Vehicular Cycling (VC) - The Four Types of Cyclists

This is a description used by the City of Portland to categorize cyclists. It is discussed in a BikePorland.org thread here (http://bikeportland.org/2006/12/07/what-type-of-cyclist-are-you/)


The Strong and Fearless
The “Strong and the Fearless” comprise perhaps 2,000 or fewer cyclists in Portland, representing well less than 0.5% of the population. These are the people who will ride in Portland regardless of roadway conditions. They are ‘bicyclists” riding is a strong part of their identity and they are generally undeterred by roadway conditions—though likely few are courageous enough to venture too far up West Burnside into the West Hills.

The Enthused and the Confident
The “Enthused and the Confident” are those who have been attracted to cycling in Portland by the significant advances the city has made developing its bikeway network and supporting infrastructure over the past 16 years. They are comfortable sharing the roadway with automotive traffic, but they prefer to do so operating on their own facilities.

There are perhaps now more than 15,000 of this group riding their bicycles regularly in the city, comprising perhaps 25,000 Portland citizens, or 5% of the population.

The Interested But Concerned
A much larger demographic, representing the vast majority of Portland’s citizens, are the “interested but concerned.” These residents are curious about bicycling. They are hearing messages from a wide variety of sources about how easy it is to ride a bicycle in Portland, about how bicycling is booming in the city, about “bicycle culture” in Portland, about Portland being a “bicycle-friendly” city, and about the need for people to lead more active lives. They would like to ride more. But, they are afraid to ride.

There are probably 300,000 in this group (with perhaps 2,000 who ride regularly), representing 60% of the city’s population. They would ride if they felt safer on the roadways—if cars were slower and less frequent, and if there were more quiet streets with few cars and paths without any cars at all.

No Way, No How
Perhaps one-third of the city’s population falls into the last category of ‘cyclist.’ This is the “no way, no how” group who is currently not interested in bicycling at all, for reasons of topography, inability, or simply a complete and utter lack of interest.

By my estimation, the true die-hard Vehicular Cyclists represent the 0.5% of cyclists comprising 'the strong and the fearless'; the remainder of the cyclists and potential cyclists fall into the next two categories. Just another way of saying that the VC crowd are a small, elitist minority and that, if you want to truly get more people riding bikes, you need to provide more than a motor vehicle-filled streetscape for them to work with.

This is a description used by the City of Portland to categorize cyclists. It is discussed in a BikePorland.org thread here (http://bikeportland.org/2006/12/07/what-type-of-cyclist-are-you/)



By my estimation, the true die-hard Vehicular Cyclists represent the 0.5% of cyclists comprising 'the strong and the fearless'; the remainder of the cyclists and potential cyclists fall into the next two categories. Just another way of saying that the VC crowd are a small, elitist minority and that, if you want to truly get more people riding bikes, you need to provide more than a motor vehicle-filled streetscape for them to work with.
The "die-hard Vehicular Cyclists" who post on this list may think their words make them strong and fearless but electrons and paper are cheap. Where do the poor, especially day workers and immigrants, and youth fit into this evaluation? Also I doubt that the so-called "die-hard Vehicular Cyclists" represent very many of the cyclists who are strong and fearless and actually ride every day, no matter what the weather for transportational purposes.

I certainly have no idea whether the VC crowd that posts here actually are strong and fearless cyclists or just a bunch of hot air, although according to the law of averages, probably a bit of each.

The real strong and fearless riders are probably real bike messengers who are actually out riding their bikes all day long for a living, and not a bunch of weekend Club Fred wannabes.

A good number of the folks I see cycling round here are not at all vehicular and demonstrate great quantities of fearlessness and/or should be more fearful considering what they are doing.

What about the Enthused and Confident who are attracted to cycling for other reasons besides facilities? I think I fit that category where I live.

Al

I'm willing to bet that the VC jihadists aren't as strong and fearless as they say they are.

Myself, I'm enthused and confident.

So where did the city get the percentages?

There were some surveys done, I think the BikePortland.org story has the description somewhere either in the article or in the comments.

My group the STFU And Ride Your Damned Bike crowd is not in there.

Bruce Mol of CanBike has an interesting approach to categorize cyclists.

