Poor man's form of transport?

I know emmeff or m.f is going to object to this....

However I have always thought of a bicycle as a basic form of transport by anyone to get to work, post office etc. I think as it as a poor man's form for transport ... a humble form of transport.

And I don't mean poor in a demeaning way I mean that someone does not have the money for expensive things.

To me foremost a bike is a cheap way of getting to work and I kinda run the risk of injory of death on the way there for penny pincing. All my bikes barring my specialized allez has had some bodges along the way to get it to completion,

I am interested in others opinions ... I personally think riding to work (apart from the enjoyment) is a great way to save cash, but do you guys think you that this symbolizes you are financially poor (which I couldn't give a monkeys about) or that you are ahead of the game ....

I find though that there are beaters that are nicer than my nicest bike on here ....

I don't think it's a poor man's form of transport, in fact, it's because of the luxury that car offer that made bicycle appear to be the poor man's transport.

it wasn't a poor man's form of transport back in the turn of the century actually, until the introduction of the safety bicycle.

I'm poor *because *of bikes. Luke, go to bed.

Ha ha +1 Pifko - I got more money tied up in bikes than in my car. Maybe once upon a time, when cars were scarce, bikes were seen as a 'poor man's' vehicle but I think most of us choose to ride. Bikes are faster in the city anyway...

Yeah, and it supposed to keep you fit too. Probably that's why so many on here ask for physio and show off their scar tissue.

I find though that there are beaters that are nicer than my nicest bike on here ....
You're clearly not spending enough on your bikes. It's an economical way to travel however i doubt that is the main factor people ride a bike, and once you have more than one any economy goes out the window.

to be fair, even a new £1,000 bicycle is still cheaper than a new supermini car, so in comparison to car it's still astoundly cheap.

I'm not sure what cheap is. It varies, I would have thought.

no.

Wealth has many measures. I pity the "poor" man trapped in his tin box, divorced from the real world and cosseted by carbon powered luxury. He may appear wealthy in terms of cash, but he is a pauper in spirit.
Besides which I have a nice car with air con and all that but I use it as little as possible because I prefer riding one of my bikes.
To return to your original point though; I do think drivers look down on cyclists from an assumed position of moral superiority, and I think a large part of that is the perception that they are better off because they drive a car. Fools.

I get 15p more per mile when i use my bike for work. I'm better off for cycling.

Anyone can afford to buy a really nice car, though not everyone can afford the insurance (which is why 13% of london drivers don't bother) or the fuel.
That makes cars the poor man's choice of transport just as much as bikes.

Only the rich can afford to get the tube every day

Of course it's a poor man's form of transport. That's why bicycles became so popular in the days before everyone could afford cars, and it's why they were (and still are) the dominant form of transport in many countries with less developed economies. bikes are cheap transport, and that's fucking awesome.

of course they are also much more than that........

You lot are getting hung up on technicalities.

The bicycle's identity is that of a humble machine.

It is also an extremely noble thing: perfect technology.

OBVIOUSLY you can spend as much as you like on 'em, but that's not the point.

It's not helpful to compare them to cars in terms of price as cars have a lot more going on. They have engines and stereos and climate management (some) and cup holders and cargo space and room for at least three friends. They're completely different. The bike is the bare minimum required to do it's job, no bullshit.

Anyone can afford a bike and keeping them running is easy. You don't have to tax, insure or MOT them. What's more, within reason, they are simple enough that you can pretty much choose whichever part you want and never blow the bank. Especially with them fixies :)

Only the rich can afford to get the tube every day

not strictly true.

Of course it's a poor man's form of transport. That's why bicycles became so popular in the days before everyone could afford cars, and it's why they were (and still are) the dominant form of transport in many countries with less developed economies. bikes are cheap transport, and that's fucking awesome.

of course they are also much more than that........

+1

just mf Luke,

cant really see what point youre making mate? unless it is a precursor to you making a wedge, then buying a beemer to scare riders with?

Agree with superprecise, the bicycle is the the most efficient machine ever invented by mankind, after 100+ years still doing exactly what it was designed for perfectly.
Returning the exact amount of energy expended by the rider.

Sometimes simplicity = sophistication too, and that my friend is beyond tawdry talk about cost.

Sometimes simplicity = sophistication too, and that my friend is beyond tawdry talk about cost.

Amen brother.

I know emmeff or m.f is going to object to this....

However I have always thought of a bicycle as a basic form of transport by anyone to get to work, post office etc. I think as it as a poor man's form for transport ... a humble form of transport.

And I don't mean poor in a demeaning way I mean that someone does not have the money for expensive things.

To me foremost a bike is a cheap way of getting to work and I kinda run the risk of injory of death on the way there for penny pincing. All my bikes barring my specialized allez has had some bodges along the way to get it to completion,

I am interested in others opinions ... I personally think riding to work (apart from the enjoyment) is a great way to save cash, but do you guys think you that this symbolizes you are financially poor (which I couldn't give a monkeys about) or that you are ahead of the game ....

I find though that there are beaters that are nicer than my nicest bike on here ....

you sure???

I could easily have goten a car for the ca$h spent. Maybe I will and take you out?

+fucking one to the power of six Pifko

One thing is for sure. A love of bikes and riding has not saved me money ;)

Sometimes simplicity = Gorgeous Baby Blue Fixie sophistication too, and that my friend is beyond tawdry talk about cost of £600

Word

You can buy a car for £50, it's running the damn thing that's expensive.

It costs £70 to fill my cars fuel tank, but then I drive less than 5,000 miles per year, so in comparison to the average 12,000 miles per year it's tolerable.

My most expensive bike was 1/3rd more than the price of my car.

That said I've spent well over the purchase price of the car running and upgrading it.

My bikes are more expensive to insure than my group 19 car, which is annoying.

Poor man's transport?

On the contrary, I'm pretty sure there's been research done that suggests keen cyclists (as a group) have average salaries higher than the average for the population as a whole.

http://www.bikesatwork.com/carfree/cost-of-car-ownership.html

Does it mean that if you walk to work you are near starvation?