To layer up, or not to layer up, that was the question raised by a brief clip of yesterday’s morning commute on London’s Cycleway 4, thanks to the presence of a tough/foolhardy [delete as appropriate] cyclist making his way to work with his knees firmly on show as the temperature barely nudged above zero.
With the mercury rapidly plummeting this week, the clothing choices of the cyclists around us can certainly divide opinion.
And while we’ll never tell you what to wear while on your bike (it’s up to you at the end of the day), I’ve always been in the ‘more layers the better’ camp – and, in my wilder, youthful days, have been known to express derision towards the ‘hard men’ in the group ride steadfastly intent on donning shorts as ice glints in the background (wearing shorts throughout winter is not a personality trait, alright?).
Anyway, off my soapbox I go, and back to Greenwich Cyclists’ clip, which the OP captioned with “Bit nippy at 2C. Kudos to the guy in shorts.”
Others, such as Clare, were also impressed by our Le Col shorts-sporting friend’s attire:
And Pablo even said he “saw a guy in a t-shirt on his bike today”. I’m cold just thinking about it.
However, others weren’t as impressed. “Saw two or three in shorts on my way in this morning. Far too cold for me to be doing the same!” wrote Clarissa.
“Yes and, er, no,” road safety guru Bob Davis replied. “The only people I have known who went out with uncovered knees at temperatures below 5 Centigrade developed knee problems.”
“Steep learning curve for a few gloveless Lime users yesterday,” added Guido.
However, since the clip was posted on Twitter, we also had the usual hordes of commenters moving the conversation away from the important stuff – like whether shorts in winter is a good idea – and criticising instead the cycling on display on Cycleway 4.
“Oh yes indeed passing the cyclists decked out in black, they’ll be finishing work before it gets dark,” Nigel chipped in with the obligatory dark clothing remark.
Meanwhile, most of the other anti-cycling snoopers were intent on criticising the decision by a number of the riders to overtake the FedEx delivery cyclist.
“Why are cyclists riding on the wrong side of the cycle way? Cyclists coming the other way (correctly) had to move out of the way,” said Tony.
“Is that bad cycling in an oncoming cycle lane?” asked Ian, while Oliver wrote: “Some pretty impatient cyclists there including the camera crossing hard white going on the wrong side and almost clipping oncoming just to get a few yards ahead.”
“And ‘kudos’ to you for showing all the cyclists who don’t know how to ride on the left of a two-way bike lane, but would scream if a car did the same thing,” added Xuan.
“Look at how they use their own cycle lines,” said Lucian (and I assume he meant ‘lanes’). “Close passes, dangerous overtaking, inconsiderate, wrong side, almost head-on collision. Then they take this onto the real roads and always claim that it’s the motorists that are the danger.”
Finally, the very observant Ged wrote: “If car drivers are supposed to give cyclists 1.5 metres when they pass so the cyclist feels safe, shouldn’t cyclists also give 1.5 metres? I think if I was out cycling and one the lycra clad speedsters hurled past me too close I would feel very unsafe.”
Yes, because those two things are exactly the same… Can’t we just have a nice debate about cycling shorts for once?
Add new comment
69 comments
Tom tom need to go drive in manila. Then complain about long journey tiems.
Took 3hrs to do the a 12mile trip there once.
"“Oh yes indeed passing the cyclists decked out in black, they’ll be finishing work before it gets dark,” Nigel chipped in with the obligatory dark clothing remark."
Bit ironic that one, given that when it is dark the colour of your clothing doesn't matter a bit. Black, white, blue, yellow, polka dot - doesn't make a blind bit of difference because.... it's f'in dark. Lights and reflectives are the relevant factors in the dark - and can make you far more visible at night while wearing an all black ninja suit than you would be in a hi-vis workman's jacket during the day.
Is there even a proper definition of what Hi-Viz is in a cycling context? Hi-Viz in snow is black, in the dark, reflective (or very light), in the countryside, multi-colour but not green-based.
I'm wondering if Tom-Tom have bought into the crackpot theories about 15 minute cities or whatever. Or perhaps they're just short of publicity and think that being disingenuous will endear them to drivers. Well it might, but only the stupid ones.
15-minute city pioneer Carlos Moreno announces he’s set to lecture at Oxford University on the controversial and misrepresented urban planning concept
I'll be sending that to my MP, Mark Harper, suggesting that he attends: he really needs educating on his brief.
I reckon about half the road space in London is used to store empty cars, and most of what is left has one person per car traffic taking up most of the road space. The problem of low traffic speeds in London is caused by too many cars - not 20 mph speed limits.
What is really striking walking back through somewhere like Kensington is just how many cars parked on London streets haven't moved for months. Cars don't go green and slimy in a few weeks.
“This is enabling active travel”: Council praised for swift clean-up of flooded bike routes
"Nevertheless, despite the good reactive work from the council, Bike Worcester also noted that “while the routes are great for a safer route from the south of the city, they're the first to close when floods occur."
The bike paths are close to the river Severn where further upstream numerous areas of flood plains have been built on and flood barriers push more water dowwnstream. Not easily going to stop it from happening.
The idea that recent housebuilding and the flood barriers in places like Shrewsbury and Ironbridge are making the problem in Worcester much worse is incorrect. There is virtually no housebuilding on the floodplain areas that could (and do) ease the problem. The barriers protecting vulnerable locations don't make any difference to river levels further downstream. Look at the vast area submerged at Melverley last week, to name just one of several floodplains:
https://twitter.com/ShropshireMatt/status/1743250491314733508/video/1
The issue is that the bike paths are placed beside or close to the longest river in the country, which is flooding and more and more frequently with the trend towards milder, wetter winters.
