Girls don't cycle! Guess whos fault it is?

Church on Tuesday

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm simply looking for teenage girls to be able to cycle to school without being harassed.



If you want to get pernickety, I didn't say that you said that they said it was a pandemic.



It's more than 'anecdotal evidence'. It is a highlight from formal research.




That's right, you can't just wish it away - but you can action it away. How about YOU challenge them, instead of expecting an adult women to bring her husband with her?



Where exactly in the article does it blame 'all men'?

Wait... what?

God I miss the warm weather already.

Yes Andy for what ever it's worth on occasion I have indeed stepped in when I have seen people being harassed, like any right minded person would.

Just as a matter of interest, how do you think we can get girls cycling to school with out being harassed or teased by their own gender for doing so?

magicbastarder

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

Why not have a word with them? It's what I would do.

I understand the confusion, I think. This is not a bunch of three or four lads who are the consistent offenders. This was in a well trafficked public park near our house and probably a different person each time.

Sheeps

I've seen men on the street dog whistle at women on bikes in the middle of town. It's usually builders too. If it doesn't happen to you, its because you're probobably a middle aged overweight bloke, and the people who dog whistle at other people aren't attracted to you. I'ts quite simple.

Rubberchikken

maybe times have realky changed and not for.the better.

its disappointing to realise that a person cant go about their own business without a negative and unwelcome comment from someone else.

it makes me wonder what type of man/lad would comment/interfere with a woman/girl passing on a bike or running etc.
would they like that to happen to their sister/mother/aunt/female friend?

are they so thick and ignorant that this thought wouldn't criss their mind?

i cycled to school, never had a bother.
maybe i was one of the lucky ones.

thats a sad thought.

Wibbs

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It was actually a quote from Eldridge Cleaver.

Well, not quite what he said and it's hardly an original thought in that form, a riff on you're either with with us or against us. A false dichotomy either way.

But thanks for the reminder of how the establishment in the UK worked hard to undermine any hint of left wing thinking in the 70s. It worked too.

Or extremists "right" or "left" are a charm for comedy and often write it themselves, but rarely have enough insight to see it for themselves. Oh and said "establishment" also had the right wing racist character Alf Garnett who was the butt of the joke. Conspiracies, so hard to choose...

Cycling to school isn't a sport, like swimming or tennis. It's cycling to school - a normal daily activity. Again, have a listen to the words of the schoolgirls in the RTE clip and tell again that the problem is that the guys who harassed them weren't hot enough.

Indeed and no doubt catcalling and the like is a part of it, but as far back as I remember boys cycling to school far outnumbered the girls, and that's girls of all ages. I walked or cycled to school from around 8 onwards, hardly an age for sexual harassment of anyone, and that's going back to a time when vanishingly few kids were driven to school by their parents. Which is another factor. More concerns about child safety is in play these days and those concerns were always more around girls than boys and I doubt that's changed too much.

Actually while I'm thinking back; of my peers pretty much all of the boys rode bikes, very few of the girls. Many got their "first bike" and learned to ride, but seemed to drop it soon after and I knew none who cycled in their teens. I remember going over to the local girls school for some joint project or other and noticed how tiny their bike shed area was compared to the boys school I went to. It was the era of Sean Kelly and the like and we were all mad into bikes so we'd always be checking out bikes. Tiny sample group of course, but it would be interesting to see the stats on the sales of boys/girls bikes(which would have been easier to do in the past I imagine as they were more gendered?). Now among adults that difference is much lesser with more women cycling for commuting and fitness/fun, but in school years it was and seems still has a gender bias.

Wibbs

bluewolf wrote: »

not post 7 pages of this ****, mostly

They make a valid point nonetheless B. What is the solution? Men stop doing it and stop other men doing it is quite simply unworkable. An ex of mine was mad into the cyling and once out on a run she had her arse slapped by some fcukwit in a passing car. Angry didn't quite cover my response, but what was I to do? Drive around looking for the prick? And do what if I found him/them? Chastise him for being a scoundrel? Yeah, like that's going to work out. The type of guy who will pull that sort of sh1t is usually the type of guy who goes for fists first. Of course that's a blindspot for many women and the type of guys who say men should "step up", they've grown up not expecting to get the head kicked off them and think the world fairer than it is. Or they're built like a bricksh1thouse. Unless you're built like a bricksh1thouse moral positions don't survive much beyond the first punch to the face. And that's why many if not most men will be backward in coming forward about such things.

