Advocacy & Safety - Is it right to split cyclists into transportational vs recreational?

Seems we like to categorize cyclists. (No, not us A&S forum members! :rolleyes: ) One of those dichotomous categories is the transportational vs recreational cyclist. What do you think of this dichotomy?

Personally, I am torn. I think that car drivers tend to base some of their annoyance on cyclists because they perceive us to be out "playing on our toys" holding up traffic while they are important people on their way to important work activities. And lots of recreational cyclists blow traffic lights so as to not let their computers record a lower average speed, a practice I find quite annoying. As a transportational cyclist, I bear the brunt of flak for these perceptions and behaviors when its for something I'm not even doing. What I'm doing is not superfluous. I'm going to work just like you.

And yet, recreation is important. And it's not opposed to transportation. I usually combine my rides with something that needs doing. I use transportation as an opportunity for recreation. And because I do that, I like my transportation cycling to be pleasant and enjoyable, so if I can, I prefer to use a bike path.

Even if all my rides were purely recreational, recreation is an important activity in its own right. All work and no play makes Jack a very dull boy. When we don't take time to pursue enjoyable activities our bodies and minds suffer. Inspiration, creativity, joy. These are important things to have in your life. Besides, I have only gotten so far in my career because of the recreational goals I have pursued. One flows from the other. The separation is a social construction.

Why separate the two types of cycling and place a higher value on one over the other? What purpose does that serve? Who benefits from this separation? What do you think?

Seems we like to categorize cyclists. (No, not us A&S forum members! :rolleyes: ) One of those dichotomous categories is the transportational vs recreational cyclist. What do you think of this dichotomy?

Personally, I am torn. I think that car drivers tend to base some of their annoyance on cyclists because they perceive us to be out "playing on our toys" holding up traffic while they are important people on their way to important work activities. And lots of recreational cyclists blow traffic lights so as to not let their computers record a lower average speed, a practice I find quite annoying. As a transportational cyclist, I bear the brunt of flak for these perceptions and behaviors when its for something I'm not even doing. What I'm doing is not superfluous. I'm going to work just like you.

And yet, recreation is important. And it's not opposed to transportation. I usually combine my rides with something that needs doing. I use transportation as an opportunity for recreation. And because I do that, I like my transportation cycling to be pleasant and enjoyable, so if I can, I prefer to use a bike path.

Even if all my rides were purely recreational, recreation is an important activity in its own right. All work and no play makes Jack a very dull boy. When we don't take time to pursue enjoyable activities our bodies and minds suffer. Inspiration, creativity, joy. These are important things to have in your life. Besides, I have only gotten so far in my career because of the recreational goals I have pursued. One flows from the other. The separation is a social construction.

Why separate the two types of cycling and place a higher value on one over the other? What purpose does that serve? Who benefits from this separation? What do you think?
I don't think there IS a seperation! Cycling are cycling!:D If you ride you ride and it's as simple as that!

I have to agree with you Diane. I find myself straddling those lines all the time. I commute and I race and lots of times I'll ride my roadie to work so I can put on my spandex and take a 25 mile training detour home from the office. Other times I'll pull the kids' trailer to their Granddad's house.

Am I transportational? Yes. Am I recreational? Yes.

Heck, I just like riding my bike. But people just have to put you in their little boxes, don't they?

Can you give examples of where this categorization of cyclists has caused a difference in anyone's argument? I don't think "splitting" them really amounts to anything more than making the person who is doing the splitting feel superior about themselves. A cyclist is a cyclist, no matter what type of riding they do.

Seems we like to categorize cyclists. (No, not us A&S forum members! :rolleyes: ) One of those dichotomous categories is the transportational vs recreational cyclist. What do you think of this dichotomy?

...

Why separate the two types of cycling and place a higher value on one over the other? What purpose does that serve? Who benefits from this separation? What do you think?

Any division of people into categories is, by its nature, arbitrary and of limited usefulness. More often than not, many people fit into more than one box. That doesn't mean that such categories are useless, however. It is meaningful, for example, to say that "recreational cyclists want more MUPs" and to say that "transportation/utility cyclists want more bike lanes and better streets". That sort of simple division into categories allows all groups to have a voice, and allows a government to support multiple projects with different goals in the realization that these projects supports different parts of the population (and that those parts may overlap).

