OK, this thread is full of reactionaries like this screaming "DON'T TAKE AWAY MY HELMET OR MY SPANDEX" -- but I'm not seeing a lot of actual interaction with the point of the article.

OK, bikers enjoy their helmets and their spandex, we get it.

BUT, how many of us bikers (a) think more people should ride bikes more often, to more places, and (b) think it is worth removing obstacles that prevent them from doing so?

Sure, spandex isn't keeping you off of a bike, but the article is dead on that there are tons of poor cagers who are intimidated away from biking because all they see is a small crowd of intense cyclists that wear a lot of spandex. Or not much of it, depending on your perspective.

If you don't care what these poor cagers think of you, do you care at all what they think of themselves? Would it be any better for you (us) if you (we) could do things that would help to enlighten more of these poor bastards and get them out there on bikes with us, creating more demand for cycling infrastructure, and more public understanding of and tolerance for cyclists on the road?

It's the second part that I question is really true. Let's say you were to hand out a survey out to people who lived within 10 miles of work and asked them to rank the reasons why they don't commute by bike, my guess is that spandex would be pretty low on the list if it shows up at all. Here's what I think you are more likely to see:

It would take too long
I often have to travel to other locations while at work
I wouldn't feel safe
What if it rains/snows, etc?
It's dark when I go into or come home from work
I have to drop the kids off at daycare/school or run other errands
I need to look good and there's no shower facilities
It's too much work

As far as spandex goes, I think most people are smart enough to realize that it's optional. It's not like we put our kids in bike shorts and jerseys before we let them get on a bike. Most adults have ridden in regular clothes plenty of times.

When I see videos of people biking in Copenhagen I'm not sure. ;)


I'm not worried about anyone taking away my spandex. I just can't stand irrationality. Does my wearing spandex really keep people from biking? If so, maybe they need to visit a life coach or something, perhaps some positive affirmations.

Seriously, though, I rode to work today in clothes that from 10 feet away looked like normal street clothes (apart from my helmet, gloves and shoes). I wore Zoic MTB shorts, complete with chamois liner, and a wicking/quick-dry T-shirt. Both of these are designed as athletic equipment, but they look like normal clothes. That's not why I wear them though. I wear them because they're useful. If I choose my wardrobe based on the image I want to project to people, I'm not really setting a useful example.

If I wear what works best for me and people see it and say, "I'm not getting on a bike if I have to dress like that," then probably they aren't getting on a bike anyway. If, on the other hand, they are thinking about getting on a bike and are looking to see what I'm wearing because they want to know what to wear, then they are probably counting on my having chosen something that works well.

If I were riding a couple of miles from a downtown apartment to a downtown job, then I would probably just wear what I wanted to be wearing the rest of the day and that would be the right example to set. Since I'm riding from my house in the suburbs to my office in a different suburb, anyone driving between these two places and looking at me should see that my normal work clothes aren't a good choice.

This really isn't rocket science.

completely, utterly, totally agreed!

this whole notion that helmets and spandex are the two big dams holding back the floodwater of tens of millions of motorists converting to bike riders seems really silly to me.


here it is in a nutshell:

if you want to wear a helmet........................... then wear a freaking helmet, idiot.
if you don't want to wear a helmet.................... then don't wear a freaking helmet, moron.

if you want to wear spandex............................ then wear freaking spandex, idiot.
if you don't want to wear spandex..................... then don't wear freaking spandex, moron.


this is not hard. it's really, REALLY, REALLY simple.

STFUARYB!

This is great! So much of the discussion in bike advocacy circles spins around some variant of trying to let people know what it's like to ride a bike (though not necessarily phrased that way). The truth is, almost everyone knows exactly what it's like to ride a bike. Almost everyone on my street has at least one bike in their garage. I'd bet there are only a few of us who own spandex.

I was biking to work for over a year before I even considered the possibility that I should wear spandex. As I recall, I bought my first pair of bike shorts for recreational riding and then realized it would be nice for my commute too.

That's an excellent point because if you ever want to have a significant number of people commuting by bike to work in North America one of the things you have to accept is that many of us face obstacles that don't exist to the same degree in places like Copenhagen. It's one thing to ride wearing a suit a couple of miles on flat terrain in mild weather, it's quite another to ride 10 miles on hilly terrain in hot weather while mixing it up with motorized vehicles traveling on the same roads at a much higher speed.

So to me, ideally you have people wearing a wide variety of clothing including street clothes AND spandex. Why? Because spandex is one means of overcoming some of the obstacles that keep people from riding a bike. It's not the only means but it's something that works well for many of us.

