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

Seth Brundle

cnocbui wrote: »

The anti helmet thing of a lot of cyclists on boards is ridiculous. Australia introduced compulsory helmet wearing and the rate of head injuries declined by almost 70%. Anti-helmeters are thick, and even thicker after they get their deserved head injury.

Cycling in South Australia in 2017 was down 20% on 2011. It is believed that the mandatory wearing of helmets is partly responsible.
In addition, Australia's public bikes scheme has collapsed because of the mandatory requirement for helmets: https://www.businessinsider.com.au/bike-sharing-industry-end-australia-2018-7

Also the likes of the BMA agree with the view that mandatory wearing of helmets is placing the onus incorrectly on cyclists and not on transport planners or even those that tend to cause the damage - the drivers.
https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1189.html

Wibbs

jimgoose wrote: »

Well, maybe girls are more bothered by it.

Or more like the usual "feminist" ballsology of; some women have a problem(usually non-existent or invented), therefore obviously it's men's fault. It would be nice if those daft harpies would just eff off and leave the rest of humanity alone.

Wibbs

Thinking back to my schooldays and cycling to school, even then(back in the 80's) there were far fewer girls cycling to school. Walking or bus was the norm.

Varta

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?

There is a massive contradiction in that sentence.

o1s1n

Wibbs wrote: »

Thinking back to my schooldays and cycling to school, even then(back in the 80's) there were far fewer girls cycling to school. Walking or bus was the norm.

Same here. Cycled to school all through the 90s, and thinking back, was 100% guys locking their bikes up. Don't think I ever saw a girl cycle in at all.

The skirts girls had to wear in our school were very long so I'd imagine that may have contributed to it.

Uncle Charlie

Are men also the reason not many girls play sports ?

Seth Brundle

Varta wrote: »

There is a massive contradiction in that sentence.

Not really.
A deterrent is something that discourages or is intended to discourage someone from doing something. It doesn't necessarily have to have the desired effect for it to be exist.

Amirani

cnocbui wrote: »

Ummm, If the 'risk' of head injury is reduced by 70%, then it follows that the statistic is arrived at from analysing before and after data. Yes, I should have said reduces risk, rather than 'declined by', but you know what, it was still correct, because that was what actually happened, else there wouldn't have been the 'after' data to support the reduced risk assessment.

That's not an accurate statistical assumption. You should probably leave the statistics/data analysis alone, it's clearly not your forte.

Reviews and Books Galore

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Not necessarily. Although that would differ by person, not by gender. Men don't generally fear the added threat of being sexually assaulted. A beating is bad but not that bad.

Hmmm, I doubt anybody who had a beating would class it as 'not that bad'.

Reviews and Books Galore

seamus wrote: »

It can be discouraged.

Education can take many forms. It doesn't necessarily have to be sitting someone down in a classroom and telling them something is wrong. It can be getting sh1t from your mates when you say something horrible.

In this case, if someone makes a comment about a woman and turns around for approval from their mates only to be met with disgusted faces...that's education.

And that involves encouraging kids to speak out when they see disrespectful behaviour from their peers, and rewarding and celebrating it.

Where in the past there was always a hevay focus on "going along with the crowd", rewarding kids for being team players and punishing individuality, now we're moving towards a model of rewarding kids for being individuals and not being afraid to stand up and out from the crowd.

It's perfectly normal to make comments about the opposite sex. I'm not saying to shout it at the woman, but the disgusted face aspect seems puritan to me.

Deebles McBeebles

Bondetf wrote: »

How often are women randomly sexually assaulted walking along the street?

I don't know, how many men are physically assaulted? Where would you even get such stats?

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Hmmm, I doubt anybody who had a beating would class it as 'not that bad'.

They would class it as not as bad as rape, for instance.

o1s1n

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Hmmm, I doubt anybody who had a beating would class it as 'not that bad'.

I don't know about you, but I'd still rather be beaten up by a gang of lads than sexually assaulted by a gang of lads.

suicide_circus

Uncle Charlie wrote: »

Are men also the reason not many girls play sports ?

almost certainly

We aren't talking about women being harrassed and being taught to cope with it by standing up for themselves. It's about schoolkids. Children. When I was a young teen no amount of telling me I shoulo stand up to an intimidating adult person twice my age or more and twice my size or more would have made me capable of actually doing it.

At worst it would just increase the perceived, or real, danger.

Salary Negotiator

cnocbui wrote: »

Ummm, If the 'risk' of head injury is reduced by 70%, then it follows that the statistic is arrived at from analysing before and after data. Yes, I should have said reduces risk, rather than 'declined by', but you know what, it was still correct, because that was what actually happened, else there wouldn't have been the 'after' data to support the reduced risk assessment.

