IT article about cycling in Dublin

Yakuza

Some analysis of the issues facing Dublin cyclists. All well known to members of this parish, but perhaps some coverage in a national paper might raise some general awareness of them.

The video that accompanies it refers to the fact that not many drivers know its not mandatory to use cycle lanes any more, something I know I've come across a few times on my commutes into the city centre (including one Garda).

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/cycling-in-dublin-the-next-stage-1.1766801?page=1

Cookie_Monster

Yakuza wrote: »

The video that accompanies it refers to the fact that not many drivers know its not mandatory to use cycle lanes any more, something I know I've come across a few times on my commutes into the city centre (including one Garda).
]

Personally I hate this excuse. Single biggest reason to have 5 or 10 year retests so you can test people for this complete ignorance of recent law changes and get them off the road until they are actually willing to learn the rules.

Jawgap

"The European Cycling Federation will hold its agm in Dublin next week"

Should be a 'fun' week.......with all those European types clogging up the place

mitosis

far fewer women than men cycle. In Dublin, women account for about 25 per cent of cyclists.

If more women cycled more men might. Also, if we can enact regulations to force more women onto business boards, and more into the Dail, cannot we make more women cyclists obligatory?

Women are not comfortable on a saddle, or arriving to work feeling dishevelled.

hfallada

There needs to be more places to lock a bike in Dublin. I know in the summer DCC put up temporary bike racks on streets like Capel Street which helps. But you rarely find a place to lock a bike in Dublin. Yet there are massive footpaths in the city as DCC have removed half the parking from the street. But didnt bother to put up a bike rack

But even state owned buildings have a car park but not a place to lock a bike(although the new mater has a bike rack right outside the door). If you go to Germany all the children cycle to school. There is a massive place to lock your bike under the school and huge amount of bike racks on the grounds of the school. No one drops there children to school. Also private business have places to lock your bike in front of their shops

nak

mitosis wrote: »

Women are not comfortable on a saddle, or arriving to work feeling dishevelled.

Disheveled? I arrive at work everyday looking Euro Doesn't stop me getting funny looks from some of my colleagues though.

eeeee

mitosis wrote: »

Women are not comfortable on a saddle, or arriving to work feeling dishevelled.

Yeah…..that's bullcrap :pac: I am plenty comfy in my saddle thank you very much! And I don't arrive feeling disheveled, I fell sweaty. A lot. I have never gotten over my aversion to not going 90 everywhere. I start out all 'just a quiet, easy commute, no need to burst yourself'….which lasts about 3 mins!

There are a dearth of women on bikes though, and there are a lot on big heavy slow walk through bikes. Maybe there should be someone following them around with a racer to see if they'd like a go…er, maybe not! If they try one they would totally convert. I will selflessly offer up my services as woman racer chaser! :pac:

dmfod

mitosis wrote: »

Women are not comfortable on a saddle, or arriving to work feeling dishevelled.

Well there's a sweeping sexist generalisation. Speaking as a woman who is entirely comfortable on a saddle and currently cycles 15km to work I beg to differ!

It's true that women are more deterred than men from cycling to work though, partly because of the disproportionately higher standards of workplace presentation for women. Men are not expected to wear make up or to blow dry and style their hair.

In my new workplace, everybody else I've seen who cycles to work is male and there was universal astonishment from my female co-workers that I would cycle so far everyday.

Better provisions for showers and changing facilities would obviously help. For instance in my new job, there is only one shower in the women's toilets which seems to almost never used. It has no working separate light, meaning you have to shower semi in the dark by the light coming in over the top of the door and there's hardly any room to get changed beside it and no mirror so you have to come out bedraggled into the main toilets area to get ready.

It was much the same story in my last workplace, with only about an inch of wet ground beside the shower for you to get changed in. Who designs this stuff?!?

RobertFoster

Your plan to get women to jump on you seems to have worked, mitosis

Pawn

Yakuza wrote: »

the fact that not many drivers know its not mandatory to use cycle lanes any more

- Hi Pat, why are you blocking all the traffic when you have a perfect cycling lane build just for you to use?

- Because I can and I don't care.

dmfod

gadetra wrote: »

There are a dearth of women on bikes though, and there are a lot on big heavy slow walk through bikes. Maybe there should be someone following them around with a racer to see if they'd like a go…er, maybe not! If they try one they would totally convert. I will selflessly offer up my services as woman racer chaser! :pac:

That's so true! Why is that I wonder? When men buy bikes they generally seem to go for the fastest best performing models they can afford whereas we get those godawful "Princess" bikes marketed at us and proportionately more women seem to struggle around on ancient bikes with hardly any gears.

Is it that even a lot of the minority of women sufficiently immune to gender norms to cycle in the first place are still culturally conditioned not to want to appear 'masculine' by cycling too fast or being 'sporty'?

