I'm sorry, I thought it was obvious from empirical evidence that should be obvious to any observant experienced cyclist.
http://www2.bsn.de/Cycling/articles/cadence.html

http://www2.bsn.de/Cycling/articles/cadence.html
From the conclusion:

In summary, laboratory studies indicate that experienced cyclists do not use their most economical or efficient cadences. However, cadences of 90 to 100 rpm are probably beneficial in spite of decreases in economy and efficiency. The explanation proposed here suggests the use of high rpms results in a decrease in average pedal force per revolution and leads to the recruitment of fewer fast-twitch fibers, placing the reliance for muscle power development primarily on the slow-twitch and intermediate fibers. The advantage to the cyclist is there is less likelihood of a rapid accumulation of lactic acid, with the resulting decrease in muscle force production. More interdisciplinary studies in cycling, particularly those that combine biomechanical and physiological data, are needed to confirm or refute this theory.

Duh.

I dare any of you who seem so certain what constitutes competency to go to another country (India or China, perhaps), where bike shops are more plentiful than auto-repair shops, and see how your little charts and graphs measure up.

I'm sorry, I thought it was obvious from empirical evidence that should be obvious to any observant experienced cyclist.

So in other words, it is just your opinion, not based in fact, but you can't bring yourself to admit it.
It's obvious to me that you are NOT an experienced cyclist, but rather a club rider with pretty limited geographical transportational riding experience, from the BS you post here, but at least I admit that is my opinion and don't try to claim it as fact. Perhaps you might consider the same 'honesty' when you post your own opinions.

Cadence is not the subject of a standard, by the FHWA, the American Society for Physiology, or the United States Cycling Federation. You are just another trying to make trouble out of nothing.

Howeveer, there is a scientific basis for this. Read the chapter in Effective Cycling on Physiology of Hard Riding

Ahh, trying to separate fact from opinion is 'making trouble'. Why am I not surprised. Just like in your book, you and your protege seem to make a living from confusing opinion with fact.

What do you expect from wannabe racer boys masquerading as transportational cyclists.

Gotta give Pete a hand there on that one - HH's carefully highlighted text caused me to miss that last line, you really do hate not being right don't you HH?

What do you expect from wannabe racer boys masquerading as transportational cyclists.
I continue to be puzzled why there is this assumption that club* cyclists are more serious, more race oriented and less 'ordinary everybody' than transportational or what ever other type of cyclist is being compared to.
My experience with club cyclists is they are very casual, fun loving, out for the joy of the ride and the post ride eats, social, etc. Sure the 10 or so lead riders get competetive with each other, but in a very non-serious way often involving some level of goofing around.

Maybe folks are confusing club cyclists with team cyclists?

*chip - I know you didn't say club in this post, but this term was recently by you in post #105

Al

Normal cadence on the flats for an experienced cyclist who can efficiently ride long distances (40 miles or more) is around 80 or higher. Anyone whose normal cadence is 80 will arrive sooner and fresher to a destination of a few or more miles away than someone whose normal cadence is 60.


Haven't you ever been in a tortoise vs hare commute? It happens to me weekly. I'm riding in at a leisurely pace and here comes some dude on a mountain bike pedalling his ***** off---way above 80. A few miles later he is stopped bent ove,r getting a drink sweating his balls off.

I pass.

Rinse repeat

Going at a slower cadence I arrive at my job "sooner and fresher" than tazmanian mountain bike guy.

Duh, indeed.
HH's carefully highlighted text caused me to miss that last line, you really do hate not being right don't you HH?
Also, check out the article. HH quoted the whole paragraph, EXCEPT for the first line, which says:
In summary, laboratory studies indicate that experienced cyclists do not use their most economical or efficient cadences.

