Advocacy & Safety - Adaptive Cycling (AC) Defined

We are going to try something new here in the A&S forums. Rather than engage in the decades-old debate concerning Vehicular Cycling (vc) versus bicycling-specific facilities (side paths, bike lanes , bike paths, multi-use paths [MUP], etc), we accept that bicycle-specific faclities exist, will continue to exist, are used by cyclists and, in many cases, preferred by cyclists. We also accept that these facilites sometimes have flawed designs that may pose specific problems to cyclists who use them - indeed, in the case of a MUP or sidewalk, the facility was not designed specifically for cyclists at all.

Rather than accepting the conventional logic (of some) that one must operate a bicycle as either a vehicle (vc), or as a pedestrian, we maintain that a bicycle is a unique form of transportation that can be operated in a wide variety of environments and thus can use a combination of paradigms to be used safely and efficiently.

Adaptive Cycling (AC) is a cycling paradigm that reflects the uniqueness of a bicycle and the mulitude of environments that it can operate in. Its premise is that there is no one methodology or technique of cycling that can or must be applied to every situation or environment, rather existing methodologies are just tools that are part of a larger toolbox that the cyclist can use to adapt to his/her unique cycling needs and environment. Adaptive cycling seeks to use a combination of existing techniques and methodologies to provide solutions for specific situations that a cyclist faces in the environment they choose to ride in, as well as to create new, innovative solutions that not only apply to today's cycling world, but hopefully into the future.

[B]Some ground rules:

1. Existing Bike Forums rules and guidelines concerning posts apply, as always.

2. Threads that fall under the Adaptive Cycling paradigm will have their subjects appended with 'AC'
Example: AC: How do I ride a widget?

3. Debates concerning the pros and cons of facilities versus the roadways are prohibited. There are plenty of non-AC threads for those. NO PRO-ANTI BIKE LANE DEBATES

4. Debates concerning the pros and cons of Vehicular Cycling as a methodology, paradigm or concept are prohibited. There are plenty of non-AC threads for those. This DOES NOT prohibit discussion of vc techniques as can be applied to solving specific problems within the environment under discussion. Vehicular cycling IS part of the toolbox a cyclist can choose from, so applying vc techniques to the environment in question is proper.

Example: (Edited) If the environment of choice or necessity is a MUP, while one can advise that perhaps the roadways might be safer, such advise should be accompanied by advise that fits the MUP environment.

5. Occasional off-topic humor and light banter are always welcome. Advocacy does not have to always be serious and boring. Think of this as sitting around sharing an evening with friends, not a schoolroom or formal public meeting. Have fun!

I recommend that this thread become a 'sticky' that can be used both to address questions concerning Adaptive Cycling and to further refine its definition and rules of discussion.

So the basic rule is - no counter views to chipcom and cohort's are allowed.:rolleyes:

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?

So the basic rule is - no counter views to chipcom and cohort's are allowed.
Sounds reasonable to me.

I hope I am right in assuming that this thread is here to lay out the basis/basics of (AC) Adaptive Cycling. So stating other theories of cycling would not and should not fit in here. Personally I like the idea of this and hope to contribute to it since, after all, this has been my method of cycling since day one.
I'm awaiting other peoples responses to this to see how it takes off.

So the basic rule is - no counter views to chipcom and cohort's are allowed.:rolleyes:

What part of
"This DOES NOT prohibit discussion of vc techniques as can be applied to solving specific problems within the environment under discussion. Vehicular cycling IS part of the toolbox a cyclist can choose from, so applying vc techniques to the environment in question is proper."
gives you that impression?

Thanks for the bump, pending any needed cleanup by the mods. :)

CB HI: Please, we have enough debate over this already and it seems to get us nowhere. I am all in favor of a productive thread finally popping up here in A&S, wether it be about Adaptive Cycling, or the price of tea in China, so long as it is productive.