Or, in a more jaded view, simple labels and colourful charts help politicians figure out what you want.

I don't think it serves anyone within the cycling community to overplay the role of labels, or start turf wars over who are the "real" cyclists or more deserving of attention. However using categories -while remembering that these are just convenient generalizations - can help assure that all groups get a say. We need look no further than A&S to see how some cyclists would conveniently forget anyone not fitting into the little box they define as "real cyclists".

Seems to me that a while back there was a split between "real" cyclists and other cyclists.

Also seems to me that anyone riding a bike is a real cyclist; their needs shouldn't matter... any more than a street cares if you are driving to work, or to a movie... or simply out to the country.

What if I live 1 mile from work but ride my bike in a 12 mile loop, just to get a decent workout in, on my way to work?

Is it recreational or transportation.

No one seems concerned about all the recreational driving going on. In fact most car commercials portray driving as a recreational activity.

And if a person chooses cycling for fun instead of, say jet-skis, ATV, snowmobile, etc. They are indeed saving fuel and the air, not to mention their health.

Interesting that you blame bad driver behavior on what you term recreational cyclist. I see more “transportational” cyclist blowing stop signs and red lights than the recreational cyclist.

The differences between my transportational vs recreational cyclist are
transportational-------vs---recreational
all weather--------------------nice weather
some night riding--------------no night riding
fenders & lights----------------no fenders & lights
direct route-------------------scenic route or single track
week day----------------------weekend
drivers commuting--------------drivers doing tourist type Sunday drive or going surfing/beach

Personally I feel no need for splitting cyclists up. Let me illustrate: I went on my first dirt ride today. I saw a significantly over weight male rider on a very hot expensive mtn bike who wanted to talk about gear. Some would call him a "poser". I saw a young male in full downhilling body armor and a big hit mtn bike. Some would call him an "exteme" cyclist (or a Posers hehe). I saw a father with two sons, etc etc etc. You get my point.

But really, all they were were cyclists. Period.

Transportational more important than recreational.
Many of the problems and misconceptions we suffer today
are because of the publics pre-conceived notion that bikes
are recreational playthings or vehicles for wackos or DUI's.
If importance and effort were spent to change the thought process
to bicycle as serious, viable transportation there is a better chance
lawmakers, planners etc, will legislate accordingly.

There are some differences that are relevant in some contexts.
So sometimes it's useful to make a distinction, but usually it's not.

The only problem I see with recreational cyclists is that because almost everyone can ride a bike it opens up the debate for cycling advocacy to everyone. Which is wonderful in the same way that anyone can grow up to be president. It just seems that every few months we’re treated to some blowhard recreational (one summer weekend a month) cyclist spouting off about how us spandex-clad lance wanna-be’s should ride. Just as there is a difference between me putting together IKEA furniture and an experienced carpenter, there is a significant difference between daily commuting cyclists and occasional weekend recreational cyclists. This has nothing to do with rights or needs, but it does come into play with advocacy issues and weight of experienced opinion. Just because recreational cyclists prefer MUP’s doesn’t mean they are functional for commuting cyclists or really that a recreational cyclist’s opinions are really very relevant to most commuter’s needs.

This may be elitist, but you wouldn’t let me build your kitchen cabinets and I shouldn’t have to acquiesce my advocacy to someone who hasn’t even worn off the flashing on their tires.

-Marcus

Well, the dichotomy exist because each group needs different things. Recreational riders will tend to like more bike lanes intermixed with pedestrians, dog walkers, etc. Utility cyclists will probably like more accomodations that will make it easier to cycle from point A to point B faster and less hassles. I'm not saying that one is "more important" than the other, just two different priorities. Nobody is saying we can't have both either. Bike lanes in parks and scenic places and road accomodations for practicality.

This dichotomy is essential, otherwise, you'll have to make do with cycling on recreational designed facilities if you're a utility cyclist and vice versa.

