Move over vc, there's a new paradigm in town

[chipcom]

Since the 70s the battle has raged between those who advocate 'vehicular cycling' - operating a bicycle as a vehicle, on the roadways, according to the rules and laws of the road, and those who advocate for bicycle-specific facilities, including bike lanes, bike paths, multi-use-paths, etc. During that time the amount of bicycle-specific facilities has grown and increased, but the thinking of vehicular cycling advocates remained the same, opposing such facilities and maintaining that the ONLY safe way to operate a bicycle is to adopt the vehicular cycling paradigm.

But vc advocates also readily admit that one can operate a bicycle as a pedestrian - using the rules of pedestrians while operating a bicycle in a pedestrian environment, ie. sidewalks. They also admit that many bicycle-specific facilities are not safe if one uses them and rides in the vc manner, as a user of the road. Based on this safety issue they have continued to oppose bicycle specific facilities, despite the fact that the vast majority of cyclists - the non-professionals - prefer those facilities rather than the road.

It is time to end this debate, which only fractures the cycling community as a whole and reduces our effectiveness in he public policy arena. Perhaps it is time that bicycling facility advocates stipulate that those facilities are not safe for vehicular cyclists, while vehicular cycling advocates stipulate that a great many riders do not wish to ride on the roadway as vehicles and prefer seperate facilities. Then, both sides should work together to identify, document and teach a new paradigm called BC - bicycle cycling (ok someone else will come up with a better name) - that will teach best practices when riding on bicycle specific facilities - a combination of vehicular cycling, pedestrian cycling, common sense and street smarts. A new paradigm that can coexist with both vehicular cycling and pedestrian cycling, giving cyclists a broader range of skill options to fit the riding environment that the feel the most comfortable with, while not threatening the existence of the others (which will require a unified vigilance when it comes to politicians).

Discuss...and this is NOT a vehicular cycling debate, nor a bike lane debate. The point of this thread, and others that hopefully follow, will be to identify best practices that allow cyclists to operate in a safe and efficient manner USING BICYCLE SPECIFIC FACILITIES, including paths, lanes and MUPs. Discussions of how to use the roadways can be discussed in the many vehicular cycling threads.

[chipcom]

Just to add a few points. We all know that in order to get anywhere, cyclists must use the road at some point, in addition to any bike lanes, paths, MUPs or even sidewalks. This is NOT an attempt to debunk vehicular cycling on the roadways, it is an attempt to come up with a paradigm that can live WITH vehicular cycling that reflects the reality that a large majority of cyclists use, and perhaps even prefer, bicycle specific facilities. This thread is for those who are truly 'cycling' advocates, who want improve cycling as a whole, not just for one small group of cyclists. Bicycle-specific facilities are a reality that is not going away soon. Isn't it better to help cyclists who use them do so in a safe manner, rather than to just oppose them and write off those who use them as somehow less than serious cyclists?

[invisiblehand]

Hmmm, quite interesting. Much more difficult problem than analyzing someone else.

[chipcom]

Hmmm, quite interesting. Much more difficult problem than analyzing someone else.

Hopefully more constructive and useful than continuing a 30+ year old debate that is devoid of new ideas, innovation or creativity. ;)

[kemmer]

Chipcom, this is the best post I've read in A&S. I think you just won the whole forum. Congrats!

[chipcom]

Chipcom, this is the best post I've read in A&S. I think you just won the whole forum. Congrats!

It's only going to be as good as those who contribute. But I got this bug up my butt now, so if we can't accomplish anything here, I'll just write a book and proclaim myself as the new Lord Master! :D

I figure this initial thread is just brainstorming, to come up with a framework and some definitions that we can discuss at length in other threads and perhaps add to the wiki that will be part of this forum someday.

One thing I can guarantee, I will not tolerate any vc type debates...this is about the facilities, not about vc. Of course vc ideas are welcome, but only as they are applicable to improving cycling USING facilities.

[randya]

I agree with Chip.

The City of Portland's Bicycle Master Plan is being updated and it seems like 'Bike Boulevards' are what's hottest here in PDX these days. Probably sharrows, too, now that it's been announced that the MUTCD will be adopting a sharrows standard. Significant funding for separated paths, as well. There's also been a lot of noise in the bike community regarding changing the stop sign laws to 'Idaho style', which requires an act of the legislature. Yet you'll still have to interact with traffic when crossing major arterials, crossing the river, going to any commercial destination or riding downtown.

[chipcom]

I agree with Chip.

