It may be a bit weak... but it does point to a real issue... the association by Hollywood of bikes as a "strangeness factor." That image, along with hundreds of car commercials that allude to "sexiness as a feature of the auto" all serve to preserve car culture in the US.

For the majority of people whether someone else bike commutes is not something they have a big personal stake in, so they just adopt whatever the prevailing attitude is towards it. If the attitude is "only losers bike places", then that's the attitude they adopt. If they attitude is "successful, in-shape people bike commute" then that's the attitude they adopt.

I care about how hollywood depicts it. I don't "really really care". I don't get weepy and bent out of shape over it or anything! But it would nice if when people found out you bike commuted they go "cool!", kinda like if you told them you climbed Everest "Cool! I wouldn't do it myself, but that sound neat" (which in reality, is a more insane thing to do than bike commuting).

maybe it's because i live in the socially liberal bubble of a big city like chicago, but when i tell family, friends, acquaintances, etc. that i'm a daily bike commuter, the overwhelming response is "cool!", normally followed up with a "no way?" when i tell them how far i ride every day. now, perhaps in their own minds some of those people are thinking "loser" when they say "cool!", but that's not the socially acceptable attitude to have towards bike commuting where i live. maybe it's partly a generational thing too, as i'm still relatively young at age 34, and i most often have contact with people within my own age group.

I understand where you're coming from, I'm not really okay with us being portrayed as losers. What I mean when I say "who cares what they think" is more a reflection on what I think of them, not how it affects us. I agree we don't need any more negative stigmas across the board, not just with cyclists.

But on the other hand, it seems the only people who aren't impressed by intentional bike commuters are people who are 1. immature, 2. drunk, or 3. jealous. I guess if I were to hang out with trendy people who were always worried about what other people thought of them, I'd take more concern. As it is, I don't care what trendy people think, and therefore it doesn't bother me personally.... yet.

Does that make me a passive activist? Ugh. I just wanna go ride.

That's pretty cool, and living in Minnesota for me it's about a 50/50 split - have the people say "cool!", the other half go the other way.

I have to admit, at some point I started to notice the kind of themes the article is talking about, even with other topics. Like, have you EVER seen a happy, successful, nice guy in a movie who's losing his hair? You start to notice when you start losing your hair, lol. If a character is likeable, happy, and/or successful, they have a full head of hair or their head is immaculately shaved (hey, at least there's a positive possibility if you're losing it!). Watch and see - if a character with thinning hair shows up, they never turn out to be a great, likeable character by the end of the show/movie. Just watch "The Office" sometime - it's almost a clear division. The boss is a shmuck - for most episodes he's got obviously thinning hair, visually relating the emptiness and transparency of his character. The older people in the office who have half lost their will to live? Hair thinning out. Jim, the clearly "you're supposed to like him" character? Great head of hair. Pam's fiance before Jim, who seems like a nice enough guy though they don't quite click? No hair problems. If he had had thinning hair, rather than the "serious competition" character to jim, he would have been the "guy Pam's dating but he's no real competition" guy.

There's an episode where (I haven't seen the first half) Jim has a bike and he has to bike home. The bike is deliberately awkwardly sitting in the office for all of the episode I've seen. It's in the way, it's set up to not look terrible, but look a little uncomfortable. It's just a prop to remind you have awkward the situation is. At the end of the episode he gets "saved" by someone who gives him a ride home - so he doesn't have to go through the "horror" of biking home (to be fair, he's also really drunk).

It's not like a "huge" deal, but after a while it's just a little annoying. You realize there really are a large number of people who have formed their opinion on biking and other stuff just from stuff like that on tv. For example, let's imagine you're going on a first date. Let's say you have a choice of two cars to drive - a Toyota Camry, or a White Windowless Cargo Van. Which do you think is most likely to result in your date refusing to go out and telling all her friends a pedophile tried to ask her out? lol It's just become so pop culture cliche that if it was your only vehicle because you delivered papers every day of the week, you'd rather rent a car than show up for a date in it, lol. These things do have an effect...it's just nicer when the effect of whatever your choice is is "Oh, cool" not "...did you get a dwi?". :-)

Very true, Paul. I think a lot of it is the "status quo" that has been shoved down people's throats for so long, it's no longer accepted that someone would want to be "different." "Heaven forbid, you don't have a TV? Are you some kind of sicko?" etc.

It's just a sign of the times. I refuse to acknowledge the status quo.

I figure I should be getting some really funny looks next time I go on a shopping trip; I'm planning to drive the 60 miles to the city with the bike racked, park wherever I plan to buy the biggest/most stuff, then use the bike to make all the little 2-5 mile side trips that really suck up the gas. I've noticed that what I burn in 120 miles round trip on the highway is about the same amount as doing 10-15 miles around the city to different stores.

Sign of the times? lol In pre-colonial times, you would have been burned as a witch for not having a tv!

Oh, and that's pretty awesome by the way. :-)

Just for comparison, look how SUVs are portrayed in TV ads. It's all about image, and if you believe the ads, SUVs are absolutely the coolest vehicle out there. They can climb straight up the sides of mountains, through huge snow drifts and sand dunes.

Ironically, I have noticed that most really fat people drive SUVs, probably because they can fit in them much more comfortably.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4QgWRycd7I

Now you know one more.

Kids watch Netflix or movies from the library, during certain times of the day, with permission. Not philosophically opposed to TV, but topology limits our over the air stations and cable is expensive to me for what you're getting (and since we don't watch TV, we'd either waste the money or stop doing something we were doing to get the time to watch). I do note that when I catch some TV traveling or something, it's very in-your-face and just manically trying to get your attention.

Back on topic, I don't personally see that attitude in my workplace, luckily. At least, not for bicycles. Around here a lot of the cyclists are those with extra money to burn, as it can be an expensive habit. The stigma is more for people with older/cheaper cars and bikes (guilty on both counts). Still nothing overt, though--it's sensed more than heard.

I'll consider dropping coin on a nicer bike when mine dies or perhaps I want to be more comfortable. It's some 20 years old though and still kicking. My rusting car is not exactly a status symbol but I'd rather have it dripping oil on the driveway than a new car sitting there dripping money for the handful of times I drive it a month. I've got more important things to spend money on.

I don't prohibit my kids from watching any TV, but pretty close. There's only a very few shows we let them watch, mostly educational or historical shows... my 12-year-old daughter has a thing for cooking shows, too.

Ah yes, the myth of the all-terrain pimpmobile; because everyone knows that 24" chromes and racing tires are the optimal winter setup... People who beleive this type of advertising are the ones I end up towing out of ditches every winter. I ride a bike most places, but I do own a beater old 4x4 as my sole motorized vehicle. When I lived in the midwest, it did get me through many an unplowed road during city-wide snow closures; (I was an ARES first responder).
Now, I just get to laugh as I winch people back onto the road and explain to them that 4wd/AWD doesn't make them invincible, or just because they bought an SUV (especially those with RWD only and small engine versions) doesn't mean they know how to drive in the snow.
You'd be surprised, (or maybe not), to hear how many GMC Yukon, Cadillac Escalade and other behemoth SUV owners tell me the same story. "The dealer said that I'd be able to go anywhere in this car. I don't understand why it's stuck." That, as they're high-bottomed, straddling a snowbank with 2 of their low-profile summer-tread street tires in a drainage ditch. Now there's a promo poster for ya!

Yeah, it's pretty funny. If you watch the ditches after a serious snowstorm on the interstate, it always seemed like *at least* 50% of the cars in the ditch were SUV's. Safer in the snow my a...

The biggest myth I see perpetuated is that AWD (or even 4wd) is going to help with braking in the snow. People don't realize that your car ALREADY has 4 wheel braking - AWD just adds 4 wheel accelerating. Helpful for getting out of a snowbank once you're stuck, but it doesn't do anything to increase your ability to stop.

We don't get much snow in NC, but I have noticed the same thing when we do have storms - that most of the vehicles that run off the roads and get stuck are SUVs. I think that is partly due to overconfidence and partly due to most people in regular cars staying off the roads in snow while SUV drivers think their vehicles can handle any conditions.

Another thing you sometimes see here are SUVs stuck in the sand on beaches and then ruined when the high tide comes in. SUVs are allowed to drive on some of the beaches here on the Outer Banks, and every summer you see news articles/photos of some schmucks who get stuck in the sand and can't get free before the tide rolls in.

I've noticed this too, but this is a great example of how statistics can lie: *at least* 85% of the cars on the road in this area are either SUVs or pickups. So they could actually be safer and you'd still see more of them in the ditch. Not that I think they are safer, but even so...

I'm betting that the same drivers getting stuck in snow banks and sand dunes in their gigantic mall-hauler SUVs are the ones complaining to their LBS wrenches about needing ceramic bearings and a brake adjustment after getting dropped on their last ride... "There's gotta be something wrong with the bike. I mean, it couldn't be me, could it?"

