Understanding the bicycling environment

[Brian Ratliff]

Here is the 17s honk video. Note after a while of honking where I was looking back a lot, even smiled, and giving several slow signal, some for multiple seconds, I even move left biased. I suppose the reason they stopped honking is because I moved so far to the left, right? ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9z6rLcJqhE4

Al

I've got to say. Seeing these videos and having been to Phoenix once and driving around for a week on a business trip, I can see why Al (noisebeam) is so militant about vehicular cycling. This probably applies to the Cali people as well as they have similar environments. Seeing the video of NYC, and having lived in Seattle and various places in Oregon and having commuted for a summer into downtown Portland and for a couple years in rural Washington Co. and the Portland suburbs, I can see why the "pro-facilities" people and the "anti-facilities" people fail to even come to a common starting point when debating the relative merits of various cycling systems.

The environments are so different that there really is two systems which work in two very different environments. Despite the weather in Cali and Arizona, I seriously doubt that cycling will ever be a popular mode of transportation. Cyclists have to care about so much stuff in order to operate in that environment. You have to care about the mood of drivers behind, and around you, and develop methods that forces drivers to modify their actions or else hit you regardless of their state of mind (which is essentially what vehicular cycling is all about). You are constantly operating around vehicles going 45 mph and faster, and have to be wary of drivers who turn because they slam on the brakes to make their turn down from 45 mph. There are a ton of other things that all stem from this environment.

Cyclists from this region are probably more heavily represented here, per Diane's (sbhikes) complaint, because there is no real local system to turn to. 10 guys who drove to a bicycling advocacy meeting does not bicycling advocacy make (this is from HelmetHead's description at one point a while ago). These people are more shrill than the rest of us because their techniques, by necessity, must be more speciallized, and operating in an environment not being conductive to cycling means that cyclists who do bicycle in that environment must be more zealous than most cyclists.

Going back to Al's videos, I cringed when I watched it. Not because I lack the ability to bicycle there; neither the training nor the lack of understanding of the situation and what is required of a cyclist to operate there am I lacking. No, the reason I cringed is because I don't love cycling enough to put up with that environment for very long. There is no benefit I can see for myself. The overall health benefits of cycling are offset by the dangers of that environment and the stress of dealing with that environment. The one mile grid of arterials present in the Pheonix area is not suitable for serious exercise. There is no advantage in time because of the distances involved. There is nothing left.

Bicycling in the true urban city environment, on the other hand, is much more doable. The dangers are real, but they are different and more on a human scale, making them more easy to handle. Just moving from the rural and suburban environment of where I live and commute on a daily basis, SW of Beaverton, to the inner city of Portland is like jumping into a cool pool of water on a hot day. The whole environment, while more conjested and busier, is on a human scale. Speeds are limited to 15-20 mph. Bikes can keep up, whether in a segregated facility or not, the dangers are not overwhelming. It is a stark difference.

In the inner city, bicycling is an obvious economic choice amoungst people who live and work there. Most advocacy efforts focus on the inner city first because that is where the low-hanging fruit is. It is the only place besides a university campus where convolutions in the perpetual "why ride a bicycle" argument don't have to be made. It is a place where the primary and most effective reasoning coalesces around a simple economic argument. One doesn't have to be a "bicycle fanatic" to ride a bike. The only counter to the economics argument is the aspect of danger involving the direct exposure to car traffic. In this environment, facilities are a reasonable way for cycling advocates to offset the danger aspect.

This is the way I see the "divide" in the bicycling advocacy philosophies. Everything in the human experience is influenced strongly by our environment, including the strategies used when engaging in logical debates and reasoning exercises. It is wrong to conclude that VC advocates are "raving mad," just as it is wrong to conclude that other bicycling advocates are ninnies who don't know how to ride their bikes (both of these insults have been hurdled in the recent past by posters in this forum). There is a tendency in this forum to discount environment in favor of some catch all philosophy. We discount environment, not because it is intellectually honest (it's not), but simply because it is hard to take environment into account with people from so many different areas talking on the same forum. But we shouldn't shy away from things just because they are hard.

[noisebeam]

Brian,
This is a good analysis and I don't have any real gripes with it, but note it is only based on what you've seen in my videos and from your visits to the area. My videos are rush hour commuting centric (although I ride counter rush hour and most often pre RH at ~4pm so traffic is relative light) and are on specific streets to meet my destination needs.
There is fantastic recreational cycling that utilizes many of these arterials - over a dozen clubs can be found on any given weekend with groups from 20-120 riders. Fitness cycling ('serious exercise') can be achieved. Depending on where one lives one can get out of the 'city' fairily quickly onto more rural roads (just ask Paul L.).
This road and arterial like it I show in the video is not used by any clubs I am aware of as they can plan routes that are not destination specific. All the club rides I've been on pick arterials with bike lanes and generally the ride is not vehicular - it puts me out of my comfort zone, but the pack makes up for the 'situational' concerns - for example it is not uncommon as we pass a line of stopped cars on the right using the BL that some of the riders will yell or even bang on car windows to get attention for potential right hookers.
There are also many residential streets within the mile grid that are at a more human scale - one can work thru the maze and find interconnects for more casual family oriented cycling. Some commuters if their destinations allow can use them too - some like me find them a hassle as light timings are load based (need 2-3 cars to trigger a green light to cross an arterial) and the route is often not direct.
Al

[LCI_Brian]

The one mile grid of arterials present in the Pheonix area is not suitable for serious exercise.
Brian, before I respond, could you clarify what you mean by this?

[sbhikes]

I am just an ordinary person and agree that if I lived somewhere where bicycling offered no real advantage I would not choose to do it. I would do something else, probably walking or running.

I couldn't ride a bike in an atmosphere like Al's videos. It's nice that he can, but when I see those videos I can't help but think that it would be a whole lot easier if there was a bike lane. I think if it was me I would just ride on the sidewalk because it isn't worth it to me to be honked at and passed within inches and have mean things yelled at me.

I have nothing to prove when it comes to cycling. I do it because I like it and it's possible and enjoyable. If it wasn't enjoyable, if it was only barely possible, I wouldn't do it.

[Brian Ratliff]

Brian, before I respond, could you clarify what you mean by this?

You can get fit up to a point doing anything, but serious exercise of the type that cyclists engage in to become better cyclists cannot be done unclipping and clipping in every 3 or 4 minutes. The best you can do is get a fixed gear bike like Al I think has so that more muscles are worked.

[noisebeam]

I am just an ordinary person and agree that if I lived somewhere where bicycling offered no real advantage I would not choose to do it. I would do something else, probably walking or running.

I couldn't ride a bike in an atmosphere like Al's videos. It's nice that he can, but when I see those videos I can't help but think that it would be a whole lot easier if there was a bike lane. I think if it was me I would just ride on the sidewalk because it isn't worth it to me to be honked at and passed within inches and have mean things yelled at me.

