Responses to unicycling(ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Responses to unicycling
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2151169/
345 comments
> It's an interesting case-study on how society reacts to outliers
And sadly, as you experienced, that reaction is often negative.
I've done quite a few things in my life that are "not normal", and the negative responses are utterly incredible. It would appear the more miserable a person is in their life, the more they want to lash out at someone doing something different to try and get away from that miserable. Almost like they want you to stay trapped in the miserable because they themselves feel trapped, and they feel cheated knowing someone else has (or is trying to) escape.
I find this shockingly true in Australia (where I'm from, but have not lived for almost 20 years). The national pastime is winging (complaining), but if you change your life to do something else, people will very quickly put you down and tell you to get right back into line. I always have a strong feeling that society says it's unacceptable for adults to just "play" or "have fun" for the sake of having fun. Everyone expects you to grow up and get a miserable job and be miserable like everyone else, and if you do anything that looks even remotely fun you'll be cut down like a tall poppy
And sadly, as you experienced, that reaction is often negative.
I've done quite a few things in my life that are "not normal", and the negative responses are utterly incredible. It would appear the more miserable a person is in their life, the more they want to lash out at someone doing something different to try and get away from that miserable. Almost like they want you to stay trapped in the miserable because they themselves feel trapped, and they feel cheated knowing someone else has (or is trying to) escape.
I find this shockingly true in Australia (where I'm from, but have not lived for almost 20 years). The national pastime is winging (complaining), but if you change your life to do something else, people will very quickly put you down and tell you to get right back into line. I always have a strong feeling that society says it's unacceptable for adults to just "play" or "have fun" for the sake of having fun. Everyone expects you to grow up and get a miserable job and be miserable like everyone else, and if you do anything that looks even remotely fun you'll be cut down like a tall poppy
Misery loves company like crabs in a bucket..
> it's disturbingly easy to sneak up on a lone pedestrian at night and give them a scare when you announce that you're passing them on the left. I'm a rather large male, and recognize I can strike an imposing figure, and hated scaring people like this. I took up whistling whilst riding near people at night just so they could know that I was there.
This is also a thing with these electric scooters and such.
It's just the speed difference that can really surprise you; I'm "scared" by that. I had this just yesterday where a kid passed me on a narrow footpath. I wouldn't have minded to step aside, but I do need to know they're there.
Really should have a bell. I don't know how that would work on a unicycle though.
This is also a thing with these electric scooters and such.
It's just the speed difference that can really surprise you; I'm "scared" by that. I had this just yesterday where a kid passed me on a narrow footpath. I wouldn't have minded to step aside, but I do need to know they're there.
Really should have a bell. I don't know how that would work on a unicycle though.
I have a standard bike bell mounted to the back of my seat post. It took a bit of practice to be able to find the lever while riding, but it works quite well, and has helped me avoid more than a few collisions.
That's a really good idea! I could also see one being mounted under the front of the seat being a convenient place to reach -- but maybe just a handheld bell (maybe one that strapped to ones' fingers?) would be best.
I've seen bells for skaters made with a metal or plastic ring you can pass through your finger. They'd probably work just as well for a unicyclist.
(In related news, Firefox's built-in spellcheck doesn't include "unicyclist" but Chrome's does.)
(In related news, Firefox's built-in spellcheck doesn't include "unicyclist" but Chrome's does.)
> Firefox's built-in spellcheck doesn't include "unicyclist" but Chrome's does
It does in the British English dictionary, but it's not recognized in the en-US one. I had assumed they would both use the same dictionary, but maybe not(?)
It does in the British English dictionary, but it's not recognized in the en-US one. I had assumed they would both use the same dictionary, but maybe not(?)
There are a lot of words like colour, centre, realise, etc that aren’t spelled the same so having separate dictionaries makes sense
Yes, obviously, but it's mostly the same and you'd expect the bulk to be shared.
[deleted]
> but I do need to know they're there.
You may /want/ to, but you categorically do not /need/ to. I'm going to get by you on my bike faster than you will notice and react, and if I'm moving anywhere near commute speeds, I will have to holler against the wind, and pray you move predictably.
It's vastly safer for both of us (although perhaps startling for you) if I move through your reaction zone quickly enough to avoid you unpredictably leaping into the collision zone.
You may /want/ to, but you categorically do not /need/ to. I'm going to get by you on my bike faster than you will notice and react, and if I'm moving anywhere near commute speeds, I will have to holler against the wind, and pray you move predictably.
It's vastly safer for both of us (although perhaps startling for you) if I move through your reaction zone quickly enough to avoid you unpredictably leaping into the collision zone.
You may /want/ to zoom past, but you categorically do not /need/ to. You can slow down, so as not to holler against the wind, say something like "on your left", and be courteously about your way.
Also, feel free to use the roads and bike lanes that exist for your pleasure rather than putting yourself through the emotional angst of lamenting the negativity you've put on however many poor pedestrians per day.
If you're sharing a space with pedestrians and moving at speeds that defy their reaction times, you're rude at best and dangerous at worst - take that vehicle on the road!
Also, feel free to use the roads and bike lanes that exist for your pleasure rather than putting yourself through the emotional angst of lamenting the negativity you've put on however many poor pedestrians per day.
If you're sharing a space with pedestrians and moving at speeds that defy their reaction times, you're rude at best and dangerous at worst - take that vehicle on the road!
That's fair. It could be that cycling on college campus pathways was not the most efficient. In my case, there were no "roads" to get between campus buildings -- only winding sidewalks and grass.
Unicycles don't react to changes very well -- they're highly momentum-based, and bumps affect them much more than bicycles. Passing on the grass is possible, but difficult (especially with a 24" wheel like I used), and was often the source of wipeouts when I would attempt to go around a group of pedestrians that was taking up the entire path. Inevitably, this was a gaggle of cute girls, who would giggle as I faceplanted into the grass. Not my finest moment. But if nothing else, this should certainly cement the idea that I certainly didn't unicycle because it was "cool". :)
But it wasn't just pedestrians and unicycles on campus sidewalks -- bikes were extremely common, and pedestrians were used to getting out of the way of cyclists. It's generally that they just couldn't hear me coming.
Unicycles don't react to changes very well -- they're highly momentum-based, and bumps affect them much more than bicycles. Passing on the grass is possible, but difficult (especially with a 24" wheel like I used), and was often the source of wipeouts when I would attempt to go around a group of pedestrians that was taking up the entire path. Inevitably, this was a gaggle of cute girls, who would giggle as I faceplanted into the grass. Not my finest moment. But if nothing else, this should certainly cement the idea that I certainly didn't unicycle because it was "cool". :)
But it wasn't just pedestrians and unicycles on campus sidewalks -- bikes were extremely common, and pedestrians were used to getting out of the way of cyclists. It's generally that they just couldn't hear me coming.
