I am not a household earning over £40,000 and yet I have 4 3/4 bikes. But then again there's only one of me.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
Is cycling middle class?
(70 posts)-
Posted 12 years ago #
-
The truth is we don't know why some people are more likely to cycle than others, especially within social groups
Sustained exposure to LSD from a tender age did it for me.
let's take early Pink Floyd as a dubious example.
Roger Waters - major ego, lust for power and fame - disliked LSD - loves his cars
Syd Barrett - transcendentalist, disliked the spotlight, liked his acid - bicycles all the way
I rest my hallucinatory case.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Dave's point is a good one although the number of cases in Edinburgh to make that calculation is too small. Nationally though, of the adults in households with a bike, 22% in the most deprived areas cycle and 26% in the least deprived areas cycle.
So, if anything, buying a bike is middle class. Using it is a different story.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Solidly middle class here. Amongst my friends I'm not the only one who cycles but I am by some way the most committed. I'd split my friends and acquaintances into these groups:
*Fair weather leisure riders: People who will cycle a few miles on a lovely summers day but that's it. I don't mind this up to the point where they start acting like they're saving the world one pedal stroke at a time and are so 'alternative' despite the fact for most of the year they get around entirely by car or sometimes public transport.
*Drivers. Quite a few live out in the country where you couldn't reasonably argue you could do without a car so fair enough. But you know what happens: these are the people that cannot comprehend doing anything beside driving even in town - "what? you mean WALK two miles! are you mad! to the car!!" etc. Some of them do own bikes but again it's occasional leisure use only. From hitching the odd lift from them I know most of them are pretty good and considerate drivers though.
*MTBers/BMX. Here's where it gets strange. These are people who will drop thousands of pounds at the drop of a hat on a mountain bike but are still completely unreceptive to the idea of a bike as transport. I don't think they see themselves as 'cyclists' in the same way a commuter would.
*Non cyclists: People for whom the idea of riding a bike past the age of 12 is totally alien. None of them hate cycling in any sense but they have that little look of astonishment whenever I turn up somewhere on my bike.
I get the impression I'm the only person that uses a bike as the primary means of transportation. If we were to be having a BBQ across town I'm happy to load up the panniers with supplies and cycle 15 miles. Everyone else is bus/car.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Had a funny conversation last night with a green party chappie who happily admitted that he would rather spend an hour on the bus morning and night than cycle from Stockbridge to the Scottish parliament.
Maybe cyclists are just more impatient than other people?
Posted 12 years ago # -
Put it this way - do pedestrians obsessively optimise their shoes and other "equipment"? :P
Posted 12 years ago # -
Well plenty people walk to work in trainers then change into 'work' shoes.... ;)
Posted 12 years ago # -
"MTBers/BMX. Here's where it gets strange. These are people who will drop thousands of pounds at the drop of a hat on a mountain bike but are still completely unreceptive to the idea of a bike as transport. I don't think they see themselves as 'cyclists' in the same way a commuter would"
Not sure I'd see that as necessarily 'strange', in the same way that many commuters who see the bike as 'transport' wouldn't think of using a bike for 'sport'.
Posted 12 years ago # -
"do pedestrians obsessively optimise their shoes and other 'equipment'?"
I used to spend ages (tens of hours per purchase, including internet research and specific-journey walking-to-shops time) trying to find decent grippy weatherproof durable comfortable and sufficiently-wide footwear, particularly when I'd be spending several hours per day walking around quickly in them. It didn't take nearly as long to buy either of my two-so-far pairs of bike shoes simply because there was even less chance of getting any which ticked even one box.
Posted 12 years ago # -
I don't think they see themselves as 'cyclists' in the same way a commuter would"
Conversely there are plenty of bicycle commuters who wouldn't consider them selves cyclists.
Posted 12 years ago # -
And then there are the really annoying people who use their commute as part of their training for sport/longer rides and therefore refuse to sit tidily in either box...
;-)(It gets worse - is running the 16 miles from my office to my flat commuting, or marathon training? I guess the latter...)
Posted 12 years ago # -
Not sure I'd see that as necessarily 'strange', in the same way that many commuters who see the bike as 'transport' wouldn't think of using a bike for 'sport'.