I have nothing to prove when it comes to cycling. I do it because I like it and it's possible and enjoyable. If it wasn't enjoyable, if it was only barely possible, I wouldn't do it.
What make you think there is no real advantage to cycling where I live? You sound like a typical motorist ;)

That sidewalk is perhaps more dangerous than you perceive. As would be a bike lane on that street without RTOLs for every intersection.

I would prefer a WOL on that street. I'd still ride close to center, but move right to let faster vehicles pass when safe - all the honks and hassles go away.

I have nothing to prove either. I do it cause I love it.

One thing that is easily overlooked is I posted 2min worth of video of bad treatment - plus perhaps about another 8min I never posted. That needs to be taken in context that I have 24000min (800 commutes at 30min each) of video of hassle free cycling, plus another 10k miles of recreational cycling with clubs with zero problems, where 98% of my focus was on the riders around me.

Al

[Brian Ratliff]

Brian,
This is a good analysis and I don't have any real gripes with it, but note it is only based on what you've seen in my videos and from your visits to the area. My videos are rush hour commuting centric (although I ride counter rush hour and most often pre RH at ~4pm so traffic is relative light) and are on specific streets to meet my destination needs.
There is fantastic recreational cycling that utilizes many of these arterials - over a dozen clubs can be found on any given weekend with groups from 20-120 riders. Fitness cycling ('serious exercise') can be achieved. Depending on where one lives one can get out of the 'city' fairily quickly onto more rural roads (just ask Paul L.).
This road and arterial like it I show in the video is not used by any clubs I am aware of as they can plan routes that are not destination specific. All the club rides I've been on pick arterials with bike lanes and generally the ride is not vehicular - it puts me out of my comfort zone, but the pack makes up for the 'situational' concerns - for example it is not uncommon as we pass a line of stopped cars on the right using the BL that some of the riders will yell or even bang on car windows to get attention for potential right hookers.
There are also many residential streets within the mile grid that are at a more human scale - one can work thru the maze and find interconnects for more casual family oriented cycling. Some commuters if their destinations allow can use them too - some like me find them a hassle as light timings are load based (need 2-3 cars to trigger a green light to cross an arterial) and the route is often not direct.
Al

I have little interest in recreational cycling when I am engaged in this forum, nor family oriented cycling as I have yet to have a family. Cycling as a sport done on the weekends or at weird hours of the day can be done anywhere easily. All of my comments are regarding commuting during rush hour.

I put in the part about exercise because combining exercise with transportation is a real reason for most people who commute in the suburbs or rural areas, such as myself. But the one mile grid thing does not make for good exercise cycling.

I hear you on the residential street point. That doesn't compare with the urban environment though; as you have explained, the cyclist who takes residential streets in Pheonix encounters many obstacles to through cycling, as they should, as those streets are calm precisely because of those winding and dead end routes. Urban streets are on more of a human scale in principle.

[noisebeam]

You can get fit up to a point doing anything, but serious exercise of the type that cyclists engage in to become better cyclists cannot be done unclipping and clipping in every 3 or 4 minutes. The best you can do is get a fixed gear bike like Al I think has so that more muscles are worked.
I know from personal experience this is not true. My commute is 25min today (best ever 23min). My first commute was 50min. I achieved fitness thru the commute alone - this was before I got a fixed gear. (for example you can see I am moving at a good clip in the video, how did I achieve the fitness to do this?) 100% of my cycling has been done from the door of my house including centuries at very respectable speeds.
Some days on my 8.5mi commute I don't unclip at all. Typical about 3 times. Of my current 25min commute I spend 10-90sec stopped at intersections total. That is one of the advantages of riding arterials. When I take a back routes I can spend 5-12min waiting at intersections.

Al

[noisebeam]

One thing that I am interpreting Brian is that you want your commute to be for effective exercise, otherwise its not a 'good' commute. Do I understand right?

My commute is only 8.5mi - the most effective exersise I can get in such a short distance is intervals. And that is what I get: ~2-3 intervals of 3-4mi each.

Al

[Brian Ratliff]

What make you think there is no real advantage to cycling where I live? You sound like a typical motorist ;)

That sidewalk is perhaps more dangerous than you perceive. As would be a bike lane on that street without RTOLs for every intersection.

I would prefer a WOL on that street. I'd still ride close to center, but move right to let faster vehicles pass when safe - all the honks and hassles go away.

I have nothing to prove either. I do it cause I love it.

One thing that is easily overlooked is I posted 2min worth of video of bad treatment - plus perhaps about another 8min I never posted. That needs to be taken in context that I have 24000min (800 commutes at 30min each) of video of hassle free cycling, plus another 10k miles of recreational cycling with clubs with zero problems, where 98% of my focus was on the riders around me.

Al

No need to get defensive. Pheonix is what it is. But your defensiveness and the "I do it cause I love it" comment is exactly my case in point. You are more militant because you have to be, and you love it because you have to in order for cycling to make any sense. If you didn't love it and weren't forced to it, you wouldn't do it. That is my point exactly. In the dense urban environment, on the other hand, people don't have to love cycling for cycling to make sense in purely economic terms.

Regarding your treatment. I've never been treated to what you've shown in those videos. Now, I've a long life yet to live, but the environment you show on a whole, which you've indicated is kind of a norm for you, is equal merely to my one or two all time worst experiences I've ever had on my bike in 10 years of traffic cycling. And I've ridden to every job I've ever had in seven different cities across Oregon and Washington and in all environments from rural highway in unincorporated Washington Co. outside the suburbs of Portland, to the inner city of Portland and parts of Seattle, to the suburbs of Portland, Corvallis, Roseburg, (in Oregon), Seattle, and Everett, WA.

[Brian Ratliff]

One thing that I am interpreting Brian is that you want your commute to be for effective exercise, otherwise its not a 'good' commute. Do I understand right?

My commute is only 8.5mi - the most effective exersise I can get in such a short distance is intervals. And that is what I get: ~2-3 intervals of 3-4mi each.

Al

You are too busy defending your riding habits. I had no intention of you doing this and my point is getting lost in responding to your defense.

My point is that people ride for many different reasons. The economic reasons you get when cycling in the dense urban environment where most advocates focus their attention is the strongest. I, personally, don't have any economic reasons for cycling. Exercise and love of cycling are the two I have. Hence, I will never make as efficient or as frequent use of my bike than a person living in the inner city. Transportational cycling is a cost for me, but one I am willing to pay to gain more indirect benefits, up to a point.

My point is that environments differ and it is those differences in environment which drive the percieved "debate" about traffic cycling systems. Indeed, it not only drives the debate, but it affects the very strategies used by ideologes (in the better sense of the term) to present their reasoning and logic. I am convinced that there is no one "best" system for traffic cycling and transportational cycling advocacy. Different things work best in different environments and the system ultimately used is a study in tradeoffs and compromises.