His basic premise is of two axes -- level of skills & knowledge (SK), and level of social responsibility (SR). I think these are best considered as tendencies, not hard categories.

High SK/Low SR = "Volatile" cyclist. Fast,physically skilled (but probably doesn't have a real good handle on vehicular cycling principles), low trust of motorists, little regard for the law, somewhat predictable, but doesn't play well with others in traffic.

Low SK/Low SR = "Vagabond" cyclist. Rides on sidewalks, no lights, no regard for the law, zero
trust of motorists, totally unpredictable.

Low SK/High SR = "Vigilant" cyclist. Wants to do the right thing but is very fearful in traffic, low trust of motorists, often rides on sidewalks. Eager to learn.

High SK/High SR = "Veloquent" cyclist. Has the skills and knowledge to move smoothly and comfortably in traffic, trusts motorists to behave properly most of the time, but knows how to deal with it when they don't.

The "vigilant" cyclists are the best candidates for bike-ed programs.

Originally Posted by City of Portland
The Strong and Fearless
The “Strong and the Fearless” comprise perhaps 2,000 or fewer cyclists in Portland, representing well less than 0.5% of the population. These are the people who will ride in Portland regardless of roadway conditions. They are ‘bicyclists” riding is a strong part of their identity and they are generally undeterred by roadway conditions—though likely few are courageous enough to venture too far up West Burnside into the West Hills.

The Enthused and the Confident
The “Enthused and the Confident” are those who have been attracted to cycling in Portland by the significant advances the city has made developing its bikeway network and supporting infrastructure over the past 16 years. They are comfortable sharing the roadway with automotive traffic, but they prefer to do so operating on their own facilities.

There are perhaps now more than 15,000 of this group riding their bicycles regularly in the city, comprising perhaps 25,000 Portland citizens, or 5% of the population.

The Interested But Concerned
A much larger demographic, representing the vast majority of Portland’s citizens, are the “interested but concerned.” These residents are curious about bicycling. They are hearing messages from a wide variety of sources about how easy it is to ride a bicycle in Portland, about how bicycling is booming in the city, about “bicycle culture” in Portland, about Portland being a “bicycle-friendly” city, and about the need for people to lead more active lives. They would like to ride more. But, they are afraid to ride.

There are probably 300,000 in this group (with perhaps 2,000 who ride regularly), representing 60% of the city’s population. They would ride if they felt safer on the roadways—if cars were slower and less frequent, and if there were more quiet streets with few cars and paths without any cars at all.

No Way, No How
Perhaps one-third of the city’s population falls into the last category of ‘cyclist.’ This is the “no way, no how” group who is currently not interested in bicycling at all, for reasons of topography, inability, or simply a complete and utter lack of interest.

===================

This is exactly the picture that one would expect when describing a society in which cyclists are considered inferior to cars, trespassers on the roadways, incapable of cycling safely. That society is exactly what is wrong. "They are afraid to ride ... would ride if they felt safer on the roadways ..." And what does Portland do to make cycling safer? It builds bikeways that make people feel safer without in any way actually making cycling safer, which requires better cycling behavior, vehicular cycling. Since Portland has been brought up again, we ought to go back to the blue-painted bike lanes, which are painted blue precisely because the bike lane directs cyclists across the paths of motorists. If Portland were to make a real effort to correct the situation, it would emphasize a program of getting better cyclist behavior and of making such improvements as make vehicular cycling easier and safer.

This is a description used by the City of Portland to categorize cyclists. It is discussed in a BikePorland.org thread here (http://bikeportland.org/2006/12/07/what-type-of-cyclist-are-you/)



By my estimation, the true die-hard Vehicular Cyclists represent the 0.5% of cyclists comprising 'the strong and the fearless'; the remainder of the cyclists and potential cyclists fall into the next two categories. Just another way of saying that the VC crowd are a small, elitist minority and that, if you want to truly get more people riding bikes, you need to provide more than a motor vehicle-filled streetscape for them to work with.

How do bike lanes do away with a "motor vehicle-filled streetscape?" How exactly does wanting to ride according to the basic rules of the road for your own safety make one an "elitist?"

