Hobby cyclists (long)

[Claire Petersky]

"Tom Keats" > wrote in message
...

> I've also been drawn into chat that goes on a little too long,
> by people apparently having mental health issues, on public
> transit buses. So maybe the guy was just lonely and socially
> awkward, and needed some human-to-human contact and some
> charitable regard. If that's the case, you did a good deed.
> I note you were quite patient and polite with him.

God, I hope you're all charitable to me, too, on the road, for the
equivalent reasons.


--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky

Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at:
http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

[Dukester]

Had an interesting commute home Friday afternoon. Being the last day of
exams in this college town, the ride was quieter than usual (fewer than
normal beachbound partygoers). It was nice. The ride home (about 10 miles)
is along and then off of a dead end road to a lake. About halfway home I
heard another cyclist coming up behind me. I moved over to let them pass
(it is a popular route for area cyclists). The fellow moved up alongside
asking my name, and then proceeded with a string of questions; where do I
live, do I like Kelme? , etc. Most of the questions came off with an
condescending attitude behind them. "Oh, so you're _just_ commuting?" and
when asking where I lived in relation to town, "I guess thats a nice
_little_ ride". There were other comments and glances at my late 80's
Peugeot that made me feel sorry for the fellow if he was that shallow and
such a poor representative of the sport. He had the full setup that looked
nice but kind of showy (bike and clothes).

I tried to be polite but curt with my answers as I just wanted to enjoy what
was left of the ride home (alone) and he'd already hung around too long.
Finally getting a clue, he started sprinting off and made a final comment
"Well, bud, I hope you don't have a wreck" (emphasis on bud). I knew where
this was going but feigned ignorance and let it play out. He quickly added
a sarcastic "Without a helmet, a wreck could be ugly." I told him with a
smile "With a helmet, a wreck could be ugly too!" It was as true as his
statement.

He made an attempt at leaving me behind but never got very far ahead. It
was kind of amusing considering what I was carrying and his setup. Then, to
top it all off, he met 2 other cyclists and a pickup carrying a bike coming
the opposite direction in the intersection of my road; proceeding to chat
and take up the entire intersection, so much so that myself and then a car
behind me had to come to a near stop and go around them in the grass. I
just shook my head and it occurred to me that I never had this kind of
experience in 25 years as a runner with fellow runners, but more than a few
similar experiences cycling. I did an 8 mile run when I got home down to
the wildlife refuge for some peace and quiet.

[psycholist]

"Dukester" > wrote in message
...

(long snip)

Sounds like you're the one who had an attitude and a high-and-mighty opinion
of yourself. Seemed to me that he just wanted to be friendly and you put up
a wall.

It also sounds like you're defensive about whatever it is you've done to
convince yourself you wouldn't be better off wearing a helmet.

Try lightening up.
--
Bob C.

"Of course it hurts. The trick is not minding that it hurts."
T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia)

[bryanska]

I agree with the OP. There is a lot of snobbery in the sport. I just
picked it up last year. I've noticed that it's analagous to B-ball
players talking about their skills, but bicyclists (if snobby) tend to
boast about equipment.

The nail in the coffin?

"Bud."

IMHO, the word "Bud" is like a finger in my chest. I ain't your bud.

[Rich Clark]

"Dukester" > wrote in message
...

"Oh, so you're _just_ commuting?"

For me, comparison of annual mileage usually shuts that one down pretty
fast.

RichC

[Bill Sornson]

psycholist wrote:
> "Dukester" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> (long snip)
>
> Sounds like you're the one who had an attitude and a high-and-mighty
> opinion of yourself. Seemed to me that he just wanted to be friendly
> and you put up a wall.
>
> It also sounds like you're defensive about whatever it is you've done
> to convince yourself you wouldn't be better off wearing a helmet.
>
> Try lightening up.

OK, your reply got me to read the OP (I must have missed or ignored it). I
agree with Bob; something doesn't add up.

If the other guy was truly a snooty, elitist cyclist, he wouldn't have even
acknowledged The Dukester's (lol) existence. Sounds like he was just trying
to be friendly. (Although I DO agree that unsolicited "helmet preaching" is
uncalled for. Maybe it resulted FROM the OP's cold shoulder attitude?)

Apparently the ol' Dukester is happier on his solo 8-mile runs than chatting
with a fellow cyclist for a few minutes.

Whatever.

Bill S.

