Appropriate and Inappropriate Uses of Bicycles
Mike Vandeman
Auto-Free Bay Area Coalition / 510-849-0770
P.O. Box 10141
Berkeley, California 94709
Re: Appropriate and Inappropriate Uses of the Bicycle; Promoting
Bicycling
Gentlepersons:
I will fight anyone over which of us loves bicycles more. I
have been bicycling almost continuously for 45 years, ever since my
dad bought me (at age 5) my first 1-speed coaster-brake bicycle and
taught me to ride it by pushing me around the block holding onto my
rear fender (and occasionally secretly letting go). There are in
life few sensations greater than "tooling" around the (car-empty)
back streets of Berkeley (or a country road) on a crisp Saturday
morning, listening to the birds chirping (because you can hear
____
them) and sniffing the air (because you are in it). (By the way,
__
have you noticed how after a night of breathing clean air, you
really notice the various obnoxious odors of motor vehicle
exhaust?!) Having a vehicle that you can take apart down to the
last ball bearing, clean, and put back together is also a joy.
However, a bicycle is still a tool of technology, and like all
_______
such tools can be used for good or "evil". There are other values
that are important, and may need priority in some situations. As a
substitute for the automobile, there is no question that the
bicycle is worthy of adoration. However, it would be out of place
in a children's sandbox, in a wildlife sanctuary, in a hospital
operating room, in a place sacred to native peoples, or inside a
Japanese-style home (where shoes are verboten)(well, actually,
________
kinjirareta). Electricity can be used to transmit vital information
___________
around the world in minutes, with a minimum of environmental
damage; it can also kill you, if used improperly.
I have had peak experiences on a bicycle, and I have also been
lied to and literally run down by mountain bicyclists insistent on
biking on hiking trails where bicycles are not allowed (for
obvious, good reasons). As bicycling "proprietors", we should make
sure that bikes are used only for good, and hence are associated
with goodness in everyone's mind. (Have you ever noticed what a
wonderful, warm feeling comes over you when you unexpectedly see
someone in a movie riding a bicycle, rollerblading, or getting on a
bus?! And how annoying it is to have to watch people in movies
going everywhere by car, and inanely chasing each other around in
cars, trucks, and other motor vehicles?!) Let's not let our love of
bicycling blot out (eclipse) all other human values!
How can you tell when a given use is inappropriate? I think
that one of the best ways is via speed (and weight) differential.
_______________________________
Speed (and weight) differences make bicycles incompatible with
freeway traffic; it is too dangerous to be in or near such traffic.
The same goes for many other roads and city streets. I try to
compensate by wobbling and riding erratically, which is pretty
effective in scaring drivers into slowing down. However, the first
chance I get, I vastly prefer to get onto a street with no motor
______
vehicle traffic. For the same reason, bicycles are incompatible
with pedestrians, unless the bicyclists are willing to slow down to
almost a walking pace, and always give the pedestrian the right-of-
way.
Also for the same and other reasons, bicycles are out of place
on hiking trails. But even more important, the value of wildlife (I
always include plants) must always take precedence over human
____
pleasures (as distinguished from needs). Wildlife cannot protect
themselves from us. We have pushed, and continue to push, thousands
of species to extinction, mostly out of plain greed. The apparent
human belief that every square inch of the Earth belongs to us, and
is available for us to do what we want with it, is stupidity of the
highest order. In a situation where motor vehicles dominate,
replacing them with bicycles greatly reduces the damage we do. But
in wildlife's skimpy remaining "living room", "dining room", and
"bedroom", introducing bicycles, and the increased presence of
humans that they facilitate, would be a step backwards.
_________
While I am on the subject of bicycles, I would like to make a
plea to do whatever we need to do to make bicycling more popular.
At the top of my list is making bikes more comfortable to ride.
"Macho" features like 18 speeds, "racing" design (rock-hard seat,
no fenders, straight or turned-down handlebars, which cannot be
made comfortable no matter what you do!), bumpy (high rolling
resistance!) tires, and brakes that require the continual use of
your hands may appeal to one segment of the population, but they
leave most people out in the cold -- or rather, push them into much
____
more comfortable cars! You could learn a lot from the "user
________________
friendly" concept that has revolutionized the computer world. Let's
stop torturing ourselves in order to "look good" (to whom?), and
bring back comfortable, broad seats (pressure is weight per square
__________
inch!), handlebars that bend back, so you can sit upright and enjoy
____
the ride and the view and not tire your arms, a few usable,
reliable gears, smooth, hard tires with very low rolling
resistance, and good, ample front and rear baskets for safely
carrying lots of food, books, or whatever else turns you on.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
mjv...@pbhye.pacbell.com
PS: In Japan, they don't ride the macho bikes they sell us. In
front of the train stations are hundreds of dumpy, but very
practical bikes with a few gears, comfy seats, baskets, and bent-
back handlebars.
Thelma Lubkin
> July 2, 1993
> While I am on the subject of bicycles, I would like to make a
> plea to do whatever we need to do to make bicycling more popular.
> At the top of my list is making bikes more comfortable to ride.
> "Macho" features like 18 speeds, "racing" design (rock-hard seat,
> no fenders, straight or turned-down handlebars, which cannot be
> made comfortable no matter what you do!), bumpy (high rolling
> resistance!) tires, and brakes that require the continual use of
> your hands may appeal to one segment of the population, but they
> leave most people out in the cold -- or rather, push them into much
> ____
> more comfortable cars!
Perhaps you need to acquire a little respect for the diversity
of the human species itself; some of us are comfortable only with
various of the features you label as 'macho'. I myself am the
slowest, non-competition driven of riders, but I can't ride even 15 miles
on one of those 'broad, comfortable' seats without pure misery setting in.
Others will be comfortable only with some of your other pet peeves.
You could learn a lot from the "user
> ________________
> friendly" concept that has revolutionized the computer world. Let's
Not all of us are ecstatic over that, either.
> Let's stop torturing ourselves in order to "look good" (to whom?),and
> bring back comfortable, broad seats (pressure is weight per square
> __________
> inch!), handlebars that bend back, so you can sit upright and enjoy
> ____
> the ride and the view and not tire your arms, a few usable,
> reliable gears, smooth, hard tires with very low rolling
> resistance, and good, ample front and rear baskets for safely
> carrying lots of food, books, or whatever else turns you on.
