Journalism and cycling

magicbastarder

http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/irish-columnist-cyclists-judgemental-purity/

Felexicon

robyntmorton wrote: »

CramCycle wrote: »

I disagree with the keep pedalling comment as this is one I have been given loads but I can sort of understand why it has been misinterpreted.

The trouble is that the comment (while usually totally innocent) can be so easily misconstrued (by either gender) as “Oh, look at the condescending pr!ck make comments as he flies past me”

Even a simple “Hello!” Or “Good [insert time of day]!” can cause offence if the recipient is having a really bad day, but is less likely to be taken as a comment on the persons ability.

If you ever get offended by someone saying hello or good morning to you I think you should seek professional help

Annie get your Run

magicbastarder wrote: »

What is stopping women from cycling?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-41737483?SThisFB

I do think I get a lot more abuse from motorists when I'm on the bike because I'm a woman, I think they take bigger risks to get past me too because they perceive I'm slower (than I actually am). That annoys me definitely. However, the support and assistance I've gotten from fellow male commuters is great. You'll always get a few gob*****s shoaling but they do it to everyone that's already there, not just women. I'd often get the odd friendly comment stopped at lights or if someone has seen a close pass / incident you've had they'll usually say something as they pass by. I do see a few other women on my commute but it's usually closer to the city, mostly it's guys. We need to fix the current them V us battles before we can start encouraging more people onto their bikes though..

Tombo2001

HivemindXX wrote: »

I agree this is an issue but I disagree with quite a few of the points the author made. "Get off the road!" and similar abuse is directed at male cyclists too and just as much I'd bet. The anti-cyclist brigade actually seem to be more incensed by male cyclists in tight fitting clothes judging by the bizarre comments you often read on the subject.

Taking umbrage at "keep pedaling, nearly there" is probably misplaced too. As a male cyclist I've both given and received that exact comment from and to other male cyclists. I think that's just friendly encouragement and there is too much being read in to it.

Claims that roads simply aren't safe is misleading. Some roads are dangerous but cycling on the roads in general is quite safe and the statistics back this up.

It is very disappointing that more women don't feel cycling is a good solution to them although my own perception is that the percentage commuting and doing sportives is increasing a lot.

Here's a similar piece from The Guardian last week about teaching refugees in Berlin how to cycle. Perhaps this highlights the difference in attitudes between non-cyclists in Germany and the UK but cycling seems to be a completely positive experience for these people.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2018/jan/16/the-feeling-of-freedom-empowering-berlin-refugee-women-through-cycling

Actually - that is a very good point. What is with the constant MAMIL thing......there is absolutely no way they would get away with an equivalent term of abuse (and lets be clear, its a term of abuse) against women. People get really really hung up about it. In a world where there is constant talk about obesity and the dangers to society, and yet you put some sports clothes on and you become an object of ridicule.

Felexicon

Think we should get a few of these for the female riders out there.

AndrewJRenko

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Actually - that is a very good point. What is with the constant MAMIL thing......there is absolutely no way they would get away with an equivalent term of abuse (and lets be clear, its a term of abuse) against women. People get really really hung up about it. In a world where there is constant talk about obesity and the dangers to society, and yet you put some sports clothes on and you become an object of ridicule.

When some of the ladies in work mentioned the term with a smirk, I laughed with 'Oh, you mean the middle-aged-mammies-in-lycra' and waited for the reaction.

Pinch Flat

I find it funnier that people lounge around in sports wear - trakkie bottoms / sports hoodies and trainers - who are obviously unfit and unsportsmanlike then laugh at Mamils:pac:

eeeee

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Actually - that is a very good point. What is with the constant MAMIL thing......there is absolutely no way they would get away with an equivalent term of abuse (and lets be clear, its a term of abuse) against women. People get really really hung up about it. In a world where there is constant talk about obesity and the dangers to society, and yet you put some sports clothes on and you become an object of ridicule.

Again I would refer you to the context - women, girls and female identifying people's bodies have been used in a very particular way since images and advertising began. They were, and continue to be held to completely different standards to the male body in our society. The male body is starting to come under a tiny modicum of the scrutiny and judgement the female body has been under for generations, which isn't ok, but not even in the ha'penny place in comparison to how the female body has been used, judged and discussed.

Context is everything. History is important. It is essential to learn from the injustices of the past (and in the context of this topic, the present unfortunately). This does not excuse the judgement within the MAMIL term, but fair equivalence is also relevant.

eeeee

Felexicon wrote: »

Think we should get a few of these for the female riders out there.

This kind if thing annoys me too (never happy!). I really resent the cheerleading, patronising 'you can do it too' tone that often accompanies getting women into traditionally male dominated environments.
The classically male power pose aped by the woman in this image is a missed opportunity to put forward an image of power not modelled on a traditionally patriarchal image of strength and participation.

But that's a whole other feminist discussion so probably need to start a new thread rather than drag this one OT.

