You have a short memory. 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.

My words:
What you claimed I said (to set up your straw man):Very different meanings.

The goal was often just the miles ridden... so ultimately the end was positive.

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."

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...

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.

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.

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."

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.

I'd say tallard's answer is:
Speed and "Efficiency" Über Alles!

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 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?

A refreshing glimpse into the reality of one cyclist.

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.

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.

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.

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'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.