Impressions from Bike to Work Day

Chalo, I enjoy your posts, especially from someone in the business, but this one I find incredibly arrogant and supercilious.

the same kind of tools who wear helmets
to ride loops around their neighborhoods at 6.5mph.

What a crime! Forgive them for getting outside on their bikes instead of lying on the couch. Forgive them for bothering to wear a helmet.

The same kind of
tools who think riding a hundred miles is such a bold feat that others
should donate money to a charitable cause in awe of their attempt to
do so.

Yes, the nerve of people to put themselves into shape and ride a 100 miles. Imagine that! So astoundingly reprehensible! Please forgive them for they know not what they do. And, whether you recognize it or not, it is an achievement requiring work and dedication for many. Especially when they have jobs, kids, commutes.

Raising money for charities such as aids, leukemia, heart disease while riding your bike. The nerve of it all! How immoral. Why, we should insist that the recipients return all this tainted money.

Having looked at reviews of bike shops on yelp and other sites here in the bay area, the one constant is the large percentage of people who have received arrogant treatment from the staff, overtly viewing them as the village idiot. You see it over and over again.

As for myself, I'm happy when anyone gets out to ride. They don't deserve to be put down because they don't just happen to meet your august standards. People should be encouraged to ride, not dissed.


Bike To Work Day is a nominally harmless but actually
counterproductive annual custom in the United States. The subtext of
this event is, "on this _one day_ out of the year, let's do something
really silly and _ride our bicycles_ to work! We can even wear some
of those funny stretchy clothes like Lance Armstrong! Don't forget to
wear your helmet!"

Bike To Work day is favored by the same kind of tools who wear helmets
to ride loops around their neighborhoods at 6.5mph. The same kind of
tools who think riding a hundred miles is such a bold feat that others
should donate money to a charitable cause in awe of their attempt to
do so. That's why Scharf's statistical sample is skewed-- if he took
note of the headwear habits of people who ride their bikes for
transportation every single day, instead of just on Talk Like A Pirate
Day, excuse me, Bike To Work Day, he'd see that a lot of those folks
don't bother wearing a foolish foam hat instead of exercising good
judgment.

Like bicycle helmets, Bike To Work day purports to be a pro-cycling
event, but actually has a net anti-cycling effect by helping
marginalize transportational cycling.

Can you imagine having a well-publicized "Drive To Work Day" where
Americans were supposed to make a big deal and ceremony out of using
their cars to go to work? That might actually have a positive effect
on utilitarian cycling in terms of raised consciousness. More than
likely it would just go over people's heads, though.

Chalo

On 5/15/2011 1:18 PM, yirgster wrote:
Chalo, I enjoy your posts, especially from someone in the business, but this one I find incredibly arrogant and supercilious.

If you want arrogant and supercilious, check out the Lycranautsâ„¢ [1].

the same kind of tools who wear helmets
to ride loops around their neighborhoods at 6.5mph.

What a crime! Forgive them for getting outside on their bikes instead of lying on the couch. Forgive them for bothering to wear a helmet.

If they did their research, they would know that the bicycle foam hat is
unnecessary.

The same kind of
tools who think riding a hundred miles is such a bold feat that others
should donate money to a charitable cause in awe of their attempt to
do so.

Yes, the nerve of people to put themselves into shape and ride a 100 miles. Imagine that! So astoundingly reprehensible! Please forgive them for they know not what they do. And, whether you recognize it or not, it is an achievement requiring work and dedication for many. Especially when they have jobs, kids, commutes.

Why not commute on the bicycle instead?

Raising money for charities such as aids, leukemia, heart disease while riding your bike. The nerve of it all! How immoral. Why, we should insist that the recipients return all this tainted money.

Would it not be better to raise money for charities *against* those
causes? AIDS, leukemia, and heart disease seem to being doing just fine
without assistance.

Having looked at reviews of bike shops on yelp and other sites here in the bay area, the one constant is the large percentage of people who have received arrogant treatment from the staff, overtly viewing them as the village idiot. You see it over and over again.

Why do these people go back then?

As for myself, I'm happy when anyone gets out to ride. They don't deserve to be put down because they don't just happen to meet your august standards. People should be encouraged to ride, not dissed.

Do you disagree with the late Sheldon Brown?

http://sheldonbrown.com/thons.html

[1] Trademarked by Tim McNamara.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On May 15, 3:52*pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:

Do you disagree with the late Sheldon Brown?

http://sheldonbrown.com/thons.html

I wouldn't diss the people who ride the 'thons. But I agree with
Sheldon, we shouldn't be portraying riding a bike as risky, grueling,
or otherwise deserving of pity and charity.

