There is actually a website for people who dislike others using the roads as they have every right to do, apparently.

The description of the facebook page "I hate people on bikes on the road" says "Annoyed by people who ride there bikes on the road, in the way, holding up traffic. They don't have to pay any insurance to be on the road, meanwhile if you hit them u get sued. There would be less injury if a bike hit a person on the sidewalk than a car hitting a bike and killing that stupid person!!"

The person running the facebook group's email is ""

Let’s see, as a cyclist who has been hit by careless lawbreaking drivers myself, I certainly hope anybody contributing to or posting cyclist-bashing comments on such a web site has it brought up in court should they ever be involved in an accident on the roadway, as, statistically, even careful people are at some point in their lives. Think about it, all you lawyers out there: here are a group of people who, at best, are saying they don’t think bikes should be on the street, hence, they have basically admitted carelessness, since people don’t look for things they don’t think should be there. Wow, if I was a lawyer I’d see a big dollar dollar sign on every bike hating moron that posted to such a website.

Then there's the apparent alternative -- this person wants us riding on sidewalks, despite the fact that it's more dangerous for cyclists to ride on sidewalks or sidepaths than in the street, since at every intersection with a sidestreet or driveway such a route creates additional intersections which cross traffic isn't looking for, as well as the fact that the sidewalk is intended for foot traffic with whom the cyclist could crash, as the person admits, apparently thinkign that they'd rather a cyclist run down a pedestrian than "hold them up" by riding "there bikes ont he road".  Well let's see, cyclists have been legal road users for over a hundred years. Where have you been and why aren't you able to dealw ith something that's been a legitimate fact of life in America and the rest of the world for over a century?

Then there’s the fact that cyclists have been on the roads for over a hundred and twenty years — anyone who could not get used to us by now must be hopelessly unable to function at all, let alone use the roads, so why do they have driver's licenses?

The other day I got an e-mail from a person who saw an old picture of my Bianchi Pista on the fixed gear gallery bicycling website. It read:

"What a noddy you are spraying over your Taiwanese pista and then admitting it! You are missing the point . It’s about making something special out of some some old crap or about bringing back to life an old classic; not buying a lifestyle off the peg and then covering that fact up with “ battleship grey”"

Ordinarily I should agree with that, I wrote back, and that has been my opinion of late.  The Pista was in fact my first track frame purchase.  I had been riding converted older frames for some time and wanted a track bike.

I wasn't "covering up" the fact that I bought a mass-produced frame, simply protecting it since the mass-produced chrome didn't appear as sturdy as I'd hoped -- not liek the BMX chrome of my youth -- and I ride in rain sometimes.

In point of fact my daily ride for the last year has been an old Ross converted to fixed gear, built up from a cast-off frame, with a second-hand fork, full fenders and rebuilt second hand wheels. The cranks are 20 years old and have been on 3 bikes.

As to buying a lifestyle off the peg I do not myself believe in that, as one might have seen by the fact that the bike did not stay stock.  Most of the no-name components were crap but then I didn't buy the bike for the parts which I expected to be lackluster, nor for the assembly which many shops do poorly; I got it because I wanted an actual track frame, and happened to find the whole thing at a good price.

 But then I wrench on my own bikes and nothing I get -- either new used or from the dump ever stays stock.  I also happen to hang out at a bike shop where the owner does a bit of brazing; he's built up several track frames for other regulars. I might be next if I scrap up some dough.  I already have an old road frame he custom brazed for someone else from Columbus tubing that happens to fit me.

The Pista may be a ubiquitious hipster symbol in the wrong hands, but the frame isn't shoddy on the road, mine rides fine, with decent parts.  It's not "quality" like a handbuilt lugged frame but then it was much cheaper, too.

I  ride daily, for transport, so to me it isn't about "buying a lifestyle off the peg" -- which is why whatever bike I ride is sure to have some modification to the parts spec or in some cases the frame or fork. 

 But more to the point whatever bike I am using at the moment gets ridden -- to work, to the bike shop, on rides after work, to the store.  Yeah some people buy mass produced "off the peg" trackbikes for style points.  I rode over 4,000 miles last year and after being left-hooked by a car on the way home from work was at one point riding with my arm in a sling -- not because I thought slings were hip, but because it was the only way to keep riding.

In short, e-mail writer, I agree with pretty much everything you said -- which is why I may very soon again be taking a break from my old road conversion to take up using my repainted old Bianchi Pista, which is currently partially disassembled awaiting a new front wheel and some other componentry.

"BEXAR COUNTY – Two people were killed after a truck hit them when they were bicycling Thursday morning.

Deputies say Gregory, 42, and Alexandra Bruehler, 36, were riding a tandem bike (one bike, two riders) southbound on Highway 16 in Northwest Bexar County, when a pickup truck veered onto the shoulder and struck them from behind. Their bike was reportedly dragged for about 200 feet.

Alexandra was pronounced dead at the scene. Gregory Bruehler was taken to an area hospital where he later died.

According to Ino Badillo of the Bexar County Sheriff's Office, both were experienced bike riders."

And: "Investigators say there are no charges on the driver. They believe this was an accident and that somehow the driver lost control of his truck.

Badillo says the couple leaves behind a 7-year-old daughter." ["couple killed when truck slams into, drags bicycle", WOAI.com, San Antonio News, Oct. 2, 2009] 

 This is outrageous.  Why there is no legal penalty for killing two people is beyond me -- and many others.  According to authorities, the "looked off, he was looking at something else and realized the curve in the road came a lot faster than what he anticipated" -- said Deputy Chief Dale Bennett of the Bexar County Sheriff's Office, in a news article ["People outraged driver who struck and killed couple won't be charged", WOAI.com, San Antonio News, Oct. 5, 2009].

If the driver was not watching where he was going it is clearly his fault, not some random accident or unforseeable event that "just happened".  If he wasn't watchign where he was going, then he didn't lose control of his truck -- he never had it in the first place.

