The distinction between "for recreation" and "For utility" isn't about the participants themselves, but rather should be made per-trip. I think this matters because of the *point* of the journey. If I go for a walk in the park, a 15 minute detour isn't a big deal, because I'm out there for the point of the walk in and of itself. If I'm walking to the grocery store, that can be a huge pain in the ass. It doesn't matter what I'm wearing. Similarly, I think focusing on cycling infrastructure from a utility point of view is important, because often recreational bike paths will be made - in parks etc. - but bike routes to actually get people places will be underdeveloped.
Absolutely. I'm a "sport cyclist" and I often enjoy biking on roads as fast as I can. But when I'm getting to work or doing groceries, I just want the trip to be as convenient as possible. In the absence of competent infrastructure that means driving
Very well said. One person can easily be both a fietser and a wielrenner depending on the nature of the trip. I have a road bike and an electric cargo bike. I take the road bike for fitness, recreation, quick errands, etc., while riding the cargo bike when hauling grocery items and/or my daughter.
@John Smith Exactly. This distinction is made clear when there are two possible routes: for that specific trip, would you choose a more meandering and scenic route, which may have some kind of "challenge" on it, maybe it's uphill then downhill, or it has an irregular surface that forces you to constantly adapt your approach, or would you prefer a more direct and "seamless" route.
100%. I can be both, and it depends on the point of the ride. In the morning, I took my cargo bike to the shop, and at that point I was a fietser. I then went out on my road bike to get some exercise, and at that point I was a wielrenner. I also think the video missed the point of making the distinction. Usually it’s made to point out that if the only type of cyclists you see in your city are wielrenners, that’s indicative of it being a dangerous and unfriendly city to cycle in. It’s also used as a counterpoint to those who argue that cycle infrastructure isn’t needed because the MAMILs deal with it fine. They are two different types of rider in a way that matters - the infrastructure required to enable them.
Agreed. I'd like to see the community I live in include much more cycle infrastructure in it's long range plan. But, the Town Planners assume all cyclists are recreational cyclist. Consequently, the only planned bike routes are along the water ways, with no interconnections to places were people live or work.
In my small town, I've seen people object to putting bike lanes downtown because "Cyclists already have bike lanes at the lake". The idea that cycling could be anything other than a recreational activity didn't even occur to them. That is why this distinction is made. Even if people who do one are more likely to do the other, I think it's still useful to get the word out that making a place amenable to cycling for transportation is good for everyone and makes a more pleasant community.
My take on why ‘sport’ bikes are more common for commuting in North America is that when most trips include segments where you’re forced to mix with faster moving car traffic you value the bit of extra speed and nimbleness to stay safe, or at least comfortable
I would love a video about the different bike types used in various cities. I also see the racing bike as a symptom of poor bike infrastructure. Once you've ridden a comfortable upright bike it's hard to go back to the hunched over sporty position.
@@andyb2339 Fun fact drop bars are more comfortable on long rides because you can change ride position you are not fixed to one position like on the normal bike
Sheer distance, too. My office commute is 8.5 miles. I'd much rather do that at 15 mph than 8. (edit: apologies for the Freedom Units, I live in a stupid country)
As someone who has regularly had to merge with cars, it definitely brings out an urge to feel and appear fast and capable. I've never ridden an actual road bike to commute, but I appreciate the capability of my ebike for this reason.
I cycle to work in the morning by the shortest route (about 12km). From work I extend my journey up to 100km depending on the weather and how much time I have. I wear a mix of urban and lycra. So even on that one trip I fall into both categories of cyclist.
I would definitely do that, but I have to carry that baggage back home too. of course leaving stuff at work helps if it's option. I might actually do that some time.
same here, 3 mile commute has been know to turn into a 30 mile ride ;) you can also see me wear cargo shorts on my road bike and lycra on my city bike ;)
My ride home from work is always at night, which means that my recreational riding pretty much always happens during the day before work. But other than that, same. I do 15-30 miles, usually on a mix of road and gravel, with a normal-looking T-shirt and shorts on over a pair of bib shorts.
Growing up in sprawling suburbs, virtually all the cyclists I saw were riding 100% recreationally since there wasn't any development other than single family homes for miles. As a kid, I could only ever ride bikes in circles around the neighborhood. There just wasn't anywhere to go.
@@tonywalters7298 it’s so common. Where I live now is similar. There are even many bike trails that go to parks but all stores and offices are in strip malls that don’t look safe or pleasant to ride to. Cycling and everything else in life are kept totally separate.
I live in a rural area, and because of that, my parents never let me go on roads other than two designated roads with virtually no traffic. They never allowed me to bike, even to the nearby town 3 miles away.
Great video as always. I personally have to create a distinction when talking to city council/policymakers, otherwise they can write off a desire for more bike lanes by saying something like 'I see people riding fast in the road all of the time, they seem fine without' It's easier now that our city did a study on cycling and the massive percentage of people who responded 'interested in cycling if they were protected from cars' but oh man it's still so hard to communicate with people who have never biked to a grocery store :( Anyway, love the video
Maybe all it's going to take is a few weekends with sections of cities closed off to cars to get more people familiar with the idea of cycling in their city, like how it was mentioned in the video that people start utility cycling after getting into recreational cycling. A place nearby me does a special "bike with the Easter Bunny" event every year where they close off a long section of road.
The popularity of cargo bikes has really helped our local goverments understand that not every cyclist is a lycra lout. It's even prompted some of them to start designing bike paths that don't have stairs or other anti-bicycle barriers, because saying to a parent carrying two small children "just dismount, unload the kids, carry the bike up three steps, then find the kids and load them back on" doesn't seem reasonable even to the most "fit young men riding for fun" oriented councillor.
I see one place where the distinction needs to be emphasized. And that is when speaking to policymakers. The mayor of my borough in Montreal called me when I'd sent him an email complaining about a bad bike lane in our area. And he literally told me "just bike on the road, that's what I do". The road he was taking about is a 6 lane arterial. Such an attitude indicates he thinks cycling is an activity reserved for fit, healthy and confident people. And he doesn't see why the infrastructure needs to be improved to become more accessible to others who may not want to ride alongside speeding traffic.
😮, biking on a 6 lane arterial? No one in their right mind would do that in Holland. They would be apprehended by the police and sent to the doctor's for a mental check😂😂😂
As someone who uses bikes for both sport and for transportation, put me in the category of saying that they are two different types. As for me, I use two different bikes. For sport/recreation, I ride my carbon Trek, and for utility I use the bike share. I dress differently and I don't wear a helmet when I use the bike share. When I ride for utility, I don't want sport riders in the bike lane, and when I ride for sport, the last place that I want to be is in the bike lane mixing with much slower utility riders. It's bad enough to already have to share the bike lane with those stand up scooters and occasional rogue Vespa. Of course, everything is circumstantial. If the bike lane is empty or outside of a congested urban area, I may choose to ride in the bike lane with my road bike, but I won't use it when it contributes to the mixing of riding styles. I think that's just too dangerous.
If the bike lane is wide enough to pass easily I'll ride in it but it is mostly a speed difference. I'd say it's similar to the difference between running and walking/hiking in that if everyone has enough room it isn't an issue but if they're forced onto a narrow trail it can be inconvenient
I'd say I fall in this same category. Our city is not friendly towards cycling as transportation, and the culture is distinct here (mostly mountain biking). Most people I know who do cycle, rarely or never cycle somewhere over driving. There is more investment in the recreation side.
Same with me. I've also noticed that my perspective (how I perceive other cyclists) changes depending on type of bike I use. I'm not particularly proud of that.
@@miroslavkowalski5783 I don't know why pride would have anything to do with it. As rider with experience, we generally know the "dance" of how different types of cyclists navigate infrastructure. Having that knowledge allows us to make our best decisions for our safety and the safety of others. Seeing your name, I see that you too are of Polish descent! 😁
@@jakesaari7652 If your cycling community is mostly mountain bikers that makes sense. One, mountain bike trails are often located outside of cities and are too far to pedal a mountain bike to unless you live close by. Two, proper mountain bikes are expensive to ride on pavement, because pavement rapidly wears out mountain bike tires which tend to be expensive.
The distinction often comes down to how we're seen by motorists rather by other cyclists. In a city where cycling is safe and where safe routes lead to where people want and need to go, it follows that more people will ride for utility, and it's more likely that motorists will acknowledge their use of the roads. In a city that lacks safe routes, utility riding is naturally more sparse, and cycling tends to lean toward the sporting end. But It should make no difference whether I'm wearing lycra on a "racing" bike or a business suit on a "Dutch" bike. My right to use the roads and not be killed by a motorist is exactly the same.
@@cdjxwubcyex If I was angry it would make it easy on you. But no, I was just being matter of fact. The anger you read was entirely of your own imagination. Basically, you are delusional. And you should seek professional help for that.
I’ve interacted with a number of “Lycra” cyclists here in florida who actively advocate against bike infra and sound like vehicular cyclist advocates. I think this must be location specific there is absolutely a separation here.
Right. Probably in places with less bike infrastructure you're more likely to see the cycling culture dominated by people who are solely interested in sport, while in more bike-friendly places there are more different types of cyclists and each cyclist is more likely to bike for different reasons.
@@OhTheUrbanity Another Floridian chiming in, the Lycra cyclist are insane here. Not only do the advocate against it but I'v seen them use 45mph roads instead of the 12 foot seprated bicycle path on the side of those road!
I agree. I think the main difference is speed. In lower density cities where utility cycling makes less sense and most people drive cars the majority of cyclists go very fast and hit pedestrians etc. In big cities it's impossible to bike at these speeds, so bike racing culture never develops.
@@leathandris6734 I live in south central florida and they are the most rude snobby people I see. They won't even wave back or smile. The regular cyclist are always very friendly and nice. :)
I'm a Belgian who always biked to get to places but nothing more. I really got into cycling for fun while living in the US. I think this video is spot on, and totally wrong at the same point. - In north America, among people who bike, there seems to be a really nice mix between how people use their bike, myself included once I got there. I started to go on bike tours with friends, and would bike much further in general besides also biking to work or the store. - In Belgium, and the Netherlands, there is a much much bigger gap between cycling as a utility, and cycling for fun/for sport. We bike because it's the most convenient/fastest way to get around, not because we enjoy it perse. It's like the difference between pedestrians and avid hikers. Just because you walk to the store, doesn't mean you like to go on long hikes. On top of that, bike racing is infinitely more popular in our countries compared to North America, so roadies in lycra will much faster be associated with racing culture, and vice versa, group rides of roadies will often try to push themselves to see how fast they can go, to improve their fitness, etc... So in short: I agree that the division doesn't seem to exist as much in North America, but it's absolutely a real thing in the countries where you took the terms from.
I agree, there seems to be a big miss understanding with this video. I live in South America. To my perception the volume of utilitary bike trips in the Netherlands massively exceeds the sportive use of bikes, which is a very important aspect. In North America maybe these numbers match up because of the lack of good and safe enough infrastructure and the distinction turns up to be pointless. Also the analogies with walking/running, driving/racing are equally strange given the unique car centric culture of North America.
I agree, racing bikes is in a league of its own in the Netherlands/Belgium but utility bikes are used for leisure all the time, and with E-bikes coming along the speed differential is going down, becoming more blurred.
In the Netherlands there is a lot of daily riding for errands, of course, and quite a bit of serious road cycling as a sport, which is why there are terms for both. But recreational riding and cycle touring are also definitely common; if you go to the dunes or the Veluwe in the weekend you’ll see plenty of that, for instance. And many people do two or three of the different kinds of riding, of course.
PREACH! I'm a 50/50 cyclist, and I hate hearing hate for "lycra-wearing Lance Armstrong wannabes" coming from people who are supposedly "pro-bike". Thanks for making this.
Agreed. Im older, not in the best shape, and more of slow burn guy right now that can do 25-50 miles, but doesn't focus on speed- just finishing. lol. I have all the respect for those that fly by me no matter what they're wearing as long as they're respectful- which they almost always are. Guys like that are just trying to be their best.
In Dutch, a "wielrenner" doesn't mean any kind of recreational bike rider, it means someone engaged in or training for bike racing, or doing that kind of bike riding for sport. As this is done at high speeds, on a type of bike and in a position that makes falls on your head more likely, people who are doing that wear helmets. As they go fast, often in groups, you will usually find people doing so on wider bikepaths or on quieter roads, where they don't get mixed up in traffic, either slow-moving pedestrians and "fietsers" pootling along a narrow path where they can't pass, or too many cars breaking up the training bunch. Every Dutch "wielrenner" is also a "fietser", when they go about on a non-racing bike doing non-racing things; sitting upright, on a bike that accomodates that posture, going at a slower speed, not wearing a helmet but in everyday clothes. The names "fietser" and "wielrenner" are not mutually exclusive labels for people, they label what that person is doing at that moment (unless you're a professional racing cyclist, then it could also be used to label your profession). If you go jogging on the weekend you could be called a jogger, but driving your car to work it's a bit strange to still call you a jogger... Other kinds of recreational riding have their own terms in Dutch, like mountainbiking. People doing that also need a helmet because of the danger of falling, but they like a completely different kind of trails than racing bikes, and those trails would not be suitable for granny riding her bike to the local shop, or a mom taking her young kids to school; normal "fietser" biking activities any mountainbiker might also do on days when they aren't practicing their sport, same as the racing cyclists. Though a mountainbiker is more likely to bike to school on the same mountainbike on which they practice their sport, the activities are different and the infrastructure and safety needs for both are clearly different. So lumping everybody into one category of racing cyclists or wielrenners for all recreational cycling is rather strange and shortsighted, but recognising that different types of cycling activities need different gear and accomodations is not. If cycle paths are wide enough that faster cyclists can overtake slower ones, they can work equally well for "utility cyclists/fietsers" as "racing cyclists/wielrenners". That combination is fine in a denser area as long as there's enough room to overtake, and the racing cyclists can continue on to a place where they can bunch up and practice sprinting without intimidating other path-users, while the utility cyclists can go on to safely reach all their destinations. Touring cyclists like those wide smooth paths as well, where faster cyclists can overtake them, but for them it's equally or more important that the path goes through attractive surroundings, as well as allowing safe travel for longer distances to their destination. Utility cyclists like attractive surroundings too, but generally need more diverse destinations to be safely reachable. There is quite a bit of overlap between the needs of different activities one can do on a bike, but they aren't identical, and it's good to keep that in mind. A section of path shared with pedestrians isn't suitable for racing cyclists, nor is a busy protected cycle lane along a street full of shops and cafés where people are constantly stopping and starting, leaving and entering the lane; while for a utility cyclist it's essential that such a street is safely accessible by bike and has many places you can leave the lane, securely park your bike, and go into a shop. Those wide smooth paths won't offer much challenge for mountainbikers though - those really need their own separate tracks. That racing bikes are used by utility cyclists in your town, maybe because that's the type of bike the shops sell, and/or because they are easier to ride fast, when on parts of your commute or trip you need to try to keep up with cars where there is no safe separated bike lane, doesn't mean you cannot be a utility cyclist while riding a bike like that. Those bikes do make it easier to fall into the racing mindset of head down, going fast, no time to look around and enjoy the scenery or chat with my companions, slower folk beware and get out of my way because my attention is on the big fast cars that are a constant danger to me, and I might not notice you in time as I'm going somewhere fast... which is more of a racing attitude, and may be necessary to stay safe while sharing lanes with fast cars.
That's actually incorrect. 'Wielrenner' is a Dutch swearword describing a person who is agressively entitled and doesn't care about other people at all. 😉
@@nonegone7170 Even as a regular 'fietser' in the Netherlands, wielrenners, while rare in the inner city, are still a complete pain on seperated cycle paths outside of cities. They pass super close and its always your fault that you are in the way, while they cycle way above the speed of the rest of the cyclists around them. I used to cycle 12 km one way to high school in the eastern Netherlands and two times in those six years was there a crash because of wielrenners, once because an approaching one was taking over another approaching person, but wasn't fast enough so was still in our lane and bumped the person in front of our group which made him crash into the person next to him (we were cycling in a group of 20 so chaos ensued). And once because they were overtaking and accidentilly bumped into my friend who then swerved into me because another wielrenner tried overtaking the overtaker and there was simply too little space. I dislike car dependency as much as the next guy, but wielrenners are annoying as hell as well. For this same reason I absolutely hated cycling in London, while their infrastructure is quite good for a non Dutch city, everyone there has the wielrenner mindset. Cycling on a relaxed pace, while talking to your mate is impossible because of all these people cycling 30km/h on city streets.
@@EvilTurtle97 They do that. I got assaulted once because me and a friend didn't move out of the way within 1 nanosecond after such a racing cyclist yelled. Decade later as an adult I was driving past basically the exact same scene: Wielrenner assaulting two children. So I parked, got out, ran back and kicked the guy off the kid and into the watery ditch by the road. He came out screaming he would 'punch my teeth in'. That didn't go so well for him. 😆 Sadly OM decided to drop the assault charges for him beating up the kid, probably because of what I'd done to him already.
For me as a Dutch person, the difference between wielrenner and fietser is not the difference between recreation and transportation, but in gear, and more importantly, speed. And the latter is an important distinction for road safety. You're right about the distinction being fuzzy, and we definitely shouldn't get snobbish about it. For me the main distinction is that having a large group of wielrenners who are going really fast on the main road can be really scary, whereas being around other fietsers is not. They're going so fast they can't stop or get out of the way quickly, and as a result they're often yelling at other people to get out of the way. Because I'm neurodivergent I struggle with responding fast enough, especially when they're going really fast. I don't begrudge them their hobby, but maybe something like a "fast lane" or whatever could help keep the streets safe for everyone.
I'm one of those "fearless" riders who has no problem riding on busy roads and city intersections, but I'm just a commuter 99% of the time. I'm not a "bike guy" and don't own lycra or drop bars; I'm about going from point A to point B without getting too tired or sweaty. At least in my midwest US city, there is a clear and definite line between the people who ride for recreation/exercise, and the people who make it their means of travel.
I think that in a lot of car-centric cities, this is pretty much the only viable way for biking to be viable as an actual daily way of commuting. I ride very aggressively, take up lanes when appropriate, ride roundabouts, intersections, etc. I still wish my city had good bike infrastructure so my commute isn't a borderline adrenaline sport.
Same. I enjoy riding a bike, and would maybe even call it a hobby, but most of the times I just commute. I do own drop bars though, I use drops or risers depending on my mood, its super easy to swap them, cause my bike is a fixed gear. Risers for more comfort and better handling, drops for better acceleration and for windy days.
The same in Moscow. Just commute all around the year through traffic and the winter snow on my old 1974 city bike with basket 😅 Wearing jeans in good weather and an old ski suit at snow.
I had a funny interaction with some "wheel runners" at a coffee shop this spring. I'd just ridden over to sit and do some work and said hi to them in passing. They asked me how my ride was which struck me as funny since it was just a very routine ride to the shop. Then they started talking about headwinds vs tailwinds, distance, and some other stuff I didn't understand. Offhand, they also remarked on how it was nice it was finally warm enough to ride again which also seemed funny to me since I'd never thought about stopping riding (it's just how I get around). All of this just made me realize our cycling experiences and worlds were quite different. I do agree that the lines between recreation and utility are blurry, but at least where I live in a medium sized car dependant Midwest city, there definitely seem to exist an "avid biker" "wheel runner" type that approach cycling purely from a sport perspective. Which, I don't really have any issues with as long as they aren't making things more dangerous like was said in the video. Well, that and for whatever reason they usually seem grumpy and don't say hello or good morning back when passing on the multi use paths 🙃
@@cycologist7069 true, it's just not something I generally think about too much as I ride around town or talk about... It's just kinda there; so it struck me as funny to talk about it:-)
@@cycologist7069 it does, but you only really understand the frustration once youve gone real fast and know the advantage of having drops to go down to or just a flat bar
I think when designing bike infrastructure, there are some benefits to acknowledge the difference between cyclists. eg. Some bike lane are considered too dangerous for Novice and casual cyclists,while acceptable for a confident cyclist in a hurry. By assessing the ability to meet demand of different type of cyclists, we can better indentify strength and weakness of the design and the way to improve it.
This is important. I am fairly confident aggressive cyclists on a hybrid bike so I make use of the confident rider infrastructure. But when riding with my wife and kids, we often will slow it down and just take the sidewalk.
I really wish designers didn't distinguish between types of cyclists. I have made some attempt at commuting by bicycle but although there are quite a lot of cycle routes near where I live, they have been clearly designed with recreation in mind. There are some unnecessarily wavy sections which make the route longer. This is a technique used in landscape design to make gardens look longer and has no place in transportation infrastructure. There are several quite tight blind bends and some dom whitted bollard placement. Not so bad if you aren't in a hurry but a serious nuisance when it comes to getting to work on time. Then there is the biggest problem. They don't go anywhere. I have this huge cross country cycle network on my doorstep and it stops as soon as it sees a town. If they were all designed for utility cycling they would be more useful, better value for money because more folk would use the thing and it would still be good for recreation. It would probably be even better because more people would be able to access it without having to traverse busy car filled roads.
As a confident aggressive rider, I don't really care about infrastructure. I will ride in the dead center of the lane. If the cars want to pass they can figure it out for themselves.
I don't think the makers of this video truly get the Dutch distinction between wielrenner and fietser. Every wielrenner is a fietser, but not every fietser is a wielrenner. Therefore, a fietser more commonly refers to someone who is on that bike for any purpose other than exercise. Utility cyclist is not an accurate translation of fietser, and sporty or recreational cyclist is not an accurate translation of wielrenner. It is not true that a fietser is always someone who has only utility in mind. Yes, a fietser might be someone going to work or to a shop, but certainly a fietser is also someone enjoying a nice ride through nature for relaxation, someone taking the kids out to the park, or someone like my mom of 75 years old who does a bike ride twice a week with a neighbor, to both enjoy the company as well as get some easy-on-the-joints movement. But a wielrenner is someone very specific: a person whose sole purpose of the ride is to go fast and exercise. They may also stop for coffee along the way, may be in a group for the sake of company, or may be riding through nature, but they are certainly different because of their gear. Wielrenners have a more forward-leaning bike, are wearing sports clothing because they expect to sweat, and are wearing a cycling helmet because of the higher speed. Tour de France, those are wielrenners. Everyone else is a fietser. Perhaps it's easier to recognize the distinction fietser-wielrenner when you think of cycling vs. BMXing? BMXing requires a special bike, special clothes, and possibly even a special track. It is a sport people get into, to do for fun, for exercise, for companionship, but they wouldn't use their BMX to pick up groceries or just go for a ride through the countryside. Sure, the BMXer might also have a normal road bike to do that other stuff, which would make that person a fietser at that time, but we wouldn't consider the sport the same the more casual/utility usage of bikes. Wielrenners perhaps make it all a bit fuzzier because they use the same road space as fietsers a lot of the time, but they are something very different, and therefore have different needs. I appreciate that this is a distinction in Dutch culture and the Dutch language, and therefore doesn't as clearly transpose to other cultures and languages. For the Dutch, the type of bike, the lycra, and the helmet clearly identify the wielrenner as a person who is out on a bike mainly for sport and exercise. In other countries those same features might identify a fietser who is commuting to work or someone just going out for a casual journey.
I need to move to Montreal. Winnipeg’s cycling infrastructure is disconnected. Makes it very difficult to commute to work without getting dumped into traffic.
When I lived in Toronto, the conflict I felt was with hurried, impatient cyclists. I hated hearing the ding ding move over. It’s like they had taken on the car driver’s impatience with traffic. Or they were concerned with how their ride to work would affect their KOM ranking. In Montréal, no dinging. Cyclists just pass with care when the way is clear.
Yes, Toronto bikers are worse than car drivers. Their bike path must be clear of all obstacles. All obstacles are anti-bike idiots in their opinion. On the other hand, car drivers are supposed to slow down for bikers and pedestrians.
On my bike I sometimes pass other cyclists. Not often, but sometimes, and I actively try to never pass a cyclist by expecting them to move over. I think this is the key difference. Even when I pass pedestrians, it only means "move out of the way" when there's a "wall of friends" blocking a sidewalk or mixed-use pathway. Even then, since my bike is offroad-capable, I'm just as likely to ride on the grass next to the trail, just to avoid inconveniencing the pedestrians by demanding they move. I see bells simply as a more courteous alternative to shouting "on your left" which not only comes off as rude, but confuses many people. Of course as the person hearing the bell, I understand it can be hard to distinguish a "hey I'm here" ding from a "move over you're in the way" ding. This is the same issue that arises with car horns, where some motorists think honking at cyclists to alert them to their presence when passing is being respectful, when in fact it just comes off as rude. I think there needs to be more consensus around what a bike bell actually is supposed to mean.
There's basically two solutions. 1. Non separated bike lanes. If a faster cyclist wants to pass he temporarily merges into the car lane. This is what I usually do. 2. Separated double bike lanes. Slower traffic keep right, faster traffic passes to the left.
I think the distinction makes more sense in the Dutch context. When you are a wielrenner you pick another bike from your garage then when you go on a grocery trip. When you only have one bike and use it on every trip, it makes the distinction much more blurry
We live in a pretty bike-friendly city and people racing up the mountain are just one of a dozen or more different types of cyclists. They're not the standard that the rest of us define ourselves against (I had to look up what "KOM" even meant).
I go grocery shopping on my road bike, cut off jeans and Tshirt, backpack full. Shops downhill home uphill. Shopping done time for a workout as i break the roads speed limit(20mph) and leave Ebikers in my wake, going uphill to my house. Not a cyclist commuter or sports, just that, walking 40 miles is the one thing you would do in a day, and one of the things you can do in the morning on a bike.
In my opinion, the distinction between fietser/wielrenner becomes more clear in rural areas compared to cities. This is because quite a few what we call wielrenners like to pick up their speed on rural bike paths when they don't have city traffic to worry about. The result is that they often have a speed too high to cycle next to normal cyclists on narrower paths, while being too slow to go on the road without being a detriment to dirvers. Good wielrenners know this and will adjust accordingly, but the amount of times people get in danger because of bad wielrenners going incompatible speeds or anti-social overtaking actions, especially on smaller bike paths, is quite sad. This also gives them a pretty bad reputation here.
For sure. Someone cycling past me while walking on a multi-use path doesn't bother me. It does when they're going 40km/h, same while I'm on my bike. I don't like to go very fast on my bike as it freaks me out. I don't wear a helmet, and just the other day I was hit by a van, and because of my slow speed I was able to avoid basically any injury, while my bike is toast. Alternatively my colleague who is definitely a Lycra style cyclist, when he hit a curb, his bike completely snapped in half and he rammed his face into the asphalt despite wearing a helmet that required hours in the hospital. I have zero issues with the Lycra cyclists, but I think it's important to normalize cycling for utility or wearing normal clothes so drivers don't see us as "cyclists" but as a coworker who bikes to work. I also think it's important for Lycra cyclists to understand where they are and avoid being unnecessarily dangerous and avoid conflict with people who aren't as comfortable on a bicycle.
I find that in the US, as cycling becomes more accepted, there's a group of old elitist cyclers who don't have respect for casual riders and expect to have the whole road for themselves, the same way cars do to all cyclers.
Yes! It is not about the why you cycle or even the bike you use, but the how. Wielrenners (in Belgium at least) ride fast, often in group, and want to have a continuous route where they can keep a steady pace. Which is why they often prefer the road over conventional bike paths. Fietsers are just biking without much goals in mind outside of transportation or enjoyement.
@@米空軍パイロット theres a ton of older cyclists in the US that wear bright reflective clothing and are known to never wave back to anyone who isn't in full cycling gear and on a race bike
The more I bike, the more I realize it doesn’t matter. I have a “sports” bike but used it for when I don’t want to drive. The most hilarious response I’ve gotten is someone saying only people that bike “got a DUI” 😅
The issue I have is with people in lycra shouting profanity at my girlfriend for riding too slowly IN THE PARK. The issue isn’t always motorists it’s sometimes other cyclists. Really sucks people like that exist.
I kinda laugh at that, because I'm a pretty avid MTBer and did a big ride last year where part of the climb was up a paved mountain road popular with roadies. I actually passed a few of those roadies on my 37lb mountain bike haha, nice low MTB gears just let me sit and spin while the roadies were grinding away on race gears probably too tall for their fitness level.
I don’t really get this video. I find the utility cyclist distinction super useful. I'm 99% biking to get somewhere I need to go, but I know lots of people who are 99% biking for fitness. I find it useful to have a word for the type of cycling that I do which lets me live car-free while most of my sports cyclist friends do not. It's not like this is skiing vs snowboarding, this is a distinction made because both things are good, one often will lead to another, but one is just a more important target for our society and it's useful to have a name for it so we can craft policy and infrastructure that puts utility cycling front and center.
I'm so glad you put out this video that points out how far upright-only cycling advocates like Jason Slaughter of Not Just Bike, Mark Wagenbuur of Bictcle Dutch and Brandon Lust, aka "American Fietser(it's "Amerikaanse, Brandon.)" will go to demonize anybody riding a road bike-or any other bike that doesn't fit the upright Dutch mold, for that matter.
One factor that wasn't discussed is the rise of electric bikes. In the past it was fitness cyclists who terrorized the bridges and bike paths. Now it's me on my electric Brompton :) along with an army of delivery people (in NYC at least). Fitness cyclists tend to pass on straightaways and downhills, while ebikes max out at 20mph and pass going uphill. Gas powered delivery vespas ride in the bike lane over the bridges as well, since they can't quite go fast enough to travel with traffic. They either blast past at 35mph, or go extremely slow to "blend in".
The problem is a lot of the new e-bikes are basically e-vespas and can run over a cyclist and keep going. They should not both be in the same 4 ft wide separated bike lane.
@@appa609 E-bike users will slow down when they come across slower bikers in bike paths, if it’s only 4 feet. It’s the same as car drivers slowing down when they’re on narrow streets.
@@appa609 another problem is that it makes incompetent people more dangerous by giving them the ability of speed, which they otherwise would not have and which is often way too fast for their reaction times
Thanks. When I was able, my bike was my main form of transportation. And I would sometimes bike around 20-some miles to get to work instead of a direct route of 3 or 4 miles. I miss being able to balance and have been thinking of getting a 3-wheel bike to be able to go shopping without using a car. We'll see.
Here in Edmonton, the mountain bike culture can almost feel like an offshoot of powersports rather than bicycling sometimes. When I see people using massive pick-up trucks to take their mountain bikes to our river valley, it is hard for me to put them in the same category as someone who rides to work and supports bike lanes. I think there's just too much of a difference. What I would love to see more is mountain bikers utilize public transit more to get to the trails. But it is so ingrained in us to drive to go biking that it will be a while before that happens in big numbers.
I agree. I think it is important to make a distinction because what you build facilities for a sport cyclist it's a loop or trail somewhere on the outskirts of the city with a parking lot. You are expected to drive to this place with your bike in your truck or on your car and "play" on your bike away from your city. Kind of like owning a speedboat.
1 thing I love about my city is the mountain biking is so diverse you CAN commute to most trails any many do. However there is a spot its a little hard to commute by bike yes you need a car to get there. Sucks when you cant drive so I hardly go there. Guess it depends on where you are and the community. Commuting to the trails by bike though is dangerous with no bike network, so I can see why some elect to drive, I personally just dont have that option.
In my area, many of those very kinds mtbers also bike commute and advocate for improved bike infrastructure. Yeah they use their pick up trucks to when going on long trips to a destination, as in longer than where public transit can take them.
There is a distinction. You can't, for example, use a track bike to grocery shop. Well, technically, you can, the same way you can use F1 to do that. You also can't use fotball shoes to grocery shop, because you could damage some floor types and you would slip on the cobblestones.
I'm glad you included John Forrester in the end there, because in my mind the distinction between "cyclist" and "bike rider" is exactly in that attitude. "Cyclists" want to ride in the road so they can go fast and don't have to worry about overtaking slow bike riders, while "bike riders" want to have their own separated paths that don't interact with cars. The population of "cyclists" is of course very small, but they've had an outsized voice for a long while due to Mr. Forester and his "advocacy."
As someone who considers myself a cyclist but tries to actively advocate for more and better bike infrastructure, I prefer the term "vehicular cyclist" to describe cyclists who take anti-infrastructure stances. I consider a cyclist to be simply someone who rides a bike. I'm not unaware of the connotation around "cyclists". In fact, part of why I use the term to describe myself is because I want to challenge the assumptions that come with being a "cyclist". - I am not a "Cyclist" (and most Dutch people aren't either) th-cam.com/video/vMed1qceJ_Q/w-d-xo.html Related tangent: I ride in traffic. Not because I prefer it, but because the infrastructure isn't always available. For that reason I think it's also relevant to distinguish vehicular cycling (verb) vs vehicular cyclists (noun). Someone who is very much not a vehicular cyclist might still engage in vehicular cycling when dedicated bike infrastructure isn't available.