So here is my first bit of input on this subject.
I see (AC) as a step forward in getting your average every day Joe into cycling, wether it be for recreation, transportation, or fitness. From what I have gathered it can be used by those as young as six years of age making ann attempt to get to school via pedal power, or an eighty-six year old woman wanting to go get groceries down at her local market. One does not need years of experience to make Adaptive Cycling work for them, nor do they need to read several books written by many authors with varying viewpoints on politics and what have you. They only need to do what is legal and safe for them to get from point A to point B.
I welcome this thread and idea.

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?

Nobody is preventing you from working to get rid of unsafe facilities and there are plenty of other threads where you can engage in those debates. The premise here is that such facilities DO EXIST and wishing they would go away does not solve the problems of the cyclists who either must use them or choose to use them. If you'd like to contribute vc techniques that help address those problems, within those environments, we welcome your input, but we will not get into debates concerning their existence...that is a horse that is already out of the barn.

There is nothing prohibiting the exchange of ideas concerning the design of facilities either. Just pick a topic and start the thread. I eagerly await your first thread to discuss the design of a facility. :)

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?
No one is claiming that there aren't all kinds of dangerous facilities, from flat-out poorly designed roads, to poorly designed bike retrofits to poor bike-specific designs. Neither do I believe anyone is opposed to eliminating or changing poorly designed roads and/or bicycle facilities. But if that's what you want to discuss, quit trying to hijack Chip's threads and start your own thread. Or think outside the box and be prepared to discuss other design / behavioral modification options.

So here is my first bit of input on this subject.
I see (AC) as a step forward in getting your average every day Joe into cycling, wether it be for recreation, transportation, or fitness. From what I have gathered it can be used by those as young as six years of age making ann attempt to get to school via pedal power, or an eighty-six year old woman wanting to go get groceries down at her local market. One does not need years of experience to make Adaptive Cycling work for them, nor do they need to read several books written by many authors with varying viewpoints on politics and what have you. They only need to do what is legal and safe for them to get from point A to point B.
I welcome this thread and idea.
Sounds like the pro-facilities, anti-VC arguement from 30 years ago. As long as it got more butts on bikes, every facility was good.

Why not try teaching our kids how to ride bikes safely. It works on Oahu.
http://www.hbl.org/bikeEd_general.html

I would agree that education efforts aimed at all age levels and to all road users would be highly desireable.

Sounds like the pro-facilities, anti-VC arguement from 30 years ago. As long as it got more butts on bikes, every facility was good.

Why not try teaching our kids how to ride bikes safely. It works on Oahu.
http://www.hbl.org/bikeEd_general.html

This is not 30 years ago, is not anti-vc and we DO seek to teach EVERYONE how to ride safely, in the environment they choose, or are forced to ride within, without limiting them to ONLY 30+ year old theories that may or may not apply.

I look forward to seeing a thread discussing how kids learn to ride safely on Oahu.

So the basic rule is - no counter views to chipcom and cohort's are allowed.


CB HI I really don't think chipcom or anyone else posting in here is trying to use this thread to discredit or in any way disallow the value of "vehicular cycling". I'm seeing the term "adaptive cycling" as being inclusive of VC while allowing for the possibility of taking advantage of the highly adaptive nature of the bicycle itself in how we ride it.

The OP seems to be asking us to explore how we ride on existing bicycle specific facilities in an effort to define the ways in which we adapt to those facilities (both good and bad) and how that affects the way we ride.

Tonight, for example, I biked home from downtown Boston on a combination of city streets that eventually led to the MDC bike path (see photos below to see the current conditions on the path.) I will confine most of my comments to the techniques I employ while riding on the path and not the road.

Riding "vehicularly" on a path in this condition is basically a moot point. I saw two other cyclist on the approximately 9 miles of path I was on and perhaps as many as 2 or 3 dozen joggers and pedestrians in total. Negotiating oncoming pedestrians/joggers and riding on the ice and through ice water and slush cutting at times across huge sections of frozen snow that were better than pavement required a kind of improvisational mindset.

