What type of cyclist are you?

Victor

Beginner
Occasional
Utility cyclist (short distance to study / work / shop / leisure)
Long-distance commuter cyclist (say 8km+ per direction)
Leisure cyclist
Sport cyclist
Touring cyclist
Mountain biker
Novelty cyclist
Other
Non-cyclist

E@gle.

please insert the FRED option as well

irishmotorist

I put in long distance commuter, but I've recently been a weekender too so I'm half way between two of them.

Alanstrainor

I put long distance commuter, but i think my cycle is just under ther 8km:rolleyes:

Raam

I reckon I fit into 3 of those categories.

stuf

I want to be a novelty cyclist - how do I become one?

Hungrycol

E@gle. wrote: »

please insert the FRED option as well

What does FRED mean?

Kinetic^

Long distance commuter.

Raam

Hungrycol wrote: »

What does FRED mean?

http://www.thefredcast.com/?page_id=22

and another...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_%28bicycling%29

rp

stuf wrote: »

I want to be a novelty cyclist - how do I become one?

Stop at red lights?

TinyExplosions

stuf wrote: »

I want to be a novelty cyclist - how do I become one?

I had to put myself down as one simply cos it's there

irishmotorist

stuf wrote: »

I want to be a novelty cyclist - how do I become one?

I think you need a 10-speed unicycle

bobtjustice

Long distance commuteri suppose i don't think 8k is a long distance in fairness,
Weekend mountain biker also.
I also seem to have become a target for angry motorists sadly so maybe that falls under novice ?? .

niceonetom

Raam wrote: »

I reckon I fit into 3 of those categories.

me too.

faux-courier monday to friday (commuter >8k), hairy-legged lycra eejit at the weekends (leisure), and shopping basket pootler when out doing errands (utility).

stuf

irishmotorist wrote: »

I think you need a 10-speed unicycle

Damn! Wiggle only have the 7-speed ones

Hungrycol

I kinda fit four categories too:

Long Distance Commuter - 14.5k each way
Sport Cyclist - Race every week (presume this is what you mean by "Sport"
Leisure cyclist - Occasionally go for a spin on a Sunday.
Occasional - see above.

Why put non-cyclist as an option on a cycling forum?

stuf

Hungrycol wrote: »

Why put non-cyclist as an option on a cycling forum?

I'm sure there are loads of self hating taxi drivers who lurk here secretly wanting to be cyclists but not allowing themselves to believe that society will accept them as cyclists. It's all that internalised cyclophobia that makes them lash out on the roads.

Hungrycol

stuf wrote: »

I'm sure there are loads of self hating taxi drivers who lurk here secretly wanting to be cyclists but not allowing themselves to believe that society will accept them as cyclists. It's all that internalised cyclophobia that makes them lash out on the roads.

:D:D

studiorat

Utility.
Off road in jeans and beat up old runners, messing about..

Hermy

stuf wrote: »

I'm sure there are loads of self hating taxi drivers who lurk here secretly wanting to be cyclists but not allowing themselves to believe that society will accept them as cyclists. It's all that internalised cyclophobia that makes them lash out on the roads.

That's me.:p

unionman

niceonetom wrote: »

hairy-legged lycra eejit (utility).

That's me every day:o

Yeah, I reckon I cover two or three of those categories.

Ahem...just read the definition of 'Fred'. I could be a Fred. At least I don't have a yellow jersey....

Bicyclegadabout

Tick boxes might have been better than radio buttons I suppose.

I’m ticking long distance commuter, the most noble tribe of the cycling race.

ONWARD BRAVE CYCLISTS, TO VICTORY, AND YOUR WORKPLACE!!




*Clips in, wheelies into the sunset

dub_skav

Went with long distance commuter as it's my every day thing, but I suppose I'm heading towards leisure now too.

Reckon I'm a bit of a Fred too, not too much but enough

niceonetom

E@gle. wrote: »

please insert the FRED option as well

wikipedia say:
While it is common for cyclists to claim varying degrees of "Fredness", such self-derision indicates a higher degree of cycling cultural-awareness and would indicate that the commenter is, in fact, unlikely to be a Fred.

so if you know what a fred is then you're not one. apparently. whew, the relief.

Hungrycol wrote: »

What does FRED mean?

uh oh.

Raam

niceonetom wrote: »

so if you know what a fred is then you're not one. apparently. whew, the relief.

That was a scary few minutes there. This cycling mi-larky gets awful confusing at times.

_JOE_

Long distance commuter and weekender...

MadHatter

Long distance commuter and soon-to-be weekender - picking up new bike this weekend!

unionman

"While it is common for cyclists to claim varying degrees of "Fredness", such self-derision indicates a higher degree of cycling cultural-awareness and would indicate that the commenter is, in fact, unlikely to be a Fred."

Raam wrote: »

That was a scary few minutes there. This cycling mi-larky gets awful confusing at times.

I didn't know what a Fred was this morning, never heard the term. Then I read the definition and thought "Oh dear God no that's me!", but then if having that self awareness negates my 'fred'-ness, does that mean that I am no longer a Fred?

I suppose that's deconstruction for you.

Raam

unionman wrote: »

"While it is common for cyclists to claim varying degrees of "Fredness", such self-derision indicates a higher degree of cycling cultural-awareness and would indicate that the commenter is, in fact, unlikely to be a Fred."


I didn't know what a Fred was this morning, never heard the term. Then I read the definition and thought "Oh dear God no that's me!", but then if having that self awareness negates my 'fred'-ness, does that mean that I am no longer a Fred?

I suppose that's deconstruction for you.

Deconstruction signifies a project of critical thought whose task is to locate and 'take apart' those concepts which serve as the axioms or rules for a period of thought, those concepts which command the unfolding of an entire epoch of metaphysics. 'Deconstruction' is somewhat less negative than the Heideggerian or Nietzschean terms 'destruction' or 'reversal'; it suggests that certain foundational concepts of metaphysics will never be entirely eliminated...There is no simple 'overcoming' of metaphysics or the language of metaphysics.

Like I said, awful confusing

unionman

Raam wrote: »

Like I said, awful confusing

But still beats driving:)

dub_skav

It used to just be about hopping on the bike and turning the pedals, now I find myself contemplating existentialist maxims :eek:

Well that's the internet for you I suppose