Patronizing how?

IIRC, contemporary fixie culture are dominated by fashion, too. It's probably the overall growth driver behind it right now.

Btw, don't knock chain guards until you tried them! They are the next best thing since fenders!

I do agree prices need to come down, but the good ones aren't exactly cheap in the EU. Couple with taxes and import duties, the US prices are pretty comparable if not with a small markup compared to EU prices. A 500 euro bike is about $650 in the US without taxes. I paid about $750 for my Batavus, a far cry from what the others were asking($1500+ for Azor and Pashleys).

That is not what your first post said ;). So my original point is still valid. You don't need to take the wheel off when all you have is a flat
Duppie

ha ha, he has had to take the thing off 3 times now that I know of. His sister is my boss at work!

That's our fault, really. Some newbie will come here and say, "I want to start commuting by bike -- what do I need?", and we tell him to get wicking underwear (even if it's bike shorts), cold-weather tights, a high-vis jacket AND vest, fifteen lights, a trailer, and do it all with a full carbon TT bike with electronic Dura-Ace.

Well, we usually don't recommend that bike.. ;) .. but my point is, the "norm" among a lot of cyclists is that a bike commuter is obviously a Bike Commuter and is visible from low Earth orbit.

I posted a pic in a recent thread of a hypothetical bike build from a Dutch (I think) manufacturer's build-a-bike site. I went into it thinking of all the stuff I'd want in a utility bike -- step-thru frame, fenders, disc brakes, dynohub and lights, internal gear hub, rear rack, etc. It looked a LOT like a stereotypical Dutch bike. The sucker was somewhere over 2500 Euros; sure would be nice to get that cheaper (although the Rohloff hub launched the price a bit.. :D).

And, yeah, I don't think the article is patronizing, either. It's an accurate summation of what most people -- cyclists and not -- think of cycling around town.

I think these two statements, which bracket the article, are quite patronizing:

"Can the urban cyclist, he of the ragtag renegade clothes or shiny spandex, grow up and put on a tie?"

"You feel safer, more composed and, well, more grown-up. The rambunctious 8-year-old inside so many bikers doesn’t get traction."

This one's also a stereotype, and untrue in my experience:

"the discourse about city biking is dominated by cycling zealots who don’t have the desire, or the skill, to attract people who don’t see themselves as cyclists, just as people who ride a bike to work."

I know it's a fashion article, and really only intended for single people with disposable incomes, insecure self-images, and lots of time on their hands, who live in Chelsea and work near Madison Square, but that's not most of us.

"Ragtag renegade clothes" and shiny spandex are not worn by grownups. So many cyclists seem obsessed with speed and efficiency -- just what 8-year-olds enjoy.

Many of the cycling zealots we see getting airtime look like they've got bats in the belfry, too. Certainly not "normal", certainly not just another person who happens to ride a lot.

Where do you get this idea?

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.

The article pretty much missed the already large contingent of immigrants that commute on bike, don't spend all day on bike forums, don't wear any special bike clothes, and care for their bikes just like we do. It was written for a very specific audience.

As pictured in the photo.

I respect the NYT but their attitude towards urban cycling seems to be that it's all done at less than 10 mph in a bike lane. That or you're a racer or messenger. Some of us are just urban cyclists who want a lightweight bike we can keep up with motor vehicle traffic at the 15 - 25 mph that city traffic moves at.

I'm not even going to comment on the helmet stuff in that article.

Dutch Bikes in Seattle is about a mile from my apartment and I know a guy that works there. Gorgeous stuff, but not my thing at all. Riding one of those feels like I'm in an armchair with pedals. Give me my beat up racer-ish road bike any day.

Dutch style bikes work for the Dutch. In a flat, packed urban area's with lots of stop and go, uprights make sense. What is the best bike type, depends on you and on your commute. I liked that report overall was plus for advocating bike use.

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.

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.

Btw, these bikes are NOT designed to go more than 15-20 mph. You can try and it's a good exercise, but these bicycles are ideal for 15mph or less.

For some people, that's more than enough and that's okay.

True, and besides, even 10 mph is a heck of a lot faster than walking.

Well said.

Nobody is addressing the most important issue:

Can you install Aerospokes?

That's such a narrow view, I don't even know what to do with it.

Yes.

I also wear a whole new set of gear when I go out on the town.

A different set for work.

A different set for the beach.

A different set to friend's house.

A different set to a meeting.

If I wear my work clothes on my bike commute, the chances are good that they'll be drenched with either rain or sweat 10 months out of the year, and that they'll get chain lube or tire dirt on them 12 months out of the year. Because I'm a grownup, with a grownup job, I do what prevents that. Your objection to my wearing cycling clothes while cycling, and work clothes while working, would be what, exactly? That I'm a conformist?

Yeah, that's me. The only bike commuter in the entire company is a conformist.

It's a bike-neutral article overall. It's not about bikes. It's about accessorizing your yellow doofus shirt and your stupid-expensive shoes with something Dutch.

So a "grownup" is someone who dresses a particular way? That makes sense.

Read again what my man wrote -- there's no suggestion of any sort. Wearing a suit (or whatever a "grownup" wears?) on a bike in NYC is only going to be comfortable for a few weeks in the Spring and Fall.

I don't get it, who is saying that someone has to dress a certain way to ride a bike? (other than the NYT article harhar) The article is not what I would call "bike positive". It's written very-much in an us vs. them (err, we vs. they) manner, as if the manly-be-like-Lance-men and impractical-fixie-riding-cult-members don't exist or don't ride genteel publications such as the NYT. Furthermore, the idea that nobody in NYC rides in non-hipster-or-racer clothing is absurd. Flat-out crappy reporting, flying in the face of reality, if you look at it that way. How is that bike positive?

I did suggest it in my subsequent post, so I'm willing to go with the initially unfounded accusation.

BarracksSi, what would you suggest I do if I need to look like a grownup at work and it's raining, or sleeting, or snowing, or 95% humid outside? Or if it's a month during which those conditions are likely, and the weather report is often wrong? Those are the likely conditions during a good chunk of the year in NYC.

The simplest, most obvious answer is "Wear different clothes on the commute."

Do you have some issue with my choosing bike-specific clothes? In the conditions I described, they're vastly more comfortable and weather-appropriate than briefs, jeans, and a polo shirt and jacket.

This will be true for most people who subscribe to the New York Times.

Getting back to the Dutch style bikes themselves. I note that the Commuter Bike Store lists Breezer step through frame 3 speed European style commuter bikes starting at $549. No need to spend $1000 to $2000 or so for a Dutch style commuter bike. Even the most expensive version of the Breezer with full chaincase, generator lights, Shimano Nexus 8 speed gear hub, rack and frame mounted ring lock etc is $1159 list price. In this day and age a reasonable price IMO for what you get, a complete ready to go citybike designed to keep the rider clean.

The Breezers are available with step through or standard frames and are reasonable weight bikes compared to the Chinese or many of the Dutch steel frames. Thinking of getting one myself.

I have no association with Breezer or a dealer.

But you don't change clothes to get in your car. That's the difference.

Sure, obviously not, but I'm not sure what point you're making.

If it's wet, use a rain cape and a hat.

If it's hot, don't ride so fast.

I don't see what the problem is with using regular clothes.

A rain cape is "regular clothes?"

Taking twice as long to get to work will keep me from being sweaty when it's 95° out, and 95% humidity?

I realize you have a drum to beat, but it doesn't fit the music.