Advocacy & Safety - Carmakers widen seats for wider ... seats

Doesn't this just about say it all... So now the non exercising public is getting ever larger in their steel cages that transport them from one fast foot joint to another with sooo little effort...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20051228/bs_usatoday/carmakerswidenseatsforwiderseats



As Americans grow heftier, automakers are making seats wider, adding more space to interiors and using bigger virtual mannequins to help design vehicles.

Domestic automakers say they already had seats for increasingly rotund motorists. Now foreign brands are catching up.

Not suprising. It does not seem in the best interests of car markers for americans to exercise. However, this may be a fallacy since longer living consumers = more consumption over the long term.
Our 03 camry has fairly wide seats. Doesn't do me any good. For one thing I am more narrow and another is that I rarely drive.

Doesn't this just about say it all... So now the non exercising public is getting ever larger in their steel cages that transport them from one fast foot joint to another with sooo little effort...

No. What does it say about bicyling advocacy? Endless ranting and scolding about the public and their cages may say something about the smugness of the offending pedant, but little else.

No. What does it say about bicyling advocacy? Endless ranting and scolding about the public and their cages may say something about the smugness of the offending pedant, but little else.

How about the health care costs that the general public will have to absorb for all these fat Americans... how about the sick days that overweight Americans will cost the economy, how about the general trend to widen vehicles to carry fat Americans and the impact that wide vehicles make on the lack of ability to share the road?

How about the health care costs that the general public will have to absorb for all these fat Americans... how about the sick days that overweight Americans will cost the economy, how about the general trend to widen vehicles to carry fat Americans and the impact that wide vehicles make on the lack of ability to share the road?
Is ranting like a Scolding Health Nanny at the public, or at other bicyclists considered good for bicycling advocacy? I don't think so.

genec is ranting? I'd say it was more of an interesting observation than anything else.

I'd say it was more of an interesting observation than anything else.

I have to agree. ILTB, you might have been coming down a little hard on genec. He reported an interesting article and commented with terms that are common parlance around here.

*shrug*

genec is ranting? I'd say it was more of an interesting observation than anything else.
What you call "observations" about "fat Americans" and their "cages," I'd call gratuitous spouting of generalizations, clichés and stereotypes about the "public". Relevance to bicycling safety or bicycling advocacy - less than none.

My least favorite automotive innovation isn't from the carmakers but from the food industry. Now that every car has seventeen cupholders all over the place, I've noticed at the supermarket foam cups filled with all sorts of snacky junk that are designed to fit into cupholders. So now not only do you recline passively as you speed through the streets, but you can also shovel chocolate-covered potato snax into your gaping maw the whole time. I don't like to knock anyone's appetites or habits, but I prefer to come by my gut honestly, complimenting my cycling with a steady diet of beer and steak. Driving while eating or eating while driving, well, there's something very "fall of the roman empire" about it(...can't you just see a bloated roman steering his chariot down the via appia with one hand, popping deviled lark's eggs or something into his mouth with the other?)

I have to agree. ILTB, you might have been coming down a little hard on genec. He reported an interesting article and commented with terms that are common parlance around here.
I don't think so. Please inform me of the point of posting the slam on the American public and its relationship to bicycling advocacy.

I agree that such terms (clichés and generalizations about those who don't meet the poster's "approved" profile) are bandied about freely by smug advocates who have a sense of moral superiority over the rest of the low-life public in their cages.

So now not only do you recline passively as you speed through the streets, but you can also shovel chocolate-covered potato snax into your gaping maw the whole time. I don't like to knock anyone's appetites or habits, but...can't you just see a bloated roman steering his chariot down the via appia with one hand, popping deviled lark's eggs or something into his mouth with the other?)
Who is/are "you"? And Laika doesn't like to knock anyone's appetites or habits? I could have sworn that that's exactly what Laika is doing to all of the "You"s out there.

Relevance to bicycling advocacy/safety - less than none.

Take a chilly pilly Willie. Using bicycles and the benefits of the exercise derived from using them is good for bicycle advocacy. Pointing out the alternative, what the sedentary American lifestyle - epitomized by the automobile - is, I think, good bicycle advocacy. You are not so obtuse, are you, that you can't see the connection between one form of transportation, the car, where they need bigger seats, and ours, the bike, where a higher level of fitness is often the result? Is pointing out the higher cancer rates of smokers good for non-smoking campaigns? And evidence that cagers are growing gigantic, thundering a$$es that can't even fit in their grotesque parody of a car as they flip us off on their way to the mall to get their smoothies.... Oh. Am I betraying an agenda of some kind here?