From 1970-90 I was exclusively a road bike rider who also used a bike for transportation purposes but always on the road. I accumulated thousands of miles on roads in that time but in 1990 I bought my first mountain bike. Convinced that my skills and strength on the road bike would immediately translate to the mountain bike I tackled some pretty gnarly New England single track right off the bat and was in for a huge shock- I sucked at mountain biking! I was so used to riding in as straight a line as possible, riding as smooth as possible and the idea of riding over rocks and through holes in the ground freaked me out. My learning curve was, and still is, a very steep climb to competence. This is all due to a kind of thinking that came from consistently riding on the road. I, like many who post in A & S, loathed bike paths and refused to ride on them because I couldn't ride on them the way I did on the road. I could not maintain the same speeds, I had to dodge everything from in-line skaters with ski poles to dog walkers with long leashes and Ipod wearing joggers who occasionally boxed with invisible opponents.

Somehow the mountain bike shifted some of that for me- and not to say I don't bail out of the bike path on some days as I ride into work and just let it rip on the road but I've turned MUP riding into a different kind of experience. I also still put the bulk of my mileage in on the road but it has opened my mind to the possibility that not everyone rides the way I do. If I am advocating for cycling I am advocating for people like my wife, who I guarantee would never ride to her job 8 miles away if 6.5 miles of the commute were not on the bike path. I'll never forget her shock one day when, as we made our way on back streets to a main road that leads to the bike path, she said, "How do you ride to the path when I'm not with you?". I shot out into the lane joined the slow moving line of traffic at about 20-25 mph and eventually moved into the left lane took a left turn and waited for her at the start of the path. When she finally got there via a short stretch of sidewalk riding and pressing the crosswalk signal she looked at me and said, "You're crazy!".

We then rode together at her modest bike path pace. Dingle, dingle dingling our bells as we passed the joggers and dog walkers. That's "Adaptive Cycling". :D

Sounds like the pro-facilities, anti-VC arguement from 30 years ago. As long as it got more butts on bikes, every facility was good.

Why not try teaching our kids how to ride bikes safely. It works on Oahu.
http://www.hbl.org/bikeEd_general.html

Oahu is not like the rest of America, or the world for that matter.
From my understanding of what is posed, the Oahu bikeED link you just supplied would fit right in to Adaptive Cycling.
You really do have to take into account that (AC) is meant for everyone from everywhere, the country, the city, the suburbs, etc. All these places are worlds apart when it comes to cycling. Someone accustomed to cycling solely on the streets of NYC would not fare well using those same techniques in the mountains of rural Tennessee. Likewise, someone from Denamrk would have a hard time managing the traffic of the suburban area of Detroit.
I see (AC) as using your common sense according to the situation. Believe it or not, but there are places that riding VC is quite possibly, illegal. And in other places it is just plain dangerous. Sure, cyclists fare better when they act like and are treated like operators of a vehicle, but let's face it, not EVERYONE is going to treat you, on a bike, as a vehicle operator, no matter what the law is.
I see (AS) as "Salad Bar Cycling". Pick and chose what suits you best and is legal for your circumstances, and leave the rest.

Thanks, Buzz, for lighting the bulb in my head concerning another environment where a vehicle-based methodology does not always make the most sense - riding through the boonies where most vehicles are prohibited, but not bicycles. :)

Thanks, Buzz, for lighting the bulb in my head concerning another environment where a vehicle-based methodology does not always make the most sense - riding through the boonies where most vehicles are prohibited, but not bicycles. :)


I commute and ride recreationally in the summer months through an 18,000 acre state forest on a combination of dirt roads, fire roads and single track where the only motor vehicles I occasionally interact with are ATV's but I have had to dodge a bear that was eating blackberries along the side of a fast piece of downhill single track, three moose on a fire road and a family of coyotes that I trailed along behind as we all climbed a steep section of double track ATV trail. :D

I commute and ride recreationally in the summer months through an 18,000 acre state forest on a combination of dirt roads, fire roads and single track where the only motor vehicles I occasionally interact with are ATV's but I have had to dodge a bear that was eating blackberries along the side of a fast piece of downhill single track, three moose on a fire road and a family of coyotes that I trailed along behind as we all climbed a steep section of double track ATV trail. :D