For instance: looking at your videos, I see that you maintain a central lane position even when there is room to move over. You have your reasons for doing this and I am not challenging your riding technique in any way. In a similar road and traffic here, in the Portland area, I don't have to suffer the wrath of the horn because my cycling environment makes it easier to take the lane, so I can afford to ride further off to the side and present less of a conflict with faster traffic. Basically, the reason this is is because drivers here are more law abiding, are more used to cyclists on the road and the roads are slower in general. In your environment, I'd likely resort to a strategy such as you have, after some initial trial and error; in fact, when riding the suburbs of Portland 6 or 7 years ago on my first engineering internship, I had to do just that and I was correspondingly more millitant about my riding system.

The environment shapes our riding strategies, and we need to focus on understanding how this works before we can move on to debate the relative merits of bicycling systems.

[sbhikes]

I understand the safety aspect you speak of, Al, but if cycling isn't enjoyable I'm not going to do it. In your videos if I was on the sidewalk nobody would be honking at me, nobody would be hurling insults at me and nobody would be trying to teach me a lesson by passing me with only inches to spare. I don't find any of those things to be enjoyable. If cycling isn't pleasant I'm not going to do it.

I also disagree that having to stop at a signal every 4 minutes or so is enough to prevent you from getting exercise. It's not exactly continuous but it's still exercise.

[Brian Ratliff]

I understand the safety aspect you speak of, Al, but if cycling isn't enjoyable I'm not going to do it. In your videos if I was on the sidewalk nobody would be honking at me, nobody would be hurling insults at me and nobody would be trying to teach me a lesson by passing me with only inches to spare. I don't find any of those things to be enjoyable. If cycling isn't pleasant I'm not going to do it.

I also disagree that having to stop at a signal every 4 minutes or so is enough to prevent you from getting exercise. It's not exactly continuous but it's still exercise.

I think I'm the young'un in the company of a bunch of ol' foggies... :D

I used to be a competitive swimmer in highschool, swimming for a swim club. That is still a recent period of time in my life. Nothing I've done on a commute compares to that kind of exercise. My commutes are 50 minutes, 1:10 mins and 1:30 mins depending on my start point and my direction of travel. The longer times are from my house, to and from work respectively. The shorter time is from the closest parking I can trust in the city and on a fixed gear bike. Exercise is a major reason why I commute. It is a cost otherwise.

[noisebeam]

My system is to be visible and predictable to other road users. I got it from my dad, growing up in a relatiely rural area in New England. He perhaps got it from growing up in England. When I first started walking from home as a kid to school I was taught to walk facing traffic well into the road (roads did not have shoulders) so drivers can see us, and to step off the road only after seeing a vehicle come towards me. I was taught after learing to ride a bike to ride like a car, never pass on the right, to turn from the left side of the road, etc - riding in the center of the lane was the norm for all us kids. I've found its worked in all the places I've lived, from mass, vermont, texas, and here. When I started riding a bike after not for 20yrs. its how I did it without much thought, only later did I learn on BF I could fine tune what I was doing and do it even better.
Al

[noisebeam]

Nothing I've done on a commute compares to that kind of exercise. My commutes are ....
and you also say to me "You are too busy defending your riding habits" after me explaining I can get good exercise on my commute despite it being short and with stop lights in response to you suggesting one can't get good exercise in a grid arterial system.
Should I just let those comments go by? Fine, but then why talk about your need for exercise during your commute and how much you get?
Anyway I view this as interesting discussion, I said right of the bat I mainly agreed with you, but then you later talk of my 'defense' What am I defending?

You talk of my love of cycling as the motivator, but you don't know the reasons I love it. I like saving fuel, I like not contributing to the auto centricity of the craphole that phx is, I like the exersise, the gas money savings, the zero extra time it takes me relative to driving and some other form of exersise. I'd bet every BF commuter loves their commute.

But more to your point I'd bet there are many of those who do it out of economic need and/or time savings that still love their commute by bicycle. They are not exclusive.
My grandmother commuted by bicycle for over 45yrs. to a jobs that were between 7-9mi away the London area. She still speaks fondly of the commute. It was economic neccessity and quicker than other means.

Al

[LCI_Brian]

I was surprised by Brian's comment that the suburban one mile grid wasn't suitable for serious exercise, especially when you consider there's a lot more starting and stopping in urban areas. Anyway, enough on that, as it's just a minor point in a sea of interesting observations in Brian's post.

I believe Brian is overstating the dangers and stresses of suburban riding. I know a lot of cyclists who have only ridden in suburbia who would say the same thing about urban riding. You do have to be thick skinned to a certain degree to be a cyclist in Al's environment, but I think that applies in any environment (including roads in urban areas) where motorists are the majority.

My point is that environments differ and it is those differences in environment which drive the percieved "debate" about traffic cycling systems. Indeed, it not only drives the debate, but it affects the very strategies used by ideologes (in the better sense of the term) to present their reasoning and logic. I am convinced that there is no one "best" system for traffic cycling and transportational cycling advocacy. Different things work best in different environments and the system ultimately used is a study in tradeoffs and compromises.
I believe the characteristics of the differing environments generally lead to different types of commuting cyclists. To a certain extent, that may be why folks like me, Serge, and Al all commute in similar environments and share similar views, for example. But this doesn't have to result in divisive advocacy. For example, I wouldn't object to facilities if they were optional use. In my view, what makes things divisive is mandatory use laws, as the mere proposal to provide a facility can automatically pit facilities advocates against vehicular cycling advocates.

[Bekologist]

yes, high quality facilities can improve cycling regardless of the environment.

fight mandatory use laws.

I wonder how a cyclist from Phoenix would ride living in Seattle or Portland? I think they would probably take advantage of the facilties, just like the rest of the vehicular cyclists do around here, because there is no compelling reason to dismiss them out of hand except dogmatic adherence to inflexible rules about how to ride a bike.

On a road with a high quality bike lane, the maxim as far right as is practical, as far left as needed for safety places the rider squarely in a buffered bike lane with volume-graduated accomodations for egresses and intersections.

When I ride in suburbia, if I lived in Detroit or Phoenix, I'd adjust my riding to fit the conditions. If I lived in LA (which I anecdotally hear -from the bowels of Hollywoods' bike kitchen- is NOT THAT BAD for cyclists, but the roads are poorly maintained) I'd adjust my riding accordingly.

riding in conditions that are not conducive to cycling is not enjoyable. Making the roads more accomodating to cyclists is the goal of facilities development for and by bicyclists; the onus is on the bicyclist and the advocacy groups to ensure the redesign of public rights of way. Make public roadway space accomdating to all users and potential users of the road, not just gorillas driving SUVs while talking on cell phones and looking at the morning paper on the way to picking up a latte.

It must suck to live in a place that is as Al describes it. I'd be fighting for high quality bike facilties across the city.

