Article: Beware the Lone Wolf in Lycra

[jules21]

That said it is interesting the observation made about the clothing.....

i ride shared paths extensively. i've seen tons of bad behaviour by cyclists, and made my share of mistakes. i completely disagree with the stereotype of lycra-clad riders being the most dangerous. sure, there is some truth in slow riders being less of a threat - that's obvious. but i've seen just as much shocking behaviour by "commuter" types. and pedestrians, for the record.

i ride my roadie on shared paths occasionally - usually when i'm racing on a given day. it is fitted with a bell and i use it. i'm probably an exception though.

[roller]

Lycra ban is 'un-Australian' say cyclists

By Wayne Flower and Phillip Hudson - The Advertiser May 07, 2010

A CALL for a controversial ban on wearing lycra in public has split opinion and sparked outrage from the cyclist community who labelled it a political stunt.
Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi yesterday sparked outrage after he called for the common cycling clothing to be banned following an earlier close shave on a Sydney bike path by a lycra clad man.

Writing on his personal blog, the outspoken senator said lycra was "emerging as the preferred disguise of bandits and n'er do wells".

He wants to see it banned, but also because it prevents cyclists from interacting in normal day-to-day life.

"The lycra isolates some Australians from others," he wrote, "It is un-Australian - and it's symbolic barrier is far greater than the measure of cloth it is created from. For safety and for society, lycra needs to be banned."

However Assisting Shift in Multicultural Australia director Janine Evans, who is a cyclist, said it was too simplistic to say that lycra did not fit into Australian society.

"To say it doesn't fit with our way of life and culture shuts the door to cyclists becoming active members of society," she said.

Other cyclist groups dismissed the call as a political stunt aimed at tapping into anti-cyclist sentiment.

Senator Bernardi's comments were backed by security experts but Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said while there was "understandable concern in the community" about people wearing lycra, a ban was not Coalition policy.

Cycling Australia Association's Keysar Trad rejected the call as ignorant and said it was a political stunt.

Wearing lycra actually helped people to exercise, whereas a ban would only force them indoors on where they'd "miss out on the vitamin D".

"It's tantamount to denying them the right to drive, the right to enjoy all the services of society as well as equal opportunity," Mr Trad said.

In France, a bid to ban the lycra from public places was about President Nicolas Sarkozy trying to win anti-cyclist votes, Mr Trad said.

Former Victoria Police deputy commissioner Bob Falconer said most police were reluctant to search suspects wearing lycra.

[human909]

That said it is interesting the observation made about the clothing.....

i ride shared paths extensively. i've seen tons of bad behaviour by cyclists, and made my share of mistakes. i completely disagree with the stereotype of lycra-clad riders being the most dangerous. sure, there is some truth in slow riders being less of a threat - that's obvious. but i've seen just as much shocking behaviour by "commuter" types. and pedestrians, for the record.

i ride my roadie on shared paths occasionally - usually when i'm racing on a given day. it is fitted with a bell and i use it. i'm probably an exception though.

I also don't agree that the lycra-clad riders are the most dangerous. I also see shocking behaviour by "commuter" types. and pedestrians. But to deny that Lycra wearers have a stereotype is about as silly as denying that fixie riders have a stereotype. Or recumbents for that matter!

My Lycra Stereotype (generalisation)
Cycling is SERIOUS. I must take things SERIOUSLY! I must wear the RIGHT clothes with the RIGHT gloves and the RIGHT shoes. Smiling is too takes too much energy that could be otherwise used for more performance! As long as I obey the rules of the path, the road and follow red lights then I am riding safely. Breaking rules is bad!
(IMO the one and only dangerous behaviour that I have observed regularly of Lycra road riders is their tendency not to look anywhere but straight ahead. Their faith in the competency of drivers behind them amazes me.)

That is the problem though than non cyclists see about Lycra clad cyclists. They do seem unfriendly and impersonal. That contrasts significantly with people wearing regular clothes. None of my comments are intended to offended or denigrate people who wear Lycra. However I consider it VERY important to recognise how others view the image you project. Denial of this doesn't achieve anything.


