Every so often—probably monthly, but I don't really pay attention to these things—The Age prints a glossy, super-sized supplement called "theage (melbourne) magazine", which is largely a carriage for never-ending adverts for expensive cars, clothes, and accessories. (Apparently, this is referred to as a lifestyle magazine
in the trade.)
I barely look at it normally. And as last week's edition was subtitled "The fashion issue", my attention was even less piqued than usual. But somehow I found my way to the centre page where there was another supplement (yes, a supplement to the supplement) called activecity
, which promised:
Swim, sail, ride, run…
Your guide to making the most of Melbourne's great outdoors
Hmm, sounds OK—let's try inside:
Early autumn is the best time of year in Melbourne to get out and about and enjoy the outdoors.
Yeah, that's right on the money. So, what does it say about cycling?
Well, it appears that La Dolce Vita has caught up with The Age's food critic, John Lethlean, and he's joined the ranks of the Beach Road roadies. Good on him, but his article presents a picture of cycling that I barely recognise, where in post-ride cafés:
…caffeine and endorphins lead you into very sacred territory: pure male bonding over a shared mountain, climbed.
Phew! Smell the testosterone!
And how about this quote from David Ollie (producer of Sooty Park)?
Schumacher's Ferrari may or may not be priceless, but it is definitely unavailable…Anyone can buy an almost detail replica of Lance Armstrong's Tour de France-winning steed and arrive at the coffee shop with an air of complete nonchalance.
What—the—hell?
Small wonder the Beach Road crowd are often accused (unfairly, I presume) of being a bunch of poseurs and wankers.
I have some difficulty expressing my ambivalence about this sort of coverage. On the one hand, I'm really pleased that cycling is getting some positive press these days. Conversely, I'm acutely aware that it bears little resemblance to cycling as I (and many others) know it.
I don't question that cashed-up, baby-boom vintage, born-again roadies are legitimate cyclists. And they certainly have my admiration—even with years on my side, I know I wouldn't be able to keep up with many of them.
But they don't represent the only legitimate form of cycling. And this presents a source of confusion for people who might be interested in trying cycling. So to clarify a few issues for anyone who might be interested in taking up cycling:
- no, you don't have to squeeze into tight lycra
- no, you don't have to do 60km before you can stop for coffee
- no, you don't have to spend $4000 on a bike (and you certainly don't need to spend $8000!)
- no, you don't have to have all those toys-for-boys gadgets and accessories
- no, you don't need "an almost detail replica of Lance Armstrong's Tour de France-winning steed"
- no, you don't have to engage in male-bonding and one-upmanship
Sure, you can do these things, but they are optional.
All you really need to do is…ride your bike.
I'm terribly glad to hear one doesn't have to indulge in male bonding. I wasn't quite sure how I was going to manage it.
Right on the money! Cycling is great for recreation, but there's more to cycling than just recreation.
It's great to hear from you all.
I'm glad Phil reckons this is worth repeating because it's important for novices to know that there are plenty of ways to enjoy cycling, without necessarily having to join a road pack.
Aargh, come on lelak! You didn't need me to tell you that! And I'm sure you hold your own when the boys start bonding.
Good point from Fritz, although I'd say one of the best things about cycle commuting is getting exercise and recreation on the way to work, and few other ways of commuting offer that!
But.... These roadies have a true, pure love of bikes for biking's sake. The person who commutes or uses it for transport may see it only as a means to an end - getting them around. While there is nothing wrong with that by any means (and should be encouraged), the roadies that you speak of love bikes and cycling for the pure enjoyment and love for the machine and activity. Regardless of how much they spent for their "steeds".
I love high-end road bikes as much as anybody, but the attitude that only certain riders are cyclists makes me sick. I get quite irritated when the word cyclist is defined as anything other than "one who rides a bicycle." Unfortunately, I have heard that sentiment expressed way too many times.
Last year, our local paper reported an accident that led to the death of a cyclist. Someone in the local bike club took issue with the use of the word "cyclist" in the article because the victim, a poor person with no other means of transportation, happened to be riding on the wrong side of the street at night without a helmet. In response to a local yahoo group post that said, I'd love to see the media make a distinction between a "cyclist" and a person who happens to be riding a bike
, I wrote the following:
Anyone who rides a bike is a cyclist. Why make a distinction between club cyclists and transportational cyclists whenever someone on a bike is injured or killed? To me, doing so comes across as elitist and hurts the cause of transportational cycling. I am not saying that was anyone's intention, but that type of distinction is something that I have heard for many years and tend to react to. Maybe it is just a matter of semantics, but it really bothers me when people who don't wear lycra are not considered "cyclists". Is it OK to call them bike riders? Really, what is the difference? Across socioeconomic lines, cyclist of all types can be seen breaking the law and riding irresponsibly, so I don't believe that it is fair to imply that low income transportational cyclists are giving recreational riders like most of us a bad image.
You wouldn't believe the argument that ensued. This is already a long comment, so I'll spare you the details of the follow up posts, which certainly escalated in intensity. I'll just say again that I don't understand the attitude, but it does seem to be pervasive among recreational cyclist. It really is sad that some people feel the need to make such a distinction. I am always happy to see anyone else on a bike.
