Now you really look to be a troll. You deride other cyclist who ride with lycra, you now claim you wear lycra, but your introduction BF post says:

:troll:

PS - Why do you always talk about time riding rather than most cyclist who refer to distance ridden?

An interesting difference I noticed about cycling in the NL is the almost total absence of road bikes, whereas in the US the opposite is true - road bikes are very common and very popular here. I don't think I ever saw one person on a road bike when I was in Amsterdam, or London, or anywhere else in Europe for that matter. Like you said, they seem to wear Lycra only for racing and professional sport. And that applies to road bikes as well. In Europe road bikes are usually seen only in the Tour de France, or in the Olympics or something like that, not for everyday use.

Road bikes are delicate machines build for speed and maneuverability. For every day use you need something comfortable, robust and allowing you to carrie a grocery bag or even a passenger sitting on the back. And also very important in NL is to have a bike nobody wants to steal, it is very common for the lock the be worth more than the bike.

We are talking two different worlds here. Most people riding a bike in the US for transportation are bike enthusiasts. In NL literally everybody owns a bike and they just choose from public transport, bike or car depending on what is most convenient given things like weather, distance and parking difficulties. In NL it is sometimes funny how there is a social pressure for having to defend yourself for not having used the bike if the distance is not too large.

Meh. I saw as many road bikes and people wearing lycra in Europe as I do in the US, including long-distance commuters. But in Europe, they're drowned out by the city bike and people wearing street clothes.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

Or ridiculously slow.

I don't get why people are so defensive by the comments in the video. The commenter comes from one of the best cities for biking in the world, and is commenting about his experience cycling in one of the worst countries for biking. So its not surprising his comments may come off as being critical (but honest) towards the US. And frankly as an American I agree with him. If he said that America was a cycling paradise then I know he would be lying and everybody would be laughing at him. :D But no he is being perfectly honest. But its like how dare you criticize the USA! You must be anti-America! We are exceptional and number one at everything! Its like if you criticize the US then you are criticizing them and they take it very personally.

That the US and Canada are two of the most autocentric countries on earth cannot be disputed, and hence these countries are not going to be very bike-friendly...no one should be surprised by that fact. Similarly, that Europe as a whole has one of the best if not the best public transportation systems in the world, cannot be argued either. Just as one cannot argue with the fact that the quality of public transportation in North America is very poor or lacking, no one can honestly argue with the fact that biking infrastructure is also very lacking in America where the priority is given to the automobile by default. The goal is to move car traffic as quickly and efficiently as possible. That is the mentality. Cyclists and pedestrians are a distant afterthought.

If people actually care about having alternative high-quality transit modes (cycling, high-speed rail, walking, etc) then these are things that the US could greatly improve upon. If people would stop being in denial about it and stop wasting time on defending the status quo, then maybe we could actually get to work as a country on improving the situation. The first step towards fixing a problem is to acknowledge and admit that we have one.

You're very funny.

Mr. Newton is only part of the picture. Mr. Carnot is the other part.

Huh? I was in the Netherlands last summer, and there were dudes in full kit on racefiets all over the place.

Here, I just dropped a Streetview guy at a random point in the center of Amsterdam. Have a look at the typical bikes that are parked here and that people use every day:
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=amste...,17.59,,1,3.27

Maybe that's because they were actually in a race? Maybe some were training to be in the Tour de France? I doubt you will see very many Dutch people commuting to work or going to the store while dressed in full spandex and racing gear.

Yeessss. And there are lots of people riding road bikes too. Fewer by far than on city bikes, but there are still plenty of them.

Most likely they were recreational road cyclists, just like in the U.S., I would think. Why is this even remotely controversial?