/transportational cyclists who wears normal clothing
//likes recreational rides from time to time
///has seen spandex cladding on transportational and weekend warriors.

It is interesting you made this post. It was something I was exactly thinking in reference to your Bike path post.

I don't know that a distinction between the two does US any good as we talk here on these forums. But I believe in advocacy we should be striving towards improvements with regard to TRANSPORTATION and not recreation.

"But you are marginalizing the recreactional cyclist..."

Not at all. Let me try and explain.

I think one of the major problems in the US with respect to cycling, is that it is largely viewed as a recreational activity. I believe this hurts cycling in that many people view a cyclist on the road as not belonging there. "How dare that cyclist use this road for his playtime while blocking my efforts to get to my destination..."

When we are trying to advocate for Cycling facilities (Bikeways, etc) it should be geared towards transportation. Why? Let's take the example of bikeways.

A bikeway geared towards transportation (in that it is designed to help you get to a destination) is easier to sell to politicians and like. It can help an argument that people will use it to commute, helping remove cars from congested roads etc. People would still use it for recreation, but it is useful as a transportation tool.

Baby just woke up, gotta cut this short...

-D

And lots of recreational cyclists blow traffic lights so as to not let their computers record a lower average speed

Funny you should mention that...

Last week I made a point of turning off the comp every time I began to decelerate to a traffic stop, and didn't turn it back on until I was back up to cruising speed.

Gained nearly 3 mph in average speed over a two hour ride!

Not a bad idea per se, but logic dictates we label the groups more clearly so we can make informed decisions based on what these people desire, want, need.... try to find a weak point and , ovecome all weak obstacles and triumph over the weak minded. propaganda is the key and one of the tool is blaming a group, an idea or the persons to blame for the problem you percieve that exist. follow that with your biking nirvana vision and how to achieve it via wiping out the wrong headed, moronic ideas people have about your rightious visionary future envisioned by millions of your followers. If that fails convert them by the sword.

Maybe insanely dedicated transportational, fair weather transportational, recreational, avid recreational, and the "invisible class" (thank you bicycling magazine), those who have no choice but to ride.

Am I transportational? Yes. Am I recreational? Yes.

Heck, I just like riding my bike. But people just have to put you in their little boxes, don't they?

+1

If cycling did not have a valid transportation purpose, recreational cyclists would not be allowed to use the roads. It's really that simple.

See the problem I see here is that a lot of folks assume that transportational cyclists don't want to use bike paths. I am a transportational cyclist and I prefer to use bike paths if I can. I just think it's a nicer way to go.

So is it possible to ask for more bike paths and ask for them to facilitate my transportational goals? In other words, can cyclists ask for bike paths that aren't multi-user paths or is that too much to ask? What do politicians prefer to fund anyway? Recreation or transportation?

And can I, as a tranportational cyclist, prefer bike paths to the streets and still save face around here? Or does that make me a wuss? Am I a wuss if I don't subscribe to the P-n-P crowd's agenda (that being the Phallic and Phumes crowd. Phallic alpha-male gazes with a preference for exhaust fumes.)

My transportation IS my recreation. So there! ;)

So is it possible to ask for more bike paths and ask for them to facilitate my transportational goals? In other words, can cyclists ask for bike paths that aren't multi-user paths or is that too much to ask? What do politicians prefer to fund anyway? Recreation or transportation?

There are many kinds of bike path/lane. You can deduce that a bike path is either recreational oriented, transportational oriented, or a little bit of both on varying degrees.

Are all automobile trips important?

See the problem I see here is that a lot of folks assume that transportational cyclists don't want to use bike paths. I am a transportational cyclist and I prefer to use bike paths if I can. I just think it's a nicer way to go.

So is it possible to ask for more bike paths and ask for them to facilitate my transportational goals? In other words, can cyclists ask for bike paths that aren't multi-user paths or is that too much to ask? What do politicians prefer to fund anyway? Recreation or transportation?

