during school holidays i head into work a bit later than normal. striking how many non-rush hour cyclists don't wear helmets. and how many are women. the other day, coming down the links to MMW i passed 4 cyclists, three were women, none had helmets. today, from gilmore place to NMW, i was passed by two female cyclists, again no helmets. nice.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Commuting
not rush hour
(28 posts)-
Posted 12 years ago #
-
chdot and I were talking about this just yesterday. Head outside rush hour and the incidence of helmets and hi-viz drops dramatically. Hadn't thought about the gender split being different as well, but now you mention it, trawling my memory, I think I do see more women than chaps during the day, while the commute is definitely still male-dominated....
Posted 12 years ago # -
It's because commuters tend to have bought in to cycling "culture" I think, whereas people getting about during the day by bike are more likely to be "natural" cyclists? For instance, I bet the proportion of rusty chains and underinflated tyres (or tyres which are, gasp!, not road specific) is also higher outside the commute.
No doubt we can now have a long argument about the definition of these terms, but a whiff of what I mean should be discernable.
Posted 12 years ago # -
@dave yes, definitely, although I see a lot of those most days as well, since a lot of the cyclists around me are students.
Posted 12 years ago # -
"what? and ruin my hair?"
I think they miss the rush hour because they are busy styling...
<sweeping genral stereotype>Also I think they are all art students so they don't have lectures before 11am</sgs>Posted 12 years ago # -
A couple of people in the office say they'll never commute by bike because of the Hair Thing. Having a buzz cut I struggle to empathise, but I suppose if it takes you half an hour to sort your hair it will kill the advantages of biking to work stone dead?
Posted 12 years ago # -
A couple of people in the office say they'll never commute by bike because of the Hair Thing.
They're just using that excuse to camouflage their bone idleness. Or maybe they're in love with John Humphries/Eddie Mair/Lesley Riddoch...
Posted 12 years ago # -
biking is good for 'body'.
5 posts before derailment, good going guys :)
Posted 12 years ago # -
"was passed by two female cyclists, again no helmets. nice"
Clearly some people will disagree with one or more of the elements there...
Anth has clearly missed 24hrs in his recollections (or maybe artistic licence).
It was Monday the day Evans opened and the weather got bad and I knocked over a cup of coffee.
I was telling him about a conversation I'd had with a 'cycle campaigner' who wasn't happy about the the hi viz/helmet culture. As a result I looked out of my window at 8:00 and in 10 minutes saw 21 cyclers - 20 with...
Didn't record gender but likely 80/20 m/f.
An hour later fewer bikes, but much more in line with SRD's observations.
I also showed anth "It is only when cycling doesn't feel like an extreme sport that it can become so popular as it is in the Netherlands".
'We' are discussing hi viz here and there's a commuting anthecdote here and general comments about 'respecting other road users'.
But as I also said to him - a lot of transport policy is made by people 'stuck' in rush hour congestion (and/or London traffic) and don't understand that a) the roads aren't always that busy b) it doesn't have to be the case that you encourage/allow/build for more cars.
Same with hi viz/helmets - just because it's a 'norm' with some people (buying bikes + 'safety equipment' via bike2work schemes??) at certain times of day, no reason it should become expected/normal.
I'm not saying 'so you shouldn't then'.
What I don't know (and I suspect there's no adequate research) is whether (cyclists) 'dressing for the rush hour' is actually sensible on an individual or collective basis (see SMIDSY on other thread). Whether that puts 'normal' people off is another unknown.
There's a balance (maybe) - between 'dealing with existing conditions' and wanting the 'paradise where everyone rides in normal clothes'. I wonder if some people are too much at one end or the other.
Which leads to the whole other question of 'segregated cycle facilities'....
Posted 12 years ago # -
I must admit out side of the morning rush I'm less fussy about grabbing my lid on the way out. Can't really explain way; I don't feel any more or less vulnerable sans lid nor do I feel more vulnerable during the morning rush. Perhaps its just a nagging doubt in the back of my head that says frustrated morning drivers aren't paying as much attention as weekend on route to Tesco drivers... Dunno...
Posted 12 years ago # -
Ah yes, I stayed in the office over lunchtime yesterday which always throws me - normally get out, however briefly no matter what the weather.
Now, back OT. Supposing it is the case (and I think there are enough observations to say it probably is) that most commuters are male and wear hi-viz and helmets, while a greater proportion of non-commuters are female and dress 'normally', does this suggest a gender split on how cycling is perceived?
Posted 12 years ago # -
The Boris bikes are interesting precisely because they put the wind up a lot of preconceptions.
For instance - no helmets provided, millions of journeys later, still no head injuries. That doesn't, in itself, prove anything one way or another for Joe Individual, but it does at least demonstrate that at a wider level nothing drastically bad would happen.
I'm vaguely hopeful* that somebody will end up legislating for helmet use on the Boris Bikes, with a London bylaw that the police can crack down on. Since the Boris bikes are so heavily telemetered that would put some hard figures on the consequences of helmet fixation.
* at the same time, not so hopeful
Posted 12 years ago # -
Commuting (especially in the morning) is perhaps generally more a door-to-door/car-park-roller-shutter event with no stops, whereas non-start-of-working-day journeys might involve more multi-stop errand-type sub-journeys with lots of stops, requiring more off-bike time, indicating more off-bike-specific clothings and fewer hats/gloves/panniers to have to remove/secure/lug around?
EDIT: "...it does at least demonstrate that at a wider level nothing drastically bad would happen"
It can only demonstrate that nothing drastically bad has happened. It can only suggest or be incorporated into calculations of risk about the future.
Posted 12 years ago # -
I mostly don't cycle during the rush hour because I work from home but on the few occasions I've been on the road during 'home time' (which starts at about 3pm here) I've remembered why cycling can be scary. Partly because there's more cars, but also because the drivers are just that bit more distracted/impatient. Even simple things like not dipping your lights for an oncoming cyclist (because really, it's just so much more fun if you've blinded your opponent...). It's the only time I'll wear hi-vis and while I don't even own a helmet I can see why if someone went either way they'd wear one during rush hour if not any other time.
Fewer females at rush hour might also reflect different work patterns for the primary carer, with women more likely to work part time and have complex journeys to do. In the Netherlands more women than men cycle (55% IIRC) - or rather more trips by bike are undertaken by women because women just make more trips, being more likely to have to pick up the kids / go to the shops as well as go to work and back.
Not sure if that got back on topic or not ...
Posted 12 years ago # -
Technically speaking, yeah. As you say, even if the whole population *did* stop wearing helmets and the casualty rate stayed flat for years, all that would prove is that the casualty rate didn't go up in those past years.
I guess the happy thing is that the Boris bikes and related schemes are getting increasingly popular, so the amount of talking about the past we can do is getting increasingly large.
Posted 12 years ago # -
"does this suggest a gender split on how cycling is perceived?"
The answer must be a simplistic yes.
Long debate on gender politics.
Partly also 'what you mean by' "perceived".
Suspect fewer women are in "extreme sport" mode.
Suspect some women (and men) think 'cycling at rush hour must be dangerous'.
KEY question - 'is that true - or just a perception'
If true should there be much greater disincentive to driving - eg more bus lanes, workplace parking tax and/or much greater police presence.
Imagine if all L&B cycle police were on bikes 7-9 one day a week (random day each week) - plus Fridays 4-6.
Posted 12 years ago # -
I think rush hour is safer (controversy!). Everybody knows the rules and there are, for instance, no blockages at key points caused by double and triple parking, people diving into the bus lanes for random reasons, etc.
I hate cycling into town of a weekend, very hairy.
Posted 12 years ago # -
I suspect you're right.
Posted 12 years ago # -
I am not sure the definition of rush hour, I go in about 6.30 most mornings, hometime is whenever - earliest 4. Mornings are quiet, evenings busier.
I wear a helmet commuting and on my road bike, but not at weekends when out with my son.
I dont think there is an entirely rational reason for this, but suspect it is because when out with a 6 year old, he will be on the pavement, and I will be pootling along slowly on the road next to him.
As I said, not entirely rational, given that helmets are unlikely to be of any use at anything more than walking pace.
Good at keeping the head a wee bit warmer this morning though.
Posted 12 years ago # -
I'm still not entirely clear why so many people on here seem to be down on wearing helmets...surely it's personal choice.
I don't like cycling with out mine but that's purely on the basis that one of my friends is still here to tell the tale because of his helmet. Plus my visor keeps the rain off my face.
I get that not everyone likes them but please can you stop making those of us that do wear them feel bad for wearing them?
Posted 12 years ago # -
Eeep, careful with that statement I started the great helmet war of '10! ;)
Posted 12 years ago # -
" but please can you stop making those of us that do wear them feel bad for wearing them?"
This forum 'agrees' that it is personal choice.
There is less agreement (absence of reliable data etc.) on the value/desirability of light coloured clothing and/or reflective things and (perhaps more importantly) the apparent 'official line' (police etc.) that 'you just have to accept that they are a good thing'.
To some extent it's all a symptom of the whole 'make cycling safer' debate, which has gained extra momentum due to The Times campaign.
It's probably true that if all cyclists wore helmets voluntarily there would be a small reductions in injuries.
It's also likely that if helmets were compulsory there would be fewer miles cycled and a (probably measurable) reduction in 'public health'.
There would also be more people cycling and fewer injuries if there were no motor vehicles.
None of the above are likely to happen.
Posted 12 years ago # -
I'm still not entirely clear why so many people on here seem to be down on wearing helmets...surely it's personal choice.
Has anyone told you you mustn't wear one? The right to choose something does not grant immunity from criticism to whatever it is, I think :)
You'll even find criticism of certain types of bike, bike setup (such as riding with the saddle at a non-approved height), bike clothing (especially!) and well, almost everything. You're still free to ride and wear whatever you like though...
Posted 12 years ago # -
Zenfrost - I wear one too. I used to be more militant about it than I am now.
Posted 12 years ago # -
@Steveo "Eeep, careful with that statement I started the great helmet war of '10! ;)"
yarrr remembers it well I do, lost me leg did I.
Posted 12 years ago # -
@Zenfrozt - The oblique references to h*&mets and shifty looks when one admits to wearing one, is more of an in-joke than persecution...
Of course, if you're not in on the joke...
I think there were one or two really heated arguments in the early history of CCE (before my time), it became a taboo subject, and now is only broached in hushed terms.
Sorry that this has made you feel bad!
Robert
Posted 12 years ago # -
TBC have cool POC lids in
you all know you want one ;)Posted 12 years ago # -
Ironically, to me (and many people) that means "proof of concept" :D
Posted 12 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
