For sake of fairness

[monnet]

I've been watching this thread with interest/ bemusement as it's developed. BrokenBetty's certainly fired things up. So here's my tuppence on the great lycra debate.

First off - I'd say there's an element of location here. There may well be a higher concentration of Mamil's and the like in BB's area. Cyclists, just like motorists, ride differently in different areas in response to their surroundings.

Mamils - It's fair to say that whilst these guys do have all the gear they are a menace on a bike. Most of the reason for that they've very little experience cycling and they've got a bike that they can't handle. £3k road bikes ride nicely if you're capable of riding them, otherwise they are ludicrously twitchy. Mamil's are dangerous on the open road and lethal in races. Then again, more riders =greater understanding of the cyclist.

Next - lycra clad riders being aggressive (and I've noticed a hint of finger being pointed at roadies here). So I will look at 'roadies' as being distinct from Mamils. There are, I would posit, good reasons for this. I'd guess that proper roadies spend more time on the roads than most cyclists. This leads to a number of points. Greater exposure to traffic means they deal with it better (read the road etc) but they are also likely to see more bad driving. This results in more aggressive positioning and being very assertive (both in positioning and shouting their point at people they feel have wronged them). Knowing a traffic island is coming up I've ridden very centrally on wide roads to block cars from over taking me when the pinch point arrives. Drivers don't like it, alot seem to understand as the hazard approaches and some think I'm a d1ck. I'm still alive and no one has suffered the trauma of a dented car, so I think we're all ok. (hands up admits he's a roadie)

As has been pointed out, there are plenty of idiots on the road using all means of transport. Lycra clad riders are probably more obvious because of their clothing and because they are invariably on the road rather than using cycle paths.

I commute 5 miles each way in lycra. I don't fancy cycling that distance in a suit so I keep my work clothes at work and shower and change on arrival. It seems silly to wear jeans or casual wear to commute when I've got cycling specific kit and I've still got to shower anyway. Certainly it's nothing to do with speed, I took the computer off my commuter a long time ago - pb's for 5 miles don't really interest me, I just aim to ride with the traffic flow, which I can do easily (aided by lycra, I'm sure).

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

When I see a mamil in town I assume either he's all gear and no idea or intends to ride unsuitably aggressively. And I am a cyclist.

That's exactly what I said. People who wear lycra do so because it allows them to ride harder (ie faster or further) than they otherwise would be able to. I'm not saying they shouldn't do so, just that it's entirely reasonable to point out that lycra-wearers ARE riding differently, because if they weren't, there'd be no point in wearing it.

Exactly what you said was that you assume lycra wearers have no idea or intend to ride aggressively.

I have never said all lycra wearers are aggressive. I have said that given that lycra enables more aggressive cycling it isn't surprising that there is a correlation between lycra and aggression.

Backpedal, backpedal!

You seem awfully bothered by the idea that roadies might include some of the most aggressive cyclists

Who said anything about roadies? You were talking about Lycra. Also, the concern is not that some roadies might be aggressive; it is that you (and presumably others) assume that everyone who wears Lycra is either clueless or aggressive. That is prejudice, based on a stereotype that you hold on to.

Of course, you are entitled to your opinions, even if they are based on prejudice, provided you don't ever act on them to the detriment of others. However, it is sad that there are people who hold such prejudices against us just because we like to wear the clothes we find the most comfortable, and it scary that there are others who might treat us badly just because of the same prejudices.

 

[brokenbetty]

Exactly what you said was that you assume lycra wearers have no idea or intend to ride aggressively.

No, exactly what I said was that I expect mamils in town to ride aggressively or I question why they bother getting dressed up in outfits more suited to distance and/or racing. As you see, I refered specially to lycra wearers in town. Actually, midddle aged male lycra wearers in town. (I don't see that many other types of lycra-wearer to be honest.)

Who said anything about roadies? You were talking about Lycra.

I was taking about mamils and the roadie thing goes along with that. I could have said mamilomcrbs (middle aged men in lycra on mid-life crisis road bikes) but it doesn't flow as well.

Also, the concern is not that some roadies might be aggressive; it is that you (and presumably others) assume that everyone who wears Lycra is either clueless or aggressive. That is prejudice, based on a stereotype that you hold on to.

...in town...

Of course, you are entitled to your opinions, even if they are based on prejudice, provided you don't ever act on them to the detriment of others. However, it is sad that there are people who hold such prejudices against us just because we like to wear the clothes we find the most comfortable, and it scary that there are others who might treat us badly just because of the same prejudices.

My opinions are based on experience. Just read the anecdotes on this site with an open mind and you will see the stereotype of the arrogant, aggressive lycra-clad cyclist played out again and again. But it's much easier to keep your mind closed and assume the problem is everyone else's, isn't it?

 

[DamoDoublemint]

...in town...

I don't understand why you think wearing lycra in town is a problem. Why do you assume that they haven't cycled 50 miles to get there? Do you expect them to change into casual clothes as soon as they hit an urban area?

You seem a bit prejudiced to me.

 

[brokenbetty]

I don't understand why you think wearing lycra in town is a problem. Why do you assume that they haven't cycled 50 miles to get there? Do you expect them to change into casual clothes as soon as they hit an urban area?

I certainly assume the majority haven't cycled 50 miles to get there. I assume the majority are either inappropriately dressed for the riding they intend to do (which is harmless although a bit silly), or intend to ride inappropriately for the environment they are in, which is not harmless and is the reason why lycra-wearing cyclists have a bad reputation.

 

[Origamist]

I tell you what aerates me, recherche accessories (such as a shiny and pricey porteur rack) on a formerly unprentious mixte! My personal commuting affectation is a beautiful Japanese brass bell...

 

[gaz]

I certainly assume the majority haven't cycled 50 miles to get there. I assume the majority are either inappropriately dressed for the riding they intend to do (which is harmless although a bit silly), or intend to ride inappropriately for the environment they are in, which is not harmless and is the reason why lycra-wearing cyclists have a bad reputation.

What makes it inappropriate?

 

[brokenbetty]

What makes it inappropriate?

Same as inappropriately aggressive driving - excess speed and poor anticipation. So sprinting away from the lights only to slam the brakes on at the next red (or worse just go through), accelerating through amber instead of stopping, filtering when the lights are about to change, filtering when you can't see there's space in front, pulling round buses and cars without looking behind you. That sort of thing.

Basically, prioritising speed and the fastest line over courtesy and predictability. Fine in the countryside on an empty road, never appropriate in the urban environment.

 

[brokenbetty]

I tell you what aerates me, recherche accessories (such as a shiny and pricey porteur rack) on a formerly unprentious mixte! My personal commuting affectation is a beautiful Japanese brass bell...

Yes, I much prefer shiny and pricey porteur racks on completely incongruous Austrian step throughs. With mickey mouse bells.

However weirdly enough non-cyclists just don't seem to see the problem. Too busy making up completely unjustified myths about lycra louts I guess.

 

[gaz]

Same as inappropriately aggressive driving - excess speed and poor anticipation. So sprinting away from the lights only to slam the brakes on at the next red (or worse just go through), accelerating through amber instead of stopping, filtering when the lights are about to change, filtering when you can't see there's space in front, pulling round buses and cars without looking behind you. That sort of thing.

Basically, prioritising speed and the fastest line over courtesy and predictability. Fine in the countryside on an empty road, never appropriate in the urban environment.

And this relates how to wearing cycling clothing?

 

[brokenbetty]

And this relates how to wearing cycling clothing?

Because if you don't go speed/brake/speed/brake but try to anticipate and adjust your speed accordingly, IME you don't ever go that fast so cycle clothing is overkill.

If you cast your mind back to the start of this conversation, the assertion (I forget who made it) was that the public only talk about lycra louts because they ignorantly lump all cyclists together. I've been trying to point out that since cycle-specific clothing is by its very nature designed to allow harder cycling, it's not surprising there would be a correlation between aggressive cycling and lycra and perhaps we should take notice of what non-cyclists tell us rather than just dismiss them.

Frankly one of the things I find most distasteful about this site is that any criticism of cyclists by non-cyclists is automatically assumed to be lack of understanding by the non-cyclist. "But we're the good guys, they can't mean us". Personally, I try not to let my passion for cycling and bikes make me blind to non-cyclists' perceptions. If there is a stereotype my first question is not "why is this wrong?" but "why might this be right?"

For what it's worth, most people would look at how I dress and my bike and assume I have no road sense, hug the gutter, undertake left turning vehicles and pull out without looking. I don't in any way feel angry about that because a lot of the time they'd be right. I just make sure I prove them wrong about me.

 

[ferret fur]

The point you are spectacularly missing is that non-cyclsts don't actually notice what people are wearing. The 'lycra lout' tag comes about because people associate lycra with cycling and it is a useful alliteration. People don't go: 'Look, there is a cyclist, he/she is riding badly and is wearing lycra therefore people wearing lycra are bad cyclists. They go: 'Look there is a bad cyclist. Cyclists wear lycra in public whereas normal people don't. Therefore that is a 'lycra lout'

If cyclists wore tweed, despite its unsuitability for riding fast, then the epithet would be something like 'tweed tearaways' or whatever. It has absolutely nothing to do with the properties of the clothing people are wearing.

As I said earlier, I rarely, if ever wear lycra when I cycle to work, but colleagues will make reference to me being in lycra, because: Lycra=cyclist in most peoples eyes. The fact that you buy into the idea literally is a reflection of your own prejudice: as you said yourself:

When I see a mamil in town I assume either he's all gear and no idea or intends to ride unsuitably aggressively. And I am a cyclist.

No matter how much you try & backtrack it is your first statement which condemns you. Sorry

 

[brokenbetty]

The fact that you buy into the idea literally is a reflection of your own prejudice

Or my own experience, which you spectacularly fail to acknowledge.

 

[ferret fur]

Or my own experience bias, which you spectacularly fail to acknowledge.

fixed that for ya

 

[brokenbetty]

fixed that for ya

lost

Fixed that for ya