As a pedestrian, even saying "On your left" doesn't actually mean anything to me.
I'm going to turn around and look, because I can't tell which way is left in less than a second, then jump in a random direction in an absolute panic.
There's also a chance I might move right in front of you because I decided to move instead of look and got the directions mixed up.
I'm going to turn around and look, because I can't tell which way is left in less than a second, then jump in a random direction in an absolute panic.
There's also a chance I might move right in front of you because I decided to move instead of look and got the directions mixed up.
Who are you to require pedestrians to only move about "predictably"? Pedestrians don't expect anything fast behind them approaching at crushing speed*, and might ultimately decide to move or do random things because of a million different reasons you cannot know. If you at least somehow make pedestrians aware that you're coming, they can either get out of the way (I wouldn't, who are you to dictate me to scatter on a pedestrian way) or make an effort to move in a straight line.
> and pray you move predictably.
You even admit it yourself. In traffic one generally cannot take unnecessary chances with other people's safety.
*: it's very different in most other activities, I admit. When I ski, I have to be intensely aware of anything rowdies behind me might be doing so we can be safe when they zip by by less than two meters. A similar reasoning is probably at play here, but wide carving turns on easy slopes are still best reserved for early mornings or weekdays. Well-disciplined short turns look good too :)
> and pray you move predictably.
You even admit it yourself. In traffic one generally cannot take unnecessary chances with other people's safety.
*: it's very different in most other activities, I admit. When I ski, I have to be intensely aware of anything rowdies behind me might be doing so we can be safe when they zip by by less than two meters. A similar reasoning is probably at play here, but wide carving turns on easy slopes are still best reserved for early mornings or weekdays. Well-disciplined short turns look good too :)
Yeah, so I'm going to say this squarely falls in the "don't be an ass" category.
Make yourself known, wait for the acknowledgement, pass at a reasonable speed.
If you can't do that then wait for 20 seconds.
It's not hard.
I'm also going to say that "it's vastly safer" is nonsense your brain made up to self-justify your crummy behaviour.
It's a footpath. For pedestrians. To walk. I don't mind if people use it for other things, within reason, but not with this attitude.
And look, people misjudge these sort of things all the time. I've almost certainly done that myself on occasion. It happens. But when you intentionally do it, and try to justify it ... it should be obvious I'm not especially impressed by that.
Make yourself known, wait for the acknowledgement, pass at a reasonable speed.
If you can't do that then wait for 20 seconds.
It's not hard.
I'm also going to say that "it's vastly safer" is nonsense your brain made up to self-justify your crummy behaviour.
It's a footpath. For pedestrians. To walk. I don't mind if people use it for other things, within reason, but not with this attitude.
And look, people misjudge these sort of things all the time. I've almost certainly done that myself on occasion. It happens. But when you intentionally do it, and try to justify it ... it should be obvious I'm not especially impressed by that.
You are most likely not completely silent, and you likely have lighting.
It is quite likely that I will notice when you're 10ft behind because of any small mechanical creak or rock you ran over or such, or because I was looking over my shoulder.
I will quite possibly then panic and jump in a random direction and maybe get us both killed.
I don't have any training or script to follow for that. I'll respond the only way I know how, like as if I just heard machine guns and bombs behind me.
Bicyclists tend to assume others have their spatial processing and just naturally know what to do.
It is quite likely that I will notice when you're 10ft behind because of any small mechanical creak or rock you ran over or such, or because I was looking over my shoulder.
I will quite possibly then panic and jump in a random direction and maybe get us both killed.
I don't have any training or script to follow for that. I'll respond the only way I know how, like as if I just heard machine guns and bombs behind me.
Bicyclists tend to assume others have their spatial processing and just naturally know what to do.
> Equally striking was their repetitive nature, even though given as if original
I mean, this is pretty common. Most people aren't very funny, when you get down to it, and if they're trying to be humorous on the fly, they will almost always tell an incredibly tired joke.
You're a unicyclist; you hear it all the time. They rarely see unicyclists, so to them (and their friends) it's not a stale joke (though it wasn't very funny even when it was original).
I mean, this is pretty common. Most people aren't very funny, when you get down to it, and if they're trying to be humorous on the fly, they will almost always tell an incredibly tired joke.
You're a unicyclist; you hear it all the time. They rarely see unicyclists, so to them (and their friends) it's not a stale joke (though it wasn't very funny even when it was original).
they will almost always tell one tired joke
This took longer for me to get than it should have. Bravo.
:slow clap:
Brilliant.
Brilliant.
> Loud noises, then “You’re gonna fall off . . . you’re gonna fall off”
This one is pretty clever. Not aggressive or threatening, just good old psychological manipulation. Reminds me of John Mulaney's bit on 8th graders.
This one is pretty clever. Not aggressive or threatening, just good old psychological manipulation. Reminds me of John Mulaney's bit on 8th graders.
> as there is no chain or gearing
I thought there were unicycles with gearing. And mountain unicycles. Which makes them all the more fascinating.
I thought there were unicycles with gearing. And mountain unicycles. Which makes them all the more fascinating.
You're right -- there are some that do. I have a 6-foot giraffe unicycle with a chain on it, but I never rode that to commute.
Most regular unicycles don't have chains or gearing -- they're just direct-drive.
Most regular unicycles don't have chains or gearing -- they're just direct-drive.
Middle kid has a couple unicycles -- he's the only one around, and rides often. (And he's pretty good, can jump mount, do 180 jumps, ride up and down stairs, and generally he's a comfortable as on a bike. He has played the Emperor's March on a trombone while riding as well. He insists that he's not practicing for the circus).
Most common comment by far: "Do a wheelie", second -- "Where's your other wheel/You've lost a wheel" (which is answered by the tshirt -- "My other wheel is on my other unicycle".
Most common comment by far: "Do a wheelie", second -- "Where's your other wheel/You've lost a wheel" (which is answered by the tshirt -- "My other wheel is on my other unicycle".
I mountain unicycle[0]. My favorite replies to "you're missing a wheel" variants are:
* It was a half off sale (to hikers)
* I took off the training wheel (to bikers, if they seem smarmy)
These days most of my responses are very positive, almost universally. 15 years ago this wasn't the case, especially on the street--lots of people yelling "FALL!" out their window to scare you, etc. I think a big part of the long term change has been "extreme sports" becoming a very broad umbrella.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koWzoCUUIbE
* It was a half off sale (to hikers)
* I took off the training wheel (to bikers, if they seem smarmy)
These days most of my responses are very positive, almost universally. 15 years ago this wasn't the case, especially on the street--lots of people yelling "FALL!" out their window to scare you, etc. I think a big part of the long term change has been "extreme sports" becoming a very broad umbrella.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koWzoCUUIbE
> I took off the training wheel (to bikers, if they seem smarmy)
This is a fantastic retort.
