Advocacy & Safety - Pob.

From time to time in various threads we discuss newbies or Persons on Bikes verses Cyclists.

Now while it may sound elitist to separate the terms... in reality there is a difference between a cyclist and a POB. Much of it comes down to the learned skills of how to deal with traffic and how to use a bike.

Here is a little blog from Dave Moulton who writes about POBs.

http://davesbikeblog.blogspot.com/2007/10/cyclists-and-pobs.html

It is worth reading and discusses some of the fundamental differences between cyclists and Persons on Bikes.

The blog is about 98% correct in its distinctions. The only real mistake is his statement that "POBs are getting killed [by cars], not cyclists." More POBs than cyclists get killed, but too many cyclists are also getting killed.

What a load of arrogant nonsense!

There are all kinds of groups of bicyclists who think they're better than other bicyclists. Nothing changes.

Dave Moulton: "These are a splinter group known as APOBs. The “A” is for Anarchist, Arrogant, or *******, pick any one."

Obviously, I'm no better than Dave Moulton's when I sink to his level of name-calling by noting that there is obviously another splinter group: SOBs, Snobs On Bicycles.

Sadly, there are competing groups of SOBs. I have often noted that cyclists are the most disparate group I've ever been associatated with.

Dave Moulton: "I get tired of my reputation being tarnished by another group who should not even be categorized as cyclists."

Tough cookies, dude. Deal with it.

I take it that Moulton considers himself a real cyclist.

Bully for him!

Can I be the first to sign up as a Vehicular POB? ;)

I'm a utilitarian velocipeder

What a load of arrogant nonsense!

There are all kinds of groups of bicyclists who think they're better than other bicyclists. Nothing changes.

Dave Moulton: "These are a splinter group known as APOBs. The “A” is for Anarchist, Arrogant, or *******, pick any one."

Obviously, I'm no better than Dave Moulton's when I sink to his level of name-calling by noting that there is obviously another splinter group: SOBs, Snobs On Bicycles.

Sadly, there are competing groups of SOBs. I have often noted that cyclists are the most disparate group I've ever been associatated with.

Dave Moulton: "I get tired of my reputation being tarnished by another group who should not even be categorized as cyclists."

Tough cookies, dude. Deal with it.

I take it that Moulton considers himself a real cyclist.

Bully for him!

+1

Everyone who rides a bike is a cyclist. That's what the word "cyclist" means, notwithstanding the attempts of a few elitists to try and reserve the word for only people who ride like they do. Other cyclists may be bad cyclists, or dangerous cyclists, or poor cyclists - but they are still cyclists.

pure semantics from someone who should know better. now how much bandwidth can we waste parsing it out 12 ways 'til sundown?

:lol:

:rolleyes:

What a load of arrogant nonsense!

There are all kinds of groups of bicyclists who think they're better than other bicyclists. Nothing changes.

Dave Moulton: "These are a splinter group known as APOBs. The “A” is for Anarchist, Arrogant, or *******, pick any one."

Obviously, I'm no better than Dave Moulton's when I sink to his level of name-calling by noting that there is obviously another splinter group: SOBs, Snobs On Bicycles.

Sadly, there are competing groups of SOBs. I have often noted that cyclists are the most disparate group I've ever been associatated with.

Dave Moulton: "I get tired of my reputation being tarnished by another group who should not even be categorized as cyclists."

Tough cookies, dude. Deal with it.

I take it that Moulton considers himself a real cyclist.

Bully for him!

I think what he is really saying is that all that finger pointing by motorists is often due to POBs setting examples that regular cyclists would probably never do... of course, in that same breath... it is the regular cyclists that I see often running the red lights... not the sidewalk cruising POBs.

pure semantics from someone who should know better. now how much bandwidth can we waste parsing it out 12 ways 'til sundown?

:lol:

:rolleyes:

Should I just invoke some Nazi reference and kill the thread now... :D

Oh wait, I think I did.

Sssssssssssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhiiinnnnnnnnnnggggggggggg!!!

That's the sound of my sword sliding out of its scabbard in preparation for me cutting through the accumulated B.S....

A cyclist is a person who rides because they choose to, to follow a passion; a POB is a person who rides because they must -- they have no other alternative.