Here's a video of Bicycling Rush Hour in the city of Utrecht NL. Thousands of bikes passing by a very busy biking intersection, but I don't see any road bikes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-AbPav5E5M


Similarly, Bike Rush hour in Amsterdam. Don't see any road bikes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8h_DalTjV0



Road bikes aren't inherently good or bad. Why does there seem to be so few road bikes in NL? It makes sense if you think about it. If you are riding your bike every day for transportation purposes as Dutch people do then you would want a bike designed for comfort first and foremost. But if you are only weekend recreational rider or sport rider then speed is your priority and comfort not as important. Just depends on what your needs are. It doesn't make sense to ride a road bike for everyday transportation purposes. And it doesn't make sense to use a hybrid or a beach cruiser for racing in the Tour de France.

The only time I ever saw "dudes in full kit" during my many visits to NL was on a weekend leaving the town of Gouda on a training ride in a peloton formation. The number of road bikes being ridden by anyone on a work day that I ever saw anywhere in NL was about the same number as people wearing helmets, Close to none.

Most people riding a bike in the US for transportation AND who alsoparticipate in bicycle blogs or are members of bicycling organizations are probably bike enthusiasts.

The rest just ride a bike for transportation because it makes sense and fits their needs, whether they be school children, college students, delivery people, or just people going to and from work, shopping etc. I doubt if many ride "road bikes" by choice unless it was handed down to them and/or the only bike available.

I don't doubt that many avid enthusiasts in the U.S. who ride for transportation purposes as well as sport do choose "road bikes" and associated clothing for their commute.

Never mind. I forgot I was on Bike Forums, where if you simply mention that you saw some guys on road bikes, somebody (a) claim you didn't see what you saw, (b) post video proving you didn't see what you saw, and (c) give you a condescending lecture on transportational cycling.

Most laws that "require" cyclists to ride right or to use the bike lane allow cyclists to use their best judgement regarding when it is actually safe to do so,i.e., when it is practicable. There are many, many things that might make riding right or using a bike lane not practicable, to the extent that being practicable is often far less common than not being practicable. Such laws typically don't actually require cyclists to leave the lane.

You really need to read the Wikipedia article about conservative force.

"A conservative force is a force with the property that the work done in moving a particle between two points is independent of the path taken."

Your posts on the topic are non-sensical.

For commuting, I don't wear Lycra at all. It's pointless, because my commutes aren't long enough for there to be any benefit, and cycling shorts are far less convenient once I'm at my destination. When I do wear Lycra, I wear baggy mountain biking shorts, in large part to avoid looking like a "cyclist."

The benefit of cycling shorts is increased comfort after a long time in the saddle. The distance at which they become beneficial depends on speed, which depends on with whom I'm riding. It could be anywhere from 20-40 miles, but the time in saddle is about the same, no matter the speed.

It absolutely does. Especially in drier areas.

Just the idea of riding a 'Dutch bike' everywhere makes my bones ache.

I'd suggest that when you saw in NL "dudes in full kit on racefiets all over the place" you forgot that you were at some competition or special event; or you were seeing something so unusual for typical daily cycling activities in NL that you forgot to note that pigs were flying by at the same.

Do you happen to have any pictures that show the context of the "dudes in full kit on racefiets all over the place" in NL.

I feel the same way about riding with drop handlebars in traffic. Makes my neck, shoulders, arms and wrists ache.

Fair point, but wholly irrelevant with respect to why total elevation climbed is a meaningless statistic.

It does, however, help to explain why weather plays such a huge role in the perception of difficulty of a ride. Hills that can be very difficult to climb at 3 p.m. on a hot, humid summer day might not be any challenge at all at 3 a.m., when it might be 20 degrees cooler.

In the US, I see two kinds of people who ride bikes (by choice) for transportation. There are bicycle commuters, and there are recreational riders who have traded their commute for a training ride. The former group tend to wear street clothes and ride practical, comfortable bikes, while the latter group wear their recreational cycling kit and ride bikes that members of the former group would mostly find impractical for commuting.

(d) Construct a conspiracy theory to dismiss what you saw.

(e) Demand documentary proof of whatever you saw, no matter how mundane the observation. ("Do you have a picture of the sun rising this morning?")