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

Salary Negotiator

cnocbui wrote: »

The anti helmet thing of a lot of cyclists on boards is ridiculous. Australia introduced compulsory helmet wearing and the rate of head injuries declined by almost 70%. Anti-helmeters are thick, and even thicker after they get their deserved head injury.

You sure about that? All I could find is that it reduces the risk of serious head injury by 70%, which is very different to what you claimed.

Link

wonski

whisky_galore wrote: »

Not comparable, their infrastructure is better and their motorists don't behave like knobends. Culture is different too, if you own a car here you've made it, if a push bike is all you have you're a student or a failure. Loads of people wouldn't be seen dead on a bicycle here.

Lived in Holland for a year. Their infrastructure is not just better, it was built to accommodate the cyclist rather than around them.

Not unusual to see people in suits casually cycling to work.

There are cycling lanes everywhere running from town to town.

And they are flat in most parts so cycling is just obvious.

I miss it sometimes. Can't cycle to work here. Used to cycle 45 minutes each way when lived there and it was a breeze. Separate lights button like for pedestrian here.

I doubt Ireland would ever be near that level. And mny other countries tbh.

Captain Havoc

Cycling is not dangerous for the most part so I disagree with those comments about it being too dangerous. I've had a bike in most cities I've lived in and it's grand. I drive a lot but I use my bike to get in and out of town.

People do wonder though, um, why is there so much traffic on the road at school times and then proceed to wolf whistle at a teenage girl or beeb at a cyclist who's doing SFA wrong? Drivers are shooting themselves in the foot by making things difficult for cyclists. More cyclists = less cars, less cars driver's have to share the road with, it's not rocket science. If school kids can cycle to school without being harassed or their parents exaggerated sense of danger can be curbed, then we would all be much better.

begsbyOnaTrain

cnocbui wrote: »

I'm glad you showed up. I was thinking of responding to candie's comment to point out that many male boardsies are blind to the actual real world behaviour of their half of the species towards women and girls and tend to get very upset when a mirror is held up to them, insisting it must be be a trick as their version of reality doesn't look like that.

Yes I'm very upset. Men are stopping women from cycling and therefore destroying the planet!

jimgoose

Captain Havoc wrote: »

...If school kids can cycle to school without being harassed...

I hadn't realised this sort of thing went on in this day-and-age. If I ever see a grown man harassing a child on a bicycle, he'll get a Pallasgrean Tackle. :mad:

Marhay70

GRACKEA wrote: »

Girls being forced to wear skirts to school is a definite barrier to cycling in fairness and could be considered sexist. But it can be addressed practically and immediately if schools weren't so backward.

Very few schools force girls to wear skirts and if they do, it is only while they are in school. If you are cycling to school, you are not "in school" so no compulsion to wear a skirt while cycling to school.
I can remember girls in a convent school in Dublin whose school uniform included a skirt which was below knee length, the first thing a lot of them did on leaving school in the evening was to turn up their skirts at the waist. Why would they do that? BS thread.

Earthhorse

seamus wrote: »

Women: “the ones who do cycle say verbal harassment from boys and men is a top deterrent”

This thread: "No, that can't be it! Let's not listen to actual experience, let's just whine about an anti-man agenda"

Why is it so difficult for some people to accept it when women en masse tell you that they experience harrassment from men on an daily basis? Why do you automatically assume that they're lying and engaging in an attack on men?

"I don't see it, so it mustn't happen" - is that it? Is it just self-centeredness?

Whilst I'm not part of any such chorus I think most people draw on their own experiences to try and evaluate the truth of claims. I go past a cycle lane every day and the only hassle that occurs is between pedestrians and cyclists disagreeing over right-of-way and thankfully such incidents are few and far between.

Most harassment takes place in private and so then people again lean on their own experiences. On my way home from school I was chased, I had rocks thrown at me and I was pushed into the river on different occasions. This shouldn't have happened obviously but it does and it will for the next generation too.