Of my peers I can't recall a single example of "catcalling" among them, plenty of "good god, did you see her" sure, because we're straight in possession of penises, but deliberately not leering or in earshot or anything like it. It was felt to be all a bit lower orders behaviour to be frank, though rugger buggers are worse than any arse crack builders for it and while overall that stuff has gotten better down the years that rugger bugger culture seems to have gotten worse for it down the years.

AndrewJRenko

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually while I'm thinking back; of my peers pretty much all of the boys rode bikes, very few of the girls. Many got their "first bike" and learned to ride, but seemed to drop it soon after and I knew none who cycled in their teens. I remember going over to the local girls school for some joint project or other and noticed how tiny their bike shed area was compared to the boys school I went to. It was the era of Sean Kelly and the like and we were all mad into bikes so we'd always be checking out bikes. Tiny sample group of course, but it would be interesting to see the stats on the sales of boys/girls bikes(which would have been easier to do in the past I imagine as they were more gendered?). Now among adults that difference is much lesser with more women cycling for commuting and fitness/fun, but in school years it was and seems still has a gender bias.

I'm a bit pushed for time, so I'll focus on the main issue. If you look at the Census data, we now have about 1/3rd of the number of secondary school boys that we did in 1981. We have about 1/20 of the number of secondary school girls that we did in 1981.


We've driven the girls off the road, one way or other.

silverharp

i'd suggest that more girls like going to school in groups, and that means walking, bus or Dart. Cycling is anti-social in those terms. it just seems to be one of those situations where every alleged incident is blown up to make it look like kids have to go through a gauntlet a la Holy Cross back in the day in Belfast. And Im saying that as a dad to 2 teenage kids

Wibbs

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm a bit pushed for time, so I'll focus on the main issue. If you look at the Census data, we now have about 1/3rd of the number of secondary school boys that we did in 1981. We have about 1/20 of the number of secondary school girls that we did in 1981.


We've driven the girls off the road, one way or other.

Aside/ Spot the point when Sean Kelly and Stephen Roche were wowing the world cycling stage.

And I would say "driven" is a large part of it. Both are more likely to be driven these days. Another thing to consider is that I think we would generally agree that we're a more gender equal and gender aware society these days? And that in the past we weren't. Yet in the years when young girls were burying babies in Kerry fields, the laundries weren't cold in memory and far more casual sexism was writ large in the media there was a way higher percentage of girls cycling to schools. One would assume that it would be more today.

beggars_bush

Have a changing room in the schools so cyclists can change out of sweaty gear.
Same for all workplaces with 10+ employees
Might help females to cycle to work
As for verbal and physical abuse while out cycling, it's just disgusting

I cannot cycle to work as there is no proper facility to change and we've one unisex toilet

gormdubhgorm

beggars_bush wrote: »

Have a changing room in the schools so cyclists can change out of sweaty gear.
Same for all workplaces with 10+ employees
Might help females to cycle to work
As for verbal and physical abuse while out cycling, it's just disgusting

I cannot cycle to work as there is no proper facility to change and we've one unisex toilet

Why don't you have a word with management if you want improvement. In other work places they even have showers.

At the same time though I do feel you are making a mountain out a molehill.

That Unisex toilet has cubicles I assume?
You can go into the cubicle and change problem solved - there is your workaround.
On yer bike!

There are already changing rooms in schools they could easily be used by cyclists so no excuse there.

To me there is no real need to have all these new separate areas placing prohibitive costs, on already financially stressed schools.

AndrewJRenko

Wibbs wrote: »

Aside/ Spot the point when Sean Kelly and Stephen Roche were wowing the world cycling stage.

And I would say "driven" is a large part of it. Both are more likely to be driven these days. Another thing to consider is that I think we would generally agree that we're a more gender equal and gender aware society these days? And that in the past we weren't. Yet in the years when young girls were burying babies in Kerry fields, the laundries weren't cold in memory and far more casual sexism was writ large in the media there was a way higher percentage of girls cycling to schools. One would assume that it would be more today.

I agree - the 'driven' is almost certainly a big part of it. More households have two or more cars. More households have two parents working. Our society has got more and more car-centric, with minimal consideration of cycling in general planning, and zero consideration when planning schools.