...we ought to go back to the blue-painted bike lanes, which are painted blue precisely because the bike lane directs cyclists across the paths of motorists. If Portland were to make a real effort to correct the situation, it would emphasize a program of getting better cyclist behavior and of making such improvements as make vehicular cycling easier and safer.
John's worst nightmare: Bikeways....so unsafe....must be painted blue....:eek:

:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

This is exactly the picture that one would expect when describing a society in which cyclists are considered inferior to cars, trespassers on the roadways, incapable of cycling safely. That society is exactly what is wrong. "They are afraid to ride ... would ride if they felt safer on the roadways ..." And what does Portland do to make cycling safer? It builds bikeways that make people feel safer without in any way actually making cycling safer, which requires better cycling behavior, vehicular cycling. Since Portland has been brought up again, we ought to go back to the blue-painted bike lanes, which are painted blue precisely because the bike lane directs cyclists across the paths of motorists. If Portland were to make a real effort to correct the situation, it would emphasize a program of getting better cyclist behavior and of making such improvements as make vehicular cycling easier and safer.

I agree in one aspect...if they were serious they would make the roads safer for all vehicles rather than just adding infrastructure for cyclists. The societal problem is twofold - the perception that cars are the only legitimate users of the road (versus any perception specifically that bicycles are inferior), and a general perception that the roads are just plain dangerous for everyone. You'll never convince the general public or mainstream cyclists that the roads are safe for them when they don't even feel the roads are safe for them in their cars. Changing cyclist behavior is a fool's game because it is limited to a small percentage of cyclists and and even smaller percentage of the general population - you wanna make a change you gotta attack the root issue - the attitude and perceptions of the general and motoring population. As long as you and others concentrate on the cyclist...indeed blaming the cyclist while excusing the bad behavior of the general motoring population, you're pissing in the wind.

I agree in one aspect...if they were serious they would make the roads safer for all vehicles rather than just adding infrastructure for cyclists. The societal problem is twofold - the perception that cars are the only legitimate users of the road (versus any perception specifically that bicycles are inferior), and a general perception that the roads are just plain dangerous for everyone. You'll never convince the general public or mainstream cyclists that the roads are safe for them when they don't even feel the roads are safe for them in their cars. Changing cyclist behavior is a fool's game because it is limited to a small percentage of cyclists and and even smaller percentage of the general population - you wanna make a change you gotta attack the root issue - the attitude and perceptions of the general and motoring population. As long as you and others concentrate on the cyclist...indeed blaming the cyclist while excusing the bad behavior of the general motoring population, you're pissing in the wind.

:beer: :beer: :beer:

I don't want to speak against Portland or any other city (except maybe my own, but only when it deserves it.)

All I can say is that I've ridden for over 10 years in Atlanta, Bicycling Magazine's Frankenstein monster for it's "unfriendliness" to cyclists. I have plenty of choices for riding. Among them:

1) A sidewalk-style bike path that snakes it's way from near my home to downtown Atlanta, which would take almost 2 hours to ride

2) The direct route I took when I drove my car, which by car takes 40 minutes, by bicycle, 60 minutes, which has about a mile of bike lane in the entire 15 miles

3) Other similarly direct routes which don't use bike lanes or paths

Of these, I absolutely love and enjoy the standard routes. They are lovely, simple, free, and totally enjoyable, not to mention I don't have to leave for work at 5 am. On one route, I get to see the regular morning parking lot fiasco on the freeway as I breeze over it on a quiet, residential street.

I started my cycling on the bike path route. Even before I had any experience, this route was frustrating, slow, pedestrians waiting at bus stops refused to let me pass, I had to stop at blind driveways covered by shrubbery and at every silly driveway stop sign, and I got home so late my family wondered if I still lived there.

But that's not Portland, that's Atlanta. I love riding here, it's the only place I know.

John's worst nightmare: Bikeways....so unsafe....must be painted blue....:eek:

:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

Humorous, is it, to direct cyclists directly across a stream of motor traffic? Those are the places that I criticize most strongly. The fact that you cannot understand the danger is just another example of the mental problem that I have been describing.

