Thursday, April 20, 2006

The wheel deal

I have come to realize that getting moderately serious about biking has made me both more and less tolerant of other bikers.
On one hand, I support all other bikers. I want other people to get out and enjoy this hobby. I want them to have fun and get fit and spread the word to all of their friends. Just so long as they don’t weave like Billy Joel leaving a party when I try to pass them.
This is the hand that makes me look good. It’s the hand on which I am an ambassador for goodwill among the bicycling community. Unfortunately, compared to the other hand it is small and withered not all that appealing. It’s like the Strom Thurmond of theoretical hands. On the other, much more robust, hand there is a long list of bike-related pet peeves.
Most of these have to do with types of bikes. In roughly ascending order I am annoyed by:
• Tandem bikes. I suppose there are situations where these are of use. Like when two fugitives find themselves chained together in a comical fashion, or when you’re courting someone in the 1920s. Mostly, though, I find them ridiculous. Ride your own bike. Show a little independence. This is America, after all.
• Recumbent bikes. Again, I realize there is a use for these. Some people have back problems and can’t ride a regular bike without horrible pain. They get a pass. Still, if you have to put a flag on your bike so cars can see you, we’ve got a problem.
Recumbents also seem more likely than other bikes to be modified in some unspeakable ways. I have seen recumbent bikes encased in aerodynamic fiberglass shells. It’s like watching an egg bike down the street, only without the possibility of a giant omelet.
Then there’s the tandem recumbent. I have seen these, but I refuse to acknowledge their existence.
And still, none of these is as bad as:
• The tall bike. Have you seen these? Apparently here is a certain subset of the Twin Cities bicycling community that has decided it is a good idea to weld one bike frame on top of another. Riders have to climb on top of cars or walls or tall friends to mount them, and I don’t want to think about what happens if they have to stop suddenly. Essentially, they have created the Paris Hilton of the bicycle community: kind of intriguing at first glance yet awkward-looking and vaguely useless the more you think about it, relying more on unique looks than actual usefulness to get attention.
I try to be accepting. But when I see someone riding a tall bike, I mostly feel like pushing them over. Which, now that I think about it, is actually how I feel pretty much every time I see Paris Hilton, too.
Maybe this all makes me sound petty and elitist. I don’t think that’s the case, though. Biking has changed the way I look at the world. I pay more attention when I drive. I watch out for bikers on the road. Although when I see them I’m mostly thinking about whether I’m faster than they are. Usually, I figure I am. I’m pretty sure if I saw Lance Armstrong and his entire team rolling down the road, as long as I was safe in my car my first thought would be, “I could take ‘em.”
Confidence is important, I think.
There is one final issue I want to address today, and it’s going to take a little explaining. It goes back to tandems, and who should be riding them. I made some jokes about this earlier, but there really are situations where tandems are acceptable. If one member of a couple is really into biking and the other isn’t, I’m open to tandems as a compromise. The biker gets his or her partner to go along for the ride and the non-biker gets to make his or her partner look ridiculous. Everyone wins. I think they’re also nice for parents and their children.
But they are never acceptable for two dudes.
This isn’t a homophobic thing. I think two men should be able to do just about anything they want together. They can get married as far as I’m concerned, or compete in doubles luge. But ride a tandem? That’s just a little too weird.
Two women on a bike, though? Everyone knows that’s hot.

No comments: