Mobile 155

Bicycling has been an important part of my life for many years. I use my bicycles for recreation, short trips, coffee shop stops and some grocery runs.

During the past five years I put in more miles on a bike than I do a car or any other ICE powered vehicle. 7500 to 7800 miles a year by bike about 6000 miles by car, including vacations.

One thing I have noticed is there seems to be a bit of a dismissive attitude towards recreational cyclists when it comes to talk about their impact on cycling infrastructure. I found a article however that might make some reasses the contribution of recreational cyclists even to the car free car light.

Outdoor Industry report says recreational cycling pumps $81 billion into U.S. economy each year - BikePortland.org

Walter S

I accept at face value that cycling infrastructure is heavily influenced by recreational cyclists.

tandempower

I think recreational cycling is the main driver of longer distance bike paths. Although I personally bike for everything, e.g. transportation, utility, recreation, etc., I see it as a way of integrating recreation and utility. Part of the reason I try to raise consciousness about things like multiday bike camping is that I see it as a way to further integrate recreation and travel. I think there is this cultural aversion to integrating utility and leisure that biases people against the convenience of just biking to a recreational ride instead of driving to a trailhead and then biking. I don't do group rides but I can just imagine showing up at a group ride by bike and having everyone who drove there look at me like I was trying to show off by going above and beyond or something. It's like people expect you to contain the effort of exercise and/or the recreation of cycling instead of expanding it to the maximum by simply normalizing it in your life.

Mobile 155

TP then you imagine wrong. At least in my area. Maybe 30 percent of one of the groups I ride with show up on their bikes. Not many on the MTB rides admittedly but on road rides and sometimes on multi-day rides.

I sort of believe because of the high rate of mechanical damage on MTB rides of the single track nature some are concerned about getting home after the ride and so they drive.

But roadies tend to be up for the ride as soon as they leave the house.

Machka 

Interesting article, Mobile 155.

I especially like this quote:

According to the report, Americans spend more on bicycling gear and trips ($81 billion) than they do on airplane tickets ($51 billion). That $81 billion is spread between $10 billion on bikes, gear, and accessories and over $70 billion on bicycle “trip related sales.” The direct economic impact of that spending supports 772,146 jobs. The report claims that the “ripple effect spending” of all this bicycling activity is over $198 billion and supports 1,478,475 jobs.

I don't want to quote the whole article, but the paragraph two below that one is interesting as well. Almost double the spending on outdoor recreation than motor vehicles.


And yet, as you say, there does seem to be a bit of a dismissive attitude towards recreational cyclists, as though recreational cyclists don't really matter.


[HR][/HR]
Personally, these days I am mostly a recreational cyclist. For me, cycling is mainly about fitness, enjoyment, adventure, challenge and stress relief. Even when I was commuting by bicycle regularly, it was mainly about fitness and stress relief.
However, I have done a wide range of cycling including commuting, utility, touring, racing, long-distance events, training, and of course, recreational. And I have done all that in several countries.

Machka 

Having cycled with a racing team, a cycletouring club, and a randonneuring club ... all while I was carfree ...

Everyone who drove there really don't care how you go there. They are too busy setting up their bicycles and getting ready for the ride to notice.

And even if someone does notice, there's a very <<shrug shoulders>> attitude about it. Whatever floats your boat.

StephenH

One thing I notice here locally is that the bike trails are built where it's convenient- along this creek, on that old RR easement, down the powerline easement- but more specifically, they are NOT built to go where people need to go, but where it's convenient to build them. That tells me they are for recreation, not transportation. Another thing I see is that you'll have a trail going across flat featureless land, and it weaves back and forth. Why? So little kids have more fun riding it. You don't do that on a road for transportion.

B. Carfree

It looks like there is an east/west divide in terms of how bike infrastructure, particularly bike paths, are sited relative to transportation and recreation. Here in the west, bike paths are generally placed to facilitate transportation. We don't have a lot of hundred mile rails to trails and canal paths and such. Ours get squeezed in where people will use them intra-city, and they do tend to get used, mostly by utilitarian cyclists (or recreational cyclists who are in a utilitarian mode).

Unfortunately, this has led to the bad hybrid that is a side path along a boulevard. That's not a bike path and it isn't part of the road system, but a lot of bike advocates work very hard to get these dangerous things put in place. Yuck.

Mobile 155

B. Carfree
Funny about that I love those "side paths" maybe more than the class one bike lanes that are simple a five or six foot, sometimes less, lane with a solid white line keeping the traffic out.

I have done PCH from the OC to San Diego and back using both kinds of bike lanes and in some places no bike lanes. It is what it is.

catgita

I think the river paths in the LA area were originally built for recreation, and remain very popular as such on weekends. Over time they are changing over to utility, with more entrances being added and underpasses being improved. Recently an entrance to the San Gabriel trail near me sees about 300 bikes per hour on weekday mornings, and it isn't even a very good place to enter.

