CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

Are "Real Cyclists" the enemy?

(169 posts)
  • Started 12 years ago by arne_saknussen
  • Latest reply from ruggtomcat

1…3456

  1. Dave
    Member

    "The question is, accepting that cyclists are an even cross-section of society and beyond control.....what should be done?"

    That is just it: we, as cyclists, aren't an even cross section of society. If we were, there wouldn't be a problem.

    I think actually that cyclists are a pretty even cross-section. To be clear, I don't mean that many people cycle, I mean that if you look at people who do cycle they are all kinds of people.

    When I think about rides I've been on, I've ridden with guys who worked in the shipyards or as brick layers, one who works shifts fixing streetlights on motorways (!), electricians, engineers, doctors, students, vets, "vanilla" mothers, people who are on long term dole and people who earn serious money, you name it.

    That's what I mean about collective responsibility. It's just daft that people will drive aggressively at a big-money financial director because a homeless guy on a stolen bike was riding on the pavement the other night, what connection do they think there is? It's like picking people out because they have moustaches.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  2. arne_saknussen
    Member

    Oh, and one last thing..I just noticed on one of the other strings (Self-Congratulatory and Smug):
    "I don't think that could explain the vitriol and hatred though. Police indifference, laughable sentences from magistrates, stupid infrastructure - that sort of thing is the product of looking down on cyclists as an underclass".
    That is exactly the point I made at the start of this, we as bike users are partly responsible by making OURSELVES different. Start a campaign, keep the carbon fibre, lycra, aero helmet for the Sunday 100 miler, wear normal stuff the rest of the time. It is natural to demonstrate group identity (I wore Look cleats at all times on the bike for 5 years to show I was a real cyclist)but in this case it will inevitably lead to ghettoisation. Thank you and Goodnight.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  3. crowriver
    Member

    @Arne, if you venture onto the road much it won't matter what clothes you are wearing. Motorists will still put you in the (stigmatised) out group. It'd just human nature, I'm afraid. You are not driving a motor vehicle, therefore you are different, therefore you are not 'in'. Drivers will tend to be more considerate of 'their own' than they will 'outsiders'. Similarly, you are not a pedestrian on the bike, similar situation applies. It's really that simple, deep down.

    I did post information an excellent report that Instography linked to regarding drivers' attitudes to cyclists, but the spam trap has zapped my post.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  4. Dave
    Member

    I don't disagree (I think the perception that you "have" to wear sports gear and armour to cycle is very damaging), but do you not think the main differentiator is the bicycle, rather than what is worn?

    I'm not so sure myself, now that I think about it. Are people defining the underclass by mode of transport or by dress?

    Posted 12 years ago #

  5. arne_saknussen
    Member

    Please excuse me for some gross generalisations, but I think that we are an underclass (your word), but an elective one. Many of us choose to dress to define ourselves which is fine if you are a sports cyclist. Skiers, curlers, footballers all dress for the game. If we are talking about utility use of the bike however, mass participation is desirable. It shouldn't be an exclusive activity but universally safe and easy to access. Maybe I am incredibly shallow but I think appearances do matter. If most cycle commuters think that they have to wear special gear, then everybody else will as well & won't bother. I am regularly lectured by non-cycling workmates on the stupidity of not wearing a helmet. They are sincere, but their opinion is based on the fact that most of us cyclists choose to go around dressed like day-glo Darth Vaders.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  6. Min
    Member

    Condemning what colour jacket or what type of hat the next person is wearing as a way to encourage the masses to start cycling is just a herring which has been dead for six weeks and sprayed scarlet. IMO. No city or nation which has moved to greater cycle usage has achieved it in this way. Not one.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  7. Min
    Member

    "f most cycle commuters think that they have to wear special gear, then everybody else will as well & won't bother. "

    And yet cycle use has increased hugely in Edinburgh in the last few years, along with an increase in hi-viz and helmet wearing. If hi-viz and helmets put people off cycling then why are there so many more cyclists?

    Posted 12 years ago #

  8. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Arne, so do you think that when I wear a cycle cap, cycling cut jacket (that I've worn casually off the bike), three quarter length trousers and cycling shoes to commute that I am making cyclists look bad to the general public and actively creating hatred towards us?

    I assume the article I've linked to hasn't been read. I'm not in a cycling club, and often cannot spare the time for long rides at weekends, and so the commute is my gym. I want a workout. Plus it gets me home more quickly. Jeans and jumper are hideously uncomfortable for me to do that.

    So, should I wear normal clothes and double the time of my commute; pay for a gym membership; and/or join a cycling club if I want to ride quickly?

    And those people who commute over ten miles... Jeans in the rain or wind? And their commute taking an hour or more?

    I may have misunderstood, but are you generally saying that all cyclists who are not involved in a race, TT or weekend 100 miler MUST wear 'normal' everyday clothes because otherwise it makes people hate us? After all, the very first post here was about the 'actions' of people on a cyclepath, rather than the way they dressed, causing the hatred. In other words, if the people riding quickly and zig-zagging round pedestrians on the paths were in Levis and a nice Paul Smith shirt, would the pedestrians shrug it off saying 'ah, but he's one of us, not actually a cyclist'?