No Pants

Pawn wrote: »

you have a perfect cycling lane build just for you to use?

I've never had this conversation, but if it was initiated, I'd ask that they show me where it is.

mitosis

gadetra wrote: »

Yeah…..that's bullcrap :pac: I am plenty comfy in my saddle thank you very much! And I don't arrive feeling disheveled, I fell sweaty. A lot. I have never gotten over my aversion to not going 90 everywhere. I start out all 'just a quiet, easy commute, no need to burst yourself'….which lasts about 3 mins!

There are a dearth of women on bikes though, and there are a lot on big heavy slow walk through bikes. Maybe there should be someone following them around with a racer to see if they'd like a go…er, maybe not! If they try one they would totally convert. I will selflessly offer up my services as woman racer chaser! :pac:

Where did I say ALL WOMEN?

monument

dmfod wrote: »

That's so true! Why is that I wonder? When men buy bikes they generally seem to go for the fastest best performing models they can afford whereas we get those godawful "Princess" bikes marketed at us and proportionately more women seem to struggle around on ancient bikes with hardly any gears.

Err... What do you mean by "struggle" around?

Anybody that I know who cycles these types of apparently "godawful" bikes, love their bikes.

dmfod wrote: »

Is it that even a lot of the minority of women sufficiently immune to gender norms to cycle in the first place are still culturally conditioned not to want to appear 'masculine' by cycling too fast or being 'sporty'?

Study after study manly puts it down to road conditions and perceptions of danger.

mitosis

dmfod wrote: »

Well there's a sweeping sexist generalisation. Speaking as a woman who is entirely comfortable on a saddle and currently cycles 15km to work I beg to differ!

It's true that women are more deterred than men from cycling to work though, partly because of the disproportionately higher standards of workplace presentation for women. Men are not expected to wear make up or to blow dry and style their hair.

In my new workplace, everybody else I've seen who cycles to work is male and there was universal astonishment from my female co-workers that I would cycle so far everyday.

Better provisions for showers and changing facilities would obviously help. For instance in my new job, there is only one shower in the women's toilets which seems to almost never used. It has no working separate light, meaning you have to shower semi in the dark by the light coming in over the top of the door and there's hardly any room to get changed beside it and no mirror so you have to come out bedraggled into the main toilets area to get ready.

It was much the same story in my last workplace, with only about an inch of wet ground beside the shower for you to get changed in. Who designs this stuff?!?

Are you just sitting at your keyboard hoping for an opportunity to be offended? Do you not shower when you get to work - given you say the shower is almost never used but you cycle 15km in every day?

Are your female co-workers also guilty of sexism?

dreamerb

mitosis wrote: »

Women are not comfortable on a saddle, or arriving to work feeling dishevelled.

mitosis wrote: »

Where did I say ALL WOMEN?

Well, the sweeping generalisation of the first post does kinda imply "all".

And fwiw, more women than men in my workplace cycle to work regularly. Including me, three women usually to almost always cycle and only one man; another woman cycles fairly regularly in late spring through early autumn.

mitosis

dreamerb wrote: »

Well, the sweeping generalisation of the first post does kinda imply "all".

And fwiw, more women than men in my workplace cycle to work regularly. Including me, three women usually to almost always cycle and only one man; another woman cycles fairly regularly in late spring through early autumn.

What's your point? The study shows only 1 in 4 cyclists are female, obviously what happens in your workplace is not representative. I presume the business next door has 16 men cycling every day and no women.

I don't understand - not selecting you in isolation, btw - why each individual thinks their experience is representative of all people's.

dmfod

monument wrote: »

Err... What do you mean by "struggle" around?

It's much harder to cycle with old bikes with few gears than modern multi-gear bikes. Gears make cycling up hills easier, therefore less of a struggle.

monument wrote: »

Study after study manly puts it down to road conditions and perceptions of danger.

That would explain the low numbers of women cycling, not the choice of bike when they do cycle - unless women perceive slower bikes as safer but I don't think you're arguing that?

The whole concept of "Princess" bikes just irritates me - like any essentially gender neutral product that gets 'feminised' for marketing purposes by colouring it pink or spraying perfume on it.

No Pants

dmfod wrote: »

The whole concept of "Princess" bikes just irritates me - like any essentially gender neutral product that gets 'feminised' for marketing purposes by colouring it pink or spraying perfume on it.

If women didn't buy them, no one would make them.

tomasrojo

No Pants wrote: »

If women didn't buy them, no one would make them.

Robust bikes with three or so gears and built-in lights are good for short urban journeys. Ask any dublinbike user. No particular reason they should be made more feminine, but if some women want that, I don't see any harm.