And we gotta remember, we want to include ALL cyclists...even those who go messing around where sometimes you are not on a road or trail at all, like my little forays through the half-million acre Carson National Forest and it's half-million acre neighbor Vermejo Park Ranch. ;)

And we gotta remember, we want to include ALL cyclists...even those who go messing around where sometimes you are not on a road or trail at all, like my little forays through the half-million acre Carson National Forest and it's half-million acre neighbor Vermejo Park Ranch. ;)

don't let sbhikes catch you! :o

Chip-If I understand your definition, that cycling approaches should be flexible and adaptive, andshouldn't be be cubby-holed into one style or definition, like VC, then I agree wholeheartedly.

My take on it is "when in Rome, do as the Romans". When I am on the road with cars, I ride VC primarily, say 95% of the time. I will take bike paths or wide shoulders but I realize there are joggers, walkers etc and I have to adapt my riding style.

At other times, I will ride on the sidewalk and at that point I become a pedestrian, riding at basically a walking pace.

I will even ride as an outlaw, going the wrong way down a one way street (as long as its empty) or ignoring traffic control devices as long as I do not interfere at all with someone elses right of way.

Point A .......... Point B

I will definitely choose the best ........ I can find to get me there.

+1 on there being a lot of threads that degenerate into bl/no bl disputes, If I wanted to read the same arguments over and over again, I could just pick one of 5-10 active threads at any time. Why not talk about something else...

As an example, just after a 15 cm snowfall last week - I discovered (gasp!) that it was most efficient to ride on the sidewalk through the side streets. Reason - in Calgary sidewalks are often cleared, and even if they aren't peds tamp down a nice (bumpy) single track to ride in. The side roads entail extensive fishtailing in traffic. Solution ride (at ped speed) on sidewalks rather than flounder in traffic. When I hit a road that was plowed, I went back to the road - because it was faster/safer/easier than the sidewalk.

BTW the MUP's in the central part of calgary are cleared regularly, unlike a majority of the streets. During heavy snow - you can cruise past all of the cars stuck waiting while you tootle along on a nice sheet of packed snow/ice. Definitely superior than wiping out in traffic.

In reality, I think Adaptive Cycling is what *most* people do anyways. Though I feel we should tout being responsible/legal, as San Rensho mentioned, sometimes it is easier, and quite possibly safer, to go the wrong way down a one way street. Which makes me wonder, if you are on the shoulder of a one way road, traveling AGAINST the flow of traffic, is that illegal. I can find nothing in my states law about it, anyone else?

In reality, I think Adaptive Cycling is what *most* people do anyways.

YES!!! :)

AC: How do I ride a widget?

I think the correct term is "wedgie". I believe in order to ride one of those, you need padded shorts.

You did say that humor was allowed, as feeble an attempt as that may be.

I think the correct term is "wedgie". I believe in order to ride one of those, you need padded shorts.

You did say that humor was allowed, as feeble an attempt as that may be.

I had to pick a wedgie 10 minutes ago... darned briefs, I miss my boxers.

Are we discussing bicycle riding, or trying to launch a space shuttle?

Are we discussing bicycle riding, or trying to launch a space shuttle?

this is BikeForums, we discuss bicycles.
If you are interested in discussing the launch of space vehicles (manned and unmanned) there is a really good one going on at http://www.idb.org/ in the section pertaining to "The Farmer Astronaut", it's a really good read, though you have to create an account to access it.

