"Taaaaaake the podddddd... beeeeee one of usssssss."

Where that analogy breaks down is that the general 'bent population is actually quite a bit more diverse than the wedgie population. (And I realize what a crass generalization that is, but that's why I blog.)

You have long wheelbase, short wheelbase, above-the-seat steering, under-the-seat steering, matched wheel sizes, differing wheel sizes, trikes, tandems, racers, slow-pokes, fully-faired, partly-faired, and naked (so to speak). Pretty much the only thing I've noticed that's uniform across the board is the smiles on the riders' faces as they arrive at their destinations with feeling in all their extremities, and with the memories of seeing something other than their front wheels and the ten feet of pavement in front of them during their rides.

You're absolutely right about the diversity of recumbents, Eric. The first time I really came into proximity with many recumbents was during the Hotter 'n' Hell 100 I rode in a couple years ago. I spent some time riding near a whole pack of 'em and, as you say, there were long ones, short ones, tall ones, low ones. Trikes, bikes, single and tandem. And every sort of steering and drivetrain configuration you could imagine. One was pastel pink. Another was dayglow orange.

My favorite was the guy with the full fairing that gave his bike the appearance of a 6'x4' Texas flag.

Eric, when you said that bent population is diverse, I thought you meant the riders themselves, but you went on to describe the diverse bikes. So is Foo (excuse me, Mr. Foo) right about the riders? Do they all wear pocket protectors (we know you do)? ;-)

Do they all wear pocket protectors (we know you do)?

Well, yeah...but they're a really diverse set of pocket protectors! ;-)

I understand. Plus, there's the pod protectors, right? ;-)

Well, actually, no...riding and listening to an iPod is a big no-no in my book. Cyclists are defenseless enough without removing one of our senses. (Some would say we've already dispensed with them anyway in order to mingle with traffic like we do.)

Although...I have occasionally toyed with the idea of creating a rack mounted stereo system for the back of our tandem, which is large enough to accommodate some serious audiotronics...

Ooo, I hadn't thought of that. It's probably even illegal, isn't it? Just strap on a big boom box then and be done. ;-)

It's not illegal in Texas, but it is in some other states.

Or, I could do like the guy we encountered on one of our Hill Country rides years back. At the base of a particularly steep hill, he had his wife pull up in front of him in the mini-van, open all the windows, and blast the theme song from Rocky to lead him up the climb. My wife and I just about fell off our bikes (that was before we rode a tandem) laughing.

I'd just need to find a volunteer with a good sound system. The benefit of having a draft is not inconsequential either.

As a once and former ride marshall for various rallies in the area, it has been my duty to try and educate the uninformed about the dangers of riding with plugs in their ears, not riding single-file on two lane farm roads, etc.

I used to try politely reminding them that they'd signed a waiver stating that they would, among other things, wear a helmet and not wear their headphones. I was universally ignored.

What seems to work well is to call out to them from behind at a slightly-louder-than-conversational volume. If I've received no reaction by the time I'm close enough to draft off them, I sidle up and yell BEEEEEEP!!! They're startled. They're ticked off.

They're educated.

This doesn't mean our local rallies are without tunes. I like to find one of our local prominent riders who always rides the rallies on a mountain bike, towing a kiddie trailer that's been converted to a rolling stereo system. As long as I stay within 20 yards of him, I've got all the classic rock I can eat.

...towing a kiddie trailer that's been converted to a rolling stereo system...

See, that's what I'm talkin' about. Actually, since our dog refuses to ride in the high dollar trailer we got solely for her benefit, I need to investigate building one of those rigs myself.

I wonder if anyone will ask you to clarify your comment about not riding single file on narrow farm roads? ;-)

I'll bite...why is it safer not to ride single file (and is that only on narrow farm roads)?

My wording was unclear. I was listing "not riding single file" as one of the dangers I warned people about.

At one point, I was maybe 50 yards behind a couple riding two abreast. I kept bellowing "CAR BACK!!" as half a dozen monster trucks, some pulling trailers, blasted by me, toward the two of them.

No reaction.

Finally, I overtook the two of them and tried to explain that I wasn't back there hollering only to make myself hoarse and that they should at least ride single file long enough for the motorised vehicles to pass.

"Well," the young woman said, "I reckon they ken see me well enough."

"Yes," I agreed. "You'll make a very visible target, should one of them decide to push your luck. But I and the organisers of this ride would still prefer not to have this event or this county road smeared because you got hit."

And I rode past. At which point I saw her pull single file when the next vehicle came by. I don't know whether I got through or if she saw the "ride marshall" tag on my back and mistook me for someone with the authority to do something to her. She started riding more safely, and that's all that really mattered to me.

Sorry... me again. I got caught up and forgot to answer one of Gwynne's questions.

According to the law, bicycles are considered vehicles and must abide by the same laws as cars, trucks, etc. However, because we're so slow, there are some specific rules about how much of the road we can take up at any given time.

I don't have the precise wording at hand, but the law specifies that when riding on a two-lane road (read: "one lane each direction"), cyclists must ride single file and as far to the right "as practicable". To me, "as practicable" usually means in the right tire mark—not up against the gutter or tottering on the edge of an eight-inch berm.

On the other hand, if you're riding on a main street with multiple primary lanes (read: "not including turn lanes"), it's legal—and, I think, advisable—for cyclists to ride two abreast and "take the lane".

Foo, thanks for the clarifications.

It's also worth noting -- for the Texans in the bunch -- that under state law cyclists do not have to ride on the shoulder of the road if it's considered "sub-standard." The definition of sub-standard is elusive, but the interpretations I've seen generally hold that if it's not paved and the width of a regular lane of traffic, it falls into that category. In other words, just because you're on a bike doesn't mean that you're required to ride in the trash, weeds (and snakes!).

OTOH, you need to balance this right against the laws of physics with respect to the vehicles with which you're sharing the road. ;-)

Thanks for the clarification. That all makes sense. I thought perhaps there was some sort of safety in numbers thing, kind of like zebras (so long as you're in a pack, at least most of you won't get hurt, just those on the outside of the pack). ;-)

I know all too well that bicyclists must follow the same rules as cars, having been ticketed for riding the wrong way once. ;-)

...having been ticketed for riding the wrong way once.

Don't tell me you were pedaling with your hands while your feet were waving in the air. Cops hate it when you do that!

Yes, that's exactly what I meant, smart aleck. ;-)

{smiles innocently}

Smart aleck? Moi?