But that's the point, the data doesn't show that head injuries have reduced by 70% it's an aggregated study so we don't know what actually happened.

It's also worth noting that included in the injury stats would be cyclists who were wearing a helmet and still suffered a serious injury, so a 70% reduction in risk won't equal a 70% reduction in injuries.

FWIW I'm not arguing against wearing helmets, I just didn't want your claim to go untested.

Wibbs

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

They would class it as not as bad as rape, for instance.

Depends on the level of the beating involved. I've known of beatings that had a wider and longer impact on lives, physically and mentally all the way up to suicides than some sexual assaults.

Though in the victimhood culture there are some victims more hallowed than others. Sexual assault victims are top of the tree.

Ush1

jimgoose wrote: »

I see. Sounds pleasant.

No it isn't, but often reality isn't pleasant and it's part of life.

Reviews and Books Galore

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

I don't know, how many men are physically assaulted? Where would you even get such stats?



They would class it as not as bad as rape, for instance.

I thought you meant sexual assault which is a wider definition that can range from toucing a man's bicep to other stuff?



I dunno, I think five men laughing, grunting, and breaking your jawbone/cheekbone/blinding you in one eye could be comparable to stranger rape? I'm basing this on the dehuminisation, humiliation and loss of bodiliy autonomy by the breaking of the bones.



Irregardless, this probably isn't the place for this discussion.

cnocbui

Amirani wrote: »

That's not an accurate statistical assumption. You should probably leave the statistics/data analysis alone, it's clearly not your forte.

But a comprehensive review by Australian statisticians Jake Olivier and Prudence Creighton from the University of New South Wales that drew together data from more than 40 separate studies found helmet use was associated with dramatically reduced odds of head injuries.

The findings were presented in Finland this week at Safety 2016, the world conference on injury prevention and safety promotion.

Olivier’s findings were particularly significant for serious or fatal head injuries and found the reduction was greater for these kinds of more serious injuries.

“Helmet use is associated with odds reductions of 51% for head injury, 69% for serious head injury, 33% for face injury and 65% for fatal head injury. Injuries to the neck were rare and not associated with helmet use,” the study found.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/sep/22/bicycle-helmets-reduce-risk-of-serious-head-injury-by-nearly-70-study-finds

What is your version of the correct statistical interpretation and does it lead you to arrive at a conclusion that mandatory helmet wearing would not lead to a dramatic reduction in cycling head injury related fatalities?

Deebles McBeebles

Wibbs wrote: »

Depends on the level of the beating involved. I've known of beatings that had a wider and longer impact on lives, physically and mentally all the way up to suicides than some sexual assaults.

Though in the victimhood culture there are some victims more hallowed than others. Sexual assault victims are top of the tree.

Its not about the impact though, its about the fear of it being a deterrent to cycling. I would imagine that fear is greater for women and added to the physical assault fear that men are as likely to hold.

I'm not going near your second paragraph!

The Tetrarch

I am sure men make comments to girls and women cyclists. They are a bit sad. It doubt it will ever be eradicated.

Saying cycling to school is unsafe is not backed up by statistics. "Let me buy a a new SUV and bring them to school" might be a motive for claiming it is too dangerous.

Not wearing helmets and high viz, and "taking the road", seems to be a badge of honour to some cyclists. I do not see the sense in it. I landed on my head and smashed my bike helmet.

I would like to see road safety statistics that not only show the number of pedestrians and cyclists killed but also what vehicle killed them. That might change the mentality that cycling is dangerous and motorists are blameless.

Insect Overlord

I'm six feet tall, broad shoulders, hairy arms, about as masculine looking as it gets, but I wear my hair in a ponytail. I was out jogging the winter before last and had the under armour tights on. Jogged past a group of teenagers on their way to school, and heard one lad saying "Check out the fine arse on her!" as I went past ahead of them. One of the others had seen my beard and had the hilarious privilege of telling his buddy "That was a man!"

Did I feel intimidated or harassed? No.
Was it a bit of an eye-opener anyway? Yes. Commuting and training are not times when you want or expect to be objectified like that.

Seth Brundle

The Tetrarch wrote: »

Not wearing helmets and high viz, and "taking the road", seems to be a badge of honour to some cyclists. I do not see the sense in it. I landed on my head and smashed my bike helmet.

Taking the lane is now recommended by the Road Safety Authority and is now in the Rules of the Road.
It is safer than allowing cars to squeeze past you on busy roads.

whisky_galore

cnocbui wrote: »

I cycled to school from early primary till late HS - in Australia in an urban setting. I wouldn't think of allowing my children to cycle to school here in a rural area as the roads are far too narrow and dangerous.

Fewer cars means more cyclists traveling at lower speeds. It's not the win you think it is.

