Google sponsored links
I like adaptive cycling as well, because at a given time in a riders' maturation of riding style, will move beyond the strict dogma of vehicular cyclings' mandates regarding operation of a bicycle. Especially some of the ardent posters to A&S.
moving beyond dogma to truly embrace the real.
most all of us recognize the value of morphing styles while riding. most of us recognize the value of a quality facility, most all of us recognize the riding environment can never be confined to debate on the internet.
some of us that ride transportationally, daily, and have for decades, may have more realistic views than those relatively 'fresh out of the box' on how to operate a bicycle that do it occasionally.
Adaptive cycling, because even the vehicular can use a facility to their benefit.
It isn't a sin, ain't misbehavin'.
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
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.
Buzzman,
Dr. Hans Hass is a pretty well respected scientist too (marine biologist by training). He invented an oxygen rebreather that he used on his diving expeditions in the 1940s and 1950s, researched sharks, shot a number of movies (Under the Red Sea), and built one of the best underwater housings of the times (the Rolleimarine) that he used to shoot beautiful underwater photos. I have one of his early books, We Came From the Sea, which was published in 1958. Again, here's the link to his website book (the entire book, this time):
http://www.hans-hass.de/Englisch/Hypercell/Table_of_Contents.html
And here is his website:
http://www.hans-hass.de/Englisch/index_english.htm
This is where he talks about his "Energon Theory." I'll let you read his website, rather than try to quote anything here.
But how does this relate to Adaptive Bicycling? Well, the bicycle is the most energy-efficient means of ground transportation in the animal kingdom. Cars now dominate the landscape, but it is time for bicycles to reclaim their rightful place here too. Because we are extremely energy-efficient, we can make an economic impact in any community if more bicyclists are encouraged. We can make an impact in the huge rate of several diseases, including diabetes and heart disease, by encouraging people to bicycle. We can show that Adaptive Bicycling can enhance just about everyone's life experiences, while also enhancing their health too. I think that especially in the coming years where oil will become more expensive, bicycling can have a huge benificial aspect to it, and Adaptive Bicycling will allow people to use whatever is available to them to accomplish this.
John
John
OK I got it. How about YBHC - <your brand here> cycling? :)
Lovely!
Mcluhan believed, and I agree, that our transportation infrastructures are also extensions of what we are. He referred to a wheel as a rolled up road.
So this idea of "Adaptive Cycling" makes so much more sense in terms of an animal that interacts in a successful way with their environment as they go from place to place. Bicycles are such wonderfully adaptive technology that bicyclists need to allow themselves to be as adaptive as the machines they ride.
Much more fun and far more potential than when we model ourselves too much on the automotive model.
I have no idea if anyone is following this line of thinking but I am ever grateful to Chipcom for making a thread where we can actually throw around some new ideas even if they are not yet fully developed. :)
I'm sorry to be a sour sport, but I ride vehicularly on paths too. The difference is that I am no longer most likely to be the slowest moving path/road user, other users are less predictable relative to road - resulting in me traveling at a lower speed, requiring of me more speed changes and a higher level of vigillance at intersections and areas with other users. I really don't see the difference in my needed behavior, just a difference with how my riding is affected due to a change in environmental conditions.
Al
So, I'm not saying things are perfect where I live, but the planners here seem to add facilites to complement & improve existing conditions, as opposed to creating a lot of new or separate ones. Sure, we have some separate MUPs, but not anywhere near as many as some places that have far fewer riders.
I know Chip's ultimate goal here is to help us adapt to our existing conditions, but would it help at all to define some of the bike-friendly traffic tools that I'm aware of? If it would, I'd be happy to, but if you think it won't be a good idea, I'll refrain. Chip?
Buzzman,
Dr. Hans Hass is a pretty well respected scientist too (marine biologist by training). He invented an oxygen rebreather that he used on his diving expeditions in the 1940s and 1950s, researched sharks, shot a number of movies (Under the Red Sea), and built one of the best underwater housings of the times (the Rolleimarine) that he used to shoot beautiful underwater photos. I have one of his early books, We Came From the Sea, which was published in 1958.
John
Oh, I was not questioning Dr. Hass' credentials as a scientist. I was referring to Mcluhan, who, as a social theorist, deliberately put himself outside of mainstream academia and was, of course, shunned and often challenged because of it. So I can't support Mcluhan's claims as science as I might if I started to quote the socio-biologist E.O. Wilson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._O._Wilson), whose scientific observations and experiments, though also controversial, would also support much of what you were saying in your post.
I think that much of the behavior in how human beings move from place to place whether it's on a road or a bike path has much more to do with our animal nature than our intellect. I think we kid ourselves when we think of it in terms of rules. I think we should look for patterns. After all that's what a paradigm is.
buzzman-- far be it for me to say what is appropriate or not. At this point, anything is fair game, and I thought the Mcluhan stuff was interesting, I just don't buy the cephalization argument, and I just think cyclists are equally guilty at times of the same sin.
