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)