Among the things humans do is give stuff names. Education, in part, is learning the names of all the stuff we’ve named and the relationships of all that named stuff. Communication is often difficult among various interlocutors because sometimes we have different names for stuff or we use the names of some stuff to identify other stuff.
I’m guilty of this sort of stuff.
Here’s a short quiz:
1. What is bicycle commuting?
2. What is utility cycling?
3. What is basic transportation?
Being an academic of a particular kind (rhetoric), I often like to use the names of particular stuff to refer to other particular stuff because I don’t see the need to make particular (or peculiar) distinctions. For example, I think the term “bicycle commuting” includes “utility cycling” (or could it be vice versa?). I think this because these two are far more alike than, say, the distinction between “bicycle racing” and “family cycling.”
But, as Carbon Trace reader Matt L. pointed out in e-mail, “commuting” is a technical term for some folks, used to identify moving between home and work. He should know; he works for a regional planning commission in Ohio. He’s also working on a new cycling booklet for bicycle commuters and utility cyclists. That’s how we started e-mailing; we’re working on similar projects. I’m looking forward to many productive exchanges with Matt.
Further evidence of the currency of the distinction: “Commuting” and “utility cycling” have their own forums (with some cross posting) on Bike Forums. And PM Summer, author of Cycle*Dallas, links to Carbon Trace under the heading Community Links with the words Springfield Missouri Utilicycling.
Hmmmmmm… What to do?
Here’s my problem: While the distinction between the two terms may have currency, I’m wondering if it makes promoting cycling more difficult by segregating like activities. This is important in many communicative situations (e.g. this blog or a new cycling booklet) because readers need to be able to identify themselves in the text in order to be persuaded by the text.
My assumption going in was that I could use “commuting” to cover it all. I’ll still continue to do that to some extent. But you’ll be to seeing the terms “utility cycling” and “basic transportation” more on Carbon Trace.
Comments 6
For what it’s worth, with the British use of English, “commuting” definitely means “travelling to work and back”.
Commuting is a subset of utility cycling, as is “shopping” or “school travel”
There is a demographic difference between commuting and other utility journeys, as commuters are all working age people, not children and not retired people. What’s more, commuting journeys are mostly made on relatively lightly loaded bikes, without child seats or capacity to carry a lot of shopping.
It’s much easier to get people to commute by bike than to make other journeys by bike because commuting happens at the same times of day that there tend to be traffic jams on the roads, so cycling has an additional speed advantage at that time of day, and young adults who make up a large part of the commuting group are the least likely to be concerned about low subjective safety of their journeys.
That’s why commuting tends to be a large part of the total utility cycling picture in countries which are less cycle friendly.
It’s rather more difficult to encourage parents to send their children out on their bikes alone, to encourage them to take their children on their bikes with them, or to encourage elderly people to cycle.
That’s why a measure of the quality of infrastructure can be to look at the demographics and see who is cycling. If there are plenty of children, parents with babies and elderly people, and if both sexes cycle more or less equally, then that is a good sign. If cycling is dominated by young male adults, there is a problem.
http://hembrow.blogspot.com/2008/08/pit-canaries.html
Posted 25 Nov 2008 at 1:58 am ¶David… Interesting. We have no idea in Springfield what the cycling demographic is. But we’re planning to do bicycle counts next year. And it would be easy to get rough demographic data at the same time.
We have a fair amount of family cycling here on our greenway trails and in our neighborhoods. That’s what I want to build on with the 1-mile circle idea.
Posted 25 Nov 2008 at 7:25 am ¶In my view, utility cycling includes bike commuting, but not the other way around. I think utility cycling needs a higher profile because, in many neighborhoods, cycling on short errands (grocery, drug store, bank, post office, hardware store, etc.) is an easier way to reduce carbon emissions than commuting to work. Because cars are least efficient before warming up, the shorter the trip, the greater the impact per mile. With a couple of good bags and a lock, many people would be surprised how many errands they could run. My bike commute is 11 miles each way. Because of on job requirements for dress, outside meetings, etc. I’m lucky if I can commute twice a week in good weather, and I go many weeks without being able to get a commute in. In the evenings and on weekends, however, I use my old Raleigh for many short “utilitarian” trips.
Posted 25 Nov 2008 at 7:42 am ¶Bob… Yes. This is exactly why I want to push the 1-mile-circle idea. I think we’ll have a greater shot at making an impact by encouraging people to ride and walk near home.
Posted 25 Nov 2008 at 8:07 am ¶Andy, the 1-mile radius of access is incredibly important for the future of cycling as a transportation mode. Historically (meaning, back to the 1970s), cycling planning and advocacy in the US of A has focused on long trips, mirroring the thinking of other transportation planners (roads and rail). Not only is it easily within the range of most adults and children (as opposed to the “super-man” appearance of the typical media-model bike commuter), but it actually has a greater impact upon air and life quality. Given the low pollution impact of modern automobiles (once the catalytic converter has warmed up) the elimination of multiple automobile “cold starts” is of far greater value than the elimination of a 10-20 mile drive.
The quality of life improvement is a wonderful by-product, and results from people reconnecting with their neighborhoods. It’s hard to notice needed street-scape/neighborhood improvements when you are encased in a steel cocoon.
Yes, “utilicycling” is a word I made up. Mea culpa.
PM Summer, ECI
Posted 02 Dec 2008 at 9:42 am ¶Senior Transportation Planner
Dallas, Texas
PM… Agreed. I’m making it my goal to work that 1-mile radius into the consciousness of Springfield.
And no Ma culpa necessary. As a rhetoric scholar, I’m always fascinated by the coinage of words –or idiosyncratic use of words — to create interesting and useful distinctions.
Posted 02 Dec 2008 at 9:57 am ¶