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....

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.

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.

My car doesn't cost me $9K/year thank goodness. But if we moved to Memphis proper I can guarantee our living expenses would increase by more than $9K per year over what it is now. For one thing it would be moving farther, much farther, away from work - no bike commuting. We wouldn't even consider it unless I had some really awesome job offer at a place in the city. But it would be hard to leave where I've been for over 9 years now.

The author's general point is a good one. You may or may not agree with everything he says (e.g. helmets are unnecessary), but his general point is that cycling culture in the US is largely based on one aspect of cycling, namely cycling as sport rather than cycling as transportation. I think where I may disagree with the author is that he puts primary blame for this state of affairs on cyclists themselves. I think the blame, if that is the right word, should be on the the cycling industry which sees more profit in promoting the fantasy that a $3,000 bike and full team kit can transform you into Lance.

I agree with your overall point, but I believe the author of the article focused on the wrong things that could create demand for cycling, better understanding and tolerance for cyclists on the roads.
People don't ride because they don't like to mingle with cars, and there aren't enough bike paths to make their commute happen. Also, people may live too far, by being priced out or just by happenstance, to cycle commute effectively.
I think those 2 forces are far more damaging than wearing spandex and riding ultra-lightweight roadies that are way out of people's price range.

If we the existing cyclists want to encourage more people to do it, and the only barrier is the spandex and the pricy bikes, then leading a ride in casual clothing and helping people to maintain their bikes for easier performance (e.g. change out knobby tires for smoother ones) should create a giant spike in commuting.

It should be obvious that those aren't the only barriers.

The harder problems remains as to how to convince people that riding on the road is ok (and getting drivers used to sharing the road with us) - that might be solved with people doing their parts leading novices to gain confidence. As to getting people to live and work close enough, that take a lot of resolve - I took the conscious step to live close to work and close to groceries, enough that driving daily isn't exactly cost effective for me. But that's because I'm a single guy that doesn't do the school run.

We might be able to alleviate the distance issue by having dedicated bike paths that are not interrupted by traffic and cuts across the city, but that depends a lot on the geography and existing road networks (Ottawa for the win for this one). I can maintain speed on the bike paths without stop and go, and I'm can match a bus pretty well because of it.

That still doesn't address the needs for families with school runs, which leads to other things like how to take groceries for family of 4 by bike (can be done, but takes dedication)

If the issues are as simplistic as trading in spandex, helmets and aggressive road bikes to get 25% more people bike commuting, I think most of us will do that.

Yes, agreed (the first part of your statement). Thanks for clarifying.

I don't know what you are driving (or if you have two cars/married/a s.o.), but you might be surprised at how much it does actually cost each year. If you factor in gas, oil, tires, brakes and other items that get replaced due to regular wear. Add to that costs for stuff that just breaks. And insurance plus depreciation it comes out to much more than most realize.

I don't miss your larger point though. I might also believe that, depending on where you actually relocate, food costs would be higher as well.