Google sponsored links
Joejack: so you are saying that route adjustment or management is not a technique addressed by vehicular cycling? Is this still true if the only reason for the route adjustment is for risk aversion?
Where did I mention risk aversion? I used the term "unuseable" as in "cannot be cycled at all." A road closed for flooding or a road with 6 inches of heavy wet snow (and the need to travel 7 miles on said roads in a reasonable amount of time) is not useable for cycling. That says nothing about the risk of using those roads.
To answer your first question, "route adjustment or management" is not addressed by vehicular cycling. Vehicular cycling isn't about finding the most pleasant or direct routes. That's what maps are for. Vehicular cycling insures that the cyclist can safely travel whichever route they decide to take.
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
so, can vehicular bicyclists choose a more mellow route? and can ordinary, able to cycle according to the rules of the road do the same?
do both suffer inferiorities when doing so? what are the differences?
I suspect just because a bicyclist understands how to ride vehicularily DOES NOT mean they are comfortable on all roads all the time. that vc ldeological POV is patently false- that all bicyclists that understand how to ride according to the rules of the road are comfortable riding all roads without thought of personal route choice, safety or enjoyment.
I probably will not be riding 100 miles for pizza any time soon,(pizza restuarant located a few blocks away):p but I will ride several extra miles of pleasant low traffic roadways after work for "aesthetic" reasons, taking advantage of the summer weather and extra daylight hours, as well as for mentally "unwinding" for the lower level of traffic concentration that is needed on the less traveled roads. I also have more time after work to devote to the extra miles ridden. When winter arrives along with the bad weather, I will return to using the more direct route home. (Be fore warned, more intense posts will occur during the winter months due to low cycling miles!):D
joejack-
I'm riding 100 miles for some pizza today- vehicularily. Me and my buddy will choose a combination of most pleasant as well as direct routes to get there. State highways, Hood Canal Bridge, etc.
Cool. I used a pleasant cycling route to tote a few months worth of recycleables to the recycling center on Saturday with my fiancee. We used a pleasant route that included a sidewalk shortcut path between a neighborhood and school and a mix of neighborhood roads and lightly trafficked arterials.
Is a vehicular cyclist free of dogma and able to choose a more pleasant route without falling victim to john's mischaracterized 'cyclist inferiority' syndrome?
A vehicular cyclist is free to choose a more pleasant route without accepting any of the cyclist inferiority thinking. On the pleasant route that we cycled Saturday, we used a default centerish position (side by side) on all roads, even those with bike lanes and shoulders.
Why, in my case, is a vehicular cyclist choosing a pleasant route okay, but an everyday bicyclist -that still understands the rules of the road- choosing a more pleasant route a manifestation of some far-fetched psychobabel?
As with almost anything, there are degrees of the manifestation of cyclist inferiority thinking. Based on what I've seen on these forums, there are a great number of cyclists who feel like they belong on single lane each direction wide roads but adding another same direction lane and making the outside lane narrow makes the road dangerous in their opinion. It's not a logical conclusion except for someone who unreasonably fears using the same lane as faster traffic.
Why does the VC dogma introduce false dichotomies into the bicycling population?
I think there's some deliberate clouding of the issues here by the foresterites here. even vehicular cyclists can choose routes to manage risk, despite the insistence there is none of that. some foresterite 'certified' 'vehicular cyclists' may not be comfortable taking the lane of 50 MPH arterials, despite the knowledge they are traffic and understand how to ride according to the rules of the road.
I don't think it's a false dichotomy, but rather, as stated above, an issue of degree of acceptance of the inferiority thinking. A vehicular cyclist realizes that they are traffic and that they belong on any road that have legal access to. For a vehicular cyclist, a road could be made more pleasant for cycling by lowering the speed limit or adding extra width to the outside lane. The irrational inferior thinking cyclist wants to be seperated as much as possible from traffic to be comfortable but a stripe will do when nothing else is possible.
someone who unreasonably fears using the same lane as faster traffic.
this is not an unreasonable fear.
this is a reasonable fear.
Question or two:
IF so called "Vehicular bicyclists" are purportedly comfortable on any road allowed to bicycle travel,
do ALL foresterite vehicular bicyclists choose the most direct route regardless of traffic volumes or road design?
or are vehicular bicyclists free of dogmatism and can choose a comfortable, low traffic route that may meander and take longer to travel, but is more senic, pleasant, or lower travelled?
Why?
Do foresterites HAVE to choose the most direct route, regardless of road pleasantries or traffic speeds/volumes?
is it comfort, enjoyment, or is it inferiority complexes? why would an everyday bicyclist that understands how to ride according to the rules of the road choose a more pleasant route? why would foresterite vehicular bicyclists?
I choose the most direct route, reagrdless of traffic.
we choose the most direct route because we are pressed for time and dont have time to meander, dillydaddle, and get slowed down behind recreational cyclists on bike routes. Hence the reason we take major arterial routes.
Personally i'm very comfortable on high speed/high volume roads, but then and again i have 6 years of messenger experience under my belt.
this is not an unreasonable fear.
this is a reasonable fear.
Then how do you get up the muster to drive in a car anywhere? I'd be horrified to drive a car if I feared faster same direction traffic. You'd need to exceed the speed limit by about 25mph consistently around here to be sure you were always the fastest.
so, can vehicular bicyclists choose a more mellow route? and can ordinary, able to cycle according to the rules of the road do the same?
do both suffer inferiorities when doing so? what are the differences?
Does the "ordinary, able to cycle according to the rules of the road" ride along those roads feeling like they need to constantly stay out of the way of faster traffic? Does the "ordinary, able to cycle according to the rules of the road" believe that a bike lane stripe will make a fast arterial safe for them to cycle on?
I suspect just because a bicyclist understands how to ride vehicularily DOES NOT mean they are comfortable on all roads all the time.
What's making them uncomfortable on some roads that doesn't make them uncomfortable on other roads?
and that vc ldeological POV is patently false- that all bicyclists that understand how to ride according to the rules of the road are comfortable riding all roads without thought of personal route choice, safety or enjoyment.
Enjoyment of cycling is a very personal thing and has little to do with understanding the rules of the road. Route choice (or choosing to cycle at all) can be governed by cyclist inferiority thinking and for some that thinking can be debilitating (as in, they won't ride at all if they have to deal with traffic). Safety is a very broad term since it only takes one mistake to end a cyclist's life and that mistake can have nothing to do with traffic. A lower traffic route isn't by definition any safer than a higher traffic route.
Dude, get a grip. a car is not a bike. we're not talking about cars vs cars we're talking about cars vs bikes. did you see the thread about the guy killed in Louisville? I know you did, you posted in it, about how you would confidently ride that bridge with a trailer. your fanaticism is blinding you to reality.
Then how do you get up the muster to drive in a car anywhere? I'd be horrified to drive a car if I feared faster same direction traffic. You'd need to exceed the speed limit by about 25mph consistently around here to be sure you were always the fastest.
I have a thesis in my mind about how environments influence opinions on this subject. You simply do not find as much excessive speeding in Oregon. Nor are many, if any, surface streets marked for speeds over 45 mph within a city or town limit, and it is rare to see speed limits violated by more than 10 mph, even on freeways (except I-84 through the Columbia River Gorge).
I have a thesis in my mind about how environments influence opinions on this subject. You simply do not find as much excessive speeding in Oregon. Nor are many, if any, surface streets marked for speeds over 45 mph within a city or town limit, and it is rare to see speed limits violated by more than 10 mph, even on freeways (except I-84 through the Columbia River Gorge).
absolutely. I have stated that I think it would be a blast to ride in slow-moving traffic that was going the same speed or slower than I was, like in a downtown center, but those are not the conditions I ride in. I either take the 55-65 mph arterial (45 mph speed limit) or the nearly deserted 25 mph back streets.
an example of an UNreasonable fear would be, for example, that cracks in the roadway were going to get huge and open up and swallow you. a reasonable fear is that a big enough crack could catch your tire and you'd go down. having a healthy fear of surrounding traffic can be a good thing.
Do all automobile/truck drivers take the most direct route without regard to traffic and road hazzards?
NO!
Then why should cyclists?
First off it does not matter if you are a motorist or a cyclist we all like roads that are comfortable to drive/ride on. We all like direct routes but will go out of our way to avoid things that are uncomfortable. Motorist here will generally choose a route that is double the distance and no better time wise then a direct route because it is less aggravating or more “comfortable.” And I don’t think cyclists are much different we differ in the detail what we like to avoid but the general principles are the same.
While the main principals of Vehicular Cycling should be concerned about how to ride safely in any conditions those of us involved locally should be concerned about road traits that make roads more comfortable for cyclists. Besides the obvious of liking low traffic roads I have noticed that roads that have extra width to allow cyclists to avoid motorists or have frequent passing opportunities so motorists can avoid cyclists plus a low frequency of angst or aggressive drivers seem to score high on the more comfortable routes for cyclists.
I have also noticed that cyclist are more inclined to take a longer route that arcs then a route that goes out and back to avoid some unpleasantness. So some perception of directness is important but it is not a pure mathematical calculation.
According to the "VC" ideology,
if a zealous vehicular cyclist chooses a more pleasant route, its personal choice, but if a more everyday cyclist - that still understands how to bicycle according to the rules of the road- chooses a more pleasant route, it's purportedly a result of some far fetched inferiority complex. I dispute that.