    I have to say, I find it quite insulting as well for it to be suggested that I wear what I do in order to be identified with a group (would have thought the bike would do that if I wanted it to) but 10 years of cycle commuting have evolved what I wear into what is most practical for how I ride.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  9. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    p.s. I don't wear any lycra, don't wear a helmet, and own nothing in bright yellow. But my clothing is cycle specific.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  10. Min
    Member

    "In other words, if the people riding quickly and zig-zagging round pedestrians on the paths were in Levis and a nice Paul Smith shirt, would the pedestrians shrug it off saying 'ah, but he's one of us, not actually a cyclist'?"

    Actually that would fit with the rule that we have recently discovered whereby people who are not wearing a helmet can cycle on the pavement because cycling is dangerous but people can't ride on the road with a helmet because it makes cycling look dangerous!

    Posted 12 years ago #

  11. Instography
    Member

    I'm in danger of repeating myself every time this subject comes up but I dress for my own comfort and visibility (which I associate with my safety, along with my lights, which I use in the day time). My first priority is to get home alive. Next is to ride my bike. Everything else is a distant consideration. So, frankly, I don't give a damn if I am cycling's worst enemy. I didn't set out to be the poster child of cycling's imaginary Copenhagenized future. If the day ever comes that I don't have to ride alongside cars and buses and lorries I might ride a different bike and dress differently but until then, I'm fine thanks.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  12. Baldcyclist
    Member

    All this talk of clothing again???

    Agree with most of above, when I'm on the long commute (15 miles each way), it is far more comfortable to wear 'cycle specific' clothing than 'Normal clothes'. You should wear what is comfortable, appropriate for the circumstance, and most importantly your personal choice.

    If 'appearance' is so important and really defines a person regardless of activity, then we should really apply this mantra to all we see and do.
    No more 'weekend specific' clothing allowed in an office, it's so scruffy, how do these people live with themselves looking like that! Bet they wear Lycra on the way home too!

    Posted 12 years ago #

  13. The Boy
    Member

    Is this a Copenhaganize trojan attack or something? Didn't we do this death a while back?

    The reason my partner doesn't cycle isn't because I wear day-glo waterproofs during the winter, but because we live on a hill and she is unfit, along with the usual perception of the roads being dangerous.

    Likewise for my flatmate who bought a bike in October. The reason he didn't cycle through the winter had nothing to do with a lack of 'suitable' clothing and everything to do with the fact that he had only had a month or so of regular cycle commuting until the weather turned so the bus automatically became the first choice.

    Incidentally, I don't wear day-glo waterproofs because I'm a sports cyclist but because they are more comfortable. Likewise my two pairs of baggy MTB shorts aren't worn to help me look 'gnarly' or somesuch, they're just more comfortable than wearing a pair of jeans. Which on a 16km round trip is quite a big deal to me.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  14. arne_saknussen
    Member

    "...cycle use has increased hugely in Edinburgh in the last few years, along with an increase in hi-viz and helmet wearing. If hi-viz and helmets put people off cycling then why are there so many more cyclists?"
    In absolute terms the numbers are very low. In my street of ~100 houses, there is one regular bike user: me. Most days travelling along the full length of Seafield Road I will see perhaps two other regular cyclists amongst literally thousands of cars. Nobody is condemning the use of hi-viz & helmets by consenting adults, but most people are risk aversed & will avoid those activities which appear dangerous. Use of safety gear usually accompanies a percieved risk. The unconcious message that this is a dangerous business filters out. Most people choose the less risky option: car.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  15. Nelly
    Member

    I am too old for Paul Smith, more of a Ted Baker fan - but would not wear those shirts on a bike - too cold when its windy, too restrictive, I cant wear it for days on end (like merino base layers) - my reasoning list for wearing cycle specific is endless, but the main point is Its My Choice and if anyone else wants to wear a suit and overcoat (like a neighbour of mine) then thats fine.

    I dont care what anyone else wears on a bike, but I choose what I wear, how I ride, where I ride - all within my own moral code of conduct.

    Ido feel a sense of wellbeing when I get home, much much more so than when commuting by car - which I do one day a week.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  16. Min
    Member

    "Nobody is condemning the use of hi-viz & helmets by consenting adults, but most people are risk aversed & will avoid those activities which appear dangerous. Most people will only use safety gear if there is a percieved risk."

    Yes, they are wearing it because they perceive that cycling is risky and feel that they can mitigate that risk slightly by wearing safety gear. I am sorry but I am really not sure what you are trying to say here?

    Of course the numbers are still low in absolute terms but they have at least gone from microscopic to noticeable and the press and council are finding it impossible to ignore our existance now.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  17. scotti
    Member

    is it just me or is there something not quite right about this thread?

