"Kevan Smith" <
[email protected]/\/\> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 11:43:11 -0400, Mark
<
[email protected]> from Agilent
> Technologies wrote:
>
> >Luigi de Guzman wrote:
> >> [off-topic flamebait below, warning]
> >>
> >> What is with American bike culture, anyway? In the US,
bikes are
> >> either toys for kids or athletic equipment. Everything
is to a
> >> program; rides are "training rides", everything to
maximize
> >> performance....
> >
> >You're right, unfortunately. In Europe, bikes are
transportation, in
> >the US they're recreation (this is a generalization -
there are European
> >recreational riders, I'm sure, but it covers the general
situation).
> >
> >There is definitely the view in the US that bicycles are
something that
> >children ride until they're old enough to get their
automotive driver's
> >licenses, then quickly shed. It's a shame - bicycles are
a great way to
> >get some exercise and fresh air while also accomplishing
the goal of
> >getting somewhere!
> >
> >Don't ask me to explain my countrymen, but you've got an
accurate view
> >of the situation.
>
> Bicycling's portrayal of American cycling is flawed.
>
> Many poor people in America use bikes as transport. In my
deep south community,
> poor mostly translates into black minorities, which is a
sham term here because
> blacks are a majority of my city's population. On my
commutes, I'll often hook
> up with people using bikes to get around as daily
transport.
Where in the Deep South do you live?
> Their bikes, though, aren't quite ready for the pages of
Bicycling magazine. The
> longer a person has been riding and/or the farther
distances they commute, the
> better their bike tends to be. But none of them are things
of great beauty
> except to the owners.
>
> Bicycling ignores that segment completely -- both poor and
minorities. The big
> advertising money comes from companies selling expensive
toys to privileged
> white adults. So that is the market they aim for. And
thus, Bicycling is not an
> accurate portrayal of American cycling.
You hit a big nail right on the head.
Even in oh-so-trendy southern CA, I bet there are more poor people riding bikes for transportation,
than Buycycling-type yuppies, and riding longer distances daily too. In my old neighborhood, there
was a steady stream of restaurant workers commuting home at 2am. I've talked to some of these people
-- a Newport Beach to Santa Ana commute (10-15 miles) is pretty common. The favored bike seems to be
a Pacific or Wal-Goose, usually fairly new, and in pretty good shape. Some of these guys are
actually pretty fast. Bus-bike commutes are pretty common too.
I would love to start a magazine or website featuring *all* cyclists, from around the world. Getting
magazine distribution is pretty tough these days. You're very limited with what you can do -- it's
kind of like getting radio airplay for musicians. If you don't have corporate backing and fit into
an established pigeonhole, you can pretty much forget the whole thing -- unless you have a huge
trust fund, and some good friends at a free-thinking publishing house.
So a website makes more sense, plus it could be read around the world. (Most poor folks with access
to magazines can probably also go to an internet cafe or library.) With current projects standing in
the way, I won't be getting into this for a couple of years, but it *is* something I'd like to do
eventually. I'm getting more seriously into cycling as a lifestyle as I get older.
BTW, Bike magazine, as originally conceived by Surfer Publications, was to feature all kinds of
cycling and cycling culture. But then mountain biking went from an adventure travel sport to a
canned consumer marketing phenomenon, and its fate was sealed.
I'd rather read about a day in the life of a pedi-cab driver in India than which kewl toonz some
racer dood lissenz to. And I find $4000 Ti bikes about as interesting as gold plated bathroom
fixtures, with which they have much in common.
Matt O.