This is exactly the picture that one would expect when describing a society in which cyclists are considered inferior to cars, trespassers on the roadways, incapable of cycling safely. That society is exactly what is wrong. "They are afraid to ride ... would ride if they felt safer on the roadways ..." And what does Portland do to make cycling safer? It builds bikeways that make people feel safer without in any way actually making cycling safer, which requires better cycling behavior, vehicular cycling. Since Portland has been brought up again, we ought to go back to the blue-painted bike lanes, which are painted blue precisely because the bike lane directs cyclists across the paths of motorists. If Portland were to make a real effort to correct the situation, it would emphasize a program of getting better cyclist behavior and of making such improvements as make vehicular cycling easier and safer.

You're taking the opinion of the vast minority (motorists who think we're trespassers on the roadways) and applying it to everyone.

John, have you ridden your bike in Portland?

The blue lanes provide a nice contrast to the streams of bright red cyclist blood coursing through them.

The blue lanes provide a nice contrast to the streams of bright red cyclist blood coursing through them.

Funny man. :rolleyes:

See how quick you are in bringing fearmongering into the discussion? Didn't we talk about this earlier?

I agree in one aspect...if they were serious they would make the roads safer for all vehicles rather than just adding infrastructure for cyclists. The societal problem is twofold - the perception that cars are the only legitimate users of the road (versus any perception specifically that bicycles are inferior), and a general perception that the roads are just plain dangerous for everyone. You'll never convince the general public or mainstream cyclists that the roads are safe for them when they don't even feel the roads are safe for them in their cars. Changing cyclist behavior is a fool's game because it is limited to a small percentage of cyclists and and even smaller percentage of the general population - you wanna make a change you gotta attack the root issue - the attitude and perceptions of the general and motoring population. As long as you and others concentrate on the cyclist...indeed blaming the cyclist while excusing the bad behavior of the general motoring population, you're pissing in the wind.

If the American population was as frightened of motoring as it is of cycling, there would be similar statistics, and we would not have the congestion problems that we have. What we would have is unanswerable, (as is any "what if" question), but unanswerable because our cities would never have developed as they have. If typical motorists were as incompetent as typical cyclists, the situation would also be very different; many fewer motorists, of course.

My aim is to do as much as I can to protect the status and safety and convenience of those persons who choose to cycle. That doesn't really require changing the minds of all the motorists, but it does require acceptance by those who lead that vehicular cycling is the proper way to cycle on the roadways. I say that that is a far more admirable goal than is enticing people onto bicycles with the false promise that bikeways will make them safe.

^^^
You've had 30 years. How're you doing on that front?

Humorous, is it, to direct cyclists directly across a stream of motor traffic? Those are the places that I criticize most strongly. The fact that you cannot understand the danger is just another example of the mental problem that I have been describing.
John, I fully understand the danger of directing cyclists across motor vehicle traffic. The fact is that the blue bike lanes make the best of a poorly designed roadway for cyclists (freeway-style off ramp on a local street), and there is frequently a steady stream of cyclists crossing very light motor vehicle traffic at this location (eastside eastbound Hawthorne bridge viaduct) during peak hours. The truth is that the blue bike lanes are as safe as they can be given the poor underlying design of the roadway for cyclists, and there is no crash data to suggest that this road, or any other location with the blue bike lanes, is in any way less safe than the same road without any cyclist-specific infrastructure.

I once again repeat my challenge: Can you name one location in the US where on a daily basis thousands of cyclists safely use any bridge approach or bridge viaduct without the provision of any cycling-specific infrastructure?

You're taking the opinion of the vast minority (motorists who think we're trespassers on the roadways) and applying it to everyone.

John, have you ridden your bike in Portland?

Of course, I've cycled in Portland; I've said so before this.

It doesn't matter just what is the proportion of motorists who think bicycles are incompetent trespassers on their roads. The point is that our society and our governments base their program about bicycle transportation on precisely that view. Oh, they say otherwise, and naive people believe that, but just look at what the bikeway program does; its only real function, that which it was designed to do, is to shove cyclists aside.

The blue lanes provide a nice contrast to the streams of bright red cyclist blood coursing through them.
You and John both know less than nothing about the safety of, or crash rates associated with, the blue bike lanes.

If the American population was as frightened of motoring as it is of cycling, there would be similar statistics, and we would not have the congestion problems that we have. What we would have is unanswerable, (as is any "what if" question), but unanswerable because our cities would never have developed as they have. If typical motorists were as incompetent as typical cyclists, the situation would also be very different; many fewer motorists, of course.