The City of Portland's Bicycle Master Plan is being updated and it seems like 'Bike Boulevards' are what's hottest here in PDX these days. Probably sharrows, too, now that it's been announced that the MUTCD will be adopting a sharrows standard. Significant funding for separated paths, as well. There's also been a lot of noise in the bike community regarding changing the stop sign laws to 'Idaho style', which requires an act of the legislature. Yet you'll still have to interact with traffic when crossing major arterials, crossing the river, going to any commercial destination or riding downtown.

Maybe a good place to start something like this would be to try to list and define all the different types of applicable facilities, then we can create threads for each to discuss the advantages, disadvantages and best riding practices to maximize the former and minimize the latter? I think all you Portland folks will be invaluable to this thing!

[LittleBigMan]

...both sides should work together...
Oh, you're just trying to take the fun out of these forums... :mad:


;)

[noisebeam]

I'm not sure whats new and exciting here actually.
On the road BL or not, follow rules of the road (as Chip points out no need to discuss more)
On the sidewalk follow pedestrian rules (no need to discuss here)
On the Bike Path or MUP - contrary to never been discussed, it does come up regularly 'guidelines' include:
-watching speed, some even have limits posted. speed will be lower than road if as typical sightlines and manevering space is less
-stay right except to pass
-treat unorderly pedestrians like bad motorist treat cyclists on the road ;)
-either drop to walking speed, pass with excessive clearance or call out well in advance of passing someone else and don't pass until they have responded and recovered
-communication
-courtesy
-shield/dim HID headlight on dark paths for oncoming cyclists

Al

[N_C]

Chip, you're basically saying there needs to be a happy medium? When riding on the roadways ride as a VC, when on a MUP, BL or other bicycle specific facilities do not ride as a VC but as conditions permit.

This is what I have been trying to advocate for all along in my community. Thankfully, most if not all cyclists do this already. Why it is differant in other communities I do not know. This is how I always ride. Common sense tells me I can go bombing down the MUP as I would on a roadway at 20 mph+.

I do not think the concept is a new one, maybe the name you assigned to it, I like it BTW, is.

[comradehoser]

as a name: "flexible cycling"?
"situational cycling"?
"adaptive cycling"? (the A would be like an upside-down V)

[chipcom]

N_C, by George I think you got it! Of course it's how a lot of us already ride. The biggest problem vc advocates seem to have with facilities is the fact that they are not as safe, fast or efficient as riding on the road WHEN RIDING IN A VEHICULAR MANNER. So my thinking is fine...help us define the best practices for riding in those environments, rather than just opposing them, since admittedly vc isn't the best way to do so.

I gotta ride home...I'll check back on this thread later. (like anyone else is gonna futz around in here on a Friday night)

[invisiblehand]

Hopefully more constructive and useful than continuing a 30+ year old debate that is devoid of new ideas, innovation or creativity. ;)

Hah! Well, I will give it a try. Then everyone will see why stinkers I can produce! :p

[chipcom]

as a name: "flexible cycling"?
"situational cycling"?
"adaptive cycling"? (the A would be like an upside-down V)

I like 'adaptive cycling'! It defines the concept perfectly in just two words. :)

[randya]

A C

:beer:

[chipcom]

I'm not sure whats new and exciting here actually.
On the road BL or not, follow rules of the road (as Chip points out no need to discuss more)
On the sidewalk follow pedestrian rules (no need to discuss here)
On the Bike Path or MUP - contrary to never been discussed, it does come up regularly 'guidelines' include:
-watching speed, some even have limits posted. speed will be lower than road if as typical sightlines and manevering space is less
-stay right except to pass
-treat unorderly pedestrians like bad motorist treat cyclists on the road ;)
-either drop to walking speed, pass with excessive clearance or call out well in advance of passing someone else and don't pass until they have responded and recovered
-communication
-courtesy
-shield/dim HID headlight on dark paths for oncoming cyclists

Al


what's new and exciting about vc, Al? Of course it's nothing new...but everybody spends their time debating vc rather than defining best practices how to ride in non-road situations.

[JohnBrooking]

... Probably sharrows, too, now that it's been announced that the MUTCD will be adopting a sharrows standard.
It has? Do you have a citation? I just searched the MUTCD site for sharrows and turned up nothing.

We are interested in trying sharrows here in Portland Maine, but are hampered by the fact that they aren't in any of official standards documents, making the city engineers skeptical.

Also, our state Bike/Ped coordinator seems to have never heard of them! :(

(Sorry for the temporary thread hikack, chip! I though about sending a private message but then decided others might want to know, too.)

[randya]

It has? Do you have a citation? I just searched the MUTCD site for sharrows and turned up nothing.

We are interested in trying sharrows here in Portland Maine, but are hampered by the fact that they aren't in any of official standards documents, making the city engineers skeptical.