And can I, as a tranportational cyclist, prefer bike paths to the streets and still save face around here? Or does that make me a wuss? Am I a wuss if I don't subscribe to the P-n-P crowd's agenda (that being the Phallic and Phumes crowd. Phallic alpha-male gazes with a preference for exhaust fumes.)

Nice Diane, Phallic and Phumes? You're not a wuss, but you're just as delusional as you claim HH is. You asked in another thread, seriously it seemed, if Santa Barbara had more money than other places? Were you kidding? One of the most expensive places to live in the country and you wonder if they have more money than other places. What I'm wondering is where you think they are going to build separate bike lanes that you don't have to share with joggers and peds? Most cities already have an extensive pavement transportatioin system called roads. You may be fine with a big egalitarian cyclist label, but as long as you need a separate place to ride you go under a separate label in my book. Not a wuss, but a bit of a whiner.

I don't know about alpha-male gazes but I don't seem to have any trouble with riding in traffic except from morons who don't understand my right to be right where I am in the road. The whole defeatist separate facilities just reinforces that belief.

There are a few differences (especially if it's raining or snowing out) but frankly I see no use in dividing ourselves and our efforts up into camps. After all we're all on the same side of promoting cycling in general, whether it be as recreation or transportation. If we divide ourselves up, we're all the more easily conquered.


"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-Ben

My transportation IS my recreation. So there! ;)
+1

One of the issues of advocating from a particular POV, makes the whole realm of cycling more difficult to advocate for. some 'transportational' bicyclists' needs are very well served by bike paths and seperate off roadway networks.

Across America there are growning networks of long distance off road bike routes linking communities and entire regions. Here in the Northwest there are designs of linking cooridors from Oregon to the Canadian Border that will facilitate long distance and mid distance transportational cyclists needs. Out on the Olympic Peninsula in WA, plans for a multi-hundred mile trail network is slowly being dug in and developed to provide a quality and valid off-road transportational cooridors for non motorized users.

some cyclists are able to ride transportationally on all roadways in heavy traffic, and many will not be comfortable doing so. They should all be facilitated safe passage on the roads, equal sharing of space. when this incorporates some form of velotransit, so much the better.

seperate networks of off road paths do serve a valuable purpose of transiting bicyclists across greater distances of a metropolitarian/ rural area with little or no petrolhicular mixing; these networks can add greatly to the needs of bicyclists engaged in longer distance transportational pursuits.

It is right and inevitable that we will split into subgroups, since diferent folks have different needs and wants. However, there is much we can agree on. I HOPE that two areas of agreement are:

Cyclists have the right to use roads in general.
Off-road facilities are useful and fun for many cyclists in all subgroups.

Now, that leaves us free to disagree on the exact proportions of advocacy efforts in these two areas should be. So the flame wars will (and should) continue.

See the problem I see here is that a lot of folks assume that transportational cyclists don't want to use bike paths. I am a transportational cyclist and I prefer to use bike paths if I can. I just think it's a nicer way to go.

Unfortunately I think Diane, that you have been on these boards too long and see what you want to see. I don't see it as Transportational cyclists (lets call them TC's) don't like to use bike paths. For transportation you use what is best. I don't use bike paths, but then again there are non on my way. In Northern Virginia, many TC's use bike paths because they are a necessity (many cycling restricted highways).



So is it possible to ask for more bike paths and ask for them to facilitate my transportational goals? In other words, can cyclists ask for bike paths that aren't multi-user paths or is that too much to ask? What do politicians prefer to fund anyway? Recreation or transportation?

I think we MUST fight for facilities to be useful the transportation. They can still be used for recreation. Heck the entire interstate system was built for transportation. But drivers still use them for recreation.

This fact is EXACTLY why many TC's prefer the roads. Take my Northern VA friends. There are some nice MUP's that they use, as I stated above. But since they are considered recreational paths, they don't get plowed in the winter. So it really throws a monkey wrench into your attempt at alternative transportation.



And can I, as a tranportational cyclist, prefer bike paths to the streets and still save face around here? Or does that make me a wuss? Am I a wuss if I don't subscribe to the P-n-P crowd's agenda (that being the Phallic and Phumes crowd. Phallic alpha-male gazes with a preference for exhaust fumes.)

