Since road travel is a social activity - often the most social activity some people engage in - vehicle choice has become equivalent to clothing choice. If the clothes make the man, so does the vehicle.

Clothing is a display behavior. People may dress for a position of power, for utility, or for sport. Some American bike commuters choose to dress more for sport, choosing spandex and racing bikes, and using their commutes as workouts, partly to avoid the social status implications of dressing for basic utility.

What is wrong with dressing for utility? Nothing at all. Pedaling a utility bike in casual clothing can be a practical way to get around even in the USA. But it doesn't convey the message of strength - i.e. fitness as a mate, like most animal display behaviors - that conspicuous consumption or athletic demonstrations provide.

I wonder if our culture will evolve to view conspicuous consumption as a weakness and conservationism, frugality, and restraint as strengths? These latter traits are good for society, and thus should be considered virtuous. But as good as self denial and self sacrifice is for society overall, it is potentially bad for the self, and in turn a potential liability for the immediate offspring. It therefore requires longer term thinking to view utility cycling as sexy. Most people have shorter attention spans.