The L-word: Lycra

Lycra (also known as Spandex) is THE attire of choice for cyclists. Odd thing is it has also become a term of derision among non-cyclists , basically to the point where it now a justification in itself for all sorts of poor behavior with no further explanation required (using the term Lycra Loon seems evidence enough)

It makes me think non-cyclists as thinking cyclists are only wearing lycra as they are suffering delusions of grandeur ("must think he's Cadel Evans"). Otherwise it is hard to see why a fabric angries up the blood so much.

Well here's the lowdown on why cyclists choose to wear lycra - it's chafe. Simple as that. A t-shirt and baggy pair of cotton shorts and your trusty undies might be fine for a couple of laps of the park with the kids or 10 km along the river on a Sunday, but on a solid 80 km ride (which is a pretty standard hitout for a club cyclist) that once comfy attire becomes a chafe inducing torture chamber.  We'd love for lycra to bestow us with Cadel Evans like endurance or a sprint like Mark Cavendish, but it simply doesn't. And that is not the reason we are riding on the roads - we do that as we belong there. Under the law.

Why is Lycra such a good fabric for avoiding chafe? Well it is both form fitting (which ensures full coverage of ones' bits) and breathable (which keeps you cool). It also wicks moisture, so sweat isn't trapped against the skin but rather can evaporate quickly (again helping you stay cool). The form fitting nature of Lycra also minimises the number of required seams (which is again, a traditional chafing sorepoint) and most Lycra cycling pants also come with some rather handy padding sewn into the butt area.

The trusty undies and cotton shorts don't seem nearly as comfortable after 80 k's. Drenched in sweat, the seams will feel like barbed wire, you'll be stupidly hot and there is zero padding on offer.

When I took up the bike in 2011, I did so with an aversion to Lycra, and had zero intention to wear it. 3 months later I was wearing it head to toe. It's _that_ good that avoiding it is sheer stupidity.

And no, cyclists don't think it's an overly flattering fabric. It's a damn sight more flattering though than an epic case of chafe, and given you are probably surrounded by 15 people in the same attire, it minimises any embarrasment.

Nonsensical bike laws from non-cyclists

This peach from Kogarah council in Sydney:

It's not physically possible to ride at 5 km/h without falling off.....

15 or 20 might have actually made sense.

A great vid that hits the mark

Emotive, not at all accusatory. Spot on

Bollocks to Amsterdam and Cycling Chic

One can't help but admire the cycling culture that exists in Amsterdam.  It's the most cycling friendly capital city in the world. 60% of inner city trips are done by bicycle.

Amsterdam though has also become the massively overused in cycling safety debates. And it's entirely unhelpful.

Take the helmet debate for example (for the non-cyclists, there is a large percentage of cyclists who don't feel helmets should be mandatory). Plenty of people point to the fact helmets aren't mandatory in Amsterdam, yet they enjoy a very low road cycling toll, especially given they have massive numbers of cyclists. The annual cycling fatalities tend to be in low single figure country.

But saying helmets aren't needed here as they seem fine without  in Amsterdam them is a massive reach. They have far better infrastructure for cyclists in Amsterdam (vs. Sydney), and drivers are far more used to having riders sharing the road. Hence there are far less incidents that puts a helmet to the test in the first place.

Yes Amsterdam is a great place for cycling. Just be very careful how one interprets any insights one draws from there. It's overused and often invalid.

Now onto cycling chic. Cycling chic is basically the fusion between cycling and fashion. Invariably this is captured by the definitive image: a thin, pretty, young lady cycling the streets of the city on a cool bike with no helmet in sight:

Or if it is in sight, it's entirely unhelpfully positioned:

Why no helmets? Well it fails the cool test, you see. Your hair can't look cool or "chic" under a helmet. Well go visit the local brain trauma unit at hospital and tell me how chic that all seems. 

As much as Mandatory Helmet Laws might discourage some from riding, and that in turn limits the development of cycling infrastructure, I just can't stomach safety being put to one side for the sake of fashion. So I do thus despise the notion of cycling chic.

(and before anyone says it, I know the MHL debate is a complex one, and much of the stats don't make as clear a case for helmets as many might think. Personally I think that's down to the massive changes we're experiencing in the cycling landscape skewing the data: cyclist numbers are up massively. Have a read of this in the SMH if you remain unconvinced)

The Registration Chestnut

This one just keeps coming up in cycling on the roads debates/discussions. "You don't pay rego, so you've no right to be there" or some similar variation. Every cyclist will be able to regale you with similar tales from their own cycling experiences. And unfortunately it gets used as a justification for some pretty shabby treatment of cyclists by some drivers.