So many people ride these days that "cyclist" has no meaning. I used to feel like I belonged to a small brotherhood, now I am just another person out there on a bike. But people still try to fit themselves into distinct categories, the most common being people on some variety of racing bike, another on dedicated utility bikes (which are way overkill on local roads).

tandempower

I won't say culture isn't evolving, just that there is this aspect of normative culture in general that implicitly pushes for containment of recreational and other sub-dominant activities. E.g. if you drive everyday for work, shopping, etc., no one will say you are obsessive or 'over the top' about driving whereas if you bike for all the same purposes, someone will call you obsessive for not containing your 'recreational activity' within a small compartment of your life framed in by other, non-recreation normative activities, such as driving.

It has nothing to do with anything but structured conformity. E.g. if someone would have a helicopter and fly it everywhere for commuting, shopping, etc. some people would always comment on how that person has to fly his helicopter everywhere instead of just driving in a car 'like everyone else.' It's this idea that people aren't supposed to just make independent choices as individuals but rather make choices with respect to socially normative cultural patterns.

So even if people aren't consciously normativizing others into conformity, it still happens in the form of implicit logics of behavior, such as driving to go on a bike ride, the idea being to contain one's recreation within a larger structure of driving as normative transportation. I dislike this culture because it is counter-rational; i.e. it is rational to just get on a bike at home and ride it recreationally and then come back home without having to load and unload it on a car. It's almost as irrational as driving to the health and fitness club to ride a stationary bike or walk on a treadmill; yet people do this as if it gives them higher status to contain their fitness activity within the designated area of a fitness center they pay for and drive to.

It is a bad culture because it creates unnecessary economic activity that not only wastes resources, but also promotes avoidance of natural activities like walking and recreation where those activities aren't contained within revenue-generating business models. If all cultural activities are commodified, then we have to work and make money to afford everything we do and we're no longer free to just do things without first earning the right to do them. There should be inalienable freedoms that you don't have to earn first before exercising them, and certainly things that individuals can do independently of others shouldn't be commodified as an opportunity for others to make money.

Machka 

That's one of my pet peeves too.

I like when trails are in a scenic location ... but make them straight and purposeful.

Roody

I think it's evolving. The "everyday cyclist" is pushing for a remake of the infrastructure that is at once more pleasant and more useful. The trails in my city were originally along the rivers. They were designed for recreational use. But the recent trail additions have been less scenic and more direct. The part of the city where most of the population lives has been targeted for trail development, even though it isn't as picturesque as other parts of the city. And the "Rivertrail" has left the rivers because most post-WWII development has been away from the rivers.

One thing I like about LCF forum is that most of us are everyday cyclists. Meaning that we ride for several reasons:

• sometimes for fun,
• sometimes for relaxation,
• sometimes for exercise,
• sometimes to get our butts and our goods from Point A to Point B.
• And, I think much of the time for several or all of these reasons.

I hope that bike companies, bike shops, and especially planners and designers of infrastructure, are starting to figure out that this is so. Bikes and their facilities should serve a lot of purposes for a lot of people--just as cars and roads designed for cars do.

Mobile 155

Roody:
You have a valid point but I have often said the hardest thing to unite is what you called everyday cyclists. In this forum to a degree and many others recreational cyclists may seem like a natural well from which to draw support for utility and commuting cyclists. But no matter how much they contribute to the infrastructure and the financial betterment of society and cycling both there is an air of contempt when an adjitive is most often attached to the more sport minded of them.

How many times have you heard wannabe, faux racer, Lance like before or after the term roadie? Not all and maybe not you but even here the mention of spandex will cause a division. It makes it hard to get recreational cyclists involved in community meetings when such divisions arise. And it is not unusual even in this thread that has been pretty positive till this post.

"It is a bad culture because it creates unnecessary economic activity that not only wastes resources, but also promotes avoidance of natural activities like walking and recreation where those activities aren't contained within revenue-generating business models. If all cultural activities are commodified, then we have to work and make money to afford everything we do and we're no longer free to just do things without first earning the right to do them. There should be inalienable freedoms that you don't have to earn first before exercising them, and certainly things that individuals can do independently of others shouldn't be commodified as an opportunity for others to make money."

I can't speak for others but things like that make me think, "why should I care about those issues just posted?" I thought I was contributing.

All I am saying is the book "Bike Tribes" may have a point.

Roody

There are plenty of insults from roadies directed at "freds" as well. They are two different groups politically, meaning that many of their goals and needs differ. But there is some overlap, and it benefits both groups to work together when possible and try not to irritate the others overly much. I think that's all we can hope for, and all we need.

Dave Cutter

The article (from June 20th, 2012) reminds me of an old piece about the economic benefits of cigarette smoking (figures in the billions). They would be funny if it wasn't that some people actually do think that such expenditures do somehow benefit society as a whole.

If you sell cigarettes... the profits/income you earn from those sales will benefit you. It however doesn't benefit society. The same can be said of bicycles.

I do advocate cycling. And I oppose cigarettes. But attaching dollar figures to both.... doesn't enhance my view of ether.

Mobile 155

"There are plenty of insults from roadies directed at "freds" as well. They are two different groups politically, meaning that many of their goals and needs differ. But there is some overlap, and it benefits both groups to work together when possible and try not to irritate the others overly much. I think that's all we can hope for, and all we need."

Perhaps that happens but in happens in forum life way more than real life.

