not a cyclist

"Pbwalther" wrote in message
...
By his definition; using a bike for basic transportation and for
recreation
doesn't make one a cyclist. He is pretty much a jock type: recreational
hockey, golf, softball, and football

& rugby in his younger days.

Well, this seems to be a definition thing. Who knows exactly what he is
thinking of?

He could have a certain bit a justified thinking in trying to limit the
term
"cyclist" to people who are more than "casual". From your account he
seems to
think that taking part in organized events is a sort of affirmation.

We got into it a bit more and it turns out he didn't consider what I did to
be a sport. Not that cycling isn't a sport but that what I did wasn't. He
assumed because I didn't compete. against others[again organized], I didn't
strive for and track, best time, best speed, longest distance etc. [actually
I do and showed him some of the things my 'puter tracked but he still could
not accept what I did as sport.

Again, I'm not saying he is a bad person, nor that I'm looking to him for
affirmation: I just found it an odd mindset. He's a decent enough guy. But
while other auto-addicts who know simply consider me odd for eschewing the
Kar Kulture, they would not have a problem with calling me a cyclist. He did
because of this mindset.

As I said; curious.

--
'Just because you're wearing a tie
Doesn't mean you're bloody important'
-chumbawumba


He probably does not realize that cycling ranges from very structured
events
like races to less structured events like sanctioned centuries to
completely
independent activities like self contained touring.

Personally, I am more impressed by the lady who hops on her touring bike
loaded
with 50 lbs of gear and proceeds to ride across the North American
Continent
all alone on her bike and with no support than the hot shot who does a sub
5
hour century in a pace line. Then there are the commuters who ride
through
rain and fog and snow and gloom of night all on roads thronged with crazed
drivers and they do this unscathed.

I think the variety of impressive things that cyclists do makes cyclists a
bit
more flexible about whom they accord the honorific "cyclist" to than in
some
other sports.

"Rich Clark" wrote in message
...

"loki" wrote in message
ble.rogers.com...
Dunno why I'm relating this episode. It just struck be as a curious way
to
look at cycling.and those who shall or shall not be deemed 'cyclists'.

Comments?

So, does this guy drive to work? Does he not consider himself to be a
"driver"?

Good question. I guess his analogy would be that I was like an auto-driver
who considers himself a professional NASCAR driver because he drives a car
to and from work and for fun around town on weekends.

--
'Just because you're wearing a tie
Doesn't mean you're bloody important'
-chumbawumba

Tue, 20 Jan 2004 01:39:24 -0800, ,
(Tom Keats) wrote:

Anyhow, "rider" fills the bill as good as "cyclist".
Maybe "[bi]cycler" would do the trick, too.

Ignoring for a moment its obvious gender bias, I still like
"wheelman". Its history gives it some dignity.
"Wheelperson" will never cut it.
--
zk

"Tom Keats" wrote in message ...
In article . rogers.com,
"loki" writes:

Comments?

I think people who actually use their bike as part of the way they live
(transportation, commuting, shopping, etc.), are cyclists in the purest form.

A definition of "cyclist" should be broad enough to cover anyone who
rides a bike regularly. If only I had a good definition of "regularly."


Words and labels are just food for thought.

Often labels are used as substitutes for thought.

And as Walt
Kelly's Pogo once said: "food for thought is no substitute
for the real thing."

"I have seen the enemy and he is us."

"loki" wrote:

We got into it a bit more and it turns out he didn't consider what I did to
be a sport.

In that case, I would agree with him. Sport presumes competition. I
would call recreational cycling an outdoor activity or athletic
pursuit, but never a sport.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 12:47:23 -0800, Terry Morse wrote:

"loki" wrote:

We got into it a bit more and it turns out he didn't consider what I did to
be a sport.

In that case, I would agree with him. Sport presumes competition.

But, does "cyclist" imply competition? OTOH, just because it's
competitive, I wouldn't call it a sport. Take bowling, for example.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | There is always an easy solution to every human problem - neat,
_`\(,_ | plausible, and wrong. --H.L. Mencken
(_)/ (_) |

"Terry Morse" wrote in message
...
"loki" wrote:
We got into it a bit more and it turns out he didn't consider what I did
to
be a sport.

In that case, I would agree with him. Sport presumes competition. I
would call recreational cycling an outdoor activity or athletic
pursuit, but never a sport.

Yabut!

Can't one compete against oneself? Is not the act of running in the New
York City marathon a sport? If so how does it not become a sport if a person
decided to run the same course a month later or before on their own, trying
to beat their personal best?

I don't see how not having a group of people around you makes it any more
of a sport.

--
'Just because you're wearing a tie
Doesn't mean you're bloody important'
-chumbawumba

"loki" wrote in message news:4v6Pb.19255

Stuff about what makes a cyclist a cyclist

Well, just for comparison, there's a guy I see all the time on the
road who I definitely consider a cyclist. His bike seems to something
along the lines of a cruiser frame; can't make out a lot of details
because of the big trash bags he's always carrying on the back, and
sometimes in front. He wears street clothes with one of those heavy
reflective vests like road construction workers wear, a helmet is his
only concession to cyclist's wear. I'll see him at any time of day
over about a 15 mile area, in almost any weather, pedalling just fast
enough to keep the bike moving. I may ride faster than he does, but I
bet he puts in a lot more hours on his bike. Anyone who uses a bike
that much is a cyclist in my book, and the heck with competition or
the cyclist image.

loki wrote:

"Terry Morse" wrote:
Sport presumes competition. I would call recreational cycling an
outdoor activity or athletic pursuit, but never a sport.

Yabut!

Can't one compete against oneself? Is not the act of running in the New
York City marathon a sport? If so how does it not become a sport if a person
decided to run the same course a month later or before on their own, trying
to beat their personal best?

A trip to the dictionary brings forth. Definitions 1 and 2 say that
sport is a physical activity with specific rules and customs, and
often done competitively. Definition 3 says sport is recreation.

Cycling fits definition 3 for sure, but 1 and 2 are a tougher fit.
Cycling in general has no specific rules as a game would.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/

"Terry Morse" wrote in message
...
"loki" wrote:

We got into it a bit more and it turns out he didn't consider what I did
to
be a sport.

In that case, I would agree with him. Sport presumes competition. I
would call recreational cycling an outdoor activity or athletic
pursuit, but never a sport.

No, but it's still cycling. Running for fitness is still running, and people
who do it are still runners. To contend that someone isn't a cyclist just
because they don't compete is to put one's opinions ahead of the facts.

RichC