When I bought my bike, I didn't want the drop bars it came
with, so I had them changed to bars very much as you describe--no
problem. Of my 10 gears, I use about 3, usually just 1. I have fine
low rolling resistance tires that are pumped up to 110 psi for
comfort; I have panniers for getting my clothing to and from work, and
if I wanted them, large wire baskets are available too.
I don't see why I should deny other people the gear they're interested
in.
--thelma
Christopher Manly
mjv...@pbhye.PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman) wrote:
> How can you tell when a given use is inappropriate? I think
> that one of the best ways is via speed (and weight) differential.
> Speed (and weight) differences make bicycles incompatible with
> freeway traffic; it is too dangerous to be in or near such traffic.
> The same goes for many other roads and city streets. I try to
> compensate by wobbling and riding erratically, which is pretty
> effective in scaring drivers into slowing down. However, the first
> chance I get, I vastly prefer to get onto a street with no motor
> vehicle traffic. For the same reason, bicycles are incompatible
> with pedestrians, unless the bicyclists are willing to slow down to
> almost a walking pace, and always give the pedestrian the right-of-
> way.
Having just completed a paper for a class on the feasibility of making the
bicycle a legitimate mode of transportation (and a feasible one for
commuting), I have a few comments on these issues of dealing with traffic.
I make these comments as a biycle commuter, a pedestrian, and a driver:
First of all, I agree that avoiding streets with heavy traffic is a good
idea. However, when you must ride on a busy street, riding erratically is
*not* the thing to do. While motorists may be more likely to notice you,
they also have no way of anticipating your actions, which makes them
uncomfortable and less tolerant of your presence on the road. If you
_really_ want to be seen and noticed on the road, put a bright flag on your
bike, or use lights at all times (not just at night). Then you can ride
predictably, defensively, and in accordance with the rules of the road and
piss off fewer people.
As for dealing with pedestrians, bicyclists simply have to slow down. In
heavy pedestrian traffic, the cyclist should dismount and walk until there
is more room. It's not worth the risk of injury to save those thirty
seconds or a minute of time. I know people who have been injured by rude
cyclists, and it makes it hard for the cyclists who are trying to do things
right and legitimize biking. (I myself was in a head-on bike to bike
collision with another person who entered an intersection without stopping,
going the wrong way on a 1 way section of road)
> While I am on the subject of bicycles, I would like to make a
> plea to do whatever we need to do to make bicycling more popular.
> At the top of my list is making bikes more comfortable to ride.
> "Macho" features like 18 speeds,
Here in Ithaca, there are hills for which the low gears of an 18-speed gear
set are _really_ useful. The point of 18 speeds is not to use all 18 (in
fact there are combinations which should not be used), but to have a wide
*range* of gear ratios for widely varied terrain.
> "racing" design (rock-hard seat,
> no fenders, straight or turned-down handlebars, which cannot be
> made comfortable no matter what you do!), bumpy (high rolling
> resistance!) tires, and brakes that require the continual use of
> your hands may appeal to one segment of the population,
I use hard, smooth tires on my MTB for commuting, but would not give up my
cantilever brakes for a back-wheel coaster brake anyday (I presume this is
what you are proposing), when 70% of my braking power is from my front
wheel. (Again, it is the Ithaca hills that require serious braking power)
> but they
> leave most people out in the cold -- or rather, push them into much
> more comfortable cars! You could learn a lot from the "user
> friendly" concept that has revolutionized the computer world. Let's
> stop torturing ourselves in order to "look good" (to whom?), and
> bring back comfortable, broad seats (pressure is weight per square
> inch!), handlebars that bend back, so you can sit upright and enjoy
> the ride and the view and not tire your arms, a few usable,
> reliable gears, smooth, hard tires with very low rolling
> resistance, and good, ample front and rear baskets for safely
> carrying lots of food, books, or whatever else turns you on.
Most of these items can be added to any bike, which is good since not
everyone wants them. Also, you should add to that list lights for
visibility and night riding. :-)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Christopher A. Manly ca...@cornell.edu
CIT Collaboration Systems B02 Caldwell Hall
Cornell University (Across from the Coke machine)
"I drank what?" - Socrates
Tim Moore
In article <1993Jul10.0...@pbhye.PacBell.COM>, mjv...@pbhye.PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman) writes:
>
> How can you tell when a given use is inappropriate? I think
> that one of the best ways is via speed (and weight) differential.
> _______________________________
> Speed (and weight) differences make bicycles incompatible with
> freeway traffic; it is too dangerous to be in or near such traffic.
> The same goes for many other roads and city streets. I try to
> compensate by wobbling and riding erratically, which is pretty
> effective in scaring drivers into slowing down.
That's a pretty neat trick. Not. Why don't you stay off these roads
altogether? That way you would be doing those of us who know how to
ride those roads safely a favor.
>
> While I am on the subject of bicycles, I would like to make a
> plea to do whatever we need to do to make bicycling more popular.
> At the top of my list is making bikes more comfortable to ride.
> "Macho" features like 18 speeds, "racing" design (rock-hard seat,
> no fenders, straight or turned-down handlebars, which cannot be
> made comfortable no matter what you do!), bumpy (high rolling
> resistance!) tires, and brakes that require the continual use of
> your hands may appeal to one segment of the population, but they
> leave most people out in the cold -- or rather, push them into much
> ____
> more comfortable cars!
Hmm, I'd much rather drive my car than ride around the block on your
ideal bike. Do you have something against speed, efficiency, and
safety? You seem to be talking about bicycling on roads, so I won't
argue about bumpy tires. Every other feature you hate is clearly
superior to the alternative. Ok, 3 speeds are easier to maintain and
fenders might be useful at some times of year, but I can't see how Joe
Average Bicyclist could have too many low gears. "Rock-hard seats"
support you on the bones of your pelvis and are much more comfortable
on long rides than wide, soft seats. They also allow one to use the
strong muscles of the gluteus for cycling, not sitting. Drop handle
bars offer many more alternative hand positions and better
aerodynamics than upright bars. Better aerodyamics means less effort
for the same speed. Isn't that what you want? You seem to be
avocating coaster brakes; they overheat easily and transmit braking
force through the rear wheel which can only supply 30% of the
available braking power. Besides, what kind of biking requires you to
brake continuously? Sounds pretty dreary.
