Well, how about some background information first, rather than jumping in medias res...a few weeks ago I had a person come up to me in the grocery store concerned because they had not been able to see me on my bicycle when they overtook me in their car. They were afraid I was going to get hit by someone else who didn't notice me. I just blew it off; I always assume that no one sees me anyway. But, two days later at the same intersection (225 and Packerton, if you care), I had a car pull out in front of me and then suddenly stop in the middle of the intersection; they hadn't seen me until then. As I went past him, he yelled out the window, apologizing for not noticing me. I decided maybe God was trying to get my attention. I've already been hit by a truck, and I can assure you it isn't my idea of fun :(
So, I started looking for hi-vis jerseys—reasonably priced, which is a trick. I found one that was hi-visibility yellow with this marketing description:
The century ride – a rite of passage for every cyclist. And thanks to breatH20 fabric, you can cycle several centuries without even breaking a sweat!
The first part is true, the century ride (100 miles) is considered a rite of passage, but the second part? Well, the only way I can figure it is that you would be so dehydrated by the time you finished several centuries that you wouldn't have anything left to sweat!
My jerseys came on Friday, and on Saturday I wore one for my morning ride. Sure enough, I started to sweat well before 100 miles :) I only rode 45 miles, and I can assure you that I was sweaty.
So the question is, when does marketing become lying? Would anyone believe this marketing piece? I doubt it. Does that make it hyperbole instead of lying? What do you think?
Oh, by the way, the hi-vis does work. Our neighbor commented that she could see me a good 1/4 mile down the road. She said she couldn't see my legs or the bike, but the jersey was very visible. Debbie says I look like a bumble-bee, because there is black highlighting on the jersey.
Update (8/21/07): Dr. Carl Conrad kindly pointed out my nasty Latin error. You would think that after teaching Latin for 3 years I would know better than having a ablative modifying an accusative, especially when one is singular and the other plural! :(