Also, our state Bike/Ped coordinator seems to have never heard of them!
All I heard was that there has been a favorable committee / council (?) vote to include it in the next edition, so it probably hasn't been published yet.

The best documentation of/for sharrows is the San Francisco study, it shouldn't be too hard to find on the web. Portland has had the same problem, the city traffic engineer is totally risk averse and won't allow anything but a small test of sharrows until there is a national standard.

Here's the link, new web location:
http://www.sfmta.com/cms/bproj/22747.html

[Bekologist]

I ride as vehicularily as the head VC honcho in here, AND I know how to use a bike lane safely!

is that too advanced for some to grasp?

[Brian Ratliff]

Some places in Oregon have sharrows now. I was in Corvallis last Friday and there were sharrows all over the place downtown.

[comradehoser]

"practical cycling"?

are you trying to come up with a bicycle code of the road(s), a manifesto, or a strategy for cycle planning? or all three?

I've always thought the strong suit of bicycles as opposed to cars has been their adaptability to different conditions: road to trail to sidewalk; they can behave as vehicles, pedestrians, and sometimes mountain goats (not the pooping part, though).

One could argue that cyclists hold rights *and responsibilities* that may change with context, and may not ever resolve into a neat binary of "right" and "wrong" ways. Isn't this kind of what Hurst argues? (haven't read him)

Regardless of what is "new and exciting" in chip's proposal, out of all the mire of debate I've been lurking over in the past week (months?), this is the closest to redemption the advocacy forum has gotten. Constructive, consensus-building posts? I think somebody must be off their meds.

Kudos, chip.

[buzzman]

great thread! Certainly different bike facilities require slightly different parameters depending on their design and even the time of day and year.

My name for this was "Improvisational Cycling" but, hey, a good improviser will say, "Yes!" to anything so call it what you want.

I use a long MUP called the Ashuwilltocook Trail in the Berkshires as part of an 80 mile training loop I do on my road bike. If I leave early enough in the morning I'll pretty much be one of the only ones on it on a weekday morning before 9 am. In that case, I can average 20+ and have stretches where I'll be cruising along at 25 mph for a mile or two just as I would on road. It's only about a dozen miles or so of the 80 mile ride but it makes for a pleasant alternative to some otherwise not too bad roads that run parallel. I'll take the roads or slow way down if the MUP is crowded.

On my daily commute, however, I'm on the MDC bike path/MUP, which depending on time of year and weather can be mobbed and at that time a top speed of 15 mph would be pushing the limit. But in that case I'm on my bomber commuter, with a bell and ready to gear way down and mosey along if need be or I'll just hop on the roads and travel that way if I'm in a big hurry.

A bell is nice on a bike path but you don't want to overuse it. A give a light little "ding" as I approach a pedestrian, jogger, skater or other cyclist and maybe a second just as I'm overtaking so they know I'm there. I save the big ringing for oncoming cyclists, joggers etc... who can't see me despite my bright orange shirt, lights at night, reflectors etc... and seem to run or ride right at me as if I'm invisible. :eek:

[comradehoser]

adaptive cycling...

or dialectical cycling... (emphasizing the constant interchange between principles (thesis) and context (antithesis) to form new cycling practises)

AC/DC, if you will...
okay, the D part sucks, maybe. somebody find me a replacement so the acronym can be AC/DC. That's all that matters.

[Brian Ratliff]

"practical cycling"?


Didn't I start that one??!! (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=152501&highlight=practical+cycling%3A) :D (look at the title)

I think Chip's idea for a thread is better than mine. I was asking the impossible. Chip just wants to know specifics of cycling in on-road facilities. It seems undeniable that one has to compromise when cycling in certain environments, like the sidepath we were discussing in a recent thread. I think the idea here is to lay out these compromises for all to see. That way we make an informative choice based on actual information rather than a strict "for or against" retorical position.

[Dogbait]

It has? Do you have a citation? I just searched the MUTCD site for sharrows and turned up nothing.

We are interested in trying sharrows here in Portland Maine, but are hampered by the fact that they aren't in any of official standards documents, making the city engineers skeptical..........................snip.................)

John,
Here's a little more info on sharrows in Portland, OR.

sharrows (http://bikeportland.org/2007/01/23/national-committee-endorses-sharrows/)

[rando]

A la Chainguard: "Adaptive Cycling is for those who have grown beyond the facilities debate"... (and wish to educate and advocate for safe and sound implementation of a variety of cycling styles using the roads and other facilities, and to help more people to take up cycling.)

[Dogbait]

Chipcom,
Excellent post. What I have found discouraging in the past about the discussions in A&S is that the topics about safe use of facilities are very often de-railed into VC vs BL bar fights before any useful conversation can take place.