This is a fantastic retort.
Curious as to why people gravitate towards unis, are they more fun to ride? Is it just more of a challenge and therefore more rewarding? Better workout I'm assuming?
There does seem to be an unusual number of nerdy/engineer types that also unicycle!
I've done two organized long distance unicycling trips before: Vietnam, with ~20 riders, and Kenya to Tanzania with ~10 unicyclists (and a few bikers filling in the slots). There were a lot of programmers, and also a few people that collected other "body as puzzle" skills--juggling, circus arts, etc.
I think the commonality is more that the kind of brain that can push past the challenge of learning to unicycle is the kind of brain that can learn a lot of technical computer skills by applying the same tenacity.
My own history with unicycling is pretty happenstance. When I was 14 I said I wanted one for a birthday present, because I liked the challenge of riding a bike around with no hands.
And I got one! So I learned to ride it on the street, but skill-wise I basically got a free mount and stopped.
Much later, in my 20s, a friend pasted a unicycling video and said he wanted to try it (think "skate video", but unicycling). I said I actually had one in a closet, so we pulled it out and just kept at it after that. After a few weeks we were out trying a flat trail.
I'm 43 now, and my riding comes and goes as I remind myself it's an enjoyable way to get some exercise. I'm also a B- tier rider, if that.
This is my favorite general unicycling video with one of the pioneers, Kris Holm. This really gets into the "but why?" part of it too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nPc2phfMLU
I've done two organized long distance unicycling trips before: Vietnam, with ~20 riders, and Kenya to Tanzania with ~10 unicyclists (and a few bikers filling in the slots). There were a lot of programmers, and also a few people that collected other "body as puzzle" skills--juggling, circus arts, etc.
I think the commonality is more that the kind of brain that can push past the challenge of learning to unicycle is the kind of brain that can learn a lot of technical computer skills by applying the same tenacity.
My own history with unicycling is pretty happenstance. When I was 14 I said I wanted one for a birthday present, because I liked the challenge of riding a bike around with no hands.
And I got one! So I learned to ride it on the street, but skill-wise I basically got a free mount and stopped.
Much later, in my 20s, a friend pasted a unicycling video and said he wanted to try it (think "skate video", but unicycling). I said I actually had one in a closet, so we pulled it out and just kept at it after that. After a few weeks we were out trying a flat trail.
I'm 43 now, and my riding comes and goes as I remind myself it's an enjoyable way to get some exercise. I'm also a B- tier rider, if that.
This is my favorite general unicycling video with one of the pioneers, Kris Holm. This really gets into the "but why?" part of it too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nPc2phfMLU
Unis are small, slow and safe.
As a teenager I would go out for a ride, put it on my shoulder for hikes and then ride it back by bus.
So when you take the novelty off (and as a rider, it vanishes quickly) it's just a very fun and convenient bike
How do panic brakes work on a unicycle?
It's hard to use a unicycle brake as a true panic brake. It's essentially an ejection seat if you abruptly press a brake too hard.
But they are useful as drag brakes! I run a disc brake on my mountain unicycle, and really it's to make super-steep downhill segments feasible (at least without requiring a tremendous amount of back pedal pressure). I choose a brake used for trials biking with a long throw range.
I have a rim brake on my 36" unicycle. In that case it is helpful to reduce stopping distance, in part because the crank-to-wheel ratio is bonkers, but it's still primarily used as a drag brake on long downhills.
But yeah, on a mountain/street unicycle, your feet aren't that far off the ground, and you can't really go faster than sprinting speed. The big risk is getting tangled up in a weird way on the mountain.
36" distance unicycles can go faster than sprinting speed. Bailing unexpectedly on a fast 36" results in a few galloping steps and hopefully not a trip and slide...
Fun little unicycling factoid: "UPD" stands for Unplanned Dismount, and really is what tends to happen more than actual crashes. You realize your balance envelope is blown and there's no hope of making the line you're trying to hit, so might as well just dismount gracefully while you still can.
But they are useful as drag brakes! I run a disc brake on my mountain unicycle, and really it's to make super-steep downhill segments feasible (at least without requiring a tremendous amount of back pedal pressure). I choose a brake used for trials biking with a long throw range.
I have a rim brake on my 36" unicycle. In that case it is helpful to reduce stopping distance, in part because the crank-to-wheel ratio is bonkers, but it's still primarily used as a drag brake on long downhills.
But yeah, on a mountain/street unicycle, your feet aren't that far off the ground, and you can't really go faster than sprinting speed. The big risk is getting tangled up in a weird way on the mountain.
36" distance unicycles can go faster than sprinting speed. Bailing unexpectedly on a fast 36" results in a few galloping steps and hopefully not a trip and slide...
Fun little unicycling factoid: "UPD" stands for Unplanned Dismount, and really is what tends to happen more than actual crashes. You realize your balance envelope is blown and there's no hope of making the line you're trying to hit, so might as well just dismount gracefully while you still can.
It’s too slow to need them on the road. You can just jump off and stop.
I know nothing about riding unicycles but I do ride EUC (Electric Unicycle). This thing is the most incredible sport related fun I've ever encountered. As for workout - when off road then yes, it is good core training and raises my HR sometimes to the max. Riding regular roads (except initial learning stage) is - meh. HR fluctuates between 60-70 (50 is my RHR).
That's awesome! My friend and long-ago business partner was a unicyclist, and did mountain unicycling for a while as well.
He recently switched to going around with free skates - I'm trying to learn them as well (I never did get around to picking up unicycling unfortunately).
He recently switched to going around with free skates - I'm trying to learn them as well (I never did get around to picking up unicycling unfortunately).
What's a free skate?
Think a rollerblade turned sideways, so that when you are standing neutrally you are moving in-line with your shoulders (like a skateboard), and the wheels from each skate form a single straight line.
When I read this description, I assumed the skate was attached to the feet like a rollerblade, but after looking at YouTube, it’s more like each foot gets a little foot-sized skateboard. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuR-uxPTGzI
That's really cool, I didn't know that was a thing!
I never had the athletic ability to do anything like this as a child but this definitely would have made your son 100x cooler to me as a (what I assume is) elementary/jr. high peer.
He’s 33 but thank you for saying so
Still counts.
... does that preclude his being in Junior High?
r/notopbutok ?
“My other bicycle is a tricycle.”
This is totally ignoring how most men jokes with other men vs how women talk to strange men they don't know.