[Bill Sornson]

bryanska wrote:
> I agree with the OP. There is a lot of snobbery in the sport. I just
> picked it up last year. I've noticed that it's analagous to B-ball
> players talking about their skills, but bicyclists (if snobby) tend to
> boast about equipment.
>
> The nail in the coffin?
>
> "Bud."
>
> IMHO, the word "Bud" is like a finger in my chest. I ain't your bud.

But...but...Fabrizio would never even GLANCE at the OP! Something is
inconsistent here, Bud.

:-D

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
"Dukester" > writes:

> The fellow moved up alongside
> asking my name, and then proceeded with a string of questions; where do I
> live, do I like Kelme? , etc. Most of the questions came off with an
> condescending attitude behind them. "Oh, so you're _just_ commuting?" and
> when asking where I lived in relation to town, "I guess thats a nice
> _little_ ride".

Maybe you were investigated by some intelligence service agent.
Or a wannabe. I don't mind brief little small-talk conversations
with other riders, but this guy sure was a busybody.

I've also been drawn into chat that goes on a little too long,
by people apparently having mental health issues, on public
transit buses. So maybe the guy was just lonely and socially
awkward, and needed some human-to-human contact and some
charitable regard. If that's the case, you did a good deed.
I note you were quite patient and polite with him.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[bryanska]

LOL... "Fabrizio"

I'm makin' that my word of the day.

[Dukester]

"Bill Sornson" > wrote in message
...
> If the other guy was truly a snooty, elitist cyclist, he wouldn't have
even
> acknowledged The Dukester's (lol) existence. Sounds like he was just
trying
> to be friendly. (Although I DO agree that unsolicited "helmet preaching"
is
> uncalled for. Maybe it resulted FROM the OP's cold shoulder attitude?)
>
> Apparently the ol' Dukester is happier on his solo 8-mile runs than
chatting
> with a fellow cyclist for a few minutes.

Well, yes, I am happier on those runs if your definition of chatting to be
him giving the once over type look while making remarks like it was cute
that I rode to work. I stand by the assertion that they were made
condescendingly, and it wouldn't have taken a genius in human behavior to
figure that out at the time. The fact that him and his "buds" didn't mind
blocking an intersection while they were chatting should speak for itself.

Cheers!
Duke

[Roger Zoul]

Dukester wrote:
:: "Bill Sornson" > wrote in message
:: ...
::: If the other guy was truly a snooty, elitist cyclist, he wouldn't
::: have even acknowledged The Dukester's (lol) existence. Sounds like
::: he was just trying to be friendly. (Although I DO agree that
::: unsolicited "helmet preaching" is uncalled for. Maybe it resulted
::: FROM the OP's cold shoulder attitude?)
:::
::: Apparently the ol' Dukester is happier on his solo 8-mile runs than
::: chatting with a fellow cyclist for a few minutes.
::
:: Well, yes, I am happier on those runs if your definition of chatting
:: to be him giving the once over type look while making remarks like
:: it was cute that I rode to work. I stand by the assertion that they
:: were made condescendingly, and it wouldn't have taken a genius in
:: human behavior to figure that out at the time. The fact that him
:: and his "buds" didn't mind blocking an intersection while they were
:: chatting should speak for itself.
::
:: Cheers!
:: Duke

Perhaps you need to chat with Scott en Aztlan....

[Peter Cole]

Dukester wrote:
> I
> just shook my head and it occurred to me that I never had this kind of
> experience in 25 years as a runner with fellow runners, but more than a few
> similar experiences cycling. I did an 8 mile run when I got home down to
> the wildlife refuge for some peace and quiet.

I think there's a pretty large gap between recreational/utility cyclists
and racer (or wannabe) cyclists. Fact is, other than turning the
pedals, you two have little in common. Part of racers' attitudes are, I
think, due to anxiety over being mistaken for a non-racing cyclist. The
less secure they are with their racing qualifications, the more snobbish
they tend to be. The other thing is social status. Cycling is often
associated with poverty, eccentricity, or some other undesirable
characteristic. Hobby cyclists, racer or otherwise, will often go to
great lengths to demonstrate that their cycling is a matter of choice,
not necessity. If your gear is a little shabby, you'll get the leper
treatment. Beware reverse snobbery though, it's all too tempting, and
just as bad.

