Cycling to work

POHB said:

Quoted message said:

the thing which has always struck me is how ethnically clean the
hills are.

Yup, and indeed the whole countryside is generally WASP.
The urban areas seem to have just about got the hang of non-racist
attitudes, but country pubs still go quiet if a black face walks in.

Yeah, I'd go quiet if a face walked in, too. You need feet to walk.

--
Ambrose

in message <[email hidden]>, POHB

(') said:

Quoted message said:

...they ensure that much higher a percentage of your downstroke power
is transferred to the crank and hence forward motion, rather than
wasting energy squishing a spongy sole.

I'm not too convinced that a lot of energy gets lost squishing a sole
because you'll get most of it back on the rebound, but maybe the
rebound only happens on the upstroke?

Only if the sole is perfectly elastic, which, as soles of shoes designed
for walking in are designed to damp shock, is exactly what they're not.
So you'll get little or none of it back.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; better than your average performing pineapple

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, POHB

(') said:

Quoted message said:

...they ensure that much higher a percentage of your downstroke
power is transferred to the crank and hence forward motion, rather
than wasting energy squishing a spongy sole.

I'm not too convinced that a lot of energy gets lost squishing a sole
because you'll get most of it back on the rebound, but maybe the
rebound only happens on the upstroke?

Only if the sole is perfectly elastic, which, as soles of shoes
designed for walking in are designed to damp shock, is exactly what
they're not. So you'll get little or none of it back.

Except as warmth for the feet. I'd imagine most of the rebound happens on
the upstroke though, and a lot of the deformation is within the foot, so
you'd actually be expending energy to counteract the deformation as well as
straightening up the foot. IANApedologist though

--
Ambrose

POHB said:

White Male: 38
White Female: 10
Non-White Male: 2
Non-White Female: 1

So why is cycling such a white male middle-class thing?

You forgot to tell us what your local demographics are.
For example, 6% non-white is by no means untypical of
the UK today, though of course it would be unrepresentative
in Bradford or Leicester.

As regards the sex balance, I shouldn't be at all surprised
if cycling (like many other physical activities) is indeed
predominantly male, but your figures are insufficient
information. What were the comparative numbers passing by
means other than cycling? Or at a different time of day?

--
not me guv

Clive George said:

but the thing which has always struck me is
how ethnically clean the hills are.

Something that the National Parks Authority has noticed and is taking
steps to address.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Nick Kew said:

You forgot to tell us what your local demographics are.
For example, 6% non-white is by no means untypical of
the UK today, though of course it would be unrepresentative
in Bradford or Leicester.

Cultural minorities are under represented as cyclists in London.

Quoted message said:

As regards the sex balance, I shouldn't be at all surprised
if cycling (like many other physical activities) is indeed
predominantly male, but your figures are insufficient
information. What were the comparative numbers passing by
means other than cycling? Or at a different time of day?

These figures are hopelessly out of date, and I'd be interested to see
any newer data.

1993/1995 Males averaged 59 miles per year
1993/1995 Females averaged 17 miles per year

http://tinyurl.com/lwp4q

Quoted message said:

Something that the National Parks Authority has noticed and is taking
steps to address.

I'm confused - have they identified that hills and footpaths are
institutionally racist, or do they merely desire a representative cross
section of society on the hills?

As a white male will some tendril of government tempt me to listen to more
rap or hip hop? :-)

Blonde said:

Quoted message said:

Ed Chilada said:

I suppose there was a split, but I was surprised at those who pedal to
work in their work shoes.> --

Quoted message said:

There are different types of work and different types of cycling. Many
people use either platform pedals or toe clips and straps so they have
more options as to footwear on the bike. I see many commuters dressed
in 'civvies' - especially students who will peadal to and from campus
in the same footwear they wear for lectures. Presonally prefer to use
cleated shoes to cycle in and to get changed into a skirt and the kind
of shoes I really could not cycle in (though I have seen other girls
cycling in huge heels - I just don't wnat to!). I don't have to get
changed as it would actually be fine for me to wear my cycling shoes to
work if I really wanted, I just wouldn't be very comfortable in them -
though you could argue that stillettos aren't that comfortable for work
either - I just like wearing them!

