I finally read the study this thread is based on. It's pure garbage, scientifically speaking. Actually, it isn't even a scientific study at all. It's a description of "four thypes" of cyclists that the authors just dreamed up. They also dreamed up the percentages of riders whomn they claim belong to each category of cyclist. There was no effort to poll or survey cyclists and no comparisons were done. There was a lot of gobbledy-gook claiming that the imaginary categories and made up numbers were "vetted" by experts in "the field."

I could probably make up something just as bad in a few hours, and get some organization to pay me a lot of money for it, as long as my phony numbers said what the organization wanted them to say.