Aren't "hipsters" on "fixies" cyclists too?

[lukesdad]

Do try and keep up TF

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Well the debate started off well enough, Im sure you going are to get to the point eventually so i ll bite, why do you get hung up about the term cyclist ?

Is there meant to be a point? I thought this was an internet forum.

Cyclists are more or less defined in the early posts as a great united tribe full of fellowship and fraternal love for one another and thus I as a cyclist must surely love and embrace tragic hipsters (my phrase for ***** who are not competant on their chosen machines)

But cyclists are not a homogeneous group. They are at best a clan made up of several tribes some of whom are mutually antipathetic to each other. Some tribe members may have bloodlines that cross tribal boundaries but they, along with other members of other tribes are viewed with suspicion.

Not everyone who rides a bike is interested in cycling.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I think because they are cyclists. in the same way that a person driving a car is a motorist and when they get out of their cars and walk they become pedestrians.

Yes, and, er... No. They a person. A human being. All the time. I prefer not to define people by what machinery they operate.

And anyway competance must come into those definitions surely. I pick up a squash raquet and go on a court and hit a ball does that make me a squash player?

 

[lukesdad]

Not everyone who drives a car is interested in motoring,what shall we call them ? I think you are reading far too much into this tribal stuff by the way.

 

[totallyfixed]

Do try and keep up TF

I'm well out of this one, don't even know what a "hipster" is or even "fakenger", out in the sticks too long I guess. Figure I might be better off too cos if you ride fixed out here you are definitely a cyclist.

 

[Scilly Suffolk]

...I prefer not to define people by what machinery they operate.

Unless a bike is the machinery that they're operating.

And anyway competance must come into those definitions surely. I pick up a squash raquet and go on a court and hit a ball does that make me a squash player?

If you're playing squash, yes.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Nope. If the machinery they are operating is a bicycle they are a person riding a bike. If a car they are a person driving a car. Surely they at least have to wear string backed gloves to be a cyclist and a motorist?

I think you'll find your definition of a squash player somewhat lacking in a context where squash is played to any level of conpetance. Most people, ime, in that situation of first entering the court for the first time, would say they are learning to play squash.

anyway tis past my bedtime. nights people!

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Not everyone who drives a car is interested in motoring,what shall we call them ? I think you are reading far too much into this tribal stuff by the way.

drivers.

and I'm just striking a pose and larking about. This isn't real it is the interwebs.

 

[rowan 46]

Yes, and, er... No. They a person. A human being. All the time. I prefer not to define people by what machinery they operate.

And anyway competance must come into those definitions surely. I pick up a squash raquet and go on a court and hit a ball does that make me a squash player?

I don't think competence does come into it. If you go onto a squash court and play squash you are a squash player. maybe not a good one but if someone saw you on the squash court with all the gear they would say you were a squash player. they wouldn't go oh look there's a cyclist. if however you were riding a bike round the squash court they probably would call you a cyclist and maybe a bit more

 

[Scilly Suffolk]

and I'm just striking a pose and larking about. This isn't real it is the interwebs.

Oh, I understand now: you're a "keyboard hero" (and that is one group I am happy to tar with the same brush).

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Oh, I understand now: you're a "keyboard hero" (and that is one group I am happy to tar with the same brush).

Looks like understanding is not your strong point though...

I'm at a loss to understand why some of us (us cyclists that is) are singled-out for derision and scorn because of the way they are dressed and their choice of bike.

You are a tragic hipster and ICMFP

What you clearly don't understand is; there is no us (us cyclists). No cyclists' union, no universal brotherhood, no guaranteed comradeship and respect simply because people share a common mode of transport. Your logic seems to be that if a pedestrian or motorist took the piss out of a tragic hipster that would be fine but fellow cyclists should not do this. Why ever not? If, as you claim, the word is simply the collective noun that describes people that ride bicycles why do you have an expectation of solidarity from other cyclists?

Blubbing from righteous indignation because some hipsters on fixies are the object of others derision and scorn is just being offended by proxy, and it is rarely a good idea to co-opt offence because you'll often find the real victims of such trivial disdain and piss-taking are not actually offended by it themselves.

If you are one of the 'victims' then you need to find a better way to deal with your own insecurities than posting on a forum and take yourself a little less seriously. Other cyclists take the piss because of how you dress and what you ride? Bless.

EDIT: an alternative response to the question asked in the thread title is "Yes of course but so what?"

 

[srw]

Has this reached 4 pages without anyone referring people to Matthew 7:16?

απο των καρπων αυτων επιγνωσεσθε αυτους μητι συλλεγουσιν απο ακανθων σταφυλας η απο τριβολων συκα;

The relevance isn't immediately obvious.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

are we saying hipsters on 'fixies' are fruits?

 

[wiggydiggy]

I'm at a loss to understand why some of us (us cyclists that is) are singled-out for derision and scorn because of the way they are dressed and their choice of bike.

Are newcomers only welcome if they conform to what the self-appointed "proper" cyclists have arbitrarily decided is "right"?

Would you prefer them to be driving cars?

Isn't it just jealousy: they're young, they're beautiful, they're fashionable? Things which are, for most of us, just a memory.

Well on 1 of those you may be right but I'll let you guess which one Hipsters are indeed a tragic breed, and nothing new TBH as they have existed in one form or another for many a year.

Up north you don't get too many on bikes (too many hills), but those I do see riding a fixed/minimalist bikes normally do so so in as cockwombling way as possible which why I pour derision and scorn upon them. The only exception to that is the sole cycle courier I see knocking about who like all couriers rides like his arse is on fire

I tell you where I do see snobbery, although not here often, is from the fully kitted roadie type who refuse to engage in a casual hello at the lights and regard getting in front of every cyclist they see ever as the single most importent thing ever

 

[tyred]

You'd have to put these people down as enthusiasts imo. It may be ill-advised and for the wrong reasons but some of them have gone to an awful lot of trouble and expense to bugger up nice old steel frames. That takes a certain amount dedication, someone lazy and un-interested wouldn't do it.