Are we discussing bicycle riding, or trying to launch a space shuttle?


bicycle invented ------>wright brothers (bike mechanics)-------->airplane------------>space shuttle ;)

good analogy

Without knowing it, I've long been a practitioner of AC, so I welcome a chance to discuss it. For example, my daily commute (long version) includes travel on arterials with and without BLs, residential streets, an alley, 2 parking lots, a sidewalk, an MUP and, on good days, a singletrack trail. (I posted a different example of an adaptive bike route on Bikely.com (http://www.bikely.com/maps/bike-path/Lansing-south-to-MSU-via-Scott-Woods), for anyone who's interested.) Of course, I only follow rules when I'm on public thoroughfares. No rules exist for the MUP or the singletrack, and I hope they never do. Riding off-road is more a matter of common sense, and too non-specific to reduce to rules or even guidelines. So I think AC will have to go beyond rules in some cases, and perhaps consist more of "helpful hints and tips."


Example 1: If the environment is a bike lane, a recommendation to use the travel lanes, rather than the bike lane, is only appropriate if it is also accompanied by specific recommendations that can be used within the bike lane.
I see a little problem here. Quite often in the real world, you have to leave the bike lane. Part of being adaptive is being able to leave it when that is the appropriate action. So I think you need to remove this example from your working definition of AC.

Another consideration is that a bike lane is a travel lane. Cyclists in a BL are subject to the vehicle codes of the state and municipality that they are riding in. Since your bike, while in a bike lane, is defined by law as a vehicle, you have no choice but to ride VC when you're using a BL. Therefore, you must know the vehicular rules if you're using a bike lane. Sorry--no choice here, if you want to be a law abiding citizen.

But overall, Chip, nice job. :)

bicycle invented ------>wright brothers (bike mechanics)-------->airplane------------>space shuttle ;)
2007: Adaptive Cycling paradigm adopted
2084: First human-powered space flight

It sounds like this is just a plea to not turn every commuting problem thread into a VC vs bike lane thread. Respect others' style when making recommendations. Is there more to it?

2007: Adaptive Cycling paradigm adopted
2084: First human-powered space flight

It sounds like this is just a plea to not turn every commuting problem thread into a VC vs bike lane thread. Respect others' style when making recommendations. Is there more to it?

An example of adaptive cycling:

My route is one of those that stereotypes Adaptive Cycling. From home to work is as follows:
Start in my drive way...
take one road to another to another until I leave my sub...
dart across westbound traffic on a parkway...
ride thru grass...
dart across eastbound traffic on a parkway...
ride thru grass down an incline...
ride MUP crossing many streets...
the MUP turns into a sidewalk, ride it...
cross intersection via crosswalk...
leave sidewalk and cross parkway using Muichigan turnabout...
ride shoulder of parkway...
cross parkway again...
take residential streets....
many turns....
residential streets meet parkway again...
take sidewalk....
cut thru parking lot....
hit another sidewalk....
cross highway in crosswalk...
once across highway, take crosswalk across parkway...
ride ON THE PARKWAY...
take a detour on an off-road...
turn onto some gravel crap that leads to hidden access road for railroad...
ride access road parellell to railroad...
hope off bike, walk across home made bridge across spillway, climb hill of dirt into parking lot...
ride parking lot into industrial area road....
turn into my works parking lot.
yippee, i'm at work

I think ONE OF THE FIRST CONCESSIONS all of the anti-facilties chestbeaters in this forum will have to concede and move past is this:

A bicyclist can ride vehicularily-adaptively- in a marked lane for bicycles. There is nothing preventing bicycling in an adaptive manner, riding like a vehicle (that's what a bicycle is in most states) while using a marked lane for bicycles. NOT blind to upcoming hazards, hookers or blind corners, but adaptively, defensively, while using a marked bicycle lane safely.

Sorry, but that's a very big sticking point that clogs up this forums advancement of both bicycling technique and the recognizance of the incredible variety of surfaces and road conditions a bicyclist is presented with.

I think ONE OF THE FIRST CONCESSIONS all of the anti-facilties chestbeaters in this forum will have to concede and move past is this:

A bicyclist can ride vehicularily-adaptively- in a marked lane for bicycles. There is nothing preventing bicycling in an adaptive manner, riding like a vehicle (that's what a bicycle is in most states) while using a marked lane for bicycles. NOT blind to upcoming hazards, hookers or blind corners, but adaptively, defensively, while using a marked bicycle lane safely.