Here are a few points well worth making on the topic:

• Taxes largely pay for our roads, not registration. The numbers are quite clear – Road construction and maintenance currently costs $14 billion annually across Australia, registration reaps $3.5 billion. A $10.5 billion dollar gap, a gap met by ALL taxpayers. And registration largely covers insurance and the wear and tear on the roads the cars cause. Bikes weigh almost nothing, so cause close to zero wear and tear. As such it is entirely to fair to say the cyclists contribute their bit.
• Most cyclists own a vehicle (our research indicates 85%+), and thus already pay rego. An equally high percentage also have a drivers licence.
• Registration will not fix/eliminate poor cyclist behaviour. Drop down to the police station and report the licence plate of the car you saw run the red or merge without indicating. Nothing will happen as the police weren't there to see it. And it's not like registering cars has eliminated illegal driving. So sticking a small rego plate on the back of a bike will address nothing

Even if the above doesn't swing your thoughts on the whether cyclists should pay rego rebate, there is a rather simple closure to the debate. The Law. Under the laws of the day cyclists are allowed to ride on the roads, irrespective of whether the driver considers it unsafe or inconvenient or that they should be paying fees to do so.

And even if a cyclist wants to pay rego on their bike, they can't. You can't pay a fee that doesn't exist. Seems more than a tad harsh to treat cyclists badly for not paying a fee that doesn't exist

NOTE: The Qld state government parliamentary committee drawn together to look at Cycling, cycling safety, cycling laws, the relationship with other road users, and making sure government policy was instep with the evolution of the sport, handed down their report today. The full report can be found here, but they specifically looked at bicycle registration and I quote:

The Committee is concerned that the continuing debate over whether bicycles should be registered is not in the interests of improving interaction between cyclists and other road users and that the reasons bicycles are not subject to registration is little understood by motorists. The Committee is also concerned that the debate takes the focus away from the real issues and improvements that are required to make cycling a mainstream activity, thereby improving the interaction between cyclists and other road users. 
The Committee is therefore recommending that the Minister for Transport and Main Roads make a public statement clearly outlining the reasons the Government has decided not to introduce bicycle  registration. 

Bad Logic and Helmet Laws

The pro and anti helmet debate rages in cycling circles. Those who are anti helmet argue it puts people off cycling (which in turn slows the development of bike infrastructure and a better bike culture). Often the anti-cycling brigade will utter a phrase along the lines of "I don't need it for the type of riding I do" and point to Amsterdam, which boasts an incredibly low number of cycling fatalities in spite of massive cyclist numbers (over 60% of trips in Inner City Amsterdam are done by bike).

There are though massive flaws in such arguments.

Let's deal with the I-don't-need-it-for-the-type-of-riding-I-do logic.  Typically this is underpinned by the thinking that because the trips are short/on quiet roads, they are safe, and they have undertaken such trips for many years without incident. Well I damn near died when I hit a road reflector, and this poor bloke died when he hit a rock. I've also seen people come off and land very heavily when they hit a coke can blown across the road at the wrong moment. It goes to show how the most innocent and everyday things can cause serious accidents. And they can be literally anywhere on your ride, even a short or quiet one. The fact that you navigated the ride safely for 5 years means _nothing_. After all I managed to navigate Sydney 100% safely for 18 months and 10000 odd kilometres before my accident.

And yes, the cycling fatality rate is incredibly low in Amsterdam where helmets are not mandatory. Cycling infrastructure is though far superior to what Australia's state capitals offer, and drivers are far more tolerant of cyclists. Thus there are far less incidents. Kind of unsurprising then that the fatality rate is so low. And again people and journalists again fall into the "I rode there for X months with no problems" logic having ridden in Amsterdam. Yes, the Amsterdam bike culture is to be admired and is a goal to strive for, but the reality is the bike culture here is miles off that of the Dutch, and I think they'd be better off with a MHL as accidents can and do still occur. Unless they plan to ban rocks, road reflectors and coke cans.

A Scary and Revealing Video on Blindspots

Check out this youtube video on Lorry Blindspots:

Scary stuff.

Drivers: this is one key reason cyclists often take the lane. It's way to easy for a cyclist to get lost in a blindspot, even with cars rather than lorries/trucks. And when you are merging or turning, indicate early, and triple check the blindspot.

Cyclists: be aware of blindspots for drivers, and avoid them. Far better off to have to wait a few seconds rather than put yourself in a risky position.

