The politics of cycle clothing

The politics of cycle clothing

I was at the Cycling Scotland conference and tried to do a bit of live tweeting. Derek MacKay MSP stated in his speech that he prefers not to be photographed in hi-viz, to which I tweeted:

I was rather surprised by the reaction that this sparked off on twitter. Firstly, there was the comment that wearing nice clothes was not going to make the roads safer. But It was a comment that rather missed the point, as neither wearing hi-viz nor a helmet does. To make the roads safer we need to start with a danger reduction approach, which means reducing danger at source. The point of the tweet was to point out that we finally have a transport minster who is not following the Taliban approach to road safety and does not feel that he has to set an example by wearing hi-vis and a helmet to be photographed. Instead, for cycling occasions he is always photographed in normal clothes for press photo shoots, even when some around him choose to do otherwise.

More tweets followed from a number of people, suggesting that I was in some way “anti-Lycra”, and was in some way blaming people in lycra for putting off others. This is where trying to discuss issues on Twitter can get very confused, sometimes it can be very hard to make a nuanced point in 140 characters. My comment above was very much about the use of images and the message which such images can send. There were also comments from other about infrastructure being more important that clothing, but in many ways the two are interlinked.

Why is clothing important in normalising cycling? Ask anyone in the fashion industry and they will tell you that clothes speak volumes about who you are and how you feel. In places where cycling is a normal means of getting from A to B, people just ride in ordinary clothes. They don’t get dressed up to ride a bicycle, unless they are doing so to ride for sport (there is also a misunderstanding about Danish “cycle chic”, Copenhageners don’t dress up to ride a bike, that’s just normal dress for them). In the UK some people seem to believe that it is necessary to dress in a certain way in order to ride a bicycle, for what ever reason. Part of this is to do with something I refer to as the Taliban approach to road safety, the failed idea that making people dress in a particular way makes the roads safer – it doesn’t. Indeed, the promotion of hi-viz and helmets can create a barrier to cycling. Added to this, the motor lobby is always keen to promote the use of hi-viz and helmets, as a means of transferring blame to the victim, and to avoid liability.

Does this mean that we should all start to ride in ordinary clothes as a political statement? No, of course not. There are those who will do so, but for most people the choice of cycle clothing is more about comfort, or more correctly, comfort and fear. Before I moved to Aberdeen I had never felt the need to wear Hi-viz, but in Aberdeen I felt different, it was/is hostile to anyone cycling (or even walking). So I bought a yellow cycling jacket, which made me feel better, but made no real difference to the way I was treated. Drivers still treated me as if they couldn’t see me. Over time, I came to realise that in places like Aberdeen drivers simply don’t look for people cycling, as there are so few. Later I came to realise that bright lights were more effective for being seen in a hostile environment, but not a solution. Like bright clothing, they are a survival mechanism (the real solution is to change the road environment).

In places where there are more cyclists (and pedestrians), drivers are more likely to look out for those more vulnerable road users. However, that doesn’t automatically lead to greater safety or a feeling of safety, you only have to look at images from London to see that there is plenty of fear there. There is a flaw in the “safety in numbers” theory, the death rate on UK roads per Km walked or cycled is higher than in many other parts of Europe. In places where cycling is common, it is infrastructure and legal structure that make cycling (and walking) safe, and this is why you see people of all ages, wearing normal clothes, using bicycles as transport.

In the UK there is another thing going on, which has to do with group identity. This has led to the term MAMIL or “Middle Aged Men In Lycra”, and generally refers to male cyclists who treat travelling to work as an adventure sport. There are those who justify wearing Lycra for commuting on the grounds that they have to ride fast due to the distance of their commute. It is an interesting thing that the average cycle commuting distance in the UK is longer than on the Continent. This is probably because so many cycle commuters in the UK are keen cyclists and like to use their commutes as training rides. On the Continent, in places where cycling is seen as normal (something the 95% engage in, not just the 5%), the sort people who in the UK have 1-5 km journeys and would drive or take the bus, ride a bicycle instead. So there are a great deal more short journeys by bike. For longer distances, the Contintentals are more likely to travel by multimodal means, for example: cycling to the station to take a train, and then walking or using another bicycle at the other end, to get to their final destination. That is not to say that there aren’t people commuting distances of greater than 5 Km by bicycle in these countries, it is just that they are more likely to use an e-bike, so that they don’t arrive sweaty.