I can't work out if these people are stupid, WUMs, or genuine - certainly ignorant of the HC.
https://twitter.com/stuartj0hnson/status/1744619650107723837
Loads of comments about there being enough room and it was easily 1.5m
Oh and "The bike in front needs to get in more!"
They must hit a lot of parked cars as they clearly can't judge distance.
I think I made a similar comment during the pandemic. If drivers think that's 1.5m how will advising them to keep 2m social distance actually help contain Covid.
If drivers think that's 1.5m how will advising them to keep 2m social distance actually help contain Covid
This nutter BMW driver of PK14 HLW had learned the number, but didn't think it actually applied. He said 'I gave you 1.5 metres', along with threatening to 'knock me off' and 'fucking flatten me'. After much effort by me, the police were eventually persuaded to 'have a word with him', but that was only for the threats. The close passing was ignored.
“Yes and, er, no,” road safety guru Bob Davis replied. “The only people I have known who went out with uncovered knees at temperatures below 5 Centigrade developed knee problems.”
I was actually lectured on this subject (knee pronblems) by an old pro I cycled with on a cold April morning. He actually said that just because it was Spring didn't mean that I should have my knees out on a "training ride". He actually set the temp at 15°C. I did go and buy some knee warmers and I still pretty much stick to this advice.
I've always been a reluctant knee uncoverer - my personal theory being that knees need all the tlc they can get. Interesting to see someone else loves knees too.
Was given the same advice for when training (or just bimbling), 'below 15 degrees, cover the knees'
"According to TomTom’s analysis, journeys of 10km in central London took an average of 37 minutes and 20 seconds last year"
Considering a lot of cyclists could do 10km in less than 30 minutes even in a city environment on flat terrain, the answer is glaringly obvious, and yet nobody sees it.
Also, 10km in 37 minutes is approx 10mph so how would increasing the limit from 20 to 50 mph help if they're not going anywhere near 20mph anyway?
But if there was a highway through the centre of the city which cut the place in two, caused a lot of noise and pollution and allowed people to easier avoid visiting the parts of the city which actually make money the speed of cars would be increased and that would be a good thing...for some reason.
Right. "I can't average more than 10 MPH because the speed limit is 20, not 30 or 50" is all kinds of stupid.
I think the biggest thing is how, in the context of the city being a prosperous, pleasant, human place to live, higher average speed of car traffic is actually a bad thing. Nobody looks at the side of a motorway and thinks, "man, I wish I had a house on the hard shoulder and I could open a shop there!" Being able to drive through a city quickly is only useful if you don't want to stop there.
https://metro.co.uk/2024/01/10/gran-sending-christmas-cards-killed-drive...
That is yet another travesty. Lots to hate about this, but the nissan navara is certainly right up there.
Mrs HawkinsPeter and I did the Tongariro Alpine crossing a few years ago - it's a tough walk and definitely not suitable for bikes. The weather itself is a challenge as you need to be prepared for hot and sunny at the low levels and freezing winds at altitude. We chose to do it as Mrs HawkinsPeter was enamoured by the Emerald and Blue Lakes, but once we got up to altitude where you get all the magnificent views, the fog descended and we could see nothing. Luckily, there's so many tourists going along there, that you can just follow everyone else and don't need to see where you're going.
Ther bikers must have been determined as there's so many warning signs along the route - they mostly detail how many hours walk it is to get to the end and recommend turning back if you are struggling at all as once you get around half way, there's no turning back and nowhere for helicopters to land to rescue you.
Like many drivers.
it's a tough walk and definitely not suitable for bikes
These cyclists were definitely in the wrong, but sometimes a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do, and 'not suitable for bikes' is a good challenge when nothing's being damaged. It was a 6 hour carry up the snowfields to the Theodulpass from Zermatt on the crossing to Cervinia. You're overlooked by the cablecar to the Klein Matterhorn, and jeered at by the occupants (I recall being sure at the time that it was jeering rather than cheering).
A bit of (half hearted) defence of Tom Tom.
The blaming 20mph zones is plain weird, especially when the average speed is so far below 20mph. (I think they point to the average speed getting slower, but then they also say that's true for most cities.)
However, on the 50mph point, I think they are just making the comparison with other cities - they do say that London doesn't have the infrastructure for driving quickly.
And, most positively, their actual recommendation is "At the same time, local authorities must put support behind programmes that encourage cycling, public transport and other modes to take a larger share in transportation.”
Other cities? Motor-normative cities like Houston I suppose.
"London is world's slowest city for drivers, study finds"
No mention of how this compares to previous years (prior to implimentation of 20mph limits).
Nor any consideration given to traffic volumes which have been seriously affected by private hire vehicles and online deliveries.
(Though I'm glad to see smaller bicycle based delivery vehicles becoming more common.)
Or the fact that so many cars on the road now are larger than before (ie SUVs) which are difficult to drive in small spaces and mean other drivers may not be able to squeeze past.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67916773
Bristol is fourth slowest in the UK: https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/bristol-one-slowest-cities-uk-9022893
After a bit of internet sleuthing, I've found that the data comes from TomTom
https://www.tomtom.com/newsroom/explainers-and-insights/tomtom-traffix-index-2024-london-is-slowest/
It's just a publicity stunt - the numbers are pretty much meaningless.
That said, the actual report does make some reasonable points, such as comparing London to Amsterdam and suggesting that Amsterdam achieves a better score (less congestion) precisely because it has excellent active travel and public transport and therefore far fewer cars on the road.
Which is of course what the evil cycling lobby has been saying all along - providing viable alternatives to driving actually makes driving easier and faster for those who really need to do so.
Pages