Nobody is making the claim you so proudly dispute.
Vehicular cycling proponents don't think less of any cyclist who takes a longer road route that they find more pleasant. The more pleasant routes there are available for vehicular cycling, the better for everyone.
What vehicular cycling proponents are concerned about is what happens when cyclists who dislike unpleasant roads end up advocating cycling contrary to vehicular rules, typically through the application of traffic control devices or sidewalk-type facilities that conflict normal vehicular cycling practices.
Vehicular cyclists would MUCH rather see (a) the unpleasant roads improved to be made more pleasant for cycling in a manner that is compatible with vehicular cycling, (b) alternate routes available for more pleasant cycling in the normal vehicular manner, and (c) traffic-averse cyclists become more skilled and confident operating according to normal vehicular rules.
First off it does not matter if you are a motorist or a cyclist we all like roads that are comfortable to drive/ride on. We all like direct routes but will go out of our way to avoid things that are uncomfortable. Motorist here will generally choose a route that is double the distance and no better time wise then a direct route because it is less aggravating or more “comfortable.” And I don’t think cyclists are much different we differ in the detail what we like to avoid but the general principles are the same.
While the main principals of Vehicular Cycling should be concerned about how to ride safely in any conditions those of us involved locally should be concerned about road traits that make roads more comfortable for cyclists. Besides the obvious of liking low traffic roads I have noticed that roads that have extra width to allow cyclists to avoid motorists or have frequent passing opportunities so motorists can avoid cyclists plus a low frequency of angst or aggressive drivers seem to score high on the more comfortable routes for cyclists.
I have also noticed that cyclist are more inclined to take a longer route that arcs then a route that goes out and back to avoid some unpleasantness. So some perception of directness is important but it is not a pure mathematical calculation.
Here is a catch-22. Cyclists are also known to take unpleasent routes in order to get to a particularly good cycling route.... such as riding through an industrial area to get to a good path or known good road with few intersections such as an airport or river road.
They are also known to extend a ride in such a manner as to incur more distance for the sheer pleasure of riding the bike.
I myself used to go 35 miles out of my way to a college actually only 5 miles away.
I take the most direct route when I commute to work by bike. But then again the most direct route is still 32 miles each way...
-D
Do all automobile/truck drivers take the most direct route without regard to traffic and road hazzards?
NO!
Then why should cyclists?
If maximizing speed and "efficiency" is their chief (or only) priority in making cycling decisions.
Question or two:
IF so called "Vehicular bicyclists" are purportedly comfortable on any road allowed to bicycle travel,
do ALL foresterite vehicular bicyclists choose the most direct route regardless of traffic volumes or road design?
or are vehicular bicyclists free of dogmatism and can choose a comfortable, low traffic route that may meander and take longer to travel, but is more senic, pleasant, or lower travelled?
Why?
Do foresterites HAVE to choose the most direct route, regardless of road pleasantries or traffic speeds/volumes?
is it comfort, enjoyment, or is it inferiority complexes? why would an everyday bicyclist that understands how to ride according to the rules of the road choose a more pleasant route? why would foresterite vehicular bicyclists?
I will answer your question specifically.
In the morning when traffic is sparse and temps low, I take the most direct route to work. That way, it takes me about an hour, like it did this morning (about 14 hilly miles on a heavy recumbent.) I would drive the same route (if I had to drive, for some strange reason.)
In the afternoon, I take basically the same route, but I choose many more pleasant parallel routes through quiet, shaded neighborhood streets. It often takes me 15 to 20 minutes longer, due to the heat and the detours (if I stop at the store, it's even longer.) But since I'm not in a hurry (and stop for a couple of drinks of water,) it's fine. Who wants to sit in hot, stinky gridlock on steaming pavement in direct sun? The bike was meant for flying through the breeze!
So the problem with your question, as I see it, is that you are being legalistic in your perception that "Foresterites" have a religious conviction that forbids them from using bike lanes and requires them to use the most direct route possible, regardless of whether there are more pleasant side streets available.
Actually, I have more freedom to use any road or side street I want. This morning, because I didn't want to wait for a red light, I turned right on red and cut onto a RR-side bike path for about a quarter mile. On the final stretch, I used the wide bike lane as usual, but cut out of it for a few feet due to storm debris.
"The Church of Foresterism of Latter-Day Cyclists" has actually given me more options, not less. The Apostles, Prophets, and Deacons don't visit my house to reason with me if I use a sidewalk cut-through, bike lane, or bike path. If they did, I'd tell them where to go in a hurry. :)
No, I won't go to Cycling Hell if I do whatever (the Hell) I want.
