It is because it is another stick to beat us with. The rules of the game mean that whatever you wear it is always wrong. Divide and conquer and all that.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
What not to wear
(51 posts)-
Posted 12 years ago #
-
"Something I've often wondered, why do 'we' try to get folk on bikes? I don't really care how many folk get about on bikes, or how they dress."
@Baldcyclist, I really don't care how people dress, but I would like to convince more people of the benefits of cycling for a few reasons. It makes a city more attractive to be in (less car noise and pollution, more interaction); it has knock-on health benefits for the population as a whole (less pollution, illness, obesity etc.) which lowers the cost of the NHS; and it leads to proper provision for cyclists (consideration of routes when facilities are dug up, consideration in new layouts etc.). For those reasons alone I'm afraid I'll continue to want to see more people on bikes.
@Min, I'm not entirely sure the anti-bike lobby are quite so organised as to have created a division amongst cyclists as to what to wear hoping that they splinter and kill each other. More that people are people and when there are multiple ways of doing things people will argue and bicker about it - go onto any specialist forum on more or less any subject and you'll find folk arguing about something that to the outside world looks like a minor issue (I've certainly seen it on birding and photography places).
Posted 12 years ago # -
If we are singing, dancing, and cycling - does that mean multiple clothing choices?
Posted 12 years ago # -
"If we are singing, dancing, and cycling"
Now that is 'niche'!
Posted 12 years ago # -
I just wish that some people would stop making a big political song and dance about it.
Personally I couldn't care a fig if "normals" see me (and other cyclists) as weird. I know however that such a shallow concern bothers a much larger number of people. It's another factor in stopping more people from cycling. That and the fear industry which encourages folk to cocoon themselves in their comfy cars. Also just pure laziness.
Obesity epidemic here we come! Scotland is already fatter on average than most places outwith North America. This is becoming the new "normal".
Like it or not, that's a political and policy issue. Servicing the new normal sees billions spent on a Forth Resilience Crossing, billions more on treating obesity related disease. Just a few bob on active travel.
Posted 12 years ago # -
@Min, I'm not entirely sure the anti-bike lobby are quite so organised as to have created a division amongst cyclists as to what to wear hoping that they splinter and kill each other.
I am not suggesting it is organised but that the cycle chic nazis and the hi-viz fashists have the same thing in common - they are both anti "cyclist", just for different reasons.
Like most on here I will wear whatever is comfortable or convenient for me for whatever purpose whether lycra or a flowery dress and everything in between. It means I get to be comfortable and happy whilst causing the maximum amount of fury amongst all those sad losers who really have nothing better to do than tell other people what to wear. Win.
Posted 12 years ago # -
I wear what I like and what’s convenient and always have. During the week that’s usually a suit/heels. I get the odd remark from non-cyclists but the only real grief I’ve ever had have been from fellow cyclists. Why does what anyone wear matter? All this does is stop people from donning whatever garb they feel like and getting out on their bikes....and...from selfish pro-cylcing perspective; increasing the numbers of cyclists on our roads is the only way that providing a thought-out cycling infrastructure will ever make any political sense...
Posted 12 years ago # -
I know however that such a shallow concern bothers a much larger number of people. It's another factor in stopping more people from cycling.
But it doesn't, it is just the excuse they use. All those people need to do is look around them and they will see people cycling in all sorts of clothes. Then they would know they don't "have to" wear anything they don't want.
But they won't do that because such people are only interested in going along with the herd. So until the herd starts cycling, they won't. If that herd started cycling in lime green suits of armour with bearskin hats, they would do it too.
It is all just a massive red herring to deflect attention away from the fact that the reason the majority of people don't cycle is because it is too bloody dangerous. But changing that would take too much effort so hey, lets just blame the cyclists!
Posted 12 years ago # -
On the actual issue of clothing, I've never been a Lycra sort of person.
I do have a cycling jacket - not yellow/hiviz but it does have various reflective flashes.
The main reason is that it keeps me warm and dry.
Also I feel more comfortable shopping in a bike shop rather than an 'outdoor' one (unlike most people of course).