> Let's
> stop torturing ourselves in order to "look good" (to whom?),
> and
> bring back comfortable, broad seats (pressure is weight per square
> __________
> inch!), handlebars that bend back, so you can sit upright and enjoy
> ____
> the ride and the view and not tire your arms, a few usable,
> reliable gears, smooth, hard tires with very low rolling
> resistance, and good, ample front and rear baskets for safely
> carrying lots of food, books, or whatever else turns you on.
The bike you're describing might be useful for riding to the grocery
store, but not much else. It doesn't sound like a vehicle that
encourages an auto-free society.
> Sincerely,
>
> Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
> mjv...@pbhye.pacbell.com
>
> PS: In Japan, they don't ride the macho bikes they sell us. In
> front of the train stations are hundreds of dumpy, but very
> practical bikes with a few gears, comfy seats, baskets, and bent-
> back handlebars.
In Japan, schoolchildren aren't allowed to have bikes with drop bars
because they encourage "dangerous high speeds."
--
Tim Moore mo...@cs.utah.edu {bellcore,hplabs}!utah-cs!moore
"Wind in my hair - Shifting and drifting - Mechanical music - Adrenaline surge"
- Rush
Mike Vandeman
>> that one of the best ways is via speed (and weight) differential.
>> _______________________________
>> Speed (and weight) differences make bicycles incompatible with
>> freeway traffic; it is too dangerous to be in or near such traffic.
>> The same goes for many other roads and city streets. I try to
>> compensate by wobbling and riding erratically, which is pretty
>> effective in scaring drivers into slowing down.
>
>That's a pretty neat trick. Not. Why don't you stay off these roads
>altogether? That way you would be doing those of us who know how to
>ride those roads safely a favor.
>
Wind resistance isn't important at the speeds that most people ride.
I'm not concerned about racers, but getting more normal people to
ride.
>> Let's
>> stop torturing ourselves in order to "look good" (to whom?),
>> and
>> bring back comfortable, broad seats (pressure is weight per square
>> __________
>> inch!), handlebars that bend back, so you can sit upright and enjoy
>> ____
>> the ride and the view and not tire your arms, a few usable,
>> reliable gears, smooth, hard tires with very low rolling
>> resistance, and good, ample front and rear baskets for safely
>> carrying lots of food, books, or whatever else turns you on.
>
>The bike you're describing might be useful for riding to the grocery
>store, but not much else. It doesn't sound like a vehicle that
>encourages an auto-free society.
Ask people why they don't bike. Riding to the grocery store is a large
percentage of my riding, & would be for most people in the city. And
we are put off by snobbishi, elitest attitudes like yours.
Peter Norquist
>>The bike you're describing might be useful for riding to the grocery
>>store, but not much else. It doesn't sound like a vehicle that
>>encourages an auto-free society.
>Ask people why they don't bike. Riding to the grocery store is a large
>percentage of my riding, & would be for most people in the city. And
>we are put off by snobbishi, elitest attitudes like yours.
Seems like there's plenty of room on the road for everybody.
There're also a whole bunch of "townie bikes" already available and for
cheap. Multiple gearing is at a stage now that worrying about its
usability/reliability is moot.
Frankly I don't see why various groups of cyclists, i.e. hardcores
(racers, strong recreational riders, gonzo MTBers) need to interact much
with more genteel users of the technology and thereby "put each other
off." Except maybe to point fingers at one another...Geez can't we all
just get along?
I always thought cyclists (of all types) were about the coolest beings
around-we're the smart ones, can't we act like it?
-PDN
Timothy J. Lee
|>> Speed (and weight) differences make bicycles incompatible with
|>> freeway traffic; it is too dangerous to be in or near such traffic.
|>> The same goes for many other roads and city streets. I try to
|>> compensate by wobbling and riding erratically, which is pretty
|>> effective in scaring drivers into slowing down.
|>
|>That's a pretty neat trick. Not. Why don't you stay off these roads
|>altogether? That way you would be doing those of us who know how to
|>ride those roads safely a favor.
|>
|Riding "safely" around cars is an oxymoron; impossible.
Riding erratically is more unsafe than riding predictably.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee tim...@netcom.com
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
neil j.cherry
>>> [Stuff deleted] ...
>>> Speed (and weight) differences make bicycles incompatible with
>>> freeway traffic; it is too dangerous to be in or near such traffic.
>>> The same goes for many other roads and city streets. I try to
>>> compensate by wobbling and riding erratically, which is pretty
>>> effective in scaring drivers into slowing down.
>>
>>That's a pretty neat trick. Not. Why don't you stay off these roads
>>altogether? That way you would be doing those of us who know how to
>>ride those roads safely a favor.
>>
>Riding "safely" around cars is an oxymoron; impossible.
>
Human and environmentalist is also an oxymoron, since we all pollute.
I find that I have little trouble with riding in real rush hour traffic.
(I live in central 'Jersey, avg traffic moves 40 mph). I read Effective
Cycling and follow many of the ideas in the book. Heck, I might even be able
to keep up with John (the author) where he rides! I just obey the law and
I'm curtious to others. I seem to have had no real problems traveling the
25 miles each way (~3 times per week). If you continue to ride erratic
you're going to find that one day you'll meet a person who is a bundle
of nerves or extremely angry and the out come will not be to your liking.
I suggest you ride predictably, obey the DMV laws and be visible.
I may be an exception to your rule but only because I make the effort!
Mike your attitude towards others indicates to me that this string is not
part of your agenda (IM not so HO). Do you ride at all, if so where and why
(Not a flame just an inquiry). I used to ride with no confidence and I was
always worried. I asked questions here and got advice. At first the advice made
little sense, but then I remembered that some of these people have been riding
longer than I have been alive. Take their advice and learn from it. As far as
the uncomfortable bike don't get a soft seat you'll pay for it in the end.
Get one that fits your 'sit bones'. Also use the handlebars your comfortable
with. Look around and you'll find all sorts of equipment that can bring more
comfort to your ride. And remember ask around.
And for gods sake learn to share the trail system and the road system. I'll
defend my rights to use as I'm sure that you will too. Maybe we can come to
a comprimise that works for all involved.
NJC
Katherine Becker
: >That's a pretty neat trick. Not. Why don't you stay off these roads
: >altogether? That way you would be doing those of us who know how to
: >ride those roads safely a favor.
: >
: Riding "safely" around cars is an oxymoron; impossible.
I think that Mike is looking for a flame war. Let me just say that
riding "safely" around cars has been proven possible, if he's
interested in the statistics, I can give him my references.
However, I get the impression that he's not a person who can be
convinced by things like facts. Maybe he'll die in one of the all-
too-common varieties of sidepath accidents, and stop posting such
drivel.
: Wind resistance isn't important at the speeds that most people ride.
: I'm not concerned about racers, but getting more normal people to
: ride.
He must not live anywhere where there's ever any wind! And all the
bike features he likes are available, and no one has yet disputed his
right to ride these bikes. So why is he disputing other people's
right to get 18 speeds, geekbars, whatever? Everybody has to ride
their own bicycle, no one has to ride someone else's!
: >> Let's
: >> stop torturing ourselves in order to "look good" (to whom?),
: >> and
I think if I cared how I looked, I'd get rid of some of the tatty
bicycling clothes I wear. But I wear those clothes because they are
comfortable. Funny, that's the same reason I ride a 21 speed bike
with drop handlebars!
: >The bike you're describing might be useful for riding to the grocery
: >store, but not much else. It doesn't sound like a vehicle that
: >encourages an auto-free society.
: Ask people why they don't bike. Riding to the grocery store is a large
: percentage of my riding, & would be for most people in the city. And
: we are put off by snobbishi, elitest attitudes like yours.
I see. Mike feels that my choosing to ride a fancy bike discourages
him from riding his clunker. I think that perhaps this is a personal
problem having nothing to do with bikes. Who cares what other people
are riding? Only the insecure and the technophiles.
Everyone should ride whatever type of bike they prefer, there's plenty
of choices.
--
Katherine Becker bec...@wl.com
2753 Plymouth Road, Suite #140
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
(313) 996-7157 days
Dave Toms
>>> Ask people why they don't bike. Riding to the grocery store is a large
>>> percentage of my riding, & would be for most people in the city. And
>>> we are put off by snobbishi, elitest attitudes like yours.
Why are we arguing such absurd extremes?
There are modern, high tech bicycles just as easy to use and comfortable as
one-speed or three/five-speed Sturmey-Archer type shifters, and much easier on
your knees (to the point of alowing some people to bike who otherwise
couldn't).
The old standby one-speed/three-speed can still be useful for some people in
the right circumstances (especially in the flats, such as Holland, and for
short trips, and maybe if you still have good knees).
There are more sophisticated bicycles that are well suited for their
purposes, that may draw folks who want to design their own gearing based on
the shift patterns they like, or have the lightest hottest stiffest most
responsive gear for racing (road or mtb, whichever).
And don't forget custom bikes.
Why aren't these *all* ok??? My wife and I co-ride on different style bikes,
almost every day, and I often grocery shop with a drop bar bike. So? Just so
we all ride.....
- dt
Robert Lewis
>Riding "safely" around cars is an oxymoron; impossible.
[deleted section]
>Wind resistance isn't important at the speeds that most people ride.
>I'm not concerned about racers, but getting more normal people to
>ride.
A wonderful bit of logic here, first tell people that it is impossible
to ride safely in the normal situation where one would do transportation
cycling and then claim to want to get 'normal people' into transportation
(as opposed to sport/recreation) cycling.
Why is it that I think that Dr. Vandeman sees cycling simply as a means
to some other end?
Robert M. Lewis rle...@muskwa.ucs.ualberta.ca
Department of Sociology
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Paul Petrucelly
I've just got to respond. I believe that Mike is responding to Tim Moore
(I think I've got this right).
In article 28...@pbhye.PacBell.COM, mjv...@pbhye.PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman) writes:
>>> How can you tell when a given use is inappropriate? I think
>>> that one of the best ways is via speed (and weight) differential.
>>> _______________________________
>>> Speed (and weight) differences make bicycles incompatible with
>>> freeway traffic; it is too dangerous to be in or near such traffic.
>>> The same goes for many other roads and city streets. I try to
>>> compensate by wobbling and riding erratically, which is pretty
>>> effective in scaring drivers into slowing down.
>>
<Tim's comment>
>>That's a pretty neat trick. Not. Why don't you stay off these roads
>>altogether? That way you would be doing those of us who know how to
>>ride those roads safely a favor.
>>
>Riding "safely" around cars is an oxymoron; impossible.
Obviously for Mike this is true. He is probably one of those eratic
riders that my cowboy friends hate because he's all over the road and
I catch the s*&# because of the way he rides.
>
>>>
>>> While I am on the subject of bicycles, I would like to make a
>>> plea to do whatever we need to do to make bicycling more popular.
>>> At the top of my list is making bikes more comfortable to ride.
>>> "Macho" features like 18 speeds, "racing" design (rock-hard seat,
>>> no fenders, straight or turned-down handlebars, which cannot be
>>> made comfortable no matter what you do!), bumpy (high rolling
>>> resistance!) tires, and brakes that require the continual use of
>>> your hands may appeal to one segment of the population, but they
>>> leave most people out in the cold -- or rather, push them into much
>>> ____
>>> more comfortable cars!
What planet are you from. Most riders I now (if they commute) do not live
2 miles from work. The group I commute with rides 40+ miles per day commuting.
We use main roads, and have very few problems. Yes there are some, but
that is life, and part of life is dealing with problems. The bike you
describe would be impossible to ride any reasonible distance to work. Those
wide seats rub against my leg, your gearing would be impossible to use on
anything but very flat roads (fixed gears are nice in the off season), and the
seating position would kill my back. Please note that we have several riders in
the club, including several doctors with back problems. The riding actually
help to ease the pain (they use those funny handle bars).
<Tim's comment is deleted>
>Wind resistance isn't important at the speeds that most people ride.
>I'm not concerned about racers, but getting more normal people to
>ride.
