Wednesday, July 25, 2007
John Edwards and his Spandex shorts
I have twice ridden RAGBRAI, the Des Moines Register's Annual Great Bike Ride Across Iowa. Never did it occur to me to wear skin-tight shorts:
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards squeezed into a pair of Spandex bike shorts today and pedaled on the RAGBRAI route with champion cyclist Lance Armstrong.
Judging from the picture, though, Edwards pulled regular shorts over his Spandex. I'm not sure what the point of that was, but it saved us from having to discuss his, er, every contour, which I suppose is a blessing.
In any case, it is obvious that Edwards has yet to escape the pretty-boy image. The Des Moines Register:
The candidate was sweaty after about a dozen miles, but there was no evidence of helmet hair.
Overall, though, it sounds as though Edwards pulled it off without looking like a dork.
29 Comments:
By 
, at
Wed Jul 25, 11:01:00 PM:
You put on one of those effin' ridiculous helmets, and you automatically qualify for dorkdom, IMO.
I sure would like a $3000 bike, though, mine came from parts salvaged from the dump. Mine's a lot more eco-friendly than hideously polluting carbon fiber construction, and mile for mile, I get a better workout. I'll admit it doesn't really have the cachet that an insanely expensive race bike does, however.
It seems that in some parts of the country (such as CA), there must be local ordinances against riding without the 'uniform' (Dork helmet, spandex pants and cool colored bike shirt), and If I went out with my usual attire (cut-offs & T-shirt), I'd either get stoned to death or just hauled off to the hoosegow for violating the fashion regs, or perhaps for my own protection.
Johnnie will fit right in with the properly accessorized, oh-so-cool crowd, though, and the look fits him.
By 
Miss Ladybug, at
Wed Jul 25, 11:07:00 PM:
I SO didn't need that mental image... Thanks, TH!
Where I live, you see quite a few cyclists, especially on certain roadways. I've heard this area is good for training purposes - hills, curves, in addition to "regular" roads. Some people even dare to wear yellow jerseys... And I don't think it's the only guy in town entitled to wear it, either...
By Purple Avenger, at
Thu Jul 26, 12:38:00 AM:
Wow - looks just FABULOUS!
Just saying...
By , at
Thu Jul 26, 12:58:00 AM:
Would,nt it be funny if he rode through some horsie poo and had a spill right on his knees or turn his head to look around while a semi is heading in his direction CRASH he somes out alive but they have to cut the bike off him
By , at
Thu Jul 26, 09:46:00 AM:
What panache and elan! Of course he won't ride through any horse manure. It would be a professional discourtesy from one horse's patoot to another.
And that is what outriders are for; to feed the semis. Peasants
are expendable.
By , at
Thu Jul 26, 09:49:00 AM:
I forgot to add the reason why he won't have helmet head is that he most likely went through a rigorous training session on how to fit and wear the helment so he could take it off when the breeze was just so, and have his hair fluffed by Gaia. Well, that or his hairdresser is traveling with him for those 'awkward moments.'
By Grim, at
Thu Jul 26, 10:14:00 AM:
"You put on one of those effin' ridiculous helmets, and you automatically qualify for dorkdom, IMO."
+1 on that.
By , at
Thu Jul 26, 10:38:00 AM:
Look at the loose nut on that wheel
By Cassandra, at
Thu Jul 26, 11:31:00 AM:
TH should be ashamed of himself for this frivolous post. I thought this was a serious site, for serious people.
By , at
Thu Jul 26, 11:38:00 AM:
You scoffing commentators are so lame. You wear the helmet as a protection. In California kids are required by law to wear them (because the people of the state decided kids shouldn't be allowed to decide for themselves). Of course, one needs to wear a helmet only if one has brains inside one's skull (which may explain something about our commentators ... or not). You wear the pants because they are supportive (for those of us who need support) and they don't chafe (as regular baggy pants do). I wonder how many of our snarky commentators would be unable to walk a flight of stairs without getting winded. In California, we try to improve ourselves, our health, our minds ... as do some people in other states. So who's really the dork?