But I didn't change my habits to accommodate the bullies and I don't think others should either. We can try and educate this out of the bullies (we're not very good at this but we can try) but we should also be trying to educate women to have more self esteem and be more assertive.

And we should stop making broad, negative statements about men that mislead us about the truth of these situations.

seamus wrote: »

In this case, if someone makes a comment about a woman and turns around for approval from their mates only to be met with disgusted faces...that's education.

With respect, you're really just playing with words here. What you're talking about is negative reinforcement from the peer group. That's not what we normally refer to as education.

silverharp

seamus wrote: »

Women: “the ones who do cycle say verbal harassment from boys and men is a top deterrent”

This thread: "No, that can't be it! Let's not listen to actual experience, let's just whine about an anti-man agenda"

Why is it so difficult for some people to accept it when women en masse tell you that they experience harrassment from men on an daily basis? Why do you automatically assume that they're lying and engaging in an attack on men?

"I don't see it, so it mustn't happen" - is that it? Is it just self-centeredness?

do they do? as i cycle to work it tends to come up in conversation , ive yet to hear a woman say they dont cycle because of male abuse, they might say they wont cycle certain routes for general security, through quiet park routes etc. but otherwise its down to practicalities or possibly the lack of good quality Dutch style infrastructure
its very easy to get the answers you want based on dodgy questionnaires, color me skeptical
also lets even say its true , all men everywhere? or is it dodgy areas anyway. ive certainly not observed any specific behaviour where I live. yet on the cycling forum you will hear grown men scared to cycle sections of the grand canal because even teenage girls will spit or throw punches at cyclists.
i can see reasonable reasons why less girls cycle than boys, i'd be surprised if what some survey is saying is actually true or i'd at least want to see the tires kicked very hard indeed and lots of backed up data

jimgoose

Bondetf wrote: »

Be thankful you weren't born male, as a teenager I was assaulted on multiple occasions unprovoked. On one occasion having my nose broken.

What kind of a bear-pit were you a teenager in?? Unless you're talking about GAA or rugby, that's different!

cnocbui

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

You sure about that? All I could find is that it reduces the risk of serious head injury by 70%, which is very different to what you claimed.

Link

Ummm, If the 'risk' of head injury is reduced by 70%, then it follows that the statistic is arrived at from analysing before and after data. Yes, I should have said reduces risk, rather than 'declined by', but you know what, it was still correct, because that was what actually happened, else there wouldn't have been the 'after' data to support the reduced risk assessment.

Ush1

jimgoose wrote: »

What kind of a bear-pit were you a teenager in?? Unless you're talking about GAA or rugby, that's different!

I grew up in Tallaght and if you were a weak male you were much more of a target than a female.

Men statistically far higher likelihood of being violently assaulted, of course, it's usually by other men.

nullzero

Feminists and cyclists together at last, imagine how offended they'll be collectively.

kirving

Deleted User wrote: »

Not going to get into the battle of the sexes thing but this is more evidence that insisting on safety gear reduces the number of cyclists and effectively makes the streets more dangerous for everyone.

Go to Denmark or Holland, countries comparable to Ireland. Huge numbers of men and women cycle to get about, without the need to dress up in helmets and hi vis. And their roads are safer than ours.

Cycling should be seen as natural, normal and practical and something you do in the same clothes you walk about in.

At a macro level, you're absolutely correct - safety gear does discourage boys, but moreso girls from cycling. However, your comparison to Scandinavian countries is flawed. Their infrastructure and sheer volume of cyclists brings a new level of safety.

Reducing the encouragement of helmets/reflective/bright clothing ≠ safer cycling in car-centric environments like we have in Ireland. It's a much more complex topic than that, and on an individual basis, it should be strongly encouraged, along with driver education, until such time as we have better infrastructure.

topper75 wrote: »

I agree fully with you in relation to urban commuter environments.