Tombo2001

nee wrote: »

Again I would refer you to the context - women, girls and female identifying people's bodies have been used in a very particular way since images and advertising began. They were, and continue to be held to completely different standards to the male body in our society. The male body is starting to come under a tiny modicum of the scrutiny and judgement the female body has been under for generations, which isn't ok, but not even in the ha'penny place in comparison to how the female body has been used, judged and discussed.

Context is everything. History is important. It is essential to learn from the injustices of the past (and in the context of this topic, the present unfortunately). This does not excuse the judgement within the MAMIL term, but fair equivalence is also relevant.

Well... my point was that you couldn't say the same thing about women. I amnt talking about how men are portrayed in the media here, I am talking about a real life situation where the term mamil is used in a derogatory way to sneer at men cycling bikes. Can you point towards an equivalent term for women that's an accepted term, based on a woman's appearance, in contemporary times.

eeeee

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Well... my point was that you couldn't say the same thing about women. I amnt talking about how men are portrayed in the media here, I am talking about a real life situation where the term mamil is used in a derogatory way to sneer at men cycling bikes. Can you point towards an equivalent term for women that's an accepted term, based on a woman's appearance, in contemporary times.

Where do you start with these?!!

As regards cycling specific ones, there isn't one, I think due to the extremely low levels of female participation proportionally, you don't see that many out on the road. In all the club spins I've been on the last few years I've only ever seen about 5 women out on bikes that weren't in our group.

I agree that the MAMIL description is derogatory, and shouldn't be used. I don't use it myself. But to argue that it's even vaguely equivalent to how women's bodies are forensically examined and judged in society (in and out of the media, formally, informally and between friends, 'real life situations') is utterly wrong. This might the the only context I can think of where women's bodies aren't the ones with the derogatory term but men's are.

I agree with you on the use of MAMIL as a derogatory term.

NeedMoreGears

Hiya Nee, I'd agree with your comments above.

Just as a FYI - The above image dates from 1940's USA. Wikipedia suggests this one was used as part of a morale boosting campaign by Westinghouse, whose workforce would likely have included many females . The slogan features in other similar posters such as one of male forearms used by General Motors. It became known/associated with "Rosie the Riveter" in the early 1980s which was my first thought on seeing it. (I think Rosie was also a propaganda concept, maybe a film of the 1940s). The image was widely published in the 80s . Wiki also suggests that it became associated with "feminism" at the time. Looking back it may well have become a more patronising "we can do it" as distinct from "we can win a war and save the world from a great evil" when it was first conceived.

NMG

magicbastarder

Coincidentally, the woman who inspired rosie the riveter has died.

Tombo2001

HEADLINE - Appeal for cyclists not to ride two abreast

An appeal for cyclists to avoid travelling two abreast on rural roads in Westmeath has gone out from the quarterly Joint Policing Committee meeting, held in Mullingar.

http://www.westmeathexaminer.ie/news/roundup/articles/2018/01/24/4151147-appeal-for-cyclists-not-to-ride-two-abreast/

Issues
- Riding two abreast is (i) legal and (ii) safer than single file. Yet the paper is happy to champion a view that cyclists should not do something that is both their legal right and a safe way to cycle.
- An incredibly mis-leading first paragraph. No appeal was made by the Joint Policing Committee or by Westmeath County Council.
- The 3-abreast fallacy, and in this case 4-abreast also. The article gives prominence to the guy who says it happens all the time. Does it happen all the time? Evidence is always anecdotal..........much like the loch ness monster.....people see it all the time, but somehow never captured on photo.
-The victim blaming with zero evidence to back it up ..... 'They’re the cause, I reckon, of accidents'....
- The solution......cyclists need to be 'trained'. Not motorists though.
-Councillor O'Brien makes a high risk overtaking manouevre- and somehow this is promoted as being the cyclists fault......even when its my fault, its still your fault.
- Every discussion about cycling contains the one guy who says something like ...I'm a cyclist myself, and can i just say as a motorist that I am just as frustrated with cyclists as the rest of you....and this is a big validation for the anti-cyclist argument. And the person saying it in this case is the police superintendent.

Really - these people will not be happy unless cyclists are off the road completely. They'll never say it
but thats the long and short of it.

Tenzor07

Poll on the Journo... head straight for the comments... Red lights..Tax.. Insurance... License.. NCT... Ban.. Pay.. Helmets.. Hi-Vis.. Body Armour.. Guns..


http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-cycling-2-3815791-Jan2018/

Macy0161

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Poll on the Journo... head straight for the comments... Red lights..Tax.. Insurance... License.. NCT... Ban.. Pay.. Helmets.. Hi-Vis.. Body Armour.. Guns..

Only got to a reply to the first comment, and the whole "european cities were bombed so could plan/ had room for cycling infrastructure" myth was put out there again.