I find that quite discriminatory - I don't drive an SUV and have no plans to. I have a mid-size car but would gladly trade it in for a smaller Prius (if I gotta have a car, it might as well be a hybrid). I had no problem getting my 300 lb. frame in and out of my wife's Civic when we had 2 cars. This "really fat" person now prefers to commute by bicycle, and if my weight loss continues I will reward myself with another bike, and continue to avoid SUVs.

I thought of that, but here in Minnesota I would say that certainly no more than 50% of the vehicles on the road are SUV's. I would guess it's about 33% but I can say with a lot of confidence it's certainly not over 50%.

I know what you're saying about statistics lying. I kinda went out of my way not to try to infer more, maybe I should have written more - my point was more that SUV's sure like they're either no safer, or less safe in a snow storm (don't know which).

Heck, I looked at several SUV's when I bought a new car, I would have bought one if I found the right one - I don't have a big attitude against them or anything. What's irritating of people's strong, vehement, "you're dumb and don't care if I live or die" insistence that they HAVE to have one for winter driving. You want one? I don't have a complex against them. Just don't spread the mis-belief that AWD is going to make a giant safety difference in the snow and ice - all the other vehicles already have 4-wheel braking, your only improvement is being able to pull out from a snowbank AFTER you go off the road. Sure, I can understand why someone who has 3 kids wants the additional ability to drive down their unplowed street after picking them up from school. That's fine. Just don't believe that you're less likely to get into an accident with one. It's a nice feature, not a "OMG we're all going to die without it!!" kind of thing.

Since road travel is a social activity - often the most social activity some people engage in - vehicle choice has become equivalent to clothing choice. If the clothes make the man, so does the vehicle.

Clothing is a display behavior. People may dress for a position of power, for utility, or for sport. Some American bike commuters choose to dress more for sport, choosing spandex and racing bikes, and using their commutes as workouts, partly to avoid the social status implications of dressing for basic utility.

What is wrong with dressing for utility? Nothing at all. Pedaling a utility bike in casual clothing can be a practical way to get around even in the USA. But it doesn't convey the message of strength - i.e. fitness as a mate, like most animal display behaviors - that conspicuous consumption or athletic demonstrations provide.

I wonder if our culture will evolve to view conspicuous consumption as a weakness and conservationism, frugality, and restraint as strengths? These latter traits are good for society, and thus should be considered virtuous. But as good as self denial and self sacrifice is for society overall, it is potentially bad for the self, and in turn a potential liability for the immediate offspring. It therefore requires longer term thinking to view utility cycling as sexy. Most people have shorter attention spans.

It's all nonsense.

Meg Ryan was a successful surgeon who commuted by bike in the movie "City of Angels". The way her commute was filmed made it look fun and inviting.

Of course she did get killed by riding into the back of a lumber truck or something but I wouldn't read too much into that.

Well whether frugality and restraint are strengths or weaknesses is a completely different topic, and a matter of some sociological debate where it's not clear what's "good" and what's not.

When you think of societies that live frugally and with restraint, who do you think of? Usually - certain primitive societies. Like the native Americans, often they were forcefully conquered by more aggressive, less frugal societies with advanced technology - technology that was developed because of their un-frugal nature.

But let's ignore man-made war for a second - imagine there's a giant meteor headed towards earth. Which version of earth is more likely to survive - the current one that spent lavishy on figuring out "what's out there" with the space program and weapons, or a version of earth where everyone lived frugally, with restraint, and in complete harmony with nature, only using renewable resources? I don't think the 2nd one - they'd never even figure out what was beyond the blue or black sky.

I do actually agree often about "conspicuous consumption", but there are more solid and practical reasons why society promotes more excess than having just the "what I need to get by" level of stuff.

and let's not forget how pee-wee herman's bike-centric lifestyle was presented as a fun and noble enterprise on the big screen

i don't go the full spandex route for commuting (athletic shorts and a tight fitting t-shirt work fine), but i do ride a nice light weight road bike for my daily commute, not because i wish to "avoid the social status implications of dressing for basic utility", i do so because i have a long commute and i like to go real fast. i'm not a slave to fashion, i'm a slave to speed; it's highly addictive!




pedaling a utility bike can indeed be a practical way to get around, but if you're obsessed with speed and making good time, it's better to replace that 30+ pound tank with a sub-20 pound rocket.