However lots more people are wearing 'outdoor clothing' - particularly when they are outdoors - wandering about or waiting for buses etc.
Some wear brands I've heard of (though - in general - I don't know the difference between upmarket, designer, chainstore or 'serious').
So I don't know if people are wearing 'cheap and practical', 'showing off' or are serious hillwalkers/mountaineers.
I suspect the same is true for 'most people' looking at those with 'cycle clothing'. Most won't actually register 'cyclist' and begin wondering 'commuter or mountain biker?' - and few will be going 'they are not normal (like me)' or 'I couldn't possibly ride a bike because I don't have the right clothes' or because 'I don't want to look like that'.
Perhaps.
Posted 12 years ago # -
I think it is a really good article. It is about one aspect of cycling. I do think that women are judged more on appearance than men are - or at least feel as though we are judged more on appearance than men are. It feels like an issue, even if it is not the main issue.
On the Brompton I wear all sorts of things - my smart work clothes if I'm going to work, running kit if I'm going to join the club run, something practical (usually running longs, so I don't have to faff with cycle clips) if I'm going to the swimming pool, jeans or whatever if I'm going somewhere else. I don't cycle in high heels because I rarely wear the things.
On my other bikes I wear lycra in some form, because on those bikes I am going to be going fast or far or both and I therefor need sports kit just like I wear sports kit to run in (my base layers and leggings get used for both, though in fact most of the base layers were originally bought for hillwalking).
Wasn't there a bit of an argument a couple of months back when some blogger criticised people turning up to things like PoP for wearing hi-vis? I eventually decided that he'd got the wrong end of the stick - those protests were not about encouraging more people to cycle, they were existing cyclists protesting about the conditions we have to cycle in, and in a way the preponderance of hi-vis and helmets illustrated those conditions (we are expected to "protect" ourselves, it is our fault if the other road user doesn't see us) rather well.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Oh, hillwalking - if I go walking in the Pentlands I tend to be totally over-equipped, because I don't have kit for an easy walk in the Pentlands. What I do have is Munro-bagging kit, and so I wear that.
Hillwalking kit is rather weather- and especially season- dependant. If you're going to go out in wind and rain all day, or if you are going out in winter, then you will be much more comfortable in good kit. On the other hand, the Adventure Show the other week (with the Strathpuffer and Chris Oliver in) had an article about cheap hillwalking gear where they were saying that it was fine for three-season walking.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Wiggle currently (today and tomorrow) have £20 off £100 and £40 off £200 on their already discounted clothing stock. Voucher code on their homepage.
Hurrah for new tights!
Posted 12 years ago # -
Thanks to my cycle-chic* experiment on Monday I now know my limit for normal trousers is under 54 miles. Felt fine on the day, but yesterday and still today I'm a little tender in the loin.
*for sufficently low standard of chic.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Aye, normal trews are okay for short distances. Can be alright for medium distance too, if they have seams which are not too chunky, and you wear padded undershorts (like cycling shorts, but without so much lycra).
When I'm touring I wear hillwalking trousers (with zip off lower legs to convert into shorts) and cycling shorts underneath.
For anything faster/more intense, it has to be bib shorts/longs for the ultimate in comfort.
Posted 12 years ago # -
It must surely not be beyond the wit of man (or indeed woman) to design a pair of trousers that don't have a big seam down the middle of your crotch but otherwise look fairly normal... I suppose that would be one benefit of cycling in a skirt. If I owned any skirts
Posted 12 years ago # -
Presumably horse riding jodhpurs and breeches are thusly configured? Bit pricey perhaps...
Posted 12 years ago # -
Tracky bottoms don't have much of a seam, though I'd not do much more than 10 miles in jeans...
Posted 12 years ago # -
sallyhitch - I find it very comfortable wearing a skirt whilst cycling - no seams as you say.
Not that I can do much cycling at the moment (living at west edge of Edinburgh and work in centre of Glasgow so need to take the car or car+train from Livingston North station) :(Posted 12 years ago # -
I like the advert underneath for the Specialized Therminal SWAT Knicker. Now THAT sounds like specialist clothing.
Posted 10 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
