preferred-google-button
log in
register

Going out Dressed For War!

  • This topic has 20 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 11 years ago by farrell.
  • Creator
    Topic
  • June 21, 2015 at 9:59 pm #24285
    Leviathan

    The other day I was going past Old Trafford and saw someone that make me do a double take. I was waiting at the White City lights and another cyclist was crossing in front of me and I just tracked him with my eyes (sorry no photo, this is my download.) He was riding a red Brompton whilst wearing some black pants, a big Hi Viz jacket with reflective butt flap and a full face mountain bike helmet. It was about 6pm, warm and sunny. Maybe it was the helmet that topped it off, but I was waiting there in a ‘normal’ helmet and short sleeved jersey and bibs. I thought ‘Jeez, what is he dressed up like that for?’

    I know there have been long and contentious debates about the value of any one of these elements and I don’t mean to start another, but I thought the whole ensemble was symptomatic of a defensive attitude. This guy wasn’t dressing for the weather he was dressing for War on the roads. Now maybe he would say that I am just a wannabee pro poring scorn on some canny commuter, but I am concerned that people now have the attitude that they can’t take to the roads without a whole bunch of safety kit. Cycling is becoming denormalized. The last thing I want, is to have to wear a full length fluro winter jacket in +20C temperatures because it expected as part of a potential liability case; no jacket, feel free to crash into me.

    Sorry I am probably preaching to the choir as another bunch of roadies, but I would like to talk to this guy and find out what thought process made him buy each one of these items, and how does he think it makes him safer, or anyone else. Particularly on the jacket issue I think herd immunity and normalizing clothing for riding is more important, don’t train drivers to just watch out for the yellow. [Or maybe I just think Hi Viz looks stupid and will say anything to justify not wearing it; please feel free to trash my opinion.]

  • Creator
    Topic
Viewing 15 replies - 1 through 15 (of 20 total)
1 2
  • Author
    Replies
  • June 25, 2015 at 3:10 pm #851179
    0
    farrell

    wellcoordinated wrote:To an

    wellcoordinated wrote:
    To an american a fanny is your bottom, or butt as they may alternatively say, whereas in english a fanny is the contraction of the girls name Francis.

    Packie is a common contraction of Patrick in Ireland.

    Not so common knowledge with cab drivers in Manchester.

    It takes some explaining I can tell you.

    June 25, 2015 at 3:03 pm #851177
    0
    Man of Lard

    I always understood Francis
    I always understood Francis to be a male name – the female equivalent being Frances (a derivative of Francesca)

    June 25, 2015 at 2:12 pm #851175
    0
    rjfrussell

    Equally confusing is the
    Equally confusing is the contraction of Francis to Franny, particularly in the case of Franny Lee, who was a twat.

    June 25, 2015 at 6:51 am #851173
    0
    wellcoordinated

    Yes yes let’s have more
    Yes yes let’s have more debates about words. Who cares about helmets and hi viz? What about fanny? To an american a fanny is your bottom, or butt as they may alternatively say, whereas in english a fanny is the contraction of the girls name Francis. Why you would want to call your bottom Francis is beyond me.

    I knew all this without googling.

    June 24, 2015 at 9:50 am #851171
    0
    felixcat

    FATBEGGARONABIKE wrote:Wow I

    FATBEGGARONABIKE wrote:
    Wow I was expecting a war of words re helmets/hi-viz etc, not a war about a word.

    Don’t you think that the word war is a bit over the top for a polite discussion? I think it is quite in order for people to disagree, whether over helmets, hiviz or a word, providing they can do it politely.

    June 24, 2015 at 9:48 am #851169
    0
    thesaladdays

    FATBEGGARONABIKE wrote:Wow I

    FATBEGGARONABIKE wrote:
    Wow I was expecting a war of words re helmets/hi-viz etc, not a war about a word.

    The war on pants debate makes a nice change from the usual to-ing and fro-ing on here, to be fair.

    June 24, 2015 at 9:19 am #851167
    0
    Bob's Bikes

    Wow I was expecting a war of
    Wow I was expecting a war of words re helmets/hi-viz etc, not a war about a word.

    June 23, 2015 at 11:23 pm #851165
    0
    CygnusX1

    Need a helmet to protect
    Need a helmet to protect myself from all this etymological warfare. Incoming ! :O

    June 23, 2015 at 10:06 pm #851163
    0
    Leviathan

    bvnri wrote:bikeboy74

    bvnri wrote:
    bikeboy74 wrote:
    Pants is not an americanism, but a perfectly acceptable synonym for trousers.

    Yes it is, and no it isn’t. Consult your OED, sir!


    1. Who is bikeboy74?
    2. Under garments were not commonly worn except by the rich before the 19th century. The word ‘pants’ is a word predating ‘underpants’ by definition. The semantic definition of what is a pant and underpant is contained within the words themselves. Pants itself is a contraction of Pantaloon.
    3. Pants as an alternative word for trousers is in common usage in the UK.
    4. Googling word definitions and presenting the results as well researched etymology proves you have no idea what you are talking about. Sir, you are no Suzie Dent.

    June 23, 2015 at 9:00 pm #851161
    0
    bvnri

    bikeboy74 wrote:Pants is not

    bikeboy74 wrote:
    Pants is not an americanism, but a perfectly acceptable synonym for trousers.

    Yes it is, and no it isn’t. Consult your OED, sir!

    June 23, 2015 at 8:59 pm #851159
    0
    bvnri

    bikeboy74 wrote:Pants is not

    bikeboy74 wrote:
    Pants is not an americanism, but a perfectly acceptable synonym for trousers.

    Yes it is, and no it isn’t. Consult your OED, sir!

    June 23, 2015 at 7:35 pm #851157
    0
    Nat Jas Moe

    Always prepared for variable
    Always prepared for variable weather I guess 🙂

    June 23, 2015 at 7:57 am #851155
    0
    Al__S

    I’m often amazed at this time
    I’m often amazed at this time of year how much people seem to wear. I can be plenty warm enough in shorts, base layer, jersey, and they’re there on a dry day in their waterproofs, thermal tights etc.

    June 22, 2015 at 9:31 pm #851153
    0
    Quince

    DaSy wrote:Are you using

    DaSy wrote:
    Are you using pants in the American way, as in trousers, or was he actually wearing underpants, jacket and full face lid?

    I too will do anything to avoid ever wearing high-vis, it is just a step too far.

    Incidentally, I once caught up with a woman in a Range Rover who had cut me up at a junction, and when I quizzed her about her inability to drive properly, she said it can’t matter to me because I didn’t have a helmet on! Apparently if I don’t armour-up then it is perfectly okay to run me down…

    That’s not the first time I’ve heard this logic. I think in the accuser’s head reads something like, “you did a ‘wrong’ thing so this whole event it therefore your fault”. The more obvious reading of “it’s okay to crash into you, providing I injure you enough” doesn’t really register.

    June 22, 2015 at 9:30 pm #851151
    0
    sanderville

    felixcat wrote:The Shorter

    felixcat wrote:
    The Shorter Oxford defines pants.
    a. U.S. Trousers.
    b. In British use, men’s drawers.

    Not British use, but very southern British use. No one ever had a problem with my pants until I moved to London. Ask a Londoner where he wears his underpants and he’s stumped.

    Wait a minute, what thread is this? Not the eighth skip-wagon murder of the day, I hope. It had better be frivolous!

  • Author
    Replies
Viewing 15 replies - 1 through 15 (of 20 total)
1 2
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.