For sake of fairness

[brokenbetty]

So, what do you do when you see one approaching from behind? (assuming you actually look behind)

Remain in the sensible road position I am already in, which would be about 1m from the kerb or just beyond door width from any parked cars if the road is wide enough for a clean overtake, or a very firm primary if not.

And of course I look behind. Why ever would you think I wouldn't?

So, what do you do when you see one approaching from behind? (assuming you actually look behind)

 

[BentMikey]

According to lukesdad that would make you the inconsiderate and aggressive cyclist.

 

[boydj]

Not really. They've all just said "hey, I wear lycra and I'm not aggressive" (ironically, often quite aggressively )

I categorically believe that if you put the same person in lycra on a road bike and in normal clothes on a sit up and beg, they will not ride the same way in both situations. To claim otherwise is as silly as saying the same woman walks as fast in stilettos as she does in trainers because what you wear doesn't matter.

Probably true, but a bit of a non-sequitur. It still does not mean that the person in lycra on the road bike is going to be riding "aggressively" - faster, probably, more assertively possibly. I'm getting close to the far end of the 'middle-age' spectrum, and I commute in town, in lycra, on a road bike and I object strenuously to your generalisations.

 

[brokenbetty]

According to lukesdad that would make you the inconsiderate and aggressive cyclist.

Assertive, not aggressive. It can look similar to the untrained eye but with the former there's more smiling, less sweat and a friendly wave afterwards.

A useful field guide is if one feels one's face reddening one has probably crossed the boundary.

(BTW the reference is a bit lost on me- who is lukesdad?)

 

[BentMikey]

I wasn't being entirely serious...

 

[brokenbetty]

I wasn't being entirely serious...

Neither was I - if I use the pronoun "one" it usually means I'm joking...or I want to be extra patronising. And since even my normal level of patronising can strip paint, that's pretty damn patronising

 

[al78]

Not really. They've all just said "hey, I wear lycra and I'm not aggressive" (ironically, often quite aggressively )

I categorically believe that if you put the same person in lycra on a road bike and in normal clothes on a sit up and beg, they will not ride the same way in both situations. To claim otherwise is as silly as saying the same woman walks as fast in stilettos as she does in trainers because what you wear doesn't matter.

So you think that ability to cycle faster equates to cycling more aggressively?

 

[Bicycle]

This thread has now started to disappoint.

So many of these ones that promise so much early on just fade....

A few pages ago it had reached glass-shattering levels of pitch-perfect, screaming-mad dogma dressed as articulate debate.

I rubbed my hands together and waited for the big bang when the glow on the touchpaper reached the propellant.

But... Nothing....

It has descended instead into something not unlike tired prejudice mixed with the occasional burp of haughty indignation.

I just feel.... a little flat.

Please take unthinking bias, lazy assumption and hurried backtracking back to the dizzy heights they deserve to occupy.

This thread no longer entertains.

 

[ferret fur]

As I said earlier, I rarely, if ever wear lycra when I cycle to work

Not really. They've all just said "hey, I wear lycra and I'm not aggressive" (ironically, often quite aggressively )

really?

By the way, has anyone ever told you that you display classic passive-aggressive beahviour, even in your choice of bikes & the way you cycle?

 

[brokenbetty]

So you think that ability to cycle faster equates to cycling more aggressively?

I think aggression is a prerequisite for speed. Come on, you know this! For goodness sake, it's even in the terminology: bike geometry optimised for speed is described as aggressive and while a geometry for cruising is relaxed. That's not a coincidence.

Get the old adrenalin flowing and pump the pedals a bit harder. Weight forward to steer more sharply. Taking that fast line, holding your own in the traffic. It's fun. The problem is you don't turn on and off like a tap, so all that good adrenalin that got you flying along can go pretty bad if someone gets in your way. That's when the d-locks come out, and that's why I think fast cycling is rarely appropriate in the city.

 

[brokenbetty]

really?

By the way, has anyone ever told you that you display classic passive-aggressive beahviour, even in your choice of bikes & the way you cycle?

No - that must just be your thing.

 

[gaz]

I think fast cycling is rarely appropriate in the city.

What is your definition of fast?

 

[ferret fur]

I can't help noticing that your link is to a piece :

We certainly know that non-cyclists notice what we wear and treat us differently

which is about how people judge us by what we wear on a bike....& you are using it to support your argument?

 

[al78]

I think aggression is a prerequisite for speed. Come on, you know this! For goodness sake, it's even in the terminology: bike geometry optimised for speed is described as aggressive and while a geometry for cruising is relaxed. That's not a coincidence.

The word "aggression" here being used in two completely different contexts and thus have different meanings.

The problem is you don't turn on and off like a tap

Wrong. I am perfectly capable of speeding up and slowing down when conditions dictate. I doubt I am unusual here.