@Cumpootuhr User That's fair, and I definitely understand the point of vehicular cycling, even when there's existing "Infrastructure." As for my definition, I have had my fair share of arguments with vehicular cyclists who claim that cycling infrastructure in general is more dangerous than vehicular cycling, which I think is preposterous and not supported by the evidence, but I will concede that the way American engineers often go about it is much more dangerous than it needs to be.
@@jamalgibson8139 The "infrastructure is more dangerous than vehicular cycling" argument is especially insidious. They advocate against the development of bike infrastructure. When "infrastructure" *is* built it's worse than it could be, because of lack of political will to make it better. Then they use the unnecessarily-dangerous infrastructure to argue that all bike infrastructure is necessarily just as bad. All of this while conveniently ignoring their role in detracting from the political will to invest in better bike infrastructure. Their criticisms of the infrastructure are often very rational. They use the same criticisms I use to argue for better infrastructure. But they take the conclusion in the exact opposite direction.
@Cumpootuhr User Yup. It's incredibly frustrating and effective, because you never know if they are a bad actor, or if they're just truly disheartened by the state of American transportation infrastructure. I can understand resigning yourself to just wanting to ride in the streets, where at least you're somewhat in control of your destiny, rather than riding in some poorly thought out "bike lane" that dumps you right into conflict with fast moving vehicles. But it frustrates me that rather than fight for better, safer infrastructure that we know works, they want to move the needle back on the little progress we have made and go to free for all on the streets.
6:58 THANK YOU so much for not being snobs! I don't know why so many urban design channels feel the need to throw constant hate at anyone not already in their camp. Love your open minded positivity and rationality!
“Like seniors who want to stay active without being too hard on their joints” *cries in arthritis-since-my-20s* 😅 Joking aside, using a bike to get around town has really helped me keep my arthritis under control. I love the warmer months because I am out on my bike almost every day and I feel great. I tried a little winter cycling this year for grocery shopping on my big cargo bike, and it was ok! I don’t think I would go for a leisure ride in the cold, or go all the way down town (that Rue Berri hill! I HATE it in summer, I’m not risking it in winter!), but I can do the short rides I need to, and for me right now, it’s enough. It’s helped me get my mobility back so much, I really want to help others do the same, but I’m still trying to figure out how to do that as an anglophone in a French-speaking city.
Seen your channel. Are you a cartoonist? What is this Sunrise comic about? Curious. The triceratops and tea picture is the most awesome profile picture I have seen.
You have every right to not bike anywhere, so I'm not suggesting you do anything differently. I just gotta say that the Berri hill is super well maintained in winter. If you were wondering if it was dangerous or slippery, it isn't. That's all.
I don't agree with this one. You do need to explain that all cyclists aren't road racers and you need to create different use cases so that the city can know what types of facilities to build. For example in North Vancouver what they built for what their idea of "cyclists" are was a 20km pathway in the forest starting from the edge of the suburbs and leading to a reservoir. They were focused on making a trail for fun not a bike network. The use case they are serving is putting your gravel bike on your car. Drive 7km up a mountain to the trailhead where you can start your loop. Or you put your mountain bike on your truck and park on a neighborhood street near a different trailhead. The city allowed for this type of riding and thought everyone should be happy now. They use case they didn't serve was cycling your kids to school or cycling to work and then cycling to the grocery story to pick up ingredients for dinner. The city is catching up now (although most "bike routes" are just paint or sharrows on a back street some are getting separated) but I think that this obsession with recreational cyclists has put them decades behind other cities. And I see the same thing in other surrounding cities, excellent recreational facilities, amazing places to ride for fun, but you have to drive to get to them because there are no bike lanes only trails.
We didn't say it's wrong to distinguish between the two concepts! Our closing paragraph at the end: "We’re fundamentally not saying there’s anything wrong with distinguishing between utility and recreational cycling as concepts, especially when busting myths about how “bikes are for fun, not transportation”. We’re just saying that in the real world the distinction can be fuzzy, and that it becomes less and less relevant the more cycling is normalized and people start using bikes for a range of different reasons."
There are actually 3 types of cyclists: -Competitive Cyclists -Infantilized senseless Cyclists -Cyclists who found cycling a cheep mobility and income way to move from A to B. Sadly at the end of the day all cyclists fall in the same category for the worst reasons. Not good enough.
I think the distinction mostly comes from the stigma "cyclist" carries in the Anglosphere as it's almost always associated with the recreational kind given the NJB "I am not a 'Cyclist' (and most Dutch people aren't either)" and Jay Foreman's point about "In Holland- The Netherlands, there is no such thing as a 'cyclist'" in the "Why isn't cycling normal in London?" episode and for proper adoption (i.e. commuting), they want to distance themselves from the other type to emphasise that bikes are a worthy tool of commute (not to mention some of the sport cyclists oppose bicycle infra). Admittingly, the "cyclist" stigma itself is flawed given that many of these cyclists also drive a car (and it's especially so in a car dependent society where transportation typically is done with a car) but alas, the breaking of rules with a car has been fairly standardised, it's easy to call out outstanders, not to mention these cyclists may not be necessarily better behind a wheel than on a bike. That, and pedestrians also aren't always treated better than cyclists (any kind) by car drivers.
I use my feet, my escooter, my bicycle, my car, and transit to get around. It depends on the task, the weather, my mood, timing, and more. Sometimes I’m a motorist, sometimes I’m a cyclist. But I’m always just a person trying to get places. This is a great video highlighting a dividing line we make up, that really isn’t that much of a line. Transportation should be treated like clothes. Have multiple options and use what feels right for what you’re doing.
When you make a longer edition or follow-up, you could dig into the 'all ages and abilities' trope of designing bicycling infrastructure. Considering faster sport cyclists in the bike route design leads to removing bumps, humps, dangerous trailside hazards, blind corners, and and to removing narrow chokepoints so cyclists can pass safely. The AI synthetic images are now great; I experimented a while ago and got weird hands and Picasso-style distortion of faces.
@@lajthabalazs As long as we're talking paved bike paths. MTB trails are actually designed to be challenging, because the challenge of the trail is part of the appeal of MTBing.
In my town the Lycra crowd is VERY aggressive. They think nothing of cutting off cars, racing your car to the round about, flipping you off, etc. I cycle commute to the store, work,etc. So I cycle too but am not a racer. The cycle clubs in our area are not liked and are much complained about because of their aggressive behavior.
I think the distinction is useful when talking about bike infrastructure. I live in a typical car-dominated North American city with two types of bike infrastructure: multi-use pathways and painted bicycle gutters. On the multi-use pathways, especially on a nice day, you'll find all types of cyclists, including children and elderly folks. The downside of the pathways, of course, is that they're basically useless for intracity transportation, since they go off into the countryside rather than into the city. They're clearly only for recreation (but I'm still thankful for them!). The painted bike gutters, on the other hand, see much less use, and the few who do use them are the lycra crowd. The city is actually kind of dense, so cycling to destinations would be practical if the infrastructure were there to support it. Unfortunately, the current infrastructure in place only really serves the "wielrenner" and not the "fietser". Regardless, great video, as always! Y'all are my favorite urbanism channel.
I’m the kind of cyclist she suggests you distance yourself from. I don’t want too much dedicated bike infrastructure since it will limit where I can go on my bike. I can no longer switch between being a pedestrian and road vehicle whenever I desire.
Couldn't agree more. I was a utility+recreation/lycra cyclist when I was living in Chicago and the skills aspect you mentioned definitely helped me in commute especially in winter. Now that I have moved to Dallas, I am only a recreational cyclist, as Dallas is very hostile to bike commute. But looking forward to moving back to a bike-friendly place when I get a chance.
I feel like the distinction is quite clear to me. I cycle a lot for transportation, but I don't cycle for recreation because I just don't think it's fun. Of course, there's people that do both. I also regularly walk for transportation, I also like walking/hiking for recreation. But those are, to me, two entirely different activities. Walking to the supermarket doesn't feel like hiking to me, it's like a different mindset, and they feel like entirely different activities. Saying that transportation and recreation are the same thing, just because they involve a similar way of moving around, doesn't really take into account the attitude and experience, which to me are very different.
The distinction is very real and useful. Acknowledging this establishes bikes as a mean a transportation. When you cycle with performance in mind, you end up with different cloth, different bikes, different speeds. We need this difference to make the case for bike infrastructure.
Closing paragraph: "We’re fundamentally not saying there’s anything wrong with distinguishing between utility and recreational cycling as concepts, especially when busting myths about how “bikes are for fun, not transportation”. We’re just saying that in the real world the distinction can be fuzzy, and that it becomes less and less relevant the more cycling is normalized and people start using bikes for a range of different reasons."
Well, I bike commute for performance. Instead of having those horrible lycra clothes, I just build my e-bike that goes very fast. I never bike for leisure, only commuting.
NO! People like to cement bicycles as slow. You seriously think nobody lobbies against bicycles? It's already in peoples heads that they shouldn't even get sweaty. If I have to get places I wanna go fast. And " fast" for me means slow 🦥 and totally nicely if I was in a car. Sick double standard. + In a better world we'd be using recumbent Velomobiles alot. 5-10kmh extra.
One critical aspect that the hard line between 'sports riders' and 'commuters' misses is that the gear associated with the 'sports riders' is fundamentally the more efficient gear and efficiency translates to range for a cyclist. If we want to see cycling used for longer commutes or in more trying conditions then we're going to have to not just accept cyclists to break out the gear suited to that task but encourage and help cyclists make the right choices in what they get. In a moderately bike friendly end of Metro Vancouver the two bike lockups at my place of work have tons of bikes that resemble a sports bike ( though the majority also add fenders and accommodation for panniers ) and almost none resemble the utility bikes that are imagined as being for actual commuters. It's not hard to understand why either, even if we put aside the likelihood of having to travel more kilometers and range issue with the bike shown on the top right at 4:50 you literally couldn't use some roads due to a lack of gears just won't play nice with a 10% grade and those sorts of hills are all over the place in this end of the city. I think it's safe to say that whatever the level of bike friendlyness Metro Vancouver gets to the norm is always going to shy away from a gearless solution compared to the proportions seen in the Netherlands just as a byproduct of the geography.
I think as cycling becomes more accepted as a form of transportation here in the US, ebikes will gain popularity because they allow anyone to get on a bike no matter their fitness level or the amount of incline in a certain area. And it makes dressing up more convenient since they can just wear the same clothes they already wear without having to put on cycle-specific gear, just like people do in The Netherlands. Although I also wouldnt mind if utility cyclist made it a norm to adopt sport cycling gear in their daily commute too. But I do think its more likely that ebikes will dominate if cycling becomes normalized one day here in the US. Either way, anything that will get more Americans to adopt cycling is a good thing
As a person living in a central American country where the bicycle culture and infrastructure is undeveloped, i am in the middle ground between a recreational and a utility cyclist because i drive my bicycle to college from home or to go not far from my home, and twice per week i join recreational groups where we travel around the city or we go trailing in the wild. My bicycle is a MTB.
The distinction always made sense in my mind for personnal reasons even if I see your arguments. For me taking your bike to go to the cinema or to the park for exemple is utility and not leisure in the sense that it's using your bike to go from point A to B. I feel like I personnally understand the distinction because as an adult I dont like biking for fun. I like sport, and walking, but biking is just not fun for me. However I have used a bike to go to work, or school because it was just the most convenient way to get there and I would again someday if it's the easiest/fastest way. And the more cycling becomes popular, the more people like me who dont like cycling very much as a sport or activity will start to bike to place just because it is convenient. But it's a type of cycling focussed on getting from A to B and that's it. Just like when I walk to the bank or groceries. I like walking for fun too, but in these case I want to be able to walk because it's the most efficient and convenient way to get there. Not because it's fun, if that make sense.
On Dutch terms: when I grew up in Belgium, a ‘wielrenner’ was someone competing in bicycle races. There are also groups of people going on long recreational rides, these are known as ‘wielertoeristen’. And by long, I mean a leisurely 50 to 100km ride on a Sunday morning. The bicycle used by both of these groups, the one with the drop bars, is known as a ‘race bike’. This is opposed to the more upright bicycle with old school handle bars, known literally as a ‘city bike’.
As many have said, this infrastructure plays a big role on this distinction in a lot of cities. Where I live the city boasts a 40km trail circling the city.... And that's really all we have. You cannot take bike routes to get to the trail, you would have to ride on roads or drive to the trail. The trail is not designed to get people to populated areas for work or leisure the trail is the leisure. It is a perfectly nice trail that I would love to ride my upright bike on... But I would also love to have safe protected space to get around town or even to get to the trail.
This happens all to often. The parks board builds some recreational cycling trail. The city calls it done. Meanwhile you can't safely bike to work, to buy food, to meet friends or even to get to that trail. Great point.
Yeah, I live in Montreal and use a hybrid bike to get to and from places and wear normal clothes. But I also take my bike out on long rides and go as fast as possible (sometimes faster than those in spandex and on road bikes). So these stereotypes mean nothing and really just lead to snobbery and hostility within the bike community which we definitely do not need
There are no "cyclists", "walkers" and "drivers". People are usually multi-modal. But it's important to distinguish between the two types of biking needs. Utility use require a safe place to lock the bike, for 10 minutes or a work day. And good bike infrastructure coverage. Leisure use require a scenic route, well maintained trails, a BMX park, depending on the type of leisure use. Here, in Saint John, NB, it's customary to drive a pickup to the trail, enjoy biking, then drive back home. So in this use case, bike infrastructure means a trail and car parking. Very different from a protected bike lane needed to bike to work. Of course it's possible to use utility bike infrastructure for leisure. But not the other way around. So it's important to point out the distinction. So that bike friendly policy goes beyond offering scenic routes outside urban areas.
That second to last statement "Leisure cannot be used for utility" isn't entirely correct. Ottawa's riverside bike trails were intended for leisure, but were adopted as cycling highways, similarly to vehicular parkways. But this only works in urban areas, where as in rural areas, distances are too far apart to be of any utility use.
Thank you. I just made this same comment but you did it so much more succinctly. As you say so many cities make a trail with car parking somewhere in the middle of nowhere and call it done. But for utility we require a safe, central network. If there are no stores or places to work on the route then it's a failure for this use case.
The same distinction exists in the motorcycle world but the difference is in the infrastructure; motorcycles use the same infrastructure regardless of the purpose of their trip. For bicyclists, the racer/fitness rider often has to not use bike infrastructure because they often intend to ride faster and farther than what bike infrastructure usually supports.
In my (humble) opinion, commuting on a road bike is so uncomfortable. And because you're getting more core exercise on a road bike, it usually means you sweat more and therefore have to bring an extra change of clothes or shower when you get to work. Whereas a upright bike is so much more comfortable; no sweating, no shower required. Commuter bikes are also slower, which makes them safer. Nevertheless. I know some pretty hardy bike commuters who rely on road bikes to get to work. They have gotten used to the clothes change and shower routine and think nothing of it. So I guess it all comes down to personal preference.
Yes, you have a point, and for those reasons i stopped commuting on my race bike. And i got myself an electric scooter, which was awesome until i discovered a new and even better mean of transport - electric unicycle EUC. Way better than a scooter in its quality, way smaller and easier to store than a bike and way faster than a bike, or even a car in heavy traffic. Capable to reach speeds up to 50 mph (80kph) it is the best way to get around in a city, much better than a car or anything actually. Now i only cycle purely for sport, while commuting on my EUC
@@MalcolmJameson_1 I have seen some people using those around college campuses. The ones which are more like single-wheeled skateboards, with big tires.
not quite true a roadbike is comfortable if you go fast and have the ability to go fast, 25+kmh an upright bike is comfortable if you go slow, like 10-20kmh either of them feel bad to ride in the vice versa scenario.
@@Alex-od7nl for sure. If there is rush hour before or after work, a difference of 10kmh can be negligible if you are caught in traffic, the biggest factor here are red lights and stops
The basic conflict is urban planners seem fond of planning bicycle infrastructure for frequent stops, circuitous routes, and low speeds and that doesn't work well for people who bike to get around fast. What I want is a 4 ft bike lane on every city street and drivers who pay attention.
I used to ride for sport (velodrome, road race, TT) in lycra but equally for transport and recreation, shopping, commuting. I'm not into the spot side of it now but I've always found it puzzling how we put everything into boxes or categories. I don't live in a cycling friendly place however I saw someone in lycra towing a child trailer with his road bike a couple of days ago. I thought that was great. It's all cycling to me.
So do you feel comfortable riding your TT bike at 30+mph on a cycle lane? I don't. I feel comfortable riding my TT bike on a road along with traffic. While the traffic regulations prohibit riding on a road where there is a cycle lane present. So why should i be happy about the cycling infra? I dont need one. Even when im commuting i do it on a decent speed, and i feel much safer when commuting among the cars not among commuters on a cycle lane.
