Chairman London Cycling Campaign

Pufftmw

How on earth did she get that role? Heard her on LBC this morning advocating for more women cyclists. That's absolutley fine & dandy but her reasons?

Too much testosterone from men in lycra!

By which she clearly meant that "they" were giving cyclists a bad name. She went on to espouse that women in pretty dresses would go a long way to reducing road rage and casualties by making the roads a somehow more fluffy and sunshiney :roll:

What century was she born in? In my experience, women are just as likely to jump red lights as men, especially those ones in pretty dresses. They can be equally agressive as well.

To top the lot, the Chairman of the LCC doesn't advocate the wearing of helmnts - its a choice thing. So what does she naively think will happen when an army of clueless (roadwise) women take to the roads in pretty dresses wearing no helmets? Well, any fool can see that it won't be a reduction in cyclist casualties, quite the reverse.

You did your cause and your campaign absolutely B all favours today and no doubt alienated a load more car drivers in the process.

Bloke after from Sustrans made a heck lot more sense.

Koncordski

That's why I don't give any money to the LCC but i do donate to Sustrans every month. I think she was following up from the Andrew Gilligan piece in the Standard but it's no surprise. The idea that we're all 'Cyclists' is tenous and shows that just like 'Motorists' we're actually all different groups of people lumped together.

Getting called aggressive and 'lycra louts' is par for the course. I'd argue that in London you need to have a certain level of aggressiveness to assert your right to be on the road. If you bimble about near the Kerb then you can expect to be squeezed off the road.

We do need a bigger cross section of people using bikes, old fogies keeping up their mobility and kids riding to school for example. What we don't need is name calling, all we're doing (young men in lycra) is getting to and from work more efficiently, something i'm not going to apologise for.

iPete

Following a bit of a fall I've been using PT (bleurgh) and my Brompton the last few days.

I've not listened but there is a point in there somewhere. The image of cyclists it not one that encourages 'normal' people to take part and is a massive block.

Leaving Waterloo this morning among the Brompton peleton I noticed that I was the only person in normal clothing, the only cycle gear I wear are gloves [if you don't count the rapha trousers and polo ]. Everyone else feels the need for lyrca/helmets/high viz etc. for what must be < 4 mile trips.

It is potting around on a bike, not going into battle.

davmaggs

I haven't heard the interview, but I'd say that part of the sentiment could well be true. If people in normal clothes did use bikes more then it would help it seem like a form of transport for getting about than a sports competition.

Cycling has definitely moved into being very gear/equipment orientated, and judging by the high-end bikes shops springing up its become a life-style for people wanting to spend serious money. If a driver started putting on special gloves and so on in order to go to work we would think that they were taking things a little too seriously.

I suppose part of the cycling campaign fraternity look across the water to Holland and see people using bikes as transport and they don't buy special clothing to do it. Somehow Britain has gone down a different path.

Gallywomack

I have some sympathy for the view that 'normal' people find cycling off-putting because they think they need lots of special gear - I'm sure we're all used to people being really impressed that we cycle to work, as if it's something akin to a polar expedition rather than getting on a bike and cycling a few miles. That said, it's obviously not fair to blame this on 'testosterone fuelled lycra louts' or whatever.

I think if they are looking to the Netherlands or Copenhagen, it's infrastructure that has to change first and the culture will follow. It's all very well wanting to encourage people to feel that hopping on a bike is normal and easy (and I support the concept wholeheartedly), but that feeling is likely to be seriously dampened after a few scary encounters with aggressive drivers.

il_principe

Pufftmw wrote:

To top the lot, the Chairman of the LCC doesn't advocate the wearing of helmnts - its a choice thing. So what does she naively think will happen when an army of clueless (roadwise) women take to the roads in pretty dresses wearing no helmets? Well, any fool can see that it won't be a reduction in cyclist casualties, quite the reverse.

And your evidence for this is where? Maybe you should have a read of this, helmets are not the issue.

When baseline trends in cycling related injury rates were considered, the overall rates of head injuries were not appreciably altered by helmet legislation. In the context of provincial and municipal safety campaigns, improvements to the cycling infrastructure, and the passive uptake of helmets, the incremental benefit of provincial helmet legislation to reduce admissions to hospital for head injuries is substantially uncertain.
After taking baseline trends into consideration, however, we were unable to detect an independent effect of legislation on the rate of hospital admissions for cycling related head injuries.

http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f2674

menthel

iPete wrote:

Following a bit of a fall I've been using PT (bleurgh) and my Brompton the last few days.

I've not listened but there is a point in there somewhere. The image of cyclists it not one that encourages 'normal' people to take part and is a massive block.

Leaving Waterloo this morning among the Brompton peloton I noticed that I was the only person in normal clothing, the only cycle gear I wear are gloves [if you don't count the rapha trousers and polo ]. Everyone else feels the need for lyrca/helmets/high viz etc. for what must be < 4 mile trips.

It is potting around on a bike, not going into battle.

No special kit for the man in the nice (wicking) rapha gear!

I couldn't do my 9 miles each way in normal clothes, I just sweat to much when trying to go any faster than a brisk walk and would reach work stinking.

This woman doesn't sound like the kind of representative that the LCC needed, although quite frankly no organisation could ever represent all cyclists, especially in a place like london. I don't want to be grouped together with the wobbly, shoaling nodders with their wonky tyres and lack of road awareness.

keyser__soze

What irritates me is the idea that male + lycra = aggression and bad behaviour/law-breaking. Proportionally given the number of people wearing normal clothes vs lycra, it's the non-lycra crowd that are far more likely to jump reds, ignore zebra crossings or cycle on the pavement, and it's not just "hoodie-wearing teenagers" round where I live, rather well-dressed middle-aged people with an air of entitlement about them.

cookeeemonster

Keyser__Soze wrote:

What irritates me is the idea that male + lycra = aggression and bad behaviour/law-breaking. Proportionally given the number of people wearing normal clothes vs lycra, it's the non-lycra crowd that are far more likely to jump reds, ignore zebra crossings or cycle on the pavement, and it's not just "hoodie-wearing teenagers" round where I live, rather well-dressed middle-aged people with an air of entitlement about them.

+10000

I see casually dressed women (and men) jump the reds/break the basic rules far more than the lycra lout stereotype idiots like to portray cyclists as.

And I'm not impressed by certain sections of the london cycle blog community that also like to divide cyclists into lycra wearing scum and oh so cool 'normal people' (normally hipster types if you look at their instagramed photos).

If I were rich enough to live near to where I work then yes, I'd be wearing casual clothes and cycling at less than half the speed I currently do...but I'm not a rich hipster with no responsibilities (kids!), so I can't.

If they want everyone in london to consider cycling they cant just concentrate on the inner boroughs, many of us live in the outer boroughs and you need to dress appropriately or spend 5 hours a day cycling at barely more than walking pace.

And I'm not even a fully paid up lycra wearer anyway, it just annoys me that people who should be on our side are trying to divide us in order to get on the daily fails side or something.

Headhuunter

iPete wrote:

Following a bit of a fall I've been using PT (bleurgh) and my Brompton the last few days.

I've not listened but there is a point in there somewhere. The image of cyclists it not one that encourages 'normal' people to take part and is a massive block.

Leaving Waterloo this morning among the Brompton peloton I noticed that I was the only person in normal clothing, the only cycle gear I wear are gloves [if you don't count the rapha trousers and polo ]. Everyone else feels the need for lyrca/helmets/high viz etc. for what must be < 4 mile trips.

It is potting around on a bike, not going into battle.

But if people want to wear all the gear for the 4 mile bimble home, why shouldn't they? It's a free country. No one says that someone who skiis on beginner slopes for example, shouldn't wear top of the range skiing gear and should probably just throw on a pair of waterproof trousers and jacket. I agree that it's pretty pointless wearing all the gear for a short ride but I resent people saying that I shouldn't do it simply because they don't want me to look like a "serious" cyclist or whatever their motivations are. However I think the majority of London riders are probably travelling further than 4 miles on their commute, London's a much bigger city than Amsterdam or Copenhagen and most young guys on bikes can't afford to live in zone 1 or even zone 2 so are travelling from much farther out...

sketchley

I'm no longer a member of LCC... cancelled this year. There was a lot right but also a lot wrong with thier approach, I found myself just not agreeing with them a lot of the time. At the end of the day they should be supporting London cyclists, the vast majority of whom are commuter cyclists who want to get to work quickly and easily, this should be thier focus and not trying to turn us all in to the dutch.... /rant

davmaggs

Sketchley wrote:

I'm no longer a member of LCC... cancelled this year. There was a lot right but also a lot wrong with thier approach, I found myself just not agreeing with them a lot of the time. At the end of the day they should be supporting London cyclists, the vast majority of whom are commuter cyclists who want to get to work quickly and easily, this should be thier focus and not trying to turn us all in to the dutch.... /rant

+1

I think there's something in what you say.