Quoted message said:

As regards cycling to work in my work clothes - I like to feel I look
good on my bike and for me that means wearing cycling specific kit even
though it is only 4 miles each way (sometimes I shower at work for
convenience as I share a house with another girl who may be in the
bathroom when I would want to use it, but I rarely 'need' to use the
shower at work as my commute isn't very far) I like to feel that I look
good at work and for me that means wearing girly skirts and high heels.
Many people do not care what they look like as much as me or simply
prefer to wear the same things for work and for cycling - it really
comes down to the type of commute you have (distance, terrain, effort
level), the type of work you do (are you expected to wear a uniform or
stick to a 'dress code'😉 and also your personal clothing/footwear
preference, and your own comfort.

Quoted message said:

It is perfectly possible for some people to cycle very long distances
in 'civvy' clothes or at least in clothes which do not look as though
thery are cycling specific. There is one regular on many an audax ride
I have done who always wears what appear to be non-cycling specific
clothes and yet completes distances that most people can't imagine
doing no matter what they are wearing. It really is one of those 'How
long is a peice of string?' questions, since everyone is so different
as regards their preferences and the level of discomfort they are
willing to put up with!

For most of her life my mother did her shopping by bicycle, wearing
the same clothes she walked about in. I recall a friend of hers who
made a small income from being a landlady, and cycled round her five
properties once a month collecting the rent. That round trip was about
20 miles. She also visited a friend once a month who lived 30 miles
away, and went there on her bike too. I last saw her in her late 60s,
when she was still doing this, on a sit up and beg bike with rod
brakes, and wearing a conventional skirt and coat. I suspect she liked
showing off her legs, which were better looking than most 30 year old
female legs these days.

What today's UK cycling culture has almost completely lost is people
who simply cycle because it's faster than walking, and would no more
think of pushing themsleves into a sweat that do walkers. People who
simply use the bicycle as convenient transport, and would no more
think of wearing special cycling clothes to cycle in than they would
think of wearing special walking clothes to walk to the local pub.

The helmet is doing its bit to destroy that culture too.

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

On Sat, 8 Apr 2006 09:32:39 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be Chris
Malcolm <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

People who
simply use the bicycle as convenient transport, and would no more
think of wearing special cycling clothes to cycle in than they would
think of wearing special walking clothes to walk to the local pub.

The helmet is doing its bit to destroy that culture too.

A helmet would be more useful to people in and walking to and from
pubs than to cyclists.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

i artikel [email hidden], skrev Clive
George på [email hidden] den 06-04-07 15.22:

Quoted message said:

"POHB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

So why is cycling such a white male middle-class thing?

Ditto caving, climbing, walking, mtbing. Ok, climbing and walking are
traditionally less dominated by the middle classes, but the thought applies.
I can see how the cost and time requirement of these activities might put
poorer people off, but the thing which has always struck me is how
ethnically clean the hills are.

Those are passtimes. Cycling to work is not a passtime. It's not strange
that groups who are well off do more things in their free time.

--
Erik Sandblom
my site is EriksRailNews.com
for those who don't believe, no explanation is possible
for those who do, no explanation is necessary

Richard said:

POHB said:

Cycle shoes typically have stiff soles and straps or something to stop laces
getting caught in the gears.
The stiff soles stop your feet getting tired, and maybe some other stuff.

Quoted message said:

...they ensure that much higher a percentage of your downstroke power is
transferred to the crank and hence forward motion, rather than wasting
energy squishing a spongy sole.

If that's the case, then it ought to take a lot more energy walking in
these squidgy-soled shoes, and especially running. Why don't
competitive runners complain about this? Why don't long distance
walkers, and those on their feet a lot?

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

David Hansen said:

On Sat, 8 Apr 2006 09:32:39 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be Chris
Malcolm <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

People who
simply use the bicycle as convenient transport, and would no more
think of wearing special cycling clothes to cycle in than they would
think of wearing special walking clothes to walk to the local pub.

The helmet is doing its bit to destroy that culture too.