To understand what the writer means by this, consider these quotes:
They found that gross efficiency was similar at cadences of 60, 80, and 100 rpm during cycling at power outputs corresponding to 80% (280 W) and 90% (300 W) of an individual's maximal aerobic power (Figure 1 (http://www2.bsn.de/Cycling/articles/cadence.html#FIG1)). However, at 50% and 60% of 9&emdash;2 max' the efficiency of 100 rpm was significantly lower than either 60 or 80 rpm.
However, closer examination of their data (i.e., examining the quadratic equation that described the relationship between oxygen consumption and cadence), reveals that the lowest oxygen consumption occurred at approximately 70 rpm.
Therefore, even elite level cyclists, with many years of training and experience, do not appear to have adapted their physiology so that pedaling at their preferred cadences leads to a minimization in oxygen consumption.
The most economical cadence of 56 rpm
Surprisingly, their average preferred cadence was 92 rpm and their most economical cadence was approximately 63 rpm

In short, the article says that almost all users employ a cadence higher than is most efficient. The writer proposes other ideas for why this may be (including psychological reasons) and suggests more experiments to test his idea.

Helmet Head wasn't even trying to understand...

Anyone whose normal cadence is 80 will arrive sooner and fresher to a destination of a few or more miles away than someone whose normal cadence is 60.
My "natural" cadence is about 60. I challenge you to a race, HH. :p

Of course, someone will have to loan me one of them new-fangled bikes like you own, or you can borrow one of my vintage steel bikes (heck, we could both ride 3-speeds, if you like). And let's make it sufficiently long. Say 40-50 miles?

Thanks Zeytoun, yet one more reason to ignore HH posts as they are anything but the "facts" he wants us all to believe the are. :roflmao:
Or maybe he is just as illiterate as he claims (in not so many words) all of us who never seem to see the brilliance of his posts are....:eek:

I continue to be puzzled why there is this assumption that club* cyclists are more serious, more race oriented and less 'ordinary everybody' than transportational or what ever other type of cyclist is being compared to.
My experience with club cyclists is they are very casual, fun loving, out for the joy of the ride and the post ride eats, social, etc. Sure the 10 or so lead riders get competetive with each other, but in a very non-serious way often involving some level of goofing around.

Maybe folks are confusing club cyclists with team cyclists?

*chip - I know you didn't say club in this post, but this term was recently by you in post #105

Al

The vc 'model' as it were, at least as outlined in EC, seems to revolve around club cyclists, despite the alleged focus on transportational cyclists. Probably because, back in the day, most so-called 'serious' cyclists were clubbies.

Not to get too metaphysical, but there are various peoples' opinion on what constitutes "competence" and then there is actual competence. Any guy with enough time on his hands and a state DMV manual can come up with a "cycling competence" test. The fact that I pass the test does not make me "competent." How many teenagers pass their driving tests and then proceed to drive like reckless, devil-may-care, A-holes?

IMHO actual competence is riding such that one is cognizant of their own safety and the safety of other road users. I someone routinely and consistently makes it to their destination without getting hurt, causing an accident, endangering others, or causing a "near miss" scenario, they are competent in my book.

IHMO any other attempts to objectively quantify "competence" based on a mathemical point system are entirely futile.

You might as well develop a "bathroom competence" exam:

+ points = appropriate selection of stall or urinal
+ 5 points = demonstrated proper removal of equipment
- 5 points = excessive flowage rate
- 5 points = inappropriate containment
+ 5 points = maintaining appropriate and safe visual focus
- 5 points = excessive use of sphincter
+ 5 points = proper cleanup


You wants to come and take my test? I've got volunteers waiting to assist and certify you. You too can be bathroom competent!

The vc 'model' as it were, at least as outlined in EC, seems to revolve around club cyclists, despite the alleged focus on transportational cyclists. Probably because, back in the day, most so-called 'serious' cyclists were clubbies.

Uh oh... be careful... that is "voluntary transportational cyclists," apparently involuntary transportational cyclists just want a car.

The vc 'model' as it were, at least as outlined in EC, seems to revolve around club cyclists, despite the alleged focus on transportational cyclists. Probably because, back in the day, most so-called 'serious' cyclists were clubbies.
+a lot

At any submaximal cycling speed, if we select a high cadence, the glycogen depletion study of Ahlquist et al (1992) suggests that we will minimize the recruitment of fast-twitch fibers. However, we can still supply ATP to the working muscles of the leg using predominantly slow-twitch or intermediate fibers. Since there is less reliance on fasttwitch fibers, there is less likelihood of a large increase in lactic acid in the working muscle. This theory fits nicely with the observation that fatigue seems to be delayed when using a high cadence, compared to a low cadence. In addition, individual differences in percentage of slow- and fast-twitch fibers may help to explain why some individuals prefer different cadences and why some of us excel at short sprints, while others perform better during long, sustained efforts. Recreational cyclists, who cycle slowly so that force demands are low, have no need to pedal at high cadences since they are already utilizing their slow-twitch fibers. They may even be pedaling at their most economical cadence, since they are in no hurry to get from A to B.

This is what I suspected. From the paragraph above the one that HH partially quoted (to leave off the first sentence of a quoted paragraph without using ellipses (...) is just academically dishonest). From the article, it seems that the most economical RPM, from an energy useage or VO2max point of view, is around 60 RPM at basically all power output levels. However, fast cyclists will naturally choose a higher RPM because the decreased force applied to the pedals at higher RPMs recruits fewer fast twitch muscles and delays the formation of lactic acid, leading to less fatigue. But for a slow cyclist, there is no need to use a higher RPM because they are not utilizing any fast twitch muscles at any RPM from 60 to 100, so they naturally choose 60 rpm because it is the most efficient.

This is what I suspected. From the paragraph above the one that HH partially quoted (to leave off the first sentence of a quoted paragraph without using ellipses (...) is just academically dishonest). From the article, it seems that the most economical RPM, from an energy useage or VO2max point of view, is around 60 RPM at basically all power output levels. However, fast cyclists will naturally choose a higher RPM because the decreased force applied to the pedals at higher RPMs recruits fewer fast twitch muscles and delays the formation of lactic acid, leading to less fatigue. But for a slow cyclist, there is no need to use a higher RPM because they are not utilizing any fast twitch muscles at any RPM from 60 to 100, so they naturally choose 60 rpm because it is the most efficient.
Sounds familiar. Oh yes, here it is:


The observation applies to people making short trips and probably in traffic conditions that limit them to low speed.

...Anyone whose normal cadence is 80 will arrive sooner and fresher to a destination of a few or more miles away than someone whose normal cadence is 60.

Sounds familiar. Oh yes, here it is:

The observation applies to people making short trips and probably in traffic conditions that limit them to low speed.

I guess I don't have a disagreement with Mr. Forester; I was actually commenting on your comment (highlighted above). It turns out that your above statement is not quite true.

Sounds familiar. Oh yes, here it is:

So, if I'm getting this right (I KNOW I'm not though, am I HH?) A low speed, car free individual in a tightly packed city with low speed limits can never be a competent cyclist in terms of cadence? well that seems unfain man :(

It is a natural outcome of a properly executed maximum stop that the rear wheel skids or even comes off the ground a bit. There is a lot of leeway between the time the rear wheel starts to skid and the time it comes off the ground; there is a lot of leeway between the time the rear wheel first comes off the ground and the time the rider goes over the bars. It is a good thing for bicyclists to familiarize themselves with these zones of control and the type of deceleration that begins to bring the rear wheel off the ground, and , most importantly, with the type of body movement that is necessary to properly execute a stop near the maximum possible deceleration. A stop that doesn't even result in a rear wheel skid is nowhere near a maximum controlled stop. I mean, not even close.

Robert
Once, I executed one of those stops.

I suddenly decided to stop in mid-block so I could dismount and step up on the curb. I was anxious to do it quickly, and as a result, my rear wheel lifted off the pavement. In fact, it lifted high enough to clear the unusually high curb.

Frozen in time, as my rear wheel came down, it landed upon the high curb. Now I was in a strange pickle. With my rear wheel on the very high curb and my front one on the street below, I knew I could not maintain balance for long. So I jerked up my front wheel, and "voila!" it landed on the curb, parallel to my rear wheel.

It wasn't over, yet. I quickly dismounted on the sidewalk/plaza area.

Safe!

As I glanced to my right, the usual line-up of idle and/or lunch-bound bike messengers were staring at me.

I walked off as if I had planned the whole thing. What else could I do?

What else could I do?
Get the girls number and hop back on the road rear wheel first.

Al

Re: cadence.

What's the mystery?

Re: cadence.

What's the mystery?
Everyone likes to think they are different and special.
Al

Everyone likes to think they are different and special.
Al
:eek:

You mean, I'm not?!

sometimes, on purpose, I'll crank out a fast stop that pulls my rear wheel off the ground just for showing off. Like, in front of a queue of cars, or a group of pretty girls. I can get the back of the bike quite far off the ground without tipping over.

Is that competence or incompetancy in cycling?

Sometimes, in congested, stopped traffic, I'll RIDE IN THE DOOR ZONE! (oh, the horrors) or split lanes, or ride on the wrong side of the road to pass a cluster fuzzle of a traffic backup.

competancy or incompetancy?

sometimes, on purpose, I'll crank out a fast stop that pulls my rear wheel off the ground just for showing off. Like, in front of a queue of cars, or a group of pretty girls. I can get the back of the bike quite far off the ground without tipping over.

Is that competence or incompetancy in cycling?

Sound more like incompetency in impressing girls. Or do they really dig guys who look like they are about to fly over handlebars in Seattle?

Al

:roflmao:

:roflmao:
Thats right I've never done a stoppie in traffic to impress anyone. But I've done them for fun and such in parking lots, trails and quite a bit as a kid. (not that such things are just for kids)

Al

yeah, whatever, al.

my comments above were more directed as to the competency analysis, not concerned about my descriptive lead into the scenarios surrounding my stoppies.

is the ability to lift the rear wheel or pull controlled skidding stops off a sign of competence or incompetence on a bicycle? how about riding in the door zone of stopped traffic?

oh, the horror of congested city riding.... just rode some door zones last night, on a little pleasure jaunt thru downtown during rush hour, to pass a big backup caused by a bus that had jumped the electric wires. had to dodge some sudden right turns out of the lane as cars tried to bypass the backup.

competency or should I have waited, sheepish and incompetent, at the back of a long line of traffic stopped for several minutes? advance using bike skills, or stop in the lane behind a backup of stopped traffic, stopped by a broken down bus?


skid stops? competence or incompetency? riding thru congested city traffic.....competence or incompetency? these are just generalisms, i certainly don't need a play by play breakdown analysis from the arizona fixie contingent.....

The value of the traffic-cycling portion of the Cyclist Proficiency Test is that it tests the cyclist for his ability to ride safely in traffic. It doesn't matter that society appears to have no interest in safe cycling; the individual cyclist certainly does.

I agree with that, but where we differ is that I don't believe that your test, or anyone elses, is the ultimate measure of who is competent. What really bothers me is that I think tests like this ignore, or even worse they disparage, the organic nature of cycling. This test may be a good measure of what a cyclist has learned in his LAB class, but will never be a measure of "competency", I hope.

Tests like this attempt to put all cyclists in two little boxes marked "competent" and "incompetent" which I disagree with whole-heartedly. A competent cyclist is not measured by some standard that is written by an engineer thousands of miles away. A competent cyclist is one that gets to his or her destination in one piece, legally, and with as little disruption to the environment around him or her as possible.

I agree with that, but where we differ is that I don't believe that your test, or anyone elses, is the ultimate measure of who is competent. What really bothers me is that I think tests like this ignore, or even worse they disparage, the organic nature of cycling. This test may be a good measure of what a cyclist has learned in his LAB class, but will never be a measure of "competency", I hope.

Tests like this attempt to put all cyclists in two little boxes marked "competent" and "incompetent" which I disagree with whole-heartedly. A competent cyclist is not measured by some standard that is written by an engineer thousands of miles away. A competent cyclist is one that gets to his or her destination in one piece, legally, and with as little disruption to the environment around him or her as possible. :eek:

And with as little disruption to the environment around him or her as possible?

Are you talking about cycling in traffic, or backpacking in the wilderness?

Do you think "with as little disruption to the environment around him or her as possible" is something car and truck drivers should be trying to do as well? What does that mean, exactly?

:eek:

And with as little disruption to the environment around him or her as possible?

Are you talking about cycling in traffic, or backpacking in the wilderness?

Do you think "with as little disruption to the environment around him or her as possible" is something car and truck drivers should be trying to do as well? What does that mean, exactly?

Lol, leave it to you to pick out one word to fret about. I am not saying "doesn't disrupt car traffic at all" if that is what you are worried about. In terms of VC riding, what I am saying is that a competent cyclist who chooses to ride in traffic finds routes and rides in ways that makes him or her an integral part of traffic. Maybe I should have said "practicable", but I think most everyone knew what I meant.

:eek:

And with as little disruption to the environment around him or her as possible?