I still think it's fair to point out that there is a learning curve for any new vehicle. Does anyone doubt that teenage drivers get in more accidents? People take kayaking classes, and skydiving lessons, but seem to think it's elitist to suggest the same for cyclists, or if not a course at least some time on the road. I don't claim to be a "real" cyclist, but I do claim to be more way more experienced than about 90% of the riders who cross my path on my daily commute.

Moulton wrote: "Sadly, statistics show that when a bicycle rider is killed on the road, it is often the victim’s fault. Running red lights, riding against traffic, or suddenly entering a road without warning in front of an oncoming car. This gives a false impression that cycling is dangerous. It is POBs that are getting killed, not cyclists."

Moulton's statement above is misleading but very typical. Like many bicyclists, er cyclists, whatever, he seems to harbor a deep need for his particular type of cycling, lawful cycling, to be defined as 'safe,' and seems to want to will it to be so by invoking statistics that he doesn't seem entirely familiar with. If bicyclists are out there getting killed and injured, it must be that Other Guy. Maybe the great psychoanalyst J. Forester could tell us what makes so many bicyclists devour this wish sandwich. Usually it is a rider much less experienced than Moulton who we find verbalizing this brand of wishful thinking.

It's true as M. says that 'when a bicycle rider is killed on the road, it's often the victim's fault.' But when an adult bicyclist -- a group that includes all those horrible lawbreaking anarcho-POBs -- is killed, it is most likely to occur when the bicyclist is behaving lawfully, not while swerving like a mad anarchist. Not while going through a red light; while going through a green one. Etc.

Lawful cycling does not equal 'safe' cycling. No matter how badly we wish or need it to be true. People like Moulton will have to recognize this reality before they can deal with it. It's very important. The path to actual safe cycling goes through truth. There are no alternate routes or shortcuts.

My unsolicited recommendation to Moulton and other judgmental cyclists is to worry about yourself, and let the Other Guy worry about himself.

Robert

It's true as M. says that 'when a bicycle rider is killed on the road, it's often the victim's fault.'

are you sure you really mean this?

by most statistical analyses, pedal cyclists are 'at fault' in at best half of all injury accidents and fatalities, by most counts it runs about 60% motorist at fault, 40% cyclist at fault. and what about all those perhaps less skilled cyclists who unwittingly succumb when they are led down (shall we say) a primrose path by dangerous bike lane designs, like Tracy Sparling in Portland, Oregon, Oct 2007?

are you sure you really mean this?

Yes I really mean this. But I don't think you bothered to read the rest of what I wrote. Which was, concerning adult cyclists injured or killed in car-bike collision, they are more likely to be obeying the law than breaking it when the collision occurs -- the driver is more likely to be found at fault.


by most statistical analyses, pedal cyclists are 'at fault' in at best half of all injury accidents and fatalities, by most counts it runs about 60% motorist at fault, 40% cyclist at fault.

When people want to show that cycling is particularly dangerous for scofflaws and not for good law-abiding powdered wig-wearing citizens like themselves, they include kid-cyclists in the count. When kids are taken out the inconvenient reality is more like you say above.


...and what about all those perhaps less skilled cyclists who unwittingly succumb when they are led down (shall we say) a primrose path by dangerous bike lane designs, like Tracy Sparling in Portland, Oregon, Oct 2007?

I'm with you on the general lameness of Portland's downtown bike lanes, but we can't really say for sure that the bike lanes led her down that path, especially considering that the truck was sitting at the light with its hazards flashing for over a minute before it moved. Consider that there were probably multiple factors leading to this or any fatality.

Robert

I would be happy if we could just get people to use the term cyclist and reserve biker for people riding motorcycles.

Here is a little blog from Dave Moulton who writes about POBs.

It is worth reading ...

No it isn't. Unless the reader likes to read silly BSing from an arrogant SOB.

No it isn't. Unless the reader likes to read silly BSing from an arrogant SOB.

There was a time when I used to come on this forum and contribute on a regular basis, but it was exactly this type of comment that stopped me doing that.

The POB article is not about elitism, it is about safety. It is also about obeying the rules of the road. The biggest complaint that drivers of automobiles levy against us is that we run red lights and stop signs, ride the wrong way one-way streets, etc. etc.

We all know that motorists break the law too, but pointing the finger at them does little good as there is more of them than us. When you are a minority, you tend to be labeled by the worst in a group.

