In aus.bicycle on Sat, 25 Nov 2006 23:15:12 +1100
Aeek <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The above quoting gives a completely different empasis than Bear's,
> which gave me a "normal clothing" spin (not down to Bear).
> Glad I went back to the source!
>
Cyclists wear all sorts of clothes. That's something that is
important!
On my commute I see everything from suits to full team kit. Mostly
people in lycra or normal shorts and t-shirts though. A few bods in
jeans.
I think the CM on Friday was a special event so some treated it as
such. I suspect it wasn't a good idea if you want to be seen as
normal traffic, but I don't have any way to know what the non-riders
thought specifically of that.
The anti-lycra thing is weird, I can't work out if it's jsut a
convenient way to demonise the other, some variety of homophobia, or a
dislike of the flouters of convention which says that something
looking like that is really underwear. All three probably. Find the
thing that is a known marker and also unconventional and as it has
bonus points about body image it makes a really good handle for
denigrating a group.
I wear a pair of old cargo shorts, or some heavyweight ribbed
leggings. Being female means I can wear the leggings of course, men
wearing such things get the homophobia bit above.
> Small groups? Tricky. Any number of commuters can be riding in
> proximity without being together. That's how traffic works.
Well yes. That's the *point* isn't it? Get enough bikes into an area
that they become a "critical mass" and are the traffic. Not to say
"we are special" but to say "we are normal".
As far as I'm aware, that's not what they do, and it's definitely not
what they did on Friday.
>
> Recognition of critical differences in the road rules, just like
> motorbikes and heavy vehicles, is not special treatment.
True. But having a police escort is. Else where's mine?
I think recognising that not everything's a car is important, and it
is slowly happening. The NSW state government is dragging the chain,
but councils are doing more and more.
It isn't clear to me what an group gathered together for the purpose
of blocking traffic does for that though.
It is clear to me that CM doesn't win friends except amongst other
cyclists. Which wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't gaining enemies
amongst non-cyclists.
>
> Onroad bike lanes and even bike boxes are traffic management options
> that benefit ALL traffic, complaints to the contrary.
I'm finding a lot of people have a zero sum game
approach to the road, if that lot benefit I must be losing somehow.
This definitely applies to anything seen as needing funding.
And of course lots of people are selfish, surprise surprise! They
don't give a damn about other people's safety or convenience,
only their own. Which is true of as many cyclists as it is of car
drivers I suspect.
And of motorcyclists, I copped a lot of flack including the good old
"They all run red lights so screw them" for saying that bike boxes are
a bicycle safety feature so why should motorcycles get to use them as a
convenience. I did point out that being against road safety for a class
of user because some of that class broke a road law without it seeming
to lead to a higher crash rate was a bad precedent for motorcyclists
but it didn't seem to sink in....
It's a very human thing, to see the other as either unimportant or
actively bad. So someone who rides a bicycle and a motorcycle and
drives a car sees fewer as other than someone who does 2 of the 3 or 1
of the 3. But then I dont skateboard or rollerblade.
Zebee