The same article quoted the police as saying, essentially, that they can only prosecute deadly or careless driving if it involves drugs or alcohol: "He said under current law, unless a driver is drunk or high, it is difficult to prove recklessness. And legally, charges can not be filed for "an unfortunate accident."

"Why did he go off the road? Driver inattention...is basically what it amounts to," Deputy Chief Bennett said. "And there's nothing we can do about drivers not paying attention."

Yes there is, you can ticket them when they do something dangerous, and arrest them when it kills someone.  Websters New Collegiate Dictionary defines Manslaughter as "the unlawful killing of a human being without malice express or implied" [Websters New Collegiate Dictionary, 1953, p. 512].  Black's Law Dictionary defines Manslaughter as "the unjustifiable, inexcusable, and intentional killing of a human being without deliberation, premeditation, or malice", or, "the unlawful killing of a human being without any deliberation, which may be involuntary, in the commission of a lawful act without due caution and circumspection"  It also adds that there are various types of manslaughter (as indicitated by the two definitions) and says specifically of involuntary manslaughter: "where a person committing an unlawful act not felonious or tending to great bodily harm, or in committing a lawful act without caution or requisite skill, unguardedly or undesignedly kills another" [Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, 1990, p. 964].

In other words, a person can be charged with manslaugther if they commit a crime of passion  -- intentional killing, without deliberation -- or a "traffic accident' due to careless or inattentive driving -- "unlawful killing of a human being, without any deliberation, which may be involuntary".  The law has a specific name for this: involuntary manslaughter, which could apply not only to the driver who killed the two cyclists in Texas, but many other such cases.  Unfortunately, laws exist onyl as words on paper unless police make arrests and district attorneys make prosecutions. 

Instead, the law enforcement officials throw up their hands and pretend they have no legal mechanism to prosecute deadly drivers.  Would they fail as miserably to prosecute a person discharging a shotgun without looking where he is pointing it?  Then why should it be different for a person pointing a two ton truck?  

The Deputy chief is a bloody idiot.  There are plenty of laws on the books in virtually every state against careless driving, reckless driving, or even committing vehicular homicide or the aforementioned manslaughter.  The law can do something about drivers not paying attention -- namely, charge them.  While it is true that drivers are often not given any serious penalty when they kill a cyclist, unless drunkeness is involved, it does not follow that this is a legal issue.  Rather, it is an enforcement one. 

Has no one in Texas ever been ticketed for careless driving, failing to maintain a safe following distance, speeding, or running red lights? All of these offenses, and many more, can be ascribed to a number of causes on the driver's part -- he might be rushing, or simply not care if he crashes, or he might be involved in a car chase.  But the most common factor is that drivers who do these things often do them because they aren't paying attention!  If Deputy Chief Bennett's officers have ever written a single driver a single ticket, for any moving violation whatsoever, he should know that there is indeed a method for holding drivers accountable for driving carelessly.

Instead, Deputy Chief Bennett would have unwary news readers believe some special law needs to be passed to criminalize the particular act of a particular driver in a particular case.  Perhaps this is because the victims who died were riding a bicycle.  Had they been in a car maybe Deputy Chief Bennett would not feel as if he is incapable of applying the law of the land on their behalf.

Those who have made much of the governor of Texas and his failure to pass a law requiring drivers to leave a set distance while passing cyclists should consider Deputy Chief Bennett's attitude.  While all road users should exercise caution while on the road, and leave safe distances while passing slower moving vehicles, be they cars or bicycles, the law the governor failed to sign would have created a distinct class of road users "vulnerable road users" which included cyclists.  The fear was, perhaps, that other road users such as drivers or cars and trucks would feel this was special treatment for the bikers. That argument is easily countered by pointing out that our misconceptions about cycling in America, as a nation, have led to such a gross disadvantage for the cyclist when he is injured or killed, and have in fact made such injury or death more likely by failing to adequately instruct drivers in how to react to cyclists, that any "special treatment" for cyclists is simply undoing the damage the government has thus far helped to foster. 

 However, there is a risk to creating a special group for cyclists, which is that it splits us off from other road users.  How can a cyclist then demand he be given the same right of way at intersections as a car?  However, without such right of way, a cyclist is at peril in using the roads, as the right and left hook turns of drivers going across his path, despite his right of way, would now become codified in law.  How can we demand to be given the same consideration when interacting with other traffic is we are not like other traffic?  And spare me the statements that bikes aren't like cars because they can't ride in the fas tlane on the interstate.  That is true.  But cars can't ride alongside one another in one lane.  There is some differenc ein how bicycles and cars use the roads, based on their physical natures.  However, at traffic interactions, such as when passing, going through intersections, or turning, the roads only work if, say, a cyclist going straight has the same right of way as a driver doing so. Otherwise everyone turns in front of him and it becomes impossible to bicycle and we lose right to the road by default. 

This would be a reason to oppose the "passing law" -- and instead argue for a law that simply says drivers must leave a safe distance when passing a bicyclist or other vehicle.  If the law specifically mentioned cyclists, that is no problem.  But they law should be dealing with what it prohibits, not protects -- it should address the driver's unsafe passing, not the cyclists' nature as what may or may not be a "vulnerable road user".  However, it is doubtful the governor of Texas vetoed this law because he was afraid it would segregate cyclists in the long run by watering down their status as road users.  And to be fair the law might not have made a difference here, since this wasn't so much a truck passing the cyclists as going into them in the course of veering off the street. 

However, that's where Deputy Chief Bennett would like the nation to go:  Down that road of special laws.  He claims until the laws are changed he cannot charge drivers who kill by carelessness.  The law begs to differ. Moving violations exist in Texas just like any other state.  And so does manslaughter.