Perhaps you live in a vacum. At anything over about 15mph it is a
factor. I try to do my commute in traffic in 60 minutes. That is 20mph
including stops for lites. When moving, I am doing quite a bit more then
20 mph. These commuting bikes are basicly heavier, or older racing bikes,
or cross bikes. Many of these guys will use the same bikes to go to the
store, since they just throw on the panniers, and go. We all use other
bikes for training and racing, but the seating position (including those
tiny seats) are the same. Regardless, I am a commuter, and I happen to
race. I can not spend 4 hours a day commuting to and from work at the
speeds you feel "normal" people should or do ride at.
<much deleted>
<Tim's comment>
>>
>>The bike you're describing might be useful for riding to the grocery
>>store, but not much else. It doesn't sound like a vehicle that
>>encourages an auto-free society.
>
DITTOS FROM ME. Tim is right on.
>Ask people why they don't bike. Riding to the grocery store is a large
>percentage of my riding, & would be for most people in the city. And
>we are put off by snobbishi, elitest attitudes like yours.
People don't cycle because they are either lazy, or just plain don't
like it. I find that those who don't like cycling just say so, those who are
lazy, find all sorts of excuses.
Mike, your perfect bicyle is there, to be bought. There are plenty of
cross bikes, fixed gear bikes, cruiser bikes ect. You can even find those
wire baskets in K-Mart. But you do not see that, and I assume it is your
choice not to see that.
I fear that if you were in any position of authority, we would all be
required to cycle on the sidewalk, at under 10 mph. God what a boring life.
paul
Joshua_Putnam
>>> I try to
>>> compensate by wobbling and riding erratically, which is pretty
>>> effective in scaring drivers into slowing down.
>>
>>That's a pretty neat trick. Not. Why don't you stay off these roads
>>altogether? That way you would be doing those of us who know how to
>>ride those roads safely a favor.
>>
>Riding "safely" around cars is an oxymoron; impossible.
Only in the sense that living "safely" is impossible -- risk is
an inherent part of life, and we're all going to die some day.
Sooner if we ride incompetently, later if we ride predictably,
all else being equal.
>Wind resistance isn't important at the speeds that most people ride.
>I'm not concerned about racers, but getting more normal people to
>ride.
For a 175 lb bike and rider combination, with the rider wearing
proper cycling clothes, riding at 10mph, bearing friction is 5
ft-lb/sec, drivetrain losses are 5.7, tire losses (with
high-pressure tires) are 7.7, and wind resistance in still air is
12.5 ft-lb/sec, or about 38% of the total energy requirement.
Upping the speed to just 15 mph, well within average commuting
speed ranges, wind resistance climbs to about half of the total.
By 20 mph, wind resistance is over 70% of the total. This
assumes still air. Riding 10 mph into a 10 mph headwind gives
the same 20 mph air speed that takes 100 ft-lb/sec to overcome on
an aerodynamic bike with cycling clothes.
>Ask people why they don't bike. Riding to the grocery store is a large
>percentage of my riding, & would be for most people in the city. And
>we are put off by snobbishi, elitest attitudes like yours.
Carrying groceries is much easier on a well designed bike, one
with drop bars or multi-position flat bars, low-mounted carriers,
a wide gear range, and a seat that doesn't interfere with
efficient pedalling. In my experience, working at a shop that
serves large numbers of practical riders but few racers, cheap,
overly-cushioned seats are one of the first things utility riders
replace when they start riding more than a mile or two a day.
Then they get rid of the handlebar baskets in favor of folding
rear rack baskets and/or fork-mounted low riders.
--
Joshua...@happy-man.com Happy Man Corp. 206/463-9399 x102
4410 SW Pt. Robinson Rd., Vashon Island, WA 98070-7399 fax x108
We publish SOLID VALUE for the intelligent investor. NextMail OK
Info. packet free. Send POSTAL address: Solid...@Happy-Man.com
Matt Boersma
In article <21mi8k...@uwm.edu>, <the...@csd4.csd.uwm.edu> writes:
> Path:
> Mike Vandeman (mjv...@pbhye.PacBell.COM) wrote:
> > July 2, 1993
>
> > While I am on the subject of bicycles, I would like to make
a
> > plea to do whatever we need to do to make bicycling more popular.
> > At the top of my list is making bikes more comfortable to ride.
> > Let's stop torturing ourselves in order to "look good" (to
whom?),and
> > bring back comfortable, broad seats (pressure is weight per
square
> >
__________
> > inch!), handlebars that bend back, so you can sit upright and
enjoy
> > ____
> > the ride and the view and not tire your arms, a few usable,
> > reliable gears, smooth, hard tires with very low rolling
> > resistance, and good, ample front and rear baskets for safely
> > carrying lots of food, books, or whatever else turns you on.
>
> When I bought my bike, I didn't want the drop bars it came
> with, so I had them changed to bars very much as you describe--no
> problem. Of my 10 gears, I use about 3, usually just 1. I have
fine
> low rolling resistance tires that are pumped up to 110 psi for
> comfort; I have panniers for getting my clothing to and from work,
and
> if I wanted them, large wire baskets are available too.
> I don't see why I should deny other people the gear they're
interested
> in.
I agree with Thelma: there are many different people and many
different bikes for them. Mike, the original poster, made the point
that the biking world can be insular and that this scares people off
who might otherwise bicycle. I thought about this for quite a while
and I don't believe it holds water. More likely, the lazy will
always sit in their Lincolns and sneer.
It is true that we as bicyclists should try to ensure that our
attitude is open to and encouraging of all, but I don't think a world
where everyone rides the same "comfy" gray commuter special would
encourage me to pedal. I'm an individual and my bike says something
about me. Even the fact that I ride says something about me. We
need to look at the big picture and realize that the more people on
bikes, the better, and this should discourage any perception of
elitism. I'm glad when I see a grossly overweight rider on a rusty,
squeaking bike--we've all got to start somewhere.
But Mike's tone was much too dogmatic and accusatory for me ("'You'
need to recognize", "'you' need to learn", etc.). In addition, he's
still counting bikers as part of the problem. His solution seems to
be ending transportation, which while it would lessen environmental
impact, is far from realistic. There are externalities in
manufacturing and even riding a bicycle, but it's not in the same
realm as burning fossil fuels just to get to the 7-11 at the end of
your block. We're all individuals, we all need different bikes, the
important thing is to ride.