And evidence that cagers are growing gigantic, thundering a$$es that can't even fit in their grotesque parody of a car as they flip us off on their way to the mall to get their smoothies.... Oh. Am I betraying an agenda of some kind here?
Nope, just how clueless you may be about selling bicycling to the public; rather than grandstanding to a handful of smug and pompous cycling enthusiasts comfortable with their sense of moral superiority over the "cagers".

i think laika makes a good point though. as the article indicates - more people spend more time in their cars. to help make them more comfortable during these long commutes, they've designed cars not only to support their heavier girth, but also to allow for some dangerous trends. these dangerous trends include the numerious cup holders, cell phone holders, built in coolers for food, etc. also, GPS systems, sattelite radios, DVD players, and the like add more distraction to an all ready distracted american driver. i think that has a lot to do with safety for us on the roads. i think the trend toward total comfort in an automobile is somewhat bad for pedestrians and cyclists.

Next, they will be putting in those machines that give your heart a jolt when it stops.

Do you remember the car that Homer Simpson designed. He wanted more horns. So there were horn buttons all over the cockpit.

I put a cup holder on my trike. On my cup holder mainden voyage I went over the rail road tracks and got coffee everywhere. Best eat/drink and drive invention ever? Stain defender dockers!

Nope, just how clueless you may be about selling bicycling to the public; rather than grandstanding to a handful of smug and pompous cycling enthusiasts comfortable with their sense of moral superiority over the "cagers".

You didn't define pompous.

Well, I think that the health choices of the majority of this country are frightening. I think a lot of things about this country are frightening. I have consciously made decisions to not go down some of those paths myself. Sometimes, those choices are hard. Do I feel morally superior as a result of these choices? Hmmm, in some ways I guess I do. In other ways, I don't. So what? If one choice results in greater levels of fitness, reduced ecological impact, and less dependence on the geopolitics of oil and agression, I think that is the right choice and I am glad I made it. If the other results in a mondo, bongo, swaying, braying, pendulous, dimpled, pimpled, lard filled appendage so gigantic that it can't fit in the seat of a minivan, well, I am glad that I didn't choose that path.

Please inform me of the point of posting the slam on the American public and its relationship to bicycling advocacy.

Are you trying to take over where EURO left off? I don't see the big deal here. The terms the OP used are terms that are bandied about all over this site -- in A&S, in Road Cycling, in Commuting, and probably others that I don't read regularly. This site doesn't exist to sell bicycling to non-cyclists, nor does it exist to advocate cycling to the non-cycling members of the American public; it exists to give cyclists a place to come and discuss cycling and cycling-related topics. Having just been hit by a very large SUV the news that car makers are widening seats, which will wind up with wider cars, is news that I am interested in. From the read of it several others are interested as well.

You know that "public" and "cagers" are just short-hand terms used around here (and especially in the OP's post) to indicate "the non-cycling members of the American public" and "people who drive their cars exclusively". It's certainly easier to type "public" and "cagers" than "the non-cycling members of the American public" and "people who drive their cars exclusively", that's for sure. I just don't understand why you decided to go off on the OP for his use of them.

Again, *shrug*

I just don't understand why you decided to go off on the OP for his use of them.

Again, *shrug*
He goes off on everybody. Especially now that Helmet Head is on vacation he's gotta reach pretty far.

I'm thinking he is looking for a fight where there is none.

Who is/are "you"? And Laika doesn't like to knock anyone's appetites or habits? I could have sworn that that's exactly what Laika is doing to all of the "You"s out there.

Relevance to bicycling advocacy/safety - less than none.
What a jerk you seem to be.

You didn't define pompous.

I beg to differ. He seems to define pompous perfectly.

I don't see the big deal here. The terms the OP used are terms that are bandied about all over this site -- in A&S, in Road Cycling, in Commuting, and probably others that I don't read regularly. This site doesn't exist to sell bicycling to non-cyclists, nor does it exist to advocate cycling to the non-cycling members of the American public; it exists to give cyclists a place to come and discuss cycling and cycling-related topics. Having just been hit by a very large SUV the news that car makers are widening seats, which will wind up with wider cars, is news that I am interested in. From the read of it several others are interested as well.