@@MalcolmJameson_1 I think the only good solution to the conlict between fast and casual cyclists is to always allow cycling on the road/street (except on highways with speeds 100+ km/h), whether there is other cycling infra or not.
@@falsemcnuggethope it's not about that, primarily there is loose lycra clothing used in running, mtb and hiking and several other sports it just feels better because the material properly ventilates ride in jeans and a cotton shirt for a while or put in an effort and you look like a wet rag, or like you pissed your pants cause the sweat runs down your back i used to poke fun at it too until i tried it, big aha moment
Please consider a video on "bad density", or the zoning choices that lead to high density but autocentric design, and how these congsted, 0 green space zones create push back to responsible development. It would be a great Hot Take and I think its important urbanists understand the mistakes that have been made as we advocate for change, so that we don't shoot our selves in the foot creating enemies and environments we don't want.
@@javierpalomares2892 In Ottawa I would suggest the area around Merivale and Meadowlands, and particularly Medowlands centered on Hogan St. But in general you will see it when you zone high density residential with no (or very limited ie; a convenience store) mixed use, a high ratio of parking requirements, and situate it off of a major stroad as the main transport corridor.
@@javierpalomares2892 @Neolithic Transit Revolution I keep thinking of "Village Green Square" in Scarborough as a great example of bad density. A neighbourhood of high rise condos on a 200m x 200m parcel, boxed in by train lines on the east and north, the 401 highway on the south, and a busy stroad (Kennedy) on the west. Only a single entry/exit point to the neighbourhood. The nearest shopping centre (Agincourt Mall) is 1 km away, and the nearest school is 1.5 km. Both distances are in theory walkable or bikeable. But it would be a hellish journey either way, and certainly not one I would send young children on. With the single road in/out, I keep thinking it must have horrendous car congestion at peak travel times.
I use my roadbike while wearing Lycra to get to a swimming pool up the hill. I do this because I want to be fast up and down the hill. This is training, but also utility.
I think this is a great discussion! I definitely fall into this fuzzy group of sport/fitness/utility/transportation. I started riding on a old school road bike for simple urban transportation. I liked using a road bike because of it's lightness and agility. Then I think got into more distance and sport road riding for fun as my fitness improved from all my utility trips in the city. This got me even more fit which made using a bike for daily transportation even easier for more trips... so it kind of turned into a virtuous cycle! Pun intended lol XD
I own 7 bikes. I am all the styles of cyclist possible haha!! My fave is my Bianchi Limited which I've updated with ergo grips and a rack/panniers for upright but very speedy commuting 😊❤
Love this! I live in montreal and bought a bike for recreation but now also use it to get to school. That it’s technically a carbon road bike doesn’t bother me, except for a slightly less comfortable ride.
You are absolutely correct that there's nothing wrong with wearing comfortable clothing when riding, and not all utility cycling is done on upright bikes but there are some differences between the two cycling styles and how they are advocated for at the municipal level. Wielrunner's Group Ride on major roads, and as such are seen by the public as perfectly capable of riding in traffic. This is counter to what good cycling infrastructure looks like for the general public. I'd like to add that there's a better analog to Wielrunners and Fietsers in cars: It's 2 seater sports cars and family wagons. Not that you can't commute to work in a McLaren Artura supercar(or a Cervelo R5 bike), but there is a difference between intended uses right? Commuters (whether e-Bike or analog) tend to be slower than road cyclists, and a majority tend to rely on separate or calmed infra to arrive at their destination. The Lycra crowd tend to ride on road more often and are usually maximizing speed. Can both share the paths? You bet. I just don't see the levels of advocacy being shared by the folks in full cycling kit in comparison to parents like myself trying to get our kids to school, orstudents and workers trying to bike more safely, or folks using assisted mobility devices.
I am more of a utility cyclist, but I tend to ride faster than most commuters. The biggest problems I encounter are the slow people who want to ride (or even walk) side by side and block the entire path lane. Then they get angry when you get around them as if they are entitled to slow everyone else down to their pace instead of sharing the path.
Imo, riding side by side is fine, but you should consider your surroundings. If the bike path is narrow and someone wants to pass, you make space. If there is enough space, you can continue because you both don't bother each other. A good bike path is wide enough for 3 people, but in many places this is not realized.
@@TommyJonesProductions Not necessarily. This only becomes a problem when the infrastructure is insufficient to accommodate people going at different speeds. I'm sure from their perspective, you're the problem, and you should learn some patience. The truth is nobody is the problem. The infrastructure is simply insufficient and it creates unnecessary conflicts.
@@cumpootuhruser9355 You are simply incorrect. The people who intentionally block the path instead of following basic etiquette are the problem. They walk three abreast now, if you make it wider, they'll walk four abreast. Anyone who has ever lived in the city knows how this works. Tourists blocking sidewalks getting in the way of people walking to work is not a new thing. Slow people being selfish and inconsiderate is not new, either. I'm not the fastest out there and I get passed often. I just don't pitch a fit about it and I certainly don't try to block the path because that's just plain rude.
@@TommyJonesProductions 2 people riding next to each other is hardly the infamous "wall of friends". It's not absurd to expect to be able to ride side-by-side so that you can easily have a conversation while riding. Your point comes with the assumption that there's never a valid reason to side side-by-side, and doing so at all is equivalent to creating a wall of friends. You should know that sidewalk width recommendations are selected to allow 2 people to walk comfortably while signing a conversation. I encounter this on a daily basis because my daily commute goes through a college campus. Since you intend on being condescending about it, anyone who's ever ~~lived in a city~~ graduated middle school knows the difference between a wall of friends and 2 people just walking side-by-side. I'll add that it's exceedingly rare to see more than 2 cyclists riding next to each other. When I see a wall of friends it's only ever pedestrians doing it.
After 12 years of being a recreation cyclist aka a "Gear Head" on my road bike and lycra I gave it up and switched to utility for commuting, exercise and exploring. Best decision I ever made.
When I was in prime school, I thought it was ridiculous the teacher made us deliver presentation in pairs with alternating paragraphs. Now that I see this as a spectator in a video like this, I realize how much quality it adds to the video
No. you're wrong there's a huge difference between normal cyclists and people who cosplay has robo cop on a bicycle. Normal cyclists are friendly and good people while robo cop won't even smile at you. The difference is the same as a regular car commuter and a car street racer that has made their car to be as loud and obnoxious as possible.
The cartoon picture at 0:24 portrays the "Wielrenner" as a rugged bodybuilder looking guy with a tattoo, when in fact these guys in the tight lycra shorts are usually skinny and effete looking nurds.
Weighing in as a Dutch person, it's not so much about the intention of the trip as it is about the intensity that causes conflict. Wielrenners are sprinters, they want to go fast and prefer not to stop. They are there for speed and a workout. Fietsers can still ride for fun, but they ride casually, slowly, low insensity. They don't mind slowing down or stopping. These two types of intensity clash when they use the same spaces. Wielrenners often travel in larger groups, tend to not give way so they can keep up speed, and have worse visibility because of their position. Braking is also harder because of the speed, making crashes more intense. This clashes with casual fietsers who, even if they crash into one another, often don't have serious injuries at all. Just like for cars, it's not about the intention of the drive but the speed and behaviour. If a 50 km an hour road had groups of road racers going 90 km an hour through it and running red lights, they would also be viewed seperately. The friction between fietsers and wielrenners isn't the intention of the ride, but the fact that there is such a large speed difference between them while using the same limited space. This difference exists especially in rural areas, where there are not many junctions or cars to worry about. You will see, once you begin to have long stretches of casual functional cycle paths outside of urban areas these speed differences will cause trouble
I experience Wielrenners as entitled,they only care for their KOM on Strava, They do not stop for red lights if not absolute necessare, they overtake children too close and most important, they alwaya, always ride on the car line,even if there isa perfectly fine bikelane right next to it. Even if they ride GA1 with a 25 km/h top speed.
In our town we ran a survey and found that those who often cycle for sports were unlikely to also be utility cyclists. Additionally we found that people who cycle for sports are much more likely to be satisfied with the infrastructure. Sports cycling tends to be making loops here, so whether destinations are reachable is less important. Whether drainage is working well is also less important because people are less inclined to go out riding when it's pouring. The reason to draw a distinction between the two types of trips is because cycling infrastructure design should be informed by a diverse group of people. Our local council has a few councillors who cycle for sports, but none who do for utility. Despite this, the council thinks they are fully informed on cyclists' needs and experiences because some councillors cycle. We are trying to bring awareness to the council that utility cyclists have different/additional needs like secure parking, safe access to schools and other destinations, and an inclusive design that allows for usage by people of all ages and abilities, including non-traditional bikes. We highlight the distinction to make sure that more groups' voices are heard
Most cyclists are every style of cyclist. It just depends on the outing, the purpose, the other participants, the location, the duration, the weather, etc... An urban work commute on a beater-bike (or a Sunday ride to a restaurant in fancy clothing) can then turn into a sport ride once the change of bikes and clothing occurs. That's the beauty of cycling.
I would rather separate cyclists into those who care about rules, safety, and the condition of their bike and those who don't. I often get passed on red lights by someone with a more than squeaky chain wearing headphones who just goes whenever and wherever they please in disregard of anybody else. It's the type that makes people hate cyclists. Once the entire city has separated bike paths it might not be a problem anymore but I'm sure they'll find a way to ruin that, too.
Also - consider - "leisure" cyclists (no helmet necessary - see Holland) . . . "sport" cyclists need a helmet for safety and belong on the streets not bike lane.
In the Netherland the fastest bike velomobile is quite popular among a distinguish group of cyclists. Those velomobile riders use their VM's both for commute/ utility and for recreational rides. The group VM riders is quite small, only 1700 VM's on 22.5 million bikes in the Netherlands.
The fast, competitive cyclist does exist, but from my observations at busy and quiet bike lanes in busy Manhattan, they are a minority within street lanes. Delivery guys and people on Citibikes are more common than competitive cyclists. Fast cyclists are a common sight within Central Park. However, when I see arguments against bike lanes, the fast cyclist is universally the only cyclist brought up, and as a bogeyman, too. There is also an addititional kink. The anti-bike lane crowd will argue that all cyclists are upper-class elites who take up valuable road space for car-driving middle and lower class workers. Which is ridiculous, because most delivery guys earn between $15 to $20 an hour, and the cyclists going to work or school or are just renting Citibikes are just normal people.
I knew I'd end up in one of your b-roll of Montréal one day. I use a road bike because I grew up in the 80s when a "10-speed" bike was ubiquitous. I continued to use them because I became a cyclotourist and they are perfectly suited for very long distances. It's not a racing bike, it's a road bike fully accessorized with racks, panniers and a trailler. The biggest change I saw in the 40 last years in everydsy road bikes is the advent of 90s hybrids and the last 10 years' gravel/ bikepacking craze. My winter beater used to be an old hybrid. Now it's a gravel with ultra-wide tires.
Yeah gravel bikes actually make REALLY good urban bikes, especially if they have lots of mounts for panniers, etc. They usually have better components than hybrid bikes, and are lighter too. I'm mainly a MTBer, but am looking into getting a gravel bike since moving to Denver just to have something faster and less expensive to run to explore the huge array of bike paths in Denver when I don't feel like loading up the MTB and driving to the foothills. MTBs are plenty quick on a bike path, but MTB tires wear out REAL quick on pavement and are very expensive. bike commuting isn't something I really do because my work "commute" is 10ft because I work from home all but a few days a month.
Sports speed road cyclists are absolutely not loved by other types, including moutain bikers and casual recreational riders. Ones on canada recently cheered for the removal of dedicated bike path because they would rather ride on the motorways, putting other cyclists to danger.
I think the negative attitude sport cyclists engender is the snobbery around ebikes being "cheating", helmet policing, gear obsession that makes people think they need to spend thousands on gear to be able to bike. That's all great if you are cycling for sport. If you are cycling from transportation, you don't need all that stuff. I think many critics of sport cycling culture is around the gatekeepery aspects of it. Some also ride quite aggressively, particularly in bike lanes that aren't wide enough for passing slower cyclists.
Love seeing shots of MTL--some of them seem fresh from this past beautiful spring weekend? In my case my utility biking, which I've always enjoyed as a physical workout as well, is the gateway to recreational biking. I'm planning trips for fun and looking into buying a bike more suited to long distances like intercity travel. In the city, I enjoy pushing myself and going fast which leads me to generally avoid bike paths (especially Rachel, though I do use the REV) and share the street with cars. I don't like being slowed down by people riding at a leisurely pace, but I don't want to inconvenience them if that's where they feel safest.
I've been doing a bunch of detour on ym utility trips to bike by parks and stuff since the bixis came back out with the nice weather. Fact is getting around by back is so enjoyable when it's nice out it feels like it's always half recreational
Spandex dudes are the runner equivalent for bikers. They're going at a certain speed and don't want to stop for nothing, even for pedestrians, often zooming past at high speeds nearly hitting you. They're horrible in mix-use areas and only do more harm for the mentality against bikers. They have no place in the usual bike lanes, they must go with the cars if they want to do car speeds.
Thanks so much for this. I've tried to be at ease with MAMILs (Middle Aged Men In Lycra) but seemed to find it wired as I am a commuter cyclist. And when I cycle for enjoyment and exercise I do so in casual clothes, like I did when I was a skater. This video made me decrease my disdain of MAMILs. Thanks for the great work at Oh The Urbanity!
I don't wear Lycra and I wanna burn calories. Still feels good to go faster. Got a weird wide loop bar that enables that. Also noticed a Tanktop is less resistance than a flabby shirt. And jogging shorts? Better than casual clothing. Don't need to be sore. It's a weird prejudice at play
I ride both sport and utilitarian. There are a few sport cyclists who never use bikes for utility/transportation and have no interest in our city making any changes for biking for transportation. I find that attitude really weird. Other places I lived cyclists would typically ride for both. The city I’m in has a lot of bike trails for exercise that don’t go anywhere near stores and offices which are all in very car dependent strip malls.
The distinction between "for recreation" and "For utility" isn't about the participants themselves, but rather should be made per-trip. I think this matters because of the *point* of the journey. If I go for a walk in the park, a 15 minute detour isn't a big deal, because I'm out there for the point of the walk in and of itself. If I'm walking to the grocery store, that can be a huge pain in the ass. It doesn't matter what I'm wearing. Similarly, I think focusing on cycling infrastructure from a utility point of view is important, because often recreational bike paths will be made - in parks etc. - but bike routes to actually get people places will be underdeveloped.
Absolutely. I'm a "sport cyclist" and I often enjoy biking on roads as fast as I can. But when I'm getting to work or doing groceries, I just want the trip to be as convenient as possible. In the absence of competent infrastructure that means driving
Very well said. One person can easily be both a fietser and a wielrenner depending on the nature of the trip. I have a road bike and an electric cargo bike. I take the road bike for fitness, recreation, quick errands, etc., while riding the cargo bike when hauling grocery items and/or my daughter.
@John Smith Exactly. This distinction is made clear when there are two possible routes: for that specific trip, would you choose a more meandering and scenic route, which may have some kind of "challenge" on it, maybe it's uphill then downhill, or it has an irregular surface that forces you to constantly adapt your approach, or would you prefer a more direct and "seamless" route.
100%. I can be both, and it depends on the point of the ride. In the morning, I took my cargo bike to the shop, and at that point I was a fietser. I then went out on my road bike to get some exercise, and at that point I was a wielrenner.
I also think the video missed the point of making the distinction. Usually it’s made to point out that if the only type of cyclists you see in your city are wielrenners, that’s indicative of it being a dangerous and unfriendly city to cycle in. It’s also used as a counterpoint to those who argue that cycle infrastructure isn’t needed because the MAMILs deal with it fine. They are two different types of rider in a way that matters - the infrastructure required to enable them.
Agreed. I'd like to see the community I live in include much more cycle infrastructure in it's long range plan. But, the Town Planners assume all cyclists are recreational cyclist. Consequently, the only planned bike routes are along the water ways, with no interconnections to places were people live or work.
In my small town, I've seen people object to putting bike lanes downtown because "Cyclists already have bike lanes at the lake". The idea that cycling could be anything other than a recreational activity didn't even occur to them. That is why this distinction is made. Even if people who do one are more likely to do the other, I think it's still useful to get the word out that making a place amenable to cycling for transportation is good for everyone and makes a more pleasant community.