Sorry, but that's a very big sticking point that clogs up this forums advancement of both bicycling technique and the recognizance of the incredible variety of surfaces and road conditions a bicyclist is presented with. I concede that you not only CAN ride vehicularly in a bike lane, you MUST ride vehicularly in a bike lane. I never read anything different here on this forum. This is a non-issue.

Whether you can ride safely in a bike lane is a matter of knowledge and skill, if the bike lane is competently designed. I thought chip's point was how do you ride safely in one that is not competently designed? What rules, tips and hints are there for bad BLs? Especially, it seems that chip wants us to come up with ways to use poorly designed bike lanes WITHOUT ever leaving the bike lane. In fact, he has insisted that we must not leave it. So, Bek, what ideas do you have for riding safely in poorly designed bike lanes? Personally, I'm stumped, but I bet you and others will have good ideas.

roody, i'm concerned that the skew on adaptive cycling will take the path that CB-HI is trying to take adaptive cycling.

adaptive cycling is adapting to the environment. there's a safe bike lane, use the lane. approaching an intersection, keep a heads up, and sometimes you'll leave the lane.

tonight, at an intersection with a dangerous hook potential, i didn't have to take the lane AT ALL, because there was absolutely NO TRAFFIC anywhere on the road anywhere near me. a usually tenuous intersection deftly handled from a bike -specific lane.

Adaptive cycling. using our wits to make sense of the cycling environment.

Adaptive cycling- using our wits to make sense of the cycling environment.

Take the example of choosing a cycling route around your community. Some A&S blowhards try to insist safety shouldn't be a consideration when choosing a route- sheer FOLLY!

Using tools available to cyclists to choose routes is an adaptive cycling technique. it can help riders discern routes without a lot of hills, with low traffic volumes, bicycle accomdations, etc.

An adaptive cyclist (and I surmise most of us that post here to A&S are 'adaptive' cyclists) will use their wits to choose a route, making their cycling experience less stressful and more enjoyable.

roody, i'm concerned that the skew on adaptive cycling will take the path that CB-HI is trying to take adaptive cycling.

adaptive cycling is adapting to the environment. there's a safe bike lane, use the lane. approaching an intersection, keep a heads up, and sometimes you'll leave the lane.

tonight, at an intersection with a dangerous hook potential, i didn't have to take the lane AT ALL, because there was absolutely NO TRAFFIC anywhere on the road anywhere near me. a usually tenuous intersection deftly handled from a bike -specific lane.

Adaptive cycling. using our wits to make sense of the cycling environment.

I totally agree. There are many times when I don't leave a bike lane, and a few times when I do. However, chip wants us to not mention leaving the bike lane unless we also present an alternative that does not involve leaving the bike lane. So I think we have to respect his wishes unless he changes this request, as I hope he will.



Example 1: If the environment is a bike lane, a recommendation to use the travel lanes, rather than the bike lane, is only appropriate if it is also accompanied by specific recommendations that can be used within the bike lane.

Nobody is preventing you from working to get rid of unsafe facilities and there are plenty of other threads where you can engage in those debates. The premise here is that such facilities DO EXIST and wishing they would go away does not solve the problems of the cyclists who either must use them or choose to use them

roody, i think i just mentioned my commute home meeting those parameters.

a normally tenous bike laned intersection where I tend to leave the lane when traffic is present, i did not have to leave the lane at all because there was absolutely NO traffic. no traffic- intersection- good visibility- no need to automatically leave a bike lane.

capiche??

I totally agree. There are many times when I don't leave a bike lane, and a few times when I do. However, chip wants us to not mention leaving the bike lane unless we also present an alternative that does not involve leaving the bike lane. So I think we have to respect his wishes unless he changes this request, as I hope he will.

I can't help but wonder if chips thoughts got ahead of his keystrokes while typing out this mission statement. It is possible that he meant to type something else here, isn't it?