You know that "public" and "cagers" are just short-hand terms used around here (and especially in the OP's post) to indicate "the non-cycling members of the American public" and "people who drive their cars exclusively". It's certainly easier to type "public" and "cagers" than "the non-cycling members of the American public" and "people who drive their cars exclusively", that's for sure. I just don't understand why you decided to go off on the OP for his use of them.

Again, *shrug*

Its obvious you and the rest of the pedantic ranters (about the foibles of theCager Public) "around here" don't consider advocacy as anything more than maintaining a support group for a little club of cycling lifestyle/counter culture types; Romantic Cultural Outlaws who think it's them against the Cager World. "Advocates" who find it appropriate (and presumably effective) to bad mouth everybody in the American public who doesn't fit into their designated square hole profile of what all cyclists and the public should look like, think like and do like.

I'll offer a Season's Greetings to all self righteous cycling advocates and raise a toast of a healthy soy milk shakes over a bowl of healthy bicycling enthusiast/PC approved gruel. And anyone who doesn't want to share must be a tool of the Cager Beast. ;)

"Advocates" who find it appropriate (and presumably effective) to bad mouth everybody in the American public who doesn't fit into their designated square hole profile of what all cyclists and the public should look like, think like and do like.

And what exactly are YOU doing right here besides: "bad mouthing everybody who doesn't fit into YOUR designated square hole profile... "

Hmmm, me thinks the pot is calling the kettle.

And what exactly are YOU doing right here besides: "bad mouthing everybody who doesn't fit into YOUR designated square hole profile... "

Hmmm, me thinks the pot is calling the kettle.
I'm not the OP of this rant against the public. My recommendation is that the food fetishist/cycling narcissists and anti-cager ranters take their conceited rhetoric to FOO or a religion forum since it has nothing to do with advocating for Bicycling or Bicyclists

I'm not the OP of this rant against the public. My recommendation is that the food fetishist/cycling narcissists and anti-cager ranters take their conceited rhetoric to FOO or a religion forum since it has nothing to do with advocating for Bicycling or Bicyclists

you're not a mod. you're not the definitive source of what topics are allowed within a forum. click the spam link and cry to a mod if you don't think the topic fits here.

Wow. I agree with I-Like-To-Bike. And as of yet the earth has not split open and swallowed me whole. Wait for it... nope. Hm... curious.

He's got a point.

i think laika makes a good point though. as the article indicates - more people spend more time in their cars. to help make them more comfortable during these long commutes, they've designed cars not only to support their heavier girth, but also to allow for some dangerous trends. these dangerous trends include the numerious cup holders, cell phone holders, built in coolers for food, etc. also, GPS systems, sattelite radios, DVD players, and the like add more distraction to an all ready distracted american driver. i think that has a lot to do with safety for us on the roads. i think the trend toward total comfort in an automobile is somewhat bad for pedestrians and cyclists.

The cup holders are designed to hold the LARGE size cup from McDonalds! ;-)

I also think the distraction level in a motorcar is getting to a tipping point in terms of dangerous. I was listening the other day how these new Minivans are now coming with built in televisions on the front dash and rear seats!

As for the GPS systems, these devices are great for the cyclist but driving at 65 mph with one eye on that tiny screene and the other on the road seems like a disaster waiting to happen.

you're not a mod. you're not the definitive source of what topics are allowed within a forum. click the spam link and cry to a mod if you don't think the topic fits here.
Correct I'm not a mod. And the guilty parties are free to continue to post their pedantic nannyism and gross stereotyping of the public and call it "advocacy" until the mods do decide otherwise.

However food fetish narcissists/anti- Cager Rangers should avoid resorting to a raft of insults rather than indicate why they think their smug lifestyle preference BS has the slightest relationship to anything positive for Bicycling Advocacy.

What you call "observations" about "fat Americans" and their "cages," I'd call gratuitous spouting of generalizations, clichés and stereotypes about the "public". Relevance to bicycling safety or bicycling advocacy - less than none.

I think it is directly relevant to bicycling advocacy. The one thing that makes it safer for all riders on the road is having more riders out on their bikes using the streets.
When the general population is so unfit, obese, and generally brainwashed that cycling is a herculean feat, then this causes fewer people to ride. The fact that obesity is epidemic in our youth spells no future for cycling.

