Not "if" but "when"

Earlier this week, my Mom IMed me on Facebook, asking if I had read the article in the Times (as in NY) about cycling and crashing.

I said no, but asked what it was about.

"Well, it was about someone who crashed and broke their collarbone."

I waited for more information, but that appeared to be it. So I said, "that's it?"

That was it. I told her that lots of people I knew had done that very same thing. She said yeah, that sounds right.

Curious as to how such a commonplace cycling event made All The News That's Fit To Print!, I went back and read the article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/health/nutrition/30best.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Just FYI, it's an essay, not an article.

I came away with a sense of overblowness about the whole thing. While I certainly feel for the author, and sympathize with the suckiness of a broken collarbone, I'm not sure that it was so bad it would force me off the bike if I were placed in the same situation. I can't really imagean accident so catastrophic that it would force me off the bike forever. Unless godforbid it involved paralyses or death, (Hi Fate! It's me! Want some icecream? Yumm!), which it COULD involve, because ycling, due to cars, high speeds, pavement, and other things (blown tires, slick patches, gravel, dogs) is inherently dangerous. Even mountain bikers have their fair share of lurking peril.

The other thing is, LOTS of things involve paralyses or death, including living. Living is hazardous to your health. I mean, take driving. Every time you get into your car, you are risking your life. But we don't turn the key and constantly think about this fact; it would debilitate us.

Just like every time I hop on the bike, I don't constantly think about every car that passes or every dog that comes barking up to the shoulder. It would debilitate me.

The essay winds up centering around the statement that crashing on a bike isn't a case of "if," but "when," and this fact drives some people away from the sport. But, many many sports have this mantra (skiing, horseback riding, gymnastics, etc). Some people can get up and get back on. Others feel like the risks aren't worth the payoffs. This is a personal decision, not a judgement against the activity at hand or a reflection of worth/intelligence/bravery of the decider.

To extend the example, the same person who can cycle after being put into traction may never ever consider hopping onto a horse because it's "too dangerous." An avid horseback rider who retrains problem youngsters for a living may look at a bike and think, "why would anyone in their right mind share the road with that deathtrap?" Is one person smarter than the other, or better? Does one person "wise up" while the other lives in ignorance, or worse, denial?

So given that fact, I guess what miffed me the most about the essay is the tone that yes, this is in fact the case. People should "learn their lesson," and that lesson is learned in minor crashes for more intelligent people, and sometimes takes calamity for thicker people. Or some truly poor specimens never end up learning, despite crash after crash. Cyclists who choose to get back on are somehow stupid or crazy for riding the bike, given the "inevitable" disaster that awaits us across that wet metal bridge, or from that crazed squirrel, or maybe that squirrelly new rider in the paceline. Ultimately, cyclists in general are crazy.

Sure, NY Times, crashing may be a "when" not "if" aspect of cycling. But I would argue that crashing is also a "when" not "if" aspect of living. Cyclists are not naive for embracing that mantra.

We are the most reality bound of realists.