Not a shock that women are a bit friendlier. Whereas men try to be a bit more clever for the sake of fun.
I spent a decade selling cars and the part I miss most is the totally crazy humor between salespeople and management. You know how a salesperson goes to talk to his manager every iteration of any negotiation? Every single time my manager would have a funny quip when I returned. And I'd also try to have something funny to say about either the manager or the customer or myself.
OP would label all this as hateful or negative which really it wasn't.
Not a shock that women are a bit friendlier. Whereas men try to be a bit more clever for the sake of fun.
I spent a decade selling cars and the part I miss most is the totally crazy humor between salespeople and management. You know how a salesperson goes to talk to his manager every iteration of any negotiation? Every single time my manager would have a funny quip when I returned. And I'd also try to have something funny to say about either the manager or the customer or myself.
OP would label all this as hateful or negative which really it wasn't.
I'd say not all guys enjoy the kind of "guy talk" you're describing ... maybe it's harmless in your experience but it can be quite aggressive, or perceived as such, even if you're not emotionally bothered by it.
It's especially terrible if you have to go along in the workplace because you're talking to your boss and are expected to laugh about his (potentially charged) "funny quips" because "guy talk", amirite? Ugh ..
It's especially terrible if you have to go along in the workplace because you're talking to your boss and are expected to laugh about his (potentially charged) "funny quips" because "guy talk", amirite? Ugh ..
If you didn't like it, you'd probably make it shown in one way or another. And they wouldn't do it to you. There were several salespeople that didn't really know how or want to take part, and you simply didn't talk to them unless it was about work.
Ah "laddishness", the epitome of grown men acting like boys; from homophobic quips about a minor hairstyle change, to puking drunkenly at a holiday destination ("lads on tour") whilst blasting offensive music and pretending that the world is yours, as the locals desperate for your money are forced to shrug and smile.
Idk man youve really extrpolated some light ribbing about a silly bike into some seriously obnoxious and incinsiderate behaviour. Not the same
"funny quips" in work environment tend to be quite mean-spirited in my experience
I'm not able to tell: does the author imply the "lost your wheel?" type comedy questions are put-downs? I have trouble seeing it that way. I would call it more of a jest than an insult and more of a basic attempt at humor that notes the uniqueness of the situation. To call noting anything that is odd a put down stretches the limits of credibility.
Same thing I thought. Really “I suppose it saves on tyres” is a put-down? Maybe it's the author who doesn't have a sense of humour.
OTOH he thinks women saying “You should dress up as Santa for the children” is praise and not a put-down.
OTOH he thinks women saying “You should dress up as Santa for the children” is praise and not a put-down.
There's a reasonable chance "You should dress up as Santa for the children" is intended as a positive suggestion. There's very little chance "I suppose it saves on tyres" is anything but a snide remark, since nobody in their right mind really thinks unicyclists are trying to save on tires by not riding bikes.
Any question which isn't asked with the intention of receiving a response can be considered snark, which while it may not directly be intended as a put-down, is still insulting because it is making light of the author who is not obviously partaking in unicycling to make people laugh.
Any question which isn't asked with the intention of receiving a response can be considered snark, which while it may not directly be intended as a put-down, is still insulting because it is making light of the author who is not obviously partaking in unicycling to make people laugh.
Unicycling is fedora-like because you're going out of your way to do something that's less efficient. You know it's going to provoke a reaction because it's unusual. It's different than something like a guy with no legs because he didn't chose to have no legs. If you just love unicycling keep your chin up fight the good fight believe in yourself, but don't imply you're "under attack" because people go "huh that's weird I have to say something let's try gentle humor". The people with pithy comebacks in this comment section are doing it correctly.
Efficiency has nothing to do with it. One doesn't get a free pass to make fun of, say, pedestrians just because they're less energy efficient than bicyclists.
Nobody is suggesting that humorous comments are an "attack". The point of the article was to differentiate between the joking comments made by men and the more benign comments made by women. Making light of someone's activity is still belittling, even if not a direct insult. Even if not said directly, the implication is "you're doing something I find funny."
> people go "huh that's weird I have to say something let's try gentle humor"
That seems to be the crux of the matter: people who a) believe they need to say something at all, b) decide that it must be something "funny", and then c) actually say it out loud. Have those people ever stopped to consider that their opinion isn't wanted?
Nobody is suggesting that humorous comments are an "attack". The point of the article was to differentiate between the joking comments made by men and the more benign comments made by women. Making light of someone's activity is still belittling, even if not a direct insult. Even if not said directly, the implication is "you're doing something I find funny."
> people go "huh that's weird I have to say something let's try gentle humor"
That seems to be the crux of the matter: people who a) believe they need to say something at all, b) decide that it must be something "funny", and then c) actually say it out loud. Have those people ever stopped to consider that their opinion isn't wanted?
> say, pedestrians just because they're less energy efficient than bicyclists.
Being born with 2 leg, they aren't "going out of [their] way" though..
Being born with 2 leg, they aren't "going out of [their] way" though..
>Even if not said directly, the implication is "you're doing something I find funny."
Yes. I will frequently find what other people are doing to be funny, even absurd. I will often vocalize it. You will not convince me this a moral wrong. I am, however, open to other people vocalizing this about my behavior. Recently, I purchased one of every bran flake cereal in the cereal aisle to determine which was best. I received light jest from the public who viewed my cart. It made sense, because what I was doing was bizarre. I was not injured. It was not an attack. I probably shouldn't do it regularly.
I do attempt to avoid jest about things people have no or minimal control over (race, disability, disfigurement, sexual orientation) or that are core pieces of people's life (religion or lack thereof, financial status, spouse). I am willing to be corrected by someone passionate about a subject. I am also very willing to be wrong, if someone demonstrates that unicycling is actually a way better method of transportation.
Yes. I will frequently find what other people are doing to be funny, even absurd. I will often vocalize it. You will not convince me this a moral wrong. I am, however, open to other people vocalizing this about my behavior. Recently, I purchased one of every bran flake cereal in the cereal aisle to determine which was best. I received light jest from the public who viewed my cart. It made sense, because what I was doing was bizarre. I was not injured. It was not an attack. I probably shouldn't do it regularly.
I do attempt to avoid jest about things people have no or minimal control over (race, disability, disfigurement, sexual orientation) or that are core pieces of people's life (religion or lack thereof, financial status, spouse). I am willing to be corrected by someone passionate about a subject. I am also very willing to be wrong, if someone demonstrates that unicycling is actually a way better method of transportation.
He is saying that it is annoying and has an effect of discouraging people from completely valid activities. Basically, it is uncomfortable to people who have to deal with those remarks and they then seen to avoid those remarks.