Cycling is the new golf - it's packed with wankers.
I've switched from my road bike to my single speed for fun for a few weeks. You should see the looks I get from lycra clad road bike riding tools.
In fairness, whenever any group of people reaches a certain number, there is guaranteed to be a certain proportion of wankers present. But in cycling I don't think that's the sole preserve of the roadies—wankers abound everywhere; perhaps the high profile of roadies makes their share of wankers more obvious.
I have nothing further to add to the comment by James, except to say that I agree.
I thought it was obvious but maybe I should point out that I'm not taking a swipe at roadies at all—I'm not personally interested in road racing but I still respect roadies as cyclists. (But then, like James, I respect all cyclists.) And come to that, I'm not really criticising John Lethlean either; I see this blog entry as just a different, non-opposing view.
However I must say that I find the comment by "I Love Bikes" mildly offensive. While I think it's rather pointless to argue about whose love of bikes is greater or more "pure", I must note that to this commuting cyclist cycling is no mere "means to an end"—a lifestyle is probably a better description (and I think the very existence of this blog demonstrates my point).
Indeed, "pure enjoyment" is the major motivating factor that gets me to swing a leg over my bike each morning. I just enjoy my cycling in a different way to roadies—or for that matter to mountain bikers or BMXers or cyclocrossers or triathletes or tourers or weekend trundlers or any other subgroup you'd care to name.
So don't come here and try to tell me that any flavour of cyclist is more pure at heart—we all love our bikes, we all love cycling—we just do it differently.
And I'm happy to be corrected, but for the time being I stand by my view that any non-pro cyclist who has spent k on a bike has more money than sense…
I think we are all very defensive about our particular niches in the overall bike community. Roadies looking down at commuters or just-for-fun casual cyclists and commuters and "lifestyle" bikers sneering at the expensive bikes of the roadies (or any other enthusiast: mtb, bmx, track, fixed, etc). Why can't we just get along? Every group has wankers (as you British Commonwealthers call them) and they should not be singled out to represent an entire "tribe" of cyclists. Please do not take my comments defending mine as a knock toward anyone else's love for bikes or the purity of their love for cycling. I was just sticking up for my group that was being unfairly stereotyped as a result of some jerk-offs (as we New Yorkers call them). Please do not take my comments to be anything else or as a statement about the value or legitimacy of any other biker regardless of what or how he rides. I love them all!
One more thing: I wear Lycra and am not a tool, Surly Dave. Why assume that the looks are ones of derision and not surprise or bewilderment at seeing something new and unique that you don't see every day?
Holier-than-thou attitudes help no one.
I'm not being defensive!!!
</irony>
Much as I love a good argument, I don't mind that we're all pretty much in agreement on this one. There are far more important things to argue about.
And for what it's worth, I'm pretty sure that Surly Dave wears more than his fair share of lycra…
Funny how you seem to know when I'm likely to drop by! They call me the spandex king. Actually I have a pair of lycra shorts, but I wear a fairly nondescript ground effect top. I guess I have a foot in both camps.
It's an interesting debate. I've been pondering it for a few days after someone on a carbon bike looked at my steel Surly and noted I had it ''well tricked out''. I suspect he was implying it was a bit overloaded: with lights, mudguards, a heavy brooks saddle etc. Despite a bike that weight 10kg less, it's entirely possibly he only finished the ensuing 380km ride because of all the painkillers he took along the way, but by some people's measure maybe he was more of a cyclist than me. As in the rest of my life, I honestly don't care what people think.
But at any rate, it's a debate as pointless as it is endless. I've been riding my bike for the last 25 years, in Sydney, in Melbourne and lately in Hobart. I've raced at various levels on the road, the track and on mountain bikes. I've ridden custom made racers and off the shelf steel frames and lovely aluminium mountain bikes. These days I mainly commute and I do audax rides for a total of around 6000km a year. I have a shed full of bikes and I miss it when I don't ride for a couple of days. I have the flu at the moment and pulled my bike out where I could see it to reassure me I'd be back on it soon.
I enjoyed riding my bike when nobody else seemed to and I enjoy it just the same now big crowds of people pass me on my commute in summer (They're not as much in evidence in winter). I'm glad there are more people riding now, but it has no effect of my enjoyment any more than seeing people driving better cars or living in bigger houses makes me feel I'm less of a person for chosing my own path there are well. I'm not doing it to impress other people, or to bond, I'm doing it because it's good for my soul.
It's possible I'm not as much of a cyclist as some of these people who's taken to the sport with the zeal of the newly converted. Good luck to them all. If they get half as much enjoyment out of this riding life as I have then they're truly blessed. But I'll still be riding long after their bikes lie gathering dust and they've all moved on to the next fad for the over 50s. Whether it's popular or trendy and whether I look like a fool or not.
Comments
Yep, worth saying at least once a month, ya think any of the usual suspects are listening at Beach Rd or the Bar Coluzzi bunch here in Sydney realise that?