If you can handle riding unaccomodated streets, you can definetly handle riding well designed roads with high quality bike facilties. It's no big deal.

Fearmongering about the potential deluterious effects of poor roadway and intersection design is exactly that, fearmongering.

Calling out the failings in autocentric road design is exactly that, calling out autocentric roadway design in the interests of reclaiming public rights of way for all.

[richardmasoner]

I couldn't ride a bike in an atmosphere like Al's videos.

Diane, I was under the impression that your atmosphere is similar to Al's videos. I admit, if people were constantly harrassing me in the way demonstrated in the video, it would be a major drag to me also. I take the lane like Al does, but honkings & yellings are very rare -- maybe once or twice a year.

There's more than environment regarding the divide between pro- and anti-facilities (and many VC riders are pro-facility, BTW). Anti-facilities are cyclist advocates, while pro-facilities are cycling advocates.

Cycling advocates want to increase the number of cyclists out there, and they feel that creating a perception of safer facilities will increase those numbers.

Cyclist advocates want to preserve and enhance the rights of cyclists to use the roads, and they feel facilities promotion dilutes cyclist road rights and their efforts to advance those rights.

These agendas are very different, hence the solutions are very different.

RFM

[AndrewP]

I dont know why noisebeam rides in the middle of the nice wide lane when there is plenty of room for him to share it with an SUV. I wish we had more roads like that around here.

[LCI_Brian]

In the inner city, bicycling is an obvious economic choice amoungst people who live and work there. Most advocacy efforts focus on the inner city first because that is where the low-hanging fruit is. It is the only place besides a university campus where convolutions in the perpetual "why ride a bicycle" argument don't have to be made. It is a place where the primary and most effective reasoning coalesces around a simple economic argument. One doesn't have to be a "bicycle fanatic" to ride a bike. The only counter to the economics argument is the aspect of danger involving the direct exposure to car traffic.
Agree. for the most part....

In this environment, facilities are a reasonable way for cycling advocates to offset the danger aspect.
....but this part is debatable.

[Bekologist]

no, its not debatable.

high quality bike facilities can make any road safer for bicyclists. the key is in how well designed they are.

high quality redesign of public rights of way is not debatable. whats debatable is how to do it.

Cycling advocates can be cyclist advocates, but it appears the counter cannot. and that is sad.

Up thru WWII, the majority of trips in america were done by foot, bike or public transport. the last decades of autocentric travel is a POX, a curse on america. what a foul mess we have driven ourselves into.

The solution is redesign of public rights of way and a reeducation of the public. The failure of VC 'cyclist' advocacy, I.E. Teaching riders to hold their own in an autocentric world - gets us "Al's dilemma." As VC as he can be, and still in near constant conflict with drivers.

Where does a vehicular cyclist ride on well designed roads with high quality bikelanes? -As far right as is practical, and far left as needed for safety. That puts a VC rider positioned in a high quality bike lane on a well designed road.

this thread is about the bicycling environment. Al's dilemma, relying soley on rider vigilance, is not the 'anwser' to the greater good for nonautocentric transport, but a stopgap technique on unfriendly, autocentric public rights of way.

[galen_52657]

Brian, you are making a lot of deductions and jumping over quite a few hurdles to come to the conclusion you did based on that one video.

The point of the video is to record some jackass honking for a long time. Eventually, the vehicle passed and passed with a reasonable margin at a reasonable speed. The fact is regardless of the honking and frustration of the driver behind noisebeam, the driver was aware of noisebeam and was not going to pose an unknown threat to him - not like some guy who passes you while you ride in a bike lane and then blindly cuts you off with a right hook.

There is a huge difference between a frustrated motorist and a motorist with whom your presence just does not register. The former may be a PIA, but it's the latter who poses the real danger.

Personally, the road/traffic situation seemed relatively benign to me. You have two same-direction lanes plus a center turn lane giving motorists plenty of room to get around a cyclist. I would have no problem riding that road at that time of day or even with heavier traffic.

[sbhikes]

My riding conditions are nothing like Al's. We don't have a single road like that in the entire south Santa Barbara county. When I do have trouble similar to Al's videos there is only one lane in each direction and often a steep hill, no shoulder and no sidewalk and lots of filthy rich people. (Yay, I start a new job on Monday so I never have to ride Ortega Hill again!)

Anyway, to be fair to Al he did post only a few snippets of horror out of many hours of uneventful riding. But still, I can't help but think those roads would be easier to deal with if they had a bike lane or if at least the right lane was wider. After a few incidents like his videos, if I couldn't find a more pleasant route, I would give it up. That looked like too much work trying to keep up with traffic and even then they weren't satisfied.

[genec]

Personally, the road/traffic situation seemed relatively benign to me. You have two same-direction lanes plus a center turn lane giving motorists plenty of room to get around a cyclist. I would have no problem riding that road at that time of day or even with heavier traffic.

Thus exemplifying exactly what Brian has been saying... highly skilled cyclists can ride just about anywhere and make just about anything work... but that attitude is borne out of the need to be "militant" or "assertive" and in some areas does nothing over all for the lesser skilled cyclist just starting out and having to face those same conditions. ("just ride your bike, pay attention to traffic, and don't forget to glare at those motorists")

In some areas, such as Portland, the increased sensitivity of motorists in the area toward cyclists, coupled with more human scaled streets (lower speed limits) tends to result in a more encouraging environment for cyclists... in spite of the rather wet weather environment.

While you galen or noisebeam or HH or any other list of skilled experienced cyclists could handle potentially negative situations, overall those situations do nothing to promote cycling for those willing to try.

One of the most often repeated comments I heard while taking an LAB Road 1 class (which I really didn't need) was that sure everything was fine while we were in groups, but "what happens when I ride alone in my own area?"

Cyclists can be quickly discouraged by having to face negative environments regularly. That is the core of what Brian is saying... that and the fact that the cycling environment IS different in different places.

[sbhikes]

And I would unlink the concept of "skilled" cyclist with "mastery" or "fearlessness". Personally, I just want to go about my day in relative anonymity without having to fight or prove my right to exist. I just want a low-stress ride to work. Being honked at and buzzed and taunted and yelled at are not the everyday occurences of the other road users. They add unwanted, unwarrented stress. Why should I put up with it? How CAN I put up with it unless I, too, adopt an air of militancy? Maybe I don't want to join the military.

[Wogsterca]

no, its not debatable.

high quality bike facilities can make any road safer for bicyclists. the key is in how well designed they are.

high quality redesign of public rights of way is not debatable. whats debatable is how to do it.

Cycling advocates can be cyclist advocates, but it appears the counter cannot. and that is sad.

Up thru WWII, the majority of trips in america were done by foot, bike or public transport. the last decades of autocentric travel is a POX, a curse on america. what a foul mess we have driven ourselves into.

The solution is redesign of public rights of way and a reeducation of the public. The failure of VC 'cyclist' advocacy, I.E. Teaching riders to hold their own in an autocentric world - gets us "Al's dilemma." As VC as he can be, and still in near constant conflict with drivers.

Where does a vehicular cyclist ride on well designed roads with high quality bikelanes? -As far right as is practical, and far left as needed for safety. That puts a VC rider positioned in a high quality bike lane on a well designed road.

this thread is about the bicycling environment. Al's dilemma, relying soley on rider vigilance, is not the 'anwser' to the greater good for nonautocentric transport, but a stopgap technique on unfriendly, autocentric public rights of way.

I disagree that bicycle facilities alone can make a street safer, because usually that facility exists as being garbage strewn, potholed, puddle filled, no mans land between cars and pedestrians, AKA the bike lane. The worlds longest street (according to Mssrs Guinness), is Yonge Street which starts in Toronto,Ontario at Lake Ontario and runs North to Rainy River. The portion in Toronto, south of Lawrence Ave., has no bike lane, and no bike routes run along it, I checked the city cycling map (http://www.toronto.ca/cycling/map/pdf/2006_map.pdf)), but there is probably more bike parking on this portion of Yonge Street then anywhere else in the city, because all the little pubs, restaurants, stores, and other places that people go, and in Summer many of those trips are by foot, the excellent Yonge St Subway, and by bicycle. Heck, even my bike has been parked on Yonge more then once.

Now the problem with the typical American city, is that they are designed only for high speed automobile traffic, and that is the problem, cities are large, with high segregation between facilities, linked by freeways and major arterials, most of the land is paved over for parking facilities,

Honestly a bicycle friendly city, is built on a human scale, and has things much closer at hand. However the more friendly you make a city to bicycles and people, the less friendly you make it to cars, because you have less space for parking, and driving. However because your house, stores, offices, and possibly some light industry are close at hand, it's possible to work, live, socialize and shop within a small area. Probably the best city design is a neighbourhood design, where instead of a big city, you have dozens or even hundreds of neighbourhoods or communities, each designed around a subway station, which is roughly a 5 minute walk from anywhere within the neighbourhood. Meaning it is still possible to live and work in different parts of the city, without needing to drive. An example would be the loop and pod design in the book Car Free Cities (http://www.carfree.com) by J. H. Crawford.

Mr. Crawford in his book, stuffs a 1,200,000 population city into a space of roughly 10 x 10 square miles, and 80% of the space is green space! This does show us how big of a space waster, the automobile really is, because most auto-centric cities of 1,200,000 people are considerably larger then 10 x 10 miles, and are maybe 10% green space, 20% developed, and the rest is arterials and parking. What is interesting, is that people friendly cities, are bicycle friendly as well.

[donnamb]

It looks as though someone wants to study (http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/116867134549080.xml&coll=7) the travel choices of urban cyclists.

Professor wants to follow you on your bicycle
Saturday, January 13, 2007
The Oregonian
A Portland State University professor is looking for help to study the travel patterns of a particularly elusive creature: the urban bicyclist.

Jennifer Dill, an urban studies professor, wants to recruit a wide range of cyclists -- and lots of them -- to tote global positioning system units on their bikes for a 10-day period. She said researchers hope to learn whether cyclists go out of their way to use bike lanes and bicycle-friendly streets and to see how travel habits are affected by such factors as the weather.

The study, designed to follow some 175 cyclists, is financed by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which is sponsoring a variety of initiatives to encourage people to be more physically active in their daily living. As such, much of the foundation's research focuses on encouraging bicycling for short trips.

Portland is regarded as a promising place to research bicycling because it has a large number of regular cyclists and an extensive network of bikeways.

Cyclists interested in participating in the study can contact Dill through this e-mail address: bikegps@pdx.edu. She said she's looking for bicyclists throughout the Portland metropolitan area, although they have to live on the Oregon side of the Columbia River.

Dill also noted that while the GPS unit will track what streets cyclists travel on, it can't determine whether they're following traffic laws.

-- Jeff Mapes

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Now the problem with the typical American city, is that they are designed only for high speed automobile traffic, and that is the problem, cities are large, with high segregation between facilities, linked by freeways and major arterials, most of the land is paved over for parking facilities,
How many major North Eastern or Midwestern U.S. cities have you ever been in? Sounds like none, or they are not "typical American cities" for your problem scenario.

[Helmet Head]

I believe Brian [Ratliff] is overstating the dangers and stresses of suburban riding.
I believe this sentence deserves the understatement of the thread award.

The extremes and downright falsehoods that facilities defenders use to rationalize justifications for facilities never cease to amaze me. The NYC video is one example. This thread is another. And Bek's latest thread is yet another.

[Bekologist]

hhehe.

woogsterca, facilitation of bicycling includes lowering speed limits, widening lanes, restriping projects, road diets, off street accomodations and greater public infrastructure and support via all manner of non roadway based advocacy. bike facilities include All variety of accomodations for riders, NOT just your poor description of the worst- poorly maintained, substandard bike lanes.

Failure of communities to engineer roadway space for the use of all is what stymies greater participation in the velo revolution. And blaming substandard road design as the justifiable de facto failure of bike facilities is like blaming FEMA for hurricanes.

it appears cycling advocacy embraces cyclist needs, but cyclist advocates are not cycling advocates. Sad.

[Wogsterca]

How many major North Eastern or Midwestern U.S. cities have you ever been in? Sounds like none, or they are not "typical American cities" for your problem scenario.

Most North Eastern US cities have old sections that are not built this way, but that tends to be limited to the older sections, newer sections, tend to be built just as stupid as anywhere else.

[Brian Ratliff]

One question for the bunch of you:

Do you believe that different cycling environments produce different techniques for cycling?

This is the only question I am interested in at the moment. I have no intention of getting back into the "facilities" debate until this question has been competely explored.

I see a lot of responses here that typify the jerk knee reactions I've always seen. I've set myself up on this forum as a "pro-facility" person; this, more than my current remarks in absolute, has garnered the most sever responses. This is interesting as I was not intending on entering the facilities debate again. I am interested in a different question. People here are so entrenched that they cannot see past my previous postions and respond to my current statements.

I've also seen that it has been a logical tactic of "VC'ers" to deny that the environment has anything to do with cycling technique. They are looking for a unification of cycling technique so they have one platform to stand on. It would be difficult for a national group like the LAB (league of American cyclists) or their estranged sister made up of LAB dissidents (I forgot the name) to promote the training of cyclists if the cyclists' needs differed from place to place. Pro-facilities has used the environmental differences tactic also to show that it is the results of local advocacy groups which matter, not some grand unification idea. This is good for pro-facilities people because most local advocacy groups, except for a couple outliers, advocate for facilities. But I want to get past this, since both positions are artificial and only made for debate. Obviously the answer is somewhere between these two extremes, though neither side will admit to that, as it will score a debate point for their opponent.