[buzzman]

A la Chainguard: "Adaptive Cycling is for those who have grown beyond the facilities debate"... (and wish to educate and advocate for safe and sound implementation of a variety of cycling styles using the roads and other facilities, and to help more people to take up cycling.)

sounds good to me!

[Keith99]

For a name I'd think of something along the lines of Facilities Appropriate Cycling.

The thing i'd emphasize is it is NOT a compromise. It is a different set of rules for different facilities, and perhaps different conditions. (E.g. a MUP, the very same MUP can have different riding rules when empty and crowded). A 'compromise' the way it is often ment is a disaster waiting to happen. Trying to ride street and sidewalk by the same set of rules usually means rideing half @ssed on both street and sidewalk.

[buzzman]

For a name I'd think of something along the lines of Facilities Appropriate Cycling.

The thing i'd emphasize is it is NOT a compromise. It is a different set of rules for different facilities, and perhaps different conditions.


good point. Lots of the commuters who post regularly in the commuter forum use bike paths with some regularity and that is exactly what they report from their experience. It is it's own skill set, related to the skills we use on the road but adapted to conditions. I find that adaptability improves my skills all around and keeps them sharp.

[Helmet Head]

The point of this thread, and others that hopefully follow, will be to identify best practices that allow cyclists to operate in a safe and efficient manner USING BICYCLE SPECIFIC FACILITIES, including paths, lanes and MUPs.

Of course vc ideas are welcome, but only as they are applicable to improving cycling USING facilities.
The first best practice with respect to bicycle specific facilities is to expect others to not be following best practices.

For example, best practice (and the law in states like CA) is that right-turning drivers are supposed to merge into the bike lane before turning right. I'd be surprised if 20% of drivers are compliant with this practice. Best practice for through cyclists is to look back over your left shoulder when approaching an intersection where the outside lane (adjacent and to the left of the BL) is straight-or-right while riding in a bike lane (and at least consider merging left). I'd be surprised if 10% of cyclists are compliant with this practice.

What follows from that and many other reasons is the most important best practice with respect to bike lanes: make your decisions about where to ride and what to do as if the bike lane stripe (and bike lane) is not there.

On bike paths and MUPs, there are no rules that anyone else can be expected to follow at all. So the most important aspect is to watch your speed, watch for others, and at any type of intersection, yield to everyone. Be even more vigilant any time a path connects with a road. Be aware that there is a certain pleasant "mindlessness" that can instill itself when riding on paths (and bike lanes for that matter) that you definitely need to shake before you enter a road.

[CB HI]

Good, we no longer have to hear:
“The roads are dangerous - got to have a bike path, The roads are dangerous - got to have a bike path, The roads are dangerous - got to have a bike path, The roads are dangerous - got to have a bike path, The roads are dangerous - got to have a bike path, The roads are dangerous - got to have a bike path, The roads are dangerous - got to have a bike path, The roads are dangerous - got to have a bike path, The roads are dangerous - got to have a bike path ...”

And all cyclist will work to end mandatory use laws.

I am all for it.

But bike lanes still create problems that we cyclist do not entirely control.

[chipcom]

I ride as vehicularily as the head VC honcho in here, AND I know how to use a bike lane safely!

is that too advanced for some to grasp?

Thing is, whenever someone mentions their situations with bicycle facilities, the debate ends up turning into a vc debate, why it's best to be on the road, why bike lanes are bad and all that garbage, rather than providing solutions that address the needs of the cyclist IN THE ENVIRONMENT THEY PREFER, and not necessarily vc, pc or anything else - though since some need labels, I like the term Adaptive Cycling - adapting you your environment based on your needs, not according to some 30 year old regurgitation of things cyclists have always done - which of course WAS adaptive cycling, except that there are more varying environments now that there were back then. Indeed, vc fails to address the needs of the cyclist who does not prefer to use the road, so AC will fill that gap, but can still incorporate anything applicable that might be considered VC. Think of it as 'how to ride a bike without dogma' :)

[CB HI]

... On bike paths and MUPs, there are no rules that anyone else can be expected to follow at all. ...
In northern VA, the MUP safety rules are posted and MUP users are expected to follow the rules. (At least that was true in 1990).

On the Pearl Harbor Bike Path, the regular users generally following the best safe practices. Safe speed, stay to the right except when passing, use lighting at night, etc for both cyclist and walkers/joggers. Although the big law that the walkers/joggers break is - it is illegal for them to use the Pearl Harbor Bike Path. A law I doubt any of them even know they are breaking.

[chipcom]

"practical cycling"?

are you trying to come up with a bicycle code of the road(s), a manifesto, or a strategy for cycle planning? or all three?