Oz is full of dickheads shouting at cyclists, usually carloads of hoons. Would make Irish motorists appear very polite.

Reviews and Books Galore

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Its not about the impact though, its about the fear of it being a deterrent to cycling. I would imagine that fear is greater for women and added to the physical assault fear that men are as likely to hold.

I'm not going near your second paragraph!

I think he's talking about the broad range of sexual assault which I mentioned in my paragraph. Such as touching a man's hand without his permission while on a date to more extreme elements.



I wonder what your definition of sexual assault is? Are we talking about the pre me too or the post me too?

The Tetrarch

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Taking the lane is now recommended by the Road Safety Authority and is now in the Rules of the Road.
It is safer than allowing cars to squeeze past you on busy roads.

And groups of cyclists take it to extremes.
I am a cyclist and am appalled by the attitude of some cyclists, mainly club cyclists, or training groups.

Salary Negotiator

cnocbui wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/sep/22/bicycle-helmets-reduce-risk-of-serious-head-injury-by-nearly-70-study-finds

What is your version of the correct statistical interpretation and does it lead you to arrive at a conclusion that mandatory helmet wearing would not lead to a dramatic reduction in cycling head injury related fatalities?

If 0 cyclists wore helmets before the introduction then the study supports a likely reduction in serious injuries of 70%, however if 90% already wore helmets then the reduction would be quite low.

Bayes theorem is your friend here.

Ush1

Wibbs wrote: »

Depends on the level of the beating involved. I've known of beatings that had a wider and longer impact on lives, physically and mentally all the way up to suicides than some sexual assaults.

Though in the victimhood culture there are some victims more hallowed than others. Sexual assault victims are top of the tree.

And of course a beating can, and often does, kill you.

Deebles McBeebles

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

I think he's talking about the broad range of sexual assault which I mentioned in my paragraph. Such as touching a man's hand without his permission while on a date to more extreme elements.

I wonder what your definition of sexual assault is? Are we talking about the pre me too or the post me too?

There are different levels of physical assault too. Again, its about the fear, not the impact or level of the assault.

My definition would be the legal definition, not sure why you felt the need to bring me too into the conversation.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

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?

It's nonsense. Nothing more.

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?

Jesus Christ Seamus, wtf are you on about? When did anecdotal evidence ever amount to anything? Why bring in a strawman? Is it that difficult to debate the OP?

Men are being blamed for women not cycling (logic? No, there is none). Yet you somehow manage to bring in ALL harrassment and try (poorly) to link it with the OP?

What has the following post got to do with the thread? Who are the "some people" who don't accept it?

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?

en masse, what complete and utter crap. The idiot who wrote the article has an agenda, she heard that a friend of a friend was shouted at by another cyclist (about what we will never know) and now the bint is on the warpath. Male cyclists abusing Female cyclists, doesn't happen.

It's amazing the amount of brains that are spilled in the streets on the continent. Every day I am stepping in some poor cyclists brains, it's awful. If only they wore helmets... :rolleyes:

Imagine what sort of a sad b*stard you'd have to be to go harassing some young one on a bike..

Earthhorse

Candie wrote: »

We aren't talking about women being harrassed and being taught to cope with it by standing up for themselves. It's about schoolkids. Children. When I was a young teen no amount of telling me I shoulo stand up to an intimidating adult person twice my age or more and twice my size or more would have made me capable of actually doing it.

The best time to instill confidence in people is when they're young. Bit late once your adult personality has formed. Maybe it wouldn't have worked for you or in all circumstances but that doesn't mean it couldn't do a world of good.

Also, it's not necessarily about standing up to people but about ignoring them and not adjusting your behaviour because of them.

Wayne Jarvis

The Tetrarch wrote: »

I am a cyclist.

Wayne Jarvis

This thread gets a 2/10 from me. Needs more trans & traveller bashing.

cnocbui

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

If 0 cyclists wore helmets before the introduction then the study supports a likely reduction in serious injuries of 70%, however if 90% already wore helmets then the reduction would be quite low.

Bayes theorem is your friend here.

I rode a bicycle for at least a decade prior to the introduction of mandatory helmets in Australia. I know my anecdotal observations are completely worthless, as I would have only seen several thousand cyclists in that time, a tiny fraction of the total, but by some astonishing statistical fluke, I managed to see no cyclists wearing helmets; I know I certainly didn't. But yeah, you are right, I must have been cycling for a decade, blissfully unaware of the astonishing statistical anomaly bubble that accompanied me everywhere I went.

Playing devils advocate runs the risk of a bit of rub-off.

Guy Person

Guy Person wrote: »

This thread gets a 2/10 from me. Needs more trans & traveller bashing.