Driving habits and road design differs from place to place. Take this as fact for the moment. I don't believe it is an accident that the main VC proponent in the US, John Forester, was from auto-centric SoCal, while up in the Pacific NW, vehicular cycling, while a tool, does not rise to the level of a political ringtone. I also don't believe it is an accident that most facilities building is being done in European cities where the percentage of people riding a bicycle is much higher than anywhere in the US.

Tell you all what. Take my statements at face value for a moment and explain what your riding environment looks like. Take pictures if you can. We talk a lot about philosophy here, why don't we take a time out and use this thread to explain where we are coming from and where we have been. Be non-judgemental and assume, just for the moment, that the person who rides in their own environment is the one single expert of how to ride in that environment. VC'ers shouldn't have to be afraid of being called out if they use a facility now and again, and facilities advocates shouldn't be afraid of stating the downside of facilities.

It should become very clear on its own and without argument whether environments affect cyclist behaviors. I am particularly interested in "newbies" to this forum, as most of us regulars are pretty biased and dug into certain argumentative positions. If it turns out that cyclists are the same everywhere, then we can start more detailed arguments starting from that position. If it turns out that it differs, then this thread can become a database of sorts for people who are new to cycling - new from New England? Flip through this thread and find out what it is New England is like from the eyes of a cyclist.

[Bekologist]

One question for the bunch of you:

Do you believe that different cycling environments produce different techniques for cycling?



Emphatically, YES. Different environments necessitate different techniques for bicycling.

and do different environments produce different cycling techniques? Absolutely. Anyone on here ever ridden on Mackinac Island???? Almost unbelievable.

[Brian Ratliff]

I believe this sentence deserves the understatement of the thread award.

The extremes and downright falsehoods that facilities defenders use to rationalize justifications for facilities never cease to amaze me. The NYC video is one example. This thread is another. And Bek's latest thread is yet another.

Not terribly helpful. Your credibility decreases in my eyes.

[Bekologist]

What about the VC'ers that DON'T ride in their home environments transportationally and rely on their automobiles for most of their transportation needs?
Using VCist techniques largely in the safety of cadres of club riders to provide validation for their dogma?

I have valid questions about the variety inherent in bicycling. Many of the dedicated commuters predicate fast travel as the baseline for their 'needs.'

I certainly move fast commuting or road riding. But I also have a 'basket bike' I shop with. it doesn't go 25 or 30 miles an hour. Loaded with five (canvas) grocery bags, its an 8-12 mile per hour tootle. and sometimes I ride it 10-12 miles to farmers markets. Do differerent riding styles matter as well?

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Most North Eastern US cities have old sections that are not built this way, but that tends to be limited to the older sections, newer sections, tend to be built just as stupid as anywhere else.
Where are those "newer sections" of NYC, Philadelphia, Boston, DC, Baltimore, Chicago, St. Louis, etc. that fit your description? Maybe you mean the suburbs? Otherwise your urban scenario is a fantasy in a large number of major US cities.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Not terribly helpful. Your [HH] credibility decreases in my eyes.
How is any further decrease possible? That might affect your own credibility.

[Brian Ratliff]

I was surprised by Brian's comment that the suburban one mile grid wasn't suitable for serious exercise, especially when you consider there's a lot more starting and stopping in urban areas. Anyway, enough on that, as it's just a minor point in a sea of interesting observations in Brian's post.

One last comment before we put that to rest, as it is a minor point I was making. I agree with you that urban areas are not helpful for athletic exercise either. But there are real economic reasons for riding in the urban environment and the exercise argument doesn't have to be made. Exercise is always relative as well. One person's workout is another's coffee jaunt. I'm not saying I am more fit than anyone here, but having previously been a serious athlete in a different sport, my take on exercise is different... which probably does me no good since I am nowhere near as athletic as I once was.

I believe Brian is overstating the dangers and stresses of suburban riding. I know a lot of cyclists who have only ridden in suburbia who would say the same thing about urban riding. You do have to be thick skinned to a certain degree to be a cyclist in Al's environment, but I think that applies in any environment (including roads in urban areas) where motorists are the majority.

I believe the characteristics of the differing environments generally lead to different types of commuting cyclists. To a certain extent, that may be why folks like me, Serge, and Al all commute in similar environments and share similar views, for example. But this doesn't have to result in divisive advocacy. For example, I wouldn't object to facilities if they were optional use. In my view, what makes things divisive is mandatory use laws, as the mere proposal to provide a facility can automatically pit facilities advocates against vehicular cycling advocates.

I'd agree that my thesis is weak to a point about the absolute dangers and stresses of different environments. While posting these comments, I also listed the environments I have experience with. My only urban experience is in Portland, which many people will say is not a city at all ;). My comments have to take into account my experiences, and city folk are underrepresented here, limited to a few on the single speed/fixed gear forum and commuting forum who wander in every so often, and Bekologist, who is excitable at times (sorry Bek ;)). My personal experience between suburban, rural, and urban environments are in keeping with my comments.

As for divisive advocacy, I agree that it doesn't have to be divisive as many here make it out to be. On the other hand, there are deep philosophical underpinnings which evade the best of compromise. For instance, the aspect that many VC'ers here state about the very existence of bike lanes being a detriment and regardless of what law says, their very existence indicates that cyclists are expected to be in the bike lane.

My intent is not to mash two fundamentally different philosophical systems together into some sort of mystery meat ball, but to understand where these two philosophies come from and where they are usefully applied. You see examples of the harm which can be done when, say, bike lanes are applied blindly by fiat to places like Phoenix, Arizona. Or the paralysis which can come about when VC'ers rise out of the ground in places like Seattle during a planning meeting and dilute the coordinated efforts of local bicycling advocates.

I don't care anymore about the unanswerable question of "which is better and more universal?". I think we've had enough of that on this forum. I want to translate all these ideas which have been expressed as part of the debate into something which can guide the reality based world.

[Brian Ratliff]

What about the VC'ers that DON'T ride in their home environments transportationally and rely on their automobiles for most of their transportation needs?
Using VCist techniques largely in the safety of cadres of club riders to provide validation for their dogma?


My experience with vehicular cycling indicates that groups on group rides don't do vehicular cycling. Groups act more like a semi truck, controlling the road by simply by being there.

Most people here have experience commuting. Take their experience at face value, for the moment at least.

I have valid questions about the variety inherent in bicycling. Many of the dedicated commuters predicate fast travel as the baseline for their 'needs.'

I certainly move fast commuting or road riding. But I also have a 'basket bike' I shop with. it doesn't go 25 or 30 miles an hour. Loaded with five (canvas) grocery bags, its an 8-12 mile per hour tootle. and sometimes I ride it 10-12 miles to farmers markets. Do differerent riding styles matter as well?

