Sports Cyclist -sciencekids
1. Sports Cyclist – sweaty, adrenalin, fadish, cocky, specialised/expensive equipment, high speed, ride like a motor vehicle, Tour de France, lycra, dangerous, road warrior, road hog, packs, bunches, cultish, long Sunday rides, road rules, wacky helmet, rituals.
Commuter Cyclist -Treehugger.com
2. Commuter Cyclist – fluoro, ride like a motor vehicle, hand signals, share road, claim lane, aggressive, speed, sweaty, require showers at destination, risky, confident, lycra, dangerous, road warrior, road rules.
Utility Cyclist - ridinginriverside.blogspot.com
3. Wheeled Pedestrian/Utility Cyclist- upright sitting position, comfort bike, carrier, mudguards, practical, short distances, basket, shopping, relaxed, slow, safe, efficient, healthy, footpath, community, time to say hello.
Observations:
- Sports and commuter cyclists currently dominate Auckland cycling landscape.
- Sports and commuter cycling is of limited appeal to 99% of population.
- Utility cycling has wide public appeal and most potential to attract new participants.
- Cities with successful cycling cultures are filled with utility cyclists.
- European cities in Germany, Holland and Denmark et.al. provide excellent models of where utility cycling has been embraced.
Cycling. It’s as easy as walking, but faster….
I'd challenge that assessment of the commuter cyclist.
With that list above, your are really just talking of a roadie riding to work instead of limiting his training to the weekend. In countries that take cycling seriously, your split between the commuter and the utility cyclist is much weaker or non-existent. In fact, commuters don't wear lycra, they wear office clothes. So let's not hinder the cycling revolution by pigeon-holing people too much.
And anyway, commuters are actually the next big group we need to appeal to, because they are a key demographic in making politicians and transport policy people taking cycling seriously as a TRANSPORT mode.
As a 'sports' cyclist (screw you, I'm just a bike rider mang, especially on some of those things!) the people that we need to build things for/market to are people like my mum.
If my mum in her 60's felt safe riding, most people would.
Nice. Lots of emotive descriptions with negative connotations for anything other than utility cyclists.
I'm getting weary of people that constantly want to put divisions within cycling, seeing their perspective as superior. Sometimes it's sports cyclists hating on flouro, sometimes it's you hating on sports cyclists etc.
You are putting your misconceptions as truth. Without the increasing numbers of commuter cyclists, I doubt you would see half of the cycling infrastructure currently in Auckland. The North Western cycleway, by your definition being a long trip as it is over several km itself, would be a waste of time for utility cycling. It is held up as a success and a justification for increased cycling infrastructure funding by the very people utility cyclists seek funding from for their short trip infrastructure. The ARTA Annual report for 2010 says as much.
I've said it before. Isolating forms of cycling as negative, is cutting out additional voices to assist you in getting what you want for your niche, but which would also benefit all of us.
Utility, sports and commuter cycling all have their place, and they are all positive for their participants, otherwise they wouldn't do their particular pursuit.
Under your 'definitions', I am all three, but reject being labelled anything other than a person. I just happen to ride bikes.
I think what you are doing by pointing out your perceived negatives in different areas of cycling rather than accentuating the positives in any and all forms is shooting your cause, and cycling in general, in the foot.
I'm seeing more and more people commuting in "civvies", where do they fit?
and then there's the fixie crowd doing track stands at the lights (respect), the BMXers scooting along the footpaths, families out with trailer bikes, forty and fifty-something mums and dads out riding together (they're great fluoro lovers!)
but mostly what we need to see is more WOMEN out riding, they're probably more risk averse than the testosterone set and are possibly a bit of a canary down the mine for cycling
Like Jim, I fit your three 'definitions' plus I also do mountain biking & adventure cycling.
I've never considered myself anything other than someone who likes riding bikes.
Your post is a total waste of bandwidth.
Like several other posters on this site you just push the misconception that if you’re not riding a Dutch-style bike with baskets loaded with groceries, (preferably organic from your local farmer market), in your Sunday best you are doing cycling a disservice.
Well guess what?
Like 99.9% of the world, this isn’t Copenhagen or Amsterdam.
We're all in this together.