    Posted 12 years ago #

  18. fimm
    Member

    And what about those of us who metamophose from woman in suit on Brompton into MAWIL on road bike, depending on exactly how I'm travelling to work?

    (Hi, newbie round here, there doesn't seem to be an "introduce yourself" sort of place (or maybe I just didn't spot it) so I thought I'd just get stuck in...)

    Posted 12 years ago #

  19. Morningsider
    Member

    So, if the helmet and cycle specific stuff is out, what should I wear? I'm serious - what does the man about town who wants to encourage cycling need to wear to develop a convoy of admiring acolytes? Say I've got £250 to spend - what should I buy?

    All suggestions welcome - although I may draw the line at gold lame jump suit, although gold with a black bike - it could just work!

    Fimm - welcome, you have joined one of our madder threads, it isn't normally like this!

    Posted 12 years ago #

  20. Min
    Member

    Hi Fimm, getting stuck in is indeed the way forward so welcome.

    Out of interest, do you notice any difference in driver behaviour towards you whether you are WISOB or MAWIL?

    Posted 12 years ago #

  21. Instography
    Member

    Mikael said "Nobody is condemning the use of hi-viz & helmets by consenting adults" but your tone, your language, is inherently condemnatory.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  22. Nelly
    Member

    Instography, you are a naughty boy ;-)

    Posted 12 years ago #

  23. arne_saknussen
    Member

    "Yes, they are wearing it because they perceive that cycling is risky and feel that they can mitigate that risk slightly by wearing safety gear. I am sorry but I am really not sure what you are trying to say here?"

    What I'm saying (obviously not very eloquently judging by some posts) is that IN MY OPINION some of the risks associated with cycling arise because not enough people do it. Not enough people do it because it is percieved to be risky. It's percieved to be risky partly because those that do it wear bizzare clothing (sorry). The people that wear bizzare clothing do so because they percieve it to be a risky activity...ad infinitum (or nauseum).

    Posted 12 years ago #

  24. arne_saknussen
    Member

    "(Hi, newbie round here, there doesn't seem to be an "introduce yourself" sort of place (or maybe I just didn't spot it) so I thought I'd just get stuck in...)"

    I only joined yesterday and there is a lynch mob outside already.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  25. fimm
    Member

    Out of interest, do you notice any difference in driver behaviour towards you whether you are WISOB or MAWIL?

    I feel that MAWIL gets closer passes on one particular road. However I have a caveat that I'm more confident on the Brompton, so my perception of what is a close pass may be different. The other thing is that I have short hair and in general may appear to be male when I'm in cycling gear on a road bike rather than in WISOB (like) mode. I've not yet decided if a short skirt gets you more space...

    I thought this sort of thread was normal for cycling forums? ;-)

    Posted 12 years ago #

  26. Instography
    Member

    If people see cyclists wearing safety clothing and conclude that it is risky then they are correct to do so. It is risky. Sometimes those vehicles are bloody dangerous. Are you suggesting we should just pretend that we're on segregated paths? Do you think that by wishing we were in Copenhagen we can make it so?

    Posted 12 years ago #

  27. wingpig
    Member

    The only group I'm prepared to admit unavoidable membership of is the one defined as {wingpig}. I may exhibit/own some items of clothing behaviours or components or handlebar shapes the same as some other people but there are only a finite number of combinations of options thereof available.

    I can't see any lynch mobs. I can see a number of people all freely expressing their differing opinions, without need to imply that they're acting in concert in order to identify more with each other.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  28. Min
    Member

    "What I'm saying (obviously not very eloquently judging by some posts) is that IN MY OPINION some of the risks associated with cycling arise because not enough people do it. Not enough people do it because it is percieved to be risky. It's percieved to be risky partly because those that do it wear bizzare clothing (sorry). The people that wear bizzare clothing do so because they percieve it to be a risky activity...ad infinitum (or nauseum)."

    Well yes but as Insto has already said cycling IS risky. Do you not think it would be better to work towards reducing that risk (and the perception of it) than just to pretend it isn't there?

    Posted 12 years ago #

  29. Min
    Member

    "I've not yet decided if a short skirt gets you more space..."

    Haha!

    That is interesting. I get a great deal of aggro when riding my folder (not a Brompton and I am not wearing a suit mind you) I vote for MAWIL every time.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  30. fimm
    Member

    What I'm saying (obviously not very eloquently judging by some posts) is that IN MY OPINION some of the risks associated with cycling arise because not enough people do it. Not enough people do it because it is percieved to be risky. It's percieved to be risky partly because those that do it wear bizzare clothing (sorry). The people that wear bizzare clothing do so because they percieve it to be a risky activity...ad infinitum (or nauseum).

    You are not alone in thinking this way. The question is, do you dress "normally" (and then get told it is your fault that someone pulled out on you in broad daylight) or do you try and make yourself more visible, taking your own safety over the "greater good" of making cycling look normal?

    If you come on a cycling forum and start by making what appear to be sweeping statements about cyclists, I don't quite understand why you're surprised that you started a debate...

    Posted 12 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

1…3456

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin