Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Can non-vehicular cyclists choose a more efficient route?

This is a companion thread to "Can vehicular cyclists choose a more mellow route". :D

This afternoon as I watched a sidewalk cyclist on a department store bike undulate from side to side like a drunken armadillo, seemingly frozen in the highest gear, covering at least as much distance at right
angles to his direction of travel as in forward motion I pondered the question:

Can non-vehicular cyclists choose an efficient route?

Now on the face of it that might seem like an odd question. After all route choice is independent of the ability to travel in a straight line or degree of side to side wobble..

And I have to admit there are those rare times when a combination of sidewalks, bike lanes, MUPs, drainage trenches, neighbor's yards and strip mall parking lots do constitute the most direct path to a destination.

But I'd really like to know if avoidance of direct and efficient routes is a requirement of the non-vehicular cycling crowd.

(For those of you who are sputtering "Ack, Ack" at the moment, count your blessings. I considered starting a thread entitled "different levels of incompetency amongst "non-vehicular cyclists" but decided it might be deemed uncivil :) ).

I protest on behalf of all drunken Armadillos.

and no.

This is a companion thread to "Can vehicular cyclists choose a more mellow route". :D

This afternoon as I watched a sidewalk cyclist on a department store bike undulate from side to side like a drunken armadillo, seemingly frozen in the highest gear, covering at least as much distance at right
angles to his direction of travel as in forward motion I pondered the question:

Why not ponder this? What the heck does the provenance of a cyclist's bicycle, or a bicyclist's cadence, or degree of "undulting have to do with status/non status as a Vehicular Cyclist? Perhaps you meant the cyclist didn't fit your approved profile for a Serious Cyclist.

What makes you think the stranger (to you) was not a Vehicular Cyclist who decided that the sidewalk was where he felt like riding today?

Why not ponder this? What the heck does the provenance of a cyclist's bicycle, or a bicyclist's cadence, or degree of "undulting have to do with status/non status as a Vehicular Cyclist? Perhaps you meant the cyclist didn't fit your approved profile for a Serious Cyclist. What makes you think the stranger (to you) was not a Vehicular Cyclist who decided that the sidewalk was where he felt like riding today?


that's a good point.
undulating -1 serious point
inexpensive bike -5 serious points
wrong gear choice -5 serious points
sidewalk rider -10 serious points.

poor guy doesn't have a chance in hell of getting to the serious level. not without some classes and some serious upgrades.

Can non-vehicular cyclists choose an efficient route?
I tried, in the beginning (strangely enough I had forgotten my childhood experiences with staying off sidwalks, perhaps due to years of driving a car) to choose every route based on these criteria:

1) Was the speed limit very slow?

2) Was traffic light?

3) If 1) and 2) were negative, was there a sidewalk, bike path, or dirt trail to follow? I can show you a detailed map of Atlanta and surrounding areas on which I had used a yellow highlighter to color every possible alternate route to avoid major arteries.

So yes, in my case, a non-vehicular cyclist did choose more efficient routes, because he got tired of riding 18 miles in a tangled mess just to get to work.

But the beauty of my experience is that I discovered that there are many ways to skin a cat. Now I know so many alternate routes that I'll probably never get lost!

And now I have the option of taking shaded routes in the afternoon, instead of baking in the sun in concrete deserts. I like having options, I prefer fewer limitations, including being limited from the most efficient, most direct route.

Why not ponder this? What the heck does the provenance of a cyclist's bicycle, or a bicyclist's cadence, or degree of "undulting have to do with status/non status as a Vehicular Cyclist? Perhaps you meant the cyclist didn't fit your approved profile for a Serious Cyclist.

What makes you think the stranger (to you) was not a Vehicular Cyclist who decided that the sidewalk was where he felt like riding today?

The sidewalk is a pedestrian facility, not a vehicular one. The side to side motion and mashing (high gear, slow pedaling) showed a lack of skill with the bike. The cadence would have been meaningless except that he was going nowhere much with a great deal of effort.

And, yes, I'd say he failed my "approved profile for a Serious Cyclist" by a wide margin.

that's a good point.
undulating -1 serious point
inexpensive bike -5 serious points
wrong gear choice -5 serious points
sidewalk rider -10 serious points.

poor guy doesn't have a chance in hell of getting to the serious level. not without some classes and some serious upgrades.

I'd have to rework the wording a little bit to fit my own evaluation system.

Points one and three are basically the same problem, which I'd call "lack of skill in operating the
equipment". "inexpensive bike" I'd have to change to "non-roadworthy bike". I've gotten good used bikes for less than fifty dollars. I'll leave "sidewalk rider" as is. The sidewalk is a pedestrian facility. It isn't intended for vehicular transportation.

As for his chances of becoming serious, rather than lunch hour entertainment for me, that depends on whether the community of cyclists does what it's supposed to be doing as a self-sustaining community, and teaches him how to choose a bike and operate it properly (and of course whether he wants and is able to do it. The ride I observed may have given him heart failure).

I'd have to rework the wording a little bit to fit my own evaluation system.

Points one and three are basically the same problem, which I'd call "lack of skill in operating the
equipment". "inexpensive bike" I'd have to change to "non-roadworthy bike". I've gotten good used bikes for less than fifty dollars. I'll leave "sidewalk rider" as is. The sidewalk is a pedestrian facility. It isn't intended for vehicular transportation.

As for his chances of becoming serious, rather than lunch hour entertainment for me, that depends on whether the community of cyclists does what it's supposed to be doing as a self-sustaining community, and teaches him how to choose a bike and operate it properly (and of course whether he wants and is able to do it. The ride I observed may have given him heart failure).

And what does "lack of skill in operating the equipment" or use of a "non-roadworthy bike" (as defined by LarryF) have do with Vehicular Cycling? You mean motor vehicle drivers ARE skillful in operating their vehicles and their vehicles ARE all in tip-top condition? Baloney! You mean the rest of the drivers are not vehicular drivers? Maybe you are only considering the Serious Motorists that fit the profile of your associates.

I suspect you are the one more likely to have a health problem, due to anxiety over the lack of seriousness of people who don't emulate your saintly ways and don't do what they are "supposed to do" IAW the Gospel of Larry.

And what does "lack of skill in operating the equipment" or use of a "non-roadworthy bike" (as defined by LarryF) have do with Vehicular Cycling? You mean motor vehicle drivers ARE skillful in operating their vehicles and their vehicles ARE all in tip-top condition? Baloney! You mean the rest of the drivers are not vehicular drivers? Maybe you are only considering the Serious Motorists that fit the profile of your associates.

I suspect you are the one more likely to have a health problem, due to anxiety over the lack of seriousness of people who don't emulate your saintly ways and don't do what they are "supposed to do" IAW the Gospel of Larry.

Yeah, my posts exhibit deep anxiety :D

I do distinguish between serious motorists and inept doofuses behind the wheel of cars. It's a useful distinction to make when I'm exercising basic defensive skills on the road.

The ability to ride a straight line, keep the bicycle more or less upright, shift gears (on a multi-geared bike), and steer are necessary skills for navigating in traffic, which makes them skills necessary for vehicular cycling. As for roadworthiness, yes, people take all sorts of junk onto the road, motorized and otherwise. I'm not required to admire them for it.

As for his chances of becoming serious, rather than lunch hour entertainment for me, that depends on whether the community of cyclists does what it's supposed to be doing as a self-sustaining community, and teaches him how to choose a bike and operate it properly (and of course whether he wants and is able to do it. The ride I observed may have given him heart failure).

leaving aside your snide, insulting comments about this guy's riding style and choice of equipment, how do you envision this "Community of Cyclists" and their education program? what should they teach?

leaving aside your snide, insulting comments about this guy's riding style and choice of equipment, how do you envision this "Community of Cyclists" and their education program? what should they teach?

Actually if I'd had a chance to interact with the guy I'd have talked to him about gear selection first, and if he's someone I could interact with regularly I'd have begun working on sidewalk riding, control of the bike, and finally, if he expressed an interest in getting more serious, bike selection.

"Community of Cyclists" is probably beyond the scope of what I can handle adequately in one post, but I'd think my view of the components of an education program should be pretty obvious. It would include pre-ride checkout of a bike, mounting and dismounting a bike, gear selection, lane position, lane changes, lawful behavior on the road, how to outfit for inclement weather ... Hey wait a minute. I think I've seen a similar course outline before ... Let me think ...

Do you think sidewalk cycling, inefficient gear selection, and poor control over one's bike is a thing to be encouraged and nurtured?

To answer larry's question about non VC'ers being able to choose more efficient routes, yes, since I see it constantly, just that they're usually riding on the sidewalk or up against the curb, regardless if there is a BL or not. To comment on larry's certain cyclist observation, I've seen only one such cyclist as he described in the past few years, in my area, they're not going to be riding a bicycle much longer in that manner.

As for roadworthiness, yes, people take all sorts of junk onto the road, motorized and otherwise. I'm not required to admire them for it.

I doubt that anyone gives a dang whom you admire because of their choice in equipment or standing in the Serious Cyclist Club.

Do you think sidewalk cycling, inefficient gear selection, and poor control over one's bike is a thing to be encouraged and nurtured?
Do you know anybody who encourages or nurtures such behavior? Mr. Straw Man perhaps?

Disapproval of a sneering condescending attitude towards other cyclists who don't fit the Larry F. approved profile is not encouragement or nurture of any negative cycling behavior. It is a condemnation of your snooty, elitist attitude towards other cyclists.
BTW, I doubt that you can promote VC classes/training very well with such a negative pitch.

just let other people ride what and where they want, and have them do the same for you. Don't make fun of them for their equipment or skill. provide help if asked. that's about it. It's really none of my business how, where, or what people choose to ride, despite the serious VC bike and riding style nanny/mafia that has very definite ideas on the matter...

Larry F: "And, yes, I'd say he failed my "approved profile for a Serious Cyclist" by a wide margin."

i hope i never fit into the "serious cyclist" profile. Riding a bike is too much fun to make it another chore.

have we considered that the guy could have been learning how to ride a bike? Maybe that was his first time. Maybe his second. In any case, i would imagine that he didn't feel comfortable in traffic, and so (wobbling and all) that was his most efficient (and safest) route.

Mr. Straw Man perhaps?
Ding, we have a winner of the best straw man argument on BF. Congratulations Mr. ILTB! :D

I doubt that anyone gives a dang whom you admire because of their choice in equipment or standing in the Serious Cyclist Club.

Evidently you must care somewhat since you're the poster most likely to comment on my use of the word "serious" to describe cyclists.

Next time you're out on your seriously expensive bicycle with your seriously tight gear on, shifting your gears with perfect propriety, take a look around you and see how many non-serious mashers in fast food restaurant uniforms are actually out on your supposedly more serious, more vehicular, more direct route. I'll betcha there are way more of them than you.

Next time you're out on your seriously expensive bicycle with your seriously tight gear on, shifting your gears with perfect propriety, take a look around you and see how many non-serious mashers in fast food restaurant uniforms are actually out on your supposedly more serious, more vehicular, more direct route. I'll betcha there are way more of them than you.

I actually don't see cyclists in fast food uniforms. Roadies dressed much like me, a few non-roadie commuters on hybrids in street clothes, delivery cyclists on fixies dressed like delivery cyclists on fixies, and a scattering of folks like armadillo man pretty well cover adult cyclists here.

Do you know anybody who encourages or nurtures such behavior? Mr. Straw Man perhaps?

Disapproval of a sneering condescending attitude towards other cyclists who don't fit the Larry F. approved profile is not encouragement or nurture of any negative cycling behavior. It is a condemnation of your snooty, elitist attitude towards other cyclists.
BTW, I doubt that you can promote VC classes/training very well with such a negative pitch.

Snooty and elitist? Me? You misunderstand me, I-Like-Ike. I'm like a thin, aging teddy bear in garish synthetic jersey and shorts. I've tried sneering, but my face isn't the correct shape for it. It looks more like a silent snarl when I try sneering.

And you notice that even the title of this thread leaves open the possibility that non-vehicular cyclists can devise routes that don't add 40% in distance to every trip. I think that's pretty damned positive myself.

Snooty and elitist? Me? You misunderstand me, I-Like-Ike. I'm like a thin, aging teddy bear in garish synthetic jersey and shorts...

...who lives in a region that is so homogenous that you only ever see others like yourself when you go for a bike ride.

The question was, "Can non-vehicular cyclists choose a more efficient route?"

The question all the answers focused on was, "Can a non-vehicular cyclist ride wherever he wants?"

The OP's question remains unanswered, yet. But respondents have done an excellent job of dodging it.

(Larry, you look really sorry in mud. ;) )

Of course, if Larry sees the light, he'll be everyone's friend...

larryfeltonj,

Nothing gets ILTB going more than using the words "serious cyclist" or "bike specific clothing".

larryfeltonj,

Nothing gets ILTB going more than using the words "serious cyclist" or "bike specific clothing".

Sure there is; a character who thinks and boasts that his brand of Serious Cycling or choice in equipment makes him and his like minded pals more worthy (of advocacy) than those who don't fit the Serious/Real/True Cyclist profile.

...who lives in a region that is so homogenous that you only ever see others like yourself when you go for a bike ride.

This is an absurd mis-statement. I'm white, and I'm as likely to see African Americans or Mexicans as whites on any given trip out. I can only assume that you've either never spent a lot of time in Atlanta, or that if you did, you confined your travels to a very constricted area. The city I live in is majority African American, with a large white minority, about 7% Mexican [Edit: I noticed I used "Mexican" instead of Latino here. I'm going to leave it as is, because immigration from Mexico of late is much heavier than other Latin American countries, and the 7% figure is probably a large understatement given the high visibility of Mexican immigrants here]
at the last census, but in actuality probably much larger at this point, with fairly large Indian and East Asian communities in pockets throughout the metro area. The neighborhood I live in has a slight African American majority, with whites the next largest group, and significant Mexican areas to the south and west (along McDonough Blvd and Boulevard southeast.

If you're going to make statements like this, at least do a quick check of the census records. You know I live in Atlanta.

Next time you're out on your seriously expensive bicycle with your seriously tight gear on, shifting your gears with perfect propriety, take a look around you and see how many non-serious mashers in fast food restaurant uniforms are actually out on your supposedly more serious, more vehicular, more direct route. I'll betcha there are way more of them than you.

Well, now that I've gotten the trolling in me out of my system over the week let's examine the assumptions here.

How seriously expensive is my equipment?

Here's a list of the bikes I actively have on the road:

2003 Raleigh Supercourse: a moderately priced road bike, just above entry level. It cost me about $900
new, about $1300 once I'd equipped it. It doesn't dazzle the roadies, but it's served me well over the past few years.

1987 Peugeot Iseran: picked it up at a thrift store for $35.00, on the sole basis that the frame was the right size. The Iseran was nothing better than an entry level bike when new, but this one had no discernable damage. So far I've probably put around $300.00 in it, and have been making it my all weather bike.

1969 Raleigh Twenty (folding bike) : A recent acquisition, I've been curious about the Twenties for years, and this one was in very good condition, all original parts. I paid around $250.00 for it counting shipping. It's served as a very fun little utility bike, although without a few modifications (a hub with lower gear range, rims that provide some braking power) I don't think I'd tour on it.

1970s Raleigh Shopper (non-folder): I got this at the same time as the Twenty, haven't checked the date on the hub. Non-folder but the same basic design as the Twenty. $145.00 including shipping.

In addition the above the bikes in my basement I'm not using at the moment include a monstrous old
steel frame Raleigh with top tube shifters, and a 1970s Bianchi road bike with a frame size too small for me.


Now you have a basis to critique my supposedly elite status with respect to equipment. Have at it.

Let me quote you:

I actually don't see cyclists in fast food uniforms. Roadies dressed much like me, a few non-roadie commuters on hybrids in street clothes, delivery cyclists on fixies dressed like delivery cyclists on fixies, and a scattering of folks like armadillo man pretty well cover adult cyclists here.

I'll admit I don't know what an armadillo man looks like, but it sounds to me like the rest of your description is pretty homogenous.

I know that Atlanta is very diverse. It just sounds to me like you ride around either with your eyes shut or else in a very non-diverse part of Atlanta.

Take a closer look next time, maybe when you are driving to work, and see if most folks are riding some kind on non-eye-catching bike to some crappy job. I'll betcha they care a lot less than you do about what gear they are in and they probably left home with enough time to get where they are going without dripping sweat and grunting about what a great workout that was.

Well, now that I've gotten the trolling in me out of my system over the week let's examine the assumptions here.

How seriously expensive is my equipment?

Here's a list of the bikes I actively have on the road:

2003 Raleigh Supercourse: a moderately priced road bike, just above entry level. It cost me about $900
new, about $1300 once I'd equipped it. It doesn't dazzle the roadies, but it's served me well over the past few years.

1987 Peugeot Iseran: picked it up at a thrift store for $35.00, on the sole basis that the frame was the right size. The Iseran was nothing better than an entry level bike when new, but this one had no discernable damage. So far I've probably put around $300.00 in it, and have been making it my all weather bike.

1969 Raleigh Twenty (folding bike) : A recent acquisition, I've been curious about the Twenties for years, and this one was in very good condition, all original parts. I paid around $250.00 for it counting shipping. It's served as a very fun little utility bike, although without a few modifications (a hub with lower gear range, rims that provide some braking power) I don't think I'd tour on it.

1970s Raleigh Shopper (non-folder): I got this at the same time as the Twenty, haven't checked the date on the hub. Non-folder but the same basic design as the Twenty. $145.00 including shipping.

In addition the above the bikes in my basement I'm not using at the moment include a monstrous old
steel frame Raleigh with top tube shifters, and a 1970s Bianchi road bike with a frame size too small for me.


Now you have a basis to critique my supposedly elite status with respect to equipment. Have at it.

You have a lot of bikes and are obviously well-off enough to afford to store them all. Next time you see some guy wobbling along on a ratty kid's BMX bike that's too small for him, consider whether he borrowed his nephew's bike to get to where he's going. Next time you see some masher struggling with a bike that doesn't shift gears, consider your stable full of steeds, all shiny and perfect. Owning lots of shiny, purty bikes and shifting gears "properly" is probably the least of that guy's concerns.

Just imagine if a motorist operated their vehicle in the manner as the bicyclist that larry decribes? What would the general public's reaction would be? I'm really sure that many average peds reaction to this type of sidewalk riding would not be one of approval. I also find no apparent PC crime in owning a fleet of shiny purty bikes for different riding purposes, also being able to afford a place to store them. Just calculate the cost to puchase and operate one older used clunker of a car, and then owning, maintaining, and storing several nice bicycles is relatively easy.

I have no problem with owning lots of bikes either. There are 7 in our garage.

I do have a problem with equating the shifting of gears, "appropriate cycling gear", cadence, "undulation", "non-roadworthy bike" or whatever other measurement that might be written about profusely in a bicycling magazine with "skilled" or "serious". As if the multitudes undulating and mashing their non-roadworthy bikes while wearing street clothes were somehow un-skilled and not serious about the business of getting to wherever they are going.

Let's get real about these cyclists that grab a bike too small to get to the store. Does anyone really think we should all pattern ourselves after them?

I want straight answers: who here would really ride a BMX to work? Are any of you serious?

No, let's not teach anyone else what we've learned. No, instead, so as not to make them uncomfortable, let's all trade our favorite, well-tweaked bikes that fit us to a "T" for cheap bikes that are too small for us, with our knees knocking us in the jaw. And let's trade our panniers for Kroger bags dangling from handlebars. While we're at it, let's trade our ideals, too, and adopt the mentality that says, "As soon as I can get some wheels, I won't have to put up with this stupid kid's bike."