Quoted message said:

A helmet would be more useful to people in and walking to and from
pubs than to cyclists.

Good point. I've known a number of heavy drinkers who habitually wore
leather jackets because they better handled the punishment of falling
over, having pints spilt on them, and last but not least, vomit. I'm
sure a suitable marketing campaign and design could sell helmets for
getting drunk in. And it should be much easier to find doctors and
nurses in ER with supportive horror stories about the dangers of
drinking without protective headgear.

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

in message <[email hidden]>, Chris Malcolm

(') said:

Richard <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

POHB said:

Cycle shoes typically have stiff soles and straps or something to
stop laces getting caught in the gears.
The stiff soles stop your feet getting tired, and maybe some other
stuff.

Quoted message said:

...they ensure that much higher a percentage of your downstroke power
is transferred to the crank and hence forward motion, rather than
wasting energy squishing a spongy sole.

If that's the case, then it ought to take a lot more energy walking in
these squidgy-soled shoes, and especially running. Why don't
competitive runners complain about this? Why don't long distance
walkers, and those on their feet a lot?

Because the alternative, when walking or running on hard surfaces, would
be unacceptable levels of foot injury.

The African runners who famously train barefoot are not running on tarmac
or concrete, they're running on turf or bare earth, which is what your
foot is designed to do. The surface has sufficient resilience that the
foot is not damaged.

Cycling is a non-impact activity - your foot does not touch down on
something hard at every turn of the pedals - and so there's no need for
shock absorption to protect your feet from injury.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Due to financial constraints, the light at the end of the tunnel
has been switched off.

Chris Malcolm said:

If that's the case, then it ought to take a lot more energy walking in
these squidgy-soled shoes, and especially running. Why don't
competitive runners complain about this?

They do: have a look at a pair of sprinting spikes and there's not very
much squish there. Different amounts of cushioning are applied to shoes
for different jobs and also different running styles. Folk like me with
a heavy strike and a high arch benefit much more from cushioning when
running on hard surfaces than many, and shoes for longer distances on
hard surfaces may well have more padding. Other factors are the
differential densities of padding used to help control motion
(over-pronators will have denser foams on the inside of the heel).

If the surface is reasonably cushioned to start with then less padding
is needed, so cross country and orienteering shoes have far less of a
squidgy midsole than road shoes.

Quoted message said:

Why don't long distance
walkers, and those on their feet a lot?

On hard surfaces the extra energy wasted is of less consequence than
impact discomfort, I'd guess. Walking gives lower impacts than running,
so walking shoes have less padding than runners.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch said:

Chris Malcolm said:

If that's the case, then it ought to take a lot more energy walking in
these squidgy-soled shoes, and especially running. Why don't
competitive runners complain about this?

They do: have a look at a pair of sprinting spikes and there's not very
much squish there.

It should be noted that running tracks are not hard surfaces, but are a
slightly springy rubber compound. Therefore spikes (1) can dig in and
(2) need no cushioning becasue the track provides that.

...d

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The bike was still faster than the motorbike
(let alone the tube) and I'd arrive much fresher at work.

How is that possible?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It depends on the person, the commute, the workplace. What might be
adequate for my commute might be entirely unsuitable for someone else's.
Give me an example and I'll suggest an adequate bike; but there are
so many combinations of person/commute/workplace such that pretty much
every sort of unicycle/bike/trike would be a perfectly suitable machine
for at least one of them.

I've worked out mine

A twin of about 30-40bhp, a plodder not a racer

Martin said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The bike was still faster than the motorbike
(let alone the tube) and I'd arrive much fresher at work.

How is that possible?

Not being confined to motor vehicle routes and being stuck in traffic
jams, and not wearing hot sweaty leathers and a hot sweaty helmet
respectively, I'd conjecture.

R.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Not being confined to motor vehicle routes and being stuck in traffic
jams, and not wearing hot sweaty leathers and a hot sweaty helmet
respectively, I'd conjecture.

A neighbour (of parents) used to reckon stink wheels were quickest through
traffic.

Thats funny I said - never had problems with a 600