When I first started riding as an adult (in the early 1970s), I did
one charity ride. Even then, I didn't solicit funds. I just donated
money myself. Really, what would I be doing if nobody any money and
the charity ride was canceled? Why, I'd be going for a bike ride!

Here's the weirdest example I know: Some local charity has put on
Rock-a-thons. Not rock music (that would be painful to me) but
rocking chairs on a big porch. People are asked to volunteer to sit
and rock for an hour to solicit contributions. ??? What the hell,
just ask for money!

And regarding the people riding around their residential streets at
6.5 mph wearing helmets, I figure they're just victims of a protracted
and successful scare campaign. The complaints should be directed
primarily at the people pumping out the "Danger! Danger!" warnings,
and the ridiculously exaggerated claims of helmet benefit. And
nutcases like the folks who banned this advertisement:

http://road.cc/content/news/34841-ad...shows-says-asa

or http://tinyurl.com/3w8q3ty

- Frank Krygowski

On 5/15/2011 3:13 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
[...]
Here's the weirdest example I know: Some local charity has put on
Rock-a-thons. Not rock music (that would be painful to me) but
rocking chairs on a big porch. People are asked to volunteer to sit
and rock for an hour to solicit contributions. ??? What the hell,
just ask for money![...]

My roommates vetoed the idea of a rocking chair.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On May 15, 1:13*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On May 15, 3:52*pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI

$southslope.net" wrote:

Do you disagree with the late Sheldon Brown?

http://sheldonbrown.com/thons.html

I wouldn't diss the people who ride the 'thons. *But I agree with
Sheldon, we shouldn't be portraying riding a bike as risky, grueling,
or otherwise deserving of pity and charity.

When I first started riding as an adult (in the early 1970s), I did
one charity ride. *Even then, I didn't solicit funds. *I just donated
money myself. *Really, what would I be doing if nobody any money and
the charity ride was canceled? *Why, I'd be going for a bike ride!

Here's the weirdest example I know: *Some local charity has put on
Rock-a-thons. *Not rock music (that would be painful to me) but
rocking chairs on a big porch. *People are asked to volunteer to sit
and rock for an hour to solicit contributions. *??? What the hell,
just ask for money!

And regarding the people riding around their residential streets at
6.5 mph wearing helmets, I figure they're just victims of a protracted
and successful scare campaign. *The complaints should be directed
primarily at the people pumping out the "Danger! Danger!" warnings,
and the ridiculously exaggerated claims of helmet benefit. *And
nutcases like the folks who banned this advertisement:

Yirgster is right -- at least they are on their bikes. We are willing
to spend billions in infrastructure to get scaredy-cats on bikes. If
we can accomblish the same goal by allowing them to wear helmets, then
that's great. What's the down side? They're over protected? They
are not making YOU wear a helmet, and they are not staying off their
bikes. They are obviously not risk compensating at 6mph. Now you're
going to say that they're "sending a message that bicycling is
dangerous." Who cares so long as the scaredy-cats are on bikes. That
sends a more potent message to other scaredy-cats . . . "you can do
it, too!"

Personally, I don't want other people to ride bikes because they get
in my way -- including this ass-wipe on a RECUMBENT who about smashed
in to me yesterday when he overshot a switchback descending a hill.
Last place I would expect to see a recumbent -- someone must have
given him a ride to the top. But, if I had the normal desire to get
other people on bikes, I would say let them wear helmets if that does
the trick. -- Jay Beattie.

yirgster wrote:

Chalo, I enjoy your posts, especially from someone in the business,
but this one I find incredibly arrogant and supercilious.

the same kind of tools who wear helmets
to ride loops around their neighborhoods at 6.5mph.

What a crime! Forgive them for getting outside on their bikes instead
of lying on the couch. Forgive them for bothering to wear a helmet.

Would you think it worthy of comment if they donned helmets to ride a
lawnmower? Because that's what it amounts to when you mount a helmet
to take a slow stroll on a bike. You make yourself look like a fool--
but more than that, you demean bicycling as a normal activity.

A _normal_ activity. Not risky. Not brave. Not remarkable. A
normal thing to do.

There's nothing wrong with riding slowly. I ride slowly most of the
time. But wearing protective gear to ride slowly is like wearing
protective gear to walk slowly or eat slowly. It betrays deeply
misguided thinking about what you're doing.

The same kind of
tools who think riding a hundred miles is such a bold feat that others
should donate money to a charitable cause in awe of their attempt to
do so.

