A set of tools for the toolbox. It works where it's appropriate. When it rises to the level of dogma and ideology it becomes oppressive and limiting.
I feel cyclists need more tools, not less.
In my mind, bicycle advocacy should serve the needs of everyone who uses bicycles for transportation. Otherwise it's just elitism.
I don't think that bicycles are the most practical mode of transportation for all people under all conditions. I also reject the assertion that a targeted sort of advocacy is "elitism" with all that epithet connotes. On the contrary, it's utilitarian. Bicycle advocacy should serve the needs of the population which is most likely to accumulate the most passenger-miles on bikes. As long as the needs of other populations do not conflict with that core constituency, then they can benefit. But to damage the utility of bicycle transportation across the board in order to satisfy a fringe constituency who won't, in fact, travel very much by bike, would be immoral -- in terms of cost, environmental impact, etc, etc.
It's the same for any other sort of advocacy. Mass transit advocacy focusses on goals of most benefit to those who are most likely to use mass transit. Highway advocacy focusses on those who use highways the most, not necessarily "everyone who uses highways for transportation". It's not elitism, it's making the most of a fixed set of advocacy resources.
catatonic
10-16-05, 08:03 PM
VC exists so those who DO ride on the road have some common sense guidelines to follow, so not to piss off traffic excessively.
On the other side though, we do have a problem with sidewalk racers....if you are travelling in excess of 12mph, you should be on a road if possible. if you are going over 20...then you have no excuse to not be on a road....20mph is infringing on the pedestrian's safety. We can sit around and talk about it all we want, but all it takes is nailing a ped at that speed to possibly kill them....so if you are moving that fast, take it to the road.
CPcyclist
10-16-05, 08:12 PM
The biggest upside to VC IMO is that when taught to kids it makes them aware of cyclists rights and in the long run should allow cyclist to build respect for everyone. This makes it safer for all who share the road.
I would say that VC can be for all the people listed by the OP in riding in different situations. Just an Opinion. Note I live in a town with limited sidewalks this may skew ideology.
sbhikes
10-16-05, 09:00 PM
Bicycle advocacy should serve the needs of the population which is most likely to accumulate the most passenger-miles on bikes.
And who would those people be?
I-Like-To-Bike
10-16-05, 09:35 PM
I don't think that bicycles are the most practical mode of transportation for all people under all conditions. I also reject the assertion that a targeted sort of advocacy is "elitism" with all that epithet connotes. On the contrary, it's utilitarian. Bicycle advocacy should serve the needs of the population which is most likely to accumulate the most passenger-miles on bikes. As long as the needs of other populations do not conflict with that core constituency, then they can benefit.
And who would those people be?
Just the question I was going to ask. Certainly LWS' "core constituency" of utilitarian/transportation cyclists wouldn't be those weekend clubs cyclists running up so-called "passenger-miles" on training, and century rides in the suburbs/sticks; would they? If so, I am not aware of who decided that the total amount of miles on a cyclist's odometer is correlated with the standing/importance/value of that cyclist (or that cyclist's needs) in the population of cyclists. I hope LWS doesn't mean that one club cyclist who runs up two hundred miles on a weekend, riding in circles in the suburbs with his club is entitled to more advocacy consideration than say 50 school children who may have needs for an improved/safer route for transporting themselves to nearby schools or playgrounds.
Helmet Head
10-16-05, 10:06 PM
VC is a technique. A set of tools for the toolbox. It works where it's appropriate. When it rises to the level of dogma and ideology it becomes oppressive and limiting.
VC is not just a technique. It's an approach, an attitude. It's a sense of responsibility for your own safety.
Everybody who cycles crosses intersections.
Whenever crossing an intersection, especially if on the sidewalk or keeping to the right, cyclists are vulnerable to being right hooked or left crossed, because they're riding where potential right hookers and left crossers are likely to not be paying attention.
It is common sense that looking back over the left shoulder, for example, helps prevent the possibility of being right hooked by surprise.
This is the type of stuff that VC comprises, and it is for everybody.
The fact that it is for everybody, is the message of VC advocacy. Why you guys choose to label communicating this message as "oppressive and limiting" "dogma and ideology" is beyond me.
How does advocating VC make it "oppressive and limiting"?
And who would those people be?