Something does need to be done about drivers hitting cyclists, and requiring them to leave safe distances while passing is not a bad idea.  But typing bicycles as second class road users in the process is, and so are mandatory limits on distance.  A safe distance in one circumstance may not be the same as another.  it would be nice for the driver to always give five feet of room, for example.  But on narrow two lane roads that would put him into oncoming traffic, which would not only imperil the oncoming traffic, but could cause an oncoming car to swerve all the way to it's right, possibly hitting any cyclists alongside it.  While some may assume the likelihood of two cyclists apporachign at the same time is slim, it happens, and to deny the possibility is only to illustrate that one does not take cycling seriously as a sport or, more importantly, a means of transportation. 

Yet, at the end of the day, the question is still the same:  Will we enforce the laws that already exist or haggle over new ones?  While added measures, of a reasonable type, would be useful in reminding drivers of their responsibility not to kill other road users or put them in hospitals, at the end of the day one has to ask how one could expect any new law, no matter how well-intentioned or carefully and logically crafted, to work, if authorities have yet to enforce the basic ones that already exist. Let's be clear: Deputy Chief Bennett has come out and said he will not enforce the law. But, he says, if you pass other laws, then he can do something.

 If cyclists, or anyone else, takes after the Deputy Chief, it will be ignoring that cyclists, just like everyone else, have the protection of the laws already on the books.

august 18 -- a Democrat state lawmaker Fred Clark, of Wisconson, ran a red light in a truck and hit a cyclist. The bad thing for the lawmaker -- but good for the cyclist and everyone else -- is that this flagrant recklessness was caught on video tape by a bus across the way. According to one news article,  "Nearly three seconds after the light change, Clark's SUV enters the intersection and slams into the bicyclist." (http://www.waow.com/Global/story.asp?S=11011974).

The cyclist was thrown from his bike and the truck appeared to run over the bicycle, as part of it appeared to stick out from behind the front wheeels of the lawmaker's SUV after it came to a stop. Although the police said so far drugs or drinking didn't appear involved, watching the video of the crash makes it clear the driver did not even attempt to stop until after he hit the cyclist. He can see clearly the car rock back as he brakes and comes to a stop -- on top of the bike.  Prior to the crash he doesn't brake, swerve, or try to avoid hitting the cyclist at all.

One can hope that Mr. Clark gets his just penalty and the cyclist recovers fully.  However, it is a sad commentary on the day when the people charged  with making laws are so careless as to go about running over the rest of us.

One can hope that this frightening video is used when Mr. Clark comes up for reelection.  If he cannot be trusted to drive on the street how can he be trusted to steer the legislative process of a community? Is this the sort of responsible people we elect in America?

 Me, I expect my elected officials to have some sense of awareness of their surroundings that is not common with the local drunk in his rusty old Plymouth.

It goes without saying that in America, the person who commutes by bike -- or in general is a cyclist -- is at a distinct disadvantage, chiefly, or being regarded as silly.  Oh, sure, there is the bigger danger of being killed, crippled or injured by a careless driver or pedestrian, but the risk of being laughed at far outfrequents the risk of vehicular homicide.  You may have one accident a year, or less, if you are fortunate; but chances are non-cyclist whom you encounter daily regard you as an oddity. 

The joke however is on them as there is a flip side:  To cyclists, non-cyclists are funny.

 Much of what people who don't bicycle find silly about cyclists appear so only due to ignorance; and it is this same ignorance, when displayed glaringly, that causes the cyclist to burst into fits of laughter or knowing smiles.

The person, for example, who, hearing that you rode to work under overcast sky, says "but it is supposed to rain today!"  What, should i worry about melting?

Or the people who seem shocked that you bicycle in winter.  Ah, why not, i still have to get somewhere.

Gear reviews by noncyclists are equally amusing. PCMag (a computer themed publication, in case you could not deduce that) did a review of a new Timbuk2 messenger-style backpack, that exclaimed it had "cathedral-like capacity, but that also means that the bag itself is huge. "  Funny, the descriptions of the bag don't make it seem huge.  And they do a review of a Rickshaw Bagworks courier bag (with a laptop computer sleeve) and describe it as also huge. Other common mistakes non-riders make is complaining courier bags don't come with handles like a briefcase with a shoulderstrap.  Yeh, well then get a briefcase.

 I dunno' about you but if I'm biking to work or the store my bag is my trunk, so I need that room.  Really, until you've strapped a pair of wheels to your bag and ridden home with them you don't know huge.  But that's just it; these people are reviewing what is essentially cycling gear, from the perspective on non-cyclists.  And they wonder why we laugh at them. Oh my gawd, that backpack is huge -- says the non-bicycle-riding computer geek, as I struggle to fit my daily gear into it's supposedly cave-like interior, that suddenly seems a lot smaller than it did when all it was packing was a folder of papers or MacBook.

I recall a run in I had with a nonrider while waiting in line to get coffee. "that's some backpack you got there," the old man said of my Timbuk2 courier bag, with it's reflective tape, light, and "fatman biker" patch on the lid. "Lights up and everything. And it's huge".

Yeh it lights up. (I'll forgive the gentleman for confusing a courier bag with a backpack, even though it only has one shoulder strap, because to be honest I use the word backpack for both, at times, myself, in casual conversation).  However, it is most definately not huge. Most real courier bags are larger. I can fit my Timbuk2 inside my ReLoad, for example.  With my change of clothes, and several bottles of water, plus my modest tool pouch with pump, tire levers, and 2 spare tubes, it is all I can do to get my helmet in it to close the lid once I reach work.  This is why in winter I typically take a bigger one -- or just strap the helmet to the top of the bag. And that's to say nothing of the locks I carry to work that are no longer in the bag when I'm trying to close it cause they are secured to my ride outside.

It's also funny how pedestrians seem to think your bag will be soft when you are on foot. I don't get it, they see a dismounted biker walking past, he says excuse me, and they swing into the path of his bag.  Then they get all shocked and bothered when the bag of the biker they bumped into, namely, myself, who has, to be fair, given them a polite "excuse me" rather than a rousing "gangway!" turns out to be hard and solid.  Cripes, it's got tools, locks, a heavy chain, or water or a coffee thermos inside it.  I mean, the lock, just to use on example, is intended to prevent people from walking off with my bike; hence, it is solid. You wanna bump your head on that?  I realize they cannot see what is inside the bag, but for the love of pete look it at, you will not fit past me and will wallop yourself trying. But your funeral.

Don't even get me started on sporting good stores. Sometimes you can find deals at these places, on things like jerseys or light jackets, things to wear when you ride, but searching their websites is torture. Jogging clothes are listed as bike clothes, not a big deal except a lot of bike clothes especially the jackets are wind proof, jogging stuff isn't always so.  Also, reviews.  I clicked on a review of inexpensive bike shorts sold by Sports Authority, hoping for some indication of the workmanship, how durable they were make, or the fit of the shorts, or the fit of the padding.   Instead I got a review by a person who said they used the shorts in a spinning class.  I marked the review as not helpful. I wanna know how they'll feel after 60 miles on the road in the hot sun and rain, dummy.  Their "search" feature was no help either, when it allowed you to select products by use, it listed things like "gym" or "training".  How about riding outside on the road where you belong?

 How about for that matter, riding to work?

Of wait.  The non-cyclist goes to the gym.  And always takes the closest possible parking spot with his SUV.

Apparently, now both Urban Outfitters and Republic -- the jean company -- are selling "track" bikes as a fashion accessory. Much derision has been heaped on this -- until someone pointed out that, hey, Swobo is a clothing company who sells bikes.

Yeah but Swobo is a *cycling* clothing company.

In other news, according to a German publication called "The Local", police in Berlin are cracking down on brakeless fixed gear riders.  Like many articles on such things -- similar crackdowns have taken place in US cities -- the concept of "fixed gear" is misunderstood at best.  While some track bikes are not drilled for brakes, many are, and some are built on converted road frames that can fit a front brake.  Even those not drilled for it, you can swap forks, if you can find the right size and angle fork.  In other words, many fixed gear bikes can be fit with a handbrake.  However, the media coverage of these incidents always confuses a bike that is not fitted with a handbrake with a bike that cannot stop, and then, with the inability to install handbrakes, or simply ignores that aspect, as if people who cycle frequently don't often work on their bikes, changing tires, gears, or other things, and simply leave them as they come out of the box...  The article also confuses the issue of brake or brakes, using the two interchangeably.  So do you need two handbrakes, or just a front one, in conjunction with the rear wheel?  Most fixed gear riders typically run only a front brake.

Then, you have the fact that any such crackdown presages something ominous for cyclists everywhere because governments generally share their idiotic ideas and copy one another.

And what connection, one wonders, exists between the two things -- fashion bikes, and police crackdowns on cyclists?

The answer is simpy that people are not taking cyclign seriously.

As to the fashion bikes, I am split on this -- part of me says anyone on a bike is a good thing, but part of me feels cheated. I mean, were these people out riding in winter? Have they been hit by cars? Told by local cops their blood was worth less than car paint? Got back on their bike and done it all over again regardless, because it's not about being cool, or hip, or a fashion accessory, it's about finding one thing in life you love to do, and doing it every chance you get? 

One of the dudes I ride with remarked, bikes are weapons.  Well, I'm not going to bash anyone over the braincase with a carbon fork, but yeah, a bike is definately closer to a weapon than a fashion accessory.  Think of a fashion accessory. What do you picture. Flip flops? If your flip flops break you aren't dead. If your bike breaks you could be thrown under a bus, hit the ground hard, or, as happened to me recently on a ride down a decent local hill, find your chain off, jammed in the rear wheel, and locked into a skid while going downhill on a narrow road with an intersection with Route 22 at the bottom.

A bike as a fashion accessory? What's next, u-locks with little rhinestones on the shackle and a faux diamond in the key? I want more people on bikes as much as the next guy -- assuming they actually are on the bikes, but the goal isn't just more bikes, it's more people using them to take their rightful place on the street.  This was aptly illustrated when I recalled a friend of mine, nonbiker, whose brother asked the other day, "aren't there all these paths you can ride on?" To be fair he is an outdoors person himself, but not an avid cyclist, and he certainyl doesn't ride for transportation.  It might be he was just making conversation, but not being a cyclist himself, it seemed to subtext of his question was, why are you on the road.  I explained the pragmatic reasons for not using the paths briefly, namely they are too narrow for the speeds at which I'd be going to use them safely, and they don't usually go where I am going anyhow.  I was too polite to bring up the main reason I don't use them; we already have a perfectly adequate street.

People who get into cycling because they think it is cool, or who buy a bike as a fashion accessory, are not goign to get out there on the road.  Sure, it would be nice if the mainstream culture saw cycling as cool.  Outside of a few movies of limited audience appeal, such as "Quicksilver", a film about bicycle messengers, or "Breaking Away", most pop culture portrayal of cyclists is negative. Either we are reckless road rage maniacs, like the bike messenger who made a brief appearance in the Jackie Chan movie "The Tuxedo", or we are wimps, dorks of the road cruising along like that guy in "the 40 year old virgin". 

Niether description applies to cyclists at large, but that's the sad fact; except for when the subject is a movie about cycling, our mainstream cultures portrayal of it as transportation or as a sport is uncool, to say the least. So it would be nice, or course, if people started giving cyclists more respect and considered that, perhaps, some of us are not as uncool as they have been taught to think.

However, that massive cultural shift aside, that's not what is happening. This is like those Mountain Dew commercials with skydivers to sell soda to people who work in a cubicle all day. It's called marketing. People may or may not end up reevaluating the "uncool" status of cycling in America's cultural lineup, but that is not the motive here behind these clothing companies venturing intot he bicycle business.  and, here comes the bad part -- people who buy bicycle, as a fashion statement, because of edgy hip marketing, are not the type of people who are going to ride every day or maybe even stay as a casual cyclist at all.