My take on why ‘sport’ bikes are more common for commuting in North America is that when most trips include segments where you’re forced to mix with faster moving car traffic you value the bit of extra speed and nimbleness to stay safe, or at least comfortable
I would love a video about the different bike types used in various cities. I also see the racing bike as a symptom of poor bike infrastructure. Once you've ridden a comfortable upright bike it's hard to go back to the hunched over sporty position.
@@andyb2339 Fun fact drop bars are more comfortable on long rides because you can change ride position you are not fixed to one position like on the normal bike
@@andyb2339 That's why I absolutely love my eBike. The speed of a racefiets with the comfort of an omafiets.
Sheer distance, too. My office commute is 8.5 miles. I'd much rather do that at 15 mph than 8. (edit: apologies for the Freedom Units, I live in a stupid country)
As someone who has regularly had to merge with cars, it definitely brings out an urge to feel and appear fast and capable. I've never ridden an actual road bike to commute, but I appreciate the capability of my ebike for this reason.
I cycle to work in the morning by the shortest route (about 12km). From work I extend my journey up to 100km depending on the weather and how much time I have. I wear a mix of urban and lycra. So even on that one trip I fall into both categories of cyclist.
I would definitely do that, but I have to carry that baggage back home too. of course leaving stuff at work helps if it's option. I might actually do that some time.
same here, 3 mile commute has been know to turn into a 30 mile ride ;) you can also see me wear cargo shorts on my road bike and lycra on my city bike ;)
My ride home from work is always at night, which means that my recreational riding pretty much always happens during the day before work. But other than that, same. I do 15-30 miles, usually on a mix of road and gravel, with a normal-looking T-shirt and shorts on over a pair of bib shorts.
That's the way! I rode 7 miles to work yesterday and 35 miles home 👍
What bike do you use for that ?
Growing up in sprawling suburbs, virtually all the cyclists I saw were riding 100% recreationally since there wasn't any development other than single family homes for miles. As a kid, I could only ever ride bikes in circles around the neighborhood. There just wasn't anywhere to go.
Right. In more bike-friendly places, you'll tend to get more different types of cyclists and each cyclist will likely bike for more different reasons.
Bikes are also seen as a "children's toy" in many US communities
@@tonywalters7298 it’s so common. Where I live now is similar. There are even many bike trails that go to parks but all stores and offices are in strip malls that don’t look safe or pleasant to ride to. Cycling and everything else in life are kept totally separate.
I live in a rural area, and because of that, my parents never let me go on roads other than two designated roads with virtually no traffic. They never allowed me to bike, even to the nearby town 3 miles away.
There are always some kids, but they usually hate it or bike in groups.
Great video as always. I personally have to create a distinction when talking to city council/policymakers, otherwise they can write off a desire for more bike lanes by saying something like 'I see people riding fast in the road all of the time, they seem fine without'
It's easier now that our city did a study on cycling and the massive percentage of people who responded 'interested in cycling if they were protected from cars' but oh man it's still so hard to communicate with people who have never biked to a grocery store :(
Anyway, love the video
Maybe all it's going to take is a few weekends with sections of cities closed off to cars to get more people familiar with the idea of cycling in their city, like how it was mentioned in the video that people start utility cycling after getting into recreational cycling. A place nearby me does a special "bike with the Easter Bunny" event every year where they close off a long section of road.
The popularity of cargo bikes has really helped our local goverments understand that not every cyclist is a lycra lout. It's even prompted some of them to start designing bike paths that don't have stairs or other anti-bicycle barriers, because saying to a parent carrying two small children "just dismount, unload the kids, carry the bike up three steps, then find the kids and load them back on" doesn't seem reasonable even to the most "fit young men riding for fun" oriented councillor.
@@mozismobile good call! I'll use that example if/when they bring it up again!
Also, now I can justify buying a cargo bike, lol
I see one place where the distinction needs to be emphasized. And that is when speaking to policymakers.
The mayor of my borough in Montreal called me when I'd sent him an email complaining about a bad bike lane in our area. And he literally told me "just bike on the road, that's what I do". The road he was taking about is a 6 lane arterial.
Such an attitude indicates he thinks cycling is an activity reserved for fit, healthy and confident people. And he doesn't see why the infrastructure needs to be improved to become more accessible to others who may not want to ride alongside speeding traffic.
😮, biking on a 6 lane arterial? No one in their right mind would do that in Holland. They would be apprehended by the police and sent to the doctor's for a mental check😂😂😂
As someone who uses bikes for both sport and for transportation, put me in the category of saying that they are two different types. As for me, I use two different bikes. For sport/recreation, I ride my carbon Trek, and for utility I use the bike share. I dress differently and I don't wear a helmet when I use the bike share.
When I ride for utility, I don't want sport riders in the bike lane, and when I ride for sport, the last place that I want to be is in the bike lane mixing with much slower utility riders. It's bad enough to already have to share the bike lane with those stand up scooters and occasional rogue Vespa. Of course, everything is circumstantial. If the bike lane is empty or outside of a congested urban area, I may choose to ride in the bike lane with my road bike, but I won't use it when it contributes to the mixing of riding styles. I think that's just too dangerous.
If the bike lane is wide enough to pass easily I'll ride in it but it is mostly a speed difference. I'd say it's similar to the difference between running and walking/hiking in that if everyone has enough room it isn't an issue but if they're forced onto a narrow trail it can be inconvenient
I'd say I fall in this same category. Our city is not friendly towards cycling as transportation, and the culture is distinct here (mostly mountain biking). Most people I know who do cycle, rarely or never cycle somewhere over driving. There is more investment in the recreation side.
Same with me. I've also noticed that my perspective (how I perceive other cyclists) changes depending on type of bike I use. I'm not particularly proud of that.
@@miroslavkowalski5783 I don't know why pride would have anything to do with it. As rider with experience, we generally know the "dance" of how different types of cyclists navigate infrastructure. Having that knowledge allows us to make our best decisions for our safety and the safety of others.
Seeing your name, I see that you too are of Polish descent! 😁
@@jakesaari7652 If your cycling community is mostly mountain bikers that makes sense. One, mountain bike trails are often located outside of cities and are too far to pedal a mountain bike to unless you live close by. Two, proper mountain bikes are expensive to ride on pavement, because pavement rapidly wears out mountain bike tires which tend to be expensive.
The distinction often comes down to how we're seen by motorists rather by other cyclists. In a city where cycling is safe and where safe routes lead to where people want and need to go, it follows that more people will ride for utility, and it's more likely that motorists will acknowledge their use of the roads. In a city that lacks safe routes, utility riding is naturally more sparse, and cycling tends to lean toward the sporting end. But It should make no difference whether I'm wearing lycra on a "racing" bike or a business suit on a "Dutch" bike. My right to use the roads and not be killed by a motorist is exactly the same.
@@cdjxwubcyex I am your worst nightmare; for reasons I cannot say because I may incriminate myself.
@@danielduncan6806 Ha, ha - an angry hood ornament, that`s cute!
@@cdjxwubcyex If I was angry it would make it easy on you. But no, I was just being matter of fact. The anger you read was entirely of your own imagination. Basically, you are delusional. And you should seek professional help for that.
Reported him. Too many people killed to tolerate that rhetoric.
I’ve interacted with a number of “Lycra” cyclists here in florida who actively advocate against bike infra and sound like vehicular cyclist advocates. I think this must be location specific there is absolutely a separation here.
Right. Probably in places with less bike infrastructure you're more likely to see the cycling culture dominated by people who are solely interested in sport, while in more bike-friendly places there are more different types of cyclists and each cyclist is more likely to bike for different reasons.
@@OhTheUrbanity Another Floridian chiming in, the Lycra cyclist are insane here. Not only do the advocate against it but I'v seen them use 45mph roads instead of the 12 foot seprated bicycle path on the side of those road!
I agree. I think the main difference is speed. In lower density cities where utility cycling makes less sense and most people drive cars the majority of cyclists go very fast and hit pedestrians etc. In big cities it's impossible to bike at these speeds, so bike racing culture never develops.
@@leathandris6734 see my post above. From Florida as well and same behavior.
@@leathandris6734 I live in south central florida and they are the most rude snobby people I see. They won't even wave back or smile. The regular cyclist are always very friendly and nice. :)
I'm a Belgian who always biked to get to places but nothing more. I really got into cycling for fun while living in the US.
I think this video is spot on, and totally wrong at the same point.
- In north America, among people who bike, there seems to be a really nice mix between how people use their bike, myself included once I got there. I started to go on bike tours with friends, and would bike much further in general besides also biking to work or the store.
- In Belgium, and the Netherlands, there is a much much bigger gap between cycling as a utility, and cycling for fun/for sport. We bike because it's the most convenient/fastest way to get around, not because we enjoy it perse. It's like the difference between pedestrians and avid hikers. Just because you walk to the store, doesn't mean you like to go on long hikes. On top of that, bike racing is infinitely more popular in our countries compared to North America, so roadies in lycra will much faster be associated with racing culture, and vice versa, group rides of roadies will often try to push themselves to see how fast they can go, to improve their fitness, etc...
So in short: I agree that the division doesn't seem to exist as much in North America, but it's absolutely a real thing in the countries where you took the terms from.
I agree, there seems to be a big miss understanding with this video. I live in South America. To my perception the volume of utilitary bike trips in the Netherlands massively exceeds the sportive use of bikes, which is a very important aspect. In North America maybe these numbers match up because of the lack of good and safe enough infrastructure and the distinction turns up to be pointless. Also the analogies with walking/running, driving/racing are equally strange given the unique car centric culture of North America.
I agree, racing bikes is in a league of its own in the Netherlands/Belgium but utility bikes are used for leisure all the time, and with E-bikes coming along the speed differential is going down, becoming more blurred.
In the Netherlands there is a lot of daily riding for errands, of course, and quite a bit of serious road cycling as a sport, which is why there are terms for both. But recreational riding and cycle touring are also definitely common; if you go to the dunes or the Veluwe in the weekend you’ll see plenty of that, for instance. And many people do two or three of the different kinds of riding, of course.
PREACH! I'm a 50/50 cyclist, and I hate hearing hate for "lycra-wearing Lance Armstrong wannabes" coming from people who are supposedly "pro-bike". Thanks for making this.
mhm yeah, especialy ''lance armstrong'' /doping users
@Homie the general public, yeah not many. there were many doping users, but not many went public like that case,
@Homie yeah im in the netherlands so we dont realy hear much of that 😓
Agreed. Im older, not in the best shape, and more of slow burn guy right now that can do 25-50 miles, but doesn't focus on speed- just finishing. lol. I have all the respect for those that fly by me no matter what they're wearing as long as they're respectful- which they almost always are. Guys like that are just trying to be their best.
In Dutch, a "wielrenner" doesn't mean any kind of recreational bike rider, it means someone engaged in or training for bike racing, or doing that kind of bike riding for sport.
As this is done at high speeds, on a type of bike and in a position that makes falls on your head more likely, people who are doing that wear helmets. As they go fast, often in groups, you will usually find people doing so on wider bikepaths or on quieter roads, where they don't get mixed up in traffic, either slow-moving pedestrians and "fietsers" pootling along a narrow path where they can't pass, or too many cars breaking up the training bunch.
Every Dutch "wielrenner" is also a "fietser", when they go about on a non-racing bike doing non-racing things; sitting upright, on a bike that accomodates that posture, going at a slower speed, not wearing a helmet but in everyday clothes.
The names "fietser" and "wielrenner" are not mutually exclusive labels for people, they label what that person is doing at that moment (unless you're a professional racing cyclist, then it could also be used to label your profession).
If you go jogging on the weekend you could be called a jogger, but driving your car to work it's a bit strange to still call you a jogger...
Other kinds of recreational riding have their own terms in Dutch, like mountainbiking. People doing that also need a helmet because of the danger of falling, but they like a completely different kind of trails than racing bikes, and those trails would not be suitable for granny riding her bike to the local shop, or a mom taking her young kids to school; normal "fietser" biking activities any mountainbiker might also do on days when they aren't practicing their sport, same as the racing cyclists. Though a mountainbiker is more likely to bike to school on the same mountainbike on which they practice their sport, the activities are different and the infrastructure and safety needs for both are clearly different.
So lumping everybody into one category of racing cyclists or wielrenners for all recreational cycling is rather strange and shortsighted, but recognising that different types of cycling activities need different gear and accomodations is not.
If cycle paths are wide enough that faster cyclists can overtake slower ones, they can work equally well for "utility cyclists/fietsers" as "racing cyclists/wielrenners". That combination is fine in a denser area as long as there's enough room to overtake, and the racing cyclists can continue on to a place where they can bunch up and practice sprinting without intimidating other path-users, while the utility cyclists can go on to safely reach all their destinations.
Touring cyclists like those wide smooth paths as well, where faster cyclists can overtake them, but for them it's equally or more important that the path goes through attractive surroundings, as well as allowing safe travel for longer distances to their destination. Utility cyclists like attractive surroundings too, but generally need more diverse destinations to be safely reachable.
There is quite a bit of overlap between the needs of different activities one can do on a bike, but they aren't identical, and it's good to keep that in mind. A section of path shared with pedestrians isn't suitable for racing cyclists, nor is a busy protected cycle lane along a street full of shops and cafés where people are constantly stopping and starting, leaving and entering the lane; while for a utility cyclist it's essential that such a street is safely accessible by bike and has many places you can leave the lane, securely park your bike, and go into a shop.
Those wide smooth paths won't offer much challenge for mountainbikers though - those really need their own separate tracks.
That racing bikes are used by utility cyclists in your town, maybe because that's the type of bike the shops sell, and/or because they are easier to ride fast, when on parts of your commute or trip you need to try to keep up with cars where there is no safe separated bike lane, doesn't mean you cannot be a utility cyclist while riding a bike like that.
Those bikes do make it easier to fall into the racing mindset of head down, going fast, no time to look around and enjoy the scenery or chat with my companions, slower folk beware and get out of my way because my attention is on the big fast cars that are a constant danger to me, and I might not notice you in time as I'm going somewhere fast... which is more of a racing attitude, and may be necessary to stay safe while sharing lanes with fast cars.
That's actually incorrect. 'Wielrenner' is a Dutch swearword describing a person who is agressively entitled and doesn't care about other people at all. 😉
@@SanderSA-ny3lh for those stuck in a two ton metal box going 50 km/h, sure ; )
@@nonegone7170 Even as a regular 'fietser' in the Netherlands, wielrenners, while rare in the inner city, are still a complete pain on seperated cycle paths outside of cities. They pass super close and its always your fault that you are in the way, while they cycle way above the speed of the rest of the cyclists around them. I used to cycle 12 km one way to high school in the eastern Netherlands and two times in those six years was there a crash because of wielrenners, once because an approaching one was taking over another approaching person, but wasn't fast enough so was still in our lane and bumped the person in front of our group which made him crash into the person next to him (we were cycling in a group of 20 so chaos ensued). And once because they were overtaking and accidentilly bumped into my friend who then swerved into me because another wielrenner tried overtaking the overtaker and there was simply too little space. I dislike car dependency as much as the next guy, but wielrenners are annoying as hell as well.
For this same reason I absolutely hated cycling in London, while their infrastructure is quite good for a non Dutch city, everyone there has the wielrenner mindset. Cycling on a relaxed pace, while talking to your mate is impossible because of all these people cycling 30km/h on city streets.
that is incorrect, there are everywhere idiots. But if you are a "wielrenner" you wear a helmet and and in an official group it is mandatory
@@EvilTurtle97
They do that. I got assaulted once because me and a friend didn't move out of the way within 1 nanosecond after such a racing cyclist yelled.
Decade later as an adult I was driving past basically the exact same scene: Wielrenner assaulting two children.
So I parked, got out, ran back and kicked the guy off the kid and into the watery ditch by the road. He came out screaming he would 'punch my teeth in'. That didn't go so well for him. 😆
Sadly OM decided to drop the assault charges for him beating up the kid, probably because of what I'd done to him already.
For me as a Dutch person, the difference between wielrenner and fietser is not the difference between recreation and transportation, but in gear, and more importantly, speed. And the latter is an important distinction for road safety. You're right about the distinction being fuzzy, and we definitely shouldn't get snobbish about it. For me the main distinction is that having a large group of wielrenners who are going really fast on the main road can be really scary, whereas being around other fietsers is not. They're going so fast they can't stop or get out of the way quickly, and as a result they're often yelling at other people to get out of the way. Because I'm neurodivergent I struggle with responding fast enough, especially when they're going really fast. I don't begrudge them their hobby, but maybe something like a "fast lane" or whatever could help keep the streets safe for everyone.
There isn't two different types of cyclists. There's a myriad of different types of people.
