WHY DO BICYCLISTS DRESS LIKE SUPER-HEROES FOR EVERY RIDE? WHAT'S UP WITH THAT???

WHY??? I can't speak for everyone, but maybe it's to be noticed. If they stand out, they are less likely to be hit by a car.

Another factor to lower HR while cycling is that you are spending as much energy supporting the weight of your body while riding as running.

You need to compare this fairly like by number of miles driven to miles ridden to get a fair idea of the rate. Not wearing a helmet while riding is just plain stupid--but you can be stupid if you want as long as I do not have to pay for it.

Why does it matter?

Why do so many juveniles care about what others do that does not affect them?

luv2run wrote:

You need to compare this fairly like by number of miles driven to miles ridden to get a fair idea of the rate. Not wearing a helmet while riding is just plain stupid--but you can be stupid if you want as long as I do not have to pay for it.

Even accounting for miles, or hour, cycling isn't as dangerous as it is PERCEIVED now. The perception that cycling is a dangerous activity was not there when I was growing up. I think that was a more accurate perception then than now.

This guy collected a lot of cycling injury and fatality statistics and normalized a lot of the data for hours, miles, has data for proportion of injuries to deaths, etc:

150,000 people die in all kinds of accidents in the US every year and only about 600-900 or so are cycling deaths. I don't have the statistics in front of me, but I've read that alcohol was involved (either the cyclist or getting hit by a drunk) in a significant fraction of those, something like 1/3. Since I don't drink and ride, that puts the risk at even lower for me. Then you have to consider that many if not most of those the death would occur helmet or no helmet. From all that, I would guess that you are not paying for cycling accidents in your insurance or whatever to more than a few pennys. And if you look the combined health benefits of cycling vs. the risks, you come out ahead when someone becomes a cyclist, helmet or not. What do we have, few hundred deaths in a population pushing 300 million, many, maybe most of which would not have been prevented with a helmet. I don't get the fearmongering.

There are LOTS of things that we all do that carry more risks than riding a bicycle. Remember, 150,000 accidental deaths... less than 1000 were on bikes.

-I am an injured runner and road biking is my only excersice alternative that doesnt aggravate my injury. Swimming hurts,running hurts, rowing hurts, water running hurts, but road biking doesnt. The whole thing about running being harder is because biking u can still cruise along while resting. Running u have to come to a complete stop to get your heart rate way down(im talking below 100). I have never bought a jersey with sponsors on it and my one pair of bike shorts cost 15 bucks. My bike is worth no more than 700 and it suits me fine. I do agree with u guys on the whole poser thing..... Nothing makes me happier than blasting past a fat man on a 5000 dollar bike when im going 25 mph and hes only going 15. Please dont judge bicyclists even though some of them do go over the edge.

hmm 20 mp/h cruising? 70 miles on an average day. I think you are talking about professional level cyclists. This is a select group hardly representative of a typical cyclist. If you are cruising at 20 mp/h you either live in a pancake flat area (and even so 20 mp/h on the flat 70 miles per day is pretty impressive), train in a peloton, or have a different definition of cruising than most people.

Wow my B.S. alarm is going off even louder now. 20 mp/h into a headwind is not cruising nor is it the equivalent of 8 minute per mile pace. Hadn't read your initial posts when I first responded. Now that I have I can fully affirm that you have no idea what you are talking about. 20 mp/h average on Pancake flat windless terrain for a good cyclist is perhaps cruising but it is certainly not equivalent to 8 minute pace. Where are you getting this crap? Why try and undermine this dudes accomplishment. Cycling averages vary so much with terrain and wind that there is no way you can judge this person's workout without knowing what the conditions were. Like many people on this message board you are completely full of it but what gets me is when you use your B.S. to undermine what someone else does.

Question wrote:

70 miles in 3.5 hours? if the 20 miles pace is really true should be able to go faster than that on the bike...Maybe you should try a little harder on the bike. 20 mph is the cycling equivlent of 8 minute mile pace.