I wouldn't think of using my bike for sport. I certainly wouldn't take it round the trails at Glentress (although that is mainly because people would point and laugh).
Posted 12 years ago # -
@Wilmingtons Cow: Imagine you suggest to someone that they might consider cycling across town sometimes instead of getting the car/bus - nothing too controversial. If they say no and it's because they've never ridden a bike for years and don't see it as a practical option then you can understand that perspective. But if it's someone who will happily ride for 6 hours up mountains in the middle of winter then it does seem slightly odd that they won't consider simple transport cycling. They clearly know exactly what a bike is capable of and how to put up with immense physical and mental discomfort so you would think inviting them on a simple cross-town jaunt would be easy. Except you get '..what? use a bike to get somewhere? what are you on about?'. The words may as well be coming from someone who's never ridden a bike in their lives. Fair enough if they just don't want to to it but the issue is they don't even seem capable of considering the option. It's not quite the same as trying to get a commuter to take up mtb say, because the skill gradient goes one way - there's nothing inherently difficult about commuting on road at least in terms of controlling the bike, compared to mtb.
@Steveo: While trying to avoid shoehorning everyone into categories, in my experience there are plenty of mtbers that are absolutely indifferent to things like urban cycling infrastructure and road law enforcement as they never cycle on roads or even cyclepaths so these issues don't affect them. Meanwhile I can't see a commuter being unaffected by such things, however little or much they might care about them or identify themselves as a 'cyclist'.
Posted 12 years ago # -
It's the old "footballing down the shops" argument to paraphrase Graeme Obree (I think?).
Dedicated sports cycling enthusiasts often balk at the idea of utility cycling. The MTBers who drive to Glentress, etc., and also to a lesser extent perhaps the "weekend warriors" who drive their carbon road bikes to the sportive*.
Conversely many "cyclists" who just use a (sometimes old and/or basic) bike to get to work balk at the idea of participating in sport cycling. I know I used to think that way, until trying my hand at audax (which I enjoy because it's "not a race").
* - I'm aware that many 'roadies' do cycle commute (on a different bike) and/or cycle to events.
Posted 12 years ago # -
"But if it's someone who will happily ride for 6 hours up mountains in the middle of winter then it does seem slightly odd that they won't consider simple transport cycling. They clearly know exactly what a bike is capable of and how to put up with immense physical and mental discomfort so you would think inviting them on a simple cross-town jaunt would be easy2
Yes, but they're doing the MTBing (certainly it's what I did MTBing for) to get the adrenaline rush, for the speed and the jumps and the gnarly. You're spending 6 hours on the bike for a ten minute gravity-assisted blat every now and then. You're on a one-way track, carving into bends, clearing doubles, nailing drops. It's so completely and utterly removed from commuting, or cycling down to the shops. Just because they use a bike for one activity doesn't mean they should automatically want or desire to use a bike for a different activity (whether that's commuting or riding round a velodrome or giving trials a go).
Still not sure I see it as 'strange'. They could have the same fears and concerns as Joe Bloggs not getting on a bike (the dangers of the two activities are very different, and someone may be entirely confident in their own skillz at traversing greasy tree roots, while at the same time be worried that a taxi driver might want to drive over them).
In short (kind of), yes they won't even consider the bike as transport - that's purely and simply because they don't see the bike as transport, they see it as fun, as leisure, as a 'toy', as playtime. Transport is dull and boring.
(note, I don't personally believe that cycling as 'transport' is dull and boring, you can get that rush in many different ways, but you need to get the eprson on the bike to try transport first - and I tihnk that off-roading is so completely detached from road commuting, it's far far easier to get a roadie to consider commuting by bike).
Posted 12 years ago # -
Clubmate of mine was grumbling the other day about having to walk everywhere due to his car having given up the ghost. Gym (about a mile from his house), Cycling club pub night (probably 3 miles) etc.
Despite the fact that he cycles a lot more miles than I do it's purely leisure and sport. I don't think it had occurred to him to use a bike just for getting around. "you need to get yourself a cheap 2nd-hand mountain-bike or something" I suggested. "Already got one at home" apparently.
Odd.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Perhaps 'strange' is too strong of a word, but of all the people you could think would be willing to try utility cycling you would naturally expect those who already own a bike and do plenty of riding would be the easiest to engage. Think about somebody who doesn't own a bike and hasn't ridden since childhood - what to they face?