[james]

i hate to say it but when someone just randomly approaches me i'm
always suspicious, (unless it's clarified right away, i.e. directons,
or "where'd you get that pannier"?

but someone just ambling up to chit-chat i always think religion or
multi level marketing.

and sure enough at a bookstore a few months a guy took an enthusiastic
interest to my reading an aviation magazine, after four minutes of
polite conversation i get handed a card and i'm told to make a ton of
money doing sales of non-specified nature.

but that said i had a great conversation with a retired guy at airport
bar last weekend who was headed for germany, so i guess it works both
ways.

[jhas]

Dukester wrote:
>
> Well, yes, I am happier on those runs if your definition of chatting
to be
> him giving the once over type look while making remarks like it was
cute
> that I rode to work.

I see this sort of thing all the time. People look first to see what
brand of bike you are on. Last week I was riding to work (16 miles
each way, but who's counting?), and I had stopped for a light. A guy
at the nearby filling station was just finishing fueling up his Volvo
wagon as I rode up. He had an empty bike rack on his car, so as I
pulled to a stop I said "good morning!" He didn't even look at me.
Instead, he tilted his head to get a good read of my down tube and
then, presumably because my bike wasn't worthy of a conversation, he
just got into his car.

[Fabrizio Mazzoleni]

"jhas" > wrote in message >
> I see this sort of thing all the time. People look first to see what
> brand of bike you are on.

That's correct.

If you don't make the effort why should someone like
me be bothered with your type?

[gds]

jhas wrote:
>>
> I see this sort of thing all the time.

<snip>
> He had an empty bike rack on his car, so as I
> pulled to a stop I said "good morning!" He didn't even look at me.
> Instead, he tilted his head to get a good read of my down tube and
> then, presumably because my bike wasn't worthy of a conversation, he
> just got into his car.


Interesting! It's always the other guy who has the attitude.
I read your comments to mean that you only said hello because he had a
bike rack on his car. Does that mean that folks without bike racks
don't warrant a polite hello?
Attitude comes in lots of flavors.

[Matt O'Toole]

Peter Cole wrote:

> I think there's a pretty large gap between recreational/utility
> cyclists and racer (or wannabe) cyclists. Fact is, other than
> turning the pedals, you two have little in common. Part of racers'
> attitudes are, I think, due to anxiety over being mistaken for a
> non-racing cyclist. The less secure they are with their racing
> qualifications, the more snobbish they tend to be. The other thing is
> social status. Cycling is often associated with poverty,
> eccentricity, or some other undesirable characteristic. Hobby
> cyclists, racer or otherwise, will often go to great lengths to
> demonstrate that their cycling is a matter of choice, not necessity.
> If your gear is a little shabby, you'll get the leper treatment.
> Beware reverse snobbery though, it's all too tempting, and just as
> bad.

I think you're right. This reminds me of women in wealthy neighborhoods in
southern CA who can't go out for a walk without their exercise clothes, Walkman,
and "Heavy Hands." Walking for transportation is for losers, but
exercise-walking is OK.

Among the racers I've known in the last 15 years, virtually none ride for
transportation. I had a discussion about this with a VA Tech cycling team
member. He was the only one who rode around town (in one of the most
bike-friendly towns in the US). The impression I got from him was, that riding
a bike around town is just uncool among college youth. But sport riding on the
open road is OK.

Matt O.

[gds]

Matt O'Toole wrote:
> Among the racers I've known in the last 15 years, virtually none ride
for
> transportation. >
> Matt O.

Probably right. And it is probably equally true for lots of serious
recreational riders. But what's wrong with that? I love riding my bike
fast alone or in a group. I also love my bike itself which is very non
utilitarian. It is a pure racer and I have no interest in using it to
accomplish chores.

To me this is pretty much the same thing as folks who play soccer not
wanting to kick the ball around on the way to the grocery store. We
enjoy the sport and not necessarily any of the other things that can be
done on a bike.

But that said it certainly doesn't mean that my preferences for using
the bike my way are any better (or worse) than any body else's.

[[email protected]]

Matt O'Toole writes:

>> I think there's a pretty large gap between recreational/utility
>> cyclists and racer (or wannabe) cyclists. Fact is, other than
>> turning the pedals, you two have little in common. Part of racers'
>> attitudes are, I think, due to anxiety over being mistaken for a
>> non-racing cyclist. The less secure they are with their racing
>> qualifications, the more snobbish they tend to be. The other thing
>> is social status. Cycling is often associated with poverty,
>> eccentricity, or some other undesirable characteristic. Hobby
>> cyclists, racer or otherwise, will often go to great lengths to
>> demonstrate that their cycling is a matter of choice, not
>> necessity. If your gear is a little shabby, you'll get the leper
>> treatment. Beware reverse snobbery though, it's all too tempting,
>> and just as bad.