Need to wear a suit at the office but don't want to get it all sweaty or dirty on a bike? Change at work.

Have to ride a long ways and chaffing is a problem? Spandex shorts might solve that for you. Maybe you don't like that look. Fine, throw a pair of regular shorts or a skirt on over them.

Passport controls every 50 miles; commuting requiring less logistics for bicycling than U.S.? All this is involved for the typical European bicycle commuter unlike the U.S. commuter who has no passport controls on his typical 50 mile jaunt?

Have to be rich to own a car in Western Europe?

When was the last time you visited Europe?

imo, this has little to do with the mythical lance-alot mamil intimidating some poor newbie and everything to do with cliquish behavior of "bike culture" folk. i have personally seen newbie bikers who were turned off to biking entirely by well-meaning hipsters who took them on rides in their "normal" clothing on crap bikes and then wondered why they did not have fun sweating buckets and being chafed to rawness.

the whole idea of "normal" bike clothing is also completely tone deaf. lulemon is everywhere. elastic tights/shorts are everywhere. moisture wicking shirts are everywhere. tweed cycling britches and merino wool knickers, not so much.

Add 4 (yours) and 5 (mine) on the "focus."

However, ditching the car at approximately $9,000 per year should help cover some of those extra "city living" costs right?

So he was part of the 10%. Your point?

I don't have a problem wearing bike shorts or tight form fitting spandex undearwear hidden underneath my cargo shorts or relaxed fit athletic clothing or regular clothing, in fact I do that all the time...I just think it's a very silly thing to dress like a racer and wear fancy costumes with all types of advertisments and sponsor names printed all over it, while commuting in urban environment..."regular clothes" has a very broad meaning and it doesn't necessarily mean a suit and a tie.

I don't really want to get into a helmet debate , but my point is that wearing a helmet is not a guarantee that you're gona come out alive when hit by a car...And mandatory helmet laws do absolutly nothing to increase cycling safety.

My bike to work clothes are jeans and a T-shirt, or sometimes shorts and a t-shirt in the summer. When it's cold, I wear sweats. If it rains, a Spiewak set. I wear a helmet for two reasons: 1) PAX gate guards will not let you through without one and 2) If I get KIA without it, that'll be what's blamed and not ****ty driving.

Oh, also it keeps the cicada's from thwacking me in the forehead, I guess.

M.

Spandex has a broad meaning too and includes clothing that has no advertisements and no obvious logos. I also think that riding in ties or heels is silly, but then again ties and heels are kind of silly in almost any setting if looked at strictly from a practical point of view.

Pretty much any fashion choice we make today is going to look silly in a decade or two, except perhaps a suit and tie for men, which is sort of ironic considering a tie is about the most useless thing we wear.

The point is that trying to recommend some sort of dress code for commuters in order to make other people more comfortable commuting is a questionable pursuit and could actually result in fewer people commuting rather than more.

Great article, though I think it comes off a little "angry." I also strongly disagree with his helmet argument, as I, myself, have averted serious injury several times because I was wearing one. The attitude sounds a little Grant Petersen to me, which some are gonna like and some are gonna beat the heck out of.

Mr corn husker it is Expensive to drive in Europe, my GF is from Paris, Hell its Expensive to drive in the US, Unless one is a rich, there are a lot of rich people from Iowa---political caucus and all.
My family all came from rich Iowa farmlands....

:thumb:

I really cannot sympathize with this viewpoint. The problem with cycling in America is not bikers in spandex, it is a larger part of society that is so hung up on superficiality to think that just because "serious" cyclist wear it, they must if they want to bike. Or they may fear that their neighbors will think they are in financial straights that they must hit the bike.

I wear spandex, and like to ride fast for much longer distances that are necessary to get to work, or the grocery store, though I have a hybrid bike I use it for that too(still wearing the spandex shorts, but often in that case a more conventional shirt). Do what you want and pass not judgment on me because I am different.

Man, that word "Spandex" is freaking powerful. It seems like the minute it's injected into any one of these threads, fists immediately start flying.

I think many (too many) writers use "Spandex" as a metaphor for all things people perceive as "silly" about bicycling. I would never wear any of the flamboyant cycling clothes at the LBS, but I'd imagine there's a reason so many cyclists do. Good for them. I'm glad their asses are on bicycles. Full stop.

:thumb:

The voice of reason.

If one compares fashion preferences in continental europe and the USA one of the things that will become immediately obvious is that americans enjoy wearing spandex/lycra/elastene etc casually. There are many reasons for this but one of them is that USAnians live in a sportier culture than continental europeans.

AND NO MATTER WHAT MIKAEL COLVLLE-ANDERSEN OR GRANT PETERSEN THINK THIS IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE ANY TIME SOON.