I'm free. It's a good feeling to have more options. :)
I'm free. It's a good feeling to have more options. :)
:beer: +1
:beer: +1
Peace. :)
Enjoy riding your bike, wherever it takes you.
Here is a catch-22. Cyclists are also known to take unpleasent routes in order to get to a particularly good cycling route.... such as riding through an industrial area to get to a good path or known good road with few intersections such as an airport or river road.
They are also known to extend a ride in such a manner as to incur more distance for the sheer pleasure of riding the bike.
I myself used to go 35 miles out of my way to a college actually only 5 miles away.
That is not a catch-22 as long as the score for the route as a whole ends positive.
The catch-22 is if we build more roads that are pleasant for motorists, the more motorists and the more unpleasant the road will be. If we build more pleasant roads for cyclists the more unpleasant the other roads will be.
...(BTW, at some point, CB_HI was wondering why all threads lead to bike lanes; ...
And can you point out the post where I "was wondering why all threads lead to bike lanes". I do not recall asking such a question? ...
Brian,
Please point out the post where I said "I was wondering why all threads lead to bike lanes".
Otherwise stop making such claims to set up your Bek style straw men.
Brian and Bek,
How many folks have to repeatedly tell you that VC does not dictate route selection; before either of you get it?
I opine that some 'vehicular cyclists' are NOT comfortable riding all roads, all the time.
I suspect there are some chicken little, probably more than a few even among the VC. who've taken the classes, etc... and choose routes because some traffic volumes/roads ARE unpleasant.
vc, the hype.
Anyway, put down 110 miles for the pizza. Man, was it good.
The catch-22 is if we build more roads that are pleasant for motorists, the more motorists and the more unpleasant the road will be. If we build more pleasant roads for cyclists the more unpleasant the other roads will be.
Many of the things that can make a road more pleasant for motoring can also make it more pleasant for cycling. Compared to a narrow two lane road without shoulders, we could build a two lane road with shoulders, and it would be more pleasant for both motorists and bicyclists.
Brian,
Please point out the post where I said "I was wondering why all threads lead to bike lanes".
Otherwise stop making such claims to set up your Bek style straw men.
Brian and Bek,
How many folks have to repeatedly tell you that VC does not dictate route selection; before either of you get it?
You have a short memory (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=4861186#post4861186). Anyway, I just asked a question. No need to get defensive about it. The reason I ask is that some VC'ists seem to imply that choosing a route on the basis of decreasing risk is decidedly not VC; HH has made this claim, as I recall, and one poster here has made that claim as well. I ask the question simply because I used to think this way, but cyclists such as Mr. Hurst has made a compelling argument for route selection as a tool for cycling in traffic.
Forgive me if I mistep, as I grew weary of reading halfway through this string and just skipped to the last page.
First of all, I enjoy "both" types of cycling mentioned. I am a roadie at heart, but not full of lycra and logo-enscribed jerseys listing all of the companies that will never sponsor me. I like to ride fast on my fastest bike. BUT... there are times when seasons or mood dictate that I change the pace to a more relaxed level. Sometimes I mix it up on my commuting route which is 17 miles each way.
There seems to be somewhat of an argument going on here between cyclist who are happy to bike anywhere, anytime, and those who prefer to hear birds and the whir of their chain against the gears. That's like arguing about which is better - vanilla or rocky road ice cream - strictly a matter of opinion. You can't really argue opinion (look up opinion in the dictionary for more info - i'm just too lazy tonight).
Problem is that most human beings cannot be so easily cubbyholed except for the extremes on both sides of an opinion. I think most cyclists fall into the grey zone here. They have a line in the sand - those roads that are just too crazy for their TASTE, and others that are too circuitous.
With that out of the way, I would like to express my opinion on this thread. It's not right or wrong. It cannot be argued or corrected. It's just what I like.
In a perfect world with silky smooth cement, competant and skilled motorists, a tail wind, blue skies with some puffy white clouds and birds circling majestically overhead - I'm on my road bike acting like I belong on the road. I try to stick to streets with 30 mph speed limits ideally. Maybe even 35. I am very capable of holding a pace of 23 to 25 mph for three or four miles on the flats assuming no roaring headwind is killing me. If it is dark, or raining, and I do not feel comfortable cracking out twenty-something because I cannot see how deep the potholes are because they are full of water, I will probably bail from my direct route and catch a neighborhood street with limited traffic and cut my speed greatly (keep in mind that many people to not have that luxury on thier route!)
An interesting side note here: If my speed is above 20, I ride in the right tire track of the right lane much of the time regardless of traffic overtaking me. (I use a helmet mounted mirror to keep track of drunks and such). You would think that in New Orleans - the heartland of inconsideracy - that I would be run over, pushed off the road, or honked at continuously. I can't think of even two incidents in the past six months! It seems, if you act like real traffic, you get treated like real traffic. The few cars that overtake me just wait their turn and pass same as if I were driving a car doing 20 in a 30 zone.