More people on bikes is a good thing -- but a person who buys a bike cause he's been todl it's cool isn't as likely to stick with it as someone who loves it for what it is -- especially when confronted by bad weather, bad drivers, steep hills, and people hanging out of car windows like monkeys and yelling their opinion that cycling, to put it mildly, is decidedly uncool. Fragile foundations don't hold up especially not to the day-to-day obstacles in the American cyclist's life on the road. And a personw ho buys a biek the way he would buy jeans -- for fashion -- can't relate to a person who has ridden home in a rainstorm, done a hundred mile ride and then woke up early the next day to ride to work, or ridden with his arm in a sling because he enjoys it so much he finds a way. They may be trying to fit in with the marketing that cycling is cool, but they can tell they are not like me and vice versa.  More to the point, a style is too flimsy a platform to base an expansion of cycling's cultural inroads upon. Scars and experience and enjoyment of the sport are much more substantial than ad slogans. Perhaps this sort of thing is why too many people see cycling as a fleeting activity, like the summer sun, nice for nice days but not part of one's life in a permanent way.  This is why most bike paths for example are almost never maintained in the winter, and allowed to sit fallow until they thaw come spring; the government figures no one would be biking in January.   Uh, why not, I still have to get places. Jeebus! Well, bikes being sold at jeans stores doesn't help.

One more reason next time I talk to my friend's brother:  When I go for a ride in the winter I always see the paths frozen in, so I can't use them even if I was inclined to.

 I can't help but wonder at the fact that people who thought I was wierd, a maniac, or didn't belong on the street for years -- negative reactions to cycling I've experienced ranged from apathy to anger to annoyance -- are suddenly convinced bicycling is cool.  My response -- and any serious cyclist's response to that -- should be twofold: Yes, it's good that more people are interested in bikes. And two, any of the latecomers to cycling who a day ago were screaming at me from inside a Lexus should atone for their hypocrisy by never riding a gear smaller than 53/11!

The mainstream culture has sneered at cycling for so long, jumping on the bandwagon might help raise awareness of bikers on the roads or simply put more people on bikes, but you've got to ask: does more people opn bikes help if niether them nor anyone else take it seriously? And as to the "Trendy" people: What right do you have to be welcomed into a culture you have sneered at for so long that your negative stereotypes of it have become cliches? Seriously, where were you when the cops told me my blood was worth less than car paint?  Or when the police in NYC were hassling riders who had done nothing wrong?  Did you sit there in apathy behidn the wheel of your Ford Taurus as the driver ahead of you cut off a cyclist, or leaned on his horn for no reason?  I'm all for more people biking, but the point is if they had any decent conception fo road use -- let alone decency -- half of them would be in the cyclist's corner whether or not they biked themselves, because much of the crap that cyclists have to deal with daily is so obviously wrong on many levels.

 look, I want more people on bikes, but I want them to stick with it not have it be a fad, this isn't snobbishness its me wanting cycling to be taken seriously.

Bike sold or marketed as trendy fashion accessories or cool things for the young and hip will not make inroads for cycling in America nor cause it to be treated seriously as a sport or means of transportation on the roads.

And if the people who yesterday were not cycling, begin cycling tomorrow, you have to ask: Yesterday, when they weren't personally involved, they could care less about you on your bike and if you are killed. What has changed, simply the shoe on a different foot? One would like to think cycling would improve the outlook of nonriders.  However, the truth is that while it would give them a wider perspective, the primary ideological change has to occur before they take up riding.  Otherwise, that apathetic driver behidn the wheel of the Ford becomes the new face of cycling -- at least as long as he feels its trendy. Do you want that?

In response to a July 1, 2009 article in the Denver Post ("Jefferson County denies permit for bicycle event") Many readers wrote in to complain about cyclists and trip over themselves to thank the local government for its myopic choice in this matter.  The incident is similar to an earlier one where drivers, angry that a motorist was ticketed for endangering a cyclist, sent anonymous letters urging "safe drivers" to do things that are unsafe, like pull out in front of cyclists and block them, in order to "send a message to the statehouse to restrict cycling on our roads, which are our only alternatives during family emergencies, commuting and required duties."

Then, a short while later, drivers show up at meetings and start protesting, so that cycling events are being closed down are cancelled.

The situation goes beyond one or two organized bike rides, and could impact every cyclist everywhere.  For while an organized hundred mile ride doesn't happen every day, there are plenty of people who every day, or near enough, bike around town, to work, or on longer rides on their own.  How long until the same arguments used to denounce large rides has taken aim at individual road users who happen to cycle?

The method is simple: the drivers create unsafe situations because they don't know how to react to cyclists, or don't care to learn -- and then use the unsafe situations they create to argue rides aren't safe. This would make sense in an alternate universe. I fail to see how any educated person could subscribe to such logic in this one.

Nevertheless, people seem thrilled the ride got cancelled. One reader commented on the article, "We, the residents of Deer Creek Canyon, are SO relieved that the 2 commissioners have chosen to block the permit of this bike race. I hope that they do not condsider this in the future. I suspect that the applicants will try again later. They will again experience an public outcry like they have not heard before. "

 And if you don't have to road skills to safely pass a cyclist -- which is not the uncommon rarity people make it out to be -- you need to learn how to drive better.

Another reader opines that, according to cyclist logic, anyone can use any means of transport, and doesn't "have to care about blocking traffic or being a road hazard or following the rules of the road because by gosh I paid my fair share!" This is a straw man argument of the most severe sort. Most experienced cyclists obey more traffic rules than most drivers. 

 And keep in mind it was the drivers that, int he beginning, were arguing in pamphlets that other drivers should break the law and behave recklessly, in order to pick a fight on the road or cause an accident they could use to label cycling unsafe. This is a clear misstatement of the cyclist's position -- and a blatent whitewashing of that of many drivers, who will tell you to your face after nearly hitting you that they don't have to use their turn signals, or that they feel justified in going straight through a turn only lane, or that they think stop signs don't apply to them 'cause they are special.

