3 ms·
> not superior by any stretch of the imagination. I think it's safe to assume each rider has a different utility function, in some cases drastically different.
by michaelmior 8y ago
> not superior by any stretch of the imagination.
I think it's safe to assume each rider has a different utility function, in some cases drastically different. "Extraordinarily impractical" bikes may very well have other upsides for a particular rider that outweigh the disadvantages for them.
- fifnir 8y agoIt's also safe to point out that the vast majority of people for the vast majority of topics don't know and don't care. Don't tell me the people who go around cycling on tiny bikes with their heels on the pedal and their knees reaching their throat have found some kind of alternative definition of practicality...
- michaelmior 8y agoI didn't say anything about an alternative definition of practicality. I said that practicality might not be as important for some people.
- mcv 8y agoOf course. Looks are a big one. Attitude, style, art, standing out. Historical appreciation. And some bikes are impractical in one way but extremely practical in another, like folding bikes. I have no experience with them myself, but I expect the riding experience to be mediocre. But the ability to fold them up and take them with you is fantastically useful.