wolfchild

It depends who you ask. You will get all kinds of different answers.

LarrySellerz

if it’s something beyond “person on a bike” they are wrong

jon c. 

sometimes humans don't do our collective image any favors

Reynolds 

There are cyclists, and then there are Serious Cyclists™.

rsbob 

Ergo, any person who has ever ridden a bike, even once, is a cyclist. The defense rests your Honor.

People who ride 5000 miles or even 10,000 miles a year are no more entitled to the term cyclist than little Timmy on his two wheeled Strider. Can I get an amen?

This thread has more than run its course. Time to close it down.

LarrySellerz

imagine bragging about 5k or 10k miles in a year... rookie numbers

Reflector Guy

Larry's no ordinary cyclist. He's the AlphaCyclist. He's the standardbearer, the One Cyclist to Rule them All! A Cyclist among cyclists.

livedarklions

Like it or not, by definition anyone actually on a bike is a cyclist at the time they're on a bike. We're really arguing about whether the term applies to someone even when they're not actually on a bike.

Personally, I think anyone who rides with some regularity is a "cyclist", the term really doesn't by itself convey any level of commitment or identity. If you want to make distinctions, there's these useful words called "adjectives" and you can attach them in whatever combination you care to to the noun "cyclist".

There's nothing oxymoronic or contradictory about the term "infrequent cyclist" or "low mileage cyclist" or "3 times a year cyclist".

livedarklions

wut?!?!?!?!

UniChris

I don't think that's how it's used.

Rather, I'd say that a "cyclist" is someone who's developing some understanding, skills and capabilities to use a bike well.

Vs a "person on a bike" who could literally have just checked it out of bikeshare or bought it at the big box for their first ride in decades, has the seat six inches too low, and is about to proceed to salmon the sidewalk "because that's safer"

Everyone has to start somewhere, but some may forever remain "a person on a bike" with no real awareness of (or interest in discovering) any of the things that are key to having a good and safe experience.

And note I said "developing" not "has developed" - if that kid on a stride-a-bike has good role models, they're probably a cyclist. If they're going to be raised in a context where bikes are only toys for kids to ride around the driveway, they may grow up as a person on a bike. I didn't become a cyclist until college.

rydabent

"Real cyclist" trying to ride 25mph on a crowded bike path on a Sat morning dont make too many friends.

wolfchild

Yearly mileage is irrelevant.

mschwett 

i'd say anyone actually riding a bike is a cyclist, the same way someone driving is a motorist. you continue to be a cyclist after dismounting when you pursue it enthusiastically on and off the bike, whether for exercise, pleasure, practical purposes, etc. i don't think someone who hops on a bike-share bike to go a few miles considers themselves a cyclist, but if they're on a bicycle on a road, yes, they're a cyclist. the people here continue to be cyclists throughout their life because they're working on bikes, talking about bikes, arguing about bikes, shopping for bikes, buying bikes, arguing about bikes, looking at pictures of bikes, arguing about bikes, thinking about bikes, and sometimes arguing about bikes.

indyfabz

Mind blown.

sjanzeir

Those are the people for whom the automatic transmission, power steering, and traction control were invented for.

indyfabz

I’m glad for those things. My car just topped 16,000 miles on Thursday after a long (for me) drive to and from the start of a bike tour. Its 6th birthday is early next month.

sjanzeir

My car topped 450,000 miles recently and it's 40 years old. It's got a five-speed stick shift and no power steering or traction control. And it's air-conditioned.

greatbasin

Ok, it seems reasonable that bad behavior harms cyclists' "collective image."