I've always thought the strong suit of bicycles as opposed to cars has been their adaptability to different conditions: road to trail to sidewalk; they can behave as vehicles, pedestrians, and sometimes mountain goats (not the pooping part, though).

One could argue that cyclists hold rights *and responsibilities* that may change with context, and may not ever resolve into a neat binary of "right" and "wrong" ways. Isn't this kind of what Hurst argues? (haven't read him)

Regardless of what is "new and exciting" in chip's proposal, out of all the mire of debate I've been lurking over in the past week (months?), this is the closest to redemption the advocacy forum has gotten. Constructive, consensus-building posts? I think somebody must be off their meds.

Kudos, chip.

While I'm sure that planning and design of facilities will certainly be part of these discussions, I think the most important part concerns the riding itself...helping people ride in the environment of their choosing by addressing the situations they face in that environment and providing solutions that are not limited to certain established dogma and not disrupted by stupid vc-related debates.

We tried a No-vc zone before, but it obviously just turned into a vc debate. vc principles are welcome here, but in the context of assisting cyclists in the environment of their choosing, not as a means to debate the wisdom of bicycle facilities nor to recommend using the road as an alternative or debate the merits of vc itself. Here we serve the cyclist - all cyclists, no matter what environment they choose to ride in.

[chipcom]

great thread! Certainly different bike facilities require slightly different parameters depending on their design and even the time of day and year.

My name for this was "Improvisational Cycling" but, hey, a good improviser will say, "Yes!" to anything so call it what you want.

I use a long MUP called the Ashuwilltocook Trail in the Berkshires as part of an 80 mile training loop I do on my road bike. If I leave early enough in the morning I'll pretty much be one of the only ones on it on a weekday morning before 9 am. In that case, I can average 20+ and have stretches where I'll be cruising along at 25 mph for a mile or two just as I would on road. It's only about a dozen miles or so of the 80 mile ride but it makes for a pleasant alternative to some otherwise not too bad roads that run parallel. I'll take the roads or slow way down if the MUP is crowded.

On my daily commute, however, I'm on the MDC bike path/MUP, which depending on time of year and weather can be mobbed and at that time a top speed of 15 mph would be pushing the limit. But in that case I'm on my bomber commuter, with a bell and ready to gear way down and mosey along if need be or I'll just hop on the roads and travel that way if I'm in a big hurry.

A bell is nice on a bike path but you don't want to overuse it. A give a light little "ding" as I approach a pedestrian, jogger, skater or other cyclist and maybe a second just as I'm overtaking so they know I'm there. I save the big ringing for oncoming cyclists, joggers etc... who can't see me despite my bright orange shirt, lights at night, reflectors etc... and seem to run or ride right at me as if I'm invisible. :eek:


OK I got it. How about YBHC - <your brand here> cycling? :)

[chipcom]

Didn't I start that one??!! (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=152501&highlight=practical+cycling%3A) :D (look at the title)

I think Chip's idea for a thread is better than mine. I was asking the impossible. Chip just wants to know specifics of cycling in on-road facilities. It seems undeniable that one has to compromise when cycling in certain environments, like the sidepath we were discussing in a recent thread. I think the idea here is to lay out these compromises for all to see. That way we make an informative choice based on actual information rather than a strict "for or against" retorical position.

Yes you did...and we both saw what happened - vc debate. :o

But I'm not saying we only discuss on-road facilites...I think ALL facilities, including the road itself can be included. As I reply to these responses, I think I am able to refine the mission into an understandable statement - SOLUTIONS FOR CYCLISTS SUITED TO THEIR PREFERRED ENVIRONMENT.

Thus, if a someone has a problem with a MUP, we discuss that problem and how to mitigate it without recommendations of using another venue or debating the merits of MUPs. Same goes for bike lanes, bike paths, bike freeways, sharrows, side paths and yes, even the road itselfor sidewalks. If a vc technique applies, great, if something else, or we even come up with something totally different than the usual...just as great.

[chipcom]

A la Chainguard: "Adaptive Cycling is for those who have grown beyond the facilities debate"... (and wish to educate and advocate for safe and sound implementation of a variety of cycling styles using the roads and other facilities, and to help more people to take up cycling.)

:beer: That's great Rando. Perfect! Who can we credit...I think I want that in my sig. :)

[chipcom]

The first best practice with respect to bicycle specific facilities is to expect others to not be following best practices.

Wrong. Here your assumption that vc is THE best practice is not valid. vc techniques 'might' be valid for a situation or might not. We are defining and refining best practices, especially as they apply to facilities, not trying to shove a square vc peg into a round hole.

