Reynolds 

You're right, I wear cycling shorts and jerseys because to me they are much more comfortable for long (2 to 8rs) rides and for efforts. Jeans are OK for short (1/2hr) and easy rides. That said, I've done many 2-3hrs rides in jeans and shirt, no problem. The bike never attacked me...

livedarklions

My bike doesn't attack me as long as I keep repeating "Who's a good bike? You're a good bike! Good bike, good bike."

jon c. 

When I was young, I rode centuries in commando cut offs. Never had a problem. I think younger skin might be tougher as I don't think that would work for me now

I didn't ride for over 30 years. When I returned to riding I started our wearing regular shorts but when I tried biking shorts I found them more comfortable. And fewer saddle sore issues, which I never had a problem with as a kid.

livedarklions

I think you should ride in whatever makes you comfortable and you owe no one an explanation. A couple of us are responding to a poster who has been arguing nonsensically for years that upright bike riders are all tormenting themselves with their seats.

shelbyfv

I'll doff my helmet to you guys who can do any significant distance in jorts! Y'all are beyond tough.

livedarklions

I don't wear jeans, but I've done lots of 150 mile rides in cargo shorts. What can I say, I'm a hardass.

wolfchild

Cargo shorts or slim fitting cargo pants are the best, especially camo ones or black ones. Very practical because of all the pockets for carrying stuff...I've done rides between 80-100 miles with cargo shorts but I also did wear padded shorts underneath my cargos...You will never catch me wearing skin tight spandex in public. That's what cargo shorts or cargo pants are for, to hide the shame of lycra.

rydabent

But is your lycra shorts padded? If so it is to protect you from your bike seat. Not needed on recumbents.

Reynolds 

OK, if you think recumbents are better than upright bikes, no problem. I've never ridden a bent, so I don't have an opinion on that.

livedarklions

Cargo shorts are incredibly practical for long rides. I definitely wear them tight.
The only padding I wear is a pair of boxer shorts.

AlgarveCycling

I absolutely appreciate that cycling in jeans or cargo shorts is perfectly fine in most cases but those who prefer lycra often ride with much greater intensity, than those who don general use clothing...the abrasive movement between saddle and upper thigh is harsher. Chafing is less of an issue if you aren't cycling with any great urgency. Even for those who wear lycra and have very good chamois, often a good chamois cream is required in addition on longer races or endurance events where time is a factor in the performance. You are, essentially, protecting yourself from your bike which causes the chafing when it is ridden this way.

Now, you can get cargo-type shorts with chamois inserts too - you don't need lycra. For my first foray into XC MTB I wore cargo-style shorts like the downhill riders tend to do and then added a chamois insert because it was more comfortable for me to do so. I have since adopted lycra because I now race MTB and the other benefits of lycra come into play.

I commute, go for fun rides etc in jeans, regular shorts etc. But for training and racing? Lycra. The reasons are many, the chafing issue above, extra padding for comfort over rougher road surfaces, the stretch of the fabric which is more comfortable and accommodating of a more aero racing position, the more efficient handling of sweat - the lycra allows your sweat to move through the material, known as 'wicking' so that it can evaporate, cargo shorts and jeans are not nearly as efficient - and finally, of zero importance to the casual cyclist or non-performance orientated rider, more streamlined, aerodynamic clothing reduces drag and ergo improves performance where speed is desired.

livedarklions

Yeah, yeah, know the party line. I just don't subscribe to much of it.
I don't race, but I ride many, many miles in aero position, and quite fast. For some reason, I don't chafe in my cargo shorts.

AlgarveCycling

As a kid my friends and I would ride all day - almost quite literally, we'd take packed lunches and head out and not return home until light was fading. Many hours were spent actually riding as opposed to simply hanging out. Normal clothes. No chafing. We also spent much of our time barefoot (South Africa) and could walk and run on terrain most would wish shoes for so obviously we can get used to something by toughening up our skin in exposed areas through repeated use.

All that said, yesterday on my Sunday team ride we averaged 36km/h (22.4mph) for 118km (73mi) with 1300m (4267ft) climbing and breakaway and sprint speeds of up to 63km/h (39mph). I defy anyone to wear cargo shorts on rides similar to that and faster and honestly say they are truly comfortable. This doesn't mean not possible, it certainly is if one was stubbornly opposed to alternatives for personal reasons that they do not have to justify, we wear what we like and shouldn't be judged on it, but it just won't be as comfortable as it could have been if so desired.

Edited to add: I have experience in this comparison. As a young aspiring racer, I wore out my two pairs of cycling shorts at the time, cheap chamois was wrecked and so removed. I wore normal underwear instead beneath the lycra. I did this for a good couple of years before I could afford new shorts - more because I spent what income I had on bike parts first! I got 'used' to it. I preferred the lycra still because it still felt better training and racing in hot South African weather and...aero. But I may as well have been wearing cargo shorts or similar in terms of padded comfort because it didn't exist.
Even so, when I got another pair of padded shorts, I found them much more comfortable. As a kid we preferred no shoes as I wrote above. But that was just lazy kid stuff. Shoes are still more comfortable on rough terrain. Putting up and making do for whatever reason is perfectly fine if that is what we want to do but doesn't mean that there aren't alternatives that are more comfortable should we decide to use them at some point.

AlgarveCycling

To answer the Thread's question, a cyclist is officially anyone who rides a bicycle. The sub-categories of that are many and include commuters, enthusiasts, sport, pro's, unicyclists, those very few weird recumbent types who get dropped on our local hills regularly etc etc.

satrain18

The word "wielrenner" is also a negative connotation widely used in the Netherlands to dehumanize road cyclists, since they're not considered real cyclist there.

rydabent

Anyone, anywhere, any time, any age, any bike, any garb, -------------are cyclist if they are on 2, 3, 4 wheels.

rsbob 

What’s a cyclist?

One or more wheels and pedals to drive the pedals. They usually carry a drink or three.

Exhibit 1:

Ronwalker

I would say from a legal point of view it's a good question, I would categorize cyclists into several compartments, because bicycles are of different types.

Stadjer

No, it litterally translates as "wheelrunner" which is a special kind of wielrijder or wheelrider, which is not much used anymore for all cyclists. It's a neutral distinction only about wanting to go fast or not. The Flemish also use 'autorennen' for 4 wheeled motorsports.

If's often said with a negative intonation because the behaviour of many in traffic isn't liked. But the word has nog negative connotation.