Here is some more silly BSing:

Watchdogging Blogging. (http://davesbikeblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/watchdogging-blogging.html)

Watchdogging Follow-up. (http://davesbikeblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/watchdogging-follow-up.html)

Dave Moulton, Ex-framebuilder and arrogant SOB.

I make the distinction between those who know how to ride a bicycle vs. those who know how to drive one.

The POB article is not about elitism, it is about safety. It is also about obeying the rules of the road. The biggest complaint that drivers of automobiles levy against us is that we run red lights and stop signs, ride the wrong way one-way streets, etc. etc. ...

That is how I read it, as well.

The one time I was struck by a motor vehicle, I was cycling lawfully, and the motorist violated my right-of-way and readily admitted guilt, with the default "I didn't see him" cover story. The experience has put me at odds with the folks who say we should focus strictly on improving cyclist/POB behavior (which, of course we should), without getting "distracted" by trying to make motorists more accountable for their actions or trying to make traffic engineers more bicycle- and pedestrian-conscious. As in many other social situations, we need a multi-pronged approach.

I see plenty of 'real cyclists' running stop signs and occassionally red lights as well. Safety is not about blind obedience to traffic control devices designed for motor vehicles.

Robert - Great replys. I could not agree more. I love "wish sandwich." I can't wait to plaigiarize that one.

And contrary to Moulton's post, I think the majority of this thread contains thoughtful, polite (and sometimes funny) arguments. Notice I said thread.

There was a time when I used to come on this forum and contribute on a regular basis, but it was exactly this type of comment that stopped me doing that.

The POB article is not about elitism, it is about safety. It is also about obeying the rules of the road. The biggest complaint that drivers of automobiles levy against us is that we run red lights and stop signs, ride the wrong way one-way streets, etc. etc.

We all know that motorists break the law too, but pointing the finger at them does little good as there is more of them than us. When you are a minority, you tend to be labeled by the worst in a group.
[...]


It seems to me that motorists complain at least as much about 'cyclists' 'blocking the roads' as they do about 'POBs' running lights and stopsigns. I believe a good citizen 'cyclist' who follows the law but delays a motorist will generally cause much more bleeting and complaining than the anarchist who travels independent of the traffic code and delays nobody. So we need to be careful about using motorist complaints as a reason to change cyclist behavior.

As for the safety issue, there are as many or more adult 'cyclists' getting hit while following the law as there are adult anarchists getting hit while breaking it. So the least we can say about the safety issue with respect to law-following or law-breaking is that it is muddled and unclear, and possibly complex.

I too wish cyclists would reign themselves in with respect to the rampant law-breaking. I have often said that the only people who should be attempting to ride like messengers are the actual working messengers and then only because they generally have to in order to complete their required tasks. But I won't hold my breath. For many reasons, cultural and physical, the bicycle lends itself to that kind of riding. Wagging fingers isn't going to change it. As the cycling population enters its growth explosion we are going to see a great deal more anarchic cycling, imo.

I personally am much more embarassed by the noticeable uptick in clumsy, unsmooth and rickety cycling than I am by scofflaw cycling. It is possible to bust a light or carve a traffic jam in a way that is elegant, smooth and even pretty, as well as safe. When I see that guy on a too-tall fixed wheel conversion, struggling and straining to slow his rig, wobbling all over the place and completely at odds with his machine, overreacting to traffic and peds due to bad awareness, swerving and lurching and infecting everybody with his lurchiness, smashing into potholes, it's not the bare fact that he ran the light that makes me cringe. There is a right way and a wrong way to do it.

Robert

The blog post is an exercise in semantics. How ever you look at it there are people who know how to ride a bike and those who don't.

As the cycling population enters its growth explosion we are going to see a great deal more anarchic cycling, imo.I think that's true, but I think it's because trend-setters set that example, and new cyclists who admire and look to them for cues follow, your elegant traffic-carving messenger archetype being one example.

I think what he is really saying is that all that finger pointing by motorists is often due to POBs setting examples that regular cyclists would probably never do... of course, in that same breath... it is the regular cyclists that I see often running the red lights... not the sidewalk cruising POBs.

Flip it. All the finger pointing we as bike riders do to those who drive cars, the majority of whom are happy to coexist.

to further confound this thread, i would like to include rtms' definition of a cyclist:

1) someone who rides a bike even when he or she does not have to.
2) someone who owns a floor pump.

the full article is at: http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2008/04/mused-and-confused-pondering-nature-of.html

read it and discuss.