Is the MAMIL image a problem? I have been accused of being anti-Lycra or even anti-cycling for using the term MAMIL. Neither is true, there is a place for Lycra and it fine in its place. However, it can be a barrier to making cycling more inclusive, as it can put people off, especially those not currently cycling. No doubt there are some cyclists who will say that the sort of people who are put off by MAMILs wouldn’t cycle anyway. However, if you go to a Women’s Cycle Forum and listen, you will find women saying that the perceived need for lycra, hi-viz and helmets does put them off cycling. A case study: L. is a woman over the age of 40 who says she is put off by the MAMIL image of cycling. However, on a trip to Bruges, L. was persuaded to try riding a bicycle because people of all ages, shapes and sizes were cycling in normal clothes. She now occasionally rides a bicycle in Edinburgh, and although L. is not a regular cyclist, she now has greater understanding of cycling, which is useful, given that her current job is in transport policy.

Before going any further, I will return to the point I made above, people should be free to wear whatever they feel is comfortable for their cycling journey. Images are important here, and where everyday cycling is being promoted, images which show hi-viz and helmets should be avoided. It is always disappointing to see organisations which soak up large amounts of funding, using images of people on bicycles dressed up in hi-viz and helmets. Generally, the majority of people are less likely to engage in an activity that looks like a minority activity, where you need to dress up in specific clothes and that may be dangerous. This makes trying to increase funding for active travel much harder, as it is seen to only benefit the few rather than the many. If you make cyclists look like a small outgroup, it going to be far, far harder to get those with the power to take space from motor vehicles to act. The Dutch didn’t get their famous cycle infrastructure by campaigning for “cyclists”, they did it for the children. Now that those children have grown up, they are the most relaxed parents in Europe, as they don’t have to worry about the safety of their children outwith the home. If we want the same here, we have to make active travel attractive and desirable, and we also have to make it normal and inclusive.

Cycle chic inspires others
Remember images are important

6 thoughts on “The politics of cycle clothing

  1. I’m all for people wearing whatever they like when they ride. But don’t forget, smooth, close fitting clothing does make a tremendous different to both comfort and efficiency. Add in the vagaries of the weather, and before you know it, you’ll start wanting to look like “a cyclist” if you do actually ride regularly.
    The 95% who don’t (yet) will find out in due course. As I do choose to rely on my bike for most of my transportation needs, every clothing choice I make passes through a “how will it be on the bike?” filter.
    I don’t think we do anyone any favours by claiming that clothing is not a material consideration if you rely on a bike for transport. Sure, on short trips round town you can wear anything you like, but in a headwind, you’ll still want to do up the buttons on an overcoat, not let it flap like a tremendous sail. Long scarves and cycling just do not mix, ever. Gloves are actually more important for safety than a helmet. It’s pretty miserable riding in the rain without a decent jacket. A peaked cap keeps the rain off your spectacles. Stiff-soled shoes transmit the energy of your legs more efficiently than soft trainers. And so on.
    Just because so many people haven’t even got to square one doesn’t mean we should deny the clothing issue exists. Danish and Dutch cyclists look effortlessly stylish, not because they ignore the issue, but **because they are lifelong experts** .

    1. Having used a bicycle as everyday transport in Scotland, I just wear the same clothes I would wear to walk into town when I cycle into town, and never found it a problem. Although, cycling in a kilt on a windy day does require careful placing of the sporran 😉

  2. I’m still waiting for evidence that the almost content-free assertion:

    Lycra … *can* put people off

    leads to the implied conclusion that the presence of sport cyclists on the road *does* put people off in numbers significant enough to matter.

    Because otherwise, it really is just the MAMIL-blaming divisiveness too many cycling advocates seem to enjoy.

    1. It is not about blaming people, it is about reaching out to the 95% of the British population, currently less that 5% of the British population cycle on a regular basis. If you go out and talk to these people you will find those who are put off by images of people dressing in Lycra, Hi-viz and helmets. If there is no one reaching out to these people they are never going to support the the changes which are need to make the road safe for all.

      As for “almost content-free assertion”, I gave the case study of L, I am not going to name her, but she is a real person. She has said in one of the Women Cycle Forum meeting that she finds “MAMILs” off putting. Personally I feel that cycling should be something that is accessible to anyone and everyone. It should not be the preserve of the fit and the brave. We need more images of people cycling in normal clothes, which is why I applaud Derek Mackay MSP for wearing a suit when riding a bike for photo shoots. However, it you were to ask Derek if I am critical of him for not doing enough to use the devolved powers which he has to make Scotland’s roads safer, he can tell you that I do.

  3. I have been accused of being anti-Lycra or even anti-cycling for using the term MAMIL.

    I rolled my eyes when I read that. I sometimes think people deliberately go looking for things to feel offended by. I’ve always taken MAMIL to be a sort of semi-affectionate in-joke. So yeah, an identity thing going on – amplified by the odd characteristics of online communication.

  4. Excellent article, nothing to argue about there.
    Having seen him in a number of cycle related photos I had thought Mr Mackay was making a point re clothing, I’m pleased to have my thoughts confirmed!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!
%d bloggers like this: