Chat Forum
It is currently Fri Jun 22, 2018 9:52 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 891 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 4:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16106
Location: By the mighty beard of Adam Jones
Rowdy wrote:
What does "lean out" mean in that article? I'm having trouble keeping up with all these neologisms.


The opposite of 'lean in?'


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 5:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2206
Womack wrote:
Rowdy wrote:
What does "lean out" mean in that article? I'm having trouble keeping up with all these neologisms.


The opposite of 'lean in?'

Thanks :thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 1:55 am
Posts: 3225
Location: Newport, Gwent
Rowdy wrote:
Womack wrote:
Rowdy wrote:
What does "lean out" mean in that article? I'm having trouble keeping up with all these neologisms.


The opposite of 'lean in?'

Thanks :thumbup:

Yes with 'lean in' meaning being more assertive 'lean out' means to get out of the way.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20049
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ling-roads

The byline:

"Roads designed by men are killing women – and stop millions from cycling"

Genuinely WTF? Those roads kill all genders without discrimination, how did that become a gender issue? I agree segreated cycle lanes would be a huge solution to the danger sof cycling but WTF is that to do with gender?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10135
Location: Mostly London........Mostly
eldanielfire wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/13/safety-women-cycling-roads

The byline:

"Roads designed by men are killing women – and stop millions from cycling"

Genuinely WTF? Those roads kill all genders without discrimination, how did that become a gender issue? I agree segreated cycle lanes would be a huge solution to the danger sof cycling but WTF is that to do with gender?


I thought a big issue was that women generally speaking are more risk adverse and don't like 'owning the lane' when cycling around town and instead stick to the kerb as much as possible, which unfortunately leads to them being disproportionately represented in the stats for injuries involving turning lorries.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16106
Location: By the mighty beard of Adam Jones
Basically the article is advocating for properly segregated cycle lanes (and more broadly I guess for more related infrastructure, eg secure bike parking and in her case, nicer showers and somewhere for her to plug a hairdryer at work). As the Netherlands proves, if you do create segregated cycle infrastructure and basically gear your transport system around encouraging cycling, more people male and female will cycle.

The gender issue is not very well expressed there and the by-line draws a bit of a long bow based on the paragraph about the Manchester council leader and his previous opposition to segregated cycle lanes. But there is a gender issue in this in that the current situation is that those who choose to cycle to get about largely do so in the knowledge that they will frequently have to dice with traffic & be assertive. In many situations, the quicker you can go, the safer you will feel (and in fact, the safer you will be). That situation discourages female cyclists more than male ones.

It's worth noting that segregated bike lanes do not meet with universal support amongst cycling advocates. There is actually a school of traditionalist opposition to segregated infrastructure, because it is seen as an erosion of cyclists' right to the road & an acknowledgement of the supremacy of motorised traffic. This view goes hand in hand with the idea that as long as you are assertive and properly skilled, and capable of riding at 20mph in bursts to negotiate pinch points etc safely, you can ride on the roads with motorised traffic perfectly safely. Leaving gender out of it, my view is this is an elitist viewpoint that will not encourage mass takeup of cycling as transport.

As to whether any of this really matters, I'm a bit more equanimous these days. I don't expect the UK to ever adopt a Netherlands-style approach to cycling infrastructure. We don't spend enough on our transport infrastructure anyway, let alone setting aside the kind of budget really needed to go all in on cycling. There'll be the usual fudges and isolated efforts, some good some bad. I'd like it to be different but there we go.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20049
danny_fitz wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/13/safety-women-cycling-roads

The byline:

"Roads designed by men are killing women – and stop millions from cycling"

Genuinely WTF? Those roads kill all genders without discrimination, how did that become a gender issue? I agree segreated cycle lanes would be a huge solution to the danger sof cycling but WTF is that to do with gender?


I thought a big issue was that women generally speaking are more risk adverse and don't like 'owning the lane' when cycling around town and instead stick to the kerb as much as possible, which unfortunately leads to them being disproportionately represented in the stats for injuries involving turning lorries.