By , at
Thu Jul 26, 11:56:00 AM:
Mark, it would be interesting to see photos of some of the above commenters riding a bicycle. I'd like to see one from a 54-year old commenter. Edwards pulls it off pretty well overall but, of course, he lacks the beer gut of the typical 50-something.
Also, there have been plenty of pictures published of George W. Bush riding his dirt bike with the "dorky" helmet and Spandex. He actually pulls it off fairly well, too, and he's older than Edwards.
By , at
Thu Jul 26, 12:05:00 PM:
Well, beside taking this thing way to seriously, the state of California did not decide kids shouldn't be allowed to decide for themselves. They decided parents shouldn't decide for their kids.
Secondly, people were riding bicycles for decades prior to helmets and things seemed just fine to me. There are risks associated with every activity. It is not the states job to decide for me what risks I can take with my own body. That you have a constitutional right to take the life of a living entity inside your body prior to birth, but that you don't have a right to so much as risk *your own* life by not wearing a helmet seems backwards to me.
Also, I'm glad people in California try to improve themselves, many of us in other states do as well. We just don't think it's the job of the gov't to make everyone else do it too.
By , at
Thu Jul 26, 12:30:00 PM:
GWB does pull it off quite well, and for that I admire him.
As for "the state" deciding for us, our legislators voted on the helmet requirement; we voted for the legislators; ergo we decided. The requirement doesn't apply to adults, only children. Like I said, you only need a helmet if you have brains inside your skull; I suppose the fact that one chooses not to wear a helmet indicates the lack of brains. Oh well - I wear one (maybe I'm just flattering myself). Yu-Ain Gonnano doesn't need to wear one if s/he dunnawanna.
On a more serious note: You can't have it both ways. If you're gonna get all "Federalist" on me (and I bet you wanna), then on principle you can't complain too much about a law enacted by a state, now can ya? I suspect that the Californian legislative history discusses head injuries to kids and the cost to society of the kids' long-term disability care.
I ain't gonna show myself in Spandex here, but I ain't afraid of what you see (at 54, I'm not doin' too bad).
By , at
Thu Jul 26, 12:36:00 PM:
tigerhawk - you should have worn the spandex shorts. They are vastly more comfortable than regular cotton shorts. There is reason every serious bike rider wears them. You just need to refrain from wearing them when not riding.
By SR, at
Thu Jul 26, 01:57:00 PM:
Wearing bike helmets in CA is simply one of the most amazing phenomena I have ever seen. I see many patients in the ER with all kinds of bike injuries, but rarely head injuries. Every little kid, even with training wheels wears a helmet, obviously purchased by parents
who would never obey laws requiring seat belts, or prohibiting pot smoking, or talking on their cell phones while driving. Many adolescent riders of bikes and skateboards wearing clothes that mark them as quite rebellious (ie no spandex) can be seen wearing helmets.
When I was a kid, I rode my bike to school every day. The only helmet I had was a cosmetic replica of a football helmet. I wouldn't have been caught dead wearing it (it is even possible that I carried it on my bikes handlebars going off to play pick up football).
Truly amazing. Just sayin'.......
By TigerHawk, at
Thu Jul 26, 02:31:00 PM:
To be clear, I strongly support the wearing of helmets while bike riding and even skiing. My company does a lot of work in neurotrauma, and we know from too much experience that unnecessary head injuries are tragic.
That said, there is a tension between the wearing of helmets and the practical use of bicycles for workaday transportation as opposed to recreation. The Dutch, for example, learned that if they required or even promoted the wearing of helmets, people would be less inclined to ride their bikes to work because it would mess up their hair. They apparently made the decision not to push the wearing of helmets because they thought the "green" benefit of cycling for routine transportation was a greater benefit than the cost of more head injuries. Interesting.