Yes, the nerve of people to put themselves into shape and ride a 100
miles. Imagine that! So astoundingly reprehensible! Please forgive
them for they know not what they do. And, whether you recognize it
or not, it is an achievement requiring work and dedication for many.
Especially when they have jobs, kids, commutes.

What would you think of someone who decided to drive his car 500 miles
in one day and hit up all his friends and relatives for pledges of
support? You do have to work up to the point where you can drive 500
miles safely in a day. Is that some big accomplishment that should be
treated like a daredevil stunt? If not, why is riding a century
treated that way?

I'll tell you. Because these folks don't see bike riding as a normal
thing to do. But it is.

irrelevant_tangent

Having looked at reviews of bike shops on yelp and other sites here
in the bay area, the one constant is the large percentage of people
who have received arrogant treatment from the staff, overtly viewing
them as the village idiot. You see it over and over again.

Specialty retail brings out people's self-esteem issues. I see it
over and over again (though my shop has had the best ratings in town
for as long as I've bothered to check). You have to be considerate
and gentle with people's feelings, but you also owe them the truth.
If that means letting them know their bike is not worth the cost to
repair, or that vegetable oil isn't appropriate for chains, or their
seat is way too low, or that it isn't safe/legal/socially responsible
to ride without brakes, well, some of them will get butthurt about
it. The alternative is not to tell them, which for a service
professional can easily be unethical.

/irrelevant_tangent

As for myself, I'm happy when anyone gets out to ride. They don't
deserve to be put down because they don't just happen to meet
your august standards. People should be encouraged to ride, not dissed.

I agree. If they'd just get out and ride, instead of trying to make
their ride into some sort of heroic endeavor, they'd enjoy it more and
they'd also be good for cycling in their communities. But by treating
cycling as a major adversity to be conquered, they discourage others
from trying it and they help cement ordinary cycling's unearned
reputation as a kooky thing to do.

Tomorrow is Bike To Work Day here in Austin. I imagine I'll see a lot
of the same folks I see on any given day. We're not an official
station, but I expect we'll line up some snacks and refreshments just
the same. If someone drops in who only rides to work on this one day
per year, I hope he or she gets to meet other folks who don't drive a
motor vehicle to work (or at all), so he or she can see there's
nothing so special about it.

People should not ride a bike to work because it's "epic", or because
it's virtuous, or because they've worked themselves up to some
arbitrary fitness goal. They should do it because it makes sense--
because it's a reasonable, appropriate and economical way to get
around that is accessible to practically everyone. They shouldn't see
themselves breaking through some sort of barrier when they ride a
bike, because usually there is no barrier except for simple
unwillingness.

Chalo

On 5/15/2011 3:48 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
Yirgster is right -- at least they are on their bikes. We are willing
to spend billions in infrastructure to get scaredy-cats on bikes.[...]

Who is "we", facilities man? [1]

[1] Paraphrase of old Lone Ranger-Tonto joke.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 5/15/2011 4:39 PM, Çhâlõ Çólîñã wrote:
[...]
Specialty retail brings out people's self-esteem issues. I see it
over and over again (though my shop has had the best ratings in town
for as long as I've bothered to check). You have to be considerate
and gentle with people's feelings, but you also owe them the truth.
If that means letting them know their bike is not worth the cost to
repair, or that vegetable oil isn't appropriate for chains,

Unless they live on Planet Trevor.

or their seat is way too low,

Ground clearance becomes an issue with seat heights less than about 15 cm.

or that it isn't safe/legal/socially responsible
to ride without brakes,

Does it really matter if a few fixie hipsters get run over because they
are unable to yield to traffic when legally required to?

well, some of them will get butthurt about it.

A 'bent fixes butthurt.

The alternative is not to tell them, which for a service
professional can easily be unethical.

This is America!

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On May 15, 4:48*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:
On May 15, 1:13*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

And regarding the people riding around their residential streets at
6.5 mph wearing helmets, I figure they're just victims of a protracted
and successful scare campaign. *The complaints should be directed
primarily at the people pumping out the "Danger! Danger!" warnings,
and the ridiculously exaggerated claims of helmet benefit. *And
nutcases like the folks who banned this advertisement:

Yirgster is right -- at least they are on their bikes. *We are willing
to spend billions in infrastructure to get scaredy-cats on bikes. *If
we can accomblish the same goal by allowing them to wear helmets, then
that's great. *What's the down side? *They're over protected? *They
are not making YOU wear a helmet, and they are not staying off their
bikes. *They are obviously not risk compensating at 6mph. *Now you're
going to say that they're "sending a message that bicycling is
dangerous." *Who cares so long as the scaredy-cats are on bikes. That
sends a more potent message to other scaredy-cats *. . . "you can do
it, too!"