Yeah, 20 mph is way different than running 8 minute miles when you're riding on a course with no net drop. Pro cyclists and decent amatures could average 20 without too much trouble, but it's certainly not the speed of most solo rides and not comparable to 8 minute pace. Also, 70 miles per day is pretty high mileage, pushing 500/week. I ride with several cat 1s and 2s on occasion, none of them are consistantly doing that much.

How do you determine if someone is cat1, 2 or whatever? Is it performance in certain races.

I see races some weekend mornings in Central Park? Do you know what level those races are at?

CAT ratings are based on placing in sanctioned events. You get a USCF license you are good to go and race. Cat 1 is essentially pro and would be guys that race like Tour De Georgia, etc. Cat 4 means you have done some races. There is also some regional variation, a Cat 1 from out West means something vs a Cat 1 from the northeast. there is just more competition on the west coast.

those riders you seen in Central Park are at the most 2s and 3s. no 1s doing those silly rides.

If runners dressed up like bikers do, we'd be wearing our H.S./college/club jersey on every run with our best pair of shorts and lightest racing flats available, with some over the top $200 watch that would give us splits to the picosecond.

When I bike, I wear the spandex, shoes, HELMET, and a beat up footlocker west regionals shirt. I don't need a flamey hat to ride.

Also, if you run 70mpw that's at least 7hrs a week right there, and there are plenty of people in college, any college, who do more than that.

If anyone wants more reading on the initial subject, here is a link to a topic I started on Coolrunning, a few days before this one on Letsrun.

http://www.coolrunning.com/forums/Forum2/HTML/006983.shtml

Then, this topic started up this morning, apparently directed at me...

http://www.coolrunning.com/forums/Forum2/HTML/007019.shtml

A few broad generalizations I feel comfortable making are:

Runners don't like to spend money on their sport like cyclists/triathletes do.

Runners tend to avoid attention more than cyclists/triathlets do.

Most runners could probably improve or at least supplement their running more than they do by cycling once in a while. Whereas cyclists and especially triathletes could really benefit from more running.

As for the effort-level part of this discussion, I think a closer comparison for 20mph is about 6:00 pace. They are both something I could keep up for about an hour, and after that it would start to get pretty difficult. That's my opinion anyway.

(I'm a runner, who bikes on occassion, (try for at least once a week, to and from work) and I have a mountain bike and recently bought a used tri-bike.)

Greg Ward

3000,

I was about to post the same thing. I though, hmmm, ok, the guys making some good points and then the 10 hour a week comment. Maybe a typo? Many hardcore runners, elites and non-elites, run that much or more.

Maybe runners realize that spending a ton of cash on their sport won't make them faster (unless it's EPO).

stoutchemist wrote:

If runners dressed up like bikers do, we'd be wearing our H.S./college/club jersey on every run with our best pair of shorts and lightest racing flats available, with some over the top $200 watch that would give us splits to the picosecond.

When I bike, I wear the spandex, shoes, HELMET, and a beat up footlocker west regionals shirt. I don't need a flamey hat to ride.

Crafty how you pointed out your Footlocker shirt... I'm sure you run 120+ a week wearing H-Streets and have PR's of 4:12, 14:10, 29:05.

Why does anyone care what others wear? It has no bearing on you or your training. Now mind your own business and go for a run or ride.

One last thing, chicks do in fact dig shaved legs, so you should all get over your own sexual identity crises.

I've got a parallel question here. Why is it that runners (especially it seems the HS and college guys) seem to gravitate to the most dull and boring colors ever created? Long black shorts, gray or white shirts, you get the picture. I do most of my training on the country roads around my house. I wear bright red, lime green, yellow, purple, anything that allows me to be seen from a distance. The last thing I want is to do an impression of a hovering fly waiting for a windshield on a freeway.

Second item. I hate logos. I avoid anything with big logos on it (I've noticed lots of bike stuff like this). If they want to sponsor me that's one thing, but I'm not going to be someone's billboard for free.

The better bikers that I've known, roadies and tri bikers, rarely talk about their rides in terms of MPH. They talk about heart-rate and Perceived Level of Exursion. And once you've hit asphalt once or twice you'll be more receptive to covering up as much skin as possible. Also I like wearing the biker shirts when the weather cools off for long runs, the back pockets are handy for gels and tp.