You Could At Least Dress The Part . . .
I was at a cycling conference last week, thanks to the generousity of that Nice Carlton Reid - he was one of the speakers, and had a free guest’s ticket, which I grabbed at when offered.
The theme was “Cycling and the Sustainable Door to Door Journey”. Not very exciting-sounding, and with speakers on the bill from transport planning departments & train operators, it had the potential to turn into one of those days. Zzzzzzzzzzzz.
But it was actually well worth the trip to That London, with quite a few of the presentations doing a good job of overcoming my inner cynicism about how The People Who Run The System view cycling.
What was interesting was that almost without exception, the talk was about everyday cycling. The sort you do when you just grab your bike & jump on, heading off to work, the shops, the pub, wherever. Almost as if it was about treating a bike as a means of transport, rather than as a toy. Of course, I suppose that was to be expected at a conference about transport. But I do wonder if cycling in the UK is finally, as NedRailways CEO Anton Valk suggested, reaching a tipping point.
Lots of the presentations included pictures of everyday cyclists doing everyday things - just the sort of thing that you can see in technicolour over at the usual suspects’ sites in Amsterdam & Copenhagen. Oh, and this one in London. Carlton made a point of comparing these with the Bicycl Industry’s main sales message for urban cyclists. It’s basically a case of tweeds / floaty skirts Vs Cordura, helmets, smog masks, etc.
I know which group I’d rather spend time with.
Anyway, walking back to Kings Cross, I passed the Cycle Surgery shop on Pentonville Road. Maybe it was that I’d just spent a day being indoctrinated into sensible cycling clothing, or maybe it was just the time of day. But I found the window display absolutely ludicrous - especially as I’d just been passed by a courier riding a Christiana Cargo Bike. The contrast was just too ridiculous. Here we see a mannequin on a folder (sensible man - you can take that on the train at any time). He’s wearing a suit (good, sensible clothing) . . . accessorised with . . . a hi-viz bib, helmet, killer cyborg shades, and a smog mask. Oh, and despite being on a folder with a rack, he’s got a courier bag over his shoulder.
Maybe I’m just being over-critical, but does this look like the sort of image that non-cyclists (the 98% of the population) would see in the shop window and think, “Yeah, I’ve just gotta get me some of that!”
What do you think?
Well, for good insights like this, it was worth getting you the free ticket!
Spot on with the facemask stuff. These things should be hidden behind the counter and sold only to those who demand them (there’s research that shows motorists breathe in more particulates than cyclists).
For sure they should not be in a window display!
I also have problems with hi-vis jackets. I’m not sure motorists see them. My three little kids used to wear them going to school but they made little difference to car speeds. Nothing does. Except speed cameras and mobile radars.
I know what you mean - have an “oooh look, I’m a cyclist wearing yellow” Altura jacket I wear when it’s wet or cold, but I really don’t think anyone takes any notice of it, or makes a better job of seeing me.
As for the smog masks . . . well I DO have a Lowe Alpine ski mask that I use when the temperature-minus-windchill drops below about -40 (quite rare, even here). I’ve used it a couple of times when cycling in winter, but it does such a good job of restricting my breathing that it’s really not worth the effort. And as for thinking about how good a job as a petri dish it does . . . . ewwww!
Oh, imagine the fuss if they put a dummy in the window without a helmet - gasp! And I suppose in fairness to the bike shop, they want to put things they sell in their windows, not stuff (ordinary clothes …) other shops sell. But the pollution mask is a bit far.
I wore a hi-vis jacket cycling in London. Not because I thought it might make a difference to the drivers, but because I thought it might embarrass them after they’d knocked me off my bike to say ‘but I didn’t see you…’ The damn thing was visible from the moon…
You’re spot on there - it’s a bike shop, and they want to display the stuff they sell. And given the special kind of stupid (like the fuss made about this magazine’s cover) that people can get about helmets, I take your point.
But . . . but . . . but, I think the stuff they’re displaying is just missing a huge potential market. One that’s 49 times bigger than the one they currently sell to.
Actually, Carlton, there is one thing that works. Just keep the cars away from the bikes. Works a treat over here - everyone cycles.
The masks / helmets etc. are a symptom of a problem. People wear them because they’re scared. I’ve never seen a mask here, and helmets are worn only by those impersonating racers (and actual racers, but they’re somewhat rarer) and perhaps these days on about 5% of really small children.
But the magazine cover, Karl. Please explain what the problem is. OK, so it’s shot in such a way that he appears to have a big head, he’s wearing clothing that is going to get dirty on such an impractical bike and it has “mellow johnnys” written on it (which makes me smirk for some reason), but this is just silly stuff. Is there something important that I’ve missed ?
It’s a shame that Lance is concentrating on Trek bikes, as he won’t have any really sensible, reliable, designed for everyday use machines to sell. Trek does make several such bikes, complete with hub gears, hub brakes, hub dynamos and enclosed chains as well as mudguards, racks and inbuilt lights and lock. but they only sell them in NL:
http://www.trekbikes.com/nl/nl/bikes/bike_path/leisure/viennak/
They’re obviously reserved only for people who never wear helmets…
I think the issue with the magazine was he’s not wearing a helmet. Gasp! How totally irresponsible, to be pictured not riding a bike, while not wearing a helmet.
What is really scary is that hi-viz vests and the like are now being foisted onto kids who are walking to school. As if we didn’t have enough problems getting kids to walk to school without turning it into a dangerous activity which requires specialist clothing.
Actually, a scarily large number of people consider walking to be dangerous. I forget the exact figures, but there was a scarily high percentage who considered walking and cycling to be dangerous when Socialdata studied Darlington prior to its becoming a CDT - I think it was 65% and 85%.
It’s “subjective safety” once again. I don’t know Darlington specifically, but all too many pavements in Britain are too narrow and have no separation from the road.
Walking along a pavement where you are separated by just a few inches form high speed traffic is just not pleasant.
Then you have the low frequency of crossings. On the way to my daughter’s school in Cambridge I used to cross a busy road with the aforementioned style of pavements, and ideally would have crossed exactly half way between two crossings separated by a mile. Lots of children ran across the road between the two approved crossings. Lots of people crossed at the crossings against the green man too, as the average delay for a pedestrian was about 35 s - galling when the average delay for a motorist at the adjacent traffic lights was just 7.5 s.
Where a pedestrian and cyclist unfriendly environment is built - as it has been in the UK - a high perceived risk and a low rate of taking part is only to be expected.
[...] I’ve already mentioned, I went to a cycling / transport conference in That London last week. One of the speakers was [...]