I ride a 25 year old road bike… but it’s a *road bike. You know why? Because I find it to be comfortable and fast. I wear Pearl Izumi shorts. Why? Because they keep my dryer and help my fanny not hurt. I’m thinking about getting a Jersey for the same reasons. If I commute to work or elsewhere and ‘look’ like a Sports Cyclist, that doesn’t change the fact that my circle knows that I commute. If not dressing that way (as I did for the first few months of commuting) makes it more difficult to commute by bike, then why should I feel bad for not ‘taking cycling back’ in my appearance and attitude? The whole point is person to person contact that makes biking normal, not some sort of statement to the world as they watch you triumphantly commuting to bike even though they’ve never met you.

So, while I want the industry to be more aware of commuting and to be producing bikes that are designed for people who want to get from A to B, I really think this attitude is destructive. Let’s just celebrate biking, both as a vehicle and as a sport.

I’m saying that when we promote them as a place to “feel safe”, we’re saying that the default for cycling is to “feel in danger”.

We could promote infrastructure on convenience (look at this handy shortcut) or pleasantness (what a nice tree-lined residential street) or awareness (this is a popular route for cycling). Instead, we create a perception of danger that needs to be solved.

Meanwhile, lots of people who we’ve convinced to be scared of cycling on ordinary roads have no fear about motoring on those same roads.

I commute because it is the best time for me to get a daily ride in and it allows us to live with just one vehicle. I, and my family, get numerous benefits from it. The topic of bicycling frequently comes up around me and some people think about getting involved in whatever way they want to. I don’t think it takes a crusade to make this happen. I think it happens one person at a time just sharing what they love to do.

What I would like to see is government more committed to making more roads rideable. That is something we can lobby for with our representatives. Too many roads in my city are too dangerous to ride on. That, to me, is a better choice for us to focus on for any change.

The problem I have with the phrase Let’s take bicycling back from the sports enthusiasts! is that it implies one bike-riding group (the us in let’s) taking something away from another bike-riding group (sports enthusiasts.) So you stand by what you’ve written, but do you understand that it implies a divisiveness that you may not intend?

When advocates try to influence public policy, it is always better to find common ground and build coalitions than it is for each group to have its own narrow adgenda. Why not come up with something that says the more of us there are, the safer we’ll be or the bicycle-not just for liesure anymore or more bicycles=more life? Trek’s 1 World, 2 Wheels isn’t a bad start, really…

The places that have lots of short cycling trips tend to be places where driving a car is more absurd than usual: Compact college towns where parking is scarce and students can’t afford a car anyway. Countries where getting a driver’s license is very difficult or the fees to own a car are very high.

In other words, it’s the most practical choice, compared to the alternatives. Because the alternative of driving a car is less practical than usual.

Cycling is already about as practical as it’s going to get. The balance shifts as motoring becomes less practical.

That’s exactly the sort of fear-mongering I mean. If there’s no bike lane, people are supposed to feel unsafe, and therefore shouldn’t ride.

And we’re not even talking about actual safety or danger, just feelings. We, the cycling advocates, have created the perception that cycling is dangerous, and there’s nothing people can do about the danger, short of waiting for infrastructure to be built.

Instead of informing potential cyclists of valid, avoidable risks like doorings and right hooks, we fill their heads with trumped-up dangers that scare them off cycling entirely The ones that do get past the fear end up getting doored and hooked because they “felt” safe.

In speaking with the guys from places like Amsterdam and Copenhagen, a huge part of how they got to their current state of bike utopia is politicians taking a stand and taking the roads back from the cars. There’s been been amazing legislation passed to make the roads bikeable (including shutting down a main thoroughfare to anything but bikes) and that’s been a huge part of getting more people on bikes.

Yes, the word “take” applies.

Currently the bike’s perception has been placed solely on a sport/recreation mindset. And that needs to be taken back. You can say changed, shifted, rotated, lifted… you say tomato, I say tomato (that doesn’t really translate to print).

I think tim said it best above in comment #31… he articulated better than I could what I was trying to say. Bikes should be normal. And I want to take the steps needed to get there.

It is the general motorsits that need to realize that cycling is a means of transportation too, a very effective one at that. Fortunately, the gas prices help advocating the sentiment these days.

Mr. Grahl — great sentiment, but not the best choice of words in which to frame it.

I agree with the commenters who state that the best way to make transportational cycling “visible” is to be out there in regular clothes, riding at less-than-breakneck speeds, obeying the rules of the road and appearing like we’re having the times of our lives.

The U.S. has a long way to go before we become a cycling Utopia like Amsterdam (if we EVER get there), but there’s a culture shift a-happenin’. Check out J. Harry Wray’s Pedal Power: The Quiet Rise of the Bicycle in American Public Life for the skinny on that.