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

seamus wrote: »

That's all pretty mealy-mouthed, frankly.

And convenient that it doesn't require you (and by that I mean society in general) to have to do anything or change your behaviour.

What's infinitely more interesting is the lack of a comparative response from the other poster. Just look at the lack few back-and-forths between them.

So I'd say it is indeed convenient not to offer potential "solutions" but tell other people about how convenient it is for them to do nothing!

It's all hot air and bs, people getting in a tizzy about nothing that can be changed, and thats if it's a problem at all.

Rain is a problem now and then, but what are you going to do about it?

Use an umbrella? Oh how convenient! An excuse to avoid the underlying issue of it actually raining!

Your Face wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You seem to be avoiding the question about the impact of another 50k cars on the road. Would you like to revisit that please?

And perhaps you could explain why doubling your risk of heart disease and near doubling your risk of cancer is 'growing up'?

https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2017/0828/900502-the-health-benefits-of-cycling-to-work-are-staggering/

Are people really that petty and small minded that they are impressed by car ownership?

lol

Is that the entire sum of your wisdom on this topic?

blanch152 wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's slightly inconsistent with every bit of road safety statistics that shows that motorists are killing 2 or 3 people each week on the roads and maiming many more, while cyclists aren't.

We have four out of five drivers breaking speed limits. We have the majority of motorists using their phones while driving. We have the vast majority of red light jumpers being motorists. Let me know if you need sources to confirm any of these claims.

Perhaps you need to up your game on observation.

Yes, motorists kill cyclists, that is an inevitable outcome of the physics of a car hitting a bicycle.

What I don't understand are the kamikaze-type cyclists who break the rules of the road, take unbelievable risks and put themselves into trouble.

If a car breaks the rules of the road, the consequences of the risk to the driver are low. However, when a cyclist takes a risk and breaks the rules of the road, whether by cycling through a red light, up the wrong way of a one-way street, in-between slow-moving cars etc. the consequences of the risk are extremely damaging. The benefits are at most a minute of two saved on a journey.

It just baffles me why some cyclists take these risks. Standing at traffic lights having got off a bus and watching this behaviour makes me wonder about their sanity. For every cyclist that behaves rationally and carefully, there seem to be another one that is behaving in a kamikaze fashion. And I haven't even talked about the ones in dark clothing and no lights on their bike on a badly-lit road in winter rain!

Human behaviour is what it is. Normal humans will take risks - speeding, on their phone when driving - when the consequences to themselves are low. Such is human nature.

Motorists kill far more motorists and pedestrians than they do cyclists. Perhaps the risk to motorists isn't quite as small as you imagine?

Perhaps the risk to cyclists isn't quite as big as you imagine?

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?

Cars have these big bright things called lights - which are very hard to miss. I always leave the small lights on no matter what the weather. Makes a big difference in the avoidance of any accidents.
In Sweden it is actually a legal requirement.

---

As for the cycling article it seems like just another vehicle (excuse the pun) to shoehorn another 'oppressed women/girls' narrative article into the mix.
So that all girls can tune into it regardless of thier skin colour and socio-economic background.
And can scream oppression!
It seems the #metoo movement has just gotten another step sillier.

Get on your bike I say to them....

It's healthy.

suicide_circus wrote: »

lol ok bye

So you really don't want to answer the question?
Suggesting to black children that racial harassment will occur due to a minority of racist white folks is a fact of life and the means of tackling it at a societal level starts and ends with teaching them emotional resilience is not an adequate response, according to you.

Teaching female children that sexual harassment is a fact of life due to a minority of misogynistic men and tackling it at a societal level starts and ends with teaching them emotional resilience IS a perfectly adequate response at a societal level.

Is that your view?

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

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?

Cars have these big bright things called lights - which are very hard to miss. I always leave the small lights on no matter what the weather. Makes a big difference in the avoidance of any accidents.
In Sweden it is actually a legal requirement.

---

They don't have lights on the sides, and it's not unusual to find that one or more lights are broken or the idiot driver doesn't know how to operate their DRLs - so surely hi-vis stripes on all sides of all cars would be a great safety advance?

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?

Because the car isnt going to get killed in the collision situation, they are loud and big and heavy and cyclists at the mercy of them need to illuminate themselves to avoid them

Deleted User wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Like most cyclists, I have a car. I just don't have time to sit around in traffic increasing my cancer and heart disease rates.

jesus renko

i know you struggle with rage issues buddy, but thumbing your nose at the thousands of commuters that suffer these life-threatening conditions every year and the effects on their families is not a good look

have a word with yourself man for gods sake

There’s no thumbing of noses by me. Every single post by me is aimed at reducing the rates of incidence of those conditions.

But if you really are concerned about those conditions, maybe direct a bit of your concern at those who make proposals that will actually increase the rates - like banning cycling or mandatory helmet laws.

Seth Brundle wrote: »

So if you're saying that cars are highly visible because they have big bright lights, why do other drivers frequently crash into them?

Do you realise how silly this sounds?
There are other obvious variables at play which I will not go into here as it would derail the thread about girls and thier unwillingness to cycle.

It is clear that being visible on the road regardless of the mode of transport means less accidents.
Regardless of the gender of any cyclist being visible is a crucial aspect.
Hi-vis jackets are not designed as fashion statements they are designed to save lives of one of the most vulnerable users of the road after pedestrians.

Also many girls are anti-exercise particularly when they hit thier mid teens and trail away from team sports.
Cycling, Swimming, Tennis are normally the few pastimes that girls keep up other than team sports in thier later life.

Maybe more fashionable cycling gear could be developed for young girls while at the same time being visible and safe?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You seem to be avoiding the question about the impact of another 50k cars on the road. Would you like to revisit that please?

And perhaps you could explain why doubling your risk of heart disease and near doubling your risk of cancer is 'growing up'?

https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2017/0828/900502-the-health-benefits-of-cycling-to-work-are-staggering/

Are people really that petty and small minded that they are impressed by car ownership?

DelBoy Trotter wrote: »

Do you search Boards for every thread that has any mention of bikes? You seem to be routinely arriving in threads about bikes to make them into a bikes V everybody else on the road argument

Some types of people are just prone to really fixate with certain subjects, and want to shoehorn thier narrative agenda into it not matter what.
But sure each to thier own.

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'.



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.

Black cars are involved in more crashes. Ban black cars while you're at it.

vicwatson wrote: »

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

What the f is that all about?

I think a lot of guys could admit to having made an inappropriate comment to a girl or woman. I remember wolf-whistling at a young woman (we were each cycling, but in different directions) when I was 16. Having done it, I then didn't know what to do next. She didn't rip off her clothes and demand to make love to me. I didn't do it again. Doing stuff like this once might be understandable, as we experiment and make our way in the world, but it isn't really acceptable.

Many guys can probably remember having done worse, especially with a bit of drink on board. The drink might explain it, but it doesn't justify it - if you break social norms when you are drunk, stop getting drunk.

Then there is a proportion of guys who engage in harassment all day every day. Often other guys don't see or hear it, but it still happens.

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

At the elite levels men are better at all sports because they're physically superior.

This is due to nature, not social construct.

While this thread is about utility cycling, Fiona Kolbinger disagrees with you. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/aug/06/fiona-kolbinger-first-woman-win-transcontinental-cycling-race

Sittingpretty wrote: »

I’ll be hung out to dry for this but sure isn’t everything men’s fault now? Isn’t it up to men to fix every societal wrong that they are responsible for.

This third wave feminism nonsense is far too happy to firmly place women into victim hood.

Such a nonsense article. How many men (even the oaf ones) would risk wolf whistling a teenage girl on a bike these days? Very few I’d wager because they know before the whistle is done they’ll be on Facebook and vigilantes will be at their door.

The lack of young female cyclists I’d expect is far more to do with having to wear safety gear, their parents not allowing them because it’s not safe because our roads are not suitable for the most part for cyclists and thirdly they’re teenagers, most are far too lazy to hop up on their bikes in the rain when they can be carted to school in the comfort of the family car while retaining their polished brows and no helmet hair.

TLDR: It’s not men’s fault.

On the face of it I see very few girls at primary level on bikes anyway, aside from very small ones, so is it really an activity that girls embrace for a young age?

That’s because we still do live in a patriarchal or post-patriarchal world where we're still dealing with the vestiges of patriarchy (it doesn’t matter too much which).

I can’t remember who said this but; "In the game of patriarchy, women are the ball", and you can see that play out in this thread. Most people don’t actually want to help young women they just want to blame men. And anyone who takes a position against that out of concern that the approach is wrong will have their position repeatedly misrepresented as well as having to fend off endless strawmen.

Not to mention, the assumption is always that if women aren’t behaving exactly like men (in this case cycling enough) something must be wrong. Men are the baseline, women the deviation.

And in the dying embers of this thread, we have post after post, expressing attitudes that give more than a faint clue as to why girls and women tend not to ride bikes and, ironically, make the original articles authors point. Luckily I just happen to have a box full last few rolls of tape, ideal for abraded knuckles. Only €2 a pop; roll up, roll up...

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?

But sure with this logic it would only take one of two people to be 'harassed' during any everyday activity.
Or if women girls have body image issues they don't engage in activities etc

Swimming -

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11378695/Body-image-worries-make-half-a-million-women-give-up-swimming.html

Tennis -

https://slate.com/human-interest/2015/07/beauty-standards-and-tennis-players-women-still-aren-t-supposed-to-look-strong.html

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/14/serena-williams-female-athletes-femininity-police

When you contrast how men and women in general view themselves most women view themselves as overweight, most men view themselves as normal weight

https://jeatdisord.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40337-017-0163-1

I feel that the problem is the mindset of many women or girls they are very insecure in themselves. Have thin-skins whereas a man would brush off insults for the most part, or laugh it off.
However I notice these days this attitude 'of poor me' has even permeated into some of those males in thier 20's and early 30's who like to tell the world that they are 'in a bad place' etc no matter how minor. And build it up into something major.

To make the whole thing into a harassing women angle is odd to me.
Anyone can be harassed regardless of gender, colour and sexual preference etc - anywhere. You would swear there are gangs of men waiting for a chance to shout abuse girls on bikes at every opportunity

Let's be honest here there is a double standards with many women it is often joked by women that if a 'hot guy' chats up a woman she views it as flirting.
If to put it politely 'less than hot guy' chats up a woman it can be viewed as harassment.


The real problem to me is that women seem to be struggling for a 'battle' to fight these days so have to invent a 'cause' however minimal. So we get silly articles littered with contradictions all over the place like the OP mentioned.
Self image - being more interested in how they look on the bicycle/not stylish or whether they might look bit sweaty.
It is far easier for women or girls to blame another group 'men', rather then look at thier own mindset which is at the root of the issue.
Yet these are the same women and girls who get drawn into a competitive social media (between each other) looking for likes and comments on instragram and facebook posts. With photo filters and so on adding to the fakery of it all.