> - my commute: I cycled into work, and the daily exercise was great
This one is not like the others, it's completely up to you to have a bike ride e.g. at lunch time around the block when you WFH.
This one is not like the others, it's completely up to you to have a bike ride e.g. at lunch time around the block when you WFH.
I'm not a leisure cyclist. I don't dress up in spandex and ride an expensive bike. In fact, I have difficulty containing my derision for leisure cyclists. I know that the equipment they use has utility, but it also signals: I don't have to ride a bike. I have an expensive SUV at home, and I didn't lose my drivers license to a DUI.
I remember several years ago, my work place had a "bike to work day". The gear and getups on display looked like a parade of peacocks, and certainly had very little to do in spirit with biking to work.
Perhaps it also irks me that these leisure cyclists will say crap about my cheap bike ... as I pass them on the road.
What? How did you get around to such an explicit and unfounded gate-keeping of cycling? Cycling is only 'good' if it has the purpose of commute? Cycling is only 'good' if you have a cheap bicycle? Sorry to be this direct, but this is utter nonsense!
I do not have an expensive SUV at home, I don't even own a driver's license, and I don't own a super expensive bike either, but I still go out in lycra to use my road bike as a training utility (almost) every day.
Why is it that we as cyclists have to gate-keep each other at every step and corner? Both hating on cyclists in general and and gate-keeping in cycling itself is stupid and should not exist, let's just embrace cycling whether we are on a super expensive road bike or a cheap mountain bike we bought second-hand.
In a post complaining about gate-keeping in cycling--that leisure cycling reinforces the idea that there is only kind of cycling that is totally above board, not sketchy--I get criticized for gate keeping. Maybe instead, gear head cyclists should introspect more on their hobby and how it reinforces class barriers.
As a fairly experienced road cyclist, I honestly don't care in the least what people ride or how they dress, I only care that they don't act stupid things around me. At the most I might compliment someone on their speed and that's about it.
I cannot speak for you, but there are consequences to making cycling a specialized activity that is only respectably done for leisure and with the proper equipment and clothing. There is a symbol economy here that I feel you are just not willing to contemplate.
>There is a symbol economy here that I feel you are just not willing to contemplate.
Okay, so let's see. I go out for a ride in shorts and I get a saddle sore. I look online and see that wearing cycling shorts prevents chafing, so I buy a pair and I don't get sores anymore. Exactly what am I signalling? That I have enough money to buy cycling shorts? I'm not really signalling that, it's just that I have no way to wear the shorts without making it plainly obvious that I'm wearing them.
But fine, I don't want to "signal" that, so what are my options? I have to stop going on long rides that would give me sores because someone might feel bad that they can't afford my cycling shorts? Should I also get the cheapest possible bike I can find? Should I just walk everywhere barefoot in whatever rags I can find in a dumpster?
Seriously asking, what do you want? It seems you're not asking for a world without poverty, but rather a world where everyone lives like they're poor, even if they don't have to. Hopefully I completely misunderstood what you meant.
>making cycling a specialized activity that is only respectably done for leisure and with the proper equipment and clothing
"Respectably". Look, man, honestly: people do not give a toss about your bike or what you wear. When I'm out in traffic I have enough on my mind trying not to get killed to look if there's anyone plodding along on an old beater bike in shorts and a t-shirt to make fun of. Just do your thing and let other people do their thing. You're like those guys who get insecure at the gym because they see the buff guys bench press 70 kg instead of focusing on their own routine.
Must be hard to find someone / something which escapes your contempt.
It is not simply a matter of some people getting to do what they enjoy. It is the system of symbols tied to a specific activity. Everyone likes to ride bikes, poor, middle class, and rich. How do the middle class and rich make sure that no-one mistakes them for the kind of person who cannot afford a car? By the price of the bike, and all the specialized equipment they use along with it. Of course that equipment has practical utility--no one says that it doesn't--but that equipment is playing another, probably more important role as a signal of status (if you don't believe me, go biking with your cyclist buddies wearing jeans and riding $400 bike.)
So why is it a problem? Because it creates an environment that is not positive, possibly even dangerous, for other cyclists who cannot afford to, or are not willing to, participate in that cycling economy. It isn't really that complicated. Let me put it another way. Who do the police stop when riding through the neighborhood. The cyclist on his or her expensive bike, wearing their expensive equipment, that practically scream: I'm participating in a lifestyle activity? Or the cyclist on a cheap bike, wearing jeans and a t-shirt? Maybe with the wrong skin color. The answer quite obviously is the second.
Seriously cycling kit can be super cheap and makes a huge difference in comfort.
Maybe leisure cyclists should spend more time critiquing their own culture a bit more. Have a little more introspection into how their hobby affects other people, reinforces class barriers.
And the mention of the kitchen in the post is spot on too - it's just way too convenient to have my full kitchen at home for a quick smoothie. Some projects at my job don't even have a refrigerator for Pete's sake!