Mulling over some thoughts on the copenhagenize/citizen cycling/on lycra/normal clothing debate, especially after a twitter storm kicked off when kaputnik stuck an 'infographic' on Flickr of his winter wardrobe. It was quickly derided as 'propaganda', which seems to completely miss the point as well as displaying almost religious fervour of those who declare you must wear normal clothing to commute.
Anyway, buried in the debate was a comment from one protaganist that he wore a ski jacket to keep warm while cycling. This, obviously, meant that it wasn't cycle specific and therefore proved you could wear 'normal' clothes.
My thoughts ran like this:
1. What if you don't ski? In order to keep warm while cycling if I bought a ski jacket for the job would that still be okay, or because I didn't have it in my wardrobe already would that be buying technical clothing that was unnecessary?
2. My base layers are for hillwalking. Does this mean I'm okay to wear them to cycle as I already own them? If I buy a cycle specific base layer made of exactly the same material is that then wrong?
Now I've said before, I know from first hand experience how wonderful it is to cycle in Copenhagen. And you really do feel 'right' cycling in 'normal' clothes. But I'm fast coming to the opinion that you need the infrastructure, political will and understanding motorists before people will feel comfortable getting on their bike in the first place, let alone in normal clothes.
Yes, I can see the argument that telling people they should wear hi-viz and helmets gives the impression that cycling is 'dangerous'. But then so do left-hooking drivers; speeding buses; and untreated cycle facilities. Normal clothing doesn't, as far as I'm aware, have the political and legal clout to make those changes.
'Normal' clothing - cause or effect?