On 80kmh country roads I'm sticking with the helmet and offensively gaudy lycra, gaudy to the point where people will know at my funeral that if the bastard got me: he meant it.

Absolutely agreed.

cnocbui

Captain Havoc wrote: »

Cycling is not dangerous for the most part so I disagree with those comments about it being too dangerous. I've had a bike in most cities I've lived in and it's grand. I drive a lot but I use my bike to get in and out of town.

People do wonder though, um, why is there so much traffic on the road at school times and then proceed to wolf whistle at a teenage girl or beeb at a cyclist who's doing SFA wrong? Drivers are shooting themselves in the foot by making things difficult for cyclists. More cyclists = less cars, less cars driver's have to share the road with, it's not rocket science. If school kids can cycle to school without being harassed or their parents exaggerated sense of danger can be curbed, then we would all be much better.

I cycled to school from early primary till late HS - in Australia in an urban setting. I wouldn't think of allowing my children to cycle to school here in a rural area as the roads are far too narrow and dangerous.

Fewer cars means more cyclists traveling at lower speeds. It's not the win you think it is.

jimgoose

Ush1 wrote: »

I grew up in Tallaght and if you were a weak male you were much more of a target than a female...

I see. Sounds pleasant.

mlem123

I once was cycling when I was in 1st year in college and a load of school boys shouted "helmet wanker" at me... Didn't deter me and was kinda funny but it is intimidating to have a group of lads shouting at ya when you're on your own

jimgoose

Bondetf wrote: »

That's not to mention the verbal abuse that adolescent males often receive too. So I think it's nonsense to use the excuse that girls don't cycle because they verbal abuse as boys also receive verbal abuse.

Well, maybe girls are more bothered by it.

begsbyOnaTrain

I cycled to school (no helmet) but it was a nice-ish cycle in that you could avoid going on the road for the majority of it. In Leaving Cert I was beaten up by a bunch of... differently housed individuals on the way home and they stole my bike.

Couple of years ago I gave cycling another go but commuting and having to go head to head with Bus Eireann buses was not for me. Didn't last a week. Friend of mine was knocked down on his cycle last month. I'd need properly separated cycle before giving it a try again.

Seth Brundle

Padraig Mor wrote: »

This is one the tropes that are thrown around by the cyclist lobby. Essentially it boils down to "helmets / hi vis doesn't look cool so we shouldn't have to wear it" - a nonsense reason for not using proven safety gear of course. No different whatsoever from a driver refusing to use a seat belt because it's not 'cool'.

Firstly, what cyclist lobby?
Secondly, I've never heard a cyclist discussing the coolness or lack thereof of helmets or clothing and that being a reason not to wear it.
The issue cyclists would have with having to wear the gear is that the onus appears to be put on cyclists to turn into the ReadyBrek kid just so that motorists don't knock them down. There appears to be little encouragement towards motorists not to knock people down.

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Hi vis (by which I'm presuming you refer to fluorescent jackets etc, rather than reflective gear) uses colour wavelengths which the human eye is most sensitive to - just because some cyclists feel it's uncool doesn't mean it doesn't work. Your car quip is also much beloved of the usual Boards cyclist brigade - a car of course is bigger and faster moving and therefore much more easily discerned by the human brain (which is attuned to movement) and of course the driver is far less vulnerable than a cyclist (especially those who refuse to take responsibility for their own safety by eschewing helmets etc). All cars in the EU are now required to be equipped with daytime running lights which of courses enhances visibility - much like hi vis.

Ok so then explain why it is so common for motorists to close pass cyclists who are lit up and wearing all of the safety gear?

Deebles McBeebles

Bondetf wrote: »

Then lack of resilience in women is the reason for differing number of cyclists if that is what you're saying.

Not necessarily. Although that would differ by person, not by gender. Men don't generally fear the added threat of being sexually assaulted. A beating is bad but not that bad.