They do not care about correcting you and why should they. No one has any reason to try to convince you about unicycle effectivity, regardless of reason they drive it for.
They do not care about correcting you and why should they. No one has any reason to try to convince you about unicycle effectivity, regardless of reason they drive it for.
Of course it's praise. Any woman saying this to a man clearly wants to have his children. /s
(Seriously I think it really depends on the tone and context.)
(Seriously I think it really depends on the tone and context.)
The amount of neckbearding in this thread is astonishing
If they sent him that comment as a text message, then maybe it's not a put down. Obviously, there's body language and tone of voice that can't be represented in the paper.
Unless they're flexing their 24 inch pythons and asking me what I'm gonna do brother when Hulkamania takes my other wheel it'd be hard to take it as aggression.
That's called body language, dude. It's a different kind of communication, brother!
/hulkhogan
/hulkhogan
I rode a unicycle to class in college for several years, and in my experience, it was generally done in a mild but jeering tone. "Hey buddy, lost your wheel! hahaha" -- while it may occasionally have been delivered in a sympathetic tone, it usually felt analogous to when people would yell at passing joggers "run Forrest, run!"
Jokes/jabs is how men make friends.
Nope
uh... it is 100% is how men make friends...
Men make friends in different ways? Just like, you know, almost all human things vary.
Sounds like a great counter argument to "nope".
To put it perhaps more clearly, there are some of us men for which it definitely is true. Source: self.
To put it perhaps more clearly, there are some of us men for which it definitely is true. Source: self.
My favorite way of responding to obvious oversimplification is quick dismissal. Shows exactly as much effort and thought.
Then I will put some more effort into it.
For many men, this type of comment is frequently made without any malice. (The original archetype several levels up was "Run Forrest, run!")
This seems like it fits into the general tone of a large fraction of interactions I've had with other men. Either I missed a lot of intended aggression, or this large volume of interactions wasn't actually intended to be aggressive. Of course, it's possible for a short verbal communication to be understood differently than it was intended. But in this post, we are getting the recipient's interpretation of the intent. It appears to me, (also a biased source) that this recipient is very sensitive to perceived aggression and insults. There's some analysis and speculation based on their perceptions, that seems to take it as given that intents were correctly understood. From my reading, this is very much in question. I didn't have the benefit of hearing tone of voice and understanding full context. But in their written form most of the lines categorized here as aggressive would have been categorized differently by some other unicycle rider. Specifically, I'm thinking of me. Full disclosure, I don't know how to unicycle.
For many men, this type of comment is frequently made without any malice. (The original archetype several levels up was "Run Forrest, run!")
This seems like it fits into the general tone of a large fraction of interactions I've had with other men. Either I missed a lot of intended aggression, or this large volume of interactions wasn't actually intended to be aggressive. Of course, it's possible for a short verbal communication to be understood differently than it was intended. But in this post, we are getting the recipient's interpretation of the intent. It appears to me, (also a biased source) that this recipient is very sensitive to perceived aggression and insults. There's some analysis and speculation based on their perceptions, that seems to take it as given that intents were correctly understood. From my reading, this is very much in question. I didn't have the benefit of hearing tone of voice and understanding full context. But in their written form most of the lines categorized here as aggressive would have been categorized differently by some other unicycle rider. Specifically, I'm thinking of me. Full disclosure, I don't know how to unicycle.
It seems like this is an either-or. Either sympathetic or jerring. I think that cracking jokes can be neutral.
Yeah, that's a tough one. If I make a joke about your behavior or appearance, even if it feels neutral or innocuous to me, you might not see it that way. And if you push back, then I defend myself by saying: "Whaaat? It was a jooooke!"
Especially when it's done frequently / regularly, the line between "consistent neutral-ish jokes" and "mild harassment" can become a bit blurred.
Not saying that such things should be outlawed or policed or whatever -- I just shrugged it off and didn't let it bug me. But if I'm trying to quantify it as positive or negative, it usually felt like a joking comment made at my expense.
Especially when it's done frequently / regularly, the line between "consistent neutral-ish jokes" and "mild harassment" can become a bit blurred.
Not saying that such things should be outlawed or policed or whatever -- I just shrugged it off and didn't let it bug me. But if I'm trying to quantify it as positive or negative, it usually felt like a joking comment made at my expense.
I hear what you're saying and you're right in that there is nuance. I normally will give a light glib comment about something and then wait to see if I get any back. If I do it's good fun and I'll do more but if I never do I know the person isn't ready or willing to engage on that level. I find that people usually use the "It's just a joke" line after saying straight up rude things rather than light remarks.
Additionally: what motivations does one have to ride a unicycle instead of a bicycle? I can only think of reduced storage space being a practical benefit.
Additionally: what motivations does one have to ride a unicycle instead of a bicycle? I can only think of reduced storage space being a practical benefit.
> what motivations does one have to ride a unicycle instead of a bicycle? I can only think of reduced storage space being a practical benefit.
You're assuming a practical benefit but maybe people do it for fun, the challenge, or simply because of the novelty.
You're assuming a practical benefit but maybe people do it for fun, the challenge, or simply because of the novelty.
Good thoughts -- yeah, this is a tough one to parse, and I don't have all the answers.
> Additionally: what motivations does one have to ride a unicycle instead of a bicycle? I can only think of reduced storage space being a practical benefit.
For me, it was more fun than walking, and was good balance practice. It was faster than walking, and unicycles are smaller than bikes. Additionally, I juggle, so this was a nice thing to practice to put into my act.
> Additionally: what motivations does one have to ride a unicycle instead of a bicycle? I can only think of reduced storage space being a practical benefit.
For me, it was more fun than walking, and was good balance practice. It was faster than walking, and unicycles are smaller than bikes. Additionally, I juggle, so this was a nice thing to practice to put into my act.
> what motivations does one have ...
We are on a site named Hacker News, after all.
> Because it's there. — George Mallory
We are on a site named Hacker News, after all.
> Because it's there. — George Mallory
I don't personally feel that the "hacker ethic" is just doing whatever odd thing to do it. I think it's more of a desire to see how and why things are they way they are, and to tweak it so it is better. Riding a unicycle for attention vs creating a self leveling unicycle. But I'm not really qualified to say, and I defer to those who are.
The progression is natural (it also leads to "code golf", lambda calculus/SKI, etc.): almost everyone learns to ride vehicles with three wheels, most people learn to ride vehicles with two, so why not continue the minimisation to one? (zero wheels would normally be considered too degenerate to be practical, but maybe some hacker may eventually come up with the pedal-powered hovercraft? How about fractional wheels [or is this just a penny farthing]? imaginary wheels?)