Example 1: If the environment is a bike lane, a recommendation to use the travel lanes, rather than the bike lane, is only appropriate if it is also accompanied by specific recommendations that can be used within the bike lane.There are many times when I don't leave a bike lane, and a few times when I do. However, chip wants us to not mention leaving the bike lane unless we also present an alternative that does not involve leaving the bike lane. So I think we have to respect his wishes unless he changes this request, as I hope he will.Is "slow down" specific enough? Most dangerous situations become less hairy at walking speeds. Just wait for the clot to clear itself out of the flow, or ride slowly enough that you can handle the problem without riding around it. If you want to maintain your momentum, you'll have to choose a different line on the road.

Doesn't matter what it's labeled, choosing the best route from Point A to Point B is and riding that route in a safe manner is vehicular cycling. Doesn't matter if the route consists of highway, street, bike lane, MUP, dirt trail through a vacant lot, goat trail over a mountain pass, dry lake bed or any combination of the above.

The labeling is nothing more than the proverbial tempest in the proverbial teapot.

Bicycle specific facilities that are dangerous by design should not be used, utilizing adjacent roads instead, and writting many letters to the editor of the local paper calling for a competent city planner and redesign of the facility.

In reality, I think Adaptive Cycling is what *most* people do anyways. Though I feel we should tout being responsible/legal, as San Rensho mentioned, sometimes it is easier, and quite possibly safer, to go the wrong way down a one way street. Which makes me wonder, if you are on the shoulder of a one way road, traveling AGAINST the flow of traffic, is that illegal. I can find nothing in my states law about it, anyone else?


In Ontario, at least, it would be illegal since the shoulder is considered a part of the road way (even if it is not, technically speaking, a part you are allowed to drive on - it is for slower moving vehicles and bikes here are required to move with the traffic, not against it.)

Did not read the whole thread but whole heartedly support the idea of being adaptive in our approach to cycling.

Consider the "mountain bike" ride we used to do. It was a 36km "city loop".

We started at my friend's house, and left taking the road. While there, we rode as vehicles (on the right, with traffic, and obeyed the laws.) Soon, we come to a MUP. If it was empty, we tore it up as fast as possible (good sight lines) and if not, went slowly dinging the bell and saying hi! This lead to a slice of adequate single track which again was done as fast as possible with lots of "bike lean" etc to maintain pace (obviously paying attention for other bike traffic which in 10 years of this, we never once saw). From there, we popped out into a parking lot and switched back to vehicle mode (lest we get squished) and then back into the single track again. From there, a ped crosswalk at a traffic light, and into a university campus..... etc etc etc.

A dogmatic approach to a ride like that - and sometimes commuting here can be like that ride if you want! - would result in a person foaming at the mouth and chewing their own ankles off . . .


Cheers and go riding !

Are we supposed to post here about AC now, or can we still post in Chipcom's first thread about it?

Bicycle specific facilities that are dangerous by design should not be used, utilizing adjacent roads instead, and writting many letters to the editor of the local paper calling for a competent city planner and redesign of the facility.
:beer:

(Although I believe some here would choose, instead of a parallel alternate route, to ride in a travel lane adjacent to and outside the bike lane...)

Adaptive cycling mythbusters:

riders can use paths for transportation purposes. paths are not strictly the domain of recreation.

Adaptive cycling allows safe use of on road bike facilities as preferred lanes for bicyclists.

I totally agree. There are many times when I don't leave a bike lane, and a few times when I do. However, chip wants us to not mention leaving the bike lane unless we also present an alternative that does not involve leaving the bike lane. So I think we have to respect his wishes unless he changes this request, as I hope he will.

I think what Chip meant was to try to thwart the tendency for some to present as the ONLY right answer that one must leave, ignore or otherwise disparage the bike lane. It is possible to endure some tricky bike lane situations without resorting to a blanket ban on their use.