Think about the number of people that brazenly talk on cellphones and drive in places where it is against the law -- then imagine each of them holding a beer in a paper bag instead of a phone. Both are dangerous. Most of the drivers on cell phones probably would not drive drunk if they thought they were drunk.  But they know being on the phone is against the law, they know it can contribute to an accident, and they do it anyone, totally unashamed.

Again, imagine them blatently drinking from a bottle in a paper bag, just to get an idea of their character.  Not all cyclists are saints, but painting the picture that they are all scofflaws and reckless ne'erdowells of the road is intellectually dishonest and misleading, especially when you consider that the 40-60 thousand deaths in road wrecks every year are nearly all caused by drivers. Indeed, when was the last time a cyclist killed someone inside a car in the course of a crash?  Search your memory, you won't be able to think of it.  When was the last time someone was killed by a driver?  Well, there is a person killed in a car crash every 12 minutes, which means that in the time it takes you to heat a frozen dinner, a person has been killed. Is the solution to this to denounce bicyclists?

Yes there is a problem, as that first reader who felt "invaded" by cyclists commented, but she's wrong about what that problem is:  "I also see that the Deer Creek Challenge website states that the organizers do not understand what happened. This is , to me, is a perfect example of why we have a problem. In order to create solutions to issues, one must first glean that there IS an issue and what the issue is. If they see no issue, the underlying problem grows."  The problem, she says, is cyclists using the roads. That is not the problem.

Yes there is a problem -- interaction between cyclists and drivers. Both need to learn the skills to accomplish this, not try and outlaw each other to avoid having to learn how to use the road with others.  Generally, outlawing situations that you dio not have the skills to deal with is foolish. It is the codification of ignorance into law.  As to skills, most experienced cyclists know how to ride around cars.  One suspects the anger over cycling on the part of drivers is prompted by the fact that many drivers do not know how to drive around cyclists, and somehow feel they should not be obligated to learn. 

As cyclists, we tend to define ourselves not only by what we can do ("I rode a Century"; "my best time up that hill was X", etc.) -- but also by the gear we use to do it.  This can either be rank comsumerism for the sake of being the well-equipped poser -- or "fred" in cyclist slang -- or it can be the identification of a person with their essential equipment, the way a guitarist may love his first guitar or a hiker his old but trusty trail running shoes. 

In my time on the bike I have leaned towards the latter, not because I am afraid of someone calling me a poser, but simply because my budget is, well, small. Also practical concerns often overtake more stylistic ones when you try to get around by bike for transportation as much as possible; you don't want to be clicking your shoes like Dorothy in Oz when you get to work, or the store, etc., if you are riding for transportation. 

And, generally, there is much to be said for a minimalist style on the part of the rider.  Lets face it, if you ride for transport your gear will get wet, sweaty, and beat up. You want stuff that will last, but you don't want something so fancy you'll be sad if it takes a beating or gets scratched. Thus cycling jersey's are great; sometimes, though, a cheap sports jersey for 15$ from an outlet store works for commuting. Gloves: Cycling gloves are the best. But get plain inexpensive ones. For full finger gloves, consider baseball or mechanics gloves. Don't spend dough on $40 fancypants gloves. You will be destryoed when you get your first flat and the team logo ends up blacked out from a grease stain.

Of course, on longer rides I wear bike clothes, shorts, typically, road bike shorts; I sweat less in them. For that reason, whenever possible, I wear them even on shorter rides.  I wear cycling jerseys, or sports jerseys generally, because the fabric doesn't stay sweaty the way cotton does.

Oh, it took a long while to get used to it.  At first I felt silly because of how the shorts looked. Really, like superhero tights or something.  Maybe that's fine for Lance Armstrong or Greg Lemond, but for a dude in Jersey?  When I first started wearign cycling shorts I wore other shorts over them. Finally I gave it up. I don't really care what people think I look like. I ride a bike.  That's part of it.

 Of course you don't have to wear bike shorts to ride a bike.  Or a helmet, for that matter.  In fact, a lot of commentary on the subject seems to come from people who, lacking appropriate head protection, suffered some kind of injury.  A lot of people, who ostensibly are riders themselves, say cycling gear is stupid.  If they mean buying something just for the hype, or because it has a "cool" team logo, then yes, they may well be right.  But I just love (read: do *not* love) people who opine that "cycling specific clothing is a waste of money!"  One is tempted to ask such people if they would go swimming in a winter coat, or go skiing in swimming trunks.  Some items are intended for specific activity and have a usefulness that it is idiocy to deny.  If you don't wear bike shorts, for example, you may get along fine without them - but that probably means you aren't riding for five or six hours at a time.  I'd love to see one of these naysayers do a century in jeans and still be able to walk the next day!

Sure, you don't need bike shorts, but after you reach a certain level of riding, you start to see the benefit of them.

And more to the point, if you insist there is no reason for such devices, you end up convincing others not to use them, which means we now have an army of would-be cyclists riding in street clothes that feel fine for short rides but will become uncomfortable on longer rides.  Of course, as one becomes a better cyclist one goes on longer and longer rides.  By passing off the denunciation of cycling-specific garb as some sort of jedi knowledge to newcomers, many of these people are doing nothing but making sure that  future cyclists' involvement with cycling, either as a sport or activity, remains casual and fleeting.  This isn't to diminish the value of casual cycling -- a 5 mile ride around one's own neighborhood can sometimes be the best part of a day, and even experienced cyclists will settle for short rides if it is all they can squeeze in on a given day -- but a 5 mile bike ride is not going to change someone's life, either, even if it is enjoyable. More to the point limiting yourself to shorter rides seems counterproductive.