TIL that the well-known stereotypical "circus music" is actually a march called "Entrance of the Gladiators" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrance_of_the_Gladiators).
Changed the name because of personal interest in the Roman Empire... It was originally titled "Grande Marche Chromatique", reflecting the use of chromatic scales.
Every, and I mean every, kid’s reaction when first seeing a unicycle: awe and big smiles. Naturally, right? It’s a bit ridiculous and amazing, isn’t it?
So IMO if any adult doesn’t respond with a smile (at least on the inside … be honest with yourself) then they’ve lost their inner child … and isn’t that a bit sad?
Disclaimer: I have a unicycle and am a terrible terrible rider. Don’t care. Gotta hit the sidewalk once in a while to refresh and damn if I don’t end up giggling every time I fall.
So IMO if any adult doesn’t respond with a smile (at least on the inside … be honest with yourself) then they’ve lost their inner child … and isn’t that a bit sad?
Disclaimer: I have a unicycle and am a terrible terrible rider. Don’t care. Gotta hit the sidewalk once in a while to refresh and damn if I don’t end up giggling every time I fall.
> “Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them.”
Margret Atwood
> The quote is usually presented as inherently true, capturing the asymmetrical nature of the neverending war between the sexes. And I think that aspect is basically correct. But, if you’ll forgive me for being a pedantic male, it’s incomplete. Yes, men are afraid women will laugh at them; yes, women are afraid men will kill them. But do you know what else men are afraid of?
> Men.
> Men are also afraid other men will kill them.
https://verydistantlands.substack.com/p/the-eraserhead-guide...
TFA fits the pattern. Men feel the need to quickly establish a hierarchy with a modest putdown.
Margret Atwood
> The quote is usually presented as inherently true, capturing the asymmetrical nature of the neverending war between the sexes. And I think that aspect is basically correct. But, if you’ll forgive me for being a pedantic male, it’s incomplete. Yes, men are afraid women will laugh at them; yes, women are afraid men will kill them. But do you know what else men are afraid of?
> Men.
> Men are also afraid other men will kill them.
https://verydistantlands.substack.com/p/the-eraserhead-guide...
TFA fits the pattern. Men feel the need to quickly establish a hierarchy with a modest putdown.
As a man, I have never done this, and I very rarely find myself in a situation where other men are like this towards me. If your experience is different, you are just surrounded by assholes and need to reflect on the people and places you spend your time with. It’s also worth noting that being an asshole is not a gendered phenomenon.
> If your experience is different, you are just surrounded by assholes and need to reflect on the people and places you spend your time with.
Or maybe you are just lucky to be born in a country with relative good security? Sometimes doing groceries can expose you to a situation like this, and sometimes it is hard to move to a better country.
Or maybe you are just lucky to be born in a country with relative good security? Sometimes doing groceries can expose you to a situation like this, and sometimes it is hard to move to a better country.
Hierarchy established.
> “Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them.”
Strange, cuz Marylin Monroe told me "if you can make a woman laugh, you can make her do anything."
So maybe men are just constantly calibrating a competitive sense of humor..?
Strange, cuz Marylin Monroe told me "if you can make a woman laugh, you can make her do anything."
So maybe men are just constantly calibrating a competitive sense of humor..?
Somewhat off topic, but I run barefoot (when I run, which isn't as often these days), and the responses are very similar. Mostly repetitive insults from men, ("did you forget your shoes?", "be careful, you'll cut your feet"), some curiosity, ("doesn't that hurt?"), some envy ("wow I wish I could do that") and a small amount of praise.
It's interesting how many people feel free to say the damnedest things when they see someone doing something they don't understand.
It's interesting how many people feel free to say the damnedest things when they see someone doing something they don't understand.
"be careful, you'll cut your feet" seems like something I would say, but it would be out of well-meaning concern, and not in any way intended as an insult.
Yeah, I'm middle-aged and ride around on an electric skateboard, including a daily but very short commute. I go out of my way (literally) to not inconvenience either pedestrians or drivers, so have had only a couple of drivers yell at me (much less than on a bike). But I do get questions and comments often.
[deleted]
The fact that you don't like what they say doesn't mean they don't understand what you're doing.
No, the things they say mean they don't understand it. "Doesn't that hurt your feet?" is a question that no one who understands barefoot running would ask.
Also, I don't care about what they say. If you don't have a thick skin and the capacity to shake off random comments from strangers, you won't do something unusual that attracts that kind of attention for > 10 years
Also, I don't care about what they say. If you don't have a thick skin and the capacity to shake off random comments from strangers, you won't do something unusual that attracts that kind of attention for > 10 years
> Also, I don't care about what they say. If you don't have a thick skin and the capacity to shake off random comments from strangers, you won't do something unusual that attracts that kind of attention for > 10 years
If you don't have a thick skin, you also probably wouldn't be running barefoot.
(sorry, my androgen-induced aggression got the better of me)
If you don't have a thick skin, you also probably wouldn't be running barefoot.
(sorry, my androgen-induced aggression got the better of me)
It is not an entirely painfree experience, though. In some cases it is not a completely unwarranted question.
For example, the snow and ice melted here yesterday, exposing gravel on asphalt which is borderline painful to run on directly. Also, e.g. very cold winter days or just nasty gravel roads may inflict varying degrees of pain.
Otherwise, it can also be slightly painful for the soles during later parts of long runs, especially when inexperienced or when running for the first time in months.
For example, the snow and ice melted here yesterday, exposing gravel on asphalt which is borderline painful to run on directly. Also, e.g. very cold winter days or just nasty gravel roads may inflict varying degrees of pain.
Otherwise, it can also be slightly painful for the soles during later parts of long runs, especially when inexperienced or when running for the first time in months.
I used to run in a running group that had a barefoot runner as a member and the number one comment I heard made was "I don't understand why [the hell/fuck] you would run barefoot".
There's a lot of the rider's bias leaking through here. "Men who seemed to be of higher social class", "Middle Class Men", complete assumptions and biases that aren't used to form any sort of conclusion. Frustrating in an otherwise enjoyable and interesting essay.
I imagined it to be similar to how some "blue collar" professions attract mostly men who openly discuss women in sexual ways with each other while at work and will cat-call a pretty woman walking by.
Likewise, a group of business men in suites are less likely to engage in this behavior. It's impossible for the unicyclist to measure people's class standing but you can get a lot of context clues by their appearance and behavior. Maybe it includes some bias, but for the purpose of logging all interesting responses I thought it was approximate enough.
Likewise, a group of business men in suites are less likely to engage in this behavior. It's impossible for the unicyclist to measure people's class standing but you can get a lot of context clues by their appearance and behavior. Maybe it includes some bias, but for the purpose of logging all interesting responses I thought it was approximate enough.
