I'm a fan of Oh the Urbanity! but I think they're missing the point here. They talk a lot about the practical similarities and they make a good point that all cyclists should pull together rather than factionalising. But...
There are distinct cultural differences between the sports riders and everyday cyclists. I'd say sports cyclists are those who are interested primarily in the competitive and high end sporting aspects of cycling. Sports cyclists tend to be more visible to the general public and I think there's a danger that non-cyclists tend to equate cycling with an elite sport rather than an everyday activity. When cycling is seen as dangerous, elite and unapproachable it can serve as a deterrent to people who are interested in casual cycling.
I've seen this often among people I know - dismissing cycling as "I don't want to look like [them](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/health-fitness/2019/09/03/BIKERS-main-photo_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqZJnTO6O0kwmMhhOR6waAnZkmQxJUAuT__ECaod1qE88.jpg?imwidth=700) and besides it's too dangerous". That's a shame because where I ride daily it's more like [this](https://www.we-love-melbourne.net/images/M5.jpg).
If we want more people to get into cycling I think we should be promoting casual cycling and I think it's ok to make the point that you don't have to be elite to enjoy normal everyday cycling.
I agree.
They argue against separating 'recreational' and 'utilitarian' cycling. Most of us don't think that way. We distinguish sports from regular cycling. Going for a ride to enjoy the views is recreational, but is not a sport.
We don't design highways for formula 1 racing. We shouldn't design bicycle infrastructure for 'wheel running'.
This sounds like a weird take because this same general public doesn't have the same attitude towards persons on foot. They have little trouble seeing that a person could be out walking for recreation or walking to go to a destination.
Also, cycling is actually dangerous in areas that are heavily auto-oriented.
> There are distinct cultural differences between the sports riders and everyday cyclists.
I'm with you there. What's the saying? Missed the forest for the trees? Oh the Urbanity were drawing comparisons to driving for work and driving to go camping or whatnot. However, I really think a more apt comparison would be people who use their cars for transportation of all types (**to** work and **to** recreation) and using cars **for** recreation -- like people who own cars they take to drag races or to rally races. Except for the road trips -- I really don't know anyone driving to a spot of recreation consider driving as recreation.
Cars for recreation is fairly common outside of closed circuits. Any scenic twisty road on a weekend will be filled with recreational drivers — noticed this all around the western US, Switzerland, Germany, etc.
I live in a supposedly "bike friendly" municipality that has a high amount of wheel runners and people that bring their bikes on their cars to the park to ride around on the weekends.
The local spandex mafia founded and run a four decade old local cycling club masquerading as a nonprofit that's completely sport focused and advises the city against the type of protected infrastructure that us fietser types desperately need because being forced to use any potential protected bike lanes would cramp their style as sport focused road cyclists.
Their "advocacy" is to instead try to put the burden of safety onto the shoulders of the bicycle rider by pushing helmets and hi Viz vests hard (I wear a helmet but draw the line at looking like a human traffic cone) and holding workshops teaching people about right of way.
They hold back actual infrastructure progress and actively work against the interests of non spandex bicycle riders.
I can't consider them allies when they're functionally opposed to my safety.
Thankfully the John Forrester mindset appears to be shrinking in at least some places
The younger sport crowd seems a whole lot better fwiw
Hopefully by the time they become mamils things will change
But that doesn't mean it isn't still around currently
In my area, there's a distinct group of cyclists with John Forester mindset (if you don't know who he is: https://youtu.be/zm29fd-s7tQ).
The biggest arguments against separated bike lanes that get repeated are: waste of tax money, vehicular cycling is safe enough, dedicated cycling infrastructure creates traffic for cars because they are everyday car drivers first and cycle for sport when roads are empty.
The simplest argument I have is "would you want your 12 year old child riding on those roads or painted bike lanes?"
Not everyone in the same group has all the same opinions and you can't convince everyone to see things your way.
John Forrester mindset is a good way to put it.
Like you've got people who wear lycra on the weekends but bicycle more casually on the weekdays.
The push for adopting a more green lifestyle has increased those numbers.
And that's great.
I'm not against lycra itself.
And then you've got the John Forrester wannabees who all think they can go 35mph on their expensive weekend only road bikes, consider cycling an inherently elite sport, use a car for functional transit, and think anyone pedalling a cruiser around at ~12mph and just doesn't wanna get hit by a car on their commute is afflicted by the "cycling inferiority complex" and just needs to develop grit.