I think there's a proportion of the cycling advocacy (possible from an earlier era) that see the Dutch model as the one the UK should have, and I suspect they attach wider social issues/politics to cycling. For the modern London commuter though, being trapped in a curbed cycle lane or freewheeling behind maiden aunts would be hell. Cycling for the commuter is also probably not political either, they just want to get the miles done.

TheStone

Who are the LCC?
Do they differ from CTC? Sustrans? BC?

How many groups do we need?

sketchley

http://lcc.org.uk/

They do have some good stuff going on, but as above....

iPete

Headhuunter wrote:

iPete wrote:

Following a bit of a fall I've been using PT (bleurgh) and my Brompton the last few days.

I've not listened but there is a point in there somewhere. The image of cyclists it not one that encourages 'normal' people to take part and is a massive block.

Leaving Waterloo this morning among the Brompton peloton I noticed that I was the only person in normal clothing, the only cycle gear I wear are gloves [if you don't count the rapha trousers and polo ]. Everyone else feels the need for lyrca/helmets/high viz etc. for what must be < 4 mile trips.

It is potting around on a bike, not going into battle.

But if people want to wear all the gear for the 4 mile bimble home, why shouldn't they? It's a free country. No one says that someone who skiis on beginner slopes for example, shouldn't wear top of the range skiing gear and should probably just throw on a pair of waterproof trousers and jacket. I agree that it's pretty pointless wearing all the gear for a short ride but I resent people saying that I shouldn't do it simply because they don't want me to look like a "serious" cyclist or whatever their motivations are. However I think the majority of London riders are probably travelling further than 4 miles on their commute, London's a much bigger city than Amsterdam or Copenhagen and most young guys on bikes can't afford to live in zone 1 or even zone 2 so are travelling from much farther out...

If you were skiiing as a mode of transport to the shops and back to get some fags, then yes putting on your Sunday best might be a bit odd. I'm just pointing out that to the casual non-cyclist watching everyone dress up like they are on the TdF is off-putting.

People can do as they wish, I'm just saying how it looks.

I should add you'll normally find me commuting from outside zone 6, head to toe like I'm about to go on the TdF

Headhuunter

iPete wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

iPete wrote:

Following a bit of a fall I've been using PT (bleurgh) and my Brompton the last few days.

I've not listened but there is a point in there somewhere. The image of cyclists it not one that encourages 'normal' people to take part and is a massive block.

Leaving Waterloo this morning among the Brompton peloton I noticed that I was the only person in normal clothing, the only cycle gear I wear are gloves [if you don't count the rapha trousers and polo ]. Everyone else feels the need for lyrca/helmets/high viz etc. for what must be < 4 mile trips.

It is potting around on a bike, not going into battle.

But if people want to wear all the gear for the 4 mile bimble home, why shouldn't they? It's a free country. No one says that someone who skiis on beginner slopes for example, shouldn't wear top of the range skiing gear and should probably just throw on a pair of waterproof trousers and jacket. I agree that it's pretty pointless wearing all the gear for a short ride but I resent people saying that I shouldn't do it simply because they don't want me to look like a "serious" cyclist or whatever their motivations are. However I think the majority of London riders are probably travelling further than 4 miles on their commute, London's a much bigger city than Amsterdam or Copenhagen and most young guys on bikes can't afford to live in zone 1 or even zone 2 so are travelling from much farther out...

If you were skiiing as a mode of transport to the shops and back to get some fags, then yes putting on your Sunday best might be a bit odd. I'm just pointing out that to the casual non-cyclist watching everyone dress up like they are on the TdF is off-putting.

People can do as they wish, I'm just saying how it looks.

I should add you'll normally find me commuting from outside zone 6, head to toe like I'm about to go on the TdF

If people are put off cycling merely by the presence of other people in lycra then they're really not trying hard enough and trying to find excuses not to get on the bike! I have heard that you are a fellow lycra lout, I often watch out for you and the others on Embankment but I don't know what you all look like, I now ride from Blackfriars Bridge to Northumberland Ave on the Embankment but I suppose you lot are going in the opposite direction... But if you notice a tall guy on a Ribble with panniers give me a wave!

airbag

Gallywomack wrote:

I have some sympathy for the view that 'normal' people find cycling off-putting because they think they need lots of special gear - I'm sure we're all used to people being really impressed that we cycle to work, as if it's something akin to a polar expedition rather than getting on a bike and cycling a few miles. That said, it's obviously not fair to blame this on 'testosterone fuelled lycra louts' or whatever.