So my situation - given a few nice, straight routes with decent surfaces, good sight lines, and reasonable speed limits - plus my ability to hold at least 20 mph all day with sprints up to 30 - may be different than your situation. If I tried to bike 15 -17 mph on those same roads I would be white knuckling and gritting my teeth the whole time and not liking it at all.
In the winter, when daylight is hard to come by, I ride my Pugsley to work ( 4.0 inch rubber on a mountain bike ) and can take a route that is completely off road with only a few street crossings. Or I can ride back streets. I don't have the speed or acceleration to feel comfortable on the faster roads. It takes me 25 minutes longer both ways - nearly an extra hour out of my day. I'm cool with that when I must, but I long for my road bike. Always, my main goal is to get to my destination without extra risk. When I can keep up with traffic, I do so on direct routes. When I can't look like "real" traffic to the most nincom of the poops, I get off the main roads.
Like most things in life, you weigh the risks and go.
You have a short memory (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=4861186#post4861186). ....My words:
Notice how, many use the sub-forum to just take pot shots at those that support VC? Note the "I am a VC advocate & I am OK" and "Freaks of the VC Label" threads.
Notice how much of the discussion in the VC sub-forum is really about bike lanes? There is even a "Bike lane advocates only:" thread in the VC sub-forum.
Forum admin has taken a position that VC is the problem, not bike lane advocates, by relegating VC to a sub-forum rather than making it a VC/BL sub-forum.What you claimed I said (to set up your straw man):"CB_HI was wondering why all threads lead to bike lanes"Very different meanings.
That is not a catch-22 as long as the score for the route as a whole ends positive.
The catch-22 is if we build more roads that are pleasant for motorists, the more motorists and the more unpleasant the road will be. If we build more pleasant roads for cyclists the more unpleasant the other roads will be.
The goal was often just the miles ridden... so ultimately the end was positive.
Many of the things that can make a road more pleasant for motoring can also make it more pleasant for cycling. Compared to a narrow two lane road without shoulders, we could build a two lane road with shoulders, and it would be more pleasant for both motorists and bicyclists.
I agree and have argued such at local county meetings. In fact that is the mantra of the local advocacy group... "just more width... that's all we ask."
Many of the things that can make a road more pleasant for motoring can also make it more pleasant for cycling. Compared to a narrow two lane road without shoulders, we could build a two lane road with shoulders, and it would be more pleasant for both motorists and bicyclists.
Shoulders are great till more motorists want more lanes so they take the shoulder for their own purpose and leave us with nothing. So someone came up with the idea of creating a shoulder that is a bit inferior for a motoring travel lane so it could not be commandeered so easily. The only problem is what to call it? Motorist inferior lane or how about just bike lane? :eek:
why are shoulders suggested by the vc as more appropriate for cycling than well provided bike lanes? its because a bike lane is specifically for bicycles?
what a crock.....
I suspect some of the 'vc' are uncomfortable in some traffic situations. despite the chestbeating about 'I am a vehicle' bandied about in this forum...
Shoulders are great till more motorists want more lanes so they take the shoulder for their own purpose and leave us with nothing. So someone came up with the idea of creating a shoulder that is a bit inferior for a motoring travel lane so it could not be commandeered so easily. The only problem is what to call it? Motorist inferior lane or how about just bike lane? :eek:
The surprising thing is that in spite of all the claims of motorists not being able to drive in the "inferior lane" or that they don't fit; they can and do use the space when it suits them... So there is no reason for motorists to not merge first, nor to get close to the curb to make a turn... they simply chose to try to drive like "Indy drivers" and take corners too fast and wide.
I do not have to take the most direct route, but the slower routes to work have many more intersections with stoplights/signs, making it harder on the brakes and drivetrain. On the route home, there a several more stops to make than on the route to work, but my route planning keeps them to the minimum as possible, making the commute more enjoyable.
Oh how I feel that in Fort Lauderdale because of the many waterways! If I was allowed on the highway it would be a 15 min ride to work, but the streets way is quadruple the distance and dozens of lights and stops, I hate them, it's nearly an hour to pedal the street way, and 5 min by car! In Spain and Portugal I cycled on many smaller highways and it was wonderful. I love the rush of having a fast truck pick me up in the wind trail and up my speed a notch! There is one strip of highway in Fort Lauderdale which I DO cycle on even though illegal as the state road merges with the highway for just under a mile. That state road can get me to the performance centre in 35 min whereas the city streets takes 1h15 min.
I think when talking time differences, some differences weigh more than others. On itineraries with 50% time difference, on the way back from work I MAY choose quieter streets, but on itineraries with two and three fold differences I'll always choose speed.
Most cycling miles in the USA are cycled in large part for pleasure. Therefore, many cyclists are interested in finding pleasant routes for both utility and recreational cycling. When I helped develop Cary's bike map and signed bike route system, we determined early on that the main purpose of defining bike routes was to identify routes that most cyclists find to be particularly pleasant for cycling.
IMHO I think you hit a very solid nail there in defining the differences between VCers and recreational riders. It is my understanding that in the first century of cycling, cycling was very much a recreational activity. I think somewhere in around the 50s, bikes became much more efficient and became efficient and reliable enough modes of transportation to get to work, reliably, on time, AND in a reasonable time. I think until the 90s these were the golden years of cycling. Cyclists were taking power and health into their hands and cycling grew very fast and became much more popular. Now cycling is experiencing growing pains as a group of less experienced (and I'm excluding forum members here specifically) cyclists are wanting to enjoy cycling but aren't willing to accept the present conditions. Cycling is INHERENTLY NON DANGEROUS and all hardcore cyclists know this. Most bike lane advocates (once again I'm excluding forum members) in most North American cities are less experienced cyclists and/or parents looking for road access to their unroadworthy children. So here we are, the old hardcore I almost want to say "crazy canucks" of cycling who enjoy having ALL THE SAME RIGHTS AS MOTORISTS along with a new comer believers facing off against mostly a new generation of cyclists, the very old, the very young, and the inexperienced, who feel very small on 20 pounds of metal compared to 2 tons.
Mellow routes are for people with extra time on their hands. VC is most always faster and I dare to say most people don't have very much spare time on work days...
...so you're saying VC can only be practiced on busy streets with heavy fast moving traffic?
I guess your answer to the OP is "no."
Mellow routes are for people with extra time on their hands. VC is most always faster and I dare to say most people don't have very much spare time on work days...
This really depends where you live. In DC there are lots of mellow trails that are as good if not better then the surrounding roads.
...so you're saying VC can only be practiced on busy streets with heavy fast moving traffic?
I guess your answer to the OP is "no."
I'd say tallard's answer is:
Speed and "Efficiency" Über Alles!
IMHO I think you hit a very solid nail there in defining the differences between VCers and recreational riders. It is my understanding that in the first century of cycling, cycling was very much a recreational activity. I think somewhere in around the 50s, bikes became much more efficient and became efficient and reliable enough modes of transportation to get to work, reliably, on time, AND in a reasonable time. I think until the 90s these were the golden years of cycling. Cyclists were taking power and health into their hands and cycling grew very fast and became much more popular. Now cycling is experiencing growing pains as a group of less experienced (and I'm excluding forum members here specifically) cyclists are wanting to enjoy cycling but aren't willing to accept the present conditions. Cycling is INHERENTLY NON DANGEROUS and all hardcore cyclists know this. Most bike lane advocates (once again I'm excluding forum members) in most North American cities are less experienced cyclists and/or parents looking for road access to their unroadworthy children. So here we are, the old hardcore I almost want to say "crazy canucks" of cycling who enjoy having ALL THE SAME RIGHTS AS MOTORISTS along with a new comer believers facing off against mostly a new generation of cyclists, the very old, the very young, and the inexperienced, who feel very small on 20 pounds of metal compared to 2 tons.
The history of the bicycle and current notions bring up some interesting parallels. The first bikes were the toys of the elite. The penny-farthing was the first bicycle to achieve speed and distance in a practical manner but was notoriously unsafe. Once the safety bicycle was invented it became the vehicle of the masses even those too poor to afford a horse and carriage. So since the beginning we have bikes are toys, unsafe and a poor mans vehicle and those notions are still with us today.
Cycling is INHERENTLY NON DANGEROUS and all hardcore cyclists know this.
Mellow routes are for people with extra time on their hands. VC is most always faster and I dare to say most people don't have very much spare time on work days...
cycling does not occur in a vaccuum and it can be a very dangerous activity depending on conditions. you know this, as you proudly state in another thread that you have sustained several cycling-related injuries. Vehicular cycling can be done on mellow routes, in bike lanes and through parking lots. what do YOU mean by vehicular cycling?
Forgive me if I mistep, as I grew weary of reading halfway through this string and just skipped to the last page.
First of all, I enjoy "both" types of cycling mentioned. I am a roadie at heart, but not full of lycra and logo-enscribed jerseys listing all of the companies that will never sponsor me. I like to ride fast on my fastest bike. BUT... there are times when seasons or mood dictate that I change the pace to a more relaxed level. Sometimes I mix it up on my commuting route which is 17 miles each way.
