4 ms·

Bicycle shaped objects[1] should just be banned. They're a major contributor to the reason that people think that cycling is some sort of sweaty uncomfortable

by throwaway22032 4y ago

Bicycle shaped objects[1] should just be banned. They're a major contributor to the reason that people think that cycling is some sort of sweaty uncomfortable grimness, because they're sold some sort of double-suspension chinesium thing that barely even moves before it breaks a few months later. Literally everyone who rides these, you introduce them to a 300 quid hybrid or road bike and they're dumbfounded by how smooth the experience is. [1]https://www.thecyclingexperts.co.uk/get-cycling/buying-a-bike/the-bicycle-shaped-object/ https://www.thecyclingexperts.co.uk/get-cycling/buying-a-bik...

logifail 4y ago
> Bicycle shaped objects should just be banned Given a cheap bicycle [shaped object], or no bicycle at all, which would one want poorer consumers to opt for?
- throwaway22032 4y ago
  A second hand actual bicycle.
  - logifail 4y ago
    > A second hand actual bicycle Umm, I don't think the average consumer of bicycle shaped objects agrees. They can pick up a shiny bicycle shaped object in any nearby sports shop or large supermarket. Even assuming they find a second hand one, how are they even going to determine if it is an actual bicycle, or just a bicycle shaped object?
giraffe_lady 4y ago
Cycling as a hobby is associated with affluent white people which skews the perception. But the last time I looked into this for my own country, a huge portion of bike users were basically immigrants riding it a couple miles though a city on a daily basis to their low wage, possibly undocumented, jobs. I'm not saying these items are good in any material way, or that these people shouldn't have better options. But pushing up the minimum price of bikes could be damaging for people who use it as a necessary transport, rather than a hobby or exercise.
- throwaway22032 4y ago
  The idea that a normal bike is the preserve of "affluent white folks" is frankly bizarre. Racist and just incorrect. We're talking about 2-3 days minimum wage in the UK. Less if second-hand. Second hand actual bikes are usually less expensive than new BSO's anyway. Second hand BSO's are barely even usable.
  - bikewhore 4y ago
    Maybe that’s true but the sense I got from the linked articles was just that they are cheap bikes sold at supermarkets. In that context, they are advocating that you should spend 250£ on a bike, with parent suggesting that these 70£ bikes be banned. Why should we ban shitty bikes that poor people can afford? Why should we ban “fake mountain bikes”? Certainly if they are actually dangerous, but there’s existing consumer law to handle that case. (Also, I laughed when the authors wondered “if it’s such a rare flaw why do we see it all the time?” Like you’re a bike repair shop, pal. Of course you see the ones that are busted. That doesn’t tell you much about the rate of failure.)
    - throwaway22032 4y ago
      It's more like 200 vs 300 and the 200 quid bike is such a pile of shit that most people end up stuffing them in the cupboard and not using them.
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    I didn't say "it's the preserve of" I said "is associated with." Maybe where you live is different but where I live if you talk about cycling most people are going to picture someone in lycra on a road bike riding recreationally, not a concrete worker riding to the job in jeans. This perception skews the conversation about bikes, and the understanding of what needs people have for them and how they use them. And again different areas are different but where I live there's not really a very cheap secondhand bike market. The lowest prices you ever see, if you look for them, are willing to wait and travel, are right around the price of a shitty bike you can get from any big box store 24/7 in dozens of locations around the city. Those shitty bikes unfortunately seem to fulfill a real need, and it's not clear to me that it would be met if you simply removed them. This could be addressed in a whole bunch of ways, most simply with just a straightforward commuter bike subsidy. But that doesn't seem to be on the table do I don't think deleting these bikes should be either.

logifail 4y ago

> Bicycle shaped objects should just be banned Given a cheap bicycle [shaped object], or no bicycle at all, which would one want poorer consumers to opt for?

throwaway22032 4y ago
A second hand actual bicycle.
- logifail 4y ago
  > A second hand actual bicycle Umm, I don't think the average consumer of bicycle shaped objects agrees. They can pick up a shiny bicycle shaped object in any nearby sports shop or large supermarket. Even assuming they find a second hand one, how are they even going to determine if it is an actual bicycle, or just a bicycle shaped object?

giraffe_lady 4y ago

Cycling as a hobby is associated with affluent white people which skews the perception. But the last time I looked into this for my own country, a huge portion of bike users were basically immigrants riding it a couple miles though a city on a daily basis to their low wage, possibly undocumented, jobs. I'm not saying these items are good in any material way, or that these people shouldn't have better options. But pushing up the minimum price of bikes could be damaging for people who use it as a necessary transport, rather than a hobby or exercise.

throwaway22032 4y ago
The idea that a normal bike is the preserve of "affluent white folks" is frankly bizarre. Racist and just incorrect. We're talking about 2-3 days minimum wage in the UK. Less if second-hand. Second hand actual bikes are usually less expensive than new BSO's anyway. Second hand BSO's are barely even usable.
- bikewhore 4y ago
  Maybe that’s true but the sense I got from the linked articles was just that they are cheap bikes sold at supermarkets. In that context, they are advocating that you should spend 250£ on a bike, with parent suggesting that these 70£ bikes be banned. Why should we ban shitty bikes that poor people can afford? Why should we ban “fake mountain bikes”? Certainly if they are actually dangerous, but there’s existing consumer law to handle that case. (Also, I laughed when the authors wondered “if it’s such a rare flaw why do we see it all the time?” Like you’re a bike repair shop, pal. Of course you see the ones that are busted. That doesn’t tell you much about the rate of failure.)
  - throwaway22032 4y ago
    It's more like 200 vs 300 and the 200 quid bike is such a pile of shit that most people end up stuffing them in the cupboard and not using them.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  I didn't say "it's the preserve of" I said "is associated with." Maybe where you live is different but where I live if you talk about cycling most people are going to picture someone in lycra on a road bike riding recreationally, not a concrete worker riding to the job in jeans. This perception skews the conversation about bikes, and the understanding of what needs people have for them and how they use them. And again different areas are different but where I live there's not really a very cheap secondhand bike market. The lowest prices you ever see, if you look for them, are willing to wait and travel, are right around the price of a shitty bike you can get from any big box store 24/7 in dozens of locations around the city. Those shitty bikes unfortunately seem to fulfill a real need, and it's not clear to me that it would be met if you simply removed them. This could be addressed in a whole bunch of ways, most simply with just a straightforward commuter bike subsidy. But that doesn't seem to be on the table do I don't think deleting these bikes should be either.