And, as we learned from Forester's discussion of phobias, there's a tendency to get carried away when using overly analytical or metaphorical language. I haven't read Hess' work, but I start to get very uneasy when people start applying explanations taken from the natural sciences to human societies. And John, you really *have* to watch Koyaanisqatsi.
back to cycling: I'm not sure I want to jettison vc for on-the-road riding as fundamentally flawed (is it not a set of techniques for interacting equally (or as equally as possible) with cars?) Unless there is a secondary highway network being built, bike rides will unavoidably still happen on roads, and it seems that vc has much to offer in this regard. It's probably a good idea to just concentrate on the pragmatics of vc and decide what is useful and what is not.
But, before that discussion, which will no doubt cause a lot of debate, attention should be paid to the under-examined (in BF) areas of cycling.
Here's a great example of "adaptive" cycling from my commute tonight.
Riding home in the dark, crossing under a state highway, four lanes in one direction against me. It's a split 2 lanes, divider, 2 lanes - all eastbound direction.
I usually ride in the travel lanes eastbound, and the sidewalk under this underpass westbound. You couldn't ride against these lanes of traffic except maybe at 4 AM... to avoid the underpass adds a mile, mile and a half to my ride home. I often do it for the extra mileage, but some nights just like to go direct, and ride on the sidewalk to get home.
tonight, there were a half dozen people on the sidewalk. There was also a police car blocking one of the lanes at the intersection at the end of the underpass, with a car stopped blocking the other lane. Accident!
I jumped the bike off the sidewalk, and rode the rest of the underpass the wrong way right up to the police car and my turn.
wrong way riding, right up to a police car. gave the head shake at the cars, then the nod to the policeman, and peeled off to my turn. I didn't signal ;)
NOT vehicular, NOT pedestrian. "adaptive" cycling.
I think it's interesting that John Forester has often recommended that on roads, cyclists should be have the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles, and on sidewalks/crosswalks, they should have the rights and duties of pedestrians. The latter duties include the responsibility to slow down before crossing vehicular ways and consequently be prepared to yield to those drivers who will lawfully arrive at the crosswalk first.
Forester has also recommended that, for cyclists' benefit, off-road paths should operate like miniature roads, although the problem with this is that pedestrians are unlikely to yield the path to bicyclists to the degree that they yield roadway space to drivers, and government organizations that oversee off-road paths generally encourage cyclists to yield to the pedestrians while otherwise using vehicular rules.
So, if one is to define a set of rules that is simple enough that it can be communicated effectively, where is there room to improve upon the generalized rules stated above?
-Steve Goodridge (riding on the right hand side of the greenway)
I'm sorry to be a sour sport, but I ride vehicularly on paths too.
I find that following vehicular rules can, or would, eliminate most of the hazards I've witnessed on paths. For instance, when a cyclist passes me at a blind curve, and another cyclist coming the other way almost collides with him, obeying the basic concepts of the vehicular rules of the road regarding safe sight distance before passing would have prevented this. I see this a lot where I live, probably because of the poor sight lines on our local paths, which in turn is the result of the designers not really considering the vehicular safety principles of bicycle operation at their typical speeds.
Vehicular rules also dictate caution when operating near children or other pedestrians in the traveled way, and taking whatever steps are possible to prevent a collision. I wish more cyclists would do this on paths; I see a lot of impatient or careless cyclists scare pedestrians.
-Steve Goodridge
buzzman-- far be it for me to say what is appropriate or not. At this point, anything is fair game, and I thought the Mcluhan stuff was interesting, I just don't buy the cephalization argument, and I just think cyclists are equally guilty at times of the same sin.
To borrow John's analogy of human's moving like sharks or schools of fish for moment. A school of sharks could very well be hunting a school of bluefish, which in turn are hunting a school of herring. So I don't think that what I am saying is that cyclists are not capable of being aggressive and predatory on the bike path or even on the road in the same way an automobile is. It's just a different "carapace" or shell- and the automotive shell is much heavier, stronger or more destructive. So the cars are the sharks and we are the bluefish and the pedestrian is the herring. Sounds a little fishy I know but that's my story and I'm stickin' to it. :p
I'm not trying to sell anyone on the cephalization argument- it's just a thought and I'm not particularly attached to it and really shouldn't have used the phrase "makes them stupider" I was being facetious. John's point about a loss of senses is more appropriate and more exact regarding cephalization because it's not so much intellectual capacity that is lost but sensory.
Regarding Forester's claims of phobias and all that nonsense I couldn't agree more and hopefully the difference here is I'm just thinking out loud and not insisting anyone buy my gobbledygook any more than anyone elses'. If you think it's a load of crap and doubletalk I promise I won't insist you buy it.