Are you talking about cycling in traffic, or backpacking in the wilderness?

Do you think "with as little disruption to the environment around him or her as possible" is something car and truck drivers should be trying to do as well? What does that mean, exactly?

I'm surprised at you, considering you're the guy who believes in the utopia of everyone following the rules of the road and coexisting in peaceful bliss. If you are competent rider/driver AND following the rules of the road, you should cause minimal disruption to the traffic flow and pattern - your environment - don't you think?

:eek:

And with as little disruption to the environment around him or her as possible?

Are you talking about cycling in traffic, or backpacking in the wilderness?

Do you think "with as little disruption to the environment around him or her as possible" is something car and truck drivers should be trying to do as well? What does that mean, exactly?
You're not even trying to understand.

Zey, I most certainly am trying to understand.

DJ, I'm not picking on one word, I'm trying to understand what you meant by an entire phrase. I can guess, but I don't want to assume and misunderstand.

So DJ, do you agree with Chip's interpretation... that by "with as little disruption to the environment around him or her as possible" you meant "should cause minimal disruption to the traffic flow and pattern"?

You clarified with, "chooses to ride in traffic finds routes and rides in ways that makes him or her an integral part of traffic."

My concern is whether this is just another way of saying, "cyclists have an obligation to stay out of the way of cars as much as possible". Choosing routes to avoid streets simply because riding there would delay motorists would be that, but I'm not sure if that's what you mean by "find routes ... that makes him ... an integral part".

Do you believe a 15 mph cyclist can be an "integral part of traffic" on a 6 lane arterial with high volumes of 45+ mph traffic and lanes too narrow to be safely shared side-by-side, and no bike lanes?

Many people easily infer that the term "incompetence" refers to a character defect, stupidity, or is related to some personal insult. It is definitely used that way oftentimes, but Webster defines it as follows:

1 : not legally qualified
2 : inadequate to or unsuitable for a particular purpose
3 a : lacking the qualities needed for effective action b : unable to function properly <incompetent heart valves>

If taken literally, "incompetence" refers to a lack of effectiveness, nothing more. If I am found "incompetent" as a cyclist for common traffic situations, I will not function effectively on the road, and therefore I might very easily avoid the road altogether (or increase my risk of injury there.) So "competence" is very important if a cyclist is going to make mixing with traffic a habit.

Without an effective level of competency in traffic among cyclists (Forester competency testing aside,) road cycling would certainly become less and less common for transportational purposes.

Zey, I most certainly am trying to understand.
My apologies.

I just pulled the accusation about not trying to understand out of my you know. How could I know whether you were trying to understand or not?

Zey, I most certainly am trying to understand.

DJ, I'm not picking on one word, I'm trying to understand what you meant by an entire phrase. I can guess, but I don't want to assume and misunderstand.

So DJ, do you agree with Chip's interpretation... that by "with as little disruption to the environment around him or her as possible" you meant "should cause minimal disruption to the traffic flow and pattern"?
That was Chip's comment, and I will keep my comments focused on what my own point was.


You clarified with, "chooses to ride in traffic finds routes and rides in ways that makes him or her an integral part of traffic."

My concern is whether this is just another way of saying, "cyclists have an obligation to stay out of the way of cars as much as possible". Choosing routes to avoid streets simply because riding there would delay motorists would be that, but I'm not sure if that's what you mean by "find routes ... that makes him ... an integral part".

Do you believe a 15 mph cyclist can be an "integral part of traffic" on a 6 lane arterial with high volumes of 45+ mph traffic and lanes too narrow to be safely shared side-by-side, and no bike lanes?
First, since we are trying to clarify let me be more clear on what I was saying, which was quite general. I was referring to the cyclist flying down a busy, narrow sidewalk in a retail area at 15 MPH sending pedestrians running for their lives or the one turning left from the far right lane in heavy traffic at 5:00 p.m. on a Friday in the scenario you describe above. I was just speaking in general terms that when you are competently cycling you should become just another part of the fluid mass that is "traffic" be that pedestrian, car or cycle. This is difficult to describe (although Robert Hurst does a better job of it than I do), but anyone who has ever seen a bike messenger do his thing knows exactly what I speak of.