-Having to get a decent bike, not the cheapest new and secondhand is a minefield to the inexperienced
-Having to buy a set of tools, allen keys, pump, patches etc and knowing how to use these for basic maintenance
-either learning to do more complex repairs and buying more tools, or shelling out for them at a bike shop when parts inevitably break
-buying extras like dedicated cycling clothing for longer rides/comfort
-worrying about building up fitness, traffic, accidents, safety....
etc etc. If you're starting completely from scratch then it's never as simple as 'buy a bike and ride' if you want to keep going past your first puncture or snapped chain. Incidentally I know several people who have bikes rusting away half broken in sheds and they always say they want to ride but never get round to fixing them up and can't be bothered with a shop. Makes a good case for low maintenance bikes - chaincase, gear hubs etc - though that pushes the price up beyond what many people would consider.
Somebody who rides, say mtb or even BMX, will already have all the basics of tools and equipment in place and won't be worrying about fitness. The jump from there to getting a second runaround bike is hardly massive.
"Just because they use a bike for one activity doesn't mean they should automatically want or desire to use a bike for a different activity (whether that's commuting or riding round a velodrome or giving trials a go)."
I'd hardly expect a roadie to be immediately interested in mtb, or a BMXer to want to tour the world, but we're talking about basic everyday cycling here. I'm not asking my riding friends at the skatepark 'hey I know you like BMX so why don't you buy a road bike and we'll do a century next week?' That would be absurd. I have however asked my mtb buddies if they'd fancy cycling along the canal uptown instead of the bus or having to hitch a ride with someone. And there's rarely any interest. I'd hardly blame them for not wanting to take their full suss downhill bike but I've never been able to plant the idea they should perhaps scrounge up a secondhand hybrid for just messing about town - it's not like they're short on tools, supplies, spare parts or indeed money. But as you say, there's a mental category for bikes in their minds and it's leisure, not transport.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Somebody who rides, say mtb or even BMX, will already have all the basics of tools and equipment in place and won't be worrying about fitness. The jump from there to getting a second runaround bike is hardly massive.
So now they need to get another bike? For someone who already doesn't think of a bike as transport and won't even use they're current bike you're expecting them to get 'another' bike just to see if they like it?
And if they have a £1000 fancy MTB with all the latest bits, they're going to want a secondhand beater?
If anything those riders, by already being regular cyclists, but actively avoiding riding in the city, are HARDER to convince to ride in the city because they already ride, but don't want to in the city, whereas the non cyclist actually WANTS to ride. I think winning over the mental is more difficult than the physical. All IMHO of course. But sort of backed up by your own personal experience of not being able to convince the MTBrs.
Posted 12 years ago # -
there's a mental category for bikes in their minds and it's leisure, not transport.
To be fair, that is how the bicycle industry markets products to people in this country. It's been like that since at least the 1980s (and possibly earlier, 1960s?), when bikes gave way to cars as the transport of choice. They then became lifestyle/leisure accessories. The last mass market utility bike was probably the Raleigh Twenty/Shopper back in the 1960s/70s.
Since then we've had various leisure cycling trends: steel 'racers' with no/vestigial mudguards; BMX; Mountain bikes; 'road bikes' with aluminium or carbon frames and definitely no mudguards; fixies and single speeds (often recycled/faux 1970s/80s steel 'racer' frames), no mudguards; etc.
Granted, during this whole time there have been more practical/traditional bikes available (tourers, roadsters, et al) but almost invisible to the mass market. It's only in recent years that practical/utility bikes have once again become fashionable: I think they are still quite 'niche' compared to MTBs and 'road bikes' in terms of sales volumes.
I think it's also true that sometimes people compartmentalise possessions/activities. So a "keen cyclist" (such as the aforementioned MTBer and club rider, or for example Finance Secretary John Swinney) see their cars as 'transport' and their bikes as 'fun'.
When you challenge someone who thinks that way to consider cycling to work, it is as though you've just asked a keen 5-a-side footballer to "football down the shops": the reaction is "Eh???"
Posted 12 years ago # -
Picking up an old Raleigh 20 tomorrow (with DynoHub).
Nobody else seems to be excited about the Dynohub aspect.
