ha ha. Wow. I went skiing this weekend with my dad and just saw this thread I posted has 100 replies?! oh man. Thanks to the few people who stuck up for me having the right to have a thought about something relating to commuting by bike (something I love), in a forum about commuting by bike (where I post regularly)! It's cool guys - consensus is that the thought that I had was unfounded and silly, no big deal.


::gets on bike::
::rides slowly away from thread::

Camping - Why settle for a 5 star hotel when you can have 5 billions?

Troll,

No. It's not offensive in any way, shape, or form to commute by bike as a hobby.

"Playing Poor" is essentially a term created by those who "Play Rich". Playing Rich to impress friends, neighbors and society created substantial credit card debt, foreclosures, national economic collapse and our current recession.


This thread is silly. People should do what they want, how they want without worring what other people think. Realty Check: If your living your life according to guidelines set by marketing

campaigns you are not free human being. Sometimes I believe that the most difficult part of breaking free from psychological slavery is developing the confidence to do what you want without the worry of others "thinking" you are less of a human being.. for enjoying freedom.

If your bike commute is longer than your driving commute, then how are you saving 3 hours a week? Like you, I also commute about 1.5 hours a day instead of 30 minutes driving, but it does take about an extra hour of my "free time" per day to commute by bike, as opposed to driving. But I was going to spend that hour in the gym anyways, so I'd rather spend that hour on the road, with the wind in my face, than in the gym breathing in other people's evaporated sweat. I believe the savings of bike commuting to be about the standard mileage compensation of $0.55 per mile, or about $10 a day for a 20 mile RT commute or about $1,500 per year (for an 8 month commuting season, in New England). And that $1,500 in savings is the amount that I've convinced my wife to let me spend on biking gear each year, since that's the break even point.

Sometimes I will encounter a cyclist who "needs" to cycle, as opposed to doing it by choice, like me, and I've never considered for a moment that they would be offended. The same way I'm not offended by someone who has possessions that are better than mine, I'm jealous maybe, but never offended.

Your reasons and rationale for bike commuting are good and fooling your wife is OK too, but don't fool yourself about how much money you are saving. The "standard mileage compensation" of 55¢ per mile is based on fixed costs of insurance, registration, taxes, and depreciation, as well as the variable costs of gasoline and "wear and tear" maintenance. The car costs almost as much sitting in your garage as being driven to work. The only significant money you are really saving is gas and parking fees (which in some cases is a big savings.) The only way you can save the big $$'s from using a bike to commute is when you own one less automobile because of your bike use.

I was going to bring up the Feast of Booths but I didn't want to be responsible for getting the thread moved to P&R.

You bring up some very good points about the $$$ saved (that my wife is better off not knowing). I still save $512 is gas savings alone, bike commuting about 2,000 miles a year. I really wish I could get rid of the steel cage, but those four sub-freezing heavy snow months (Dec 1 thru March 31) just wouldn't be reasonably safe on a bike.

$512 is still $512, better in your pocket than elsewhere. It is like getting paid $512 for enjoying yourself. No need to apologize to anyone.

It takes at least six hours of exercise a week to be in decent shape.

If I drove 45 minutes a day instead of bike commuting 1.5 hours a day 4 days a week and ridden the same 6 hours a week I'd be out 9 hours total.

By riding the time was 6 hours total which is 3 hours saved to do other things.

IDC if it is offensive, lube that dang chain!!! I can't stand Mr. Squeaky Bike
Should have said "There is no bad weather, just bad dressers"

Owwwwwww!! Ouch my head hurts, aren't there any forum rules against math??!? Mods! Mods!

A whole month of cycle touring? Do you just go in circles around the island then? "I stop in Kona tonight. I'll try to make it to Hilo tomorrow. After that I'm gonna head towards Kona. Another long ride to Hilo the day after that. I'll take a day off and then start on my way to Kona..."

My back packing and cycle touring are done on the mainland. The next big cycle tour will be the continental divide route.

Regarding the original post, can't we just commute because it makes sense to? I don't think anyone thinks it's offensive unless they are severely over-analyzing some sort of thought game.

This reminds me of some twitter bull crap that happened a year ago when some [hipster]guy thought it was racist for a young white girl in a video game to use "urban speech" because he thought it would offend black people. In actuality it only proved that he was racist to think only black people speak in that manner.


So in conclusion: How dare you! I'm offended you even asked!

