One thing that's increasingly observable in day to day life, but which doesn't get talked out much by economists and social commentators, is the increasing tendency of people to go to extremes in recreational pursuits (i'll stick to the clean ones for the time being)
Whether this is simply due to increasing affluence I've no idea, but it's certainly a conspicuous trend.
It's always puzzled me for example, why there are so many bicycles shops still around when so few people actually cycle. But, on entering a cycle shop a few weeks back, it suddenly became pretty obvious. A good road bike is likely to cost at least $1,500, and it is not uncommon for a fashion conscious road warrior to pay over $10,000 for a premium machine.
Whereas in the past, bike shops relied on volume sales of cheap 10 ten speeds to teenagers and cash strapped students, they can now sell far fewer bikes to credit-rich 30 somethings for a king' s ransom.
It's the same story with everything from golf clubs to fly rods. Fewer people seem to be going fishing, but for those who do, it's no big deal to pay several thousand dollars on a decent rod.
While I can appreciate that people want to invest in good equipment for their favourite hobbie, it smacks of vanity to spend far in excess of what is needed, and it's also kind of irrational.
If your playing someone who is more skilled than you, it doesn't matter how good a golf club or tennis racket you've got, you're still going to get thrashed.
There also seems to a kind of impractical, conspicuous consumption thing going on with recreational trends.
Bicycles seem to come in two types only - heavily built mountain bikes designed for jumping off boulders and ultra light-weight racing bikes, which looks as if they could fall apart at the merist sign of a pot hole. If you try looking for some sort of hybrid bike that's suitable for the city, yet can handle the odd rough country road, you'll be struggling to find one.
Furthermore, the only people you see riding these kinds of "sensible" bikes tend to bearded geography professor types who have long since given up worrying about how other people think about them.
Apparently one of the reasons given for the decline in cycling, especially among the young, is that it's not safe on the roads now with so many cars. However, this doesn't seem to stop the lycra clad ones from picking the narrowest uphill roads they can find, and riding three abreast while frustrated motorists try to pass them around blind corners. At the same time of course those dedicated, rate-payer funded cycle lanes in the city are usually pretty bikeless.
In terms of recreational extremes though, it's hard to beat cross-country runners. Go for a tramp (kiwispeak for hike) up a reasonably substantial hill, say anything around the 800 metre mark, which the Brits would call a mountain, and you're likely to be quietly mocked by some fitness freak running the same trek in a pair of trainers.
Maybe its just me, but it seems a little odd that in an age where half the population is suffering from obesity and self-indulgence, a small minority seems to be on a determined quest to wear out their bodies through pain and suffering.
Anyway, I've no idea where I'm going with this, other than there's something vaguely decadent about this recreational extremes thing, and it doesn't seem to attract much attention.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I definitely think you're on to something here. If the "entry cost" of a particular healthy hobby is perceived to be too high, it would as a matter of course discourage many from taking it up.
If the average person--not someone who is concerned about the possible adverse effects of marketing efforts on his/her judgment or a cultural skeptic, but just an ordinary person--decides to look into biking, what are they likely to find?
The latest magazines and other bikers and bike shop owners will be unanimous: you "must have" this bike, this gear, this clothing, these accessories, etc. If you simply ask for a simple bike, you'll be pointed to low-end, low-quality retailers who sell bikes for children. There is no middle market.
It is, of course, ridiculous for a person out biking *who is not engaged in a race of any kind* to be wearing "areodynamic" pointed helmets or skin-tight lycra racing suits. It's laughable on its face.
Yet, such is the power of marketing. To properly join the sub-culture and be accepted, you have to have This Brand and This Gear.
It's the same from golfing to skateboarding to sailing.
A really good, winning conservative message would be to wrest healthy living from the marketers and promote simply bike or hike clubs for people who have checked out of the mainstream marketing, so that there is a ready-made alternative community to which to adhere to.
All of this is part and parcel of the manufactured demand that conservatives would do well to oppose.
Interesting thoughts.
"If you try looking for some sort of hybrid bike that's suitable for the city, yet can handle the odd rough country road, you'll be struggling to find one."
Surly's fit that mold. They'll set you back about $1,000, but I've been an avid biker for six years and am on my second only because I was nearly killed on the first by a drunk driver (the body bent but didn't break even though my helmet split in two, the back wheel became completely inverted). They really are tough as nails.
"At the same time of course those dedicated, rate-payer funded cycle lanes in the city are usually pretty bikeless."
I know I'll sound like a pretentious whiner, but the bike lanes are biking hazards. Road debris gets kicked onto them just as it does on to the curb of 'regular' roads. To ride in a bike lane is to risk glass shards, gravel, nails, etc and perpetually.
Post a Comment