Anywho, I'm not really sure what middle class is. When I lived in London it was easier to understand but here I don't find it quite so simple. Almost everyone I know is in a white collar job but I suspect some of that is due to Westminster policy since 1979. I don't know anyone who uses private medicine outwith those who's work will pick up the tab. I don't know anyone who sends their kids to a fee paying school.
And I don't understand resistance to cycling. At my work two of the other older chaps cycled but they have both retired now. Occasionally someone in PE cycles and I think a few of them got bikes in the cycle to work scheme. It remains to be seen how many of these actually make it to work. I ordered another Brompton which will make it to school.
My usual boss is a keen MTB rider and drives to the highlands to do this. She lives 4 miles from the school and has cycled there once. She is amazed that I cycle along the road "in a straight line". It took me some time to work out that I think she means I don't dodge in and out from the kerb and round parked cars. When she said this I thought she meant something to do with physics and commented on bikes being incapable of straight lines but trikes can do it.
Of the guys I went to school with only one other cycles regularly for getting to work and another does it occasionally but does aim to do more (however he has been aiming for a number of years).
I'm not aware of anyone thinking worse of me because I do cycle all the time and I try to make it as normal as possible so that perhaps the odd kid in school might try it someday.
Last weekend I cycled to a BBQ in the west end of Glasgow. One person, who recently married an old school chum, commented on it. Nobody else was bothered as they expect me to do that and explained this to her.
Posted 12 years ago # -
"So now they need to get another bike? For someone who already doesn't think of a bike as transport and won't even use they're current bike you're expecting them to get 'another' bike just to see if they like it? "
I don't 'expect' anything. I had been assuming that since this was a thread on a cycling forum, full of people who I assume own and ride at least one bike, and the subject was discussion of how more people can get into cycling, that a suggestion that a person who already owns one bike and associated accessories might consider getting a second bike would not prove so very controversial. Your response reads as if I've said that I go around pinning people against walls and demanding that they immediately buy a second bike just to please me on pain of death. If that's not what you intended then I apologise in advance, I mean no hostility.
Let's turn this around. Imagine we have a person who drives but doesn't cycle at all and doesn't even own a bike. Would you say we shouldn't bother even suggesting they might consider buying a bike because:
"They need to get a bike but they already have a means of transport - a car"
"We are demanding that they NEED to get another means of transport beside their car"
"We expect them to buy a bike 'just to see if they like it'"
"They might find a entry-level £400 bike inferior in quality to say a £5000 fancy car with all the fancy bits"
If it's not good reasoning against someone buying a first bike to get started why is it such a problem for someone buying a second?
I have a fancy mtb for trails. I also have a low value beater bike for getting about town. This works really well as I can enjoy the mtb but not worry about the beater getting stolen. Was I wrong to get the beater? Should I not have demanded it of myself?
Posted 12 years ago # -
*sigh*
No, you weren't wrong, and no, we shouldn't not be trying to get people onto bikes but...
You are suggesting it's strange that people who MTB won't ride in town. We've established they won't consider it for various reasons, and then we ADD that in order to ride in town they can't be expected to use their big MTB, so should be getting a new bike. I'm just saying that if you've got a group of people who are already resistant to the idea then the concept of buying a bike to do something they are already resistant to doesn't make it MORE likely they'll go for the idea, but LESS. Whereas, the person who doesn't cycle, but has a beat up bike in his shed, is closer to becoming an urban cyclist.
You shouldn't stop trying to convince your MTB friends to ride in the city, it just helps to understand, as crowriver mentioned, that suggesting to sports cyclists that they ride a bike to the shops is just like asking a footballer to football to the shops. They see cycling as sport, as leisure, as fun. They don't see cycling as 'practical'.
The whole thing is about 'why' they won't consider Cycling in the city (in an attempt to explain why it's not actually a strange concept); not a suggestion that those people shouldn't even bother, or we shouldn't bother trying to get them to cycle,
Posted 12 years ago # -
It's one of life's great mysteries why the more highly educated you are the more likely you are to do physically active things. My wife comments on this often, she works for a large city centre insurance company. Almost everyone she sees riding to work there are in management or skilled technical roles. The company has a running club, it's the same there.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Think Maslow - once you've taken care of the basics: you've got a job, a decent house, you're not excessively burdened by debt and you're not too worried about your kids' behaviour, you don't have trouble with your neighbours or any concerns about drug sales or being assaulted on your way home etc, then you have time and mental space to contemplate life enhancing activities. Not just physical activities but hobbies, reading, an appreciation of the arts and so on, all of which are more prevalent among the educated and well paid.