You read way too much into this stuff Diane. Even HH in your other thread agreed in the validity of the bike path you talked about bypassing a dangerous road. The last thing we need here is division amongst ourselves.

Personally I think segregated bike paths are a perfect solution where applicable. Namely to bypass dangerous roads. But they MUSt be built and maintained to be useful for transportation and not just recreation.

But to think we will ever see a utopia of Bike paths everywhere. So it is also important to advocate for educational programs IMO for both drivers and cyclists. At some point on our rides we will have to interact with cars. We still need to figure out a way to share the roads.

-D

Seems we like to categorize cyclists. (No, not us A&S forum members! :rolleyes: ) One of those dichotomous categories is the transportational vs recreational cyclist. What do you think of this dichotomy?

Why separate the two types of cycling and place a higher value on one over the other? What purpose does that serve? Who benefits from this separation? What do you think?
This is a good point. I don't think any kind of cycling is "more important" than another. The needs of each kind of cyclist are also important. If a cyclist prefers paths, bike lanes, mountain trails or open road, each kind of riding is just as important as the other.

The average income in Santa Barbara, believe it or not, is pretty much the same as everywhere else. That it is an expensive place to live only means that people spend a lot more of their income on housing. Also, when it comes to counting the cost of homes and measuring what people spend, there is a huge under-counted (or un-counted) illegal housing market here.

I simply want to suggest that there's a prejudice here for cyclists who cycle mainly for transportation and that this prejudice leads to a belief that recreational facilities are a waste of money because recreational cycling is not as valuable as transportation. I would like to suggest that the two are not separate categories and that recreational facilities should be something all cyclists advocate for. At least cyclists who care about there being more people cycling and care about those facilities being useful to cyclists.

Recreational versus transportational are not crisp classifications; they are fuzzy, overlapping sets.

The transportational cyclist is, in the traditional sense, destination oriented. However, one can travel for pleasure, and in this case the destination and time are often very flexible. Travel for pleasure or need have different implications for travel demand prediction but enjoy equal protection in a free society.

The recreational cyclist admits to cycling for enjoyment. But one cannot make assumptions about the destinations of the recreational cyclist. A fair-weather bike commuter is a recreational transportation cyclist.

Then there is the fitness-oriented cyclist, who is sometimes classified as recreational, under the assumption that exercise is enjoyable, but is sometimes classified separately as "avid," in order to try to narrow the "recreational" classification to less experienced or lower-effort pleasure cyclists.

In any event, most American cyclists have varying degrees of interest in destination access, enjoyment, and exercise. This doesn't accommodate black/white distinctions very well. However, one may note that a system that accommodates access to every destination can more easily be enhanced to accommodate exercise or enjoyment than can an exercise facility or park facility be expected to provide access to every destination.

I simply want to suggest that there's a prejudice here for cyclists who cycle mainly for transportation and that this prejudice leads to a belief that recreational facilities are a waste of money because recreational cycling is not as valuable as transportation. I would like to suggest that the two are not separate categories and that recreational facilities should be something all cyclists advocate for. At least cyclists who care about there being more people cycling and care about those facilities being useful to cyclists.


Diane,

I disagree. Well and I also agree in a sense. I think the prejudice you speak of is built up in your mind.

But I also believe that pure recreational facilities in general are a waste of money. At least when we are speaking about bike paths etc. Not because I think recreational cycling is not as valuable. But I think it is short sighted (did you even read my above post?). If you are going to put the time and effort to build a path, you might as well make it go somewhere. That way people can use it for transportation AND recreation. If you are going to build a path, build it large enough to accomodate the needs of both transportation and recreation. If you are going to allocate money to this path, allocate enough to maintain it to be useful for both.

And the biggest reason is that if you make it so transportation cyclists can use it, the facility will see larger amounts of traffic. Since bike commuters tend to ride rain or shine, year round. Whereas recreational cyclists are basically fair weathered. this increased traffic will yield increased exposure, which will hopefully yield more budget money to expand.