Thanx to Jo for flagging the vid. If anyone else sees something that will help cyclist safety, please shoot me a message.

Strava-Free Commuting

Most cyclists will know Strava well - for those unfamiliar, it's a website and mobile app used to track athletic activity via GPS, which one tracks and uploads using a smart phone or a some types of bike computer, such as a Garmin. Strava is a good thing - you can log and track all your cycling efforts, and also get a feel for your improvements.

Sounds great, right?

Well Strava in logging your efforts, it records and ranks your times and speed. People are also free to create segments within their ride,which enables them to track and compare their performances with other cyclists over a given segment of their ride, and topping the performance charts (known as a KOM - king of mountain) is highly sought. The Strava website, is also a little bit facebook-esque, and your efforts are shared with your cycling mates, and many a thumbs up is given for logging a new personal best, or even better, racking up a KOM.

Screengrab from Strava website post ride

Between the competitive nature of humans, the enthusiasm to improve and the slaps on the back from your friends, people often strive to best previous efforts on Strava. For many it becomes a surrogate race. It did for me.

The problem being the traffic and the conditions on a typical commute don't tend to play ball with your surrogate race, and one can tend to push a bit too hard (perhaps going too fast for the conditions) and run a few risks (taking gaps that are too small, ducking through lights that you should really stop at) trying to rack up that Strava PB. Not good when you are trying to set records AND ride safely.

So my suggestion - put Strava to one side for the daily commute, and don't turn on the bike computer or phone app (or at the very least block the created segments that are unsafe) and instead focus solely on riding safe. Save full on Strava for (weekend) rides under safer conditions. If you want to track your kilometres from commuting, enter them into the Strava website manually. No you don't get the cool little map, nor record your vertical ascent or receive the kudos, but it will make you a safer cyclist.

Moving the debate forward

Cycling safety is a massive issue. Cycling is a positive thing: it does good things for your health, the environment, and takes pressure off the roads & public transport. Unfortunately we have seen a massive spike this year in cycling fatalities on our roads in this state (up 43% to 46 deaths in NSW). Unfortunately the debates and discussions as to why have gotten stuck in a rut.

In short, the car drivers blame the cyclists, and cyclists blame the drivers. Drive a car for a week around inner city Sydney, and you'll almost certainly see some examples of poor cyclist behavior (running red lights, no helmets, riding the wrong way down one way streets, riding at night with no lights, riding with mp3 players on), but if you ride around inner city Sydney for a week you'll also emerge with tales of bad driving (running red lights, talking on mobiles illegally, speeding, failures to indicate and give riders adequate space) . In both the driving and riding camps you find around 90% of people behave entirely legally and responsibly, but that 10% of lawbreakers provides more than adequate number of examples to justify a given stance, hence both parties remain entrenched in their corners. And people keep dying.

If we want to move this discussion forward, both sides of the debate need to acknowledge the problem 10% that exists on _their_ side, then move on and make the roads safer for the 90% rather than focussing solely on the recalcitrant 10%.

Personally I'd like to see a major high visibility education campaign undertaken focusing on cycling on our roads. Cyclists have their own unique set of laws that are not well understood by drivers (such as the laws pertaining to overtaking, and use of lanes), and this leads to driver frustration and anger. Then having broadcast the rights and responsibilities of both parties, the police need to launch an across the board crackdown (which will address the 10%)

Introducing Greg

Hi,

My name is Greg Pankhurst, I'm 38, and I live in the Inner West of Sydney. I'm a recent cycling convert, only taking up the lycra in September 2011.  I think that gives me a somewhat unique perspective on cycling road safety,  as for many a year I only saw cycling from behind the wheel of my car.

I threw myself pretty hard into cycling. Started riding with my local club (the Dulwich Hill Bike Club) and also doing occasional commutes to work in the Sydney CBD, I was racking up around 150 km every week, dropped 15 kilos and got rather fit.

I also have safety close to my heart. In February this year, I went damn close to dying in a cycling crash. Think helicopter evac, two weeks in a coma, 4 months in a hospital close to death.  Yes, I was wearing a helmet, an no there wasn't a car involved. Turns out my accident was caused by a road reflector, which I must have caught at the wrong angle or time. There's a disturbing number of parallels with this accident in Kurnell, in which cyclist Matt Fitzgerald died, a mere two weeks ago.

A rock and a road reflector. Seemingly innocent every day stuff, but it underlines how careful one has to be on a bike and how at risk cyclists are.

Hopefully the blog can gain a following and help frame the cycling safety discussions moving forward.