Aside: any idea why the graphic that I included in my post has disappeared?

beggars_bush wrote: »

Have a changing room in the schools so cyclists can change out of sweaty gear.
Same for all workplaces with 10+ employees
Might help females to cycle to work
As for verbal and physical abuse while out cycling, it's just disgusting

I cannot cycle to work as there is no proper facility to change and we've one unisex toilet

We do need decent facilities - lockers, drying space for wet gear, safe and secure lock up area for bikes - and showers if we want to really encourage this. Fingal Co Co were good at mandating this at planning stage for new factories and offices, but I don't think any authority has actually sorted this issue properly, certainly not for schools.

silverharp wrote: »

i'd suggest that more girls like going to school in groups, and that means walking, bus or Dart. Cycling is anti-social in those terms. it just seems to be one of those situations where every alleged incident is blown up to make it look like kids have to go through a gauntlet a la Holy Cross back in the day in Belfast. And Im saying that as a dad to 2 teenage kids

Do you think the desire to walk to school in groups has grown twenty-fold since 1981?


I sometimes wonder if we put 1/20 of the energy that we put into finding alternative explanations to what the research actually says into finding actual solutions, we'd have these problems sorted long ago.

silverharp

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you think the desire to walk to school in groups has grown twenty-fold since 1981?


I sometimes wonder if we put 1/20 of the energy that we put into finding alternative explanations to what the research actually says into finding actual solutions, we'd have these problems sorted long ago.

The Dart didnt exist in 1981 , lots of things are different , traffic is higher. i'd be more nervous of my kids cycling to school then my parents would have been about me. mobile phones didnt exist and you cant use them cycling. More kid are dropped off at school by car.

freshpopcorn

Mod Note Moved from After Hours to Commuting and Transport. Please follow local guidelines.

Infini

namloc1980 wrote: »

Hi Vis vests are the bane of cyclists. They're cycling, not going to a building site. If hi vis is so key to road safety why aren't cars painted with hi viz paint?

High vis are honestly overkill to be honest, a pair of GOOD lights is enough and some non dark clothing.

gormdubhgorm

Infini wrote: »

High vis are honestly overkill to be honest, a pair of GOOD lights is enough and some non dark clothing.

I find especially in the dark/poor viability/rural Ireland it is much easier to see those wearing some form of high vis whether pedestrians or cyclists.
That split second or two of standing out can save lives for sure.
To say otherwise does not seem to make much sense.

magicbastarder

not sure if you read the post, but it was basically saying that lights > hi vis.
your 'to say otherwise' comment suggests you missed that bit.

gormdubhgorm

magicbastarder wrote: »

not sure if you read the post, but it was basically saying that lights > hi vis.
your 'to say otherwise' comment suggests you missed that bit.

Correct yeah, kind of ironic!

AndrewJRenko

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I find especially in the dark/poor viability/rural Ireland it is much easier to see those wearing some form of high vis whether pedestrians or cyclists.
That split second or two of standing out can save lives for sure.
To say otherwise does not seem to make much sense.

Maybe you need to slow down to give yourself that extra split second that you need to avoid killing entirely legal road users?

whisky_galore

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I find especially in the dark/poor viability/rural Ireland it is much easier to see those wearing some form of high vis whether pedestrians or cyclists.
That split second or two of standing out can save lives for sure.
To say otherwise does not seem to make much sense.

Don't waste your time, the cycling fashion victims wouldn't be seen dead in hi vis. Oh dear I must look like a builder, how uncouth.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

DelBoy Trotter wrote: »

So you’ve come into a thread and derailed it again with your own agenda when the thread has nothing to do with your own agenda? You do realise it’s your holier-than-thou attitude which adds fire to your actual agenda and turns even more people against cyclists...

You would have to be one pitiful and miserable human being to hate an entire group of people (only grouped by their means of transport) based on what one cyclist on the internet said.

AndrewJRenko

whisky_galore wrote: »

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I find especially in the dark/poor viability/rural Ireland it is much easier to see those wearing some form of high vis whether pedestrians or cyclists.
That split second or two of standing out can save lives for sure.
To say otherwise does not seem to make much sense.

Don't waste your time, the cycling fashion victims wouldn't be seen dead in hi vis. Oh dear I must look like a builder, how uncouth.

