I interpreted this, "If the purpose of the ride is for training/health/cardio", as generally assuming that this is the purpose of most any bike riding. Just a l

I interpreted this, "If the purpose of the ride is for training/health/cardio", as generally assuming that this is the purpose of most any bike riding. Just a lot of assumptions going on there, some know-it-all'ism that feels common. "Oh, why is this cyclist not in the bike lane?" (Perhaps because the bike lane is full of glass, perhaps because the bike lane is in a door zone, perhaps because the bike lane is hidden from busy drive ways, there could be tons of reasons but the person zooming by assumes they know everything there is about the person that spends years in the saddle..) So, this just kinda triggers me as arm-chair quarterbacking, it's really common and you just don't know a cyclists perspective until you've observed the conditions of shoulders at 2 feet away, and when you know statistics that intersections and turning traffic are more dangerous to cyclists than compared to riding further into the lane forcing traffic to move over to pass. So, I believe that is just assuming way too much. For many, 'fun' is the primary reason and for many others it is simply 'transportation'. > I think it makes sense to fight back against the common recommendations you get from bike communities who are obsessing about weight and efficiency. That could be the case, though really depends on which community one is referring to. Not all of them obsess about weight and efficiency. At the same time, being upright vs leaned over is hardly obsessive (given that it is the single largest efficiency gain you can have). Hence, if you care at all about efficiency, you're not going to be bolt upright. For safety reasons, it can be important to match traffic speed, there all sorts of reasons to ride faster that are not just 'obsessing over weight and efficiency'.