If you want to debate vc as a best practice, find another thread(s). If you want to debate a specific vc technique to address a specific situation and environment, we welcome the input.

[chipcom]

Good, we no longer have to hear:
“The roads are dangerous - got to have a bike path, The roads are dangerous - got to have a bike path, The roads are dangerous - got to have a bike path, The roads are dangerous - got to have a bike path, The roads are dangerous - got to have a bike path, The roads are dangerous - got to have a bike path, The roads are dangerous - got to have a bike path, The roads are dangerous - got to have a bike path, The roads are dangerous - got to have a bike path ...”

And all cyclist will work to end mandatory use laws.

I am all for it.

But bike lanes still create problems that we cyclist do not entirely control.

Yes, they do...and these threads will try to develop solutions for the people that use them, rather than debating their merits. :)

[John C. Ratliff]

I am coming to the conclusion that I don't see either transportation mode, driving or bicycling, as the others see it. I am going to turn, hopefully, this discussion on its ear a bit, and ask that you start looking at both driving and bicycling in terms of Dr. Hans Hass' concept of the "hypercell organism." Dr. Hass explains it here:

http://www.hans-hass.de/Englisch/Hypercell/Introduction.html

He states:

In the course of my research in marine biology, I developed a series of underwater cameras and produced many films. The idea struck me that special film techniques might perhaps contribute to the present effort as well. I constructed a lens with a built-in mirror that enabled me to film people without their knowledge; at the same time, I altered the normal speed of events with time-lapse (2 to 6 frames per second) in wide-angle views and, in close-ups, with slow-motion techniques. This approach forces the brain to evaluate even everyday scenes from a new perspective. The first sequences in Vienna, on Somoa and in Benares (1962) yielded promising results. This led me to film human activities on all five continents, in most cases accompanied by my friend Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt. The range of subjects included indigenous peoples, advanced civilizations and industrial society. This method has since proven to be a valuable research tool in human ethology as well.

These film sequences led me to clearly recognize the degree to which humans and their artificially produced tools and machines merge into units that enable new, specialized capabilities. A visitor from outer space observing evolution on our planet would no doubt be particularly intrigued by humans: they are the only organisms capable of boosting, virtually at will, the capabilities of their bodies by using tools and other artificially produced aids. We use them to move faster, cross oceans, fly, visit other heavenly bodies, and engage in a host of other activities that our "natural" bodies would never permit.
Now, lets think of our experiences on roads, MUPs and bicycle paths in this context, that we are a subspecies of humans adapted specially by use of this machine, the bicycle, with certain capabilities and limitations. We can go much further than a car (limited to a tank full of gasoline), but at a much slower rate. Notice, that I did not talk about the driver verses the bicyclist. The bicycle is its own "animal," so to speak, as is the car. Cars travel in a certain manner, interact in a certain manner with other cars, and interact differently with other types of "vehicles," such as tractors and bicycles.

If we as bicyclists learn to recognize certain auto behaviors, then we can interact with them (autos) in a safer manner than if we don't recognize these traits. For instance, cars "travel" in packs. I see this regularly, as they stop for stop lights, several cars back up behind these lights, then spurt ahead from the lights in "packs." Knowing that a pack of cars is coming, and making adjustments, can give the bicyclist an advantage from a safety perspective.

Yesterday morning, I needed to get to work early, so I headed out of the house on my recumbant bicycle a half hour early. I turned off my residentual street onto the bike path, went carefully down the wooden structure until it became an asphalt path, then continued down the creek to where it climbed up to a sidewalk on 173rd street. I normally get onto the street from here, but checked as I turned 90 degrees onto the sidewalk for traffic on the street. I saw a number of cars, and so stopped just before the driveway that I normally use to get onto the road. A total of 9 cars passed me as I was stopped there. After the last car, the roadway was clear as far as I could see behind in my mirror (my Stratus recumbant has two rear-view mirrors which are very good for monitoring behind me). I then went onto the driveway, to the road, and headed up the hill without incident.

Today, other than being sick with a cold, I normally do not ride a bicycle because the autos out there on a Friday in Beaverton, Oregon, behave in a manner which is different than on other days. I've been in the hospital twice on Fridays, and they won't get a third shot at me, so I drive on Fridays. I may be one of the few cyclists here who has also swam with sharks, and bicycling on Fridays I compare to swimming with sharks in a feeding frenzy, at least here, which is why I simply don't do it.

