<snip>
depending on your fitness, you should finish a 100km ride in under 4 hrs (25 Km/hr)
...
<snip>
(my bold)
gosh, thanks, I hadn't realised I was unfit. It's nothing to do with the world being designed for the average bloke or anything.
your new word for today is 'androcentric'
[possibly a bit unfair I am a tad cheesed off with various things at the moment]
I think it's a valid criticism - but please cheer up soon Ara, it's Christmas
I doubt dim meant anything, it's just lazy phrasing. The loaded "
should". There are two general meanings of the word:
- you are obliged to do thing X. or
- I predict that you will do thing X.
Presumably in this context, the former cannot be the intention. SO dim is predicting that riders will do the thing he has described.
In which case I'd say he's made a huuuuge generalisation,. Does the writer know all his readers? Or all cyclists?
I'd say he clearly doesn't - there are millions of people on this planet who could not ride 100km in 4 hours. So what use is this statement?
And then of course there is the strong implication that you just aren't fit if you fall below this standard. You should train more (or smarter?), eat properly, etc. Get fit, you lazy so-and-so!
<ok, I'm probably a bit grumpy too ... I need to eat another cold pig-in-blanket ... nommm ... >