Good link, Genec.

wider seats. funny.



• Honda. The 2006 Civic offers front seats that are three-quarters of an inch wider than those in the 2005 model. Purpose: "To meet the growing needs of our customers," spokesman Sage Marie says.

ooh. 3/4 of an inch. betcha they're still smaller than the seats in my old '76 de Ville.



• Mitsubishi. The Lancer Evolution was given front seats slightly wider than in the Japanese version when the performance car was introduced in the USA in 2003.

yeah, so? last time i checked, i was bigger than 90 percent or so of the Japanese population. so it would follow that larger seats than the Japanese market would make sense for a model that was new to the North American market (at the time).

the "average" American is a ******. so what? i'm "overweight," and i'm over 6' tall with a 34" waist. if you don't like cars with bigger seats, don't buy them. having enough food to eat makes for bigger people.

plus, if it makes you happy, the driver's seat in my (daily driver) car will only fit a 36-68" waist at the most. it's only 18" wide - heck, i sometimes have trouble getting in and out of it if i'm wearing bulky clothes.

people complain about the public footing the health care costs for "obese" people, too. again, so what? if we're lucky, they'll all die before they hit 40.

eat right, exercise, die anyway.

amusing story and topic, but i don't get how it's cycling advocacy. unless you're advocating people should get off their ass and ride.

Its obvious you ... don't consider advocacy as anything more than maintaining a support group for a little club of cycling lifestyle/counter culture types

Don't pretend to know what my take on advocacy is, because you will most certainly be wrong. And further, if you believe that this forum is a good place to advocate cycling to non-cyclists instead of a place for cycling advocates to come to discuss advocacy and advocacy-related topics (such as what the automobile world is doing), you would again be wrong.



Romantic Cultural Outlaws who think it's them against the Cager World.

I am part of the "Cager World". I am also part of the cycling world.



I'll offer a Season's Greetings to all self righteous cycling advocates

And I offer the same to all pretentious, misguided forum posters.

Nope, just how clueless you may be about selling bicycling to the public; rather than grandstanding to a handful of smug and pompous cycling enthusiasts comfortable with their sense of moral superiority over the "cagers".


A little too sensitive, aren't you? Cutting a little too close to the bone? Well, here you go.
cagers,fatties,cagers,fatties,cagers,fatties,cagers,fatties,cagers,fatties,cagers,fatties,cagers,fat ties,cagers,fatties,cagers,fatties,cagers,fatties,cagers,fatties,cagers,fatties,cagers,fatties,cager s,fatties,cagers,fatties,cagers,fatties,cagers,fatties,cagers,fatties,cagers,fatties,cagers,fatties, cagers,fatties,cagers,fatties,cagers,fatties,cagers,fatties,cagers,fatties,cagers,fatties,cagers,fat ties,cagers,fatties,cagers,fatties,cagers,fatties,cagers,fatties,cagers,fatties,cagers,fatties,cager s,fatties,cagers,fatties,

i think most discussions of health and transportation have something to do with bicycling advocacy. the need for wider seats because some 68% of americans are overweight is essentially a health topic. and it's definitley a transportation topic. bicycling is tied closely with health and obviously transportation so i think there is relevence here.

My recommendation is that the food fetishist/cycling narcissists and anti-cager ranters take their conceited rhetoric to FOO or a religion forum since it has nothing to do with advocating for Bicycling or Bicyclists

Actually, let's look at the description for the A&S forum as taken directly from the bikeforums.net home page:



Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

Please note that it does not say, "advocating for Bicycling or Bicyclists".

Perhaps it is you, ILTB, that should take your conceited rhetoric to FOO, eh?

Please note that it does not say, "advocating for Bicycling or Bicyclists".

Are you sure you are not a new incarnation of HH with the same old, same old semantic hocus pocus?

Are you sure you are not a new incarnation of HH with the same old, same old semantic hocus pocus?

Positive. Search the site; you'll see that I've had direct and open confrontations with HH over his particular views.

Positive. Search the site; you'll see that I've had direct and open confrontations with HH over his particular views.
Well then, I guess you have some good points too. I would recommend that you rethink the idea that prejudice and sterotyping are acceptable "advocacy" tools just because a handful of posters feel it quite normal to offer smug, biased and insulting observations about the "public" on the BF.