But to keep on topic here with the OP. I think that the new paradigm has to take into account the patterns of how people move and get away from a rules based paradigm. This is in theories around the architecture of public space and talked about in books like A Pattern Language (http://www.amazon.com/Pattern-Language-Buildings-Construction-Environmental/dp/0195019199) And is how newer urban planning is being done and giving birth to concepts like "Livable Streets". How we ride in these environments has to adapt to the newer architectural models.
Bek's description of his commute this evening is a prime example of how it flies in the face at times of "the rules".
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.
Hegelian cycling :)
Great thread chip:)
The notion of adapting your approach to conditions only makes sense. Bikes are capable of traveling on many different kinds of "roads" and therefore, the operators of bikes need to be flexible enough to behave differently in these different circumstances. I know I ride differently when I have a bike lane (and again differently if I have a debris filled bike lane) vs no bike lane vs a path vs a sweet chunk of one way single track vs an open country road vs a parking lot etc etc etc. We all do I think. I agree that debates over dogmatic approaches to cycling are not helpful. Great thread.
But how does this relate to Adaptive Bicycling? Well, the bicycle is the most energy-efficient means of ground transportation in the animal kingdom. Cars now dominate the landscape, but it is time for bicycles to reclaim their rightful place here too. Because we are extremely energy-efficient, we can make an economic impact in any community if more bicyclists are encouraged. We can make an impact in the huge rate of several diseases, including diabetes and heart disease, by encouraging people to bicycle. We can show that Adaptive Bicycling can enhance just about everyone's life experiences, while also enhancing their health too. I think that especially in the coming years where oil will become more expensive, bicycling can have a huge benificial aspect to it, and Adaptive Bicycling will allow people to use whatever is available to them to accomplish this.
I think this also relates to adaptive cycling by applying a bit of Darwin. For an organism to survive, it must be able to learn from its experiences and observations and adapt to ever changing conditions and environments - the world as it is, rather than how it 'should' be or used to be. Going to my OP, the world, as it relates to cyclists, has changed a lot in the decades since JF's vehicular cycling paradigm emerged - we organisms need to adapt to those changes in our evironment, rather than try to force the environment to fit into a paradigm that seems reluctant to adapt.
So, I'm not saying things are perfect where I live, but the planners here seem to add facilites to complement & improve existing conditions, as opposed to creating a lot of new or separate ones. Sure, we have some separate MUPs, but not anywhere near as many as some places that have far fewer riders.
I know Chip's ultimate goal here is to help us adapt to our existing conditions, but would it help at all to define some of the bike-friendly traffic tools that I'm aware of? If it would, I'd be happy to, but if you think it won't be a good idea, I'll refrain. Chip?
By all means, Donna. I think it might be a good subject for a new thread, so it doesn't get lost in the very general brainstorming of the concept we are doing here. If everyone agrees that, at least for our purposes, 'Adaptive Cycling' is the label of choice, perhaps we can indicate relevant threads by prepending 'AC:' to the thread title. I think appropriate threads might also become stickies. ;)
back to cycling: I'm not sure I want to jettison vc for on-the-road riding as fundamentally flawed (is it not a set of techniques for interacting equally (or as equally as possible) with cars?) Unless there is a secondary highway network being built, bike rides will unavoidably still happen on roads, and it seems that vc has much to offer in this regard. It's probably a good idea to just concentrate on the pragmatics of vc and decide what is useful and what is not.
Again, the aim here is NOT to jettison vc. Indeed in many situations operating as a vehicle may be the best solution. But just as operating as a pedestrian is applicable in some situations, we need to identify and discuss those situations, especially as they relate to bicycling facilities, where neither operating as a vehicle nor as a ped seem to be the best solution...at those times perhaps it's best to operate as something unique that is neither a vehicle or a ped, but a BICYCLE. The bicycle is unique in that is CAN use multiple environments, so we must not limit how we operate to a paradigm that is based on a single environment and attempts to be all things to all environments.
I think a MUP is one crazy example....it is neither a road, nor a sidewalk, nor a bicycle-only facility. If one operates strictly as a vehicle (using the accepted vc paradigm) they put not only themselves in danger, but also those who are NOT operating as vehicles and not using the same set of rules. A MUP is like a game where every player is using not only different rules of the game, but also rules concerning other games as well. Imagine a football game where one person is playing by NFL rules, another by NCAA rules, another is playing with a Baseball rulebook, another under NBA rules, another is using Monopoly rules and another is playing Scrabble! So our aim here should be to identify all the different rule books in play and come up with a rulebook for cyclists that can play nice with all the different rules everyone else is using, because the reality is that the other players are not going to modify their behavior to suit us.