There seems to be somewhat of an argument going on here between cyclist who are happy to bike anywhere, anytime, and those who prefer to hear birds and the whir of their chain against the gears. That's like arguing about which is better - vanilla or rocky road ice cream - strictly a matter of opinion. You can't really argue opinion (look up opinion in the dictionary for more info - i'm just too lazy tonight).
Problem is that most human beings cannot be so easily cubbyholed except for the extremes on both sides of an opinion. I think most cyclists fall into the grey zone here. They have a line in the sand - those roads that are just too crazy for their TASTE, and others that are too circuitous.
With that out of the way, I would like to express my opinion on this thread. It's not right or wrong. It cannot be argued or corrected. It's just what I like.
In a perfect world with silky smooth cement, competant and skilled motorists, a tail wind, blue skies with some puffy white clouds and birds circling majestically overhead - I'm on my road bike acting like I belong on the road. I try to stick to streets with 30 mph speed limits ideally. Maybe even 35. I am very capable of holding a pace of 23 to 25 mph for three or four miles on the flats assuming no roaring headwind is killing me. If it is dark, or raining, and I do not feel comfortable cracking out twenty-something because I cannot see how deep the potholes are because they are full of water, I will probably bail from my direct route and catch a neighborhood street with limited traffic and cut my speed greatly (keep in mind that many people to not have that luxury on thier route!)
An interesting side note here: If my speed is above 20, I ride in the right tire track of the right lane much of the time regardless of traffic overtaking me. (I use a helmet mounted mirror to keep track of drunks and such). You would think that in New Orleans - the heartland of inconsideracy - that I would be run over, pushed off the road, or honked at continuously. I can't think of even two incidents in the past six months! It seems, if you act like real traffic, you get treated like real traffic. The few cars that overtake me just wait their turn and pass same as if I were driving a car doing 20 in a 30 zone.
So my situation - given a few nice, straight routes with decent surfaces, good sight lines, and reasonable speed limits - plus my ability to hold at least 20 mph all day with sprints up to 30 - may be different than your situation. If I tried to bike 15 -17 mph on those same roads I would be white knuckling and gritting my teeth the whole time and not liking it at all.
In the winter, when daylight is hard to come by, I ride my Pugsley to work ( 4.0 inch rubber on a mountain bike ) and can take a route that is completely off road with only a few street crossings. Or I can ride back streets. I don't have the speed or acceleration to feel comfortable on the faster roads. It takes me 25 minutes longer both ways - nearly an extra hour out of my day. I'm cool with that when I must, but I long for my road bike. Always, my main goal is to get to my destination without extra risk. When I can keep up with traffic, I do so on direct routes. When I can't look like "real" traffic to the most nincom of the poops, I get off the main roads.
Like most things in life, you weigh the risks and go.
A refreshing glimpse into the reality of one cyclist.
I'd say tallard's answer is:
Speed and "Efficiency" Über Alles!
My friend, that because your answer is different, not because Tallard's answer is "wrong."
wtf? tallard doesn't make that distinction. that it's her opinion, stated it as fact. stop trying to be friggin mahatmaa Ghandi, LBM.
Question or two:
IF so called "Vehicular bicyclists" are purportedly comfortable on any road allowed to bicycle travel,
do ALL foresterite vehicular bicyclists choose the most direct route regardless of traffic volumes or road design?
or are vehicular bicyclists free of dogmatism and can choose a comfortable, low traffic route that may meander and take longer to travel, but is more senic, pleasant, or lower travelled?
Why?
Do foresterites HAVE to choose the most direct route, regardless of road pleasantries or traffic speeds/volumes?
is it comfort, enjoyment, or is it inferiority complexes? why would an everyday bicyclist that understands how to ride according to the rules of the road choose a more pleasant route? why would foresterite vehicular bicyclists?
This is a very weird question, and really has very little to do with vehicular cycling.
I do make route decisions based on a number of factors, but fear of some arbitrary traffic speed or volume isn't one of them.
On my commute into work I need to get there on time, and don't want to leave an hour earlier than necessary to do so. So I do one of two things. I take the most direct route, or I cycle to the train station. The most direct route takes me through a couple of ugly industrial areas with reasonably fast moving traffic (40-50 MPH along the arterials). It isn't my favorite route, but I've ridden that route for decades, so it doesn't particularly bother me, and the passing lane is usually free enough that cars can whiz along at whatever speed they choose. The train station route takes me over an interstate highway bridge, which most of my non-cycling friends think is insanely dangerous. It isn't dangerous, and in fact is an easy crossing. It just requires lane changing skills, and comfort with interacting with motorists.