Seth Brundle

cnocbui wrote: »

The anti helmet thing of a lot of cyclists on boards is ridiculous. Australia introduced compulsory helmet wearing and the rate of head injuries declined by almost 70%. Anti-helmeters are thick, and even thicker after they get their deserved head injury.

Cycling in South Australia in 2017 was down 20% on 2011. It is believed that the mandatory wearing of helmets is partly responsible.
In addition, Australia's public bikes scheme has collapsed because of the mandatory requirement for helmets: https://www.businessinsider.com.au/bike-sharing-industry-end-australia-2018-7

Also the likes of the BMA agree with the view that mandatory wearing of helmets is placing the onus incorrectly on cyclists and not on transport planners or even those that tend to cause the damage - the drivers.
https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1189.html

Wibbs

jimgoose wrote: »

Well, maybe girls are more bothered by it.

Or more like the usual "feminist" ballsology of; some women have a problem(usually non-existent or invented), therefore obviously it's men's fault. It would be nice if those daft harpies would just eff off and leave the rest of humanity alone.

Wibbs

Thinking back to my schooldays and cycling to school, even then(back in the 80's) there were far fewer girls cycling to school. Walking or bus was the norm.

Varta

seamus wrote: »

Women: “the ones who do cycle say verbal harassment from boys and men is a top deterrent”

This thread: "No, that can't be it! Let's not listen to actual experience, let's just whine about an anti-man agenda"

Why is it so difficult for some people to accept it when women en masse tell you that they experience harrassment from men on an daily basis? Why do you automatically assume that they're lying and engaging in an attack on men?

"I don't see it, so it mustn't happen" - is that it? Is it just self-centeredness?

There is a massive contradiction in that sentence.

o1s1n

Wibbs wrote: »

Thinking back to my schooldays and cycling to school, even then(back in the 80's) there were far fewer girls cycling to school. Walking or bus was the norm.

Same here. Cycled to school all through the 90s, and thinking back, was 100% guys locking their bikes up. Don't think I ever saw a girl cycle in at all.

The skirts girls had to wear in our school were very long so I'd imagine that may have contributed to it.

Uncle Charlie

Are men also the reason not many girls play sports ?

Seth Brundle

Varta wrote: »

There is a massive contradiction in that sentence.

Not really.
A deterrent is something that discourages or is intended to discourage someone from doing something. It doesn't necessarily have to have the desired effect for it to be exist.

Amirani

cnocbui wrote: »

Ummm, If the 'risk' of head injury is reduced by 70%, then it follows that the statistic is arrived at from analysing before and after data. Yes, I should have said reduces risk, rather than 'declined by', but you know what, it was still correct, because that was what actually happened, else there wouldn't have been the 'after' data to support the reduced risk assessment.

That's not an accurate statistical assumption. You should probably leave the statistics/data analysis alone, it's clearly not your forte.

Reviews and Books Galore

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Not necessarily. Although that would differ by person, not by gender. Men don't generally fear the added threat of being sexually assaulted. A beating is bad but not that bad.

Hmmm, I doubt anybody who had a beating would class it as 'not that bad'.

Reviews and Books Galore

seamus wrote: »

It can be discouraged.

Education can take many forms. It doesn't necessarily have to be sitting someone down in a classroom and telling them something is wrong. It can be getting sh1t from your mates when you say something horrible.

In this case, if someone makes a comment about a woman and turns around for approval from their mates only to be met with disgusted faces...that's education.

And that involves encouraging kids to speak out when they see disrespectful behaviour from their peers, and rewarding and celebrating it.

Where in the past there was always a hevay focus on "going along with the crowd", rewarding kids for being team players and punishing individuality, now we're moving towards a model of rewarding kids for being individuals and not being afraid to stand up and out from the crowd.

It's perfectly normal to make comments about the opposite sex. I'm not saying to shout it at the woman, but the disgusted face aspect seems puritan to me.