Labels.
I'm a guy riding a bike, obeying the rules of the road except when I'm not.

"cyclists" are guys that take themselves way too seriously and agonize over stuff.

I think that's true, but I think it's because trend-setters set that example, and new cyclists who admire and look to them for cues follow, your elegant traffic-carving messenger archetype being one example.

I strongly believe that each individual is responsible for his or her own behavior. Don't blame the messenger.

The freedom of the bicycle comes with a great deal of responsibility. If you take all the freedom, you take all the responsibility too. This has very serious implications which those seeking to emulate messengers' riding styles probably don't recognize.

In any case, these days the ratio of messengers to messenger-looking riders is very small. This is at once evidence of the working messengers' influence in the past, and lack of influence in the future.

I strongly believe that each individual is responsible for his or her own behavior. Don't blame the messenger.I think it would be ludicrous to say that messengers should now be acting as responsible role models, just because trend-followers look to them for everything from style cues to riding cues. There may be valid reasons for messengers to be mindful of the traffic laws, but that's not one of them.


The freedom of the bicycle comes with a great deal of responsibility. If you take all the freedom, you take all the responsibility too. This has very serious implications which those seeking to emulate messengers' riding styles probably don't recognize.

In any case, these days the ratio of messengers to messenger-looking riders is very small. This is at once evidence of the working messengers' influence in the past, and lack of influence in the future.Well said.

Flip it. All the finger pointing we as bike riders do to those who drive cars, the majority of whom are happy to coexist.

Blimey dobber, be careful, you realise that actually makes sense? ;)

Besides the rest of the world* sees anyone on a bicycle as a cyclist.



*those other than eedjits like us who spend time debating who might be a cyclist or not, despite their operation of a bicycle.

[QUOTE=Ed Holland;6960448]Besides the rest of the world* sees anyone on a bicycle as a cyclist.
[QUOTE]


Exactly. That is why, as a cyclist who drives his vehicle in a lawful, respectful, courteous manner (at least mostly) resents those asstards who do so in the opposet manner and thereby gives the whole 'velodumbre' (as our Spanish-speaking friends might put it) a bad repuation in the larger community.

^^ good for a laff at least

:lol:

There was a time when I used to come on this forum and contribute on a regular basis, but it was exactly this type of comment that stopped me doing that.

The POB article is not about elitism, it is about safety. It is also about obeying the rules of the road. The biggest complaint that drivers of automobiles levy against us is that we run red lights and stop signs, ride the wrong way one-way streets, etc. etc.


That is why, as a cyclist who drives his vehicle in a lawful, respectful, courteous manner (at least mostly) resents those asstards who do so in the opposet manner and thereby gives the whole 'velodumbre' (as our Spanish-speaking friends might put it) a bad repuation in the larger community.


^^ good for a laff at least

:lol:
Laughable is the right word! Self appointed Safe Cycling Nannys smugly whining :cry: about the ill effects of the OtherCyclists™ who don't fit their own narrowly defined profile of a "Lawful," "Courteous," Respectful," RealSerious™ Cyclist. :roflmao2:
I would recommend that any poster who wants people to read only what they are thinking, instead of what they have actually written, (or made clear is satire or sarcasm) stick to blogs where only their approved version of Conventional Wisdom about Cycling is discussed, understood or permitted.

http://www.australiancyclist.com.au/uploads/Image/Australian%20Cyclist%20-%20Nov-Dec%202007/13%20-%20News%20-%207th%20Annual%20Bicycle%20Film%20Festival.jpg

Real cyclist.

^^^^^this!

Laughable is the right word! Self appointed Safe Cycling Nannys smugly whining :cry: about the ill effects of the OtherCyclists™ who don't fit their own narrowly defined profile of a "Lawful," "Courteous," Respectful," RealSerious™ Cyclist. :roflmao2:
I would recommend that any poster who wants people to read only what they are thinking, instead of what they have actually written, (or made clear is satire or sarcasm) stick to blogs where only their approved version of Conventional Wisdom about Cycling is discussed, understood or permitted.

The defintion of "lawful" is not those of the "self appointed Save Cycling Nannys but that of the duly elected legislators of the state and the duly elected members of our city councils and county commissions. It is the duty of every citizen to obey the law; that is the basis of civil society. Without that basic duty, we are reduced to the 'state of nature', in which (as a clever old Scot reminds us) life is "nasty, poor, brutish, and short."