I'm one of those "fearless" riders who has no problem riding on busy roads and city intersections, but I'm just a commuter 99% of the time. I'm not a "bike guy" and don't own lycra or drop bars; I'm about going from point A to point B without getting too tired or sweaty. At least in my midwest US city, there is a clear and definite line between the people who ride for recreation/exercise, and the people who make it their means of travel.
I think that in a lot of car-centric cities, this is pretty much the only viable way for biking to be viable as an actual daily way of commuting.
I ride very aggressively, take up lanes when appropriate, ride roundabouts, intersections, etc.
I still wish my city had good bike infrastructure so my commute isn't a borderline adrenaline sport.
Same. I enjoy riding a bike, and would maybe even call it a hobby, but most of the times I just commute. I do own drop bars though, I use drops or risers depending on my mood, its super easy to swap them, cause my bike is a fixed gear. Risers for more comfort and better handling, drops for better acceleration and for windy days.
The same in Moscow. Just commute all around the year through traffic and the winter snow on my old 1974 city bike with basket 😅
Wearing jeans in good weather and an old ski suit at snow.
I had a funny interaction with some "wheel runners" at a coffee shop this spring. I'd just ridden over to sit and do some work and said hi to them in passing. They asked me how my ride was which struck me as funny since it was just a very routine ride to the shop. Then they started talking about headwinds vs tailwinds, distance, and some other stuff I didn't understand. Offhand, they also remarked on how it was nice it was finally warm enough to ride again which also seemed funny to me since I'd never thought about stopping riding (it's just how I get around). All of this just made me realize our cycling experiences and worlds were quite different.
I do agree that the lines between recreation and utility are blurry, but at least where I live in a medium sized car dependant Midwest city, there definitely seem to exist an "avid biker" "wheel runner" type that approach cycling purely from a sport perspective. Which, I don't really have any issues with as long as they aren't making things more dangerous like was said in the video. Well, that and for whatever reason they usually seem grumpy and don't say hello or good morning back when passing on the multi use paths 🙃
You really didn't understand headwinds vs. tailwinds? That affects anyone on all types of cycling.
@@cycologist7069 true, it's just not something I generally think about too much as I ride around town or talk about... It's just kinda there; so it struck me as funny to talk about it:-)
@@cycologist7069
it does, but you only really understand the frustration once youve gone real fast and know the advantage of having drops to go down to or just a flat bar
I think when designing bike infrastructure, there are some benefits to acknowledge the difference between cyclists.
eg. Some bike lane are considered too dangerous for Novice and casual cyclists,while acceptable for a confident cyclist in a hurry.
By assessing the ability to meet demand of different type of cyclists, we can better indentify strength and weakness of the design and the way to improve it.
This is important. I am fairly confident aggressive cyclists on a hybrid bike so I make use of the confident rider infrastructure. But when riding with my wife and kids, we often will slow it down and just take the sidewalk.
@@jamesclawson9243 That is right, bike lanes should be separated bike paths so your wife and kids can cycle safe too. The Netherlands has proven that.
@@felixantoinetremblay never said they couldn't be, just referring to my own family
I really wish designers didn't distinguish between types of cyclists. I have made some attempt at commuting by bicycle but although there are quite a lot of cycle routes near where I live, they have been clearly designed with recreation in mind. There are some unnecessarily wavy sections which make the route longer. This is a technique used in landscape design to make gardens look longer and has no place in transportation infrastructure. There are several quite tight blind bends and some dom whitted bollard placement. Not so bad if you aren't in a hurry but a serious nuisance when it comes to getting to work on time. Then there is the biggest problem. They don't go anywhere. I have this huge cross country cycle network on my doorstep and it stops as soon as it sees a town. If they were all designed for utility cycling they would be more useful, better value for money because more folk would use the thing and it would still be good for recreation. It would probably be even better because more people would be able to access it without having to traverse busy car filled roads.
As a confident aggressive rider, I don't really care about infrastructure. I will ride in the dead center of the lane. If the cars want to pass they can figure it out for themselves.
Commuters and roadies: fighting for lanes in the city
Meanwhile MTBers: watching it from the hills and eating popcorn
I don't think the makers of this video truly get the Dutch distinction between wielrenner and fietser. Every wielrenner is a fietser, but not every fietser is a wielrenner. Therefore, a fietser more commonly refers to someone who is on that bike for any purpose other than exercise. Utility cyclist is not an accurate translation of fietser, and sporty or recreational cyclist is not an accurate translation of wielrenner.
It is not true that a fietser is always someone who has only utility in mind. Yes, a fietser might be someone going to work or to a shop, but certainly a fietser is also someone enjoying a nice ride through nature for relaxation, someone taking the kids out to the park, or someone like my mom of 75 years old who does a bike ride twice a week with a neighbor, to both enjoy the company as well as get some easy-on-the-joints movement. But a wielrenner is someone very specific: a person whose sole purpose of the ride is to go fast and exercise. They may also stop for coffee along the way, may be in a group for the sake of company, or may be riding through nature, but they are certainly different because of their gear. Wielrenners have a more forward-leaning bike, are wearing sports clothing because they expect to sweat, and are wearing a cycling helmet because of the higher speed. Tour de France, those are wielrenners. Everyone else is a fietser.
Perhaps it's easier to recognize the distinction fietser-wielrenner when you think of cycling vs. BMXing? BMXing requires a special bike, special clothes, and possibly even a special track. It is a sport people get into, to do for fun, for exercise, for companionship, but they wouldn't use their BMX to pick up groceries or just go for a ride through the countryside. Sure, the BMXer might also have a normal road bike to do that other stuff, which would make that person a fietser at that time, but we wouldn't consider the sport the same the more casual/utility usage of bikes. Wielrenners perhaps make it all a bit fuzzier because they use the same road space as fietsers a lot of the time, but they are something very different, and therefore have different needs.
I appreciate that this is a distinction in Dutch culture and the Dutch language, and therefore doesn't as clearly transpose to other cultures and languages. For the Dutch, the type of bike, the lycra, and the helmet clearly identify the wielrenner as a person who is out on a bike mainly for sport and exercise. In other countries those same features might identify a fietser who is commuting to work or someone just going out for a casual journey.
I need to move to Montreal. Winnipeg’s cycling infrastructure is disconnected. Makes it very difficult to commute to work without getting dumped into traffic.
It's not perfect but it's pretty good in the central neighbourhoods!
Consider Halifax as well
I use the bicycle not only for sports but also for commuting and transportation. I have different bikes for different purposes.
When I lived in Toronto, the conflict I felt was with hurried, impatient cyclists. I hated hearing the ding ding move over. It’s like they had taken on the car driver’s impatience with traffic. Or they were concerned with how their ride to work would affect their KOM ranking. In Montréal, no dinging. Cyclists just pass with care when the way is clear.
Yes, Toronto bikers are worse than car drivers. Their bike path must be clear of all obstacles. All obstacles are anti-bike idiots in their opinion. On the other hand, car drivers are supposed to slow down for bikers and pedestrians.
"ding ding"? Hey, you's are better than here - because "a bell is additional weight that slows you down!"…
On my bike I sometimes pass other cyclists. Not often, but sometimes, and I actively try to never pass a cyclist by expecting them to move over. I think this is the key difference.
Even when I pass pedestrians, it only means "move out of the way" when there's a "wall of friends" blocking a sidewalk or mixed-use pathway. Even then, since my bike is offroad-capable, I'm just as likely to ride on the grass next to the trail, just to avoid inconveniencing the pedestrians by demanding they move. I see bells simply as a more courteous alternative to shouting "on your left" which not only comes off as rude, but confuses many people.
Of course as the person hearing the bell, I understand it can be hard to distinguish a "hey I'm here" ding from a "move over you're in the way" ding. This is the same issue that arises with car horns, where some motorists think honking at cyclists to alert them to their presence when passing is being respectful, when in fact it just comes off as rude. I think there needs to be more consensus around what a bike bell actually is supposed to mean.
I don't use a bell I just yell at people
There's basically two solutions.
1. Non separated bike lanes. If a faster cyclist wants to pass he temporarily merges into the car lane. This is what I usually do.
2. Separated double bike lanes. Slower traffic keep right, faster traffic passes to the left.
I think the distinction makes more sense in the Dutch context. When you are a wielrenner you pick another bike from your garage then when you go on a grocery trip. When you only have one bike and use it on every trip, it makes the distinction much more blurry
There are absolutely two types of riders. The ones that care about KOM’s, and the ones that don’t.
We live in a pretty bike-friendly city and people racing up the mountain are just one of a dozen or more different types of cyclists. They're not the standard that the rest of us define ourselves against (I had to look up what "KOM" even meant).
I go grocery shopping on my road bike, cut off jeans and Tshirt, backpack full. Shops downhill home uphill. Shopping done time for a workout as i break the roads speed limit(20mph) and leave Ebikers in my wake, going uphill to my house.
Not a cyclist commuter or sports, just that, walking 40 miles is the one thing you would do in a day, and one of the things you can do in the morning on a bike.
In my opinion, the distinction between fietser/wielrenner becomes more clear in rural areas compared to cities.
This is because quite a few what we call wielrenners like to pick up their speed on rural bike paths when they don't have city traffic to worry about. The result is that they often have a speed too high to cycle next to normal cyclists on narrower paths, while being too slow to go on the road without being a detriment to dirvers.
Good wielrenners know this and will adjust accordingly, but the amount of times people get in danger because of bad wielrenners going incompatible speeds or anti-social overtaking actions, especially on smaller bike paths, is quite sad. This also gives them a pretty bad reputation here.
For sure. Someone cycling past me while walking on a multi-use path doesn't bother me. It does when they're going 40km/h, same while I'm on my bike. I don't like to go very fast on my bike as it freaks me out. I don't wear a helmet, and just the other day I was hit by a van, and because of my slow speed I was able to avoid basically any injury, while my bike is toast.
Alternatively my colleague who is definitely a Lycra style cyclist, when he hit a curb, his bike completely snapped in half and he rammed his face into the asphalt despite wearing a helmet that required hours in the hospital.
I have zero issues with the Lycra cyclists, but I think it's important to normalize cycling for utility or wearing normal clothes so drivers don't see us as "cyclists" but as a coworker who bikes to work. I also think it's important for Lycra cyclists to understand where they are and avoid being unnecessarily dangerous and avoid conflict with people who aren't as comfortable on a bicycle.
I find that in the US, as cycling becomes more accepted, there's a group of old elitist cyclers who don't have respect for casual riders and expect to have the whole road for themselves, the same way cars do to all cyclers.
It's a good thing you're a "normal" cyclist.
Yes! It is not about the why you cycle or even the bike you use, but the how. Wielrenners (in Belgium at least) ride fast, often in group, and want to have a continuous route where they can keep a steady pace. Which is why they often prefer the road over conventional bike paths. Fietsers are just biking without much goals in mind outside of transportation or enjoyement.
@@米空軍パイロット theres a ton of older cyclists in the US that wear bright reflective clothing and are known to never wave back to anyone who isn't in full cycling gear and on a race bike
The more I bike, the more I realize it doesn’t matter. I have a “sports” bike but used it for when I don’t want to drive. The most hilarious response I’ve gotten is someone saying only people that bike “got a DUI” 😅
The issue I have is with people in lycra shouting profanity at my girlfriend for riding too slowly IN THE PARK. The issue isn’t always motorists it’s sometimes other cyclists. Really sucks people like that exist.
I kinda laugh at that, because I'm a pretty avid MTBer and did a big ride last year where part of the climb was up a paved mountain road popular with roadies. I actually passed a few of those roadies on my 37lb mountain bike haha, nice low MTB gears just let me sit and spin while the roadies were grinding away on race gears probably too tall for their fitness level.
I don’t really get this video. I find the utility cyclist distinction super useful. I'm 99% biking to get somewhere I need to go, but I know lots of people who are 99% biking for fitness. I find it useful to have a word for the type of cycling that I do which lets me live car-free while most of my sports cyclist friends do not. It's not like this is skiing vs snowboarding, this is a distinction made because both things are good, one often will lead to another, but one is just a more important target for our society and it's useful to have a name for it so we can craft policy and infrastructure that puts utility cycling front and center.
I'm so glad you put out this video that points out how far upright-only cycling advocates like Jason Slaughter of Not Just Bike, Mark Wagenbuur of Bictcle Dutch and Brandon Lust, aka "American Fietser(it's "Amerikaanse, Brandon.)" will go to demonize anybody riding a road bike-or any other bike that doesn't fit the upright Dutch mold, for that matter.
One factor that wasn't discussed is the rise of electric bikes. In the past it was fitness cyclists who terrorized the bridges and bike paths. Now it's me on my electric Brompton :) along with an army of delivery people (in NYC at least). Fitness cyclists tend to pass on straightaways and downhills, while ebikes max out at 20mph and pass going uphill. Gas powered delivery vespas ride in the bike lane over the bridges as well, since they can't quite go fast enough to travel with traffic. They either blast past at 35mph, or go extremely slow to "blend in".
The problem is a lot of the new e-bikes are basically e-vespas and can run over a cyclist and keep going. They should not both be in the same 4 ft wide separated bike lane.
@@appa609 Or put speed limits.
@@cycologist7069 Or have two types of bike lanes: One for slow bikes and one for fast bikes.
@@appa609 E-bike users will slow down when they come across slower bikers in bike paths, if it’s only 4 feet. It’s the same as car drivers slowing down when they’re on narrow streets.
@@appa609
another problem is that it makes incompetent people more dangerous by giving them the ability of speed, which they otherwise would not have and which is often way too fast for their reaction times
Thanks. When I was able, my bike was my main form of transportation. And I would sometimes bike around 20-some miles to get to work instead of a direct route of 3 or 4 miles. I miss being able to balance and have been thinking of getting a 3-wheel bike to be able to go shopping without using a car. We'll see.
keep on keepin' on old timer
I like how you say "appointments" and show a bar😂
Here in Edmonton, the mountain bike culture can almost feel like an offshoot of powersports rather than bicycling sometimes. When I see people using massive pick-up trucks to take their mountain bikes to our river valley, it is hard for me to put them in the same category as someone who rides to work and supports bike lanes. I think there's just too much of a difference.
What I would love to see more is mountain bikers utilize public transit more to get to the trails. But it is so ingrained in us to drive to go biking that it will be a while before that happens in big numbers.
I agree. I think it is important to make a distinction because what you build facilities for a sport cyclist it's a loop or trail somewhere on the outskirts of the city with a parking lot. You are expected to drive to this place with your bike in your truck or on your car and "play" on your bike away from your city. Kind of like owning a speedboat.
Or get e-bikes to go up the mountain on their own... :)
1 thing I love about my city is the mountain biking is so diverse you CAN commute to most trails any many do. However there is a spot its a little hard to commute by bike yes you need a car to get there. Sucks when you cant drive so I hardly go there. Guess it depends on where you are and the community. Commuting to the trails by bike though is dangerous with no bike network, so I can see why some elect to drive, I personally just dont have that option.
In my area, many of those very kinds mtbers also bike commute and advocate for improved bike infrastructure. Yeah they use their pick up trucks to when going on long trips to a destination, as in longer than where public transit can take them.
not really, there is very much large crossover in these populations
In summary,
CAN’T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?
There is a distinction. You can't, for example, use a track bike to grocery shop. Well, technically, you can, the same way you can use F1 to do that.
You also can't use fotball shoes to grocery shop, because you could damage some floor types and you would slip on the cobblestones.
I'm glad you included John Forrester in the end there, because in my mind the distinction between "cyclist" and "bike rider" is exactly in that attitude.
"Cyclists" want to ride in the road so they can go fast and don't have to worry about overtaking slow bike riders, while "bike riders" want to have their own separated paths that don't interact with cars.
The population of "cyclists" is of course very small, but they've had an outsized voice for a long while due to Mr. Forester and his "advocacy."
Or because the "cyclists" are the only to (literally) survive in a car-only environment.
As someone who considers myself a cyclist but tries to actively advocate for more and better bike infrastructure, I prefer the term "vehicular cyclist" to describe cyclists who take anti-infrastructure stances. I consider a cyclist to be simply someone who rides a bike. I'm not unaware of the connotation around "cyclists". In fact, part of why I use the term to describe myself is because I want to challenge the assumptions that come with being a "cyclist".
- I am not a "Cyclist" (and most Dutch people aren't either) th-cam.com/video/vMed1qceJ_Q/w-d-xo.html
Related tangent:
I ride in traffic. Not because I prefer it, but because the infrastructure isn't always available. For that reason I think it's also relevant to distinguish vehicular cycling (verb) vs vehicular cyclists (noun). Someone who is very much not a vehicular cyclist might still engage in vehicular cycling when dedicated bike infrastructure isn't available.