> I think you're right. This reminds me of women in wealthy
> neighborhoods in southern CA who can't go out for a walk without
> their exercise clothes, Walkman, and "Heavy Hands." Walking for
> transportation is for losers, but exercise-walking is OK.

> Among the racers I've known in the last 15 years, virtually none
> ride for transportation. I had a discussion about this with a VA
> Tech cycling team member. He was the only one who rode around town
> (in one of the most bike-friendly towns in the US). The impression
> I got from him was, that riding a bike around town is just uncool
> among college youth. But sport riding on the open road is OK.

On that line, here's an old one that's been around for a long time:

http://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/6.1.html

It's more widespread that you depict it.

[Roger Zoul]

gds > wrote:
:> jhas wrote:
:> >>
:> > I see this sort of thing all the time.
:>
:> <snip>
:> > He had an empty bike rack on his car, so as I
:> > pulled to a stop I said "good morning!" He didn't even look at me.
:> > Instead, he tilted his head to get a good read of my down tube and
:> > then, presumably because my bike wasn't worthy of a conversation,
:> > he just got into his car.
:>
:>
:> Interesting! It's always the other guy who has the attitude.
:> I read your comments to mean that you only said hello because he had
:> a bike rack on his car. Does that mean that folks without bike racks
:> don't warrant a polite hello?
:> Attitude comes in lots of flavors.

Sounds like a lot of folks here ought to see the movie "Crash!"

[Dukester]

"Peter Cole" > wrote in message >
> I think there's a pretty large gap between recreational/utility cyclists
> and racer (or wannabe) cyclists. Fact is, other than turning the
> pedals, you two have little in common. Part of racers' attitudes are, I
> think, due to anxiety over being mistaken for a non-racing cyclist. The
> less secure they are with their racing qualifications, the more snobbish
> they tend to be. The other thing is social status. Cycling is often
> associated with poverty, eccentricity, or some other undesirable
> characteristic. Hobby cyclists, racer or otherwise, will often go to
> great lengths to demonstrate that their cycling is a matter of choice,
> not necessity. If your gear is a little shabby, you'll get the leper
> treatment. Beware reverse snobbery though, it's all too tempting, and
> just as bad.

Great! I always enjoy the insight in your posts and this one was no
different. I never thought about this kind of disparity before even though
both of were cycling but it makes perfect sense. I wonder what the
conversation would have been (or _if_ it would have been) if I had been
riding my fendered Schwinn Crisscross?

Cheers!
Duke

[bryanska]

....that's an obtuse conclusion.

[Mike Kruger]

jhas wrote:
>
> I see this sort of thing all the time. People look first to
see what
> brand of bike you are on. Last week I was riding to work
(16 miles
> each way, but who's counting?), and I had stopped for a
light. A guy
> at the nearby filling station was just finishing fueling up
his Volvo
> wagon as I rode up. He had an empty bike rack on his car,
so as I
> pulled to a stop I said "good morning!" He didn't even look
at me.
> Instead, he tilted his head to get a good read of my down
tube and
> then, presumably because my bike wasn't worthy of a
conversation, he
> just got into his car.

Yeah, there's some snoot in all sports and it's definitely
true I get a different reaction when I'm dressed in sweats and
an old windbreaker on the old "bad weather" bike than when I'm
in black shorts and a bike club jersey on my nicer road bike.

That said, sometimes people are checking out the bike as a way
of starting conversation. On my commuter bike, people will ask
about the generator, for example. They are only mildly
curious -- it's just a converation starter.

The O.P. should just lighten up. If somebody else judges you
by how nice a bike you are riding, so what? Their attitude is
their loss, not yours. The world is, unfortunately, full of
A**h***s, and bike snobs are a mild, relatively harmless
variety in the grand scheme of A**h***dom..

That said, I think the O.P.'s tormentor is probably a nice
enough guy with imperfect social skills. I'd guess he was
trying to be friendly, but he was just very clumsy about it.
The O.P.'s attitude probably wasn't helping any.

