BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

(tip: use http://t.co/s2GpYdgdnz to dodge PPG 'paywall'...) I hated just about everything about this article, from the ridiculous implication that drinking-and-riding is somehow more ok than drink-driving to the statement "If your bike is the fashion statement, you don't need to squeeze into those special Lycra clothes serious riders are wearing"---but then, since I don't wear "special Lycra clothes", perhaps I'm not a 'serious rider'. Then there's the fact that the author apparently didn't bother to contact a single member of the Pittsburgh cycling community, much less the half dozen local shops that actually sell bikes in town---including at least one, Love Bikes, who builds and sells bamboo bikes... as a friend's comment goes, "yet another instance of people just seeing bikes as toys rather than legal vehicles".

"Latest dispatches from the 20th century!"

Eh, it's in the lifestyle section, I can't hate on it too bad. A fluff piece targeted at people who might otherwise be thinking of going antiquing in the Rover on the week end. Apart from the humorous complete obliviousness of the title, it wouldn't bother me in the least if someone decides to buy a Clos du Bois cruiser because of the article. Quote from a reader; "Most of these fashionable bikes are fine for short distances or on relatively flat terrain. But they are like walking to work in high heels." Uh, hello, I see shitloads of people walking to work in high heels. We should be telling them how much easier it is to ride in heels than to walk in them. I think I will.

buffalo buffalo wrote: but then, since I don’t wear “special Lycra clothes”, perhaps I’m not a ‘serious rider’. Then there’s the fact that the author apparently didn’t bother to contact a single member of the Pittsburgh cycling community, much less the half dozen local shops that actually sell bikes in town—including at least one, Love Bikes, who builds and sells bamboo bikes…

What is so special about lycra anyways? I just like to have pockets...

Oh, damn! Don't get me started on pockets, I was just thinking about that this morning. I don't buy more cycling specific "gear" because I want freaking pockets for my stuff!

edmonds59 wrote:Oh, damn! Don’t get me started on pockets, I was just thinking about that this morning. I don’t buy more cycling specific “gear” because I want freaking pockets for my stuff!

this is why i almost always have a giant ortlieb pannier, even though it's usually only half full.

I agree that drinking and driving and sipping and riding was an odd thing to bring up. What did that have to do with anything? Maybe I am missing something. and yeah drunk riding isn't too responsible either IMO.

buffalo buffalo wrote: this is why i almost always have a giant ortlieb pannier, even though it’s usually only half full.

Or half-empty? :)

mtb gear has lots of pockets and its designed to be ridden in. this article is dumb.

I had the pocket thing on my mind because of an email blast I got from Aero Tech clothing mentioning their New! winter riding pants, and when I checked them out, they looked nice, but not a pocket on them. Clearly designed for "sport" cyclists and not every-day riders. To be fair, they have started making a line of pretty nice commuter stuff, so I was just being curmudgeonly. I know about mtn bike shorts, but most of the time, I don't like to look like a "cyclist". I just wear golf clothes mostly. re; the article, I love "Dutch" bikes, and I adhere to the philosophy that any publicity is good publicity.

edmonds59 wrote:Clearly designed for “sport” cyclists and not every-day riders.

Ed, I would disagree. I have coworkers who clearly don't like to have anything in pockets. Two of them are commuters and prefer to put everything in back packs. These two use these type of pants. One of them changes cloth.

cburch wrote:this article is dumb.

Right, it's really just advertising in a disguised form. Publications receive press releases from people trying to promote products, together with the necessary art etc., and sometimes they print them. That's what happened here. The story is not really by a PG reporter. It was written by someone working for a PR firm, and adapted to local use with a few sentences dropped in by Patricia Sheridan.

Not understanding the derision toward an article about bikes, regardless of how thin and fluffy it may be. I thought we were trying to bring in more people to biking, even people who might otherwise not have considered it. A harder hitting article, full of data and specs, is going to turn off 90 percent of the public who may not already open to the idea.

jonawebb wrote:

cburch wrote:this article is dumb.