My aim is to do as much as I can to protect the status and safety and convenience of those persons who choose to cycle. That doesn't really require changing the minds of all the motorists, but it does require acceptance by those who lead that vehicular cycling is the proper way to cycle on the roadways. I say that that is a far more admirable goal than is enticing people onto bicycles with the false promise that bikeways will make them safe.
Motorists are as incompetent as *****, the only thing that prevents them from killing more than 40K of their fellow motorists each year are the steel cages they enclose themselves in. Because motoring is so commonplace, the risks associated with motoring are viewed as acceptable by most people, despite the relatively high degree of hazard associated with motoring. Can you tell me what the leading cause of death among young adults is, John?

The motorists are the ones that need to be educated, John, not the cyclists.

The "die-hard Vehicular Cyclists" who post on this list may think their words make them strong and fearless but electrons and paper are cheap. Where do the poor, especially day workers and immigrants, and youth fit into this evaluation? Also I doubt that the so-called "die-hard Vehicular Cyclists" represent very many of the cyclists who are strong and fearless and actually ride every day, no matter what the weather for transportational purposes.
You raise an interesting question. The immigrant cyclists I see in Atlanta who are also day workers would gladly trade their bicycles for the American dream of owning their own automobile. Then, just like most college students, they put the bike on the curb for pick-up and jump for joy that they can finally drive a car.

These same temporary cyclists ride on sidewalks, against traffic, or wherever they can (wearing hard hats and full gear,) because that's they way they did it in their homeland. Is that wrong? No. It's just the way it is.

"Strong and fearless" is another stereotyped way to look at cyclists who are perceived by others that way, because they choose to ride where there are no bicycle facilities or sidewalks to help them. If it's not "strong and fearless," it's "crazy or stupid."

What about me, the crazy, stupid one? Perhaps you would rather advocate for those who will never continue cycling? You can advocate for the poor, but they don't want your advocacy, dude. They want a car, man.

Then, after they are through with the sidwalk paths, they can forget about it and watch those facilities grow weeds and root cracks.

IMO, based on the fear of bike lanes, MUPs, painted lines, parked cars, sidewalks, laws and other such phobias exhibited by some of the self-proclaimed 'vehicular cyclists' in BF, I don't think they fit the strong and fearless paradigm. :p

IMO, based on the fear of bike lanes, MUPs, painted lines, parked cars, sidewalks, laws and other such phobias exhibited by some of the self-proclaimed 'vehicular cyclists' in BF, I don't think they fit the strong and fearless paradigm. :p
True. If I love a challenge, I'll hit the sidewalk path.

Strong? You bet. Stop-and-go will pump you up and make you sweat, dude.

Fearless? I'll blow across a bike path stop sign in a heatbeat. It's not a real stop, anyway.

But those "crazy and stupid" cyclists on the road are just asking for trouble.

where do the bicycling drug dealers (w/cell phones) or lesser yet, the un-informed, ignorant "ride agaist traffic" bicyclists fit into this equasion? (sorry if i missd the answer in your o/p)!
t

You want strong and fearless? I go on multi-day hikes without rain gear in bear and mountain lion country (I have pictures of scat and tracks of both animals). I eat 1500-2000 calories a day, hardly enough to stay alive when I walk all day long. I leave my cell phone at home (no reception anyway). I go where I can be more than one day away from a road. Nobody can save me. I've even done this alone. And I'm a woman.

Riding a bike in traffic is neither crazy and stupid nor strong and fearless. It's just another way to get around in a city where you're no more than 5 minutes from emergency rescue. A lot of people say stuff like "wow, you're so brave" or "wow, you're so strong" or whatever. It's meaningless. Why NOT ride your bike to work? The weather is so nice, the experience feels good, it's no hardship at all.

IMO, based on the fear of bike lanes, MUPs, painted lines, parked cars, sidewalks, laws and other such phobias exhibited by some of the self-proclaimed 'vehicular cyclists' in BF, I don't think they fit the strong and fearless paradigm. :p

:roflmao: sounds like mr head!

