"The sight of the MAMIL can be off-putting for those looking in from the outside," says Ned Boulting

mdavidford | 1841 posts | 1 hour ago
3 likes  

Can't help thinking that people are mostly responding to the out-of-context quote that's been cherry-picked for the headline in a naked attempt to provoke 'debate', and perhaps haven't actually read/listened to the whole of what he said. Because he explicitly said that there wasn't anything wrong with wearing lycra and buying other expensive kit, etc., and even that he admires people who do that kind of riding.

He's just saying that it's not for him, or for a lot of other people, who might be put off if they get the impression that that's the only way to cycle, so he's keen to encourage the idea that there are a range of ways that you can enjoy cycling.

And he didn't introduce the term 'MAMIL' - that was put to him in a question, and he made it clear that he didn't think it was particularly useful, or one he would choose to use. 

Might be helpful if he actually explained what the problem was. Or is he intentionally being vague to stir things a bit. Of course it could be the usual RoadCC reporting, cherry picking the garbage.

If it does in some strange way put people off so what?  

I'm delighted to ride with the Middle Aged Mums In Lycra in our club. They are determined, capable, compassionate and courteous in my experience so a role model in my humble opinion...

Nigel Garrage wrote:

That's really great - courtesy and politeness don't cost anything and are so important on the roads from all participants.

I think some of the ire towards MAMILs stems from a reputation for an aggressive, self-righteous, self-entitled and just all round angry attitude - you see it written in the comments here every day. I certainly do my best to be the opposite of the stereotype and am glad others do likewise!

I'm glad to hear it and I genuinely agree that - when interacting with not-yet cyclists (e.g. the vast majority) a positive impression is a good thing and not giving people a negative experience is even better.  However I'm not responsible for all people on bikes (nor am I a car ambassador when I'm driving or a train spokesperson when in one of those) so I don't beat myself up about their behaviour.

I do wonder - is courtesy and politeness even as "effective" as wearing a helmet? You can certainly make your own day much better by having positive interactions with people - I certainly much prefer this! You may be safer if you don't antagonise people in cars.  What about the majority* of crashes / close passes etc. which are caused by "normal people" who were just not concentrating then or have a slightly less careful approach than you or I?  I'm discounting the reckless and malicious here because I doubt even the most extreme courtesy works on them.

That's why I'm more interested in engineering to reduce the risk from normal fallible human behaviour because if they don't notice my politeness it's pointless.  And enforcement to effectively deal with those with poor self-control who operate dangerous machinery in public.

* I'm taking a lot of people at their word here e.g. "genuinely didn't see them" / close calls I've had where I can see the other party was genuinely shocked. Wrong-uns get headlines but the risk is really that driving is a frequent and mundane activity so people relax, take shortcuts and don't always pay attention.

chrisonatrike wrote:

You may be safer if you don't antagonise people in cars.

Try telling that to the hundreds of pedestrians killed by drivers, many of them on the pavement.

Have you actually watched the NMoTD series? Invariably the person cycling is just minding their business and some fucker is happy to skim past at speed or even try to scare them witless solely to save 5 or 10 seconds (and all too often it saves them no time at all).

chrisonatrike wrote:

What about the majority* of crashes / close passes etc. which are caused by "normal people" who were just not concentrating then or have a slightly less careful approach than you or I?

Then they simply should not be driving!

It's just the same as if someone was operating dangerous machinery at work they'd not be allowed to if they were distracted, drunk, negligent etc.

Simon E wrote:

chrisonatrike wrote:

You may be safer if you don't antagonise people in cars.

Try telling that to the hundreds of pedestrians killed by drivers, many of them on the pavement.

Apologies if you were triggered by this but I think you'll find I was trying to make exactly your point in a "polite and courteous" way... I was trying to emphasise that exactly the "if cyclists behaved respectful we wouldn't have this issue" point which Nige has now fully committed to is rubbish.  In the same sense as "if you don't bother the bears they won't bother you" would be no defence for a zoo that decided to save the cost of fencing around the bears.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

To be clear, the point I was making was to try to make cycling more inclusive (which was the point of the question being asked of Ned), rather than to avoid accidents by being polite.