I didn't talk about it much, but YES, riding style and athletic abilities matter much! That said, I think there are some environments that, as they stand today and without major modification, will simply exclude certain riders and riding styles. This goes back to the question of the goals of bicycle advocacy. I think that some people practice certain riding styles to the exculsion of others, and sometimes their choice of riding styles colors their advocacy efforts. The VC'er who always dresses up to ride and always sticks to main arterials has one point of view and tends to advocate for those with similar needs to the exclusion of other types of cyclists. The suit wearing and briefcase toting business man who rides a comfort bike 2 miles to work has a different point of view and agitates for different things. And, of course, the basket bike toting, farmer's market riding tootler has still a different point of view.

A question to you is: how do you use the roads differently when you are in different cycling modes (if it does at all)?

[sbhikes]

A question to you is: how do you use the roads differently when you are in different cycling modes?

I start a new job Monday and will be riding a very popular bike route that a lot of university students and faculty use, and that a lot of elementary and junior high school students also use.

Half the route is class II bike lane with few intersections. Half the route is class I bike path (NOT an MUP). You don't have to monitor your mirror or use any hand signals on a class I bike path. You just have to say on your left once in a while and look out for goatheads.

On a road with very wide class II bike lanes and few intersections there aren't a lot of visibility issues to worry about with the traffic around you. I have posted pictures of some of the route in the past showing people passing me over the double yellow line despite there being ample room to pass me in the bike lane without making such a lateral move.

I find that in these types of roads I ride relaxed and not very concerned about the behavior of other road users. We pretty much don't interact much at all.

Sometimes I ride in Oxnard. When I do that I ride with a group of annoyingly timid sidewalk cyclists. It drives me up the wall. I end up being the militant VC rider and have been in some heated arguments with people over whether it's safer and saner to ride in the streets or on the sidewalk. I always lose the arguments but I rarely capitulate about the issue. I sometimes will ride on the sidewalk just so they stop yelling at me or making snide remarks about my intelligence, but there's always at least one other person who thanks me for being sane. The thing is, these are not streets lacking in bike facilities. There are usually either bike lanes, wide shoulders or wide outside lanes. But they will still choose the sidewalk. That's just the way people ride down there I guess. So who is wrong then? Them or me?

When I'm in the Ventura/Oxnard area there are some tricky intersections where I do agree that it is easier to cross wrong way in the crosswalk and ride wrong way on the sidewalk for short distances. Depending on the types of roads and designs available in Ventura/Oxnard, I will on average ride more militantly or self-righteously VC AND more stealth/invisible style than I will in Santa Barbara.

[Wogsterca]

Where are those "newer sections" of NYC, Philadelphia, Boston, DC, Baltimore, Chicago, St. Louis, etc. that fit your description? Maybe you mean the suburbs? Otherwise your urban scenario is a fantasy in a large number of major US cities.

So there are no cities outside of the North East, except Chicago and St Louis? Well, there are many US cities that are outside those areas, how about Las Vegas, Miami, Phoenix, Dallas. All of which, from what I can see, and hear about those cities, are exactly as described. As for those particular cities, I have been to Philly and Baltimore, and while the central city hasn't changed much, they are surrounded by suburbs that are as described, the problem for the old city, is you have people in the suburbs wanting to drive their fat McDonalds enhanced a**es in their big SUVs into the city centre on a daily basis, so much that Boston, had to spend enough money to bury a 6km highway, that you could have built a brand new 15km subway line.

Whether you agree or disagree with my analysis though, considering increasing urban populations, where are you going to put the people when over 50% of your land is dedicated to parking and gridlocked highways?

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Whether you agree or disagree with my analysis though, considering increasing urban populations, where are you going to put the people when over 50% of your land is dedicated to parking and gridlocked highways?
The first thing I would do if I was going to discuss and analyze the issues concerning cities and urban areas is get a map and figure out where the cities are and where the suburbs begin. And also try to learn the difference between the Sun Belt and the Midwest/Northeast in the US before I started to make all encompassing statements about traffic, highway access and parking in urban US, especially "cities."

[LCI_Brian]

Do you believe that different cycling environments produce different techniques for cycling?

Driving habits and road design differs from place to place. Take this as fact for the moment.
Assuming we're talking about within the US, driving habits do differ from place to place, but not by a huge amount. Usually when I fly to another city on business, for example, I have to adjust my driving a bit for the local culture, but these adjustments are very minor.

I've cycled in many places across the US and think of vehicular cycling technique in much the same way. For example, a lane width that might be safely shareable in downtown Seattle might not be safely sharable in Phoenix suburbs. So I adjust my lane position accordingly.

I don't believe it is an accident that the main VC proponent in the US, John Forester, was from auto-centric SoCal, while up in the Pacific NW, vehicular cycling, while a tool, does not rise to the level of a political ringtone.
Actually, Forester spent most of his time in the US in the San Francisco Bay Area - in the hills of Berkeley as a child and in the San Jose/Silicon Valley area as an adult. It is only fairly recently that he moved to the San Diego area.

[LCI_Brian]

I think that some people practice certain riding styles to the exculsion of others, and sometimes their choice of riding styles colors their advocacy efforts.
+1. Around here the club cyclists ask for more bike lanes, and the families with children ask for more paths. Neither group criticizes the other for their choices, so these efforts happen in parallel and everything is just fine. The time when I have seen a problem is during a road reconstruction project in a limited right-of-way, when one group wanted bike lanes and the other group wanted a sidepath, and there wasn't enough room for both.

The VC'er who always dresses up to ride and always sticks to main arterials has one point of view and tends to advocate for those with similar needs to the exclusion of other types of cyclists. The suit wearing and briefcase toting business man who rides a comfort bike 2 miles to work has a different point of view and agitates for different things. And, of course, the basket bike toting, farmer's market riding tootler has still a different point of view.
I currently have the following riding styles:
- Long (17 miles each way) commute to work on major arterials and in cycling clothes
- Long weekend recreational rides in cycling clothes
- Utility trips to the store in regular clothes
- Pulling my son in a trailer on roads and bike paths

My choice of roads may differ in the above modes, but in my case, I'm riding VC when I'm on a road (which in my case can include using bike lanes and shoulders when safe to do so), and when I'm on a path ... well, I'm on a path. However, I do realize that I could talk to four different cyclists, one from each of the modes above, and get different answers on how they ride.

[Wogsterca]

The first thing I would do if I was going to discuss and analyze the issues concerning cities and urban areas is get a map and figure out where the cities are and where the suburbs begin. And also try to learn the difference between the Sun Belt and the Midwest/Northeast in the US before I started to make all encompassing statements about traffic, highway access and parking in urban US, especially "cities."