I've got to go for a bike ride now and pick up some Cheese Doodles; ran out during last night's game, and the next bowl game starts in 2½ hours. Maybe I'll be back on-line after the Wolverines bury the Huskers.

Actually, let's look at the description for the A&S forum as taken directly from the bikeforums.net home page:

Please note that it does not say, "advocating for Bicycling or Bicyclists".

Perhaps it is you, ILTB, that should take your conceited rhetoric to FOO, eh?

First off...I can't believe I am freakin doing this...

ILTB does have a point. We tend to spend way to much time making fun of anyone who isn't a dedicated cyclist. Fact is, most of us are not only cyclists, we are also fat, dumbass cagers as well. My winter bicycle commute is 30 miles a day - PLUS another 60 miles by car. I'm 6'1" 230 with a 38" waist - overweight by many standards, but I bet there are very few people in this forum who would stand in front of me and call me fat. I'm also not the brightest bulb on the tree, but I know that dissing everyone who does not share our own values, hobbies, way of life, physical attributes, means of transportation or passion is just plain arrogant, bad mannered and NOT the most effective means of advocating cycling.

Advocate:

Noun
* S: (n) advocate, advocator, proponent, exponent (a person who pleads for a cause or propounds an idea)

Hmm, kinda hard to plead a cause or propound and idea to someone when you just called them fat and lazy, don't you think?

Verb
* S: (v) recommend, urge, advocate (push for something) "The travel agent recommended strongly that we not travel on Thanksgiving Day"

How seriously would you take that recommendation if it was preceeded by a personal attack?

* S: (v) preach, advocate (speak, plead, or argue in favour of) "The doctor advocated a smoking ban in the entire house"

Yeah, we preach sharing the road - then attack those we share the road with in the same breath.

Everybody knows that ILTB and I are not exactly butt buddies, but just because I am not a fan of his method of communicating or he is not a fan of my method of communicating, does not mean that we can't see past HOW something is communicated to understand WHAT is being communicated. The thing I respect about ILTB is that he, like me, but in our own different styles, does not shy away from being the devil's advocate and calling a spade a spade.

So I guess my point is, quit being so defensive...it would be no fun in here if we didn't have all different kinds of personalities and opinions. If you can't handle that, perhaps a new forum called CLONES is a better place for you.

The thing I respect about ILTB is that he, like me, but in our own different styles, does not shy away from being the devil's advocate and calling a spade a spade.
Your check is in the mail! ;)

Your check is in the mail! ;)

It better be bigger than my tax refund! :p

...and less of a waste of time than this thread became

Or we could talk about what impacts our current societies trends towards lack of fitness, obesity, and general ill health have on our cycling environment. And how to do something about it. It has been pointed out the calling people bad names is not going to convince them to change their ways. Agreed, it's obvious. So then what?

Obesity is soon to surpass smoking as the leading cause of preventable death. According to a Frontline special called, "The Diet Wars," even with all the diet crazes out there, Americans are becoming more and more obsese- ie. diet alone cannot resolve weight issues. Cars make Americans fat, so car makers are accomodating for this problem.

I would recommend that you rethink the idea that prejudice and sterotyping are acceptable "advocacy" tools just because a handful of posters feel it quite normal to offer smug, biased and insulting observations about the "public" on the BF.

I don't advocate prejudice or stereotyping. But the fact that Americans -- the public -- are generally getting fatter isn't up for debate; it's happening. It's proven. It may or may not have an effect on cyclists, but it is worthy of discussion in this forum. Just because you don't agree does not make it any less a value-added topic of conversation for a lot of people.

You may or may not have a case for the term "cagers" being prejudicial. Personally, I don't find it prejudicial -- it's shorthand, a nickname. But it's certainly used widely enough on these forums that if you have a problem with it beating up on the people that use it probably isn't wise; start a new discussion explaining why you disagree with the terms or something. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it shouldn't be used.

Again, though, this isn't a site for advocacy; it's a site to discuss advocacy. Sure, maybe that's pedantic. But if I come here to discuss some jerk who ran me over and refused to listen to me when I explained I have equal rights to the road, and you get upset because I called him a jerk, I think you're missing the point -- and your grossly off-base with your idea of the target audience -- of this forum.

As for the GPS systems, these devices are great for the cyclist but driving at 65 mph with one eye on that tiny screene and the other on the road seems like a disaster waiting to happen.