And if anyone thinks I haven't dangled a Kroger bag from my handlebars, rode without a helmet, ridden on the sidewalk, run red lights and stop signs, stuffed my pants leg in to my sock, rode in $10 shoes (and 10-for-a-dollar-t-shirts,) wore cheap undies, tied my glasses on with rubber bands, used an empty coke bottle for a water bottle, eaten packaged honey and strawberry jam instead of "GU," or poisoned a store with BO, all within the last year and mostly within the last month, think again! :D And I'm just getting started!

In fact, I can't think of a single piece of cycling-specific clothing I own, outside my helmet. Not by choice, but by budget. But don't think for a minute I wouldn't want the best if I could!

No, let's pattern ourselves after those who could benefit the most by our example, and thereby lose the opportunity to elevate respect for cycling.

^ i do (ride a bmx to work). Its got high pressure 20" slicks, a 52 x 14 driveline, big arse cruiser bars, a raised seat and is ugly enough i can get away with just one U lock to lock it. Its also my beater bike for the liqour store runs, i dont need to worry about the drunks outside trying to steal it.

You have a lot of bikes and are obviously well-off enough to afford to store them all. Next time you see some guy wobbling along on a ratty kid's BMX bike that's too small for him, consider whether he borrowed his nephew's bike to get to where he's going. Next time you see some masher struggling with a bike that doesn't shift gears, consider your stable full of steeds, all shiny and perfect. Owning lots of shiny, purty bikes and shifting gears "properly" is probably the least of that guy's concerns.

If you make many more assumptions about me, my neighborhood, my lifestyle, my income, or even my attitude toward unskilled cyclists, you'll probably continue to make assumptions I'll feel compelled to correct. I won't dwell on those assumptions, but I will say my house is a 900 square foot 1925 Craftsman for which I paid $150,000. There isn't a whole lot of room, but then again I have a basement, and bicycles have a pretty narrow profile.

I care about other people's cycling skills for two reasons.

One is that I think cycling is a wonderful form of both transportation and recreation, and want those people to develop the cycling skills to be able to appreciate the joys of this marvelous activity.

The second is that I'm very protective of my rights as a first class citizen of the roadways, and the best way to ensure that cyclists are first class citizens is to insist that they act like it.

^ i do (ride a bmx to work). Its got high pressure 20" slicks, a 52 x 14 driveline, big arse cruiser bars, a raised seat and is ugly enough i can get away with just one U lock to lock it. Its also my beater bike for the liqour store runs, i dont need to worry about the drunks outside trying to steal it.
Cool.

:beer:

But remember, you didn't "grab" that BMX, you chose it. Difference.

...I think cycling is a wonderful form of both transportation and recreation, and want those people to develop the cycling skills to be able to appreciate the joys of this marvelous activity.

The second is that I'm very protective of my rights as a first class citizen of the roadways, and the best way to ensure that cyclists are first class citizens is to insist that they act like it.
I feel the same way. I don't go out of my way to put anyone down. Trust me on this, I know the feeling of, "outcast." Who am I to judge?

But whenever I get the chance to inspire a cyclist face-to-face, I do my best. Really, I think all of us are that way.

I don't look at their bike with a sneer (it's probably better than any of mine, anyway :p )

But some people are actually looking for tips. When they look, I try to help. What's most important to me is not selling my ideology about cycling. That'll never stick. What I do do is perceive what keeps a cyclist interested, and bump that up.

But on these forums, we're all experienced, to some degree. Here, we take off the cute clothes and tell it like we see it. No prob.

Larry and I share a lot in common. Live with it. :)

consider your stable full of steeds, all shiny and perfect. Owning lots of shiny, purty bikes .

Oh, and by the way, I think my bikes are very purty, and appreciate your nod to my deep roots in southern culture. If Faulkner or Flannery O'Connor were still with us, I'd email them and suggest that they incorporate the old southerner with his shiny road bikes into one of their novels or short stories.

I have no problem with owning lots of bikes either. There are 7 in our garage.