Blue collar men chat up women passing by. White collar men in suits rape their subordinate women. Those nasty low class blue collar men!
> I imagined it to be similar to how some "blue collar" professions attract mostly men who openly discuss women in sexual ways with each other while at work and will cat-call a pretty woman walking by.
Bro if you're trying to count those responses by class you can't use those same responses to put them into the bins in the first place, and reproducing a classist stereotype for no reason doesn't make the point any more valid.
Bro if you're trying to count those responses by class you can't use those same responses to put them into the bins in the first place, and reproducing a classist stereotype for no reason doesn't make the point any more valid.
From his writing he sounds British, where class has a somewhat different context and from what I gather, can be inferred from speech/dress.
From his writing:
Social and ethnic differences seemed to soften the male response, and such a softening was also noted when unicycling in Framlingham, a small Suffolk town to which I had moved from Newcastle.
I saw a comedy video recently in which the comic suggested that a man using an umbrella in Newcastle was enough to provoke comedic insults from passers by.
If the film Jaws was set in North-East England:
https://youtu.be/PLNA_57a9qE
If the film Jaws was set in North-East England:
https://youtu.be/PLNA_57a9qE
This was an interesting read however it's clear the author is very far removed from conducting this "experiment" neutrally. For starters, it's not about "response to a sudden, unexpected exposure to a new phenomenon—unicycling" as the author suggest, but rather about exposure to the author on a unicycle. Can you imagine the responses were the same if we replaced the rider with a stunning female model? Would the men and boys still have challenging reactions? I bet not.
fwiw, my wife (who I at least think is hot) gets similar reactions (fake whinnying, "I don't play with my food", etc.) from younger men and boys when out riding her horses.
Edit: we talking about this article a bit; she reports older men (40+! we do eventually learn) have a clue about how to start a conversation with an attractive woman ("that looks elegant", "how old is your horse?", etc.) so I told her how my grandmother told me inappropriate male attention at school came in the form of dipping her pigtails in inkwells.
Edit: we talking about this article a bit; she reports older men (40+! we do eventually learn) have a clue about how to start a conversation with an attractive woman ("that looks elegant", "how old is your horse?", etc.) so I told her how my grandmother told me inappropriate male attention at school came in the form of dipping her pigtails in inkwells.
> "I don't play with my food"
I don't get that quip. Is the joker implying that they see horses as food animals? (Yes, I know that some places like France do sometimes eat horse, but it isn't common in English-speaking countries at least).
I don't get that quip. Is the joker implying that they see horses as food animals? (Yes, I know that some places like France do sometimes eat horse, but it isn't common in English-speaking countries at least).
Sorry: we're on the continent; I translated all the above into english for HN.
(fwiw, restaurants here must label the origin of their meat products, and more often than not horse meat comes from North America!)
(fwiw, restaurants here must label the origin of their meat products, and more often than not horse meat comes from North America!)
Where do you ride a horse in general public? That seems dangerous.
On leisure-use paths and mostly-ag-use side roads (the young men are generally found in close proximity to the local football pitches). Because of late sunrise/early sundown in winter, we have enough reflective/EL material to make the horses look like they've headed to a rave without their pacifiers.
Yes, but I have this nagging feeling that it has more to do with the unicycle than the rider... not sure where I'm getting that feeling...
The author did note this limitation in the paper.
It would be interesting to contrast the unicycle experience with tandem bike experiences. When I ride my tandem bike with a partner I almost universally experience smiles and happy waves from people that see us.
I can ride a unicycle and rode it more often as a teenager. Lots of comments about getting lost from the circus. But they were meant to be funny. I think.
I can ride a unicycle and rode it more often as a teenager. Lots of comments about getting lost from the circus. But they were meant to be funny. I think.
I don't unicycle but I used to be an avid juggler.
My experience is that greatest predictor of what kind of response you get when doing something unusual in public is whether or not the activity is solitary. If you do a solitary activity that takes a lot of practice, it suggests you're some kind of weirdo loner who has to fill the empty days with hobbies because no one wants to hang out with you, and responses in public may reflect that.
If you're doing an activity with someone else, then at least one person doesn't think you're an intolerable weirdo, so people seem to be more accepting of it.
The responses I got between when I was juggling alone versus club passing with another person in a park were very different.
My experience is that greatest predictor of what kind of response you get when doing something unusual in public is whether or not the activity is solitary. If you do a solitary activity that takes a lot of practice, it suggests you're some kind of weirdo loner who has to fill the empty days with hobbies because no one wants to hang out with you, and responses in public may reflect that.
If you're doing an activity with someone else, then at least one person doesn't think you're an intolerable weirdo, so people seem to be more accepting of it.
The responses I got between when I was juggling alone versus club passing with another person in a park were very different.
My wife and I did a couple of tandem tours throughout the Netherlands, Belgium and the UK. By far the most comments we had were in the UK, the most common being: “she’s not pedalling!” jokingly informing me that my wife who sits at the back isn’t doing her part.
The amount of comments were nowhere close what the author describes, and I can’t recall any negative comments. Just humorous ones.
I guess a tandem isn’t as uncommon / funny as a unicycle.
I guess a tandem isn’t as uncommon / funny as a unicycle.
Anyone start singing/reciting the song “Daisy Bell” at you?
I ride a recumbent and get my share of comments, mostly positive. (Others have talked of getting "one of your wheels is bigger than the other" comments, but I don't remember hearing that one yet)
Same--folks are generally interested and/or amused. It's been ages since I unicycled in public [I'm not great at it], but none of what's been posted here about reactions surprises me.
So... friendliness scales with wheels?
New plan: build a custom cycle with 25 wheels. Become the most popular person in town.
I get a similar experience with my recumbent tricycle, including surprisingly consistently positive reactions from other road-users.
Now I’m curious how the reactions would be for a tandem recumbent tricycle. (Yes, they’re a thing.)
Now I’m curious how the reactions would be for a tandem recumbent tricycle. (Yes, they’re a thing.)
I ride a recumbent bike, and honestly the random commentary is way more positive than I'd expected it to be. Kids go nuts for it, 90%+ of adults' reactions are friendly, too. Lycra-clad street bicyclists are the negative exception, but are easily enough ignored. And it's always fun when you come across another recumbent rider; a friendly wave is all but guaranteed.
In the United States, tandem bikes have a strong Norman Rockwell vibe.
Maybe it's a cultural thing, but the alleged put-downs and aggression mostly sound mis-categorized to me. There are only a few of the given lines that sound aggressive or insulting.
My interpretation is that this action, peformed by a man, is a show of force which is why it gets praise from females and envy/aggression from males.