I will stop here, as there are a lot more applications to this concept of "hypercell organisms" to bicycling than I can possible put down right here. But I want you to think of cars as organisms in and of themselves, and not a human driving a machine; the human in that machine may be an 61 year old 200 pound male who couldn't hurt anything by himself (I use this as an example, and it is me), but in a car he or she becomes a different "animal," with much greater capabilities of speed, endurance, and the potential for damage than the individual driver involved. We need to think about how these hypercell organisms interact, behave with themselves, and behave with bicyclists (who themselves become very different on a bicycle than they are walking at work).

John

[sbhikes]

Thanks Chip for this good thread. This is what I've always though bicycling is all about.

I ride a variety of facilites (and I include roads in this) and for each kind I have my set of strategies for dealing with their drawbacks and advantages.

Also, every trip I take has a series of segments and any given segment may involve a certain kind of facility, or more than one. I don't believe that any bicycle ride, whether for utility or pleasure, has to (or even can) consist of a single type of facility. I enjoy some segments more than others, and my favorite segments change over time.

I think it's good to learn how to make the most of any one kind of facility, to understand your choices at any point in a route, and make the best choices you can, even if it differs from day to day. To understand what needs to be done in certain situations and just deal with it. Not get all absolutist about it.

I have strategies for handling busy MUPs, bike lanes, narrow winding roads without shoulders, bike lanes on the freeway, bike lanes on surface streets, mountain roads, residential roads, overpasses, etc. A good bicycle class would teach you the strategies for handling all these types of situations and more.

I also have preferences as to what kind of road and facility I like best. But this doesn't mean it's not necessary to learn and use the others. It also doesn't mean that if my preference doesn't match yours that one of us has to lose. It also doesn't mean what's best for 42 year old me is best for 65 year old Beverly or 95 year old Kai or 22 year old Jason.

Futhermore, I reject a continuum of "valid" facilities to "invalid" (or insert your adjectives as appropriate alpha dog/inferiority complex, libertarian/social engineering, masculine/feminine, skilled/unskilled, voluntary/involuntary, fast/slow, separated/integrated -- pick your poison). ALL bicycle facilities have the potential to make the conditions for cycling improved or worse for someone.

Finally, any bicycle facility that involves motor vehicles cannot work well unless the motorists are trained. They seem to lack the understanding of how to deal with bicycles in their midst whether that be on a road without a bike lane or one with. The one thing I don't enjoy about this forum is that you can't enjoy a good ***** session after some motorist does something stupid. We all KNOW they do stupid stuff. They need some education. And if this forum is to have any sense of camraderie outside the arguing we have to allow a little *****ing about the motorists and some discusson of how to educate them.

Thanks for starting this topic.

[buzzman]

OK I got it. How about YBHC - <your brand here> cycling? :)


actually, I'm becoming quite fond of "Adaptive Cycling"- I can adapt.;)

...as there are a lot more applications to this concept of "hypercell organisms" to bicycling than I can possible put down right here. But I want you to think of cars as organisms in and of themselves, and not a human driving a machine; the human in that machine may be an 61 year old 200 pound male who couldn't hurt anything by himself (I use this as an example, and it is me), but in a car he or she becomes a different "animal," with much greater capabilities of speed, endurance, and the potential for damage than the individual driver involved. We need to think about how these hypercell organisms interact, behave with themselves, and behave with bicyclists (who themselves become very different on a bicycle than they are walking at work).

John

John,

When I first started posting in here about a year ago I posited a similar observation based on the work of Marshall Mcluhan (http://www.marshallmcluhan.com/gordon.html). His observations of human interaction with technology yielded a perspective much like what Dr. Hans Hass articulated.

Mcluhan said,

"The car has become the carapace, the protective and aggressive shell, of urban and suburban man."

He wrote at length about how our tools are extensions of the physical self. The wheel an extension of the foot, the hammer of our fist, the magnifying lens of our eye etc...

His writings on communications and transportation technology are profound and he was years ahead of his time regarding telecommunications and computer technology.

Since the automobile was an extension of the physical self he saw it as a means of dumbing us down as animals because our degree of cephalization (body mass to brain size ratio) was reduced when operating an automobile. Effectively he was saying a driver of automobile is by default stupider than a cyclist due to the nature of the extension of the body.

To bring this back to the topic of the thread- Adaptive Cycling- a capacity for adaptation to the environment is essential for any organism to survive. I'm all for evolving.:D

My original post. (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=1869436&postcount=181)- I'd be curious to see if you feel it relates to what you're saying.

[sbhikes]

Since the automobile was an extension of the physical self he saw it as a means of dumbing us down as animals because our degree of cephalization (body mass to brain size ratio) was reduced when operating an automobile. Effectively he was saying a driver of automobile is by default stupider than a cyclist due to the nature of the extension of the body.

Not only that, but there has to be some kind of body mass to agression ratio in there somewhere, too.

[buzzman]

Not only that, but there has to be some kind of body mass to agression ratio in there somewhere, too.

absolutely. read my original post (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=1869436&postcount=181) (I just found it and added it to my post) to see the correlation.

[comradehoser]

John, you might enjoy Godfrey Reggio's movie Koyaanisqatsi if you haven't already seen it.

[comradehoser]

I don't know as far as Mcluhan and cager stupidity is concerned... I think we are straying into the territory of pseudo-science and "phobias" and such, and we don't want to repeat the mistakes of the past.

In situations like MUPs it seems that there are parallels to the road, only bicycles are seeking to maintain their speed and safety against "vehicular pedestrians." In this context, the cyclists can become the stupid aggressive ones encased in their bikeapace. Maybe that's a bit of an exaggeration, but poke around the forums and you'll see lots of annoyance with peds. I've seen some bullying behavior like that in the big park Brooklyn (can't remember the name right now). Is it fair to say that bicycles should behave to pedestrians as we expect cars to behave to bicycles?

[buzzman]

I don't know as far as Mcluhan and cager stupidity is concerned... I think we are straying into the territory of pseudo-science and "phobias" and such, and we don't want to repeat the mistakes of the past.

In situations like MUPs it seems that there are parallels to the road, only bicycles are seeking to maintain their speed and safety against "vehicular pedestrians." In this context, the cyclists can become the stupid aggressive ones encased in their bikeapace. Maybe that's a bit of an exaggeration, but poke around the forums and you'll see lots of annoyance with peds. I've seen some bullying behavior like that in the big park Brooklyn (can't remember the name right now). Is it fair to say that bicycles should behave to pedestrians as we expect cars to behave to bicycles?


a good question. And one that I, admittedly, have fallen prey to on many an MUP. I try to be disciplined but sometimes I can't help it. :o

sorry, if some of you feel I have strayed too much off topic with my post on Mcluhan- I was just inspired to see John's musings in that area and felt the need to share on a similar topic. I see it more as social theory or philosophy and it certainly may not have enough foundation in scientific method to satisfy that type of scrutiny.

[John C. Ratliff]

actually, I'm becoming quite fond of "Adaptive Cycling"- I can adapt.;)

John,

When I first started posting in here about a year ago I posited a similar observation based on the work of Marshall Mcluhan (http://www.marshallmcluhan.com/gordon.html). His observations of human interaction with technology yielded a perspective much like what Dr. Hans Hass articulated.

Mcluhan said,

"The car has become the carapace, the protective and aggressive shell, of urban and suburban man."

He wrote at length about how our tools are extensions of the physical self. The wheel an extension of the foot, the hammer of our fist, the magnifying lens of our eye etc...

His writings on communications and transportation technology are profound and he was years ahead of his time regarding telecommunications and computer technology.

Since the automobile was an extension of the physical self he saw it as a means of dumbing us down as animals because our degree of cephalization (body mass to brain size ratio) was reduced when operating an automobile. Effectively he was saying a driver of automobile is by default stupider than a cyclist due to the nature of the extension of the body.

To bring this back to the topic of the thread- Adaptive Cycling- a capacity for adaptation to the environment is essential for any organism to survive. I'm all for evolving.:D

My original post. (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=1869436&postcount=181)- I'd be curious to see if you feel it relates to what you're saying.
Buzzman,

Very interesting...yes, I do relate to this. I had not thought much about the "cephalazition" aspect (brain to body size), and the loss that an auto represents. What does strike me though, is the loss of the ability to sense the environment except through sight, which is also inhibited. But the sense of touch is lost, hearing highly diminished, no taste (not that important), and lowered sense of smell.

But I also think that autos do exhibit behaviors that can be compared to other species such as fish. Schooling fish exhibit behaviors, and so do cars on a freeway and main roadways. Hypercellular organisms, with a "carapace" around the person, lacks the same functionality as a "skin" on our body. It has limited sensors (although they are getting better).

How does this relate to "adaptive cycling" (I too like that name)? Well, as a biologist, Dr. Hans Hass studied all manner of marine organisms (he was one of the first to investigate shark behavior underwater), an now looks at society to see how humans react. As adaptive bicyclists, we need to know how the auto world relates to itself and to bicycles, and how the two worlds interact. VC cycling has a fatal flaw, in that it assumes that the vehicular cyclist can interact equally with the auto world. But cyclists have their own limitations, as do cars. Learning how to maximize the benifits of cycling, and minimize the limitations of cycling, will help us to integrate into what has become an auto-dominated world. At the same time, we can together work to both educate the drivers (change or adapt the driving world to increased bicyclists), and show that world the benifits of cycling too.

John