The point being missed by aomw commenters here is that utility cycling in NZ is currently notable by its absence. The predominant image of cycling as seen by non cycle riders is not attractive – to most people: sweat, road-worker attire, an uncomfortable posture and danger – all negatives to MOST people. And this is a barrier to the wider adoption of cycling.
Of course people should choose the style or styles of cycling that suits them – but most aren't aware that utility cycling is even an option. My personal cycling renaissance started on a hybrid bike, helmeted, like most people do – if you go to a kiwi bike shop that's what you'll end up with – that's the default. I moved to a road bike (which i still ride occasionally) was even less comfortable, and finally graduated to a slow, comfortable style of cycling on a behemoth beater that I would have been better off with on day one. Its very stable, upright, and without a helmet, drivers notice me more easily and give me a wide girth, just like as the research has shown (Bath University.. look it up). I feel more confident and comfortable than ever.
Ultimately the question is – do we want to live in a society with a ~1% modal share? Because if we do, a predominantly road / commuter culture will ensure we stay that away. As far as non cycle riders are concerned, anything other than utility riding is a freakshow – even if the utility riders are the actual freaks, because there are so few of them. The successful cycling societies – not just Copenhagen or Amsterdam, but also Japan, China, parts of spain and france – have predominantly utility styled riding, which is self replicating, because it's obviously attractive and pleasant.
So if any road/commuter riders are pissed at the tone of some of these posts, just get over it – more utility cycling, will mean more cycling, and that will be better for anyone on a bike – whatever the style.
This site was initially set-up by two urban women and aimed at encouraging everyday people to ride bikes (as they do) – so bells, baskets and organic-baguettes come with the territory.
Having said that it's not very productive to pick fault with the various factions in our cycling ranks. I fit in all the categories above and few more not mentioned.
Anyone riding a bike is okay by me but as Tim has pointed out it's utility cycling that will really turn things around. The big shift in numbers that's required to normalize cycling in our communities will not happen without it.
Tim,
I don't think that it's the car drivers that give you a 'wide girth'.
That's probably due to the slow, comfortable riding & the organic baguettes.
Tim, nothing wrong with that. I only own my roadie (I'd like a nice single speed commuter on the side) and while I do my training in cycle kit, if I'm just cruising somewhere I'll be wearing normal street clothes and if I could get away with it I'd probably be without helmet in those situations too.
However I refuse point blank to wear hi-viz. I don't work for Fulton Hogan, and I stopped going to Happy Hardcore parties around 1999.
Totally agree Tim, Trickster et al. More people riding bikes more of the time, totally! That is what I want to see too!
Utility cycling rules, but just as much as any other form of cycling rules.
Getting everyone to ride bikes is the way forward, can't argue with that! Utility cycling is more comfortable for more people to partake in, definately!
Just stop hating on the other forms of cycling, talk up the positives of utility cycling by all means, this I agree with and utility cycling and car-lite/free are topics I read on often!
I totally agree many people think the high viz, fast riding thing is not for them, and it is not for everybody, that is for sure.
Like others have said, when I think of getting the general public cycling, I think of getting my parents riding. There is no way they would ride like I do.
But I am not the enemy of cycling, I'm putting my bike there in front of them, they see it is fun and good for me. It means they do ride a bike when and where they feel comfortable now, they never used to ride at all!
I totally agree it is about making utility cycling more accesible, more infrastructure etc and legalising riding on footpaths, though probably legally mandating that it is done slowly or something, is the way to go!
These all make sense and are ideas I support.
But the other forms of cycling aren't the enemy like it seems they are sometimes portrayed.
Like the tag line says "regular people who ride bicycles". I make no apologies for being more inclusive in my perspective, and am being defensive for other forms I guess rather than intending to offend.
In countries with little or no really bicycling culture, the bicycle become a fetishised cult object for the few. These tend to be sports cyclist, although you will almost always find a few Commuter/Utility cyclist.
Under these condition cycling starts to be viewed as a dangerous activity (although a cool considered look at the hard data on real risks suggests other wise). This perception of risk then leads the near religious belief in the need for protective clothing, such as hi-viz and cycle helmets. Even though activities just as walking have a higher risk of head injury.