Cycling is probably a touchy subject for the trans crowd..

cnocbui

Earthhorse wrote: »

The best time to instill confidence in people is when they're young. Bit late once your adult personality has formed. Maybe it wouldn't have worked for you or in all circumstances but that doesn't mean it couldn't do a world of good.

Also, it's not necessarily about standing up to people but about ignoring them and not adjusting your behaviour because of them.

If you had read her first hand account of being on the receiving end of male harassment earlier in the thread, you might have perhaps had second thoughts about being so condescending.

Earthhorse

cnocbui wrote: »

If you had read her first hand account of being on the receiving end of male harassment earlier in the thread, you might have perhaps had second thoughts about being so condescending.

I did read it. There's no tone of condescension meant in my post.

Wibbs

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

I'm not going near your second paragraph!

I get that D, that's one hot coal to grab. Rape is one that's sacrosanct in the hierarchy. You will often hear "rape is the worse crime ever, worse than murder". Not to me it's not. When someone is murdered that's it, no hope, all of what they are and what they could be is taken from them. Game over. Given that terrible choice I know which one I'd go for without any shadow of a doubt.

inforfun

o1s1n wrote: »

Same here. Cycled to school all through the 90s, and thinking back, was 100% guys locking their bikes up. Don't think I ever saw a girl cycle in at all.

The skirts girls had to wear in our school were very long so I'd imagine that may have contributed to it.

Cycled to school all my school life in The Netherlands. Very few girls did. The ones that did were usually sport crazy.
And no school uniforms in The Netherlands. So that wasnt an excuse.

But also noticing the efforts a lot of the girls went through to get out of PE, which we had 3x a week in those days, i think i can guess why a lot of them preferred the bus over cycling.

cnocbui

whisky_galore wrote: »

Oz is full of dickheads shouting at cyclists, usually carloads of hoons. Would make Irish motorists appear very polite.

Never once happened to me. Contrary to your belief, it appears to be either an Irish thing or related to more modern times.

jimgoose

Wibbs wrote: »

Or more like the usual "feminist" ballsology of; some women have a problem(usually non-existent or invented), therefore obviously it's men's fault. It would be nice if those daft harpies would just eff off and leave the rest of humanity alone.

No, I think it's more along the lines of some women/girls have a problem, and it's quite likely to be the fault of a very small handful of knuckledraggers.

Earthhorse

Earthhorse wrote: »

I did read it. There's no tone of condescension meant in my post.

It's still asking a great deal of a 13 year old to ignore that kind of thing even if it makes her feel unsafe, and to just keep putting herself in that situation.

I wasn't lacking in confidence either, but lacking in worldliness and the ability to cope with adult harassment. There's a gap between confidence and the skills to overcome that sort of thing when you're feeling intimidated as a child.

jimgoose

Bondetf wrote: »

Then lack of resilience in women is the reason for differing number of cyclists if that is what you're saying.

That isn't what I'm saying and you display a, shall we say, idiosyncratic command of logic via such a statement. :pac:

Reviews and Books Galore

cnocbui wrote: »

If you had read her first hand account of being on the receiving end of male harassment earlier in the thread, you might have perhaps had second thoughts about being so condescending.

She's an adult, you don't have to defend her.

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

There are different levels of physical assault too. Again, its about the fear, not the impact or level of the assault.

My definition would be the legal definition, not sure why you felt the need to bring me too into the conversation.

No real reason.

begsbyOnaTrain

whisky_galore wrote: »

Oz is full of dickheads

Could have left it at that tbh.

Reviews and Books Galore

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

She's an adult, you don't have to defend her.

Indeed I am. And so is that poster, engaging in discussion on a discussion site, who doesn't need you to police them.

Mad_maxx

begsbyOnaTrain wrote: »

We need to make it illegal for boys to go to school. It's the progressive thing to do. Also to make sure they don't act up and display toxic masculinity, boys (and indeed men) should not be allowed outside without being accompanied by a female relative or spouse. It's for their own good.

I'd go further and take Julie bindels recommendation, "men should be placed in camps "

Earthhorse

Candie wrote: »

It's still asking a great deal of a 13 year old to ignore that kind of thing even if it makes her feel unsafe, and to just keep putting herself in that situation.

If the situation continues, I agree. If the situation happens intermittently that's different.

I wasn't lacking in confidence either, but lacking in worldliness and the ability to cope with adult harassment. There's a gap between confidence and the skills to overcome that sort of thing when you're feeling intimidated as a child.

Okay, then we teach young women those coping skills.

storker

Wibbs wrote: »

Thinking back to my schooldays and cycling to school, even then(back in the 80's) there were far fewer girls cycling to school. Walking or bus was the norm.

I never cycled to school. It would have been a one-way trip for the bike...