Yikes!! Y'all have a garage? I've always dreamed of being affluent enough to have a house with a garage. I grew up in the Grant Park neighborhood of Atlanta. My father never made more than about 30% above minimum wage, so when I was about five years old we poured a narrow driveway adjacent to the house.

I've always lived in the urban sections of Atlanta, so every house I've lived in has either depended on onstreet parking, or has had a narrow driveway.

Yikes!! Y'all have a garage? I've always dreamed of being affluent enough to have a house with a garage. I grew up in the Grant Park neighborhood of Atlanta. My father never made more than about 30% above minimum wage, so when I was about five years old we poured a narrow driveway adjacent to the house.

I've always lived in the urban sections of Atlanta, so every house I've lived in has either depended on onstreet parking, or has had a narrow driveway.

I don't give a dang about your upbringing; I find objectionable your current pompous attitude and arrogance towards cyclists that don't meet YOUR standards for proper cycling. IMO, it is counterproductive to positive advocacy when so-called cycling advocates smugly boast about their Cycling Seriousness .

I don't give a dang about your upbringing; I find objectionable your current pompous attitude and arrogance towards cyclists that don't meet YOUR standards for proper cycling. IMO, it is counterproductive to positive advocacy when so-called cycling advocates smugly boast about their Cycling Seriousness .

Darn, I-Like-Ike. I was sincerely hoping for a clean bill of health from you on the basis of my veritable Tom-Joad-like upbringing. Well, perhaps I'm being a little less than sincere. But you have to admit I am pretty good at being pompous.

I'm curious though, outside of this forum, what is the nature of your own advocacy.

Larry from atlanta said: "...I think cycling is a wonderful form of both transportation and recreation, and want those people to develop the cycling skills to be able to appreciate the joys of this marvelous activity.

The second is that I'm very protective of my rights as a first class citizen of the roadways, and the best way to ensure that cyclists are first class citizens is to insist that they act like it."

translation:
I want eveyone to ride the way I ride, ride what I ride, and think the way I do. then everyone will be happier and have more joy and the world will be a better place.... for ME!


Larry sure has softened up his rhetoric when he found many of us weren't going to pat him on the back for his bigoted, insulting view of certain other cyclists.

Larry from atlanta said: "...I think cycling is a wonderful form of both transportation and recreation, and want those people to develop the cycling skills to be able to appreciate the joys of this marvelous activity.

The second is that I'm very protective of my rights as a first class citizen of the roadways, and the best way to ensure that cyclists are first class citizens is to insist that they act like it."

translation:
I want eveyone to ride the way I ride, ride what I ride, and think the way I do. then everyone will be happier and have more joy and the world will be a better place.... for ME!

screw you, larry and LBM.

Larry sure has softened up his rhetoric when he found we weren't going to pat him on the back for his bigoted, insulting view of certain other cyclists.

Damn, and I thought I was working from my long established pattern (which I've used since the bitnet/usenet days) of readiing a forum for awhile to get an idea of the general tone of discussion, establishing my persona as quickly as possible so that people know what to expect, and then settling into more routine discussion.

I didn't realize I was looking for a pat on the back. I believe it was you who told me I was going to get "flack". When is it going to start? So far everyone's been very nice to me here, albeit I haven't received the pats on the back I evidently crave.

Damn, and I thought I was working from my long established pattern (which I've used since the bitnet/usenet days) of readiing a forum for awhile to get an idea of the general tone of discussion, establishing my persona as quickly as possible so that people know what to expect, and then settling into more routine discussion.

I didn't realize I was looking for a pat on the back. I believe it was you who told me I was going to get "flack". When is it going to start? So far everyone's been very nice to me here, albeit I haven't received the pats on the back I evidently crave.

struck a nerve, eh? hey, man, you showed your stripes from that very first post. bigoted, insulting, derisive of other riders and "inferior" bikes. a desire to have everyone ride what you ride and believe what you believe and ride the way you ride. yes, you'll find plenty of your buddies here.

struck a nerve, eh? hey, man, you showed your stripes from that very first post. bigoted, insulting, derisive of other riders and "inferior" bikes. a desire to have everyone ride what you ride and believe what you believe and ride the way you ride. yes, you'll find plenty of your buddies here.

rando, I guess without peppering my posts with emoticons my general attitude isn't really clear. I have very few nerves left to strike which aren't already numb from what I view as my interesting and fast moving life. You can make sophmoric comments, edit them out, reintroduce them in a different form, and comment on my alleged bigotry to your heart's content. It really doesn't bother me. I'm far too pompous and self-satisfied to care.