You want strong and fearless? I go on multi-day hikes without rain gear in bear and mountain lion country (I have pictures of scat and tracks of both animals). I eat 1500-2000 calories a day, hardly enough to stay alive when I walk all day long. I leave my cell phone at home (no reception anyway). I go where I can be more than one day away from a road. Nobody can save me. I've even done this alone. And I'm a woman.

Riding a bike in traffic is neither crazy and stupid nor strong and fearless. It's just another way to get around in a city where you're no more than 5 minutes from emergency rescue. A lot of people say stuff like "wow, you're so brave" or "wow, you're so strong" or whatever. It's meaningless. Why NOT ride your bike to work? The weather is so nice, the experience feels good, it's no hardship at all.
Nice...

Riding a bike in traffic is neither crazy and stupid nor strong and fearless. It's just another way to get around in a city where you're no more than 5 minutes from emergency rescue. A lot of people say stuff like "wow, you're so brave" or "wow, you're so strong" or whatever. It's meaningless. Why NOT ride your bike to work? The weather is so nice, the experience feels good, it's no hardship at all.

I'm confused how you can make statements like this yet comment on how crazy/stupid (sorry, I forget your actual words so I'm paraphasing, feel free to correct me :)) it is to ride in traffic lanes with 40+mph traffic. I'm referring to your story a shot while ago about being close passed by a bus in a narrow traffic lane. Is cycling only not crazy and stupid when you are riding in a bike lane?

Is cycling only not crazy and stupid when you are riding in a bike lane?
Look! Another poll!!!

:rolleyes:

Look! Another poll!!!

:rolleyes:

Are my questions that ridiculous to you? Please spare me the "another poll" response.

You want strong and fearless? I go on multi-day hikes without rain gear in bear and mountain lion country (I have pictures of scat and tracks of both animals). I eat 1500-2000 calories a day, hardly enough to stay alive when I walk all day long. I leave my cell phone at home (no reception anyway). I go where I can be more than one day away from a road. Nobody can save me. I've even done this alone. And I'm a woman.

Riding a bike in traffic is neither crazy and stupid nor strong and fearless. It's just another way to get around in a city where you're no more than 5 minutes from emergency rescue. A lot of people say stuff like "wow, you're so brave" or "wow, you're so strong" or whatever. It's meaningless. Why NOT ride your bike to work? The weather is so nice, the experience feels good, it's no hardship at all.

Exactly, it doesn't take courage, stupidity, fearlessness, or anything like that to ride a bike in the city. That's exactly what I have been writing for thirty years. All it takes, in a substantive sense, is a bicycle and the skill of operating in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

IMO, based on the fear of bike lanes, MUPs, painted lines, parked cars, sidewalks, laws and other such phobias exhibited by some of the self-proclaimed 'vehicular cyclists' in BF, I don't think they fit the strong and fearless paradigm. :p

A very sorry attempt at humor, this. However, it is quite correct, though, I suspect, unintentionally. It doesn't take courage or strength to obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

The “Strong and the Fearless” comprise perhaps 2,000 or fewer cyclists in Portland, representing well less than 0.5% of the population. These are the people who will ride in Portland regardless of roadway conditions. They are ‘bicyclists” riding is a strong part of their identity and they are generally undeterred by roadway conditions—though likely few are courageous enough to venture too far up West Burnside into the West Hills.

Can someone explain that last phrase, for those of us who are not locals to Portland?

West Burnside into the West Hills = big hill in steep canyon, four narrow winding lanes, no shoulder, poor road surface, dense suburban commuter traffic.

Just the kind of road JF wants you to ride vehicularly on. Downhill I'm fine, uphill it's a stretch...I'd opt to take my bike on the light rail instead.

Can someone explain that last phrase, for those of us who are not locals to Portland?
Not that anyone really calls them the Tualatin Mountains... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tualatin_Mountains)

Riding a bike in traffic is neither crazy and stupid nor strong and fearless. It's just another way to get around in a city where you're no more than 5 minutes from emergency rescue. A lot of people say stuff like "wow, you're so brave" or "wow, you're so strong" or whatever. It's meaningless. Why NOT ride your bike to work? The weather is so nice, the experience feels good, it's no hardship at all.