My route is one of those that stereotypes Adaptive Cycling. From home to work is as follows:
Start in my drive way...
take one road to another to another until I leave my sub...
dart across westbound traffic on a parkway...
ride thru grass...
dart across eastbound traffic on a parkway...
ride thru grass down an incline...
ride MUP crossing many streets...
the MUP turns into a sidewalk, ride it...
<snip...>
yippee, i'm at work
Whew! It sounds like you ride a perfectly straight line, come what may, all the way to work! Sounds like fun, but I'm an old lady so too much fun for someone like me. :)

I think what Chip meant was to try to thwart the tendency for some to present as the ONLY right answer that one must leave, ignore or otherwise disparage the bike lane. It is possible to endure some tricky bike lane situations without resorting to a blanket ban on their use.


Whew! It sounds like you ride a perfectly straight line, come what may, all the way to work! Sounds like fun, but I'm an old lady so too much fun for someone like me. :)

Well, it *would* be a perfectly straight line, and I mean STRAIGHT, if it weren't for the idiocy of the city engineers who designed the actual travel lanes. This area is laid out in a perfect grid based on the township system, so every road runs N-S or E-W as a hash.

There is good reason to use bike paths when they are available and go where you want. I happen to have one near my home which goes to our local Fred Meyer Department Store. Both yesterday and today, even though I'm feeling "under the weather" with a cold, I was able to take my bike there and back. I have two residential roads to cross, and there is good visibility at each intersection. I either look and see no one is there, or if there is, I stop and wait. One part of the trail necessitates that I get on the sidewalk, and coming back from the store today, I stopped for a car at an intersection. The gentleman driving stopped, and motioned me out, which I did with no problems (no other traffic here).

To take the road would involve a lot longer ride, because of the square corners, and riding in traffic. One route would allow the use of bike lanes on the near side, while the other route would require crossing a main, four-lane road to get to the bike lanes, riding up two blocks, then riding out into the roadway to make a left turn onto another road (the one which intersects the bike path), and then going into the Fred Meyer parking lot.

The bike lane was easier, more convenient, and had almost no traffic. I did have three people walking their dogs, but slowing for them, speaking up to say that I was passing, then going ahead made this no problem either. Besides, it has some really nice rain puddles to ride through, which I still enjoy at age 61;) , and I got 4 miles of bicycling in just to go to the store twice.

John

I was a sour sport on the other AC thread and remain one here. I ride vehiculary on road, in bike lane, on path and occasionally on sidewalk (the times when I am not vehicular on sidewalk, I am pedestrian). Part of riding vehicularly is about adapting to the ever changing environment.

I really don't see what is new here other than pretending to be one cozy family since discussion about what makes or doesn't make certain good facilities is off limits. Of course we all encounter good and bad facilities (whether on road or off or their intersection) and adapt to the situation at hand.

Al

Al, you ride and adapt style to the given environment, no debate needed. its supportive, not filled with derision.

I remember Diane's thread from a month or so back, about how pleasant her new commute is. it became the same old, same old, multi page diatribe from one of the 'fear of inadverdant drift' VC'ers about how her commute was going to lead to bikes getting kicked off the road or something.

Pathetic, and counter to the advocacy message that path networks are quite pleasant, work for commuters, and expedite riding in cities like denver, minneapolis, seattle, santa barbara, to name a few.

i bet many cities and communities have path networks utilized by commuters, transportationalists and recreationalists.

My 40 mile ride yesterday to buy some camera memory, I used a bike path for transportation. I also rode on the road in non accomodated roads, in high quality bike lanes (didn't have to leave the lane once on that 6 mile stretch!), I even rode in the door zone on an unaccomodated street.

So, yes, perhaps Adaptive Cycling IS more supportive of our one big happy family here on A&S.

A specific mythbusting point about Adaptive Cycling- bike path networks can be used by transportational cyclists.

Unlike how steve G. and mr head like to wrongly and dismissively ascribe bike paths and MUPs, path networks are NOT the exclusive domain of recreation.

Some of us, most of us, realistic cyclists use and practice adaptive cycling techniques. (even Mr. Head uses paths to expedite his riding!)