Indeed, that is the crux of the matter, isn't it?
Just the question I was going to ask. Certainly LWS' "core constituency" of utilitarian/transportation cyclists wouldn't be those weekend clubs cyclists running up so-called "passenger-miles" on training, and century rides in the suburbs/sticks; would they? If so, I am not aware of who decided that the total amount of miles on a cyclist's odometer is correlated with the standing/importance/value of that cyclist (or that cyclist's needs) in the population of cyclists. I hope LWS doesn't mean that one club cyclist who runs up two hundred miles on a weekend, riding in circles in the suburbs with his club is entitled to more advocacy consideration than say 50 school children who may have needs for an improved/safer route for transporting themselves to nearby schools or playgrounds.
No, I wouldn't say that. I was speaking in generalities first, and you've taken that position statement and rushed right into a misrepresentation of it. Besides, 50 children at six miles a week is more than your bogeyman club cyclist, so we we still agree. It seems you're tacitly agreeing with me that "for everybody" is not a necessary requirement for advocacy, aren't you?
I-Like-To-Bike
10-17-05, 08:35 AM
No, I wouldn't say that. I was speaking in generalities first, and you've taken that position statement and rushed right into a misrepresentation of it. Besides, 50 children at six miles a week is more than your bogeyman club cyclist, so we we still agree. It seems you're tacitly agreeing with me that "for everybody" is not a necessary requirement for advocacy, aren't you?
Where did the six miles a week number come from? For advocacy purposes I think a cyclist who cycles ANY distance for the purpose of transportation/utility (especially for those with no other credible options) has at least equal standing to any cyclist who thinks he deserves special consideration for miles run up on "training" rides or with cycling club weekend activities.
How are you being misrepresented? Cut out the generalities, be specific. Who is included/excluded from this vague generality. Who are members of a "cycling population most likely to accumulate the most passenger-miles on bikes." Why are these alleged high milers deserving of extra (all the) places at the advocacy table?
Be specific, what the heck is your definition of "passenger-miles" in cycling terms and why is it the determining factor of whom should be considered worthy of advocacy?
noisebeam
10-17-05, 09:49 AM
For advocacy purposes I think a cyclist who cycles ANY distance for the purpose of transportation/utility (especially for those with no other credible options) has at least equal standing to any cyclist who thinks he deserves special consideration for miles run up on "training" rides or with cycling club weekend activities.
....
Why are members of a "cycling population most likely to accumulate the most passenger-miles on bikes." Why are these alleged high milers deserving of extra (all the) places at the advocacy table?
I agree here, to an extent. I think facilities should work best for transportation, and secondarily for recreation. My experience with club recreation cycling is this is the type of cycling that requires the least amount of facilities, the least need to know how to ride in traffic. Being in a large (or even small 5 person) group changes the cyclist/traffic dynamic to a very large extent - especially since these type of rides don't happen during weekday rush hour that often. The biggest danger in group rides is not motor traffic, but fellow cyclists.
But I said I agreed to an extent - the extent is that in practice one can not determne who is more worthy of being an advocate - too many grey areas, too many value judgements - instead, if you cycle (or not) and choose to advocate then your position is as strong as your data, arguement, pursuasiveness.
Al
Brian Ratliff
10-17-05, 09:53 AM
Because others use their riding philosphy to create poorly-designed "bike facilities," and then they pass laws penalizing cyclists who ride on the road (like Portland, Oregon). The debate over how to make the road as safe as possible for cyclists has very real consequences.
BTW, this law is no longer in effect. A new law passed a couple months ago which abolished the requirment for cyclists to stay in the bike lane, see bill SB 938 (http://www.bta4bikes.org/info/legis.html).
noisebeam
10-17-05, 10:00 AM
... abolished the requirment for cyclists to stay in the bike lane, see bill
What is also very important is what the public (i.e. driver) perception is of where cyclists should be.
Al
Brian Ratliff
10-17-05, 10:14 AM
And who would those people be?
Indeed, that is the crux of the matter, isn't it?
If this is the crux of the matter, then the question gets asked again: who might these people be? You brought this up; what type of people are you referring to, and why do these people obtain the benefit of cycling advocacy and not others? We have road racers who ride hundreds of miles a day for training, and we have commuters who might ride 20 miles per day. Then we have children who might ride 2 miles per day, and people without cars who might ride 5 miles per day. Where do you draw the line?
Do we advocate for the ones with the most miles, or the ones which are most vulnerable? And if we target our advocacy based only on miles, does this mean that cycling is now no longer a right, with all cyclists requiring formal training to ride on our roads?
Your stance is a common one, and one that looks simple on the surface: just do the most for the people who use the facilities the most. Unfortunately that can only work if either 1) all cyclists who don't fit the description get forced off the road, 2) all cyclists who don't fit get assimilated by force, or 3) we end up helping only the cyclists who need the least amount of help, and leaving the others in the status quo. The first two go against the notion of cycling as a right, not simply a privilege, and the last option really does nothing for the group of cyclists who are most vulnerable.
The fact is that the cyclists who use the road the most are the ones in least need of advocacy. They know the rules, both written and unwritten, and behave in a way that fits the environment. The groups which are the most vulnerable are the ones who are best helped by advocacy, and that advocacy must to be aimed at their needs.
Brian Ratliff
10-17-05, 10:20 AM
What is also very important is what the public (i.e. driver) perception is of where cyclists should be.
Al
Yes, but that can only take time and more cyclists on the road -- the chicken and the egg problem. I don't have nearly the problems with moterist agression when I take the lane now as I did 5 years ago when I first started cycling in the greater Portland west side area. Things are changing here; say what you will about our advocacy efforts, something is working.
With this fixed, now, at least, a driver with a bad impression about cyclists cannot look at the law and find us at fault. It is one more loose end taken care of and one more small step toward a more favorable environment for cycling.
I-Like-To-Bike
10-17-05, 11:41 AM
IBeing in a large (or even small 5 person) group changes the cyclist/traffic dynamic to a very large extent - especially since these type of rides don't happen during weekday rush hour that often. The biggest danger in group rides is not motor traffic, but fellow cyclists.
I concur with your observation about the very large difference in the cyclist/traffic dynamic of group rides. This significant difference, among a raft of other ignored variables, is often overlooked/ignored when claims are about an allegedly superior safety record of club cyclists (and by inference/speculation - vehicular cyclists) in comparison with other cyclists.
noisebeam
10-17-05, 11:53 AM
...allegedly superior safety record of club cyclists (and by inference/speculation - vehicular cyclists) in comparison with other cyclists.
I always knew you were a comedian.
My experience with several different clubs is that they enourage the least vehicular of riding, while still remaining on the road.
Al
I-Like-To-Bike
10-17-05, 12:28 PM
I always knew you were a comedian.
My experience with several different clubs is that they enourage the least vehicular of riding, while still remaining on the road.
Al
I agree - it is ridiculous to make assumptions about the virtue of club cyclists and even more ridiculous to assume that club cyclists in general represent the product of vehicular cycling education and practice.
However, it is just that assumption about the alleged vehicular cycling tendencies of club cyclists, dopey as it is, that is a key premise of the extravagent EC™ safety claims made for vehicular cyclists.
Also given the elusiveness of a definition for vehicular cycling, and the lack of any defined metrics for identifying a population of vehicular cyclists it is no wonder that cyclists can be both vehicular cyclists and incompetent lawless cyclists at the same time. It all depends on the "advocate/researcher/analyst's" agenda.
How does advocating VC make it "oppressive and limiting"?
Advocating VC isn't "oppressive and limiting". Pushing VC on a rider who has stated that VC doesn't work for him or her in a given situation is.
Tim.
By special request:
http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/7686/deadhorse3vy.gifhttp://img403.imageshack.us/img403/7686/deadhorse3vy.gifhttp://img403.imageshack.us/img403/7686/deadhorse3vy.gifhttp://img403.imageshack.us/img403/7686/deadhorse3vy.gifhttp://img403.imageshack.us/img403/7686/deadhorse3vy.gif
Helmet Head
10-19-05, 10:49 AM
Advocating VC isn't "oppressive and limiting". Pushing VC on a rider who has stated that VC doesn't work for him or her in a given situation is.
How is typing words from miles, perhaps thousands of miles, away, pushing anything on anyone?
If anyone allows himself to be "oppressed" or "limited" by what some stranger posts on an internet forum, who is the one with a problem that needs addressing? Sheesh!
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.