But to answer your question, which I do believe has little to do with what I originally posted, in that scenario you are not part of what is commonly referred to as "traffic". That does not mean you should not be there, have no right to be there, that I somehow don't want you there or that you do not meet the Webster's definition of "traffic". Unfortunately, I find myself there all to frequently. You are a disruption, but a necessary one. Just like a combine running down a busy rural road at 15 MPH is a disruption and not commonly referred to as "traffic". The driver and equipment has every right to be there, but would you refer to them as traffic?

That was Chip's comment, and I will keep my comments focused on what my own point was.


First, since we are trying to clarify let me be more clear on what I was saying, which was quite general. I was referring to the cyclist flying down a busy, narrow sidewalk in a retail area at 15 MPH sending pedestrians running for their lives or the one turning left from the far right lane in heavy traffic at 5:00 p.m. on a Friday in the scenario you describe above. I was just speaking in general terms that when you are competently cycling you should become just another part of the fluid mass that is "traffic" be that pedestrian, car or cycle. This is difficult to describe (although Robert Hurst does a better job of it than I do), but anyone who has ever seen a bike messenger do his thing knows exactly what I speak of.

But to answer your question, which I do believe has little to do with what I originally posted, in that scenario you are not part of what is commonly referred to as "traffic". That does not mean you should not be there, have no right to be there, that I somehow don't want you there or that you do not meet the Webster's definition of "traffic". Unfortunately, I find myself there all to frequently. You are a disruption, but a necessary one. Just like a combine running down a busy rural road at 15 MPH is a disruption and not commonly referred to as "traffic". The driver and equipment has every right to be there, but would you refer to them as traffic? Good. Now we're getting some where. Yes, I would refer to the combine as part of traffic, even if it were on an urban street. So is the guy who slows to a stop in a 45 mph lane so he can back up into a curbside parking space (such as is the case on part of my commute). So is the pedestrian crossing at midblock where traffic signals do not exist at both intersections on either end of the block (thus it's not jaywalking).

There is a phenomenon that I call the "freewayification of surface streets". That is the expectation of freeway-like uninterrupted flow, except for traffic signals and traffic jams, on surface streets. I think this phenomenon is harmful to cyclists, because it makes motorists think and cyclists feel that they are outsiders and "don't really belong" on streets where they cause delays. Most people who think and feel this way won't say it explicitly, and probably don't even realize it themselves, but it is implied by their statements and behavior.

I believe that time and experience with uninterrupted flow on freeways has caused folks to expect something similar on surface streets. Drivers, cyclists, police officers, traffic engineers now subconsciously often feel it is the norm. That's not a good thing. Interruptions in flow on surface streets, including slow bicyclists, should be considered the norm and nothing unusual, not an exception that indicates something is abnormal or wrong.

The pedestrian crossing the street midblock, the combine lumbering down the street, the Camry driver coming to stop in a 45 mph lane to back up into a parking spot, and, yes, the cyclist traveling along at 15 mph, are integral and normal parts of the traffic on that street.

There is a phenomenon that I call the "freewayification of surface streets". That is the expectation of freeway-like uninterrupted flow, except for traffic signals and traffic jams, on surface streets. I think this phenomenon is harmful to cyclists, because it makes motorists think and cyclists feel that they are outsiders and "don't really belong" on streets where they cause delays. Most people who think and feel this way won't say it explicitly, and probably don't even realize it themselves, but it is implied by their statements and behavior.

I believe that time and experience with uninterrupted flow on freeways has caused folks to expect something similar on surface streets. Drivers, cyclists, police officers, traffic engineers now subconsciously often feel it is the norm. That's not a good thing. Interruptions in flow on surface streets, including slow bicyclists, should be considered the norm and nothing unusual, not an exception that indicates something is abnormal or wrong.
More and more bus stops where I live on multilane roads are being converted to have pull outs to allow traffic to pass easily.

On one hand as a cyclist I like this change as it means it is easier for me to pass them. On the other it allow for faster speeds and one less road user that requires more attentiveness of other users. The norm is more and more uninterruped flow.
Already no motorist will stop at unmarked arterial crosswalks for pedestrians trying to cross.

Al

More and more bus stops where I live on multilane roads are being converted to have pull outs to allow traffic to pass easily.