If you don't like the cycling laws, petition your elected representitives to change them; or, even better, run for office yourself. In the mean time, as a citizen it is your duty to obey the law.

http://www.australiancyclist.com.au/uploads/Image/Australian%20Cyclist%20-%20Nov-Dec%202007/13%20-%20News%20-%207th%20Annual%20Bicycle%20Film%20Festival.jpg

Real cyclist.

Real mature.

Most don't live on a remote island or on some mountain peak where we never have to interact with people. Most of us live in society, which requires that we accomodate one another. Ever heard of the Golden Rule, that ethical principle which almost every moral/religious/philosophical system (Confucianism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoisim, Zoroastrianism, Islam, Judiasim, and Christianity to name only a few)---"Do unto others as you wuld have others do unto you." ?

The picture in your post harly exemplifies that principle---unless you really want others to treat you like that? Do you really want to live in the Hobbsean State of Nature? Read Golding's Lor of the Flies or Conrad's Heart of Darkness to see what happens to us when we strip away the veneer of civilization.

Self appointed Safe Cycling Nannys

Excuse me, but aren’t most “experts” self appointed; I can’t think of too many elected ones. People write books, or become consultants in their field of expertise. Usually their experience is their credential.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with my POV, but I object to immature name-calling. (This thread is discussing an article I wrote.) I post here under my own name, and the article is in my name so I take it personally.

The defintion of "lawful" is not those of the "self appointed Save Cycling Nannys but that of the duly elected legislators of the state and the duly elected members of our city councils and county commissions. It is the duty of every citizen to obey the law; that is the basis of civil society. Without that basic duty, we are reduced to the 'state of nature', in which (as a clever old Scot reminds us) life is "nasty, poor, brutish, and short."

If you don't like the cycling laws, petition your elected representitives to change them; or, even better, run for office yourself. In the mean time, as a citizen it is your duty to obey the law.
1. I see that you actually believe 'the law' has served us well and been extremely successful in avoiding unnecessary conflict in so many aspects of our public and private lives :rolleyes:

2. I also see that you have very little faith in the ability of people to understand personal boundaries, to understand the difference between safe and unsafe behaviour, and to act accordingly, regardless of 'the law'

3. You place way too much faith in the ability of the minority to convince the majority to act on behalf of the minority

4. you should spend a bit of time looking up and understanding the true definition of anarchy

Excuse me, but aren’t most “experts” self appointed; I can’t think of too many elected ones. People write books, or become consultants in their field of expertise. Usually their experience is their credential.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with my POV, but I object to immature name-calling. (This thread is discussing an article I wrote.) I post here under my own name, and the article is in my name so I take it personally.

Well good for you Dave. It is you, Dave, not I, who equates the phrase "self appointed Safety Nanny" and the rants of same as being an "expert" and/or consultant giving "expert" advice in their field of expertise. In this case, the field apparently is hectoring and badgering the Other Cyclists who don't share your "credentials" for Cycling Correctness.

Real mature.

Most don't live on a remote island or on some mountain peak where we never have to interact with people. Most of us live in society, which requires that we accomodate one another. Ever heard of the Golden Rule, that ethical principle which almost every moral/religious/philosophical system (Confucianism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoisim, Zoroastrianism, Islam, Judiasim, and Christianity to name only a few)---"Do unto others as you wuld have others do unto you." ?

The picture in your post harly exemplifies that principle---unless you really want others to treat you like that? Do you really want to live in the Hobbsean State of Nature? Read Golding's Lor of the Flies or Conrad's Heart of Darkness to see what happens to us when we strip away the veneer of civilization.

Lighten up Francis :rolleyes: It's a still from a movie in a bicycle film festival.
Nice reading list, you also might want to look up slippery slope.
I especially love that you brought up Zoroastrianism, you also might want to look up sense of humor or check with any of your friends to see if you actually have one.:love:

you should spend a bit of time looking up and understanding the true definition of anarchy

Anarchy, from the Greek, "an-" not + "arche", rule or authority. An absence of rule, law, or authority. Chaos, lawlessness, disorder; lack of law, lack of restraint.

We saw anarchy in New Orleans after Katrina. We saw and still see it in Iraq and Afghanistan after our illegal invasions. We see it in Somalia. As the Book of Judges puts it, "In those days there was no King in Israel and each man did what was right in his own eyes."

