Originally Posted by
randya
wrong, the writer is assuming that 'avid' is a designation cyclists use to describe themselves
Originally Posted by Michael Druker
Make a mental count of how often you’ve seen news reports or commentary refer to “avid cyclists”, and the number of times you might have used this term yourself....In other words, labelling those who willingly cycle as “avid cyclists” is a way of setting aside the difficult and interesting problem of how to make our cities conducive to cycling — in favor of the easy story of cycling as something “other”, as something done by people who aren’t normal.[/url]
He says both. But he is incorrect that the media uses the term "avid cyclist" more than just "cyclist". And, amongst the commuters and utility cyclists that I know, nobody uses the term "avid cyclist". I don't hang out with recreational cyclists, and I won't pretend to know what the majority of cyclists refer themselves as.
Originally Posted by Michael Druker
I claim that in most North American cities, while you will find many people riding a bicycle for utility/transportation, most people who cycle are hardly avid.
And here he is correct, except that he assumes that most of these people are being identified as "avid cyclists". His argument that the term "avid cyclist" is harmful to bicycle infrastructure hinges upon the fact that society views everyone on a bike as avid, thereby alienating cycling from the general populace. But I don't think that society views every biker as such, and I'm pretty sure that Mr. Druker is making an issue out of nothing. Who cares if people self identify as avid cyclists? If someone is dedicated to a sport, then they are, by the definition of the word, avid.
This thread is the antithesis of the "What defines a cyclist?" thread. Except that they're both fairly pointless.