On one hand as a cyclist I like this change as it means it is easier for me to pass them. On the other it allow for faster speeds and one less road user that requires more attentiveness of other users. The norm is more and more uninterruped flow.
Already no motorist will stop at unmarked arterial crosswalks for pedestrians trying to cross.

Al
Yes, this is exactly what I'm talking about.

There is recognition of the problem, and the antidote is called "traffic calming". Unfortunately, all too often the "traffic enraging" (well, what's the opposite of "traffic calming"?) changes (like your bus stop pull out example) are not recognized as being counter-productive to traffic calming, not to mention that some traffic calming measures (speed bumps, bulb outs) are not necessarily good things for cyclists.

Good. Now we're getting some where. Yes, I would refer to the combine as part of traffic, even if it were on an urban street. So is the guy who slows to a stop in a 45 mph lane so he can back up into a curbside parking space (such as is the case on part of my commute). So is the pedestrian crossing at midblock where traffic signals do not exist at both intersections on either end of the block (thus it's not jaywalking).

There is a phenomenon that I call the "freewayification of surface streets". That is the expectation of freeway-like uninterrupted flow, except for traffic signals and traffic jams, on surface streets. I think this phenomenon is harmful to cyclists, because it makes motorists think and cyclists feel that they are outsiders and "don't really belong" on streets where they cause delays. Most people who think and feel this way won't say it explicitly, and probably don't even realize it themselves, but it is implied by their statements and behavior.

I believe that time and experience with uninterrupted flow on freeways has caused folks to expect something similar on surface streets. Drivers, cyclists, police officers, traffic engineers now subconsciously often feel it is the norm. That's not a good thing. Interruptions in flow on surface streets, including slow bicyclists, should be considered the norm and nothing unusual, not an exception that indicates something is abnormal or wrong.

The pedestrian crossing the street midblock, the combine lumbering down the street, the Camry driver coming to stop in a 45 mph lane to back up into a parking spot, and, yes, the cyclist traveling along at 15 mph, are integral and normal parts of the traffic on that street.

pretty good, HH. I agree with this.

Good. Now we're getting some where. Yes, I would refer to the combine as part of traffic, even if it were on an urban street. So is the guy who slows to a stop in a 45 mph lane so he can back up into a curbside parking space (such as is the case on part of my commute). So is the pedestrian crossing at midblock where traffic signals do not exist at both intersections on either end of the block (thus it's not jaywalking).

There is a phenomenon that I call the "freewayification of surface streets". That is the expectation of freeway-like uninterrupted flow, except for traffic signals and traffic jams, on surface streets. I think this phenomenon is harmful to cyclists, because it makes motorists think and cyclists feel that they are outsiders and "don't really belong" on streets where they cause delays. Most people who think and feel this way won't say it explicitly, and probably don't even realize it themselves, but it is implied by their statements and behavior.

I believe that time and experience with uninterrupted flow on freeways has caused folks to expect something similar on surface streets. Drivers, cyclists, police officers, traffic engineers now subconsciously often feel it is the norm. That's not a good thing. Interruptions in flow on surface streets, including slow bicyclists, should be considered the norm and nothing unusual, not an exception that indicates something is abnormal or wrong.

The pedestrian crossing the street midblock, the combine lumbering down the street, the Camry driver coming to stop in a 45 mph lane to back up into a parking spot, and, yes, the cyclist traveling along at 15 mph, are integral and normal parts of the traffic on that street.

What you described in the paragraphs above I call auto centric design... which is a result of that expectation of "freewayification of surface streets" where engineers use sweeping curves and multiple lanes that tend to isolate every user of the street except those in moving motor cars.

We are on the same page here.

Interestingly I made some observations last night along this line of thinking. I was in North Park (at the velodrome actually) and afterward went out to dinner along Adams Ave. Now that whole area is about as flat as Clairemont Mesa Blvd, but the feel is decidedly different... 25MPH speed limits are readily adhered to in North Park... but along CMB, motorists are typically trying to move faster... why? Well I looked at the width of the entire open area from building to building when comparing the two areas... and in Clairemont there is a lot more open space... same parked cars along the sides, same relatively narrow streets... but in Clairemont, there is open space in the middle of the boulevard... and that makes the entire traffic path seem "faster" from a motorist perspective. Something as simple as filling the middle of the road with trees can be a traffic calmer. This BTW IS the plan for Balboa Ave... to lower the 50MPH speed limits and calm traffic by using a tree filled center lane to "close in" the street in much the same way that El Cajon Blvd is closed in around North Park... thus reducing the "freewayification of the local surface streets".