On my return trip I can take any route I please, and am much more likely to take a route that is scenic, and meanders a bit. If I feel uncomfortable with any route, I'll go some other direction. After all, I cycle because I enjoy doing it, which is the only thing which motivates a sustainable community of cyclists in the US. But my threshold for discomfort is obviously much different from people who consider Atlanta a "cycling unfriendly" city.
Why do you consider route choice a litmus test for vehicular cycling? Most vehicular cyclists view route selection for driving a car and route selection for cycling as pretty similar. If I'm making a trip to Birmingham in an auto I'll take I-20 if I'm time constrained, Hwy 78 if I want to take in the scenery.
Of course I realize you're trying to paint vehicular cyclists as some sort of fanatical macho road warriors, rather than as advocates of the right of cyclists to operate on all public roads as first class citizens.
Of course I realize you're trying to paint vehicular cyclists as some sort of fanatical macho road warriors, rather than as advocates of the right of cyclists to operate on all public roads as first class citizens.
Or it could be he is trying to see to what extent comfort plays a role in real life VCers (i.e. Theory is one thing but what about practice.)
Or it could be he is trying to see to what extent comfort plays a role in real life VCers (i.e. Theory is one thing but what about practice.)
The practice is that I choose routes based on what I'm trying to do. Comfort does play a role, but fear of automobiles doesn't play much of a role in my comfort.
Let's take it back to comparing my experiences as a motorist in route choice with cycling. My fiance lives in an area we describe here in Atlanta as OTP (Outside the Perimeter) on the near westside. When I go to her house I usually drive my car. The most efficient route includes a stretch of I-285, aka "the Perimeter". I-285 has a great deal of fast moving tractor-trailer traffic coming off a westside industrial area. It's unpleasant and at times nerve-racking. But I continue taking that route because when I visit her after work I want to get there as quickly as possible (after all, I'm 56 years old and don't want to spend most of my remaining years in transit).
Likewise when I'm choosing a cycling route I base it on what I'm trying to do. Is it a picnic tour? Then I probably want pleasant scenery. Is it a commute? I want to get to work as soon as possible. Is it a training ride? Then I want long stretches of empty road with as few intersections as possible.
The practice is that I choose routes based on what I'm trying to do. Comfort does play a role, but fear of automobiles doesn't play much of a role in my comfort.
If you will allow me to use this as a jump off point, this is one thing that concerns me nobody likes traffic, we do not have to be afraid of it to want to avoid it, to me it is just like avoiding routes with too many stops or too many up hills.
If you will allow me to use this as a jump off point, this is one thing that concerns me nobody likes traffic, we do not have to be afraid of it to want to avoid it, to me it is just like avoiding routes with too many stops or too many up hills.
I'm an urban sort of guy, so it isn't traffic per se that bothers me. In fact, riding up Peachtree, which is often traffic clogged is sort of nice, because I like the Downtown and Midtown scenery.
If you want to avoid traffic, by all means do so. If you want to claim that I choose any given high traffic route because I'm trying to maintain some sort of VC persona, then you don't have much knowledge of my laid back belligerent contrarian leftist-with-a-Gomer-Pyle-accent self.
I invite you to take any route you are comfortable with, as long as you act as the driver of a vehicle, and assert your right to any road you choose to take.
I like to enjoy my commute. choose the most direct route if you prefer, I like to smell the roses on my way to work.
I dispute that EVERY bicyclist- dogmatic VC or not - has to choose the most direct route just because its the most direct, regardless of traffic.
I also dispute that EVERY so-called 'vehicular cyclist' is comfortable asserting their right to any road they choose.
I suspect there are even incompetant vehicular cyclists that have passed the EC course. comfortable in numbers and with a coach and being 'tested' but then fall back on less than exemplary methods when alone on the roads.
I like to enjoy my commute. choose the most direct route if you prefer, I like to smell the roses on my way to work.
I dispute that EVERY bicyclist- dogmatic VC or not - has to choose the most direct route just because its the most direct, regardless of traffic.
I also dispute that EVERY so-called 'vehicular cyclist' is comfortable asserting their right to any road they choose.
I suspect there are even incompetant vehicular cyclists that have passed the EC course. comfortable in numbers and with a coach and being 'tested' but then fall back on less than exemplary methods when alone on the roads.
I'm starting to hate starting every post with some variant of "I'm perplexed". But I am. Which vehicular cyclist has instructed you to choose any particular route, direct or otherwise?
If I choose a road, I'm comfortable with it. Neither you nor I know what routes "EVERY so-called" vehicular cyclist is comfortable with. I do know that the more I cycled the more comfortable I became with routes requiring a higher level of cycling skill.
As for passing the EC course, I'm sure there are people who have passed it who are terrible cyclists, just as many people who pass state driving exams for motor vehicles are terrible drivers. I'd still rather drivers of both automobiles and cyclists learn the rules of the road and good practice.
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.