-D

What of the cyclist, like me, who are almost always using cycling as a workout? There are health reasons why near daily exercise is important to me, glucose control being the most important, followed by weight control.

The fact that I enjoy cycling immensly aside, my daily workouts are apparently neither entirely transportational nor entirely recreational. Each ride is, however, purposeful. My destination on my early morning rides is nearly always my start point. Weekend and holiday rides which may or may not be longer often have intermediate "destinations" which are places I decide in advance to make my break opportunities. Friends' houses, the LBS, a coffee shop are often among my intermediate destinations.

Generally, I prefer to ride the roads. That's not to say that I don't use bike lanes or MUP's because I do, but not always. Obediance to traffic regulation, for me, is circumstantial. I am always going to stop at stop signs (or track stand) where vehicles are waiting their turn. At 5:30 am on deserted roads though, I'll use discretionary caution. Whatever my reason for a particualar ride, there are occasions where I will just follow the front wheel to see where I end up.

Whether a given cyclist is transportational or recreational is unimportant to me. Indeed, I really don't concern myself about either why, or whether, another person rides a bike at all. What concerns me about another cyclist is whether or not thier behavior on the bike is likely to have an effect on my ride, or whether an encounter will be sociable and in conforamnce with reasonable expectations regarding cycling behavior.

It is interesting you made this post. It was something I was exactly thinking in reference to your Bike path post.

I don't know that a distinction between the two does US any good as we talk here on these forums. But I believe in advocacy we should be striving towards improvements with regard to TRANSPORTATION and not recreation.

"But you are marginalizing the recreactional cyclist..."

Not at all. Let me try and explain.

I think one of the major problems in the US with respect to cycling, is that it is largely viewed as a recreational activity. I believe this hurts cycling in that many people view a cyclist on the road as not belonging there. "How dare that cyclist use this road for his playtime while blocking my efforts to get to my destination..."

When we are trying to advocate for Cycling facilities (Bikeways, etc) it should be geared towards transportation. Why? Let's take the example of bikeways.

A bikeway geared towards transportation (in that it is designed to help you get to a destination) is easier to sell to politicians and like. It can help an argument that people will use it to commute, helping remove cars from congested roads etc. People would still use it for recreation, but it is useful as a transportation tool.

Baby just woke up, gotta cut this short...

-D


And yet there is no such distinction for motorists... their particular use of a road at any moment does not bring about judgement of whether they should be allowed on the road. No one ever questions whether a motorist is driving to work or just down to the beach. Every motorists trip on the road carries equal weight in the eyes of all the other motorists. Perhaps the only difference might be assigned to someone driving their RV in rush hour traffic...

But cyclists need to differentiate? Not hardly... it should not matter one bit whether I am riding for exercise, recreation or simple transporation, or better yet, combining all three.

Do you separate transportational and recreational motorists?

Edit: Already done sooner and better by GeneC.

I am a recreational cyclist. I was a transportation cyclist at one time several jobs ago, but circumstances change. I could get to the office easily by bike, but traveling all over several counties during the workday would get me fired if I tried to use my bike.

That being said, I think governmental spending priorities should be skewed toward transportation. The effort should be made to reduce dependence on the automobile as much as possible. Providing recreational facilities does nothing to further that goal. In fact, I would bet a good portion of the 'cyclists' in my local have never ridden their bike anyplace but a MUP. And since the MUP is out in the country, these cyclists load up their bikes on the car and drive there.

I also oppose rail-trail conversions. Rail right-of-ways should be reserved for future....rail service.

And yet there is no such distinction for motorists... their particular use of a road at any moment does not bring about judgement of whether they should be allowed on the road. No one ever questions whether a motorist is driving to work or just down to the beach. Every motorists trip on the road carries equal weight in the eyes of all the other motorists. Perhaps the only difference might be assigned to someone driving their RV in rush hour traffic...

But cyclists need to differentiate? Not hardly... it should not matter one bit whether I am riding for exercise, recreation or simple transporation, or better yet, combining all three.


That is the main problem. There ARE distinctions with motorists. How many guys on Harley choppers on sunday afternoon are doing it for transportation?