By , at
Thu Jul 26, 03:15:00 PM:
"The Dutch, for example, learned that if they required or even promoted the wearing of helmets, people would be less inclined to ride their bikes to work because it would mess up their hair."
Hmm - must be due to all that lawful pot-smoking going on over there: "what's more important to me today - my hair or my brains?"
By , at
Thu Jul 26, 03:47:00 PM:
There's no conflict in being a federalist and disagreeing with a state law. Nothing in federalism suggests that state laws are inviolate. Only that some laws are more properly the perview of the stategov and not the fedgov. It says nothing about the inherent correctness of those laws. This type of law is improper whether it's from state or federal.
Also, that "we" decided that parents couldn't choose for their children instead of the "state" makes no difference to me. We do not live in a pure democracy where the majority can do whatever they want. The majority don't want Same Sex Marriage, yet I doubt you would be OK with state or federal law against it.
Lastly, I never said one way or another that helmets were a good idea or not. Only that it is not the gov'ts job to nerf the world so we don't get hurt. It's not my place to restrict others as to what risks they may and may not take.
By , at
Thu Jul 26, 06:36:00 PM:
Perhaps John Edwards was wearing mountain bike style shorts, which look like baggies with a liner?
I am no fan of the guy, but as a cyclist, I welcome him to the club. And yes, wearing the helmet is important. I won't ride without one -- and you shouldn't either.
The dorky outfit is optional, although I agree with the Californian that it makes riding a lot more comfortable.
I'm actually jealous of Edwards for getting to ride with Lance. Most mere mortals don't get the chance unless they raise $10K to $15K or thereabouts for his foundation.
By Dawnfire82, at
Thu Jul 26, 06:54:00 PM:
"I am no fan of the guy, but as a cyclist, I welcome him to the club. And yes, wearing the helmet is important. I won't ride without one -- and you shouldn't either."
I've been thrown from a moving vehicle onto concrete at moderate speed, (faster than any bike not going down a mountain will go) flipped twice, cracking my head on the concrete both times, and walked away. Friggin' bicycles don't scare me.
'But moving automobiles should!'
If you think your helmet is going to protect you from a direct collision with a vehicle going fast enough to kill you, you've got to be wearing a force-field. That cutesy little helmet isn't going to protect my internal organs from being ruptured or my limbs from being snapped.
By , at
Thu Jul 26, 07:13:00 PM:
I hear what you are saying Dawnfire, but I know too many people who have crashed their bikes and were spared severe head injury by their helmets. I also know of several cases where the riders died notwithstanding the helmet. The bottom line is that the helmet reduces your risk. For myself and my friends, having a bad helmet hair day is better than having a cracked skull.
Just saying.
By , at
Thu Jul 26, 08:57:00 PM:
This type of law is improper whether it's from state or federal.
Why?
Also, that "we" decided that parents couldn't choose for their children instead of the "state" makes no difference to me. We do not live in a pure democracy where the majority can do whatever they want.
Parents can choose for their children, but if the kid gets hurt, the parent may suffer a punishment after the fact where the lack of helmet has caused the kid an injury which the helmet law was designed and adopted to prevent or reduce. The helmet law is a simple matter of child protection. Parents have certain rights vis à vis their children, granted, but the parents certainly don’t own them (not like in the bad old days). Children have rights too, no, and the helmet law is designed to protect kids, even protect them from neglectful parents.
… it is not the gov'ts job to nerf the world so we don't get hurt.
True enough. But a big part of what we pay (and expect) it to do is to protect us from our fellow citizens whose behavior may hurt us (don’t yell fire in a crowded theatre, don’t fire a gun into the air on a crowded street, etc.).
By Purple Avenger, at
Thu Jul 26, 09:01:00 PM:
Those helmets are teh gay and don't protect your ears or back of the head much at all.
I'll take a standard Protec thank you. A Protec saved me a trip to the hospital/morgue one day crashing a reserve parachute into a fully grown sugar cane field.