My Fixie-Commuter Stereotype (FOX-Restoring the Balance!)
Chill man! Cycling is a way of life! It doesn't matter how fast you get somewhere, as long as you do it on a bike and in style. Road rules are for capitalists fascists. Red lights are for cars. Footpaths are as good as a road...

[Lukeyboy]

What's next, baning yoga pants.

[yarravalleyplodder]

well as a football fan (world game) I am used to these kind of opinion pieces and even articles being reported as researched news pieces based on nothing but stereo types and designed to re-enforce said stereo types and annoy those who are pigeonholed in those types.

You need to let these things slide, there are bad pedestrians, cyclists and even football fans (they usually follow melbourne heart ) out there who ruin it for the majority, because the vast majority do the right thing, that is use these shared pathways with care, looking out for the dog not on a lead, the group of pedestrians walking 3, 4, 5 or even 6 abreast even as you ding your bell, yell "passing" even "excuse me" because in the end its in everyone's interest to avoid a collision and thats what you need to do.

Thats why my average speed tumbles on shared paths and why I tend to stick to roads as I wish to go faster and in most cases on the road people accept there are rules and most stick to them making the roads more predictable in my opinion.

In the end this opinion piece has done what it set out to do, re-enforce opinions of some, infuriate others and spark debate, the age would be spewing that this debate has occurred on this forum and not on their website

Just ignore it and move on, "nothing to see here"

[ausrandoman]

I sometimes walk and sometimes ride on shared (pedestrian and cyclist) bike paths. In either case, I have notice much the same as the writer in The Age.

[g-boaf]

What's next, baning yoga pants.

No, just a ban on mock articles being too obvious. Nice try to the creative author though.

Around my part of the world, the cyclists are all pretty good. There are a few fast ones - but they also leave plenty of room and ride safely. The menace is usually the black-clad motorised bicycle or motorbike rider. Or even the quad-bike rider. See the first two examples often enough, and the third thankfully for everyones sake is much more rare. Motorbikes doing 60km/h or better belong on the roads. I used to get angry with them, but I now just acknowledge them with a polite wave. Getting annoyed with them doesn't achieve anything.

Perhaps I might even consider lobbying the local council to allow smaller motorbikes on the shared path through the reserve. All to demonstrate the spirit of sharing.

[blkmcs]

Who really cares about the umbrella remark. I face that problem every time I'm in the city when it rains.

It's not the umbrella per se that bothers me. It's the acceptability of vigilante action that is implied (she was not suggesting just using an umbrella but sticking it out at 'right angles' ie poking into the passing cyclist). Public acceptance of vigilante action towards cyclists just for being there, wearing lycra, is the sort of thing that readers may well extend into their driving realm.

She was not suggesting sticking the umbrella into passing cyclists, rather using it to mark out her space to ensure that passing cyclists passed at a safe distance.
The same sort of approach as cyclists using safety flags or wings to ensure motorists keep a safe distance.

http://www.cantitoeroad.com/index.php?r ... uct_id=129

[sogood]

Replace "pedestrian" by "cyclist" and "cyclist" by "tin can driver" and recognise there are idiots in any crowd... Then we'll all have a better understanding of the perspectives.

[familyguy]

I ride the path she refers to. If its the corner I think it is (under the bus stop), its narrow, and divided into three (ped path, cyclist uphill, cyclist downhill). It's also a T-intersection, that for peds means crossing the bike-only lanes at the bottom of a good sized hill. No surprises she's been spooked there. It's not badly designed, but it's badly approached by riders and peds on a daily basis.

Jim

[g-boaf]

I ride the path she refers to. If its the corner I think it is (under the bus stop), its narrow, and divided into three (ped path, cyclist uphill, cyclist downhill). It's also a T-intersection, that for peds means crossing the bike-only lanes at the bottom of a good sized hill. No surprises she's been spooked there. It's not badly designed, but it's badly approached by riders and peds on a daily basis.

Jim

Some of the shared paths I use have some pretty hazardous sections (eg, a blind and narrow corner). Fortunately they've seen fit to put mirrors up so you can see around the corner - but it's still risky and I prefer to take it slow. Pedestrians never use that area though, it's just about exclusively bikes.

[il padrone]

She was not suggesting sticking the umbrella into passing cyclists, rather using it to mark out her space

OK, your interpretation. I read it differently and strongly doubt this was the real suggestion.

