Originally Posted by
|3iker
OP, you must understand that Bicycling Magazine caters virtually to recreational road bike cyclists... well maybe some pro-racers will read it too. Under that premise, the article is not incorrect after all a Trek Madone 6.2 will never be used to haul you nor I to work/school. Or who would ride a carbon Cervelo to pick up groceries? So as such, referring the bikes from their perspective as a toy is not wrong.
This attitude is wrong, too. I am by no means a wealthy person, and I have two bikes. One is a lovely Bianchi and is for pleasure, and of course I don't leave it outside. It lives in my living room. The other is basically disposable, and gets me to work, the store, and wherever else I need to be; it isn't the sort of bike you go out of your way to sell or buy, it just happened to cheap and functional. It isn't worth much, and won't show up in a bike mag.
It is not unlike someone who is a car enthusiast, and has a fun car and a functional car. Both of those cars have equal rights to the road. Or, even the miles people drive to reach "non-essential" functions, such as the movies, sporting events, restaurants...if you're going to classify something as a toy by virtue of the purpose of it's vehicle-miles,
you have to do it for motor vehicles as well.
This is the hypocrisy of the situation. You'd have to curtail the freedoms everyone has to use the road, which is quite wrong.