As a late-comer to this thread, allow me to expound my wisdom, unhindered by having actually READ any of this thread! (Thus making myself an instant expert on the topic!)

Commuting is, in itself, incapable of being a hobby, since it is, by definition, the act of getting from where you live to where you work. An exception to this rule is if you work where you live, or live where you work.

This leaves the mode of commuting and route planning as the only items eligible for "hobbification." For example, a train buff can have a hobby of commuting by different metro/subway lines, and a Jay Leno type can commute in a variety of barely street-legal vehicles. (It may actually be fun to drive to work every day in a Stanley Steamer!) Another example would be route planning as a hobby, so you can have different experiences to your place of work and back. This could involve commuting by many different modes, such as bicycle, train, bus, and/or taxi-cab/ride-share.

Having laid out my foundation of definitions, I am now prepared to proffer my opinion, unburdened by such trivial matters as actual facts, the feelings of others, or the Thought Process in general. So, here goes...


Since commuting is an unavoidable necessity, people can only be offended by lack of results, i.e. not getting to work on time (or at all), this class of offended people are named "employers." As long as you successfully complete your task of "getting to work on time," indulging in any hobby you have during your commute, is not an activity capable of engendering feelings of "offendedness" in anyone.

An exception to this rule is the class of people who work themselves into tortured logic chains of questionable cause-and-effect, and seem to themselves have a hobby of being offended by things. I call this class of people "Easily Offended Idiots." It is okay to give the opinions of these people short shrift, but tread carefully, since this class of people have their personal attorneys on speed-dial.

This about sums up my pointless blathering carefully thought out essay on the question of offensiveness of commuting as a hobby. I shall now go back, and actually, like, READ or at least skim, all the replies in this thread, so I can bask in all the facets and aspects of how much of an idiot I just made of myself.

I am not totally convinced that everyone at the forums cycles. I wouldn't assume all cycling activists ride a bicycle. Even the once pro-racer local bike shop owner... no longer cycles. Many bicycle lovers are restorers and/or collectors yet may never find time to ride. injured cyclist seem to like to keep in touch on the forums as well. I do think we.... all share a collective love of the bicycles.

We cyclists here at the forums are a divided group. BMX'ers, mountain cyclists. racers, and roadies, and alternate transportation save-the-Earth'ers .... and sub-groups of those groups. (no offense intended to any group)

[There are] Nearly a billion bicycles on this planet and I've read that of those in use... more than half are push bicycles. Meaning that the bicycle is used as a means to transport water, wood, feed, and/or food. Push bikes are NOT ridden... they are loaded up and pushed along roadsides and rural paths.

Seeing poor people riding "cheap-o bicycles" is a sign of just how wealthy a country we live in.

Of the people I've spoke with.... most do not have a high opinion of old men (like myself) who spend their leisure time tying up the roadways with what they consider a slow moving hobby. I don't ask what they think of my tights! I think that on average the "poor people of cheap-o bicycles" dislike hobby cyclists the most.

Ha. People (poor people included) don't give a s*** what you look like or where you got your "fancy" helmet. Give me break.

I can only speak for the somewhat European US city where I live, and a bunch of friends in the Seattle area.

As far as "hobby" cyclists go, those who wear regular street clothes blend in with the rest of the citizens. Those who wear circus trapeze outfits to ride their bikes around town are disliked in this order, both in New Orleans and Seattle:

1. Motorists who don't bike hate "hobby" cyclists the most.

2. Every other kind of cyclist (who wear street clothes to ride their bikes) has sort of a comical disdain for those costume wearing cyclists.

3. Poor people are just trying to ride their basic cheap bikes to a destination and hoping to stay alive. Because the po'folks I encounter are riding geared bikes with no brakes (I can see the linear pull calipers laying wide open) because their wheels are not true enough to make hand operated brakes work. Because they must ride at or near walking speed they must worry about the hundreds of cars that will overtake them on the street side, getting mugged from the sidewalk side, and stopping in time for whatever comes along. The vast majority of poor in my town are also uneducated. So I seriously doubt that any other kind of cyclist is even on their radar. I would put poor folks dead last at caring about another "cyclist" one way or another because poor people DON'T consider themselves CYCLISTS in the first place.

Over the long run, one wouldn't need to replace cars as often due to wear and tear so yes, owning less automobiles.

True, but only over the very long, long run at only 2,000 miles saved/year.

Is it offensive to po'folks to eat a po'boy while riding through their neighborhood wearing a clown suit? Discuss.