This then produces barriers to the majority of the population even considering the bicycle as a viable means of transport. However, if you provide space for ordinary people to ride a bicycle as a means of transport without fear, you find the take up is often wide spread and can lead to a modal share upward of 50%. No need for protective clothing, or other special equipment.
There is no reason why cycling as a sport can't continue under these circumstances, even with it rituals and special equipment. Although some seen to fine the idea of ordinary people riding bicycles a threat to their egos. Cycling is only a dangerous activity, if you choose to make it so, it is not inherently dangerous in its self.
@ The Trickster:
The hi-viz jackets/vests are now officially called "Bob Parkers".
As in, are you wearing your Bob Parkers? Where's your Bob Parkers?
Sweat is part of living on the side of a big hill, no getting around it, baby wipes and a clean shirt are the answer. I have hit the ground 4 or 5 times over the past 30 years of commuter cycling, the time when I didn't have a helmet I ended up in hospital with concussion. As uncool as flouros are, I don't want to be a victim of that awful response "sorry I didn't see you".
While cycling in Auckland is still a minority thing and dominated by sports cycling etc it feels safer and wiser to wear hi viz etc. I am less inclined these days to always 'claim the road' space and prefer to cruise slowly on the footpath instead. I just want to keep cycling because it is often the easiest way to travel. I'm becoming less of a road warrior these days and don't feel it is a cop out to wear hi viz or travel on the footpath. I just wish i felt more loved…
Reizar, at the end of the day it doesn't matter what you ride, where you ride, how you ride, how you look.
If you enjoy riding your way, keep on riding!
I'm a bit late to this discussion and have to admit to finding it a little strange.
I thought commuting was a utility form of cycling – I do it. I started riding a bike every day as a better way to get to and from work… it's not the shorter ride of the utility cyclist as defined here, but surely it is the use of a bike for normal everyday needs… which is how I would define utility cycling. I'd love to do it in my normal clothes that I wear at work but the reality is I live in Auckland and no matter what route I use, I'm going to encounter hills, so naturally I sweat… no matter what speed I do and especially in summer. So I usually wear a pair of shorts I'd be happy to wear down the street and a t-shirt.
I don't do hi-viz but understand why people do and would never begrudge it – Auckland drivers have a tendency to be both a little blind and insane.
I wear a helmet because I don't want to break the law on my whole ride (happy to get on the footpath from time to time when I need to) but see people with no helmet and think – more power to you.
I ride a Swobo Novak with no guards or carrier (I use a messenger style bag that's made for the office person) because I'm somewhat vain and like my bike looking minimalist without going down the fixie path because I don't have the skill for it and couldn't stand the idea of facing our hills on one.
I'm not given to dressing in lycra and sitting on a racing bike with shaved legs but admire the strength and stamina of those who do.
For the really short distances, I walk.
As a commuter I've now encouraged friends into cycling. I've got one friend who is using one of my old bikes to get to the train station and back for his daily travel to work and another who uses another old bike he purchased off me to get to and from work. His wife also got a bike and on the weekends their little family ride all over the place.
In my workplace our bike rack is a diverse expression of different cyclists – me, the pretentious, vein guy who rides a bike; another who is the very definition of utility cycling (where utility is about function, not form) and can be seen carrying all forms of wonderful things on his bike; another who fits the definition of grand, stylish gentleman on a bike (Richard Barter); another who is a sometimes rider on an old mountain bike; yet another (female) who does lycra and a road bike and another older gentleman who sometimes rides for health reasons as well on a town bike.
Cycling in Auckland is a wonderfully diverse pursuit and we need to be careful not to denigrate other parts of that expression. Different things would appeal to different folk – I would never have got into it if it was all about baskets and baguettes. I love seeing such images, but that's not me. The challenge is about making the bicycle appeal across the spectrum to different people in all their diversity. We would be doing cycling in Auckland a disservice if we made a commuter feel stink because they're a commuter and they stopped doing it because of that. The same goes across the cycling spectrum.
What we advocate for in terms of infrastructure and what we promote is one thing (it's fine to have a clear bias there) – how we talk about each other is another. Let's be careful how we do the latter.