"Adaptive Cycling", finally there's a name for the type of cycling I've been doing for decades. I use VC for the majority of my riding, but revert to bike lanes, sidewalks or trails when I see it as necessary, and ride accordingly.
So, if one is to define a set of rules that is simple enough that it can be communicated effectively, where is there room to improve upon the generalized rules stated above?
Generalized rules are nice for explaining basic concepts and writing books, but not so good for addressing specific environments and situations that might conflict with one or more general rules or require a combination of all of the general rules - sometimes one must adapt a variety of rules...and some that don't even exist. See my MUP analogy above - general rules are hard to apply to specific situations when the environment is essentially a free-for-all. ;)
I think another example is the bike lane that is on one side of a street so that bicycles are traveling both with and against traffic. Despite the problems inherent with the bike lane itself, the fact remains that some cyclists will use it, in both directions, and do not want to hear that they should use the road when travelling in the opposite direction of travel. Our goal here is to help them use the bike lane - the environment they choose to ride in - in a safe and efficient manner, rather than to try to persuade them NOT to use it at all. Can we mention that perhaps using the road may be a better choice? Sure, but only if we also offer similar advice on how they can best use the environment they have chosen. We're not here to preach, we're here to offer solutions based on the needs (yes, and phobias if you choose to think of it that way) of the cyclist in the environment of their choosing.
Perhaps for those who are struggling with the concept of adaptive cycling it might be easier to think of it this way.
Adaptive cycling is a paradigm that encourages one to mix and match methods and tactics from a variety of toolboxes, one of which is operating as a vehicle, to fit a specific cycling environment and/or situation.
Rather than trying to modify the vc paradigm to adapt to multiple non-vechicular environments, causing vc purists to rebel, vc is retained in it's purest form as a paradigm related to cycling as a vehicle, on the roads using the rules of the road, and invoked as needed in other situations where it is applicable and the best solution. vc is just one paradigm, not the be-all-end-all-do-all that slices, dices, chops, mashes, rices and makes your coffee. ;)
"Adaptive Cycling", finally there's a name for the type of cycling I've been doing for decades. I use VC for the majority of my riding, but revert to bike lanes, sidewalks or trails when I see it as necessary, and ride accordingly.
There's the beauty...just like vc, it is not some new wonder drug, it's simply utilizing things we already do and have been doing for as long as cycling has existed, including vc, but without the limitation of vc that does not allow flexibility, innovation and creativity.
I think the main issue is that this forum has been dominated by a continuum of value judgements about facilities, with some at one end being marked as "bad" and others at the other end as "good." A whole host of other adjectives get piled on as well, such as "phobic", "segregated", "inexperienced" and "professional", "lawful", "skilled", "less costly" or whatever.
This continuum also takes each kind of facility and puts it into a bucket. Bike lane = Gene's picture with no usable asphalt or bike path = baby strollers or heavy traffic narrow lanes = reality. When we all know that some times a bike lane is Gene's picture and sometimes it's Bek's.
Putting the various facilities into tidy little boxes and labeling them as always this or always that shuts off all communication from the start. So if Joe Whatever comes online and says, How do I handle my situation? and he uses the key word "bike path" or whatever, the tidy boxes kick in and he is declared at once to be unskilled, unprofessional, stupid for using that death trap, or whatever you believe in.
By rejecting the continuum and the absolutist belief that facility "x" is always representative of all these value judgements, we could offer a bit of adaptive cycling advice on how to deal with that individual's actual experience. Got a door zone bike lane? Get out! Got a killer app bike lane? Get in! Got some tricky places on your route? Here's how people deal with them in actual reality. Want to improve cycling in your community? In what way? Here's what we're doing in my town and here's where we succeeded.
Chip, your approach could work, as long as we don't have the divisiveness of:
1. mandatory use laws
2. bike path advocates saying that the road is "dangerous" in order build support for a bike path
3. VC advocates ridiculing those who don't like to use the road
I've been using a form of your approach in my local advocacy efforts.
Chip, your approach could work, as long as we don't have the divisiveness of:
1. mandatory use laws
2. bike path advocates saying that the road is "dangerous" in order build support for a bike path
3. VC advocates ridiculing those who don't like to use the road
I've been using a form of your approach in my local advocacy efforts.
Moderators have taken note. Thank you, Brian.
I'm sorry to be a sour sport, but I ride vehicularly on paths too. The difference is that I am no longer most likely to be the slowest moving path/road user, other users are less predictable relative to road - resulting in me traveling at a lower speed, requiring of me more speed changes and a higher level of vigillance at intersections and areas with other users. I really don't see the difference in my needed behavior, just a difference with how my riding is affected due to a change in environmental conditions.
Al
+2
Chip, your approach could work, as long as we don't have the divisiveness of:
1. mandatory use laws
2. bike path advocates saying that the road is "dangerous" in order build support for a bike path
3. VC advocates ridiculing those who don't like to use the road
I've been using a form of your approach in my local advocacy efforts.
