I don't get why commuters need to defend themselves in a commuting specific forum.

Surely there are all kinds on commuters on here. Some coming from the countryside into small towns to work. Some from suburbs or urban areas going downtown. Some travel a mile or two--others go for 20 miles each way, and some deal with several hundred feet in elevation changes. Some are in dry areas and some in greenbelts.

But the modest commutes by the typical commuter over much of the North America and Europe warrants a commuter specific bike, with fenders, kickstand, a rack, bell, and lights. That stuff, at a minimum, is needed if one wants to commute year round (unless you're in Death Valley or the Great Victoria Desert). Also, for the normal commuts of less than 10 miles, there's little reason for drops. You'll save a few minutes but lose the heads up vantage point needed for safe city riding.

I know many riders go for long jaunts and take their road or cyclecross bikes. Yeah, they go faster. Does that exerience, which you'd never do on a commuter style bike, jade you so much that you'd never ride on an upright bike with fenders? Does it make you think that such commuters are misguided? Just why would you say that bikes made for that purpose are "limited" or "narrow minded?"

We know there's a roadie bent that's been going on here for a long time. But can't you see that there's real reason for commuter specific bikes? I testify that I use every feature on my Breezer. How can it be that such bikes are narrow minded?