Good. Now we're getting some where. Yes, I would refer to the combine as part of traffic, even if it were on an urban street. So is the guy who slows to a stop in a 45 mph lane so he can back up into a curbside parking space (such as is the case on part of my commute). So is the pedestrian crossing at midblock where traffic signals do not exist at both intersections on either end of the block (thus it's not jaywalking).

There is a phenomenon that I call the "freewayification of surface streets". That is the expectation of freeway-like uninterrupted flow, except for traffic signals and traffic jams, on surface streets. I think this phenomenon is harmful to cyclists, because it makes motorists think and cyclists feel that they are outsiders and "don't really belong" on streets where they cause delays. Most people who think and feel this way won't say it explicitly, and probably don't even realize it themselves, but it is implied by their statements and behavior.

I believe that time and experience with uninterrupted flow on freeways has caused folks to expect something similar on surface streets. Drivers, cyclists, police officers, traffic engineers now subconsciously often feel it is the norm. That's not a good thing. Interruptions in flow on surface streets, including slow bicyclists, should be considered the norm and nothing unusual, not an exception that indicates something is abnormal or wrong.

The pedestrian crossing the street midblock, the combine lumbering down the street, the Camry driver coming to stop in a 45 mph lane to back up into a parking spot, and, yes, the cyclist traveling along at 15 mph, are integral and normal parts of the traffic on that street.

I would agree with this as well, although I find it unrelated to my original comment regarding JF's test.

I would agree with this as well, although I find it unrelated to my original comment regarding JF's test.
Half the words in your definition of competent cyclist, one that gets to his or her destination in one piece, legally, and with as little disruption to the environment around him or her as possible. seem to imply that part of being a competent is knowing how arrive at one's destination with minimal disruption of traffic flow.

pretty good, HH. I agree with this.
Thanks. Understanding that the expectation of unimpeded flow on surface streets is unreasonable, and, so, impeding such flow is not an unreasonable thing to do, is key to being comfortable cycling in all kinds of challenging traffic situations.

I believe almost all of the discomfort the cyclist feels in traffic, including being concerned about creating "disruption to the environment around him or her" -- which is increasingly difficult to avoid in high volume/speed traffic with narrow lanes -- is self-imposed. So the solution to the cyclist's discomfort is entirely within the domain and control of the cyclist: it's in his mind. And the first step towards comfort is to realize, deep down, that it is perfectly reasonable to impede and delay traffic on surface streets as long as you are operating according to the rules of the road.

of course, I generally avoid cycling in heavy fast moving traffic because it is just not pleasant to me, and I have alternatives.

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q119/hotbike/photo011.jpg

I just got back from a ride. I rode my Lafree Electric Bicycle (See photo above).
Please note that an eighteen inch "Slow Moving Vehicle" sign is affixed to the rear panniers of said bicycle.
I also wore a lime green reflective vest.

What if I state that a bicycle is a vehicle, albeit a slow moving vehicle?
Would that add anything to this argument?

I don't think "too slow", "cadence" or "ankling" should be on this test.

The word "competent" denotes mental ability. It doesn't have anything to do with physical ability.
By the measures of John Forrester's test, people with physical disabilties would lose points, which is unethical and illegal.

All I can say is, it's a very rigorous examination. If the DMV tested drivers as rigorously as John Forrester tests bicyclists, there would be a lot more people riding the bus.

The word "competent" denotes mental ability. It doesn't have anything to do with physical ability.

I can't find a dictionary that supports that rather narrow interpretation of "competent".

of course, I generally avoid cycling in heavy fast moving traffic because it is just not pleasant to me, and I have alternatives.
Understood, but that doesn't mean that finding the "heavy fast moving traffic" to be not pleasant is not self-imposed.

If it is self-imposed, then the solution to the "not pleasant" sensation is entirely within the domain and control of your mind. And the first step towards finding it to be pleasant, I believe, is to realize, deep down, that it is perfectly reasonable to impede and delay traffic on surface streets as long as you are operating according to the rules of the road.