I agree 100% Brian. The point of this is not to debate the merits of road vs facilities or judge a cyclist's choices, it's to provide solutions based on the needs of the cyclist and the environment they choose.
I think the main issue is that this forum has been dominated by a continuum of value judgements about facilities, with some at one end being marked as "bad" and others at the other end as "good." A whole host of other adjectives get piled on as well, such as "phobic", "segregated", "inexperienced" and "professional", "lawful", "skilled", "less costly" or whatever.
This continuum also takes each kind of facility and puts it into a bucket. Bike lane = Gene's picture with no usable asphalt or bike path = baby strollers or heavy traffic narrow lanes = reality. When we all know that some times a bike lane is Gene's picture and sometimes it's Bek's.
Putting the various facilities into tidy little boxes and labeling them as always this or always that shuts off all communication from the start. So if Joe Whatever comes online and says, How do I handle my situation? and he uses the key word "bike path" or whatever, the tidy boxes kick in and he is declared at once to be unskilled, unprofessional, stupid for using that death trap, or whatever you believe in.
By rejecting the continuum and the absolutist belief that facility "x" is always representative of all these value judgements, we could offer a bit of adaptive cycling advice on how to deal with that individual's actual experience. Got a door zone bike lane? Get out! Got a killer app bike lane? Get in! Got some tricky places on your route? Here's how people deal with them in actual reality. Want to improve cycling in your community? In what way? Here's what we're doing in my town and here's where we succeeded.
Please post the ideal bike lane design that keeps cyclist safe through intersections and driveways, so we all can take them to our City Council and advocate for such a bike lane facility. Bek, our leading expert on perfect bike lanes has refused to, so maybe you can.
Chipcom seems to be asking us to simply accept poorly designed facilities, never oppose them and simply work to teach cyclist some new method of trying to alter our riding in bad facilities to somehow become safe. In these instances, I have found that VC riding still works best. If you want to invent some new name for it, fine, but the end result still ends up being what is now called vehicular cycling.
Hopefully more constructive and useful than continuing a 30+ year old debate that is devoid of new ideas, innovation or creativity. ;)
+1000. Excellent posting Chipcom.
When you're right, you're right. Is it possible that the anti-bicycle groups in this country (the ones who want bicycle banished for good,) will win, simply because cycling advocacy groups are wasting so much time and energy fighting among themselves?
Chipcom seems to be asking us to simply accept poorly designed facilities, never oppose them and simply work to teach cyclist some new method of trying to alter our riding in bad facilities to somehow become safe. In these instances, I have found that VC riding still works best. If you want to invent some new name for it, fine, but the end result still ends up being what is now called vehicular cycling.
CB, when it comes to proposed facilities I'm not asking anything of the sort. What I am saying is that facilities, crappy or not, already exist and people use them, so unless you got a way to make them all disappear or automagically improve them, the point of this is to help the people who use them, as they exist. <edit: removed remaining content that wasn't relevant>
Is it possible that the anti-bicycle groups in this country (the ones who want bicycle banished for good,) will win, simply because cycling advocacy groups are wasting so much time and energy fighting among themselves?
Exactly. It's time that advocates of all stripes quit bickering amongst themselves, accepted that different cyclists have different needs and desires, and began working together to provide a unified position to policy makers. This notion of only one true cycling paradigm that you are either for or against is outdated and counterproductive. Here we will attempt to provide a framework that includes ALL types of cycling into a comprehensive tool box full of information and devoid of dogma.
Please post the ideal bike lane design that keeps cyclist safe through intersections and driveways, so we all can take them to our City Council and advocate for such a bike lane facility. Bek, our leading expert on perfect bike lanes has refused to, so maybe you can.
Chipcom seems to be asking us to simply accept poorly designed facilities, never oppose them and simply work to teach cyclist some new method of trying to alter our riding in bad facilities to somehow become safe. In these instances, I have found that VC riding still works best. If you want to invent some new name for it, fine, but the end result still ends up being what is now called vehicular cycling.
Bike Lanes are primarily a treatment for high-speed, high-traffic volume arterial streets, and in many cases work well as long as the design is adequate. Unfortunately there are many examples of bad bike lane design, IMO mostly due to the cars-first mentality of the design engineers. In my opinion, many bike lanes could and should be replaced by sharrows. Meanwhile, the recent focus in Portland has been more on Bike Boulevards, which are low-traffic volume parallel streets that are traffic-calmed and for the most part also free of stop signs. My point being that there are lots of other options or choices in the tool box besides just bike lanes or no facilities at all. As others have, I will also point out that Amsterdam and other bicycle-friendly European cities have not successfully promoted bicycling by advocating VC riding techniques; but rather by building appropriate facilities. The US has a lot to learn about what 'appropriate facilities' are; the only place I really agree with the VC advocates is that there are a lot of inappropriate bike lane designs on the ground in the US - but I don't agree that the solution is to eliminate all facilities; but rather, to improve the designs.