That has nothing to do with the design of roads, unless you want to tell me how these roads would been designed differently by females. Last I head Amsterdam and Copenhagen's safer for cyclists roads were all mostly male designed as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16106
Location: By the mighty beard of Adam Jones
eldanielfire wrote:
danny_fitz wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/13/safety-women-cycling-roads

The byline:

"Roads designed by men are killing women – and stop millions from cycling"

Genuinely WTF? Those roads kill all genders without discrimination, how did that become a gender issue? I agree segreated cycle lanes would be a huge solution to the danger sof cycling but WTF is that to do with gender?


I thought a big issue was that women generally speaking are more risk adverse and don't like 'owning the lane' when cycling around town and instead stick to the kerb as much as possible, which unfortunately leads to them being disproportionately represented in the stats for injuries involving turning lorries.


That has nothing to do with the design of roads, unless you want to tell me how these roads would been designed differently by females. Last I head Amsterdam and Copenhagen's safer for cyclists roads were all mostly male designed as well.


It's a silly click-baity by-line based on a slightly silly couple of paragraphs about how the leader of Manchester City Council Richard Leese - a man - has until recently opposed segregated infrastructure (which would encourage more women - and men, and BMEs, and LGBT, and children - to cycle). Move beyond that silliness and there is still a gender issue here although as per my post above. Although as I say, it's one element of the wider elitism that still surrounds cycling, which is in itself one factor amongst several that prevents cycling as transport being taken up in the UK to the extent it has been in the Netherlands. NB, this also applies to the article about BMEs and cycling that was posted here a week or so ago - the same elitism & the same poor infrastructure with the same result, that cycling to get about remains a minority pursuit. Again, whether this really matters is something upon which opinions differ. At some point there will need to be some reordering of our transport infrastructure to keep pace with technological advancements - ie driverless cars. Whether cycling will still be a useful alternative remains to be seen.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20049
Womack wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
danny_fitz wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/13/safety-women-cycling-roads

The byline:

"Roads designed by men are killing women – and stop millions from cycling"

Genuinely WTF? Those roads kill all genders without discrimination, how did that become a gender issue? I agree segreated cycle lanes would be a huge solution to the danger sof cycling but WTF is that to do with gender?


I thought a big issue was that women generally speaking are more risk adverse and don't like 'owning the lane' when cycling around town and instead stick to the kerb as much as possible, which unfortunately leads to them being disproportionately represented in the stats for injuries involving turning lorries.


That has nothing to do with the design of roads, unless you want to tell me how these roads would been designed differently by females. Last I head Amsterdam and Copenhagen's safer for cyclists roads were all mostly male designed as well.


It's a silly click-baity by-line based on a slightly silly couple of paragraphs about how the leader of Manchester City Council Richard Leese - a man - has until recently opposed segregated infrastructure (which would encourage more women - and men, and BMEs, and LGBT, and children - to cycle). Move beyond that silliness and there is still a gender issue here although as per my post above.


The article doesn't and that is what we are discussing.

Quote:
Although as I say, it's one element of the wider elitism that still surrounds cycling, which is in itself one factor amongst several that prevents cycling as transport being taken up in the UK to the extent it has been in the Netherlands. NB, this also applies to the article about BMEs and cycling that was posted here a week or so ago - the same elitism & the same poor infrastructure with the same result, that cycling to get about remains a minority pursuit. Again, whether this really matters is something upon which opinions differ. At some point there will need to be some reordering of our transport infrastructure to keep pace with technological advancements - ie driverless cars. Whether cycling will still be a useful alternative remains to be seen.


Regardless of technological advancement cycling will of course be an alternative, due to the joy, fitness element and even the nimble shortcuts that can be taken. The care didn't make cycling obsolete and driverless cars won't. I believe more should be done to separate cycle paths through cities but it is a safety issue not a gender one.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16106
Location: By the mighty beard of Adam Jones
It's not a very good article, agreed. I'm just giving some perspective on the issues the writer is referring (poorly) to.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20049
Womack wrote:
It's not a very good article, agreed. I'm just giving some perspective on the issues the writer is referring (poorly) to.


Agreed.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 891 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Cartman, de_Selby, Flockwitt, Gavin Duffy, Google Adsense [Bot], iarmhiman, inactionman, Lobby, Sards, SEAsianExpat, shereblue, Sonny Blount, Still Playing, ticketlessinseattle, tiddle, Toddyno7, VBall, Wendigo7, Willie Falloon, ZappaMan, Zico and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group