I think if they are looking to the Netherlands or Copenhagen, it's infrastructure that has to change first and the culture will follow. It's all very well wanting to encourage people to feel that hopping on a bike is normal and easy (and I support the concept wholeheartedly), but that feeling is likely to be seriously dampened after a few scary encounters with aggressive drivers.

It isn't "fair" to blame anyone who wears the get up for all the law breaking, no. But it is (possibly) the best tactic to adopt.

If aggression or negligence from motorists is what you're worried about (and I expect for most cyclists and even prospective cyclists, it's a concern), then encouraging more people to cycle should be a goal - you can tell people about how road tax doesn't pay for roads all you want, it won't help (in fact it's possibly worse since now they're pissed off at you for humiliating them). What makes people drive better around cyclists is increasing the number of motorists who either are cyclists or know cyclists, since now it's not a faceless uniformed twat you've just run over/harassed - it's someone who but for the grace of god was you, a friend of yours, or a loved one. Hence more people on bikes = better conditions, even ignoring the point that more cyclists = more power to ask for whatever cyclists want. And even without that, there are a lot of people who want more cyclists for other reasons (environmental, health, yadda yadda yadda).

If more cyclists is what you do want, then you want to target your efforts on encouraging the biggest pool of people with the weakest barriers to cycling. That's people who have shortish journeys not requiring spending the sort of budget most people would reserve for a car on looking like the bastard love-child of a pro racer, a construction worker, and (judging by the LEDs) prospective light show engineer. People who, as headhuunter said, "aren't trying hard enough". Life's complicated enough, most people aren't going to spend hours agonising over the merits of helmet cams and primary position - they're going to decide "urgh, that looks awful" and pay no further attention. And they'll probably think that wearing lycra = running the light, because that's what society says.

What's easier - try and challenge that assumption (something that requires mental effort they're unwilling to put in), or tell them they can hold that assumption and cycle anyway?

veronese68

I haven't listened to the interview, or anything she has said come to that. But reading this it sounds like she's trying to talk her organisation out of existence.
What kind of cyclist is more likely to pay to join a cycling organisation? An enthusiast who cycles to work and also in their spare time, and is likely to own lycra. Or, a person that views a bicycle merely as an alternative to the car or public transport on a sunny day because it's a bit cheaper and a bit quicker.
So, alienate the people that are more likely to join? Presumably exactly why Sketchley is no longer a member.

rick_chasey

Take a look at the average poster on here.

Male, middle aged, gets into petty arguments on the Internet.

She's trying to get more peopld into casual cycling. Where you wear normal clothes, don't work up much of a sweat, and don't race (however silly).

Who here can honestly say they haven't done a bit of shouting on the bike??

We will ride whatever. It's the flakers that need attention.

Southgate

I get enough sh..it from homicidal motorists without being demonised by fellow cyclists for the crime of... wearing the appropriate clothing for the activity! Do these same people hurl abuse at swimmers for wearing speedos and a rubber cap? Runners for wearing shorts and trainers? Football players for wearing studded shoes?

So why the heck do these 'garment police' think it OK to traduce my character, and on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, call me a law-breaking anti-social lout because I choose to wear lycra whilst riding my bike? The roads are dangerous enough as it is without these irresponsible ignorant bigots dehumanising another category of vulnerable road users. It's a short step on the accelerator from seeing a "lycra lout" blocking "your" road, to running him (or her) off it.

As a "normal recreational cyclist in normal clothes" graduates from riding a few miles per week to covering much longer distances, they will inevitably want to invest in purpose-made cycle clothing because it is more comfortable, more aerodynamic, more able to cope with the weather, and less smelly. It's not rocket science. Do people who go football training five days a week play in their suits?

sketchley

Rick Chasey wrote:

Take a look at the average poster on here.

Male, middle aged, gets into petty arguments on the Internet.

She's trying to get more peopld into casual cycling. Where you wear normal clothes, don't work up much of a sweat, and don't race (however silly).