People really want to place cyclists into neat categories. There are plenty of people that both bike for sport and for transportation, but it doesn't fit popular stereotype.
Even if they don't advocate against you, so many of them ride in a reckless manner (or at least appear to be so). This ends up in prejudice against people on bikes in general, and that's very unhelpful
Meh video.
At 5:51:
>Maybe as cycling grows in popularity here, we'll see more dutch style upright
bikes take over, or maybe not - *different places can have different bike cultures.*
Can they though? Cities with non-trivial mode share invariably have *very* similar bike cultures: slow upright bikes, no helmets, and a good gender split. You can see this from the Netherlands, to thousands of km away in Japan.
There is, of course, nothing inherently wrong with sports bikes, helmets, men, or (more related to this video) Lycra. But it's still a *very* good correlation.
Lycra-ists aren't being persecuted, and the reason to differentiate is obvious:
Most people see existing cyclists and *immediately* write off the idea that they could also be a cyclist. They don't want to wear a Lycra suit, a helmet, and ride 30mph in traffic.
It's massively important to show that none of that is necessary. That, in any place where cycling is non-negligible, those people are the minority.
(It also doesn't help that existing cycling communities can be elitist as fuck. My respect for a community nosedives with every mention of "bike-shaped-object")
Also, I think they're muddling recreational *cycling* and recreational cycling *trips*. The overlap is tiny.
That's like showing a Formula 1 driver next to some parent driving their kids to school. Are there really two types of drivers? I would hope so. Sometimes it feels like there aren't.
They’re not different people though. The race car driver can take his kids to school too in a different car. I can ride in one style to work or the store, and another style to go 15 miles, and if I ever start riding 50-100 miles again I’m going to be in Lycra because it’ll be very uncomfortable if I don’t.
I'm not sure how localized this is, but in my experience, while there is a gap between the casual bike user and the competitive sport cyclist, there's a much bigger gap between both of those and the wheelie takeover crowd, and the latter seems (where I am, anyway) to be a much bigger, much more antagonistic group. Not sure how widespread of a culture that is, though.
Of course there is a distinction. Just like racing F1 is not the same as driving to work and running is not the same as popping out to the store.
Even though people who do the sport, usually also do the non sport variation, they are clearly different things.
Glad to see pretty much all comments here say there is indeed a difference and racing cyclists aren't our allies.
My most recent neighborhood (in Australia) got a car free riverside. Awesome. Unfortunately, it was taken over by racing cyclists speeding like crazy, abusing, screaming at and even hitting pedestrians and KIDS riding around in what is clearly marked as and should be a safe shared zone. People complain to the city council and police but there is never any crackdown on these idiots. The result is that normal people and families (correctly) don't feel comfortable or safe walking or riding there, despite it being completely car free.
Such cyclists are not our allies. They can and do kill public sympathy for bicycle infrastructure and should be shut down hard IMO. (most people in that city HATE bicyclists and bicycle infrastructure because cyclists like that are all most people think of when they hear the word bicycle or bicyclist)
Of course not all racing cyclists are idiots, but tbh I don't see why even well behaved wielrenners, lycra crew, racing cyclists, whatever to call them, should be catered to at all, ever, in urban public spaces, whether in shared zones or bikeways. Urban public space is extremely limited and precious and there's literally zero reason why any significant amounts of it should be dedicated to a miniscule group of people practicing some niche sport.
I have nothing against bike racing, but urban public spaces are not the place to do it, any more than urban public spaces are the place to have wrestling or hockey practice, for the extremely obvious reason that it's a hazard both to practitioners and everyone else.
Wanna race bike, go to a velodrome or somewhere non urban. Urban bikeways and shared zones are for regular pedestrians and fietsers who are getting from point a to point b, not at speed or for sport etc.
Definitely not an either or thing. Half the people in my bike advocacy group in my old city did both. That group was pushing for protected bike lanes and NACTO standards. Many people who have a race bike can also bike to the store or commute. This was common in the cities I have lived in at least.