--
Mike Kruger
Bike Chicago e-mail list info:
http://www.geocities.com/bvonmoss/bikechicago.html

[Mike Kruger]

Matt O'Toole wrote:
>
> Among the racers I've known in the last 15 years, virtually
none ride
> for transportation. I had a discussion about this with a VA
Tech
> cycling team member. He was the only one who rode around
town (in
> one of the most bike-friendly towns in the US). The
impression I got
> from him was, that riding a bike around town is just uncool
among
> college youth. But sport riding on the open road is OK.
>
Yeah. Commuting miles are "junk miles", not "real miles".
Fabrizio can explain.

There's some truth to this attitude from the point of view of
pure conditioning and training, as my commute features a lot
of stop lights and isn't really a training ride. But then the
world isn't built around conditioning and training --
especially since I'm not "training" for anything.

--
Mike Kruger
Bike Chicago e-mail list info:
http://www.geocities.com/bvonmoss/bikechicago.html

[Roger Zoul]

Mike Kruger > wrote:
:> Matt O'Toole wrote:
:> >
:> > Among the racers I've known in the last 15 years, virtually
:> none ride
:> > for transportation. I had a discussion about this with a VA
:> Tech
:> > cycling team member. He was the only one who rode around
:> town (in
:> > one of the most bike-friendly towns in the US). The
:> impression I got
:> > from him was, that riding a bike around town is just uncool
:> among
:> > college youth. But sport riding on the open road is OK.
:> >
:> Yeah. Commuting miles are "junk miles", not "real miles".
:> Fabrizio can explain.
:>
:> There's some truth to this attitude from the point of view of
:> pure conditioning and training, as my commute features a lot
:> of stop lights and isn't really a training ride. But then the
:> world isn't built around conditioning and training --
:> especially since I'm not "training" for anything.

Hmm...I guess I'm a bike snob....everytime I ride, I train....what am I
training for? My next ride!

[[email protected]]

Roger Zoul writes:

>>> Among the racers I've known in the last 15 years, virtually none
>>> ride for transportation. I had a discussion about this with a VA
>>> Tech cycling team member. He was the only one who rode around
>>> town (in one of the most bike-friendly towns in the US). The
>>> impression I got from him was, that riding a bike around town is
>>> just uncool among college youth. But sport riding on the open
>>> road is OK.

>> Yeah. Commuting miles are "junk miles", not "real miles". Fabrizio
>> can explain.

>> There's some truth to this attitude from the point of view of pure
>> conditioning and training, as my commute features a lot of stop
>> lights and isn't really a training ride. But then the world isn't
>> built around conditioning and training -- especially since I'm not
>> "training" for anything.

> Hmm... I guess I'm a bike snob... every time I ride, I train... what
> am I training for? My next ride!

So when will you go on a real ride, the one for which you seem to be
perpetually training? Somewhere in life there should be a real
experience, not just the anticipation of one. I suppose you are also
preparing for life, day by day. If that is the method, I think you
might be missing the main event.

[Bill Sornson]

wrote:
> Roger Zoul writes:

>> Hmm... I guess I'm a bike snob... every time I ride, I train... what
>> am I training for? My next ride!
>
> So when will you go on a real ride, the one for which you seem to be
> perpetually training? Somewhere in life there should be a real
> experience, not just the anticipation of one. I suppose you are also
> preparing for life, day by day. If that is the method, I think you
> might be missing the main event.

Wow. Pompous, judgmental AND condescending in one short paragraph. Well
done, JB.

[[email protected]]

gds wrote:
> Matt O'Toole wrote:
> > Among the racers I've known in the last 15 years, virtually none
ride
> for
> > transportation. >
> > Matt O.
>
> Probably right. And it is probably equally true for lots of serious
> recreational riders. But what's wrong with that? I love riding my
bike
> fast alone or in a group. I also love my bike itself which is very
non
> utilitarian. It is a pure racer and I have no interest in using it to
> accomplish chores.
>
> To me this is pretty much the same thing as folks who play s occer
not
> wanting to kick the ball around on the way to the grocery store. We
> enjoy the sport and not necessarily any of the other things that can
be
> done on a bike.

Riding a bike is an end in itself. You don't need a race, or
a destination of any sort to justify it. But you sure can kill a lot
of birds with that stone.

If folks enjoy riding bikes, I'd counsel em to do it as much
as possible. Transportational cycling is a great way to incorporate
fun, healthy sh*$ into your everyday routine. If folks don't enjoy
riding bikes, I'd counsel em to stop riding bikes. Remember: life
is short.

