Originally Posted by
noteon
Where do you get this idea?
Renegade clothes and shiny spandex aren't worn by grownups. Adults wear them, sure, but not "grownups", who will, because of their job, wear slacks, a nice shirt, and a coat, probably with the tie stashed in a pocket.
Yes, but the people I know who ride to work aren't zealots, any of us, and we're all happy to talk to other people about just being "someone who rides to work." Which is what we all are.
Bracketing the article with little jabs at anybody who doesn't dress like the little boy in the photo is patronizing. It's the first and last word. This is not accidental; it's a conscious editorial decision.
How much does it matter? I dunno--not enough to get me upset, but certainly enough to point and say "What a patronizing article."
It also occurs to me that the recommended clothing is only good for about six weeks out of the year in New York City. So it's not as though anybody at the Times fashion desk cares much about really commuting by bike.
There we go again, recommending a whole new set of gear to go riding. Well, unless you mean that specific outfit, in which case other, non-cycling-specific clothes will still do fine for the rest of the year.
Like Schwinnsta posted, though, it's a bike-positive article overall, pointing out an option for people who don't want to have to wear zip pants and a highway worker vest just to ride to the shops.