I'll keep posts #77, #79, and #81 on this thread, but any further mention of The Great Bike Lane Debate will be deleted. The exception is when someone is needing tips on how to best use an existing one in their area. Still, no bike lane hijacking, folks!
Now, let us return to our previously scheduled thread... :)
And that is the problem, you choose to ignore the problems of the poorly designed facilities, look for some riding technique to make those facilities less dangerous. In the end, you will have selected riding techniques that others have called VC, but you will call it by some other name - AC(TM).
I am all in favor of riding techniques that make us safer, but working to get rid of the dangerous facilities is the best long term option. Why can’t all cyclist work together to get rid of such facilities? Is that not in the spirit of this thread? Is it not also in the spirit of the thread to share the facility designs that are truly safe for cyclist and share those designs so we can all push our local governments to build based on only those safe designs?
And that is the problem, you choose to ignore the problems of the poorly designed facilities, look for some riding technique to make those facilities less dangerous. In the end, you will have selected riding techniques that others have called VC, but you will call it by some other name - AC(TM).
I am all in favor of riding techniques that make us safer, but working to get rid of the dangerous facilities is the best long term option. Why can’t all cyclist work together to get rid of such facilities? Is that not in the spirit of this thread? Is it not also in the spirit of the thread to share the facility designs that are truly safe for cyclist and share those designs so we can all push our local governments to build based on only those safe designs?
See my reply in the thread you crossposted this to:
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=3919799&postcount=7
I've been to busy to do much more than quickly scan posts, but congrats to chipcom for single-handedly taking on the task of facilitating discussion in A&S, and congrats to the mods for taking a more active role in the threads. Hope this is a sign of good things to come.
I think this also relates to adaptive cycling by applying a bit of Darwin. For an organism to survive, it must be able to learn from its experiences and observations and adapt to ever changing conditions and environments - the world as it is, rather than how it 'should' be or used to be. Going to my OP, the world, as it relates to cyclists, has changed a lot in the decades since JF's vehicular cycling paradigm emerged - we organisms need to adapt to those changes in our evironment, rather than try to force the environment to fit into a paradigm that seems reluctant to adapt.
I agree that we as humans need to adapt to our enviroment, instead of forcing it to adapt to us, but only to a point. I think we need to be careful & not allow the powers that be to force us to only ride on BL's on MUP's or only ride on the roadways. As I said in my earlier response there needs to be a happy medium. Yes it is hard to impliment change to the powers that be, kind of goes along with "you can't fight city hall", but at the very least get your foot in the door & have them listen to you when it comes to changes you'd like to see made or changes they are making you don't agree with.
In my community as I stated most if not all cyclists adapt their riding style to the conditions in which they are riding on. For example the Thursday night club rides is all on public roadways, a majority of those roadways are county highways, not BL's or MUP's. Guess what? Everyone who does the ride rides VC, we ride no more then 2 abreast & when needed we move to single file to allow traffic to pass. In the town the ride starts/ends in & goes through we are single file.
On our Sunday rides that use the MUP we are single file, not riding as VC & are spaced further apart then we are on the roadways & are riding at a much slower pace. Then when we pull off of the MUP onto the roadway we are closer together, single file to 2 abreast as conditions permit & ride at a faster pace.
This as far as I know is AC riding.
I have some questions about this newly named but old concept of Adaptive Cycling. A lot of us here own & drive motor vehicles, right? We were all probably taught to drive as conditions permit, right? In other words adapt our driving to the conditions we are in. The conditions include but are not limited to: posted speed limit, weather, amount of other traffic, types of other traffic, what type of roadways you are on, etc. You would not consider driving through a residential area at the same speed you'd dirve on the interstate, right? You would not drive on the interstate at the same speed when it is covered in snow & ice as you would if was a clear sunny, dry day, right? We adapt our driving to what our present conditions are.
So why can we not do this for our cycling as well?
I have some questions about this newly named but old concept of Adaptive Cycling. A lot of us here own & drive motor vehicles, right? We were all probably taught to drive as conditions permit, right? In other words adapt our driving to the conditions we are in. The conditions include but are not limited to: posted speed limit, weather, amount of other traffic, types of other traffic, what type of roadways you are on, etc. You would not consider driving through a residential area at the same speed you'd dirve on the interstate, right? You would not drive on the interstate at the same speed when it is covered in snow & ice as you would if was a clear sunny, dry day, right? We adapt our driving to what our present conditions are.
So why can we not do this for our cycling as well?
