A few years ago there used to be a big divide between road riders and mountain bikers, however now many cyclists own both types of bikes and take part in onroad and offroad activities.
Even BMX is being accepted into mainstream cycling with its inclusion in coaching courses, in the olympics, Jamie Staff's track success, inclusion on talent programs throughout the UK.
Following comments in another thread about aggressive racer types, etc. Do you think that there is a divide or a divide developing between (1) cyclists that complete events (touring events or races) and train to ride faster, and (2) between commuter cyclists or cyclists that ride for health, the environment or occasioaly for fun?
Some differences (from the other thread) between the two groups are very apparent:
1. Distances ridden and time spent riding.
2. Types of equipment needed, life of equipment, cost of equipment.
3. Motives for riding.
4. Different risks and threats.
5. The use of a car in cycling (e.g. one group of cyclists little need for car; the other group of cyclists often dependant on cars for access to events and travel to training.
Does this divide exist; do people see racing cyclist types as 'agressive racers' (in the same way young guys in golfs are boy racers) and do racing cyclists see communters as less 'serious cyclist'?
My personal opinion (which so far hasn't been given much value) is that; both types are valid cyclists. Yet I make the distinction between cyclists and 'pedestrians on bikes'. Pedestrians on bikes being people who are not 'cyclists' (children and/or adults) that use pavements and/or pay little attention to the laws of the road (running red lights, riding up the wrong side of the road); I'm sure you have all seen them?
Even BMX is being accepted into mainstream cycling with its inclusion in coaching courses, in the olympics, Jamie Staff's track success, inclusion on talent programs throughout the UK.
Following comments in another thread about aggressive racer types, etc. Do you think that there is a divide or a divide developing between (1) cyclists that complete events (touring events or races) and train to ride faster, and (2) between commuter cyclists or cyclists that ride for health, the environment or occasioaly for fun?
Some differences (from the other thread) between the two groups are very apparent:
1. Distances ridden and time spent riding.
2. Types of equipment needed, life of equipment, cost of equipment.
3. Motives for riding.
4. Different risks and threats.
5. The use of a car in cycling (e.g. one group of cyclists little need for car; the other group of cyclists often dependant on cars for access to events and travel to training.
Does this divide exist; do people see racing cyclist types as 'agressive racers' (in the same way young guys in golfs are boy racers) and do racing cyclists see communters as less 'serious cyclist'?
My personal opinion (which so far hasn't been given much value) is that; both types are valid cyclists. Yet I make the distinction between cyclists and 'pedestrians on bikes'. Pedestrians on bikes being people who are not 'cyclists' (children and/or adults) that use pavements and/or pay little attention to the laws of the road (running red lights, riding up the wrong side of the road); I'm sure you have all seen them?