> But that said it certainly doesn't mean that my preferences for using
> the bike my way are any better (or worse) than any body e lse's.

I believe my way is better than some others. But I acknowledge
the likelihood that there are other ways out there better than
mine, and I just haven't figured them out yet, and may never.

Robert

Life's not short. Life is loooonnng.
--Chris Rock


e

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
"Claire Petersky" > writes:
> "Tom Keats" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> I've also been drawn into chat that goes on a little too long,
>> by people apparently having mental health issues, on public
>> transit buses. So maybe the guy was just lonely and socially
>> awkward, and needed some human-to-human contact and some
>> charitable regard. If that's the case, you did a good deed.
>> I note you were quite patient and polite with him.
>
> God, I hope you're all charitable to me, too, on the road, for the
> equivalent reasons.

Heck, I'd probably offer ya a peanut butter &
cherry pie filling sandwich, if I've got a
spare one :-)


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Tom Keats]

In article <1O7ie.1378465$6l.1282959@pd7tw2no>,
"Fabrizio Mazzoleni" > writes:
>
> "jhas" > wrote in message >
>> I see this sort of thing all the time. People look first to see what
>> brand of bike you are on.
>
> That's correct.
>
> If you don't make the effort why should someone like
> me be bothered with your type?

We should afford some compassion and understanding for
Fabrizio, because of his tragic circumstances. He was
orphaned as a child, in a plane crash in the darkest
depths of Africa, where he was rescued and raised by
Belgian ex-patriots who forced him to cycle competitively.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[RonSonic]

On Mon, 16 May 2005 22:34:38 -0500, "Mike Kruger" >
wrote:

>Matt O'Toole wrote:
>>
>> Among the racers I've known in the last 15 years, virtually
>none ride
>> for transportation. I had a discussion about this with a VA
>Tech
>> cycling team member. He was the only one who rode around
>town (in
>> one of the most bike-friendly towns in the US). The
>impression I got
>> from him was, that riding a bike around town is just uncool
>among
>> college youth. But sport riding on the open road is OK.
>>
>Yeah. Commuting miles are "junk miles", not "real miles".
>Fabrizio can explain.
>
>There's some truth to this attitude from the point of view of
>pure conditioning and training, as my commute features a lot
>of stop lights and isn't really a training ride. But then the
>world isn't built around conditioning and training --
>especially since I'm not "training" for anything.

Commutes aren't even "base miles?"

Hmmmm. True, not the most "efficient" training mileage, but that isn't a factor
for anyone who isn't already expending as much as he can recover from before the
next ride. Of course, Fabs would be.

Ron

[[email protected]]

psycholist wrote:
> "Dukester" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> (long snip)
>
> Sounds like you're the one who had an attitude and a high-and-mighty
opinion
> of yourself. Seemed to me that he just wanted to be friendly and you
put up
> a wall.
>
> It also sounds like you're defensive about whatever it is you've done
to
> convince yourself you wouldn't be better off wearing a helmet.
>
> Try lightening up.

Your words "sounds like" are a bit ironic. Specifically, you're
reading a summary transcript of the conversation, and disagreeing with
Duke's interpretation. My money's on Duke; he was actually there.

Communication is much more than just words. As a simple example, any
brief sentence (for example, "Nice bike") can be delivered with
worshipful sincerity, or intense sarcasm, or anything in between just
by changing the tone. And Duke was there to hear the tone, plus read
the body language.

I'd assume everyone's met people who are immediately intrusive and
obnoxious. Most of them don't deserve mention on the internet - the
encounters just aren't that important. But this guy's apparent scorn
of utility cycling (and without a special hat!!) justified Duke's post,
IMO.

- Frank Krygowski

[William McHale]

Bill Sornson > wrote:
> wrote:
>> Roger Zoul writes:

>>> Hmm... I guess I'm a bike snob... every time I ride, I train... what
>>> am I training for? My next ride!
>>
>> So when will you go on a real ride, the one for which you seem to be
>> perpetually training? Somewhere in life there should be a real
>> experience, not just the anticipation of one. I suppose you are also
>> preparing for life, day by day. If that is the method, I think you
>> might be missing the main event.

> Wow. Pompous, judgmental AND condescending in one short paragraph. Well
> done, JB.