And twelve for you to do your standard shtick. Slowing down?

Welcome to the helmet debate. Are you saying motorists are being more careless because they know the cyclists now wear helmets so you can hit them harder before they die? Otherwise I don't see how helmet laws can do "absolutely nothing". If just one person wears one because it's the law, then the law has increased cycling safety.

Why does anyone -care- if someone else wears a helmet? Other than my gate guards, I can see where they're coming from (CYA).

It's someone else. Don't caaaaaaaaaaaare...

Anyways, at least where I am, the spandex crowed actually gets greater difference on the road. They get, from what I have seen at least, more respect. Drivers pass slower and wider, nobody seems to (at least when I see them) give them rude comments or anything like that.

It's a part of image. Guys in Spandex on white and black (seriously, like every road bike I see is white and black around here, with the exception of my Over Boss' - it's a Vintage Golden Breed) racing bikes with drops = pr0. Guy on a hybrid with a couple locks, plainclothes and a mispec backpack = kid ******** around on the road.

Or I could be totally wrong; I'm willing to admit that.

Keep in mind though, that is my situation at this specific place, at this specific time.

Maybe if I started wearing fatigues I'd get a bit more...respect (?) from motorists? Who knows.

M.

A frequent route from Orange County CA to San Diego is through the Marine Base at Camp Pendleton. They will not let you aboard (their terminology) without a helmet and valid ID. The alternate is the I5 freeway shoulder for ten miles, or a fifty mile detour inland. Not a problem for me, as I choose to wear a helmet, and am not opposed to showing ID. There are Plenty of "rebels" who are opposed to one or the other, or often both. I see them on the freeway shoulder all the time. Good for them.

Who's screaming? All I see are people saying, "Meh, I'll keep my helmet and I'm more comfortable in cycling clothes, thank you."

I agree with tjspiel, if people are using the image of hardcore cyclists as an excuse not to hop on a bike, it's one weak excuse among many. There are enough people riding regular bikes in regular clothes everywhere to put the lie to that excuse.

Really, if cycling advocates want to get anything done in this country, they need to reach out to and embrace enthusiasts and build the biggest coalitions possible, rather than seek ways to divide the (too small) community.

So what's between the tighter lycra / spandex stuff and regular clothes? Anything more "casual" looking also mechanically similar? Only thing I can think of off hand is the Betabrand stuff.

M.

I agree with all his points, other than the helmet bit (a concussion thirty years ago has shaped this view). However, I think they are irrelevant, because they ignore the obvious.

I know Litchfield, CT, well. Nobody over 16, other than cycle enthusiasts, is ever going to ride a bike there. That's because there are no traffic jams and there are parking spaces everywhere. Nobody ever circles the block for 20 minutes, looking for a space (in fact, Litchfield doesn't really have blocks.) A car is faster and more convenient in places like that. The enthusiasts (who, alone, have a motivation for riding) are all going to ride road bikes, because they want fun, speed, and exercise (nothing wrong with that.) As for the Spandex, road bikes are designed on the assumption that riders will wear cycling-specific clothing, so why shouldn't they? Nobody else uses, or ever will use, a bike in Litchfield is because cars work so well there. Today, in the DC area, I ride 100 miles per week, year-round. I doubt if I would do any significant riding in Litchfield.

As for advocacy, focus on dense cities, where driving is inefficient, and sell convenience. Ignore everything and everywhere else.

If cyclists want to promote more cycling, then cyclists should be out riding more, and encouraging others to join them.

A worthy attempt by the author to promote cycling as "normal", and to exhort bike riders to behave in acceptable ways. Fine.

This quote " was long before we discovered that Armstrong was drugged to the gills and winning more by pharmaceutical fiat than by true talent" was over the top for me, and that's where he lost me a bit. The professional cycling establishment lost control over itself, and many of the recent two decade's top contenders are implicated in POD use in some fashion. So what? This cloud doesn't diminish the excitement of top competition in cycling, or in a larger context, sports - for it's entertainment value, at least.

Do we demand that big screen celebrities not have plastic surgery to enhance their appearance, else, their attraction to us is somehow morally diminished? Um...no.

I enjoy seeing road cyclists compete regardless of whether they're doped up or not. Matters little to me, and I'm not a cynic. I can simply accept what the top tier of professional entertainment/sport really is - sponsors paying to promote their products, television competing to sell sponsorship time, and athletes used (used up) to bring in the audience, consumers buying the promoted end products, and viewers/ticket holders trading their time and money to be entertained by the spectacle. It all works just fine, thank you very much.

I think I'll go ride my bike.