But cars are universally seen as tools for transportation first, and recreation second. Bicycles are seen primarily as a recreational toy.

So when someone uses a bike as a tool for transportation, the disntiction is made for us. What we really need to do through advocacy is teach the public that a bicycle is a transportation tool.

-D

So is it possible to ask for more bike paths and ask for them to facilitate my transportational goals? In other words, can cyclists ask for bike paths that aren't multi-user paths or is that too much to ask? What do politicians prefer to fund anyway? Recreation or transportation?

And can I, as a tranportational cyclist, prefer bike paths to the streets and still save face around here? Or does that make me a wuss? Am I a wuss if I don't subscribe to the P-n-P crowd's agenda (that being the Phallic and Phumes crowd. Phallic alpha-male gazes with a preference for exhaust fumes.)
I'm not going to judge you for preferring paths to roads; your reasons are sensible ones. If your commuting area already has lots of paths, wonderful!

Mine doesn't, and the problem I have with advocating for more is that I have trouble imagining a system of paths that would take me everywhere I need to go, especially places where roads already do. So I have a hard time justifying the expense that would take, to end up with a "separate but equal" transportation system, especially when history shows that separate hardly ever ends up being equal. Plus, you have now further divided the travelling public into constituencies competing for limited infrastructure dollars. Why maintain two systems when you can maintain one for both groups?

That's my anti-path argument. I also have sympathies for the pro-path argument, which I think is basically to get more people riding by removing having to ride in traffic as a "barrier to entry". This could bring us back to your original topic in that paths are good for recreation, and provide a good place for adults newly returning to cycling to get back into it. If they progress to wanting to bike more places for transportational purposes, they can transition onto roads as they feel comfortable doing so.

Transportational cyclists are given the destinations and then must pick the route.
Recreational cyclists pick a route and the destinations.

Al

That is the main problem. There ARE distinctions with motorists. How many guys on Harley choppers on sunday afternoon are doing it for transportation?

But cars are universally seen as tools for transportation first, and recreation second. Bicycles are seen primarily as a recreational toy.

So when someone uses a bike as a tool for transportation, the disntiction is made for us. What we really need to do through advocacy is teach the public that a bicycle is a transportation tool.

-D

Probably as many folks on Sunday afternoons that are driving cars around...

What you don't think mr Harley drives his bike into the office on Monday?

****************************

What I really think is that if the transportation needs of cyclists are well met, then the recreational needs will also be served... however, it may not work the other way around.

Why make paths that are narrow and wind about and don't go anywhere?

Why not make paths that are wide, and connect various points... these then can be used quite easily by transportation cyclists and by "sunday" cyclists just like country roads serve Harley bikers.

Just an example.

Mine doesn't, and the problem I have with advocating for more is that I have trouble imagining a system of paths that would take me everywhere I need to go, especially places where roads already do.
Presumably you would have been opposed to building the Interstate Highway System in the US (or any other road improvements) since they won't take motorists everywhere and only went to places where there already were roads.

What I really think is that if the transportation needs of cyclists are well met, then the recreational needs will also be served... however, it may not work the other way around.

Why make paths that are narrow and wind about and don't go anywhere?

Why not make paths that are wide, and connect various points... these then can be used quite easily by transportation cyclists and by "sunday" cyclists just like country roads serve Harley bikers.

Just an example.


No wonder people get annoyed in forums. This is exactly what I have stated in the past several posts I made. I guess people do really just skip to the end.

-D

No wonder people get annoyed in forums. This is exactly what I have stated in the past several posts I made. I guess people do really just skip to the end.

-D

Well now I am really annoyed... :D

While I agree with you... I still don't see a reason to split cyclists into different groups.

But I do believe that the focus of any "facilities" should be toward the best that can be built... not the least that can be gotten away with.

Too often a facility is geared toward one group and totally useless for another group... thus limiting the overall usefulness of that facility. If, on the other hand, that facility was geared toward the needs of every possible user, than it might very well be used all the time, and encourage recreation riders to extend their cycling for transportation needs.

Dividing us puts up artifical boundries that can make it mentally difficult for some folks to cross.