Oh, yes, there are pseudopholosophies that try to dress it up, but that is what anarchy is--each individual for him-/herself and Devil take the hindmost.

There was a time when I used to come on this forum and contribute on a regular basis, but it was exactly this type of comment that stopped me doing that.

The POB article is not about elitism, it is about safety. It is also about obeying the rules of the road. The biggest complaint that drivers of automobiles levy against us is that we run red lights and stop signs, ride the wrong way one-way streets, etc. etc.

We all know that motorists break the law too, but pointing the finger at them does little good as there is more of them than us. When you are a minority, you tend to be labeled by the worst in a group.

Here is some more silly BSing:

Watchdogging Blogging. (http://davesbikeblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/watchdogging-blogging.html)

Watchdogging Follow-up. (http://davesbikeblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/watchdogging-follow-up.html)

Dave Moulton, Ex-framebuilder and arrogant SOB.

Dave, there are idiots operating all types of vehicles. We don't make the distinction between "Drivers" and "Persons in Cars" or "Pedestrians" and "People on Foot" do we? Categorizing cyclists serves no good purpose other than to make self-described "Serious Cyclists" feel superior to grandma toodling down the sidewalk. How bout we just call idiots, idiots?

Putting the admin hat on here...

Now that we know the author of this blog post is a member of Bike Forums, it's time to drop the personal insults. Chip demonstrates that it's entirely possible to disagree with the article without descending into name-calling. I'm impressed. :)

Real cyclist.

<humor>

No helmet! :eek:
No brakes! :eek:
Only one hand on the bars! :eek:
Unsuitable cycling attire! :eek:
Riding too far right! :eek:
Gaps between foam bar grips! :eek:
Stem too tall in steerer tube! :eek:
Unsafe cruiser bars! :eek:
Non-regulation hand gestures! :eek:

This said, we conclude that this is imitation of a genuine Real Cyclist™. A genuine Real Cyclist™ will show evidence of the aforementioned Real Cyclist Gear™ hallmarks described above. Real Cyclists™ will also have their center finger painted in Real Reflective™ paint, and have read Real Effective Cycling™ by John Forester™ (really!).

Additionally, this cyclist is in copyright infringement of our Real Fred™ line, by virtue of holding a Real Straight Line™ and setting their saddle at Real Height™.

However, we would like to add this individual to our new Real Poseur™ lineup, for having the Real Nerve™ to express Real Dislike™ towards another Real Road User™, thereby making them a Real Jerk™©®

</humor>

-Kurt

Anarchy, from the Greek, "an-" not + "arche", rule or authority. An absence of rule, law, or authority. Chaos, lawlessness, disorder; lack of law, lack of restraint.

We saw anarchy in New Orleans after Katrina. We saw and still see it in Iraq and Afghanistan after our illegal invasions. We see it in Somalia. As the Book of Judges puts it, "In those days there was no King in Israel and each man did what was right in his own eyes."

Oh, yes, there are pseudopholosophies that try to dress it up, but that is what anarchy is--each individual for him-/herself and Devil take the hindmost.

Fail

No helmet! :eek:
...

And worst of all; an XMart bicycle!! :eek::eek:

No RealSeriousCyclist™ would ever display such incompetence!!! :eek: :eek: :eek:

She needs to get herself quickly to an LBS and buy a RealBike with a RealSerious HeadTube Badge and RealSeriousBrandName Components and Labels.

And worst of all; an XMart bicycle!! :eek::eek:

Not exactly - it is a Real Fred™ Columbia middleweight from the mid '60s. Columbia is a well-known name amongst Real Freds™ and Real Commuters™ , as their 3-speeds make good Real Grocery Bikes™ . Of course, they are probably one of the most susceptible American bikes to Real Frame Whippiness™ , and therefore, are not really suited for Real Commuters™ . However, Columbias are ideal for Real C&V'ers™ .

-Kurt

And worst of all; an XMart bicycle!! :eek::eek:

No RealSeriousCyclist™ would ever display such incompetence!!! :eek: :eek: :eek:

She needs to get herself quickly to an LBS and buy a RealBike with a RealSerious HeadTube Badge and RealSeriousBrandName Components and Labels.

Actually I just thought she looked kind of cute in a Kick @ss, smart college girl, cyclist kind of way.