Perhaps but also to a certain extent true. If you are gearing up for a race
you need to train, if you are gearing up for a particularly long ride (long
for you, different people will have different definitions of long) you need
to train. If you are just cycling for general fitness or fun why can't you
just say you are going for a bike ride as opposed to claiming it is a training
ride. Consider you don't hear joggers talking about going for a training
run unless they are prepping for a marathon or something.

--
Bill

--
Bill

[Bill Sornson]

William McHale wrote:
> Bill Sornson > wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> Roger Zoul writes:
>
>>>> Hmm... I guess I'm a bike snob... every time I ride, I train...
>>>> what am I training for? My next ride!
>>>
>>> So when will you go on a real ride, the one for which you seem to be
>>> perpetually training? Somewhere in life there should be a real
>>> experience, not just the anticipation of one. I suppose you are
>>> also preparing for life, day by day. If that is the method, I
>>> think you might be missing the main event.
>
>> Wow. Pompous, judgmental AND condescending in one short paragraph.
>> Well done, JB.
>
> Perhaps but also to a certain extent true. If you are gearing up for
> a race you need to train, if you are gearing up for a particularly
> long ride (long for you, different people will have different
> definitions of long) you need to train. If you are just cycling for
> general fitness or fun why can't you just say you are going for a
> bike ride as opposed to claiming it is a training ride. Consider you
> don't hear joggers talking about going for a training
> run unless they are prepping for a marathon or something.

So if someone talked down to said jogger, with, say, the following, they
wouldn't be an ass?

>>> "So when will you go on a real {run}, the one for which you seem to be
>>> perpetually training? Somewhere in life there should be a real
>>> experience, not just the anticipation of one. I suppose you are
>>> also preparing for life, day by day. If that is the method, I
>>> think you might be missing the main event."

I stand by my assessment: pompous, judgmental AND condescending.

[William McHale]

Bill Sornson > wrote:
> William McHale wrote:
>> Bill Sornson > wrote:
>>> wrote:
>>>> Roger Zoul writes:
>>
>>>>> Hmm... I guess I'm a bike snob... every time I ride, I train...
>>>>> what am I training for? My next ride!
>>>>
>>>> So when will you go on a real ride, the one for which you seem to be
>>>> perpetually training? Somewhere in life there should be a real
>>>> experience, not just the anticipation of one. I suppose you are
>>>> also preparing for life, day by day. If that is the method, I
>>>> think you might be missing the main event.
>>
>>> Wow. Pompous, judgmental AND condescending in one short paragraph.
>>> Well done, JB.
>>
>> Perhaps but also to a certain extent true. If you are gearing up for
>> a race you need to train, if you are gearing up for a particularly
>> long ride (long for you, different people will have different
>> definitions of long) you need to train. If you are just cycling for
>> general fitness or fun why can't you just say you are going for a
>> bike ride as opposed to claiming it is a training ride. Consider you
>> don't hear joggers talking about going for a training
>> run unless they are prepping for a marathon or something.

> So if someone talked down to said jogger, with, say, the following, they
> wouldn't be an ass?

>>>> "So when will you go on a real {run}, the one for which you seem to be
>>>> perpetually training? Somewhere in life there should be a real
>>>> experience, not just the anticipation of one. I suppose you are
>>>> also preparing for life, day by day. If that is the method, I
>>>> think you might be missing the main event."

> I stand by my assessment: pompous, judgmental AND condescending.

If the jogger is constantly talking about going on training runs then I think
it is perfectly acceptable for me to ask what is he training for. The basic
point I was making earlier was that joggers don't talk like cyclists (at
least not in my experience). They just say they are going for a run and that
is it. If they claim to be in training it is usually for some well identified
goal such as a 10K or a Marathon.