Of course, a lot of cycling gear is, very probably, in fact overpriced.  There is no reason a jersey should cost 70$, or a pair of sunglasses should cost 150$.  However note that if you buy a more expensive jersey, and you bike every day, your jersey will last longer if it is more expensive, where an inexpensive one will not, or will fray and wear much sooner. This isn't to justify the fact that the expensive one is that much more expensive. Then it becomes an issue; how much more expensive should it be? You can't force the company to sell it cheaper, but you can establish a price above which you are not interested and thereby narrow your search for supplies. I still have the first pair of bike shorts I got over ten years ago, and use them.  But because the higher end brands and models are obscenely expensive doesn't mean you have to buy that or nothing.  A $40 cycling jersey will work just as well as a 70$ one for most riders, and for commuting or short rides any sports jersey of breathable fabric will do -- preferably in bright colors. You can often find some at clothing stores for under $20 a piece. They lack pockets, of course, although some runnign shirts have a small back pocket, but not as useful as either the traditional open top multi pockets of bike jerseys, or the zippered rear pocket sometimes found on them as well. But then if you're commuting or running errands you probably have a backpack or bag of some sort anyhow with you to carry stuff. 

And these days it is even easier for the budget minded cyclist. You don't need to shop at TJMaxx for last years jogging shirts -- a lot of cycling companies are making less expensive jerseys for casual riding. While not as tight fitting as traditional cycling jerseys, they are usually ten to twenty dollars less, and still have at least a partial front zipper, breathable fabric, and of course are made to fit on the bike.  Same thing with sunglasses. Companies like Optic Nerve and Ryders Eyewear are offering a "budget" alternative to previously market dominating companies in the sunglasses area, for example.  As Oakleys went from around a hundred dollars to over a hundred and fifty dollars, a market became open for sports-specific sunglasses which didn't cost more than your bike.  The result? You can buy decent cycling specific shades for less than half the cost of the Oakleys.  Are the Oakleys worth $150?  If you want to spend it. I have an older pair of Oakley Blade sunglasses and they are good quality, but then I didn't spend a fortune on them, and to be honest, my Ryders work just as well and have held up to over a year of hard use so far including winter road salt, snow, rain, and getting dropped innumerable times on rough surfaces.  My new Ryders, the Aero model, work well, as to my Optic Nerves. In all fairness the Optic Nerves seem nicer, and also came with 4 lenses instead of the Ryders 3; on the other hand the greater number of lenses means they are each more specialized. The Ryders has a dark lens, a orange lens, and a clear one. The Orange works for changing or low light conditions and the clear is for dark.  But the orange from the Optics is more like a brown; they offer grey, orange, yellow and clear.  Since they offer orange and yellow, their orange is dakrer and their yellow, of course, lighter. This means the one lens doesn't work as well in varying conditions. it is a minor discord but one worth noting if the idea is to commute with one pair of glasses without changing the lenses. Yes you can change the lenses but why muck with em and risk damaging or wear and tear which could cause something to come loose at 20mph in your face?  Nevertheless tho one is slightly darker the Optics orange lenses still work in both sun and shadow.

Long story short: while some brands may be worth more dough, you can get a lot for half to a third of the cost of the brands you'd think of first.  And in many cases they are just as durable, as in the case of my shades. You do get what you pay for -- and 150$ Oakleys would be nice -- if I had a sponsor, or a money press.  All of these reasons, by the way, are reasons for cyclists to get their hands of cycling specific gear -- but not spend a fortune on it if they are going to use it for daily riding such as commuting, rather than weekend sporting rides: it will undergo wear and tear. Will you cry if you lose your 150$ Oakleys, or they get scratched up? Cantodor or Lance wouldn't, but I'm sure they didn't pay retail for them -- and even if they did, 150 beans is not a lot of pay to a pro athlete! Is  cycling gear overpriced? Depends on the gear, and who you ask. I think the prices are atrocious. On the other hand, what is it worth is different from what does it cost.  It is a lot like those who say you don't need bike shorts. No, you don't, but after you've done a few 5 or six hour rides you see the reason for them. So if you are complaining there is no reason for bike shorts, or helmets, or jerseys with pockets in the back, you probably aren't riding enough.  

But just because some cycling gear is overpriced does not mean a cyclist should avoid using it.  Obviously go cheap (in expense, not quality) if possible or find deals. But some things you just have to use, like a bike helmet. You could use a hardhat, or a motorcycle helmet, or a baseball cap, but niether would be comfortable when riding, and the third one certainly wouldn't offer any protection  -- plus people would yell "foul ball" when you rode past.

Road cycling shoes are like helmets.  Not that you need them for every ride --  altho I used Shimano SPD pedals for some time, I have been using toe clips and straps pretty exclusively for a long while now.  The reason is simple; they work fine, they are easy to use, and I don't need special shoes. Indeed, a concession to performance was the use of an SPD cycling shoe without the cleats attached just to get a stiffer sole, but it still allowed me to walk and run and do other stuff when afoot, after getting off the bike.

This was fine on most rides, but on some long hard rides my feet would hurt.  Or I would seem to run out of power.  After the hundred mile ride a few weeks back, the local crowd was aghast to discover I had ridden the whole ride in ratty old sneakers, with several holes showing through from wear and tear on my toe clips.  It was strongly recommended I get a pair of "real shoes".

By this, it was meant road cycling shoes, with a stiff sole, almost no tread, and larger pedals than the SPDs -- some variant of the LOOK pedal system, which everyone else seems to like.  I was not sure. The shoes and pedals could be expensive. Is it worth it? Will I tip over? Walk like a duck?

Moreover, although I was aware of the folly of the naysayers, because I have found some cycling gear quite useful myself, I found myself thinking that in this case, I didn't like the idea of rendering one of my bikes only operable with special shoes.  My reasoning, voiced later on a ride while wearing the shoes, was logic only a bicyclist who tries to live as a bicyclist could understand: I was used to just being able to hop on the bike and go, anywhere, to do anything.  To the store, to go to a friend's house, to work, to the post office... I didn't like the idea of rendering one of my bikes off limits to that sort of practical use.  The other rider said yeah, but sometimes you have to do it to be able to make the bike do what you want it to do for fun.

  I see the point in that, too: my "sunday" bikes are geared roadbikes, my commuter is a fixed gear bike. The commuter has fenders, the sunday bikes don't -- though I can fit one with a clip on rear fender.  The Sunday bike has a speedometer. The commuter does not...

In other words, the bikes used for long road rides where the goal is great time and distance with a foot on the pedal, already have a major difference between them and the other bikes.

Well, after the first test ride on the new pedals and shoes -- keo type pedals of the look design by some other brand, and a pair of Diadora cycling shoes that look like they cost more than my rims, I can say it is an improvement. You feel more attached to the bike, more so even than with the SPD pedals I've used before.  The stiffer sole turns your whole shoe into a pedal.  Going up and down hills I felt both uneasy with my new platform and afraid of my shoes clipping out -- and simultaneously seemed to have more energy, more speed, what have you.  Standing on the pedals especially -- it was a combination of an unfamiliar sensation and the feeling of more efficiency. And in terms of overall handling the bike hardly lost for the switch. A downhill I normally don't take faster than 25 or so, I carved at 33 miles an hour around the curve and felt perfectly in control.

Let's be honest, people who are really into bikes tend to think differently. Others see cycling cap and think "dorky", we think "velo cool".  So having a pair of racer-quality Italian cycling shoes is kind of for the cyclist like having the same guitar that Bruce Springsteen uses would be to a rock fan.  but then Springsteen's guitar can't help you survive 50 or 60 mile rides or longer.  So it is not about the fact that they are cool, or high tech, or the latest and greatest. Not even that they are Italian. It's that they can allow me to become a better rider. The same way the orange lenses of variable light condition cycling sunglasses do.

Not make me a better rider; having better gear doesn't make you better, but it removes the impediment that having lesser gear can put in your way. 

So call me a poser, or a fred, or an example of consumerism.  But I choose to consider these shoes akin to my helmet, or the messenger bag I commute to work with; a piece of gear that serves a function, which I should not be without.  I won't be commuting to work in these cycling shoes, any more than I'd go for a century carrying a heavy bag full of my work gear,  but for longer rides when the road demands it, they will be there to use.  Take that, naysayers.

Sunday, June 7, 2009 -- left for Scotch Plains for the 2nd Annual Fat Man Century. We went out towards Princeton along the canal ("So I can tell my parents I went to Princeton?") and then up through Ringoes and Sargaentsville, where we stopped at a Chinese deli. Then Flemington, and parts beyond. A detour because Burnt Mills Rd was out. Around mile 95 heading into Warren/Watchung I stopped, out of water, at a convenience store, to eat and drink. Refilled my bottles and got back on the bike. Then down towards the Watchung Circle and over 22. Came out in North Plainfield, then hooked back on Rt. 22 for a block before taking the next exit and turning off. Followed backstreets to East 2nd St. and The Bike Stand.

At the end of the day my speedometer read: distance -- 112 miles.

Lesson learned; it's better to try, not think you can do it, and still finish, then never try.

In the book "The Art of Urban Cycling," the author, Robert Hurst, a cyclist himself,  mentions the danger of "malignant pride" -- the notion that hey, I have improved my skills, I am so swift, or so cool, or whatever, that I need not be careful any longer. This is not often a deliberate carelessness, but something that a person does without thinking.

It is amazing how one run in with the ground due to this mistaken notion is conductive to more careful riding.

Generally, experienced cyclists are much more aware of the road than the average driver or pedestrian; the cyclist, as he sees other road users, is calculating in his head their timing and possible course; he is also simultaneously figuring out a safe route around them.  He is aware of broken glass, potholes, even aves or bumps in the road, that the average noncyclist might not even know is there. The result of this greater awareness is that while some statistics argue cyclists cause most bike car crashes, when you take out novices and children and look at experienced adult cyclists as road users, they are more likely to get hit by a car or jaywalker than hit one themselves.  This is why many experienced cyclists look at accident statistics with a degree of indifference bordering on annoyance; what does that have to do with me, the experienced cyclist asks. Yes compared to the driver on his cell phone or the pedestrian who jumps into traffic without even breaking stride, let alone looking, the experie nced cyclist is not lilkely to cause an accident.

However, even the experienced cyclist can be more careful, and such was the case on Sunday, May 24.  After a 50-odd mile road ride I was asked to go for a short ride to a nearby town with family.  Not a bad idea and we went nice and slow and it was enjoyable. 

Coming back, however, we were conversing, half a block from home, when I made a goof; I hit the brake to bleed off speed while standing on one leg and leaning against the seatpost, not sitting. On a roadbike, no bike deal, but the mountainbike's v-brakes pack a lot more stopping power and the pull of the lever is different. Over the bars I went, in amusingly slow motion, hurting nothing except my knee, which was bruised from meeting the street and remained stiff until the middle of the next day, after I had ridden to Somerville to watch the bike race there on Memorial Day, a ride which worked out some of the stiffness, one would think.

Lesson learned?  You can be a good rider; you can always be a better rider.  You may laugh at the idior on the cell phone in the Buick who cannot hold a straight line; but that doesn't mean that, although you are light-years ahead of said idiot in road handling skill, that you could not also be more careful.  And while you can be safe nine times out of ten while zooming down steep hills at 40 mph, 35 miles out, it is the tenth time, when you are preceeding at a poke-along pace half a block from your own driveway, that you have to be careful.  Just because the situation is familiar and a lot less dangerous than others -- the speed lower, the road flat, etc. -- does not mean there if no danger.  There will always be some danger because there is always the risk you could move the brake lever a fraction of an inch too much while having your weight distributed slightly out of proper position, for just a second.

 Most experienced cyclists who have serious accidents are the victims of careless drivers or pedestrians, but take note; most bike crashes per se are solo wrecks.  Sometimes, in looking down on that idiot with the cell phone in the Buick, we forget that his capacity for idiocy is not his own; it is universal to human nature. Even experienced riders can make silly mistakes, something as simple and pulling the brake lever slightly too hard.  If it results in a bum knee for a day or so it is a relatively inexpensive reminder that the next time it could be a busted neck, which should serve to make one ride more carefully.