-Matt
Paul Barter
.....stuff deleted....
>Seems like there's plenty of room on the road for everybody.
>There're also a whole bunch of "townie bikes" already available and for
>cheap. Multiple gearing is at a stage now that worrying about its
>usability/reliability is moot.
>Frankly I don't see why various groups of cyclists, i.e. hardcores
>(racers, strong recreational riders, gonzo MTBers) need to interact much
>with more genteel users of the technology and thereby "put each other
>off." Except maybe to point fingers at one another...Geez can't we all
>just get along?
>I always thought cyclists (of all types) were about the coolest beings
>around-we're the smart ones, can't we act like it?
>-PDN
I agree!! There's plenty of room for all categories of cyclists. Mike V.
has pointed out a slight gap in the market however. (But he could have been
more diplomatic :) about it).
Bicycle Victoria in Australia is trying to interest manufacturers and
retailers in the concept of "The Useful Bike" which is something like
what Mike is talking about. For more info see one of the recent editions
of Australian Cyclist magazine.
Cheers,
Paul Barter
ajp...@adam.adelaide.edu.au
Steve Sergeant
In article <1993Jul13.1...@schbbs.mot.com> (rec.bicycles.soc), petr...@phx.sectel.mot.com (Paul Petrucelly) writes:
[...]
>In article 28...@pbhye.PacBell.COM, mjv...@pbhye.PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman) writes:
>>>> How can you tell when a given use is inappropriate? I think
>>>> that one of the best ways is via speed (and weight) differential.
>>>> _______________________________
>>>> Speed (and weight) differences make bicycles incompatible with
>>>> freeway traffic; it is too dangerous to be in or near such traffic.
>>>> compensate by wobbling and riding erratically, which is pretty
>>>> effective in scaring drivers into slowing down.
>(Mike Vandeman) writes:
>>Riding "safely" around cars is an oxymoron; impossible.
(Paul Petrucelly) writes:
>Obviously for Mike this is true. He is probably one of those eratic
>riders that my cowboy friends hate because he's all over the road and
>I catch the s*&# because of the way he rides.
The Effective Cycling techniques work. My experience at motoring tells
me that I would have a much greater likelyhood of hitting a cyclist
who was acting unpredictably. As a cyclist my closest calls have been
when I inadvertantly did something a motorist couldn't have anticipated.
I think most r.b.s. readers agree that Michael's logic on this point
is faulty.
>>>(Mike Vandeman) writes:
>>>> While I am on the subject of bicycles, I would like to make a
>>>> plea to do whatever we need to do to make bicycling more popular.
>>>> At the top of my list is making bikes more comfortable to ride.
>>>> "Macho" features like 18 speeds, "racing" design (rock-hard seat,
>>>> no fenders, straight or turned-down handlebars, which cannot be
>>>> made comfortable no matter what you do!), bumpy (high rolling
>>>> resistance!) tires, and brakes that require the continual use of
>>>> your hands may appeal to one segment of the population, but they
>>>> leave most people out in the cold -- or rather, push them into much
>>>> ____
>>>> more comfortable cars!
[...]
>(Mike Vandeman) writes:
>>Wind resistance isn't important at the speeds that most people ride.
>>I'm not concerned about racers, but getting more normal people to
>>ride.
(Paul Petrucelly) writes:
>Perhaps you live in a vacum. At anything over about 15mph it is a
>factor. I try to do my commute in traffic in 60 minutes. That is 20mph
>including stops for lites. When moving, I am doing quite a bit more then
>20 mph. These commuting bikes are basicly heavier, or older racing bikes,
>or cross bikes. Many of these guys will use the same bikes to go to the
>store, since they just throw on the panniers, and go. We all use other
>bikes for training and racing, but the seating position (including those
>tiny seats) are the same. Regardless, I am a commuter, and I happen to
>race. I can not spend 4 hours a day commuting to and from work at the
>speeds you feel "normal" people should or do ride at.
>
A 20 mile bicycle commute is more than you could ever expect a majority
of the population to accept as reasonable. Also, maintaining an
average of 20 mph requires a level of skill and conditioning that is
beyond the dedication of most people.
I commute about 5 miles each way on a bike I think Michael would like,
a 6-speed with a cruiser bars and a full chain guard. Although I am
in good enough condition to ride centuries and do a week of loaded
touring at a time, I average 13 mph on my ride to work, and I don't
work up enough of a sweat to have to change when I get there, so I
wear my office clothes on my bike.
My commute is the kind of riding I think we could convince a large part of
the population to do with education, but it is at the outer limit. The
dedication of most people to cycling may well be more in line with what
Michael describes, since most of my coworkers look at my commute as
almost a superhuman act.
[...]
>(Mike Vandeman) writes:
>>Ask people why they don't bike. Riding to the grocery store is a large
>>percentage of my riding, & would be for most people in the city. And
>>we are put off by snobbishi, elitest attitudes like yours.
(Paul Petrucelly) writes:
>People don't cycle because they are either lazy, or just plain don't
>like it. I find that those who don't like cycling just say so, those who are
>lazy, find all sorts of excuses.
People also don't cycle because of a perception that it's too difficult
and dangerous. As John Forester has pointed out, this is a perception
that is not borne out by statistics.
>
>Mike, your perfect bicyle is there, to be bought. There are plenty of
>cross bikes, fixed gear bikes, cruiser bikes ect.
Paul, have you tried to find a bicycle with the following features (hint:
they aren't sold in the U.S.)?
* A natural, upright riding position
* A natural hand position, with the hand-grips parallel to the line of
travel
* Single lever shifting (3-speeds minimum, more are better)
* Widely available 'standard' components of high quality.
* Street tires
* Fenders
* A full chain guard (enough to protect a pair of white dress pants
from chain grease without having to be tied off)
If you find one let me know, I have buyers for a number of them. Such
things are available in Japan and Europe, but Michael has a point that
(even according to dealers and the industry publications) a bicycle in
the U.S. is a fashion and sport item, not a utility item.
My own experience at getting my SO to do more riding is a case in point.
We went to a lot of trouble to fit her to an MTB three years ago.