Who here can honestly say they haven't done a bit of shouting on the bike??

We will ride whatever. It's the flakers that need attention.

I get the point, but I want to sign up to an organisation that represent me as a (fast) commuter cyclist. I want fast direct, uninterupted cycling, I don't want to be sent down side streets, forced into narrow cycle lanes, sent on diversions with multiple left / right / left / right like sustrans routes, I want fast direct transitions of junctions, I want to be passed the car and out of thier way not forced into the gutter or onto shared use pavements. Don't get me wrong I'm all for all of those things as there will encourage more "casual cycling" I'm just not a casual cyclist and neither are the majority of London commuters lets have a cycling campaign group that speak up for what we want / need to make London safer for us. That is not segregation or more casual cycling. I also get the argument that I need less "help", but surely all that means is improving things for majority of confident cyclist would in fact be quite cheap as we don't need much....

Southgate

airbag wrote:

It isn't "fair" to blame anyone who wears the get up for all the law breaking, no. But it is (possibly) the best tactic to adopt... And they'll probably think that wearing lycra = running the light, because that's what society says. What's easier - try and challenge that assumption (something that requires mental effort they're unwilling to put in), or tell them they can hold that assumption and cycle anyway?

So I am to be wrongly blamed for law-breaking because demonising me is a good way of encouraging other people to cycle? :roll:

No thanks mister! You don't help one group of cyclists by delegitimising another.

People are reluctant to take up cycling mainly because they think it's dangerous, which it is to some extent. The message ought to be that the dangers are exaggerated (and there are some sensible precautions you can take to reduce the risk), and you don't need special clothes or an expensive bike to participate. As you get fitter and cycle longer distances you may want to upgrade your bike and buy some lycra, but for short local journeys of a few hundred yards to a few miles, you can just wear your normal everyday clothes.

ugo.santalucia

When they opened the position a ferw years back, I was a bit shocked to find out it was on a 60K salary... :shock:

Headhuunter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Take a look at the average poster on here.

Male, middle aged, gets into petty arguments on the Internet.

She's trying to get more peopld into casual cycling. Where you wear normal clothes, don't work up much of a sweat, and don't race (however silly).

Who here can honestly say they haven't done a bit of shouting on the bike??

We will ride whatever. It's the flakers that need attention.

I don't think anyone's disagreeing that it would be nice to make cycling in London more accessible to women and people "wearing normal clothes", what I and others take umbrage to is that she apparently demonises young (or middle aged) male cyclists in lycra, inferring that they are testosterone charged idiots always breaking the law. She makes this statement based on what evidence? I should say that I haven't actually heard or seen the interview so I've no idea of the actual words she uses but surely there's a way to make your point without making snide and unsupported statements about other types of cyclist....

rick_chasey

Headhuunter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Take a look at the average poster on here.

Male, middle aged, gets into petty arguments on the Internet.

She's trying to get more peopld into casual cycling. Where you wear normal clothes, don't work up much of a sweat, and don't race (however silly).

Who here can honestly say they haven't done a bit of shouting on the bike??

We will ride whatever. It's the flakers that need attention.

I don't think anyone's disagreeing that it would be nice to make cycling in London more accessible to women and people "wearing normal clothes", what I and others take umbrage to is that she apparently demonises young (or middle aged) male cyclists in lycra, inferring that they are testosterone charged idiots always breaking the law. She makes this statement based on what evidence? I should say that I haven't actually heard or seen the interview so I've no idea of the actual words she uses but surely there's a way to make your point without making snide and unsupported statements about other types of cyclist....

Think demonising is a little strong.

A lot of people feel that way about cyclists. I think she's trying to say "look, when we say cycle, we don't mean that thing you hate, y'know, with shouty men in the lycra etc but something that's easy and flexible and even something you can do in your dress". Which is correct. And that is something many people don't think. If all the cyclists they see are men in lycra sweating like priests in a whorehouse, then no wonder.


Think we all should be a bit less sensitive .

rick_chasey

Sketchley wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Take a look at the average poster on here.

Male, middle aged, gets into petty arguments on the Internet.

She's trying to get more peopld into casual cycling. Where you wear normal clothes, don't work up much of a sweat, and don't race (however silly).

Who here can honestly say they haven't done a bit of shouting on the bike??

We will ride whatever. It's the flakers that need attention.