N_C, I'm pretty sure everyone would agree that we would adapt our riding to the conditions of the present moment. But I also think the point is being made that the bicycle is a very different "animal" than the automobile. It is a more adaptable technology. Think of the small design changes in the geometry of a bicycle frame and how they affect how it rides on the road or when mountain biking. Increasing or decreasing the wheel base of a bicycle a few millimeters can make the difference between a good straight tracking bike for touring and a sensitive bike for cornering and racing. The difference between a 700x23 tire and 700x32 can really change our experience on the bike.
Automobiles have four-wheels, relatively uniform widths and wheel bases- not that their design does not affect their handling: think Hummer vs Ferrari but it takes more dramatic changes in an automobile's design to create noticeable change. And the automobile really likes straight lines, if I'm driving my car and lean my weight to the right or left the car does not change direction. If I lean closer to the steering wheel it does not increase my speed because it reduces my wind resistance.
So drawing parallels between the two vehicles is useful only to a certan extent but in terms of Adaptive Cycling it could be limiting.
Automobiles have four-wheels, relatively uniform widths and wheel bases- not that their design does not affect their handling: think Hummer vs Ferrari but it takes more dramatic changes in an automobile's design to create noticeable change.
http://membres.lycos.fr/veilsideotherpart/monster%20truck.jpg
just sayin... ;)
What I've been doing in my local advocacy is to give examples showing three different "modes" of cycling:
1. On bike paths or sidewalks
2. In bike lanes or shoulders
3. Using travel lanes on "normal" roads (edited from: 'As vehicle drivers on "normal" roads')
Some cyclists may spend most of their time in a given mode. Or multiple modes could be used on a given ride. For example, I could be in mode (2) using a road shoulder when I'm touring, but then when I get to a town at the end of the day I could be on the road in mode (3).
Then I mention to the engineers (I'm one myself) that they are probably familiar with cyclists using modes (1) and (2), but not (3). So then I talk a little more about cyclists using mode (3) and give an example about designs that can help them (signal loops).
Then I talk about interplay of facilities and laws. For example, putting a road shoulder on a rural highway is a "win-win" situation, because cyclists who prefer to operate in mode (2) can ride in the shoulder, yet cyclists who prefer to operate in mode (3) aren't obligated to use it (at least in California).
The planners, engineers, and cycling club representatives that I shown this to have liked this approach because it is inclusive and non-judgmental.
What I've been doing in my local advocacy is to give examples showing three different "modes" of cycling:
1. On bike paths or sidewalks
2. In bike lanes or shoulders
3. As vehicle drivers on "normal" roads
Out curiosity, why that grouping? It doesn't seem intuitive to me.
I agree 100% Brian. The point of this is not to debate the merits of road vs facilities or judge a cyclist's choices, it's to provide solutions based on the needs of the cyclist and the environment they choose.
I have to say that I use vehicular cycling techniques myself almost every time I ride. But I think some of the vehicular cycling supporters are missing your point - there's always going to be cyclists that choose to use a bike path or sidewalk, for example.
Out curiosity, why that grouping? It doesn't seem intuitive to me.
I was trying to break it out in terms of how cyclists operate. For example, when riding on a bike path you have to watch for pedestrians, just like on a sidewalk - that's why I grouped bike paths and sidewalks together. It also roughly corresponds to the Class I/II/III groupings in the California bikeway standards.
Out curiosity, why that grouping? It doesn't seem intuitive to me.
Ah, but it is to roadway planners & engineers. I think one of the main reasons for Portland's successes is winning them over. LCI_Brian, I think you've got a great strategy. How is it working out in the area of helping folks navigate places that aren't likely to change anytime soon?
Ah, but it is to roadway planners & engineers. I think one of the main reasons for Portland's successes is winning them over. LCI_Brian, I think you've got a great strategy. How is it working out in the area of helping folks navigate places that aren't likely to change anytime soon?
I (along with a couple of others locally) have just started using this strategy. Although I did have the opportunity to float this concept to some local planners and engineers, right now the main focus has been to use the strategy to help unify the "VC" and "paint and path" advocates so we can all speak for cycling with one voice. One example was in the Dana Point bike ban (there was a thread here a while back), in which the local "paint and path" advocacy group supported cyclists rights to use the road instead of the path. It will take some time before we reach the engineers and planners and see the resulting trickle down, though.
I was trying to break it out in terms of how cyclists operate. For example, when riding on a bike path you have to watch for pedestrians, just like on a sidewalk - that's why I grouped bike paths and sidewalks together. It also roughly corresponds to the Class I/II/III groupings in the California bikeway standards.
Ah, I see. Sidewalk cycling is illegal here, although common. Shoulder cycling is legal (though you lose all ROW), but very uncommon.