Right, it’s really just advertising in a disguised form. Publications receive press releases from people trying to promote products, together with the necessary art etc., and sometimes they print them. That’s what happened here. The story is not really by a PG reporter. It was written by someone working for a PR firm, and adapted to local use with a few sentences dropped in by Patricia Sheridan.

this is what i was thinking the whole time i read it. i do dig that bicycling is getting more positive exposure, but i was irritated by the feeling i was being duped into reading an advertisement.

edmonds59 wrote:Not understanding the derision toward an article about bikes

Well, you can't buy any of the bikes featured locally. There are similar bikes available here, as well as tons and tons of experience about what works well in Pittsburgh. So an interesting article could have been written, but instead we get this press release, which potentially drains interest away from local retailers. It's a missed opportunity, if not a net loss.

Filler fluff, but the sip and ride bit is annoying for sure. Honestly, the way drunk folks WALK is hazard enough, let's not add any speed to that.

OTB exists. There's a keg ride. Let's be honest. That part concerns me almost not at all. Not to mention the keg ride gets more riders out than any other single event.

So here's how we're going to get anywhere near the ride share enjoyed in Amsterdam or Copenhagen. Fluff. Caution: for those of sensitive constitutions, there is absence of helmets, smoking, drinking, and no factual data: http://vimeo.com/19742850#

edmonds59 wrote:Not understanding the derision toward an article about bikes, regardless of how thin and fluffy it may be. I thought we were trying to bring in more people to biking, even people who might otherwise not have considered it. A harder hitting article, full of data and specs, is going to turn off 90 percent of the public who may not already open to the idea.

I agree. Anything that gets people STARTED on a bicycle in any form is a good thing if you ask me. It all starts with just getting on a bike and riding around a bit. The article also mentions "commuting", which is what so many hope people would start doing. The article isn't perfect, that is for sure, but to be all negative about it is rather odd. Most on here cycle all the time and maybe forget the general public is so removed from a bicycle, they don't even understand them in the least. Just getting someone into a local bike shop would be a start. Most are going to want to touch and feel a bike and most certainly aren't going to buy something on line considering they don't have a clue anymore. Lets hope this article gets a couple of people to at least get on a bike again to give it a try. If only people knew what they were missing.

Having a drink != drunk, even drunkeness goes in degrees, and most drunk folks aren't in any mood to pedal hard. True, true, and true. As a public safety issue nothing compares to even a marginally incapacitated driver. But I wouldn't drink in such a way that would effect my driving meaningfully and yet expect to be able to ride a bicycle safely. I know there's a culture of it, but it seems really dumb, lack of local incidents (that I know of) notwithstanding. Not to say a bicycle isn't a great vehicle if you do want to go out for more than a couple drinks, just take it back on the bus or walk it. Way better than having to go back out to get a car the next day. Anyways, just my 2c.

byogman wrote:But I wouldn’t drink in such a way that would effect my driving meaningfully and yet expect to be able to ride a bicycle safely.

This, I think, at least anecdotally, the Europeans get right. It's not an all/nothing proposition. You need to, as they say, drink responsibly. And if you overdo it, you get whacked (not literally, that would be Singapore).

The idea of taking responsibility for one's self sadly seems to be a non-starter in modern America.

andyc wrote:The idea of taking responsibility for one’s self sadly seems to be a non-starter in modern America.

At least among today's youth. Whippersnappers! I remember a ride home from a party once in Austin -- I'd swallowed the worm from the bottom of a tequila bottle before setting out, and the alcohol started working with greater intensity as I moved along. Still, I made it home. As I carried my bike up some steps, the front wheel fell off -- the quick release wasn't tight enough, and this was before "lawyer lips". The sudden disappearance of my front wheel was totally confusing... lucky I didn't go over a bump on the way home. Still, I'd prefer drunken youth ride bikes than drive cars. You're far more likely to injure someone else behind the wheel of an automobile. "If you must drive drunk, drive a bike."

andyc wrote:The idea of taking responsibility for one’s self sadly seems to be a non-starter in modern America.

This statement could have been made by any fool about any issue any time in the last 300 years. Same as it ever was.