I get the point, but I want to sign up to an organisation that represent me as a (fast) commuter cyclist. I want fast direct, uninterupted cycling, I don't want to be sent down side streets, forced into narrow cycle lanes, sent on diversions with multiple left / right / left / right like sustrans routes, I want fast direct transitions of junctions, I want to be passed the car and out of thier way not forced into the gutter or onto shared use pavements. Don't get me wrong I'm all for all of those things as there will encourage more "casual cycling" I'm just not a casual cyclist and neither are the majority of London commuters lets have a cycling campaign group that speak up for what we want / need to make London safer for us. That is not segregation or more casual cycling. I also get the argument that I need less "help", but surely all that means is improving things for majority of confident cyclist would in fact be quite cheap as we don't need much....

You won't find many organisations that are successful in promoting cycling as a genuine and first choice mode of transport for the majority of short journeys AND promoting the cause of the vehicular cyclist.

And although the vehicular cyclist may make a majority of current cyclists, I'd imagine the desire to behave that way across the general population is decidedly limited.

In nations where cycling is a popular mode of transport, the vehicular cyclist is in the distinct minority.

Like I said before, the lycra clad boy-racer equivalent cyclist will always ride, regardless of either the traffic or weather conditions. This forum is testament to it. So why bother pandering to us? We already ride. We are already a problem solved in their eyes. Apart from the off-putting image to the non-cycling population. Go after the people who don't want to cycle.

keyser__soze

Probably because people on here are worried about some of the proposals and how it affects them, particularly around segregation and the enforcement of the belief that cyclists 'belong' in the cycle lanes and off the main roads - plenty of articles on the Copenhagenize blogs highlighting this attitude exists in drivers in Denmark and other cycling-friendly nations where there's 'segregated' provision alongside the road. They don't want shoe-horning in a 'segregated' lane that's about 2ft wide in either direction (Cable St or the atrocious A316 segregated cycle lane where you have to give way to side-roads and even people's driveways every 100 yards?) and makes overtaking safely incredibly difficult. Huge disparity in cyclists' speeds. Cycling provision must be about providing adequately for everyone from current long-distance 'vehicular' cyclists to families, children, potterers, and not removing access or hindering progress.

Headhuunter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Take a look at the average poster on here.

Male, middle aged, gets into petty arguments on the Internet.

She's trying to get more peopld into casual cycling. Where you wear normal clothes, don't work up much of a sweat, and don't race (however silly).

Who here can honestly say they haven't done a bit of shouting on the bike??

We will ride whatever. It's the flakers that need attention.

I don't think anyone's disagreeing that it would be nice to make cycling in London more accessible to women and people "wearing normal clothes", what I and others take umbrage to is that she apparently demonises young (or middle aged) male cyclists in lycra, inferring that they are testosterone charged idiots always breaking the law. She makes this statement based on what evidence? I should say that I haven't actually heard or seen the interview so I've no idea of the actual words she uses but surely there's a way to make your point without making snide and unsupported statements about other types of cyclist....

Think demonising is a little strong.

A lot of people feel that way about cyclists. I think she's trying to say "look, when we say cycle, we don't mean that thing you hate, y'know, with shouty men in the lycra etc but something that's easy and flexible and even something you can do in your dress". Which is correct. And that is something many people don't think. If all the cyclists they see are men in lycra sweating like priests in a whorehouse, then no wonder.


Think we all should be a bit less sensitive .

I don't think it's sensitivity, it's perpetuating a stereotypical view of cyclists in London held by white van and minicab man and because it comes from a cycling organisation it's almost legitimising what these people already believe that cyclists shouldn't be on the road and are always breaking the law (unless they're girly girls in flowery skirts on Pashleys)

Headhuunter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Take a look at the average poster on here.

Male, middle aged, gets into petty arguments on the Internet.

She's trying to get more peopld into casual cycling. Where you wear normal clothes, don't work up much of a sweat, and don't race (however silly).

Who here can honestly say they haven't done a bit of shouting on the bike??

We will ride whatever. It's the flakers that need attention.

I get the point, but I want to sign up to an organisation that represent me as a (fast) commuter cyclist. I want fast direct, uninterupted cycling, I don't want to be sent down side streets, forced into narrow cycle lanes, sent on diversions with multiple left / right / left / right like sustrans routes, I want fast direct transitions of junctions, I want to be passed the car and out of thier way not forced into the gutter or onto shared use pavements. Don't get me wrong I'm all for all of those things as there will encourage more "casual cycling" I'm just not a casual cyclist and neither are the majority of London commuters lets have a cycling campaign group that speak up for what we want / need to make London safer for us. That is not segregation or more casual cycling. I also get the argument that I need less "help", but surely all that means is improving things for majority of confident cyclist would in fact be quite cheap as we don't need much....