Fair enough.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

That notwithstanding, I think there is a collective responsibility for cyclists to be polite and courteous on the road which would spillover into better attitudes and safety at the population level.

So while I personally won't make much difference in my personal attitude, cyclists as a population do make a difference. It's a bit like pollution and the environment - I won't make much difference if I just chuck all my recycling into a black bin bag, but that is kind of self-defeating, because if everyone took that attitude it would result in environmental devastation. If cyclists as a population went around as responsible citizens, doing sensible and polite things, you'd find that hostility would drop massively.

Nope.  Two reasons:

Nigel Garrage wrote:

cyclists as a population do make a difference

I think you vastly overestimate the positive or negative affects of a minority. There are more pedestrians than cyclists.  Are they holding us back because some of them do silly things? Heck, there are probably more probably more regular hockey players.  What kind of a difference do they make to anything?

Nigel Garrage wrote:

If cyclists as a population went around as responsible citizens

Ah - here we have it. If you read my last post you'll see this is exactly the fallacy I'm referring to. No collective responsibility for cyclists.  Maybe you can ignore me because I'm not a responsible citizen because I'm on my bike sometimes?  Or is it the other way round e.g. someone wearing a hat did a bad thing yesterday.  I sometimes wear hats - should I apologise on behalf of "us hat-wearers"?

There is a different kind of collective responsibility for motorists in that drivers are responsible for the vast majority of deaths and injuries on the road.  Motor vehicles also impose other costs on society (congestion, damage to roads, pollution, supression of active travel in places etc.).  Be as courteous as you like in a motor vehicle and you still bring this with you.  Like your recycling analogy these are bigger than one person problems (again discounting reckless or homicidal driving) but an individual choice to drive still contributes to them.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

I agree that there shouldn't be collective responsibility for cyclists any more than there should be for other groups in society - but it's an uncomfortable fact that's how stereotypes are born, both positive and negative.

Do people form stereotypes and then judge based on them?  Yes. Is there already a stereotype about cyclists out there? Yes. Does anything I do or not do have any impact on that now it's there?  Probably not.  If every single cyclist went around not conforming to the stereotype would that change it? Probably not for a generation because that's how humans are.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Ask someone to pick the angry, ranty, self-entitled person out of a middle aged bloke decked up in lycra and a person sat on a bike in normal civvies and they will pick the lycra man, and again statistically they are more likely to be correct.

My emphasis.  What you've written is not that this is people's perception / stereotype but that angry, ranty, self-entitled person correlates with "wearing lycra on a bike".  Hmm... Interesting idea you're onto there, I seem to recall Constable Savage had a similar approach.  Am I writing to the same person who was worried about the possible racial connotations of the word "gammon"?

Or prove it with some statistics.

But to be honest this is a lower order of magnitude concern - not being judged / stereotyped etc.  This is partly because there is no "culture war" going on here - most people are just getting on with their lives, cycling or - the majority - not.  My main concern is that I want to feel that my safety on the road is not dependent on the caprice or conscienciousness of others.  (Don't worry it doesn't keep me up at night.) I want other people to feel safer and I'd be delighted if that then lead to more people feeling they had the choice to get on their bikes (/ wheelchairs / insert your favourite here) and enjoy the benefits of cycling as we all do.  I don't want to troll but to requote:

Nigel Garrage wrote:

If cyclists as a population went around as responsible citizens, doing sensible and polite things, you'd find that hostility would drop massively.

If you're serious about yourself or myself not being responsible for the doings of other cyclists then I think you'll see that sadly we are also never going to reduce any "hostility" by a charm offensive. People who are genuinely hostile to other people on bicycles need removing from any interaction with them - and probably society in general.  For our sake and theirs ("I had to hit her, she was one of those bloody joggers!")
Less unbalanced people will be more understanding of cyclists when they are one - regularly on the roads on a bicycle, or their parents, children or friends are.

But none of that will stop people in vehicles running into cyclists.  Or pedestrians. Or bollards.  Or bridges.