@Cumpootuhr User That's fair, and I definitely understand the point of vehicular cycling, even when there's existing "Infrastructure."
As for my definition, I have had my fair share of arguments with vehicular cyclists who claim that cycling infrastructure in general is more dangerous than vehicular cycling, which I think is preposterous and not supported by the evidence, but I will concede that the way American engineers often go about it is much more dangerous than it needs to be.
@@jamalgibson8139 The "infrastructure is more dangerous than vehicular cycling" argument is especially insidious. They advocate against the development of bike infrastructure. When "infrastructure" *is* built it's worse than it could be, because of lack of political will to make it better. Then they use the unnecessarily-dangerous infrastructure to argue that all bike infrastructure is necessarily just as bad.
All of this while conveniently ignoring their role in detracting from the political will to invest in better bike infrastructure.
Their criticisms of the infrastructure are often very rational. They use the same criticisms I use to argue for better infrastructure. But they take the conclusion in the exact opposite direction.
@Cumpootuhr User Yup. It's incredibly frustrating and effective, because you never know if they are a bad actor, or if they're just truly disheartened by the state of American transportation infrastructure. I can understand resigning yourself to just wanting to ride in the streets, where at least you're somewhat in control of your destiny, rather than riding in some poorly thought out "bike lane" that dumps you right into conflict with fast moving vehicles.
But it frustrates me that rather than fight for better, safer infrastructure that we know works, they want to move the needle back on the little progress we have made and go to free for all on the streets.
6:58 THANK YOU so much for not being snobs! I don't know why so many urban design channels feel the need to throw constant hate at anyone not already in their camp. Love your open minded positivity and rationality!
Thank you for noting the reverse snobbery inherent in the phrase "I am not a cyclist."
I'm a cargo biker. I use my bike for shopping and deliveries. I do not use my bike for recreation.
6:50 i can predict “bike and subscribe” a minute away!
7:22 YES BIKE AND SUBSCRIBE LETS GOOOOOOOOOOOSOOAISJJSNSISAJNS
“Like seniors who want to stay active without being too hard on their joints”
*cries in arthritis-since-my-20s* 😅
Joking aside, using a bike to get around town has really helped me keep my arthritis under control. I love the warmer months because I am out on my bike almost every day and I feel great. I tried a little winter cycling this year for grocery shopping on my big cargo bike, and it was ok! I don’t think I would go for a leisure ride in the cold, or go all the way down town (that Rue Berri hill! I HATE it in summer, I’m not risking it in winter!), but I can do the short rides I need to, and for me right now, it’s enough.
It’s helped me get my mobility back so much, I really want to help others do the same, but I’m still trying to figure out how to do that as an anglophone in a French-speaking city.
Seen your channel. Are you a cartoonist? What is this Sunrise comic about? Curious.
The triceratops and tea picture is the most awesome profile picture I have seen.
You have every right to not bike anywhere, so I'm not suggesting you do anything differently. I just gotta say that the Berri hill is super well maintained in winter. If you were wondering if it was dangerous or slippery, it isn't. That's all.
I don't agree with this one. You do need to explain that all cyclists aren't road racers and you need to create different use cases so that the city can know what types of facilities to build. For example in North Vancouver what they built for what their idea of "cyclists" are was a 20km pathway in the forest starting from the edge of the suburbs and leading to a reservoir. They were focused on making a trail for fun not a bike network.
The use case they are serving is putting your gravel bike on your car. Drive 7km up a mountain to the trailhead where you can start your loop. Or you put your mountain bike on your truck and park on a neighborhood street near a different trailhead. The city allowed for this type of riding and thought everyone should be happy now.
They use case they didn't serve was cycling your kids to school or cycling to work and then cycling to the grocery story to pick up ingredients for dinner. The city is catching up now (although most "bike routes" are just paint or sharrows on a back street some are getting separated) but I think that this obsession with recreational cyclists has put them decades behind other cities.
And I see the same thing in other surrounding cities, excellent recreational facilities, amazing places to ride for fun, but you have to drive to get to them because there are no bike lanes only trails.
We didn't say it's wrong to distinguish between the two concepts! Our closing paragraph at the end: "We’re fundamentally not saying there’s anything wrong with distinguishing between utility and recreational cycling as concepts, especially when busting myths about how “bikes are for fun, not transportation”. We’re just saying that in the real world the distinction can be fuzzy, and that it becomes less and less relevant the more cycling is normalized and people start using bikes for a range of different reasons."
There are actually 3 types of cyclists:
-Competitive Cyclists
-Infantilized senseless Cyclists
-Cyclists who found cycling a cheep mobility and income way to move from A to B.
Sadly at the end of the day all cyclists fall in the same category for the worst reasons. Not good enough.
I think the distinction mostly comes from the stigma "cyclist" carries in the Anglosphere as it's almost always associated with the recreational kind given the NJB "I am not a 'Cyclist' (and most Dutch people aren't either)" and Jay Foreman's point about "In Holland- The Netherlands, there is no such thing as a 'cyclist'" in the "Why isn't cycling normal in London?" episode and for proper adoption (i.e. commuting), they want to distance themselves from the other type to emphasise that bikes are a worthy tool of commute (not to mention some of the sport cyclists oppose bicycle infra).
Admittingly, the "cyclist" stigma itself is flawed given that many of these cyclists also drive a car (and it's especially so in a car dependent society where transportation typically is done with a car) but alas, the breaking of rules with a car has been fairly standardised, it's easy to call out outstanders, not to mention these cyclists may not be necessarily better behind a wheel than on a bike. That, and pedestrians also aren't always treated better than cyclists (any kind) by car drivers.
I use my feet, my escooter, my bicycle, my car, and transit to get around. It depends on the task, the weather, my mood, timing, and more. Sometimes I’m a motorist, sometimes I’m a cyclist. But I’m always just a person trying to get places.
This is a great video highlighting a dividing line we make up, that really isn’t that much of a line. Transportation should be treated like clothes. Have multiple options and use what feels right for what you’re doing.
My question is what your opinion on protected bike only lane?
When you make a longer edition or follow-up, you could dig into the 'all ages and abilities' trope of designing bicycling infrastructure. Considering faster sport cyclists in the bike route design leads to removing bumps, humps, dangerous trailside hazards, blind corners, and and to removing narrow chokepoints so cyclists can pass safely. The AI synthetic images are now great; I experimented a while ago and got weird hands and Picasso-style distortion of faces.
Removing bumps, humps or dangerous trailside hazards, chokepoints, benefits every biker, not just faster cyclists.
@@lajthabalazs yes, of course. But the threshold for not tolerating this bullshit is lower with faster cyclists!
@@lajthabalazs That's the point.
@@lajthabalazs As long as we're talking paved bike paths. MTB trails are actually designed to be challenging, because the challenge of the trail is part of the appeal of MTBing.
In my town the Lycra crowd is VERY aggressive. They think nothing of cutting off cars, racing your car to the round about, flipping you off, etc. I cycle commute to the store, work,etc. So I cycle too but am not a racer. The cycle clubs in our area are not liked and are much complained about because of their aggressive behavior.
Aggressive spandex dudes are the worst.
basically the bike version of "reckless driving"…
I think the distinction is useful when talking about bike infrastructure. I live in a typical car-dominated North American city with two types of bike infrastructure: multi-use pathways and painted bicycle gutters.
On the multi-use pathways, especially on a nice day, you'll find all types of cyclists, including children and elderly folks. The downside of the pathways, of course, is that they're basically useless for intracity transportation, since they go off into the countryside rather than into the city. They're clearly only for recreation (but I'm still thankful for them!).
The painted bike gutters, on the other hand, see much less use, and the few who do use them are the lycra crowd.
The city is actually kind of dense, so cycling to destinations would be practical if the infrastructure were there to support it. Unfortunately, the current infrastructure in place only really serves the "wielrenner" and not the "fietser".
Regardless, great video, as always! Y'all are my favorite urbanism channel.
I’m the kind of cyclist she suggests you distance yourself from. I don’t want too much dedicated bike infrastructure since it will limit where I can go on my bike. I can no longer switch between being a pedestrian and road vehicle whenever I desire.
Couldn't agree more. I was a utility+recreation/lycra cyclist when I was living in Chicago and the skills aspect you mentioned definitely helped me in commute especially in winter. Now that I have moved to Dallas, I am only a recreational cyclist, as Dallas is very hostile to bike commute. But looking forward to moving back to a bike-friendly place when I get a chance.
I feel like the distinction is quite clear to me. I cycle a lot for transportation, but I don't cycle for recreation because I just don't think it's fun.
Of course, there's people that do both. I also regularly walk for transportation, I also like walking/hiking for recreation. But those are, to me, two entirely different activities. Walking to the supermarket doesn't feel like hiking to me, it's like a different mindset, and they feel like entirely different activities. Saying that transportation and recreation are the same thing, just because they involve a similar way of moving around, doesn't really take into account the attitude and experience, which to me are very different.
The distinction is very real and useful. Acknowledging this establishes bikes as a mean a transportation. When you cycle with performance in mind, you end up with different cloth, different bikes, different speeds. We need this difference to make the case for bike infrastructure.
exactly
Closing paragraph: "We’re fundamentally not saying there’s anything wrong with distinguishing between utility and recreational cycling as concepts, especially when busting myths about how “bikes are for fun, not transportation”. We’re just saying that in the real world the distinction can be fuzzy, and that it becomes less and less relevant the more cycling is normalized and people start using bikes for a range of different reasons."
Well, I bike commute for performance. Instead of having those horrible lycra clothes, I just build my e-bike that goes very fast.
I never bike for leisure, only commuting.
NO! People like to cement bicycles as slow. You seriously think nobody lobbies against bicycles? It's already in peoples heads that they shouldn't even get sweaty. If I have to get places I wanna go fast. And " fast" for me means slow 🦥 and totally nicely if I was in a car. Sick double standard. + In a better world we'd be using recumbent Velomobiles alot. 5-10kmh extra.
Your videos are the right legnth and delivery much info efficiently. And best of all no stock footage (other than your own).
One critical aspect that the hard line between 'sports riders' and 'commuters' misses is that the gear associated with the 'sports riders' is fundamentally the more efficient gear and efficiency translates to range for a cyclist. If we want to see cycling used for longer commutes or in more trying conditions then we're going to have to not just accept cyclists to break out the gear suited to that task but encourage and help cyclists make the right choices in what they get.
In a moderately bike friendly end of Metro Vancouver the two bike lockups at my place of work have tons of bikes that resemble a sports bike ( though the majority also add fenders and accommodation for panniers ) and almost none resemble the utility bikes that are imagined as being for actual commuters. It's not hard to understand why either, even if we put aside the likelihood of having to travel more kilometers and range issue with the bike shown on the top right at 4:50 you literally couldn't use some roads due to a lack of gears just won't play nice with a 10% grade and those sorts of hills are all over the place in this end of the city. I think it's safe to say that whatever the level of bike friendlyness Metro Vancouver gets to the norm is always going to shy away from a gearless solution compared to the proportions seen in the Netherlands just as a byproduct of the geography.
I think as cycling becomes more accepted as a form of transportation here in the US, ebikes will gain popularity because they allow anyone to get on a bike no matter their fitness level or the amount of incline in a certain area. And it makes dressing up more convenient since they can just wear the same clothes they already wear without having to put on cycle-specific gear, just like people do in The Netherlands.
Although I also wouldnt mind if utility cyclist made it a norm to adopt sport cycling gear in their daily commute too. But I do think its more likely that ebikes will dominate if cycling becomes normalized one day here in the US. Either way, anything that will get more Americans to adopt cycling is a good thing
As a person living in a central American country where the bicycle culture and infrastructure is undeveloped, i am in the middle ground between a recreational and a utility cyclist because i drive my bicycle to college from home or to go not far from my home, and twice per week i join recreational groups where we travel around the city or we go trailing in the wild. My bicycle is a MTB.
The distinction always made sense in my mind for personnal reasons even if I see your arguments. For me taking your bike to go to the cinema or to the park for exemple is utility and not leisure in the sense that it's using your bike to go from point A to B. I feel like I personnally understand the distinction because as an adult I dont like biking for fun. I like sport, and walking, but biking is just not fun for me. However I have used a bike to go to work, or school because it was just the most convenient way to get there and I would again someday if it's the easiest/fastest way. And the more cycling becomes popular, the more people like me who dont like cycling very much as a sport or activity will start to bike to place just because it is convenient. But it's a type of cycling focussed on getting from A to B and that's it. Just like when I walk to the bank or groceries. I like walking for fun too, but in these case I want to be able to walk because it's the most efficient and convenient way to get there. Not because it's fun, if that make sense.
On Dutch terms: when I grew up in Belgium, a ‘wielrenner’ was someone competing in bicycle races. There are also groups of people going on long recreational rides, these are known as ‘wielertoeristen’. And by long, I mean a leisurely 50 to 100km ride on a Sunday morning.
The bicycle used by both of these groups, the one with the drop bars, is known as a ‘race bike’. This is opposed to the more upright bicycle with old school handle bars, known literally as a ‘city bike’.
As many have said, this infrastructure plays a big role on this distinction in a lot of cities. Where I live the city boasts a 40km trail circling the city.... And that's really all we have. You cannot take bike routes to get to the trail, you would have to ride on roads or drive to the trail. The trail is not designed to get people to populated areas for work or leisure the trail is the leisure. It is a perfectly nice trail that I would love to ride my upright bike on... But I would also love to have safe protected space to get around town or even to get to the trail.
This happens all to often. The parks board builds some recreational cycling trail. The city calls it done. Meanwhile you can't safely bike to work, to buy food, to meet friends or even to get to that trail. Great point.
Yeah, I live in Montreal and use a hybrid bike to get to and from places and wear normal clothes. But I also take my bike out on long rides and go as fast as possible (sometimes faster than those in spandex and on road bikes). So these stereotypes mean nothing and really just lead to snobbery and hostility within the bike community which we definitely do not need
There are no "cyclists", "walkers" and "drivers". People are usually multi-modal. But it's important to distinguish between the two types of biking needs. Utility use require a safe place to lock the bike, for 10 minutes or a work day. And good bike infrastructure coverage. Leisure use require a scenic route, well maintained trails, a BMX park, depending on the type of leisure use. Here, in Saint John, NB, it's customary to drive a pickup to the trail, enjoy biking, then drive back home. So in this use case, bike infrastructure means a trail and car parking. Very different from a protected bike lane needed to bike to work.
Of course it's possible to use utility bike infrastructure for leisure. But not the other way around. So it's important to point out the distinction. So that bike friendly policy goes beyond offering scenic routes outside urban areas.
That second to last statement "Leisure cannot be used for utility" isn't entirely correct. Ottawa's riverside bike trails were intended for leisure, but were adopted as cycling highways, similarly to vehicular parkways. But this only works in urban areas, where as in rural areas, distances are too far apart to be of any utility use.
Thank you. I just made this same comment but you did it so much more succinctly. As you say so many cities make a trail with car parking somewhere in the middle of nowhere and call it done. But for utility we require a safe, central network. If there are no stores or places to work on the route then it's a failure for this use case.
The same distinction exists in the motorcycle world but the difference is in the infrastructure; motorcycles use the same infrastructure regardless of the purpose of their trip.
For bicyclists, the racer/fitness rider often has to not use bike infrastructure because they often intend to ride faster and farther than what bike infrastructure usually supports.
In my (humble) opinion, commuting on a road bike is so uncomfortable. And because you're getting more core exercise on a road bike, it usually means you sweat more and therefore have to bring an extra change of clothes or shower when you get to work. Whereas a upright bike is so much more comfortable; no sweating, no shower required. Commuter bikes are also slower, which makes them safer. Nevertheless. I know some pretty hardy bike commuters who rely on road bikes to get to work. They have gotten used to the clothes change and shower routine and think nothing of it. So I guess it all comes down to personal preference.
Yes, you have a point, and for those reasons i stopped commuting on my race bike. And i got myself an electric scooter, which was awesome until i discovered a new and even better mean of transport - electric unicycle EUC. Way better than a scooter in its quality, way smaller and easier to store than a bike and way faster than a bike, or even a car in heavy traffic. Capable to reach speeds up to 50 mph (80kph) it is the best way to get around in a city, much better than a car or anything actually.
Now i only cycle purely for sport, while commuting on my EUC
@@MalcolmJameson_1 I have seen some people using those around college campuses. The ones which are more like single-wheeled skateboards, with big tires.
not quite true
a roadbike is comfortable if you go fast and have the ability to go fast, 25+kmh
an upright bike is comfortable if you go slow, like 10-20kmh
either of them feel bad to ride in the vice versa scenario.