On this I will respectfully disagree. While a driver looking at a GPS may be bad a driver trying to read poorly lit road signs while consulting a map is worse. Add in that the driver without GPS is more apt to be frustrated and concerned about being lost and I think GPS in cars is on net a help for cyclists.

BTW I don't have GPS, but I'm a real man who never gets lost.

Americans are getting grossly obese at an alarming rate. You dont think that carries over to bicycles and every other part of life as well? How many larger size frames do they sell now than 10 or 20 yrs ago? What about "comfort bikes" or fat saddles?

If there is a issue with this topic in Advocacy, maybe it can be moved to Foo

We tend to spend way to much time making fun of anyone who isn't a dedicated cyclist.

ILTB hammered on the OP for using the term "cager" and dissing the "public".

This is where I'm coming from: I used to work renaissance faires. We called the people who paid to get in and didn't wear cosutmes "danes", which was short for "mundanes", referring of course to the fact they came to the faire in mundane clothing. No disrespect intended, it was just a lot easier to say than, "the patrons who come to the faire in mundane clothing". We even referred to ourselves using that term: "Hey, are you going to the party in danes or in garb?" No big deal, it's just shorthand amongst the crowd of people that differentiated those things. I refer to myself as a cager -- today I came to work caged because I've got errands to run on my lunch hour. Further, the OP specifically targetted the "non-exercising public", a selection of people that are notorious for eating fast food and having expanding waistlines -- which is a proven fact. A selection of people that, I'll wager, no one reading these forums count themselves a part of. I highly, highly doubt that anyone advocates cycling by saying, "Hey, you fat and lazy fast-food eating cagers! Ride a bike, why don't you!?" But it's nice to be able to come somewhere, amongst generally like-minded people that speak the same language to discuss cycling concerns.

If this were a dedicated cycling advocacy site, with the purpose of advocating cycling to non-cyclists, you can bet I'd be the first person behind ILTB with regards to the terms and tone used by the OP. But this is a board by cyclists for cyclists, where cyclists should be comfortable using the "in" terms.

Yet again, *shrug*

I don't know what is really pinching a nerve with ILTB. Sounds like there's more than meets the eye with this, because I've seen less relevant topics posted with lots more hateful rhetoric than this one. I mean, come on. Weight issues certainly weigh in to cycling advocacy. Most cycling advocacy sites regularly cite the health benefits of cycling as a reason why it should be promoted. Surely it does no good to say, "All cagers are fatasses," but no one has come out and said that. There is even a whole report on the health benefits of cycling. This forum is probably loaded with people who either started cycling or at least spent some time on their bikes to get rid of excess weight at some point (even I tried to log more miles to get rid of 5 pounds I gained over the holidays a few years ago). Why couldn't others pick up cycling for similar reasons? In my mind it makes very little sense to spend an hour driving home, and then spending an hour at the gym for fitness. Yet, in the evening the gyms are loaded with people (my friend works in a gym). It makes more practical sense to turn one's commute into a workout to economize time. Even some runners commute to work by running, as crazy as that seems. And while, you may bicker that this has nothing to do with cycling advocacy, per se, people may pick up cycling solely for its health benefits.They certainly wouldn't mind a discussion of the said topic. And I say, if excercise is a reason cycling is good, then it definately belongs on any advocacy forum.

Or we could talk about what impacts our current societies trends towards lack of fitness, obesity, and general ill health have on our cycling environment. And how to do something about it. It has been pointed out the calling people bad names is not going to convince them to change their ways. Agreed, it's obvious. So then what?

Crap, I lost my original response to fat fingers...probably best, it was kind of long. What I wanted to say in a nutshell, and maybe I'll expand upon it after I get home tonight, is that to reverse the trend towards obesity, lack of physical fitness and unhealthy lifestyle caused by our ever sedate way of life, people need to exercise. Ok that's a no-brainer. In the context of cycling and cycling advocacy, we need to get more people riding. To achieve that, we need to show that it is not only fun, but easy and inexpensive. We need to remove the barriers to entry that have grown larger over the last 40 years by manufacturers, marketers, and yes, we the 'avid' cyclists. Seems ironic doesn't it - the very people and entities that would benefit from more people riding bicycles are the same folks who have erected barriers to entry. The two major barriers are cost (or even TOC), and the 'cool' factor. Hopefully I can summarize these in a less than epic post when I get home, but for now, I got a bike beckoning to me that it's time to ride home! :)