Posted 12 years ago # -
It's one of life's great mysteries why the more highly educated you are the more likely you are to do physically active things.
I don't think it is mysterious at all. It's traditional.
Traditionally, the working classes had hard physical labour in their jobs which was their exercise. Think farm labourer, coal miner, shipyard worker, building labourer, etc. They were too knackered after work to do much more strenuous physical activity.
Mostly those with less physically demanding work would take up strenuous sports. Think shop assistant, skilled tradesman, clerical worker, etc. It's no accident that the cyclists in Wells' 'The Wheels of Chance' were a draper's assistant and various petit bourgeois or minor gentry.
Clearly this is a generalisation, and there will be a long list of exceptions. If I think for a moment though about the kids at my son's primary school and who is seriously taking up activities like football, running, cycling; then think about what I know about their parents' occupations; the rule pretty much holds water. (Not that there are many farm labourers, coal miners, shipyard workers around these days, but there are still folk with physically demanding jobs).
Posted 12 years ago # -
"You shouldn't stop trying to convince your MTB friends to ride in the city"
I'm glad you think so. It's going to be quite tough from now on though. See, we can both agree that using an expensive mtb around town is a bad idea and wouldn't be a good way to introduce them to city riding. However, the prevailing argument now seems to be that I shouldn't suggest getting a more appropriate bike as that makes them less likely to do it as well. Leaving me with nothing to suggest, and them with no bike suitable for town. Shame.
I would like to draw attention to something I said earlier:
"I have however asked my mtb buddies if they'd fancy cycling along the canal uptown instead of the bus or having to hitch a ride with someone."
Cycling somewhere at our own pace and own timetable instead of relying on public transport or other people. Sounds nice and practical - a good reason to cycle in town. Or heck, I might even suggest we go for a blast round the back country lanes just for the fun of it. Not so practical but a great reason to cycle. Of course they don't want to use a big fat tyred mtb for these trips.
Now, that person with the beat up bike in the shed - won't they already have reasons for not using it? In other words they are resistant to the idea of repairing the bike and using it for whatever purposes. The concept of repairing the bike and using it is something they are already resistant to and suggesting they do so will obviously make it less likely that they'll go for the idea, not more likely. Best not to mention the idea and let the bike rust.
Now, I have to go to the shops. I believe I'll football down there.
Posted 12 years ago # -
The paraphrase in question was Graeme Obree explaining why, in his view, cycling was unlike other sports because it's also a mode of transport, ie. "After all, you don't football down the shops".
The point was, the dudes/dudettes with the two grand sports bikes are not thinking about popping down the shops on them because it's not about transport for them. Which demonstrates more the mindset of some folk when it comes to sport (and transport) than it does the potential or actuality of cycling beng both simultaneously.
Personally, I'm with Obree on this. It seems however a lot of folk don't think like that...
Posted 12 years ago # -
Traditionally, the working classes had hard physical labour in their jobs which was their exercise. Think farm labourer, coal miner, shipyard worker, building labourer, etc. They were too knackered after work to do much more strenuous physical activity.
And yet (noting your comment about generalisation, crowriver), down our way it was the miners and farmers who wiped the floor with everyone in the cycle races. From what I've heard recently, it was a similar story in Fife and Midlothian.
Whatever class you're talking about, cycling is a minority pursuit, for reasons of inconvenience (an argument for Velib-style schemes), social stigma (recent sporting success and increased "bikes are cool" coverage in the media is perhaps reducing this, and, if it continues, this will spread throughout society) and (transport-wise) perceived danger.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Personally, I'm with Obree on this.
Understandably so
As an outsider, he almost outranks Robert Millar
But not quite
Me, I'm with Albert Hoffmann
Posted 12 years ago # -
Actually allebong, you're right - I hate cycling and wish no-one would do it. Proper menace to society those bikes. That's exactly, precisely, what I meant, never try to convert people to cycling. I'm off out to polish my Nissan Navara.
Posted 12 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