You won't find many organisations that are successful in promoting cycling as a genuine and first choice mode of transport for the majority of short journeys AND promoting the cause of the vehicular cyclist.

And although the vehicular cyclist may make a majority of current cyclists, I'd imagine the desire to behave that way across the general population is decidedly limited.

In nations where cycling is a popular mode of transport, the vehicular cyclist is in the distinct minority.

Like I said before, the lycra clad boy-racer equivalent cyclist will always ride, regardless of either the traffic or weather conditions. This forum is testament to it. So why bother pandering to us? We already ride. We are already a problem solved in their eyes. Apart from the off-putting image to the non-cycling population. Go after the people who don't want to cycle.

But you can make that point without reinforcing "lycra clad boy racer" cyclist stereotypes... That's what I object to

cookeeemonster

Headhuunter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Take a look at the average poster on here.

Male, middle aged, gets into petty arguments on the Internet.

She's trying to get more peopld into casual cycling. Where you wear normal clothes, don't work up much of a sweat, and don't race (however silly).

Who here can honestly say they haven't done a bit of shouting on the bike??

We will ride whatever. It's the flakers that need attention.

I don't think anyone's disagreeing that it would be nice to make cycling in London more accessible to women and people "wearing normal clothes", what I and others take umbrage to is that she apparently demonises young (or middle aged) male cyclists in lycra, inferring that they are testosterone charged idiots always breaking the law. She makes this statement based on what evidence? I should say that I haven't actually heard or seen the interview so I've no idea of the actual words she uses but surely there's a way to make your point without making snide and unsupported statements about other types of cyclist....

Think demonising is a little strong.

A lot of people feel that way about cyclists. I think she's trying to say "look, when we say cycle, we don't mean that thing you hate, y'know, with shouty men in the lycra etc but something that's easy and flexible and even something you can do in your dress". Which is correct. And that is something many people don't think. If all the cyclists they see are men in lycra sweating like priests in a whorehouse, then no wonder.


Think we all should be a bit less sensitive .

I don't think it's sensitivity, it's perpetuating a stereotypical view of cyclists in London held by white van and minicab man and because it comes from a cycling organisation it's almost legitimising what these people already believe that cyclists shouldn't be on the road and are always breaking the law (unless they're girly girls in flowery skirts on Pashleys)

Yep I agree with this, wonder if it'll be worth emailing her...

Headhuunter

Keyser__Soze wrote:

Probably because people on here are worried about some of the proposals and how it affects them, particularly around segregation and the enforcement of the belief that cyclists 'belong' in the cycle lanes and off the main roads - plenty of articles on the Copenhagenize blogs highlighting this attitude exists in drivers in Denmark and other cycling-friendly nations where there's 'segregated' provision alongside the road. They don't want shoe-horning in a 'segregated' lane that's about 2ft wide in either direction (Cable St or the atrocious A316 segregated cycle lane where you have to give way to side-roads and even people's driveways every 100 yards?) and makes overtaking safely incredibly difficult. Huge disparity in cyclists' speeds. Cycling provision must be about providing adequately for everyone from current long-distance 'vehicular' cyclists to families, children, potterers, and not removing access or hindering progress.

I agree with this.... As you say, I don't want to be shoehorned into a 2 ft wide cycle lane, stuck behind Pashley girl having a chat with her friend.

Also as soon as some kind of segregated system is implemented, motorists get even more aggressive around you if you don't use it, they believe you have even LESS right to the road.

A clear example of this is Grange Rd in Bermondsey, after the Dunton Rd junction, the road used to be 2 lanes wide, with the left lane a bus lane as the road bends round. Now they have removed the bus lane, created 1 car lane and an extra wide pavement with a cycle lane that runs for about 100m. It's on a bend and now, if you don't swerve off the road onto the 100m cycle lane then swerve back onto the road when it ends, ie if you stay on the 1 lane "car" lane, you end up with drivers either backed up behind you if you try to take the lane or trying to squeeze past you dangerously... It was so much better with the bus lane, so much safer (IMO)