Does cycling infrastructure also harm cyclists' collective image? Does clogging up cities with under-used bike lanes, reduced parking, and narrower and fewer motor vehicle lanes harm the image of cycling and cyclists? Lawrence Solomon wrote in the Financial Post describing how cycling infrastructure benefits too few at practical and fiscal cost to most people that are harmed by it. "They are often seen as an entitled, smug and affected minority....Almost everywhere they’re seen as discourteous, and as threats to the safety of pedestrians." He also described, "bike backlash — resentment at the privileged position of cyclists, who are notorious for flouting the rules of the road without contributing their fair share."

https://financialpost.com/opinion/la...moting-cycling

mschwett 

probably important to consider the source of this article.

sjanzeir

A "cycling infrastructure" would not have been necessary if cities were planned properly around the size and spatial capability of the human form to begin with. Had it not been for the (in many cases legally mandated) urban sprawl, people wouldn't have needed to use fossil-fueled motor vehicles - public or privately owned - as often or for as long as they do, and walking and/or cycling would've been the norm. But too many people want their leased BMWs and Range Rovers and their neatly manicured front lawns out in the suburbs because as far as they're concerned, that's what financial success and upward mobility is all about. I wonder how many members of this forum cycle (or claim that they cycle) for the joy of being on a bicycle and not for image and status - to fit in with a group or to flaunt their Dura-ace/carbon-everything level if affluence.

GhostRider62

Maybe we just don't want to live in the city or associate with the collective imagery of those who do. I think that is called freedom.

TLit

A friend on Facebook in the Chester area mentioned there was a big bike competition or challenge today where bicyclists were doing stuff to upset people.

Personally don't think I have had turned off hardly any motorists to biking, though I'm sure there are plenty of motorists who have. Just follow the good principles of biking and there shouldn't be any problems.

I've seen plenty of bikers taking up too much of the road as if they were motorcyclists, same thing with pedestrians especially in the last couple years, or walking, biking on the "wrong" side thinking it is safer that way.

greatbasin

Ok. He doesn't beat around the bush about his agenda with the headline, "ban the bike!" There's no claim here of a lack of bias. But can you refute his claims? Chiefly that cycling infrastructure unduly burdens cities with both capital expense and ongoing interference with motor traffic for the benefit of a small minority of users who take on an attitude of entitlement in spite of the fact they're not significantly contributing to the cost of the infrastructure they're using.

greatbasin

I can tell you that I have just as much joy being on a motorcycle or in a car as I do on a bicycle. I live in a rural area where there is no traffic whatsoever. I don't have a commute and so my fuel expense is almost entirely for pleasure. What's more, I do actually prefer the bicycle for the image and status -- not the status of Dura-Ace and carbon (I have neither). The image and status of automobile ownership is that of the low classes. If you consider it carefully, the automobile is utterly vulgar. Even if a person were to be willing to risk the appearance of straining themselves by possessing a Lamborghini, Maybach, or Bugatti, they will only succeed in projecting the image of foolish nouveau riche like Justin Bieber or somebody. This doesn't mean that owning an automobile makes you low-class, but as a symbol of any higher status, it is without hope. A more tasteful person will use an automobile like a pair of socks -- without any expectation of being imbued with status as a result. Similarly, one cannot hope to acquire social status merely by the purchase of some other gadget or bauble whether it be a personal jet or an expensive bicycle. The bicycle in general, however, can be effectively used to project the image that says, "I'm not in a hurry." "I certainly don't have to be getting to work at anytime." "Neither do I need to haul a pallet of stuff home from Costco or Walmart." Anytime on a bicycle that affords time away from motor vehicles helps avoid that class-lowering association. I'm afraid bicycles can't raise one's social status though, not the way horses and sailing are supposed by some to do. Note that it's sailing and not motoryachting as those Russian oligarchs and others have apparently thought, who have presumed they could raise their social status merely by an expensive purchase which conveys the image that they're in a hurry and that there must be somewhere that's more important to be than where they are at the moment. I think you can see how the bicycle can contrast with that.

sjanzeir

If you're so aware of the concept of freedom, then you ought to be aware that it cuts both ways: cyclists are free to use the same roads that motorists do, with the same rights and the same duties.