Hey your the one having a problem with differences, I was refering to US cities in general, your the one who decided that only cities in the North East would count, and only the ones you wanted to count, which are all cities that were fully developed before 1850. Most North Eastern major cities were fully developed before 1850, however if we look at smaller cities, that were not fully developed before 1850, and have mostly developed in the 20th century, we see the pattern I described, take for example Buffalo, NY, you have large residential areas, connected by arterials lined with strip plazas. Factories and industrial areas are mostly in the area around I190, where it turns to go around Lake Erie. You have a few malls, and some touristy hotels near the Border, but in general my earlier analysis holds here too. I know Buffalo, as I have been there numerous times. If we look at cities in general, there are a lot more Buffalos then there are Bostons.

[JohnBrooking]

Yay, I start a new job on Monday so I never have to ride Ortega Hill again!
Congratulations (the job, too)!! :beer:

[rando]

I've got to say. Seeing these videos and having been to Phoenix once and driving around for a week on a business trip, I can see why Al (noisebeam) is so militant about vehicular cycling. This probably applies to the Cali people as well as they have similar environments. Seeing the video of NYC, and having lived in Seattle and various places in Oregon and having commuted for a summer into downtown Portland and for a couple years in rural Washington Co. and the Portland suburbs, I can see why the "pro-facilities" people and the "anti-facilities" people fail to even come to a common starting point when debating the relative merits of various cycling systems.

The environments are so different that there really is two systems which work in two very different environments. Despite the weather in Cali and Arizona, I seriously doubt that cycling will ever be a popular mode of transportation. Cyclists have to care about so much stuff in order to operate in that environment. You have to care about the mood of drivers behind, and around you, and develop methods that forces drivers to modify their actions or else hit you regardless of their state of mind (which is essentially what vehicular cycling is all about). You are constantly operating around vehicles going 45 mph and faster, and have to be wary of drivers who turn because they slam on the brakes to make their turn down from 45 mph. There are a ton of other things that all stem from this environment.

Cyclists from this region are probably more heavily represented here, per Diane's (sbhikes) complaint, because there is no real local system to turn to. 10 guys who drove to a bicycling advocacy meeting does not bicycling advocacy make (this is from HelmetHead's description at one point a while ago). These people are more shrill than the rest of us because their techniques, by necessity, must be more speciallized, and operating in an environment not being conductive to cycling means that cyclists who do bicycle in that environment must be more zealous than most cyclists.

Going back to Al's videos, I cringed when I watched it. Not because I lack the ability to bicycle there; neither the training nor the lack of understanding of the situation and what is required of a cyclist to operate there am I lacking. No, the reason I cringed is because I don't love cycling enough to put up with that environment for very long. There is no benefit I can see for myself. The overall health benefits of cycling are offset by the dangers of that environment and the stress of dealing with that environment. The one mile grid of arterials present in the Pheonix area is not suitable for serious exercise. There is no advantage in time because of the distances involved. There is nothing left.

Bicycling in the true urban city environment, on the other hand, is much more doable. The dangers are real, but they are different and more on a human scale, making them more easy to handle. Just moving from the rural and suburban environment of where I live and commute on a daily basis, SW of Beaverton, to the inner city of Portland is like jumping into a cool pool of water on a hot day. The whole environment, while more conjested and busier, is on a human scale. Speeds are limited to 15-20 mph. Bikes can keep up, whether in a segregated facility or not, the dangers are not overwhelming. It is a stark difference.

In the inner city, bicycling is an obvious economic choice amoungst people who live and work there. Most advocacy efforts focus on the inner city first because that is where the low-hanging fruit is. It is the only place besides a university campus where convolutions in the perpetual "why ride a bicycle" argument don't have to be made. It is a place where the primary and most effective reasoning coalesces around a simple economic argument. One doesn't have to be a "bicycle fanatic" to ride a bike. The only counter to the economics argument is the aspect of danger involving the direct exposure to car traffic. In this environment, facilities are a reasonable way for cycling advocates to offset the danger aspect.

This is the way I see the "divide" in the bicycling advocacy philosophies. Everything in the human experience is influenced strongly by our environment, including the strategies used when engaging in logical debates and reasoning exercises. It is wrong to conclude that VC advocates are "raving mad," just as it is wrong to conclude that other bicycling advocates are ninnies who don't know how to ride their bikes (both of these insults have been hurdled in the recent past by posters in this forum). There is a tendency in this forum to discount environment in favor of some catch all philosophy. We discount environment, not because it is intellectually honest (it's not), but simply because it is hard to take environment into account with people from so many different areas talking on the same forum. But we shouldn't shy away from things just because they are hard.

Thanks, Brian for that well-thought-out post. It pretty much reflects my opinions also. I live and ride the same neighborhoods that Al does, but I don't choose to take the route that he does. my route is on backroad and neighborhood streets with WOLs little traffic. for me, that is more enjoyable. yeah, it does annoy me occassionally that I have to wait so long for the lights. but for me it is worth it to not have to feel like I am fighting a battle every day. I just wish there were more quiet street options for me. my current route involves WOLs, bike lanes, sidewalk, cutting through ASU parking lots, more bike lanes and then an office park with a 6' sidewalk that nobody ever walks on so I use that.

[PaulH]

This video is amazing for me to watch. There are so few cars, and they are travelling quite fast relative to the bicycle. It is like the view from my bike played at twice normal speed. Here in the DC area, the lanes are much wider and the traffic is far heavier and much slower. It is typical to be riding outside the door zone with cars passing three feet away wthout them having to change lanes.

The car traffic is flowing very freely and there appear to be lots of places to park. It must be a pleasant place to drive, though perhaps not to cycle.

Paul

[LCI_Brian]

I mentioned earlier that I tend to ride VC regardless of the environment. But that didn't directly answer Brian's question, "do you believe that different cycling environments produce different techniques for cycling?" The different types of cycling I see in my area are the following (there's some overlap, of course):

1. Using whatever road is most direct, regardless of width/facility
2. Preferentially using roads with bike lanes and shoulders
3. Using paths or sidewalks

I have seen all these types of cycling in every metropolitan area I have visited in the US. So I believe the answer to Brian's question is "no". Cyclists are going to ride within their comfort zone, regardless of the locale. For example, if I only like riding roads with bike lanes in Seattle, I'm probably only going to ride roads with bike lanes if I'm visiting Phoenix.

[Bekologist]

so, in cities like phoenix, if the roads are not conducive and within a cyclists comfort zone, they won't bike? That's pro bono publico support for high quality, on road, integrated bike facilities, Brian.

I'll ride anywhere, but prefer high quality, well implemented bicycle accomodations. on tour, i like highway speed roads WITH wide shoulders over highway speed roads with no shoulder. I'm riding VC by using wide shoulders on highways.

Does that make me 'less' of a bicyclist? I don't think so. That makes me realistic.

people are colored by their environments. a cyclist that lives in slow moving, rural counties, will have a different perspective on riding than a traffic dancing urbanite that splits lanes of stalled traffic and laughs at the cagers.