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
I would have thought that this is a way more important factor than 20mph speed limits.
I wonder, if TomTom were to somehow manage to include data from cyclists too (Strava? Google?), would the average speed of road users in general show a slight increase?
If only motorists showed the same consideration to cyclists coming the other way when they needed to cross the centre line and make me get out of their way to avoid delaying their journey by 0.5s!!!
“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."
Assume Nigel has nothing against black cars?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/10/family-of-couple-killed-...
A less well known road safety expert on Twitter was incensed that someone should go to prison for simply failing to look at a junction.
Until drivers accept that not looking properly is dangerous driving, and dangerous driving kills people we will continue to have the main body of drivers believing that careless driving is socially acceptable - mistakes happen, so what?
Another fine example of the courts failing to treat this as death by dangerous driving. I mean if you make mistakes that can kill people, then surely that ought to be the measure of "dangerous" rather than courts pretending that this can't be proven to be far below the standard of a reasonably careful driver.
Ah - but they're throwing themselves in the roads! My driving was perfectly safe and considerate - not my fault lemmings have invaded "our" roads (hello Dr. Helen Measures).
That's "failing to look" like a bank robber claiming they "got deposit/withdrawal confused"
One of the reasons I tend to avoid twitter nowadays.
Firstly, I think it is perfectly reasonable to send someone to jail if they have killed two people through their deliberate actions.
Secondly, it's a suspended sentence, so the driver is not, in fact, going to jail. It's not stated what conditions were attached to the suspended sentence, but many of the normal options (such as a curfew) seem unlikely to be hugely punitive to an 80-year-old.
According to the very sad report the 80-year-old has superhuman powers.
I was a bit surprised that the occupants of the Tiguan came off that badly when hit by a Golf. I suppose it depends on what hit them in the other lane.
Does show that the Huge is always better is not the hard and fast rule that most of those in vanity behemoths think it is
SUVs more prone to roll-over and a roof isn't crash-protected?? Also the occupants were old and might have been air bagged to death - those things aren't designed not to injure, they are designed to stop you being killed - as long as you fit their model of deployment. Obviously just speculating, but it is clearly a fallacy to think car crashes are survivable just cos you are in an SUV.
Yes, the government is exactly as populated by swivel eyed loons as you thought it was.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/10/shift-from-15-minute-cit...
I am always amazed at the logic of these conspiracy theorists.
Building a shop near your house - so you don't have to drive there - is some kind of way to track and minimise your movements.
The government gving a contract to a company owned by a government minister, is just a coincidence and doesn't need any further inverstigation.
They are trying to monitor our every move then herd us like sheep. I learned of this from Facebook on my mobile.
I wouldn't say the government has been influenced by conspiracy theorists, I think they're intentionally appealing to said groups for votes in the next election...it's just similar to brexit - stirring things up and appealing to the Daily Mail reading vocal minorities. In my opinion.
That makes sense to me. If you're doing a bad enough job that anyone with half a brain can figure out that literally anyone else is better, then you're going to have to target the delusional and hard-of-thinking to garner any support outside of the far right racists.
There are a huge number of people who would never vote tory even if they presented a well costed plan to give each person in the country everything they want within a 3 year period. There is no point campaigning to them.
There are also a huge number of people who would vote tory even if Rishi came round and personally shit through their letterbox. There is no point campaigning to them ether.
The only people worth campaigning to are people who don't know who to vote for, and, unfortunately, a huge proportion of those people are lunatics and conspiracy theorists.
I thought the point of the likes of Monster Raving Loony Party and Reform Uk was to attract the nutters and ensure their votes don't pollute discourse and stop the UK from progressing. How did we end up here?
The Transport Minister explicitly justified his withdrawal of support for LTNs on the basis that they can be about banning cars.
"In an interview with The Telegraph, Mark Harper said he had put an end to Government funding for projects “that are about... banning cars or making it difficult for motorists”.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/07/08/mark-harper-transport-se...
I'm not sure that the Govt are swivel-eyed loons, but they definitely want the votes of the swivel-eyed loons.
I think in response to that statement, I need only say:
Sunak, Braverman, Cleverly, Hunt, Boris, Patel, Cameron, Rees-Mogg, Gove, Gove, Gove. Need I go on?
Oh no, sorry, Gove's a bug-eyed loon, not a swivel-eyed loon. My bad.
You're right. I stand corrected <wrist-slap>
Rocky, who seems to be placing himself as a flabby 40 something, has come back with his fact-free butenlightening views on who should cycle. (I think he lives near Derby from comments in his feed).
the average age of riders on Paris Brest Paris was 50. so approximately half of the 7000 riders will have been over 50. All of them would have been riding considerably more than 70 miles a day.
I don't think many of any age could do 25+ on the flat without a good tail wind.
this is also true. I might manage it on a still day for a 10km time trial, but not for any length if time.
So Rocky underestimates the ability of the average rider to travel distances, while also overestimating the speed people can ride at.
Yep. I can comfortably manage 70 miles a day. I cannot do 25 mph on the flat (except in a very short burst).
I am 54 at the end of the month.
I did a 177 mile (285 km) day six months ago at age 52, with a touring load. On a wind free day, I can do maybe 18-19 MPH on the flat for a while on my non-aero gravel bike. I imagine on a tri or time trial bike with a skin suit and aero helmet (none of which I've ever owned or tried) I could get closer to 25 MPH, but then Rocky Wright would presumably criticise me for "thinking I'm in the Tour de France."
Pages