No Pants

tomasrojo wrote: »

Robust bikes with three or so gears and built-in lights are good for short urban journeys. Ask any dublinbike user. No particular reason they should be made more feminine, but if some women want that, I don't see any harm.

Me neither. I'm more pointing out the futility of complaining about the existence of such bikes.

tomasrojo

So you are. I quoted the wrong poster. Small children are vying with me for control of this keyboard.

dreamerb

mitosis wrote: »

What's your point? The study shows only 1 in 4 cyclists are female, obviously what happens in your workplace is not representative. I presume the business next door has 16 men cycling every day and no women.

I don't understand - not selecting you in isolation, btw - why each individual thinks their experience is representative of all people's.

It's not a point, it's just random trivia. I just mentioned my unrepresentative workplace because I think it's very mildly interesting that it's so wildly deviating from the norms.

I don't think my experience is representative of all people's and I'm not really sure how you arrived at that conclusion. And now I'm going cycling.

dmfod

mitosis wrote: »

Are you just sitting at your keyboard hoping for an opportunity to be offended? Do you not shower when you get to work - given you say the shower is almost never used but you cycle 15km in every day?

I just pointed out that what you said was a sexist generalisation. As sexist generalisations go, I didn't find it especially "offensive" - I think you're the one getting personally offended here given you now seem to be casting aspersions on my personal hygiene!!

mitosis wrote: »

Are your female co-workers also guilty of sexism?

Possibly - either gender can be sexist. Internalised sexism, like internalised homophobia, can be particularly insidious.

Lyaiera

dmfod wrote: »

The whole concept of "Princess" bikes just irritates me - like any essentially gender neutral product that gets 'feminised' for marketing purposes by colouring it pink or spraying perfume on it.

What's the problem with them? Read my post from "Tell us about your cycle today" http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=89994579&postcount=3318

Basically I went for a 10km cycle with a friend. Me on my hybrid, my friend on her step through bike, with seven gears, skirt and chain guard, kickstand and basket on the front. We stopped for coffee halfway and cycled back. Our pace was leisurely and we had a really nice time. I suggested we go further next time and I have no doubt we'll eventually be cycling 10km out to somewhere to have a picnic.

And my point of saying all this is to show it's a perfectly valid form of enjoying cycling. Not everyone wants to clock up kilometers, train in adverse weather and push hard. We cycled next to each other and chatted, the sun was shining, I enjoyed it as much as my (admittedly short) harder rides. Some people simply take pleasure in the act of cycling without having to think about fitness goals or the latest gear. We headed back because my friend was having her dinner made for her and she needed to be home for a certain time. She said, "It's like I'm a child again and I have to be home because Mammy will have the dinner on the table." That's all some people want: a form of innocent pleasure and enjoyment. And often "less efficient" bikes are part of that lifestyle choice. It's a form of romanticism and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

monument

dmfod wrote: »

It's much harder to cycle with old bikes with few gears than modern multi-gear bikes. Gears make cycling up hills easier, therefore less of a struggle.

Most of Dublin is relatively flat. For lots of the people using those bikes, it'd be more of a struggle using a racer for their every-day use, carrying around things and traveling relatively short distances.

The design of the bikes -- with baskets, skirt guards, pannier racks etc -- is well suited to daily use for shopping as well as commuting.

I say each to their own and each to why's suits their trips, and try not to stray too far from that mantra.

dmfod wrote: »

That would explain the low numbers of women cycling, not the choice of bike when they do cycle - unless women perceive slower bikes as safer but I don't think you're arguing that?

You're correct, I misunderstood what you were saying.

dmfod wrote: »

The whole concept of "Princess" bikes just irritates me - like any essentially gender neutral product that gets 'feminised' for marketing purposes by colouring it pink or spraying perfume on it.

Are we talking about the branded Princess Classic or Princess Sovereign bicycles? Not sure when Pashley Cycles started to use that brand but they indicate that it's from the early in the company's history. Their lady's bike designs are very old-school and would have been around when Pashley started at the end of the 1920s.

I could be wrong but their website states both Princess branded bikes only come in black or blue. But they have another lady's bike in all pink but they also have a more modern mostly pink and partly bright blue bike with a crossbar.

As a parent I hate colour-coded toys aimed at only boys or only girls, but if an adult wants to cycle around on a pink bike -- let them at it.

eeeee

mitosis wrote: »

Where did I say ALL WOMEN?

Where did I say ALL WOMEN? :pac:

dmfod wrote: »

That's so true! Why is that I wonder? When men buy bikes they generally seem to go for the fastest best performing models they can afford whereas we get those godawful "Princess" bikes marketed at us and proportionately more women seem to struggle around on ancient bikes with hardly any gears.