[outnabike]

She shouldn't have a right to stir up violence. By her statement of sticking an umbrella towards us, you can bet that someone will actually do that. The author of course won't take any responsibility for it. She'll sit back in her armchair, looking smug.

I think everyone is getting hot under the collar for no reason. Or just trying to inflame a non-issue. Read the umbrella remark in context. The article is written in a light, ironic sense, and the umbrella comment is written in that light as well. Anyone with an ounce of intellegence would realise that the columnist has no intention of actually taking an umbrella on her morning walks. She has a far more effective weapon; farewelling hubby in the middle of the path!

FWIW In principle I agree with her sentiments about inconsiderate cyclists. I have also been a victim both on and off the bike. (I'm a slow transport rider). Almost been knocked off by a speedster on the SHB, shaved within an inch of my life by group rides, been forced off the bike by oncoming groups who don't move to their side of the path etc. Dress is irrelevant, however the offenders generally tend to be wearing lycra. But that's to be expected, as most of the cyclists I see are lycra wearing. The term "Lycra" just give people a short-cut handle to describe a group of people that behave badly. It could be red hair (sorry Julia), or blue eyes (sorry Sinatra). Once again the actions of a few taint the reputation of many.

+1

[AUbicycles]

Mod Says, all of the racist associations I have spotted have been removed. Please read the rules. Whether the offensive terms are intended as a reference or example doesn't matter, they don't belong here on this forum which welcomes people from diverse backgrounds, united by cycling.

[K2]

Um, unfortunate that this follows the previous warning. Hope it doesn't cross any lines...


Tis strange how varied different folks' reactions are to a piece of obvious filler in a newspaper.

Some are incensed about the umbrella, others the singling out of lycra, whilst some agree in both a general sense and in particular.

Me....I just couldn't get past her poor husband being outted as someone who struggles to fit into his dress [2nd paragraph]. And the poor chap's been trying so hard too, apparently.

[ILMB]

...
Me....I just couldn't get past her poor husband being outted as someone who struggles to fit into his dress [2nd paragraph]. And the poor chap's been trying so hard too, apparently.

[DentedHead]

Me....I just couldn't get past her poor husband being outted as someone who struggles to fit into his dress [2nd paragraph]. And the poor chap's been trying so hard too, apparently.

This cheered me up no end. I literally cracked up!
Have a cookie

Dent.

[bigfriendlyvegan]

[Mulger bill]

Interesting "pectoral" development on Jeff. Testosterone abundance or lack?...

[greyhoundtom]

:o Interesting "pectoral" development on Jeff. Testosterone abundance or lack?...

Neutrois..........that way you can portray both sides of the coin.

[Chuck]

That said it is interesting the observation made about the clothing.....

This is pretty much the generalisation that keeps getting perpetuated.

The OP has plenty of form perpetuating the negative lycra stereotype. The reason for starting this thread is quite transparent.

[fatdudeonabike]

I was initially going to write a sarcastic response about the small-mindedness of generalising and putting people into boxes - then I saw who the author was, and I realised that this is exactly how her industry views people.

I only wonder if, as a driver, she's ever considered the opposite - how under siege we are frequently made to feel riding on roads, which we're entitled to ride on. Her attitude towards cyclists seems to indicate she's one of many reasons that we stick to bike paths or shared paths where we can.

[g-boaf]

That said it is interesting the observation made about the clothing.....

This is pretty much the generalisation that keeps getting perpetuated.

The OP has plenty of form perpetuating the negative lycra stereotype. The reason for starting this thread is quite transparent.

It's interesting that there are two parallel topics going at the moment which carry much the same negative stereotype in one form or another. Has lycra become the new replacement for mandatory helmet laws discussion?

[Xplora]

Has lycra become the new replacement for mandatory helmet laws discussion?

ZING

[Nobody]

I only wonder if, as a driver, she's ever considered the opposite - how under siege we are frequently made to feel riding on roads, which we're entitled to ride on. Her attitude towards cyclists seems to indicate she's one of many reasons that we stick to bike paths or shared paths where we can.

Agree.

On bike paths I'm more in control of whether I get seriously injured by others negligence than on the road.