Something as simple even as clothing types and styles can turn off some riders from wanting to pursue cycing as transportation...

The average income in Santa Barbara, believe it or not, is pretty much the same as everywhere else.

Well that didn't sound very believable so I googled it. Here are the median household incomes for your town and mine:


Santa Barbara, CA: $47,498

Lansing, MI: $34,833

You can see that they are not "pretty much the same." Of course I could have found more extreme examples of median income disparity within the U.S. Or much more extreme if I had looked at other countries.

Different income levels might explain the differences on this board more than the petty differences between categories of cyclists that has you so worried.

A point on the Interstate Highway System. The original purpose of the Interstate Highway System was the capability to quickly move troops and military equipment across the country, a World War II lesson learned from Germany.

Built for that function, we also saw that it could be used for commerce and personal transportation.

Even one of the most recent additions to the “ Interstate Highway System” (even though it starts and ends in Hawaii) is the federal H-3 Freeway. Designed during the Vietnam War to quickly moved troops from Kaneohe Marine Corp. Station to Pearl Harbor & Hickam Air Force Base.

Even one of the most recent additions to the “ Interstate Highway System” (even though it starts and ends in Hawaii) is the federal H-3 Freeway. Designed during the Vietnam War to quickly moved troops from Kaneohe Marine Corp. Station to Pearl Harbor & Hickam Air Force Base.


They actually finished the H3? When I was stationed in Kbay in the late 70s and early 80s, H3 stopped dead near the Like-Like and they couldn't negotiate a deal for the land to complete it.

Khaki and a shoulder bag, or wool and lycra, makes no difference. The Klan ain't ever gonna think we're white.

I don't think Lansing Michigan is a fair comparison for any place in coastal California as far as incomes go. Why don't you compare Lansing to Santa Maria, which is the city with the largest population in Santa Barbara County. Besides, 47K average does not a city of millionaires make. I think that probably puts us lower than a lot of coastal California.

Where are these bike paths that go no where? I have never seen such a thing. They always go somewhere. And if one end or the other or part of the middle is on your way, then they are of use. You guys get so wrapped up in absolutes. If the path doesn't absolutely go from start to finish your entire route, or if the path doesn't absolutely go exactly where you are going start to finish then you think it's a waste.

Well, I ride on a path that was originally put in for cyclists but evolved into your classic MUP with all of the negatives that entails. However, at 7:30am and evenings the path is quite empty and quite pleasant and quite useful. That it does not go very far is of no concern. It takes me about a mile and a half of my route each way. That's enough to give my ride a little boost as far as the enjoyment aspect goes. With a small connection I can get to another path and ride even further totally separated from the exhaust and noise of cars. On these paths I can hear the ocean and see the mountains, and sometimes even dolphins. There are flowers and trees and birds. It's nice.

By riding on the path each day I'm afforded about 4 or so miles of smooth pavement that lacks the nails, glass and potholes of the main road. That's a plus as far as maintenance goes. I get a little break from the daily stresses of life and the other human beings I see are not encased in steel and rubber. A few smiles and hellos can brighten up the day.

Same thing goes for riding the other direction in town. I ride for several miles on roads and then I hit the bike path and it's bliss. It's quiet, there's nature, I can open it up go all out or slow down and daydream. I can connect a lot of the places I like to go with little secret shortcut bike paths and bridges, too. Bike paths don't have to be long to be of value. Sometimes a tiny little short one can ease the way through a difficult place.

None of the paths here take me everywhere I want to go. They don't need to. They simply enhance the rides I'm already doing and invite me to come back. With nice paths it's harder to say "oh, I don't feel like riding today." It keeps me exercising and healthy. Brings down the stress, makes me happy.

You guys can be so machine-like sometimes. If it's gray and straight you like it. If it's colorful and curvy you hate it.

If there were more bike paths, even short ones, more people would have a chance to link them together and build better routes for themselves. I'm sure it's what most ordinary people want. And every time I go on the tour of industrial Oxnard I'm reminded that it's what I want, too.

Recreational Transportational Transponder. Who cares...