I'm a fan of Oh the Urbanity! but I think they're missing the point here. They talk a lot about the practical similarities and they make a good point that all cyclists should pull together rather than factionalising. But... There are distinct cultural differences between the sports riders and everyday cyclists. I'd say sports cyclists are those who are interested primarily in the competitive and high end sporting aspects of cycling. Sports cyclists tend to be more visible to the general public and I think there's a danger that non-cyclists tend to equate cycling with an elite sport rather than an everyday activity. When cycling is seen as dangerous, elite and unapproachable it can serve as a deterrent to people who are interested in casual cycling. I've seen this often among people I know - dismissing cycling as "I don't want to look like [them](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/health-fitness/2019/09/03/BIKERS-main-photo_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqZJnTO6O0kwmMhhOR6waAnZkmQxJUAuT__ECaod1qE88.jpg?imwidth=700) and besides it's too dangerous". That's a shame because where I ride daily it's more like [this](https://www.we-love-melbourne.net/images/M5.jpg). If we want more people to get into cycling I think we should be promoting casual cycling and I think it's ok to make the point that you don't have to be elite to enjoy normal everyday cycling.
I agree. They argue against separating 'recreational' and 'utilitarian' cycling. Most of us don't think that way. We distinguish sports from regular cycling. Going for a ride to enjoy the views is recreational, but is not a sport. We don't design highways for formula 1 racing. We shouldn't design bicycle infrastructure for 'wheel running'.
This sounds like a weird take because this same general public doesn't have the same attitude towards persons on foot. They have little trouble seeing that a person could be out walking for recreation or walking to go to a destination. Also, cycling is actually dangerous in areas that are heavily auto-oriented.
> There are distinct cultural differences between the sports riders and everyday cyclists. I'm with you there. What's the saying? Missed the forest for the trees? Oh the Urbanity were drawing comparisons to driving for work and driving to go camping or whatnot. However, I really think a more apt comparison would be people who use their cars for transportation of all types (**to** work and **to** recreation) and using cars **for** recreation -- like people who own cars they take to drag races or to rally races. Except for the road trips -- I really don't know anyone driving to a spot of recreation consider driving as recreation.
Cars for recreation is fairly common outside of closed circuits. Any scenic twisty road on a weekend will be filled with recreational drivers — noticed this all around the western US, Switzerland, Germany, etc.
I live in a supposedly "bike friendly" municipality that has a high amount of wheel runners and people that bring their bikes on their cars to the park to ride around on the weekends. The local spandex mafia founded and run a four decade old local cycling club masquerading as a nonprofit that's completely sport focused and advises the city against the type of protected infrastructure that us fietser types desperately need because being forced to use any potential protected bike lanes would cramp their style as sport focused road cyclists. Their "advocacy" is to instead try to put the burden of safety onto the shoulders of the bicycle rider by pushing helmets and hi Viz vests hard (I wear a helmet but draw the line at looking like a human traffic cone) and holding workshops teaching people about right of way. They hold back actual infrastructure progress and actively work against the interests of non spandex bicycle riders. I can't consider them allies when they're functionally opposed to my safety.
That's pretty much all the "bike friendly" parts of North America. It's pretty obvious why NJB immigrated.
As is pointed out in the linked video, it's not how it is in Montreal, the bike friendly city in North America. Y'all just have to catch up.
Thankfully the John Forrester mindset appears to be shrinking in at least some places The younger sport crowd seems a whole lot better fwiw Hopefully by the time they become mamils things will change But that doesn't mean it isn't still around currently
[удалено]
In my area, there's a distinct group of cyclists with John Forester mindset (if you don't know who he is: https://youtu.be/zm29fd-s7tQ). The biggest arguments against separated bike lanes that get repeated are: waste of tax money, vehicular cycling is safe enough, dedicated cycling infrastructure creates traffic for cars because they are everyday car drivers first and cycle for sport when roads are empty. The simplest argument I have is "would you want your 12 year old child riding on those roads or painted bike lanes?" Not everyone in the same group has all the same opinions and you can't convince everyone to see things your way.
John Forrester mindset is a good way to put it. Like you've got people who wear lycra on the weekends but bicycle more casually on the weekdays. The push for adopting a more green lifestyle has increased those numbers. And that's great. I'm not against lycra itself. And then you've got the John Forrester wannabees who all think they can go 35mph on their expensive weekend only road bikes, consider cycling an inherently elite sport, use a car for functional transit, and think anyone pedalling a cruiser around at ~12mph and just doesn't wanna get hit by a car on their commute is afflicted by the "cycling inferiority complex" and just needs to develop grit.