--
Bill

[Bill Sornson]

William McHale wrote:
> Bill Sornson > wrote:
>> William McHale wrote:
>>> Bill Sornson > wrote:
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Roger Zoul writes:
>>>
>>>>>> Hmm... I guess I'm a bike snob... every time I ride, I train...
>>>>>> what am I training for? My next ride!
>>>>>
>>>>> So when will you go on a real ride, the one for which you seem to
>>>>> be perpetually training? Somewhere in life there should be a real
>>>>> experience, not just the anticipation of one. I suppose you are
>>>>> also preparing for life, day by day. If that is the method, I
>>>>> think you might be missing the main event.
>>>
>>>> Wow. Pompous, judgmental AND condescending in one short paragraph.
>>>> Well done, JB.
>>>
>>> Perhaps but also to a certain extent true. If you are gearing up
>>> for a race you need to train, if you are gearing up for a
>>> particularly long ride (long for you, different people will have
>>> different definitions of long) you need to train. If you are just
>>> cycling for general fitness or fun why can't you just say you are
>>> going for a bike ride as opposed to claiming it is a training ride.
>>> Consider you don't hear joggers talking about going for a training
>>> run unless they are prepping for a marathon or something.
>
>> So if someone talked down to said jogger, with, say, the following,
>> they wouldn't be an ass?
>
>>>>> "So when will you go on a real {run}, the one for which you seem
>>>>> to be perpetually training? Somewhere in life there should be a
>>>>> real experience, not just the anticipation of one. I suppose you
>>>>> are
>>>>> also preparing for life, day by day. If that is the method, I
>>>>> think you might be missing the main event."
>
>> I stand by my assessment: pompous, judgmental AND condescending.
>
> If the jogger is constantly talking about going on training runs then
> I think it is perfectly acceptable for me to ask what is he training
> for. The basic point I was making earlier was that joggers don't
> talk like cyclists (at least not in my experience). They just say
> they are going for a run and that is it. If they claim to be in
> training it is usually for some well identified goal such as a 10K or
> a Marathon.

Go back in the thread (or just look above). Roger made one little remark,
mostly in jest or tongue-in-cheek. I highly doubt that he /really/ calls
his everyday rides "training rides". I think his point was he that he goes
on rides to keep up his fitness so that he can go on rides (and so on).
Then along came judge/jury/Jobst...

OK done.

BS

[Matt O'Toole]

Bill Sornson wrote:

> wrote:
>> Roger Zoul writes:
>
>>> Hmm... I guess I'm a bike snob... every time I ride, I train... what
>>> am I training for? My next ride!
>>
>> So when will you go on a real ride, the one for which you seem to be
>> perpetually training? Somewhere in life there should be a real
>> experience, not just the anticipation of one. I suppose you are also
>> preparing for life, day by day. If that is the method, I think you
>> might be missing the main event.
>
> Wow. Pompous, judgmental AND condescending in one short paragraph.
> Well done, JB.

Damn, some of y'all are thin skinned!

Matt O.

[Matt O'Toole]

Mike Kruger wrote:

> jhas wrote:
>>
>> I see this sort of thing all the time. People look first to see what
>> brand of bike you are on. Last week I was riding to work (16 miles
>> each way, but who's counting?), and I had stopped for a light. A guy
>> at the nearby filling station was just finishing fueling up his Volvo
>> wagon as I rode up. He had an empty bike rack on his car, so as I
>> pulled to a stop I said "good morning!" He didn't even look at me.
>> Instead, he tilted his head to get a good read of my down tube and
>> then, presumably because my bike wasn't worthy of a conversation, he
>> just got into his car.
>
> Yeah, there's some snoot in all sports and it's definitely
> true I get a different reaction when I'm dressed in sweats and
> an old windbreaker on the old "bad weather" bike than when I'm
> in black shorts and a bike club jersey on my nicer road bike.
>
> That said, sometimes people are checking out the bike as a way
> of starting conversation. On my commuter bike, people will ask
> about the generator, for example. They are only mildly
> curious -- it's just a converation starter.
>
> The O.P. should just lighten up. If somebody else judges you
> by how nice a bike you are riding, so what? Their attitude is
> their loss, not yours. The world is, unfortunately, full of
> A**h***s, and bike snobs are a mild, relatively harmless
> variety in the grand scheme of A**h***dom..
>
> That said, I think the O.P.'s tormentor is probably a nice
> enough guy with imperfect social skills. I'd guess he was
> trying to be friendly, but he was just very clumsy about it.
> The O.P.'s attitude probably wasn't helping any.

I grew up with a lot of kids who were exactly like that. They don't know how to
relate to other people except to judge them by their posessions and brand names.
This is worse in wealthy, trendy areas where families have the means and
inclination to always buy the best of the best, or the coolest of the cool.
This isn't bad in itself, but kids lack the perspective of what's really
important. Some never grow beyond this superficiality, even after they have
kids themselves. Imagine what *their* kids are like!

Matt O.

"From Newport Beach, but neither wealthy nor trendy."