@@Exgrmbl I find that speed can be a liability during a commute, when traffic is an issue.
@@Alex-od7nl
for sure. If there is rush hour before or after work, a difference of 10kmh can be negligible if you are caught in traffic, the biggest factor here are red lights and stops
The basic conflict is urban planners seem fond of planning bicycle infrastructure for frequent stops, circuitous routes, and low speeds and that doesn't work well for people who bike to get around fast.
What I want is a 4 ft bike lane on every city street and drivers who pay attention.
I used to ride for sport (velodrome, road race, TT) in lycra but equally for transport and recreation, shopping, commuting. I'm not into the spot side of it now but I've always found it puzzling how we put everything into boxes or categories. I don't live in a cycling friendly place however I saw someone in lycra towing a child trailer with his road bike a couple of days ago. I thought that was great. It's all cycling to me.
So do you feel comfortable riding your TT bike at 30+mph on a cycle lane?
I don't.
I feel comfortable riding my TT bike on a road along with traffic.
While the traffic regulations prohibit riding on a road where there is a cycle lane present.
So why should i be happy about the cycling infra? I dont need one.
Even when im commuting i do it on a decent speed, and i feel much safer when commuting among the cars not among commuters on a cycle lane.
I wonder how significant wind resistance gains they got from that clothing.
@@MalcolmJameson_1 I think the only good solution to the conlict between fast and casual cyclists is to always allow cycling on the road/street (except on highways with speeds 100+ km/h), whether there is other cycling infra or not.
@@falsemcnuggethope
it's not about that, primarily
there is loose lycra clothing used in running, mtb and hiking and several other sports
it just feels better because the material properly ventilates
ride in jeans and a cotton shirt for a while or put in an effort and you look like a wet rag, or like you pissed your pants cause the sweat runs down your back
i used to poke fun at it too until i tried it, big aha moment
Thanks for these videos.
Please consider a video on "bad density", or the zoning choices that lead to high density but autocentric design, and how these congsted, 0 green space zones create push back to responsible development.
It would be a great Hot Take and I think its important urbanists understand the mistakes that have been made as we advocate for change, so that we don't shoot our selves in the foot creating enemies and environments we don't want.
what's an example of "bad density"
@@javierpalomares2892 In Ottawa I would suggest the area around Merivale and Meadowlands, and particularly Medowlands centered on Hogan St.
But in general you will see it when you zone high density residential with no (or very limited ie; a convenience store) mixed use, a high ratio of parking requirements, and situate it off of a major stroad as the main transport corridor.
I would be interested in this as well. I feel like the San Francisco Bay Area is an example.
@@javierpalomares2892 @Neolithic Transit Revolution I keep thinking of "Village Green Square" in Scarborough as a great example of bad density. A neighbourhood of high rise condos on a 200m x 200m parcel, boxed in by train lines on the east and north, the 401 highway on the south, and a busy stroad (Kennedy) on the west. Only a single entry/exit point to the neighbourhood. The nearest shopping centre (Agincourt Mall) is 1 km away, and the nearest school is 1.5 km. Both distances are in theory walkable or bikeable. But it would be a hellish journey either way, and certainly not one I would send young children on. With the single road in/out, I keep thinking it must have horrendous car congestion at peak travel times.
I use my roadbike while wearing Lycra to get to a swimming pool up the hill. I do this because I want to be fast up and down the hill. This is training, but also utility.
I think this is a great discussion! I definitely fall into this fuzzy group of sport/fitness/utility/transportation. I started riding on a old school road bike for simple urban transportation. I liked using a road bike because of it's lightness and agility. Then I think got into more distance and sport road riding for fun as my fitness improved from all my utility trips in the city. This got me even more fit which made using a bike for daily transportation even easier for more trips... so it kind of turned into a virtuous cycle! Pun intended lol XD
I would usually ride my bike for recreational purposes but I’ve seen people ride their bikes to work on weekdays.
I own 7 bikes. I am all the styles of cyclist possible haha!! My fave is my Bianchi Limited which I've updated with ergo grips and a rack/panniers for upright but very speedy commuting 😊❤
You've turned a racing horse into a carriage horse!! :-)
That's almost like the trend of converting old 90s era MTBs into gravel bikes as the joke is a gravel bike is just a 90s MTB with drop bars haha.
The difference between lycra cyclists and regular cyclists is just quantity of sex. 😆
Love this! I live in montreal and bought a bike for recreation but now also use it to get to school.
That it’s technically a carbon road bike doesn’t bother me, except for a slightly less comfortable ride.
You are absolutely correct that there's nothing wrong with wearing comfortable clothing when riding, and not all utility cycling is done on upright bikes but there are some differences between the two cycling styles and how they are advocated for at the municipal level. Wielrunner's Group Ride on major roads, and as such are seen by the public as perfectly capable of riding in traffic. This is counter to what good cycling infrastructure looks like for the general public.
I'd like to add that there's a better analog to Wielrunners and Fietsers in cars: It's 2 seater sports cars and family wagons. Not that you can't commute to work in a McLaren Artura supercar(or a Cervelo R5 bike), but there is a difference between intended uses right? Commuters (whether e-Bike or analog) tend to be slower than road cyclists, and a majority tend to rely on separate or calmed infra to arrive at their destination. The Lycra crowd tend to ride on road more often and are usually maximizing speed. Can both share the paths? You bet. I just don't see the levels of advocacy being shared by the folks in full cycling kit in comparison to parents like myself trying to get our kids to school, orstudents and workers trying to bike more safely, or folks using assisted mobility devices.
I am more of a utility cyclist, but I tend to ride faster than most commuters. The biggest problems I encounter are the slow people who want to ride (or even walk) side by side and block the entire path lane. Then they get angry when you get around them as if they are entitled to slow everyone else down to their pace instead of sharing the path.
Imo, riding side by side is fine, but you should consider your surroundings. If the bike path is narrow and someone wants to pass, you make space. If there is enough space, you can continue because you both don't bother each other. A good bike path is wide enough for 3 people, but in many places this is not realized.
@@MissMoontree - My point is: slow people are a bigger problem than fast people.
@@TommyJonesProductions Not necessarily. This only becomes a problem when the infrastructure is insufficient to accommodate people going at different speeds. I'm sure from their perspective, you're the problem, and you should learn some patience. The truth is nobody is the problem. The infrastructure is simply insufficient and it creates unnecessary conflicts.
@@cumpootuhruser9355 You are simply incorrect. The people who intentionally block the path instead of following basic etiquette are the problem.
They walk three abreast now, if you make it wider, they'll walk four abreast.
Anyone who has ever lived in the city knows how this works. Tourists blocking sidewalks getting in the way of people walking to work is not a new thing.
Slow people being selfish and inconsiderate is not new, either. I'm not the fastest out there and I get passed often. I just don't pitch a fit about it and I certainly don't try to block the path because that's just plain rude.
@@TommyJonesProductions 2 people riding next to each other is hardly the infamous "wall of friends". It's not absurd to expect to be able to ride side-by-side so that you can easily have a conversation while riding. Your point comes with the assumption that there's never a valid reason to side side-by-side, and doing so at all is equivalent to creating a wall of friends. You should know that sidewalk width recommendations are selected to allow 2 people to walk comfortably while signing a conversation.
I encounter this on a daily basis because my daily commute goes through a college campus. Since you intend on being condescending about it, anyone who's ever ~~lived in a city~~ graduated middle school knows the difference between a wall of friends and 2 people just walking side-by-side.
I'll add that it's exceedingly rare to see more than 2 cyclists riding next to each other. When I see a wall of friends it's only ever pedestrians doing it.
After 12 years of being a recreation cyclist aka a "Gear Head" on my road bike and lycra I gave it up and switched to utility for commuting, exercise and exploring. Best decision I ever made.
When I was in prime school, I thought it was ridiculous the teacher made us deliver presentation in pairs with alternating paragraphs.
Now that I see this as a spectator in a video like this, I realize how much quality it adds to the video
Erm guess what, there’s also a third type. They like dirt and shredding and hate lycra.
No. you're wrong there's a huge difference between normal cyclists and people who cosplay has robo cop on a bicycle. Normal cyclists are friendly and good people while robo cop won't even smile at you. The difference is the same as a regular car commuter and a car street racer that has made their car to be as loud and obnoxious as possible.
The cartoon picture at 0:24 portrays the "Wielrenner" as a rugged bodybuilder looking guy with a tattoo, when in fact these guys in the tight lycra shorts are usually skinny and effete looking nurds.
ultra based. as usual
Weighing in as a Dutch person, it's not so much about the intention of the trip as it is about the intensity that causes conflict. Wielrenners are sprinters, they want to go fast and prefer not to stop. They are there for speed and a workout. Fietsers can still ride for fun, but they ride casually, slowly, low insensity. They don't mind slowing down or stopping. These two types of intensity clash when they use the same spaces. Wielrenners often travel in larger groups, tend to not give way so they can keep up speed, and have worse visibility because of their position. Braking is also harder because of the speed, making crashes more intense. This clashes with casual fietsers who, even if they crash into one another, often don't have serious injuries at all.
Just like for cars, it's not about the intention of the drive but the speed and behaviour. If a 50 km an hour road had groups of road racers going 90 km an hour through it and running red lights, they would also be viewed seperately.
The friction between fietsers and wielrenners isn't the intention of the ride, but the fact that there is such a large speed difference between them while using the same limited space.
This difference exists especially in rural areas, where there are not many junctions or cars to worry about. You will see, once you begin to have long stretches of casual functional cycle paths outside of urban areas these speed differences will cause trouble
this is very much true and it is also the reason why they often prefer to ride on the road with cars instead of on the bike lane
I experience Wielrenners as entitled,they only care for their KOM on Strava, They do not stop for red lights if not absolute necessare, they overtake children too close and most important, they alwaya, always ride on the car line,even if there isa perfectly fine bikelane right next to it.
Even if they ride GA1 with a 25 km/h top speed.
In our town we ran a survey and found that those who often cycle for sports were unlikely to also be utility cyclists. Additionally we found that people who cycle for sports are much more likely to be satisfied with the infrastructure. Sports cycling tends to be making loops here, so whether destinations are reachable is less important. Whether drainage is working well is also less important because people are less inclined to go out riding when it's pouring.
The reason to draw a distinction between the two types of trips is because cycling infrastructure design should be informed by a diverse group of people. Our local council has a few councillors who cycle for sports, but none who do for utility. Despite this, the council thinks they are fully informed on cyclists' needs and experiences because some councillors cycle. We are trying to bring awareness to the council that utility cyclists have different/additional needs like secure parking, safe access to schools and other destinations, and an inclusive design that allows for usage by people of all ages and abilities, including non-traditional bikes.
We highlight the distinction to make sure that more groups' voices are heard
Most cyclists are every style of cyclist. It just depends on the outing, the purpose, the other participants, the location, the duration, the weather, etc... An urban work commute on a beater-bike (or a Sunday ride to a restaurant in fancy clothing) can then turn into a sport ride once the change of bikes and clothing occurs. That's the beauty of cycling.
I would rather separate cyclists into those who care about rules, safety, and the condition of their bike and those who don't.
I often get passed on red lights by someone with a more than squeaky chain wearing headphones who just goes whenever and wherever they please in disregard of anybody else. It's the type that makes people hate cyclists.
Once the entire city has separated bike paths it might not be a problem anymore but I'm sure they'll find a way to ruin that, too.
Also - consider - "leisure" cyclists (no helmet necessary - see Holland) . . . "sport" cyclists need a helmet for safety and belong on the streets not bike lane.
In the Netherland the fastest bike velomobile is quite popular among a distinguish group of cyclists. Those velomobile riders use their VM's both for commute/ utility and for recreational rides.
The group VM riders is quite small, only 1700 VM's on 22.5 million bikes in the Netherlands.
The fast, competitive cyclist does exist, but from my observations at busy and quiet bike lanes in busy Manhattan, they are a minority within street lanes. Delivery guys and people on Citibikes are more common than competitive cyclists. Fast cyclists are a common sight within Central Park. However, when I see arguments against bike lanes, the fast cyclist is universally the only cyclist brought up, and as a bogeyman, too.
There is also an addititional kink. The anti-bike lane crowd will argue that all cyclists are upper-class elites who take up valuable road space for car-driving middle and lower class workers. Which is ridiculous, because most delivery guys earn between $15 to $20 an hour, and the cyclists going to work or school or are just renting Citibikes are just normal people.
as a middle aged man who rides a bike, and who sometimes wears jeans, and sometimes wears lycra, i found this video strangely moving
I knew I'd end up in one of your b-roll of Montréal one day. I use a road bike because I grew up in the 80s when a "10-speed" bike was ubiquitous. I continued to use them because I became a cyclotourist and they are perfectly suited for very long distances. It's not a racing bike, it's a road bike fully accessorized with racks, panniers and a trailler. The biggest change I saw in the 40 last years in everydsy road bikes is the advent of 90s hybrids and the last 10 years' gravel/ bikepacking craze. My winter beater used to be an old hybrid. Now it's a gravel with ultra-wide tires.
Yeah gravel bikes actually make REALLY good urban bikes, especially if they have lots of mounts for panniers, etc. They usually have better components than hybrid bikes, and are lighter too. I'm mainly a MTBer, but am looking into getting a gravel bike since moving to Denver just to have something faster and less expensive to run to explore the huge array of bike paths in Denver when I don't feel like loading up the MTB and driving to the foothills. MTBs are plenty quick on a bike path, but MTB tires wear out REAL quick on pavement and are very expensive. bike commuting isn't something I really do because my work "commute" is 10ft because I work from home all but a few days a month.
Sports speed road cyclists are absolutely not loved by other types, including moutain bikers and casual recreational riders. Ones on canada recently cheered for the removal of dedicated bike path because they would rather ride on the motorways, putting other cyclists to danger.
I think the negative attitude sport cyclists engender is the snobbery around ebikes being "cheating", helmet policing, gear obsession that makes people think they need to spend thousands on gear to be able to bike. That's all great if you are cycling for sport. If you are cycling from transportation, you don't need all that stuff. I think many critics of sport cycling culture is around the gatekeepery aspects of it. Some also ride quite aggressively, particularly in bike lanes that aren't wide enough for passing slower cyclists.
Love seeing shots of MTL--some of them seem fresh from this past beautiful spring weekend?
In my case my utility biking, which I've always enjoyed as a physical workout as well, is the gateway to recreational biking. I'm planning trips for fun and looking into buying a bike more suited to long distances like intercity travel. In the city, I enjoy pushing myself and going fast which leads me to generally avoid bike paths (especially Rachel, though I do use the REV) and share the street with cars. I don't like being slowed down by people riding at a leisurely pace, but I don't want to inconvenience them if that's where they feel safest.
Yep, this past weekend was amazing!
I've been doing a bunch of detour on ym utility trips to bike by parks and stuff since the bixis came back out with the nice weather. Fact is getting around by back is so enjoyable when it's nice out it feels like it's always half recreational
Spandex dudes are the runner equivalent for bikers. They're going at a certain speed and don't want to stop for nothing, even for pedestrians, often zooming past at high speeds nearly hitting you. They're horrible in mix-use areas and only do more harm for the mentality against bikers.
They have no place in the usual bike lanes, they must go with the cars if they want to do car speeds.
The only problem: They only think, they do car speeds. As a result, they piss off basically everybody they meet - because they don't adapt.
Thanks so much for this. I've tried to be at ease with MAMILs (Middle Aged Men In Lycra) but seemed to find it wired as I am a commuter cyclist. And when I cycle for enjoyment and exercise I do so in casual clothes, like I did when I was a skater. This video made me decrease my disdain of MAMILs. Thanks for the great work at Oh The Urbanity!
I don't wear Lycra and I wanna burn calories. Still feels good to go faster. Got a weird wide loop bar that enables that. Also noticed a Tanktop is less resistance than a flabby shirt. And jogging shorts? Better than casual clothing. Don't need to be sore. It's a weird prejudice at play
I ride both sport and utilitarian. There are a few sport cyclists who never use bikes for utility/transportation and have no interest in our city making any changes for biking for transportation. I find that attitude really weird. Other places I lived cyclists would typically ride for both. The city I’m in has a lot of bike trails for exercise that don’t go anywhere near stores and offices which are all in very car dependent strip malls.
There's people that commute seriously long distances to work too. If you cycle 15+km one way, do good aero and low rolling resistance sound bad?
"Different places can have different bike cultures" is quite important, especially because Dutch city bikes do have major drawbacks.