Sport?
 

Cycling as sport? :eek:

Don't get me wrong. It's just that to me, cycling is transportation.

What an amazing tribute to bicycling in general: it's so great, people actually do it for fun!

(I remember a funny scene in one of the "Back to the Future" movies. Guy goes back to America of 1800's. Somehow, he mentions that people run for fun. Everyone laughs hysterically.)

:confused:

So is walking, but keep this to yourself.

Fast walking is sport as is fast running.

Fast biking is also sport.

Unicycling is sport, not transportation.

Have a nice day and don't go too far away.

:D :o

I also walk for transportation.

:)

I am not against people who cycle for sport. I wish I could. My point is that activities like cycling "evolve" into a "sport," eventually becoming only that. Finally, in order to be a "cyclist,"
people expect you to be a competitor. For most non-cyclists I know, the last thing they would expect of a cyclist is to actually ride somewhere to get groceries.

"You ride you bicycle to work?"

:roflmao:

A "sports lover" becomes not a participant, but an onlooker. All it takes to "love sports" is a jersey and a comfy seat in the living room. (Perhaps this trend is responsible for the so-called, "sport utility vehicle.")

The interesting thing is that cycling appears to have been a sport before it evolved into a means of transportation. The first bicycles and velocipedes were useed as amusements and pastimes, and not as practical means of getting from one point to another. In fact, the bicycle's popularity in Europe as a means of transportation is due, in large part, to the road and velodrome racing craze that swept the continent in the 1870s-1890s.

No offense LBM, but I think you have it backward. :)

Automobiles were the toys of the rich before they ever became serious transportation for the masses. It's no small wonder the same occured for bicycles.

A bicycle during the bicycle boom of the late 19th century was so expensive it would have cost today's workers about $10,000. Bicycles as transportation did not become popular until the common man could afford it.

Anyway, don't take issue with me as if I'm against bicycling as a sport. I'm not; I'm against the notion that a bicycle is a toy, just like you!

:)

Well, according to this , the first "bicycle" was used to help a guy get around some gardens. Now granted, going through the gardens was more sport than utilitarian transportation, but the bicycle was a tool used to accomplish the end of getting through the garden, and not mean as an end in itself. So I might be inclined to say that it was more a of a tool than a toy originally, but I also allow that it could be interpreted either way.

andy

I think LBm has a point.

I have been a cyclist for over 40 years and have never been in a race. I have built bikes from wrecks recuperated from rubbish tips. Some I have sold to pay for parts such as tubes, tyres brake pads etc.

As I'm getting old and tubby I like to get out and cycle when I have time as I no longer commute. I have a nice racing bike with clips and all. I also have "the gear", Lycra and all.

I'm sure I clocked up more miles than many a young competitive cyclist and I'm still a cyclist.

Is this what you are getting at LBM?

Roulez jeunesse...

Perhaps.

More specifically: my society views cycling as a sport seriously, but not as transportation, seriously. It's ok to ride all over town if your working out or having fun, but riding to actually get somewhere is considered a bit wierd.

Got there, did that.

Maybe I'm wierd!