Lads, I'm 190cm, in my fifties, carrying about 5-10kg extra, mostly on my belly, and I wear lycra. Trust me - fashion is not my top priority when cycling, or anytime tbh.

This isn't about fashion. This is about not standing by and allowing drivers of mostly grey, black and navy vehicles impose yet another barrier to cycling to enable them to drive that split second faster than they really should be driving. If you're a big believer in the benefits of hi-vis, come back to me when your white car has nice wide hi-vis stripes on all sides. Until then, I won't be taking any lectures on visibility.

magicbastarder

whisky_galore wrote: »

Don't waste your time, the cycling fashion victims wouldn't be seen dead in hi vis.

ACKSHERLY, i think many cyclists have been seen dead, even when wearing hi-vis.

Marhay70

magicbastarder wrote: »

ACKSHERLY, i think many cyclists have been seen dead, even when wearing hi-vis.

I find it difficult to care about cyclists' well being when so many of them seem to care little about their own well being.

monument

beejee wrote: »

Get all the newborn baby boys, while in hospital, and start pumping them full of hormone blockers and such. Weaken them down and immasculate.

Get all the newborn baby girls, while in hospital, and start them on hormone blockers and steroids. Beef them up and defeminise.

Now, that'll all be grand. The women will be men and the men will be women.

It's all a case of buffet style "wants", and weaklinoids are going to have to accept that you can't have one thing without the expense of another. Reality.

Please read the Commuting and Transport charter before posting again.

— moderator

blanch152

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Far more motorists and passengers are killed on the road than cyclists.

So again I ask, why don't we mandate hi-vis stripes on all cars and vans?

I have been through this with you before.

Of course more motorists and passengers are killed on the road than cyclists, because there are more motorists and passengers on the road!!!

The fatality rate per kilometre travelled is higher for cyclists though - I pointed this out to you several threads ago, and you have conveniently ignored it since, as it doesn't fit with your propaganda.

Before you ask, I am not going to dig out the statistics again, because you will undoubtedly ignore them again.

bladespin

Marhay70 wrote: »

I find it difficult to care about cyclists' well being when so many of them seem to care little about their own well being.

Lol, very cold blooded statement but accurate these days worth bearing in mind it's the motorist who's most likely to do the damage, not the cyclist, whether they're in the right or wrong makes little difference afterwards.

AndrewJRenko

Marhay70 wrote: »

magicbastarder wrote: »

ACKSHERLY, i think many cyclists have been seen dead, even when wearing hi-vis.

I find it difficult to care about cyclists' well being when so many of them seem to care little about their own well being.

What you describe as 'to care little', is actually 'to care deeply enough to nebe distracted by populist, ineffective ideas with no evidence base to support them'.

https://twitter.com/davewalker/status/1144589550309847040

AndrewJRenko

blanch152 wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Far more motorists and passengers are killed on the road than cyclists.

So again I ask, why don't we mandate hi-vis stripes on all cars and vans?

I have been through this with you before.

Of course more motorists and passengers are killed on the road than cyclists, because there are more motorists and passengers on the road!!!

The fatality rate per kilometre travelled is higher for cyclists though - I pointed this out to you several threads ago, and you have conveniently ignored it since, as it doesn't fit with your propaganda.

Before you ask, I am not going to dig out the statistics again, because you will undoubtedly ignore them again.

I don't recall the conversation, but the most likely reason for ignoring the 'per kilometre' figure is because it is entirely irrelevant in this context. If you want to reduce road deaths and injuries, you need to focus on how/where most of the deaths and injuries are happening. 95% of road deaths have no cyclist involvement. If you believe hi-vis is a solution to reducing road deaths, then you need to get hi-vis on all cars to deal with the 95% before you start obsessing with the 5%. Why would you be focused on the 5%?

AndrewJRenko

bladespin wrote: »

Marhay70 wrote: »

I find it difficult to care about cyclists' well being when so many of them seem to care little about their own well being.

Lol, very cold blooded statement but accurate these days worth bearing in mind it's the motorist who's most likely to do the damage, not the cyclist, whether they're in the right or wrong makes little difference afterwards.

It's also worth remembering that where formal research has been done into cyclist/motorist collisions, it generally confirms that, more often than not, the motorist is at fault.