I'd have to think about it, and take the audience into account, but I probably would divide a presentation into:
1- Pathways (all types)
2- Sidewalk, shoulder, and "short-cuts" (any unofficial path)
3a- Roads designed with consideration for bikes*
3b- Roads designed without consideration for bikes
*Consideration for bikes could be a bike lane, traffic calming, WCL, traffic loops set to detect bikes, lower speed limits, "bike exception" signs, etc.
I think that would make sense. #1 consists of facilities controlled by parks and recreation, and split between the municipal and federal governments. #2 is outside any official planning. #3 falls entirely under municipal planning.
Thanks, sorry for the tangeant.
I like patc's delineation better than Brians, because YOU CAN RIDE VEHICULARILY IN A BIKE LANE.
Adaptive cycling on roads with lanes for bikes includes riding in a bike lane when safe and leaving the lane when the rider needs.
Dangit, why does the VC crowd have to deny the ability for bikes to ride vehicularily on roads with bike facilties?
Another issue of devisivness- paths are not just for 'recreation'.
today, on a 40 mile ride to buy some camera memory, i rode transportationally on a bike path. is that also impossible for some to fathom? I used a bike path for transportation.
(I also rode in a door zone for a little while thru our international district-uphill-, and also used a great on-road bike lane, as a vehicle using a preffered lane. Didn't had to leave the lane once for safety's sake.)
Adaptive cycling.
I
Another issue of devisivness- paths are not just for 'recreation'.
...I used a bike path for transportation.
I use a bike path for transportation almost every day, and have been for the last 4 or 5 years or so for my commute to work, and prior to that I've enjoyed using bike paths in my town for over 30 years.
A bike path is not always a multi-use path. A bike path is not always a side-path. A bike path does not always have a lot of intersections or a lot of people on it. A bike path does not always require you to slow down. Sometimes it allows you to speed up. A bike path does not always lead to "nowhere". Sometimes it is designed to lead to where the most people need to go.
Sometimes people will choose to ride a bike BECAUSE of a bike path, BECAUSE it leads directly to where they need to go, and because it provides an ADVANTAGE over driving a car to the same destination. A transportational bike path, I believe, is a major achievement and what I wish more communities would offer.
Something like this holds the power to create a powerful core of cycling advocacy because once you have people who self-identify as transportation cyclists, you have a core group that will fight to maintain their full rights and access to all roads and all destinations.
After all, even using the bike path to go to and from work you still have to get on the road to pick up a few groceries on the way home. Rather than see this as some kind of a failure of the bike path, see it as the opening for tremendous advocacy that it truly is.
Good catch Bek, as you know I've posted before say I don't mind using good bike lanes. For mode (3) I usually say "using travel lanes on normal roads". (I'll edit my list above but leave the old wording for continuity.) Then I'm not implying that mode (2) is always non-vehicular - sometimes it is, sometime it isn't, depending on the bike lane design.
Pat came up with a good grouping by road/facility type. I used a grouping by operating modes because then I can ask how a given road/facility affects cyclists preferring to operate in a given mode. I'll mention them again because I refer to them below.
1. On bike paths or sidewalks
2. In bike lanes or shoulders
3. Using travel lanes on "normal" roads
I'll use the Dana Point example again. Originally there was one travel lane and a bike lane each direction, with no sidewalks. The bike lanes were ideal for cyclists preferring mode (2), cyclists preferring mode (3) couldn't use the travel lanes because of the mandatory bike lane use law - but they could live with it because there were no intersections or driveways, and cyclists preferring mode (1) were out of luck.
Then they built the sidepath and tried to ban bikes from the road. The sidepath was good for cyclists preferring mode (1), but this time the other cyclists were out of luck.
Then the roadway ban was lifted. The sidepath is still there, which is good for cyclists preferring mode (1). Cyclists preferring mode (2) had less space than before, but there's still 5-6 feet to the right stripe so they're OK. The shoulder stripe (optional use) instead of the bike lane stripe (mandatory use) was good for cyclists preferring mode (3). A win-win all around.
"Using travel lanes on "normal" roads" is way too general; 'normal' roads range from pre-automobile residential grids to the post-auto residential cul-de-sac environment, to a variety of arterials from 2-lane rural to 8-lane suburban, to barriers such as bridges of every possible design; and everything in between. Some designs are inherently much more bicycle-friendly than others. Just like poor bike lane design should be discarded, so should poor urban design, including poor transportation grid design. Truly good transportation design would accomodate bicyclists safely as an inherent part of the design and would obviate the need for either retrofit bike lanes or 'special' VC skills.
again, i need to defer to Patcs' definitions of roads with consideration for bikes, and roads without consideration for bikes,
Both should be considered "Normal" in the bicycling environment.
Considering roads that have no accomodations 'normal' versus roads with accomodations something other than 'normal' is dismissive as well as misleading, brian.
Both need to be considered 'normal' as part of the bicycling environment.
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.