Tombo2001

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Poll on the Journo... head straight for the comments... Red lights..Tax.. Insurance... License.. NCT... Ban.. Pay.. Helmets.. Hi-Vis.. Body Armour.. Guns..


http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-cycling-2-3815791-Jan2018/

Really no point in looking at comments section on thejournal. Of all the media outlets, its the one where people really are allowed say anything at all. And that applies to pretty much any article, not just cycling.

My 'wake up' moment with thejournal was where I as at a public event (a 'ceili') that Enda Kenny showed up to, chatted to people, danced a bit, had a laugh and then left. Comments on thejournal article about the event went into detail about how it was a fake event, set up for the media, rent-a-crowd wheeled out by Kenny for the cameras. Having been at it, and then seen the online comments, I just really thought you cant win with these people. They are only interested in stirring things up, facts and real life dont come into the picture at all.

De Bhál

overtaking distance being discussed now on Radio 1

Annie get your Run

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Poll on the Journo... head straight for the comments... Red lights..Tax.. Insurance... License.. NCT... Ban.. Pay.. Helmets.. Hi-Vis.. Body Armour.. Guns..


http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-cycling-2-3815791-Jan2018/

1,201 people who cycle and don't feel safe V 287 people who cycle that do feel safe :eek:. That's fairly damming. Will be interesting to see final results.

minikin

Would the minimum passing distance of 1.5m mean the end of people cycling two or more abreast? To do so (venture outside of a 1m space to left of the lane) would mean that they would be within 1.5m of traffic in the opposing lane.

Lane width on local streets can be a minimum of 2.5m*
*4.4.1 page 100 of Design manual for urban roads and streets, dept of transport.

De Bhál

De Bhál wrote: »

overtaking distance being discussed now on Radio 1

cyclists just riding round veering into traffic the whole time it seems

Felexicon

minikin wrote: »

Would the minimum passing distance of 1.5m mean the end of people cycling two or more abreast? To do so (venture outside of a 1m space to left of the lane) would mean that they would be within 1.5m of traffic in the opposing lane.

Lane width on local streets can be a minimum of 2.5m*
*4.4.1 page 100 of Design manual for urban roads and streets, dept of transport.

Not if they wait until that lane is clear. You know, like they should already.

TheChizler

minikin wrote: »

Would the minimum passing distance of 1.5m mean the end of people cycling two or more abreast? To do so (venture outside of a 1m space to left of the lane) would mean that they would be within 1.5m of traffic in the opposing lane.

Lane width on local streets can be a minimum of 2.5m*
*4.4.1 page 100 of Design manual for urban roads and streets, dept of transport.

Minimum passing distance only relates to traffic going the same direction as you AFAIK.

Chips Lovell

Felexicon wrote: »

Not if they wait until that lane is clear. You know, like they should already.

I think he means that the cyclists riding two abreast could be within 1.5m of traffic in the oncoming lane.

Macy0161

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I think he means that the cyclists riding two abreast could be within 1.5m of traffic in the oncoming lane.

In which case the traffic isn't actually overtaking.

For a law that is apparently not needed, and is unenforceable, there seems to be a massive amount of opposition from motoring lobby groups. If it doesn't happen, they've nothing to worry about. If it's unenforceable, they've nothing to worry about. So why the opposition and trying to pick holes in it and point to extreme cases?

Chips Lovell

Oh I know it's not. But it does beg the question of why less than 1.5m is safe in some circumstances (approaching oncoming traffic) and unsafe in others (overtaking).

Macy0161

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Oh I know it's not. But it does beg the question of why less than 1.5m is safe in some circumstances (approaching oncoming traffic) and unsafe in others (overtaking).

Is it? Any group I've ridden with would call "car down" and tighten up in such circumstances, if we hadn't tightened up given the road conditions anyway. tbh, just seems more excuse making - add it to the whataboutery list.

Chips Lovell

In fairness, I don't think its excuse making. There's a lot of potential pitfalls. As a cyclist, I think 1.5m is very effective as a guideline for motorists, but makes for a very poor law, as it makes dangerous overtaking harder to prosecute, not easier.

Macy0161

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

In fairness, I don't think its excuse making. There's a lot of potential pitfalls. As a cyclist, I think 1.5m is very effective as a guideline for motorists, but makes for a very poor law, as it makes dangerous overtaking harder to prosecute, not easier.

So I ask again, why are the motoring lobby groups (AA, Taxi reps, haulage reps) so against it? Poor law, unenforceable, less prosecutions - they should be fully supportive! They aren't against it because of bs reasons that it might be bad for cyclists that is 100%!

Chips Lovell

Maybe they haven't thought it through either?

Dangerous overtaking is already an offence. The problem is that it (along with a rake of other offences) isn't enforced in any meaningful way. But expanding the Traffic Corps and actually enforcing the law will cost money.

Minimum passing laws are great PR for politicians, because they can claim to be doing something for cyclists without having to spend a penny.