Jay, you seem to be responding to something you imagined I wrote, but
which I did not write. And even aside from that, your response is not
particularly logical.

It's nonsense to say we are getting them on their bikes by "allowing
them to wear helmets." Nobody has ever been forbidden to wear a bike
helmet, AFAIK.

What is happening is that after scaring millions of people into
believing that serious injury is very likely during ANY bike ride,
even one on a deserted street at low speed, we are convincing a
certain percentage that the risk is less if they wear the funny,
flimsy hat.

Sorry, that does not count as promoting bicycling. It would be far
better to drop the fear mongering. Give an accurate picture of the
minimal risks. Also give an accurate picture of the far greater
benefits of cycling, benefits that completely outweigh the risks. Get
back to treating cycling as an ordinary, useful, pleasant activity,
not an extreme sport

If you want to reduce the risks even further, fine, but please, do it
without fear mongering. And do it by concentrating on measures that
actually attack the problem mechanisms. Get cyclists to ride legally,
visibly and predictably. Teach them to avoid road hazards (still the
biggest cause of crashes). Teach motorists to treat us correctly.
Drop the emphasis on the under-designed, over-promoted, ineffective
funny hats.

- Frank Krygowski

===========
Frank Krygowski" wrote in message

May 15, 4:48 pm, Jay Beattie wrote:
On May 15, 1:13 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

What is happening is that after scaring millions of people into
believing that serious injury is very likely during ANY bike ride,
even one on a deserted street at low speed, we are convincing a
certain percentage that the risk is less if they wear the funny,
flimsy hat.

Sorry, that does not count as promoting bicycling. It would be far
better to drop the fear mongering. Give an accurate picture of the
minimal risks. Also give an accurate picture of the far greater
benefits of cycling, benefits that completely outweigh the risks. Get
back to treating cycling as an ordinary, useful, pleasant activity,
not an extreme sport
===========

Is it out of fear, and fear alone, that one buys any type of insurance?
In most cases, the insurance isn't technically useful, because the
insured event has such a low percentage chance of happening. Insurance
in most cases isn't even designed to cover you 100% for the insured
event. So are people buying insurance entirely out of fear? Or is there
something between fear and calm certainty that all is OK without it, a
place that most people feel comfortable being?

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message
...
On May 15, 4:48 pm, Jay Beattie wrote:
On May 15, 1:13 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

And regarding the people riding around their residential streets at
6.5 mph wearing helmets, I figure they're just victims of a
protracted
and successful scare campaign. The complaints should be directed
primarily at the people pumping out the "Danger! Danger!" warnings,
and the ridiculously exaggerated claims of helmet benefit. And
nutcases like the folks who banned this advertisement:

Yirgster is right -- at least they are on their bikes. We are willing
to spend billions in infrastructure to get scaredy-cats on bikes. If
we can accomblish the same goal by allowing them to wear helmets, then
that's great. What's the down side? They're over protected? They
are not making YOU wear a helmet, and they are not staying off their
bikes. They are obviously not risk compensating at 6mph. Now you're
going to say that they're "sending a message that bicycling is
dangerous." Who cares so long as the scaredy-cats are on bikes. That
sends a more potent message to other scaredy-cats . . . "you can do
it, too!"

Jay, you seem to be responding to something you imagined I wrote, but
which I did not write. And even aside from that, your response is not
particularly logical.

It's nonsense to say we are getting them on their bikes by "allowing
them to wear helmets." Nobody has ever been forbidden to wear a bike
helmet, AFAIK.

What is happening is that after scaring millions of people into
believing that serious injury is very likely during ANY bike ride,
even one on a deserted street at low speed, we are convincing a
certain percentage that the risk is less if they wear the funny,
flimsy hat.

Sorry, that does not count as promoting bicycling. It would be far
better to drop the fear mongering. Give an accurate picture of the
minimal risks. Also give an accurate picture of the far greater
benefits of cycling, benefits that completely outweigh the risks. Get
back to treating cycling as an ordinary, useful, pleasant activity,
not an extreme sport

If you want to reduce the risks even further, fine, but please, do it
without fear mongering. And do it by concentrating on measures that
actually attack the problem mechanisms. Get cyclists to ride legally,
visibly and predictably. Teach them to avoid road hazards (still the
biggest cause of crashes). Teach motorists to treat us correctly.
Drop the emphasis on the under-designed, over-promoted, ineffective
funny hats.

- Frank Krygowski