And I don't recall ever hear the contributions any of the groups making described as:

"
"It is a bad culture because it creates unnecessary economic activity that not only wastes resources"

At least that doesn't sound like a positive statement about a group that contributes as much as the article indicates they do. I don't think the are saying all recreational riders are roadies but they do put a figure on how mush they contribute to the economy and by default help with many of the projects so often asked for by the car free.



My opinion anyway. I just don't see a lot of bridge building between LCF and the rest of Society. Even in the media roadies, MTBer, touring cyclists and cruisers seem to be making it into the mainstream. I have been seeing them more portrayed in commercials anyway. That has to be some kind of positive movement for the LCF community I would think. But once again just my perspective.

kickstart

Sometimes yes, sometimes no,

I had a couple of roadies literally turn their backs on me when I said hello because I pulled up on a Dutch bike. On the other hand, a couple of roadies chase me down to check out my pristine, period equipped Schwinn Continental.

My preference is for big, heavy, fully equipped bikes with a particular fondness for maintenance free Dutch bikes. The glib, patronizing comments do get old.

gregf83 

I think if you went on group rides you'd find most people ride to a meetup point and then do the ride. I don't think our group of 50 or so rider is unique and no one drives to a ride unless it's a hill climb that starts closer to a mountain.

Mountain biking is a little different as the mountains aren't really close enough to ride to so most (in my area) would drive somewhere so they didn't have to ride too far on roads before starting on the trails.

That said, nearly everyone I ride with is a recreational cyclist. There are a few who commute and one who doesn't own a car. A group of us took a trip to Spain and cycled around the countryside. Many others pay to ride in local (and not so local) fondos. These are often associated with hotel stays and patronizing of the local restaurants so I agree that cyclists contribute to the economy. I don't really see it having a big impact on the cycling infrastructure however, as I think most of that money is spent for the benefit of commuters.

Mobile 155

"I had a couple of roadies literally turn their backs on me when I said hello because I pulled up on a Dutch bike. On the other hand, a couple of roadies chase me down to check out my pristine, period equipped Schwinn Continental."

I upgraded my Varsity to a Continental sometime in mid to late 70s. It was about as heavy as the varsity but it looked better. I think it still had 27x1.25 wheels at the time.

But the point is we as cyclists are not a unified group and are unlikely to form a coalition for any political action so the only influence we seem to have is monetary.

I sometimes like the looks of the old bikes, even old Columbias. But the closest I have been to riding a Dutch bike was a Indian made copy of an old Raliegh with rod brakes. Not a hill climber either.

katsrevenge

I have had something similar happen with the old style cruiser that I had. Well, both of them, the replica 'anniversary' 7 speed and the Sanctuary 7.. Neither was anything much more than a cheap department store bike. And yet... so many compliments. I understood it from older folk, a Schwinn like that was once a big deal..but this was all ages and walks of life. I was more worried about those being stolen than my nicer (Dutch-style) bikes!

People are unpredictable sometimes.

skye

Bad analogy. Several studies have shown that cycling benefits the local economy. Cyclists tend to increase sales at local businesses, up to 49%, according to one study. https://boingboing.net/2013/05/10/bi...-increase.html

Bicycle tourism also interjects $325 million annually into Oregon's economy. Travel study unveiled at Summit shows bike tourism means big bucks - BikePortland.org

According to a report from the ECF, the economic benefits of cycling are close to €200 billion annually. https://www.ecf.com/wp-content/upload...of-cycling.pdf

Increased cycling presents tremendous economic benefits for society.

cooker

I suppose to a very small degree recreational cycling might be a "gateway drug" to utility cycling. However the majority of recreational cyclists are not also doing some utility cycling (errands, shopping) like you are, but instead use a car almost exclusively for that purpose, and even load the bikes on the car to go to the trailhead.Actually I think they build curves into highways across the open prairies to keep people alert.


Having said that, I appreciate any spin-off benefits recreational cycling may sometimes bring. And from the enviro perspective, recreational cycling is better than recreational motoring.

Mobile 155

"I suppose to a very small degree recreational cycling might be a "gateway drug" to utility cycling. However the majority of recreational cyclists are not also doing some utility cycling (errands, shopping) like you are, but instead use a car almost exclusively for that purpose, and even load the bikes on the car to go to the trailhead."

According to our national census data 99 percent of the population isn't using a bicycle for commuting either. And even in here many LCF people simply use other forms of ICE to do those things. Who would be a more likely to be interested in cycling infrastructure?

Dave Cutter

No. Actually it's a great analogy! Back-in-the-day... when cigarettes were falling in popularity anyway... many similar [cigarette] studies were done/published. Using YOUR idea the cigarette factory has a huge LOCAL benefit. And that IS exactly what the old studies [falsely] showed.

The idea that some benign activity would have any positive or negative effect on an economy. It's just bit silly.... that isn't how it all works.

Two - three hundred new nuclear power plants that cause electric prices to drop by 30 - 40%.... now THAT would be [WAS] a benefit. Can you see the difference. A power plant takes raw materials and creates a useful product. Whereas mere activities simply move-around and redistribute small portions of value that was already created.