Exactly. Some roads are more pleasant than others, but the percentage that are unpleasant is low enough that no amount of bikeway engineering is going to make substantial increase in my cycling, unless such projects reduce my trip time and make cycling some places more convenient. How about some extra greenway bridges over the railroad and freeway?

My biggest fear is getting home late and stinky when my wife wants me home early and clean.

And when I ride home from a century ride (riding home from the ride finish), I'm likely the slowest, weakest cyclist on the road.

-Steve Goodridge

How about some extra greenway bridges over the railroad and freeway?
Three Bridges Project (http://www.portlandonline.com/parks/index.cfm?c=eddae) on the Springwater Trail, a Rails-to-Trials conversion in Portland.

Grand Opening (http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=154261) coming up!

missing the Dumb Arse section.

Also missing the car free section

You want strong and fearless? I go on multi-day hikes without rain gear in bear and mountain lion country (I have pictures of scat and tracks of both animals). I eat 1500-2000 calories a day, hardly enough to stay alive when I walk all day long. I leave my cell phone at home (no reception anyway). I go where I can be more than one day away from a road. Nobody can save me. I've even done this alone. And I'm a woman.
That doesn't sound strong and fearless, more like careless and ignorant of risks - the fearlessness comes from not appreciating what could go wrong. What if you broke you leg?
Read this story. An incredibly well prepared and experienced desert hiker had to be rescused, even though he was very well prepared.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0420hiker0419-ON.html

(nothing personal, I too go on multiday hikes with insufficient safety precautions/equipment/prep ;) )

Al

some have a "two types of cyclists" POV:

some wierd view of the traffic cyclist, even though the BF spokesperson rides in traffic very little;

and everybody else!

You want strong and fearless? I go on multi-day hikes without rain gear in bear and mountain lion country (I have pictures of scat and tracks of both animals). I eat 1500-2000 calories a day, hardly enough to stay alive when I walk all day long. I leave my cell phone at home (no reception anyway). I go where I can be more than one day away from a road. Nobody can save me. I've even done this alone. And I'm a woman.
...
Diane, another good example of a phobia to most people. Just like cyclist who have learned to ride safely with VC riding, do not suffer from the phobia, backpackers who have learned how to avoid being prey, provide routes and return times to rangers and loved one, have learned their first aid, know how rescue teams operate, know how to make their own shelter, etc. - backing is very safe. These backpackers do not suffer from this phobia.

Note how we even get a news article to prove just how unsafe it is, similar to the recent post of a hit from behind article to prove how dangerous VC cycling is.

Note how we even get a news article to prove just how unsafe it is, similar to the recent post of a hit from behind article to prove how dangerous VC cycling is.
I didn't get that from the news article, unless you are talking about a differnt one.
Al

That doesn't sound strong and fearless, more like careless and ignorant of risks - the fearlessness comes from not appreciating what could go wrong. What if you broke you leg?
Read this story. An incredibly well prepared and experienced desert hiker had to be rescused, even though he was very well prepared.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0420hiker0419-ON.html

(nothing personal, I too go on multiday hikes with insufficient safety precautions/equipment/prep ;) )

Al
Sounded like it from your post!
I guess your point was meant to be - "Be Prepared".

West Burnside into the West Hills = big hill in steep canyon, four narrow winding lanes, no shoulder, poor road surface, dense suburban commuter traffic.

Just the kind of road JF wants you to ride vehicularly on. Downhill I'm fine, uphill it's a stretch...I'd opt to take my bike on the light rail instead.

Is there a prohibition on slow moving vehicles on these roads? Other than being mildly unpleasant if you got some impatient faster traffic stuck behind you that couldn't change lanes (no worse than the same thing happening on a slower speed, 2 lane road), a 4 lane winding road through a canyon sounds like a great place to ride.

That doesn't sound strong and fearless, more like careless and ignorant of risks - the fearlessness comes from not appreciating what could go wrong. What if you broke you leg?
Read this story. An incredibly well prepared and experienced desert hiker had to be rescused, even though he was very well prepared.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0420hiker0419-ON.html

(nothing personal, I too go on multiday hikes with insufficient safety precautions/equipment/prep ;) )

Al

I don't break. I've got legs like tree stumps. I'm built like a Hobbit.