She hated having to change clothes to ride it, she found dealing with
two shift levers unnecessarily complicated, and the forward-leaning
seating position caused her significant wrist pain. All of this from
a shop that had a good reputation from fitting people.
I've recently restored a 1963 Puch 3-speed for her, and she's finally
starting to do some riding. She finds it more comfortable that any
of the modern bikes she's test rode in the past five years. Since
this is a woman's frame bike, she can even ride it wearing a long skirt.
She actually uses it to go the 3/4 mile to the grocery store, something
she would have never done on her MTB.
BTW, Michael: Have you considered something like the ReBike recumbent?
You should definitely give something like that a try. E-Mail me for
more info.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve Sergeant Internet: Stev...@torrent.sj.ca.us
San Jose, California Radio: KC6ZKT @N0ARY.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NA
(408) 945-0395 GEnie: STEVSERGEANT
Audio Engineering, Music, Macintosh, Bicycles, Backcountry, Japan
Yu-Shan Chin
|> (Paul Petrucelly) writes:
|> >Mike, your perfect bicyle is there, to be bought. There are plenty of
|> >cross bikes, fixed gear bikes, cruiser bikes ect.
|>
|> Paul, have you tried to find a bicycle with the following features (hint:
|> they aren't sold in the U.S.)?
|>
|> * A natural, upright riding position
|> * A natural hand position, with the hand-grips parallel to the line of
|> travel
|> * Single lever shifting (3-speeds minimum, more are better)
|> * Widely available 'standard' components of high quality.
|> * Street tires
|> * Fenders
|> * A full chain guard (enough to protect a pair of white dress pants
|> from chain grease without having to be tied off)
|>
|> If you find one let me know, I have buyers for a number of them. Such
|> things are available in Japan and Europe, but Michael has a point that
|> (even according to dealers and the industry publications) a bicycle in
|> the U.S. is a fashion and sport item, not a utility item.
A while ago, I was looking at Schwin's bicycle catalogue, and I recall
seeing a bicycle with most of the above features. At the time, I sort
of laughed at that bike because I couldn't see why anybody would want
something like that. However, after following this thread for a while,
I guess there is a market for them.
Sam
David Casseres
Stev...@torrent.sj.ca.us writes:
>Paul, have you tried to find a bicycle with the following features (hint:
>they aren't sold in the U.S.)?
>
>* A natural, upright riding position
That one's easy -- mountain and cross bikes allow only an upright position,
and road bikes allow either an upright or a crouched position (though in the
crouched position the brake levers are not instantly available).
>* A natural hand position, with the hand-grips parallel to the line of
>* travel
I deny that this is a natural hand position. I've tried it and it causes
considerable discomfort, especially if you want to use hand-operated brakes
(which are required for reasonable safety on the street). I think the appeal
of "cruiser" bars is purely psychological. Even racing-style drop bars can be
used when sitting in an upright position, and allow many different hand
positions. Mountain bike bars, if the bike is properly fitted, give a single
very natural position, or more if fitted with "bar-ends."
>* Single lever shifting (3-speeds minimum, more are better)
I would think it would be pretty easy to ignore one lever on a bike that has
two.
>* Widely available 'standard' components of high quality.
No problem, we're talking about standard bikes.
>* Street tires
Cross bikes often come with them; road bikes always do.
>* Fenders
Readily available, inexpensive, and easily installed. Not needed unless
you're going to ride in rainy weather, though.
>* A full chain guard (enough to protect a pair of white dress pants
> from chain grease without having to be tied off)
That's the only thing I see on the list that has some real merit and isn't
available. However, a trouser clip doesn't seem prohibitively inconvenient,
and it does the job. White dress pants are a bad example, by the way; even
with a full chain guard, white pants are going to get grimy on a bike.
-------------
David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!
Radek Aster x211
> Riding "safely" around cars is an oxymoron; impossible.
Huh ? I do it every day, and have been for the last 8 years. I've done
several cross country trips and have had no problems. Maybe if you took
that huge chip off your shoulder about "normal" cyclists vs. snobby
elites, you would see that "real" cyclists can actually give you a lot
of information.
> Wind resistance isn't important at the speeds that most people ride.
> I'm not concerned about racers, but getting more normal people to
> ride.
What speeds are those ? If you studied any physics, you may recall
Stokes's Law which says that wind resistance goes up as the square of
the speed. So say you are going at 7 miles an hour (a slow speed ) and
you accelerate to 14 miles an hour (not an unreasonable speed) the
resistance goes up by a factor of 4. I think that's quite
significant.
Also making a blanket statement like "the speeds that most people ride at"
is quite a generalization on your part. "Most" cyclists that I know of
travel at speeds where wind resistance is important. Open your eyes, please.
> Ask people why they don't bike. Riding to the grocery store is a large
> percentage of my riding, & would be for most people in the city. And
> we are put off by snobbishi, elitest attitudes like yours.
Like I said, please take that chip off your shoulder and actually USE
your bike. And talk to other cyclists. You may actually learn something.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| ,__o
!___ _-\_<, Radek Aster email : ras...@isi.com
<(*)>--(*)/'(*) ISI/SCG Technical Support tel : (408) 980-1500 x 211
fax : (408) 980-0400
@ ___ Integrated Systems Inc.
_ \ _\ 3260 Jay St.
(*)-^+-(*) Santa Clara CA 95054-3309
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Todd Krissel
>I'm not concerned about racers, but getting more normal people to
>ride.
I travel along an oceanside bicycle path often. Most the wind I'm
subjected to comes from the ocean breezes and not from my own motion.
Using drop handle bars or aerobars are almost essential for an
enjoyable ride.
In fact, my parents often wondered how I could "put up" with being
stooped over my handlebars all the time, until they got a chance to
ride along this same path with straight-handlebar bikes.
The resistance I pick up from this wind is definitely measurable.
Travelling the same path with the wind reduces my travel time by
25% on average. A northbound trip (with the wind hitting me from
my left shoulder) takes an hour. A southbound trip (with the wind
blowing over my right shoulder) is usually fifteen minutes
shorter.
I guess the real solution would be to ride a recumbant!
Todd Krissel
tkrisse...@xerox.com
Jym Dyer
to start a flamewar. He regularly posts his viewpoints in the
*.environment and the Bay Area ba.transportation newsgroups.