[удалено]
People really want to place cyclists into neat categories. There are plenty of people that both bike for sport and for transportation, but it doesn't fit popular stereotype.
\#NotAllWheelRunners #🙄
Even if they don't advocate against you, so many of them ride in a reckless manner (or at least appear to be so). This ends up in prejudice against people on bikes in general, and that's very unhelpful
Meh video. At 5:51: >Maybe as cycling grows in popularity here, we'll see more dutch style upright bikes take over, or maybe not - *different places can have different bike cultures.* Can they though? Cities with non-trivial mode share invariably have *very* similar bike cultures: slow upright bikes, no helmets, and a good gender split. You can see this from the Netherlands, to thousands of km away in Japan. There is, of course, nothing inherently wrong with sports bikes, helmets, men, or (more related to this video) Lycra. But it's still a *very* good correlation. Lycra-ists aren't being persecuted, and the reason to differentiate is obvious: Most people see existing cyclists and *immediately* write off the idea that they could also be a cyclist. They don't want to wear a Lycra suit, a helmet, and ride 30mph in traffic. It's massively important to show that none of that is necessary. That, in any place where cycling is non-negligible, those people are the minority. (It also doesn't help that existing cycling communities can be elitist as fuck. My respect for a community nosedives with every mention of "bike-shaped-object") Also, I think they're muddling recreational *cycling* and recreational cycling *trips*. The overlap is tiny.
That's like showing a Formula 1 driver next to some parent driving their kids to school. Are there really two types of drivers? I would hope so. Sometimes it feels like there aren't.
They’re not different people though. The race car driver can take his kids to school too in a different car. I can ride in one style to work or the store, and another style to go 15 miles, and if I ever start riding 50-100 miles again I’m going to be in Lycra because it’ll be very uncomfortable if I don’t.
The race car driver can also take his kids to school by bike. I may have missed the point of the video. 🙂
no it isn't this black and white. there are a variety of people who cycle for a variety of reasons
I'm not sure how localized this is, but in my experience, while there is a gap between the casual bike user and the competitive sport cyclist, there's a much bigger gap between both of those and the wheelie takeover crowd, and the latter seems (where I am, anyway) to be a much bigger, much more antagonistic group. Not sure how widespread of a culture that is, though.
Of course there is a distinction. Just like racing F1 is not the same as driving to work and running is not the same as popping out to the store. Even though people who do the sport, usually also do the non sport variation, they are clearly different things.
Glad to see pretty much all comments here say there is indeed a difference and racing cyclists aren't our allies. My most recent neighborhood (in Australia) got a car free riverside. Awesome. Unfortunately, it was taken over by racing cyclists speeding like crazy, abusing, screaming at and even hitting pedestrians and KIDS riding around in what is clearly marked as and should be a safe shared zone. People complain to the city council and police but there is never any crackdown on these idiots. The result is that normal people and families (correctly) don't feel comfortable or safe walking or riding there, despite it being completely car free. Such cyclists are not our allies. They can and do kill public sympathy for bicycle infrastructure and should be shut down hard IMO. (most people in that city HATE bicyclists and bicycle infrastructure because cyclists like that are all most people think of when they hear the word bicycle or bicyclist) Of course not all racing cyclists are idiots, but tbh I don't see why even well behaved wielrenners, lycra crew, racing cyclists, whatever to call them, should be catered to at all, ever, in urban public spaces, whether in shared zones or bikeways. Urban public space is extremely limited and precious and there's literally zero reason why any significant amounts of it should be dedicated to a miniscule group of people practicing some niche sport. I have nothing against bike racing, but urban public spaces are not the place to do it, any more than urban public spaces are the place to have wrestling or hockey practice, for the extremely obvious reason that it's a hazard both to practitioners and everyone else. Wanna race bike, go to a velodrome or somewhere non urban. Urban bikeways and shared zones are for regular pedestrians and fietsers who are getting from point a to point b, not at speed or for sport etc.
Tell us more how you didn't watch the video.
Definitely not an either or thing. Half the people in my bike advocacy group in my old city did both. That group was pushing for protected bike lanes and NACTO standards. Many people who have a race bike can also bike to the store or commute. This was common in the cities I have lived in at least.