I read that article this morning while I was eating breakfast - I knew as soon as I'd finished it that there would be a thread on here about the fixie/singlespeed terminology used.
Can we not just be happy that there's some positive stuff about cycling in the national press?
It's the Guardian, not Cycling Plus: to expect perfect detail in what's ultimately a general publication is perhaps asking too much. There's no such thing as a perfect newspaper.
I look at it this way: the small errors and lack of clear distinction between freewheeling singlespeed bikes and fixed gear singlespeed bikes (that's how I think of it, anyway - singlespeed as a term which encompasses both fixed and freewheeling bikes with one gear, whereas fixie/fixed gear/whatever only works one way)
really doesn't matter that much. The only people who are likely to pick up the difference are those who are already fixie/fixed gear/fixed wheel riders, and so those who already know the distinction anyway. And for those readers it wasn't as if the article was ranting about singlespeed/fixed riders jumping red lights knocking down peds. No, it portrayed both types of riding (and just riding in general) in a positive light, and was generally interesting.
The average reader without that prior knowledge who reads the article is unlikely to even notice the lack of distinction. For the majority, it's just something to read while they drink their coffee.
If they do notice, and they're interested enough to care (and I doubt very much the lacking fine details about the differences between fixed and singlespeed would have a bearing on whether or not they
became interested) they'll inevitably just Google "fixie" during their lunch break. Maybe even another fixed gear rider, maybe even just another cyclist will result from this, which can only be a good thing. It's not as if it's going to make them think "What ho! I'm not entirely sure about the subtle (to the average non-cyclist, at least) difference between these apparent two types of bicycle: this small lack of knowledge has rendered any potential desire I had to ride such vehicles totally destroyed! I shall make sure to avoid any such information on this topic in the future, lest my knowledge should become slightly more unclear.". If anything, it's going to make them want to find out more.
It's a newspaper column with limited space after all; for all we know it could have been hatched by a tired sub ed who wanted to go home and eat. Just look at how annoyed Giles Coren got.
Riding single-speed is not "putting a toe in the water" of riding fixed, ie not on the way to riding fixed, nor is it trying fixed for bit. The whole point about fixed is there's no freewheel.
For what it's worth, I really
do think that singlespeeding is a step on the way to riding fixed, at the very least so more of a step then riding a bike with multiple gears. In both instances, for example, you have to plan ahead (or at least I do, that may just be due to living in a very hilly area!) if you know a big hill's coming up, to pick up the momentum and make sure you get to the top. Maybe that's just me, but I'm sure there are more similarities between singlespeed and fixed than geared and fixed, ergo riding singlespeed is a step (even it's only a small one) on the way to riding fixed. IMHO riding with one gear is a very big part of riding fixed.
What I gathered was that he'd given both a try, but old habits of freewheeling die hard and meant that, for now at least, he's stuck singlespeed. Despite that, in his words, he's well on his way to "shaking off the freewheeling habit altogether" - so he's slowly being (or has been, it's just that he himself hasn't made the final step, hence the mention of a flip-flop wheel) converted to fixed riding. It's not as if he's only tried singlespeeding and from that alone is advocating riding fixed. He's clearly tried both, mentioning the feeling of 'oneness' that comes with riding fixed.
That turned into a bit of a rant didn't it?