I do believe he's sincere.
=o= I do think he's off the mark in this matter, though. I've
written as much, but I don't think it made much impression on
him. For what it's worth, here's what I wrote when he posted
the same message to sci.environment and ba.transportation.
<_Jym_>
================================================================
=> From: Jym Dyer <j...@remarque.berkeley.edu>
=> Message-ID: <Jym.6Jul1993.2013@naughty-peahen>
=o= It's not entirely clear to me why these points were sent
to the Auto-Free Bay Area Coalition (AFBAC). It seems that
you're basically opining for a commuter-friendly bicycle.
I'm happy to add my thoughts on the matter.
=o= For the purposes of this article I'll use the terms
"low end" and "high end" in an unconventional way. "Low
end" will mean the bicycles and accessories that you find
in department and hardware stores. "High end" will mean
those that you find in bike shops.
> . . . bicycles are out of place on hiking trails.
=o= I don't believe AFBAC concerns itself with off-road
cycling. I personally agree with guidelines prohibiting
bikes from singletrack hiking trails and on any trails
that have gotten wet. Fire roads and wide equestrian
paths are another matter, and indeed have served me as
particularly pleasant (if slower) transportation routes.
> At the top of my list is making bikes more comfortable to
> ride. "Macho" features like 18 speeds, "racing" design
> (rock-hard seat, no fenders, straight or turned-down
> handlebars, which cannot be made comfortable no matter what
> you do!), bumpy (high rolling resistance!) tires, and brakes
> that require the continual use of your hands . . .
=o= When one has 18 speeds and up (I have 21 speeds), generally
that means more lower gears, not more higher ones. They're not
for being "macho," they're for climbing hills and dealing with
rough roads and shoulders.
=o= "Racing" design has its pros and cons. On a smooth road,
the light weight makes riding easier. Seats I'll mention below.
Fenders are nice on rainy days, but I'd rather do without the
weight. Fortunately there are now clip-on fenders that you can
use only when you need them.
=o= Some "cruiser" bikes with fenders can be found in low end
markets, and I've seen a high end commuter bike put out by
Specialized that comes with fenders.
=o= [In sci.environment and ba.transportation] I've already
mentioned that turned-down handlebars are ideal for riding
long distances -- such as my old 40-mile commute. The basic
idea is that you need to vary your grip.
=o= Quite a variety of tires are available. The lowest in
rolling resistance are thin and quite slick, but these are
uncomfortable on bumpy roads and are vulnerable to flats.
I personally use "hybrid bike" tires, which are fat (for
comfort on bumpy East Bay roads) and have a clever tread
pattern that cuts down on both flats and rolling resistance.
> . . . bring back comfortable, broad seats (pressure is weight
> per square inch!), handlebars that bend back, so you can sit
> upright and enjoy the ride and the view and not tire your
> arms, a few usable, reliable gears, smooth, hard tires with
> very low rolling resistance, and good, ample front and rear
> baskets for safely carrying lots of food, books, or whatever
> else turns you on.
=o= You may be preaching to the choir here. The cyclists from
AFBAC whom I've met have a penchant for dumpy, retro bikes.
Perhaps they've got them 'cause they're cheap, or perhaps they
completely agree with you.
=o= You can still readily find the old cushy seats in the low
end, springs and all. In the high end, there are wider seats
marketed as "women's" (but plenty of men buy them), and there
are gel pads. Some buy the gel pads for longer rides.
=o= The upright handlebar can still be found on some high end
mountain bikes. The very high end has all kinds of interesting
custom handlebars, but they cost too much. You'll find plenty
of upright handlebars (including 1970s type "high handlebars")
in the low end . . . though I haven't seen banana seats around.
> In Japan, they don't ride the macho bikes they sell us. In
> front of the train stations are hundreds of dumpy, but very
> practical bikes with a few gears, comfy seats, baskets, and
> bent-back handlebars.
=o= Japan makes more components than bikes, I believe. Most
high end "macho bikes" are of American design, though most
frames these days are made in Taiwan.
=o= Perusing my photos of bikes and cyclists, I see that Asian
countries do seem to have a penchant for bars that bend back.
European countries -- including those where plenty of bike
commuting goes on -- use drop bars almost exclusively, as does
Canada. Drop bars are still popular in America, though the
mountain bike bars (either straight across or up and back)
have hit the market in a big way. I have one photo of a Mexican
bike (with handlebars down and back) and one of a bike used in
Africa (an American mountain bike with a straight bar).
=o= I've found packs more useful than baskets, though the price
of a milk crate bungeed onto a rear rack is hard to beat. You
can find cheap baskets quite readily in the low end, but the
high end leans towards packs and panniers.
=o= A final comment: The ultimate in comfort, or so I'm told,
is the recumbent bike. This is a bike low to the ground, with
a full-fledged seat and pedals in front of you. Very efficient
for flat city riding. Unfortunately these are kind of rare and
are very, very high end . . .
<_Jym_>
================================================================
=> From: Jym Dyer <j...@remarque.berkeley.edu>
=> Message-ID: <Jym.9Jul1993.1921@naughty-peahen>
=o= I'm told that you can get a bicycle from the People's
Republic of China at the Canned Food Outlet on University
Avenue in Berkeley. This is the extremely-mass-produced
"Flying Pigeon" model. Presumably this model has the type
of handelbars that bend back.
=o= The price is low, though of course this is because of
all the ultra-cheap forced labor in the PRC.
<_Jym_>
================================================================
Steve Sergeant
In article <Jym.21Jul1993.0850@naughty-peahen> (rec.bicycles.soc), Jym Dyer <j...@remarque.berkeley.edu> writes:
>=o= A final comment: The ultimate in comfort, or so I'm told,
>is the recumbent bike. This is a bike low to the ground, with
>a full-fledged seat and pedals in front of you. Very efficient
>for flat city riding. Unfortunately these are kind of rare and
>are very, very high end . . .
Recumbents may have only been high-end bikes ten years ago, but not now.
I can think of several recumbent bikes in the $400.00 range: ReBike,
Infinity, ComfortBike, among others.
The ReBike in particular has become quite popular with an otherwise
untapped segment of the bicycle market: senior citizens and those
otherwise handicapped by artheritis.