The more I become involved in cycling, especially beyond urban commuting, the more two specific kinds of cyclist irritate me. They exist at near opposite ends of a continuum, both in the cycling world and in larger society, yet both exhibit behaviour that is ultimately counter-productive in our efforts to get more people out of motorized vehicles and onto bicycles.
The first I'll mention, because this is the kind most commonly recognized and deplored as acting in a way that serves to tarnish the image motorists have of cyclists, even by the second type, is the urban rider who rides on the side walk, zips across the road willy nilly, weaving between pedestrian and motorized traffic, sometimes riding on the wrong side of the road and against the direction of traffic, and often ignoring any and all traffic signals. This kind can be seen mostly on inexpensive department store BMX or mountain bikes, wearing regular street wear and usually no helmet. They often come from lower socio-economic backgrounds.
This first type of cyclist does all the things that reinforce the negative image motorists have of cyclists and cycling. They are viewed as a nuisance and as dangerous, both on and off the road, and to pedestrians, motorists and themselves. And they are. Their behaviour undermines all efforts to convince the general public that cyclists and motorists can safely share the road, and that cycling itself is a healthy, fun and safe activity and a viable alternative mode of transportation.
There is another type of cyclist who is much more accepted and respected, who can appear rather sophisticated and refined, but is ultimately also counter-productive to our efforts, not so much in terms of the motoring public's image of cyclists, but in terms of getting more people, of all socio-economic strata, interested in ditching the car for the bicycle. This type tends to ride on the road, in a controlled and orderly fashion, interfering neither with pedestrian nor, mostly, with motorized traffic, and generally obeying traffic signals. This type can often be seen in expensive road, racing or touring bikes, wearing a helmet, and decked out in all the proper cycling clothing. They often come from higher socio-economic backgrounds.
The second type of cyclist does all the proper things that should change the negative image motorists have of cyclists and cycling. However, the type of cyclist I am referring to here is a snob. Not that a good bike, proper safety equipment and riding gear are bad in and of themselves. I completely understand the benefits of a quality bike, as also of proper safety equipment and activity-specific clothing, and I wish all cyclists exhibited all the safe and proper riding habits and techniques. However, the attitude that often accompanies these things I find unhelpful.
The snobby attitude that has too many of these cyclists sneering at anyone not in possession of a proper bike, with all the proper components, and wearing all the proper cycling attire, does nothing to promote cycling for the general public. Indeed it makes cycling appear elite and out of reach to all but those who can afford to purchase all the good, 'proper' stuff. It serves as a clear status and class marker, telling all those who cannot afford the same that they are not good enough, that they are not 'real' cyclists. This kind of behaviour is not only likely to steer people, especially those with less economic means, away from adopting a healthy and environmentally friendly cycling lifestyle, but also to steer them away from learning about and adopting safe and orderly cycling behaviours when they do get on a bike.
Sunday, on our trip to and from Grimsby, my brother and I encountered both types of counter-productive cyclist. The first, though irritating, is largely that way for socio-economic reasons--he uses a bicycle simply to get around a little more quickly than he could on foot, for free, and is probably mainly on a bicycle because he cannot afford a car. Riding a bicycle is not really a choice, but rather the absence of choice. Because he doesn't have the luxury to choose, he displays little interest in the activity itself, nor in learning how to ride safely as a vehicle among vehicles on the road. And he likely isn't at all concerned about reducing our environmental/ecological footprint through the preferential use of human-powered over non-renewable energy-powered vehicles.
We also passed at least half a dozen cyclists of the second variety, all decked out in fancy cycling jerseys and Lycra/Spandex shorts, and all but two completely ignored my greeting as we passed. I have also noticed this behaviour during my lunchtime rides. Very few of the cyclists on the nice bikes with the proper attire have deemed it worth the effort to return a greeting, even when they obviously saw me, whereas most cyclists on less expensive hybrids or mountain bikes, not wearing proper cycling attire, did. Interestingly, the few times, in cooler weather, that I wore the one set of cycling clothes I do own--cycling tights, a long-sleeved, dry-wick shirt and a thin cycling jacket--more cyclists deemed it worthwhile to greet me.
What is this, some silly secret club? Am I to learn a secret cycling handshake too? Come on folks! Get over yourselves! Many of us can't afford all the best stuff. Some of us, myself included, are simply too burdened with student debt to afford all we'd like and need, no matter how serious we are about cycling, both as an athletic activity and as a step towards reducing our environmental impact. And the recent economic slowdown has also had a direct impact on me and many others alike. Can we not be friendly, decent and encouraging towards everyone regardless of what they can or cannot afford? Being a little more friendly and less judgemental would certainly help get more people interested in adopting a healthier, more active, more environmentally-friendly lifestyle, one that may well include cycling.
Recent Comments