And while I have about the same desire to be liked as anyone else, acquiring "buddies" isn't my motivation for being here. I have a number of buddies locally.

Now to address the content of your post, yes, I advocate for my view of the world with respect to cycling, and in a number of other areas. But I don't want everyone to necessarily ride what I ride.

I don't give a dang about your upbringing; I find objectionable your current pompous attitude and arrogance towards cyclists that don't meet YOUR standards for proper cycling. IMO, it is counterproductive to positive advocacy when so-called cycling advocates smugly boast about their Cycling Seriousness .
I-Like-To-Bike,

I know you can go there. Really.

Won't you offer a little more from your cycling experience than the same-o-same-o? You must have a lot more to talk about than antibiotics for Foresteritis.

Man, I sounded like a total jerk in my post above. I apologize. getting all worked up over nothing.

Man, I sounded like a total jerk in my post above. I apologize. getting all worked up over nothing.

relax, man.

You're input is welcome, especially when you're angry.

:D

What would life be without contradictions? Vanilla-paste. ;)

(We're all guilty... :D)

... I pondered the question:

Can non-vehicular cyclists choose an efficient route?

Now on the face of it that might seem like an odd question. After all route choice is independent of the ability to travel in a straight line or degree of side to side wobble..

And I have to admit there are those rare times when a combination of sidewalks, bike lanes, MUPs, drainage trenches, neighbor's yards and strip mall parking lots do constitute the most direct path to a destination.

But I'd really like to know if avoidance of direct and efficient routes is a requirement of the non-vehicular cycling crowd.


I'm a newbie here. So I may be missing some larger point you're making about "efficiency" that isn't yet obvious to me. But it seems to me that the choice of a cycling route simply reflects the desires and purposes of an individual cyclist when traversing a particular piece of landscape. Sometimes I decide to take the long way home because I want to get a few more miles in and experience a beautiful part of the landscape. If I were to maintain a mindless focus on efficiency, I'd be doing less riding and experiencing less joy.

Assuming that your purpose isn't simply to demonstrate a superior attitude by looking down your nose at others, please help me understand why this point is worthy of discussion.

...
And I have to admit there are those rare times when a combination of sidewalks, bike lanes, MUPs, drainage trenches, neighbor's yards and strip mall parking lots do constitute the most direct path to a destination. ...


I don't know Larry. Seems to me the most direct path (for a bicyclist) would almost always involve some sidewalk riding, wrong-way riding, or other creative use of available surfaces. And the quickest, most 'efficient' mode of travel to your destination is very likely to put one in conflict with the traffic law. If you're talking about the most direct, efficient route that is also completely lawful and VC, that would be something else entirely.

Robert

I'm a newbie here. So I may be missing some larger point you're making about "efficiency" that isn't yet obvious to me. But it seems to me that the choice of a cycling route simply reflects the desires and purposes of an individual cyclist when traversing a particular piece of landscape. Sometimes I decide to take the long way home because I want to get a few more miles in and experience a beautiful part of the landscape. If I were to maintain a mindless focus on efficiency, I'd be doing less riding and experiencing less joy.

Assuming that your purpose isn't simply to demonstrate a superior attitude by looking down your nose at others, please help me understand why this point is worthy of discussion.

If you'll read read the first line of the initial post you've excerpted carefully you'll discover that my entire purpose in starting this thread was in response to a vapid and pointless straw man thread which was active at the time I posted.

Route choice has little to do with vehicular cycling except insomuch as knowledge of techniques for cycling in traffic expands one's route choices.