Is it that even a lot of the minority of women sufficiently immune to gender norms to cycle in the first place are still culturally conditioned not to want to appear 'masculine' by cycling too fast or being 'sporty'?

I think about this all the time. I have a few theories about it. One of them is that women, girls, internalize the cultural and societal idea that they are bombarded with from a very early age that they are bodies to be acted upon, as opposed to bodies of action. I think this feeds into sports, and cycling. Bikes are often seen and used by women as accessories or purely functional, rather than tools that are use dot their own ends.
Thus you get women with practical , slow, heavy bikes. My sister would be representative of her peers in this respect, she hates cycling, sees it as a purely functional commuting necessity. She was going to buy one of those sit up and beg heavy things until I got her a new old racer. She has said how much better it is than her old thing. She does not like being sweaty though, and has no athletic ambitions with it.

On sport, I suppose the fact that all common or recognizable sports have been designed within a patriarchal system by men for men, so it's not designed for women's bodies, minds or ambitions. I am not saying women can't do sports, or that no women enjoy/aren't competitive at sports/cycling, I am just pointing out a fact that might help answer the question why more women don't cycle, and why they're not competitive lycra warriors. The above point may be an argument for another day!


To the poster who asked what's wrong with the walk through bikes, there's nothing wrong with them. But a high geared, heavy, less aerodynamic bike is harder to cycle around, and a far less pleasant experience. I have an old racer, with a rack on it, and I can bring an awful lot of stuff around with me between the rack and a rucksack. So racers are not inconvenient, they make the task a lot more pleasurable and easier, two things which may encourage more women into cycling, which can only be a good thing.

I will remain on stand by-women-racer-chasing duty :pac::D

eeeee

mitosis wrote: »

Are you just sitting at your keyboard hoping for an opportunity to be offended? Do you not shower when you get to work - given you say the shower is almost never used but you cycle 15km in every day?

Are your female co-workers also guilty of sexism?

You have missed and misunderstood the point. Completely.

dreamerb

gadetra wrote: »

I will remain on stand by-women-racer-chasing duty :pac::D

Hah! I'm (almost) with you on that. I'm in proselytising mode these days having just upgraded to a Giant Dash - couldn't quite stomach going the full road-bike route - but the difference is just incredible. So when anyone asks me about bikes I'm telling them to get something light because it's so much more fun.

eeeee

dreamerb wrote: »

Hah! I'm (almost) with you on that. I'm in proselytising mode these days having just upgraded to a Giant Dash - couldn't quite stomach going the full road-bike route - but the difference is just incredible. So when anyone asks me about bikes I'm telling them to get something light because it's so much more fun.

Totally with you on the light bikes. I have a few racers, the youngest of which is 22 and only 1 I paid for. They are in varying states of decrepitude! I have a list of what 'proper' bikes I will buy when I get the funds…it's a list that keeps on giving!

So we'll go on shifts to do the lady-racer-chasing yeah?

eeeee

Mitosis I have no more than this persona, and you quoted me in your own post number 13 in this thread, that was what I was responding to

Lyaiera

gadetra wrote: »

To the poster who asked what's wrong with the walk through bikes, there's nothing wrong with them. But a high geared, heavy, less aerodynamic bike is harder to cycle around, and a far less pleasant experience. I have an old racer, with a rack on it, and I can bring an awful lot of stuff around with me between the rack and a rucksack. So racers are not inconvenient, they make the task a lot more pleasurable and easier, two things which may encourage more women into cycling, which can only be a good thing.

I understand where you're coming from. I want a road bike, I want to go faster, I want to be more aerodynamic, and I want to be able to do long spins at a steady pace. Some people don't want that though. What they want is the dress flapping in the wind with the bread, cheese and fancy meats in the basket in the front for their picnic. They want to be sitting up because they find that easier and they don't mind not being aerodynamic because their purpose on the bike isn't to get from point A to point B, or to improve their fitness, or to do anything that most of the posters in this section of boards are concentrating on. They've bought into a lifestyle that is totally different to the racing/training/sportive lifestyle. It happens with lots of things. Look at the car world. There are people buying uncomfortable, inefficient, and often expensive cars when there are cars far superior to them in every scientific and engineered way but they drive them simply because they like them. It fits into their ideas of who they are and who they want to be.


As for why women are less inclined to cycle in the ways typical to this board I think the safety aspect specific to cycling is probably true, but women are less inclined to compete in pretty much every sport. There's numerous reasons for that and often the basic idea of competition is seen as off putting (I know I hate the machismo, aggression and "ball-breaking" associated with a lot of competitive areas.) I'm sure the lack of exposure of female athletes and female sports events is an issue. And I'm 100% sure that archaic notions of what it means to be feminine continue to be subtly pervasive and incredibly damaging. I also wouldn't be surprised if the "second shift" contributed with time constraints.