By , at
Fri Jul 27, 11:22:00 AM:
No, Mark-in-Irvine, you're right. Parents don't own the children, the state does. However, when the state's child that you are raising for them violates any laws, all of a sudden that child is yours.
Funny how that works..
And to add one more comment; Edwards looks at least NORMAL instead of the Dashing Senator from MA.
By , at
Fri Jul 27, 11:37:00 AM:
Why?
Because, as I said it is not the .govs job to nerf the world. It is especially not the job of the .gov to protect us from ourselves. That's called freedom. And neither the state or the fed should be infringing on that.
Parents can choose for their children, but if the kid gets hurt, the parent may suffer a punishment after the fact...
That's like saying you can choose to murder someone, but you may go to jail afterwords. That's not a choice.
but the parents certainly don’t own them
No, parents don't "own" their children, but I should be able to make my own decisions about what risks I allow my children to take and you should be able to decide how much risk you allow yours to take. I may try my hardest to convince you that you are wrong, but I won't send the gov't men with guns to force my choice on you. Again, I though democrats were supposed to be pro-choice.
There's a risk of death from taking Tylenol, you going to ban that too? What about the risk of uncovered light sockets? Or plastic bags? Or unattended pots of boiling water?
At what point do you tell society to F%@$ Off?
I make the distinction between leaving a light socket unconvered and intentionally jamming your childs finger in one.
But a big part of what we pay (and expect) it to do is to protect us from our fellow citizens whose behavior may hurt us
There is a difference between actions that may hurt others and actions that may hurt yourself. It's why I support speed limit laws (although I think the line is too low in most places) but don't support seat belt laws.
By , at
Fri Jul 27, 03:34:00 PM:
There is a difference between actions that may hurt others and actions that may hurt yourself. It's why I support speed limit laws (although I think the line is too low in most places) but don't support seat belt laws.
That is exactly my point: a parent who permits his kid to, for example, ride a bike without a helmet, is abdicating his responsibility to the kid by letting the kid decide whether or not to wear one, when the kid is too young to decide for herself [especially a young one, younger than the "age of reason", whatever that is].
When I'm the parent, and my kid rides without a helmet and gets hurt, I'm not the one that is hurt, the kid is. Hence the "difference between actions that may hurt others and actions that may hurt yourself" is a false argument.
Just so you don't think I'm a heartless putz: OK yea - I'm hurt, alright, in that I'm sad, feel guilty, may have to pay for a doctor or perpetual life support, or a funeral, embalming, etc., but my body isn't the one that is hurt - it is someone else's body that is hurt (remember - I don't own the kid's body).
p.s. I agree about the speed limit being too low most places ...
By , at
Sat Jul 28, 10:59:00 PM:
That argument is...silly. I have gotten my children helmets and wrist guards, knee protectors, etc.
I stand over the darlings when they armor themselves from head to foot to ride their bikes.
I turn my back for a second; the helmets are off and so are the joint guards.
One kid of mine fell off his bike...and opened up his chin.
I have a trampoline without a fence and it is about three feet off the ground. None of my kids have broken any bones, but they learned to fall and taught themselves how to do somesaults both forward and backward...all somehow while I was not paying
attention, even though I go outside when they do and watch them like a hawk.
Mark, when it comes to children, the few my oldest son would quote to me are these: "It is easier to get forgiveness than permission,"
"Rules are meant to be broken,"
"Parents know nothing. I am ___teen years old."
By , at
Sun Jul 29, 05:02:00 AM:
"Parents know nothing. I am ___teen years old."
We get that around here too - but they're coming around ... slooooooooooowly.
By , at
Mon Jul 30, 04:26:00 PM:
is abdicating his responsibility to the kid
So is the parent that doesn't put covers on their electical outlets.
You going to criminalize that too?
What about them playing tackle football in the backyard? There's a pretty good chance of injury there too?
There is a risk of injury just in living. Who are you to decide what risks I allow my children to take?