Are we still talking about unicycling?
The "Indirect put downs" are mostly misclassified. I'm surprised that a unicyclist has no sense of humor, and the fully grown adult has no sense of banter. It seems that the author has a chip on his shoulder against men.
Indirect put-downs:
Indirect put-downs:
“You must like living dangerously”
“Odd things you find on cycles”
“And what were your other birthday presents?”
“Is it a new form of transport then?”
“I suppose it saves on tyres”
“You park your bike for two minutes and that’s what you are left with”> About 1-2% of people expressed anger, distaste, or fear of collision, mostly elderly women and some men walking with sticks.
fortysomething able-bodied man, but i suspect fear of collision would be my first reaction too. unicycles look hard to control and liable to crash into things, based on instincts developed riding bicycles. (i would also think it was a neat thing to do, though)
fortysomething able-bodied man, but i suspect fear of collision would be my first reaction too. unicycles look hard to control and liable to crash into things, based on instincts developed riding bicycles. (i would also think it was a neat thing to do, though)
They're also somewhat bigger and faster than you expect, which combined with the above would certainly worry me if I was walking and prone to serious injury or death from a fall.
I wonder if the men's remarks aren't often born of envy? It's common for men to say stuff like "That must have cost a pretty penny" or "He must have a small penis", regarding other vehicles.
And let's be honest, a unicycle is pretty amusing. My first impulse would be to make a joke.
Lastly, I'm not at all surprised that women, seeing a man performing a significant act of physical agility, might have some positive emotional reaction.
I'm most impressed by the systematic way the OP collected the statistics!
And let's be honest, a unicycle is pretty amusing. My first impulse would be to make a joke.
Lastly, I'm not at all surprised that women, seeing a man performing a significant act of physical agility, might have some positive emotional reaction.
I'm most impressed by the systematic way the OP collected the statistics!
Indeeed, I feel there's a defense mechanism in there about the implicit menace in someone doing something beyond your own ability.
Unycicling is easy to put down, but take the message above about running barefoot.
Seeing someone doing something unusual like that, something that people "just don't understand" leads to uncertainty. "Why I don't do that?", "Why I can't do that?"
And since as men we're culturally primed to rubuff such doubts, the response is ridicule: "Because he looks silly, and I'm smarter than him", "Bet he'll get scared if I stomp", etc.
People are so insecure sometimes
Unycicling is easy to put down, but take the message above about running barefoot.
Seeing someone doing something unusual like that, something that people "just don't understand" leads to uncertainty. "Why I don't do that?", "Why I can't do that?"
And since as men we're culturally primed to rubuff such doubts, the response is ridicule: "Because he looks silly, and I'm smarter than him", "Bet he'll get scared if I stomp", etc.
People are so insecure sometimes
> I wonder if the men's remarks aren't often born of envy?
Is there any other way to interpret it? (Genuinely asking!)
Is there any other way to interpret it? (Genuinely asking!)
I tend to implicitly associate unicycles with performative comedy. Probably due to a lot of circus and talent-show imagery. If I only had a split second to react to a unicyclist passing by, I might automatically assume that the rider is trying to be funny on purpose. And therefore (my subconscious leaps ahead) that the appropriate social reaction is to respond in kind with whatever humour I can come up with in that split-second, which will probably be an unoriginal and poorly-landing joke.
Ten seconds after saying it, my more considerate thought process will probably realize that the joke wasn't very funny, that the rider probably hears the same "joke" a hundred times per day, and that they might have just been enjoying their solitary unicycling hobby, rather than deliberately putting on a show to amuse the neighbourhood. But by that time they'll have long since passed by, and it would be too awkward to catch up and apologize.
Ten seconds after saying it, my more considerate thought process will probably realize that the joke wasn't very funny, that the rider probably hears the same "joke" a hundred times per day, and that they might have just been enjoying their solitary unicycling hobby, rather than deliberately putting on a show to amuse the neighbourhood. But by that time they'll have long since passed by, and it would be too awkward to catch up and apologize.
Honest attempt at humor perhaps. Recognition of the absurdity of the act. Camaraderie done poorly.
I would bet that at least some portion of these are genuine (failed) attempts at camraderie or playful banter. But much like the cashier-jokes ("no tag, must be free") I bet it becomes really grating after a while. It's probably a novelty to see someone unicycling, but it isn't novel for the rider.
I kind of associate these types of failed jokes with a particular type of awkward middle aged-to-older dude who accidentally puts people down when trying to be funny.
I kind of associate these types of failed jokes with a particular type of awkward middle aged-to-older dude who accidentally puts people down when trying to be funny.
This mirrors my own experience as a unicyclist (both traditional and electric). Reactions are very common, and vary wildly. It's rare to pass someone and not get some sort of reaction, and if you stop near them it's always "was it hard to learn?" or "what's that cost?" for the electric one.
Mirrors mine, too. Although I didn't get to the travel stage on unicycle (never got outside parking lots), so most of my experience with other people was on electric unicycle early in their arrival into our area.
(in the US) The one constant was that overwhelmingly older men and women were interested and impressed and had genuine questions or compliments without making jokes.
The younger you got with males, the more aggressive and posturing the questions and behavior. Younger females were non-memorable - mainly just looked or ignored. Pre-teen, kids of both genders are just curious.
There's a definite similarity in the behaviors of people as they get older and the very young in how they approach new and interesting things like a (e)unicycle. As people get older they seemed to lose all need to posture and prove themselves and they seemed more comfortable exposing the vulnerability of being curious and ignorant.
Men absolutely love to ask the cost.
(in the US) The one constant was that overwhelmingly older men and women were interested and impressed and had genuine questions or compliments without making jokes.
The younger you got with males, the more aggressive and posturing the questions and behavior. Younger females were non-memorable - mainly just looked or ignored. Pre-teen, kids of both genders are just curious.
There's a definite similarity in the behaviors of people as they get older and the very young in how they approach new and interesting things like a (e)unicycle. As people get older they seemed to lose all need to posture and prove themselves and they seemed more comfortable exposing the vulnerability of being curious and ignorant.
Men absolutely love to ask the cost.
Also tracks my experience as a unicyclist. When you keep poking at humanity with the same but unusual prompt, you glimpse how similar people can be. To the quip about losing a wheel, my sadly habituated response is "that was the training wheel!", and then they chuckle, because it's new to them ...
I've been riding an electric unicycle for years and I don't think I've gotten a single negative comment, aside from riding somewhere (they thought) I shouldn't have. But those same comments would have been directed at a scooter or bike.
Typically when people marvel at my wheel, I tell them if they give me a few bowling pins I can juggle as well.
Typically when people marvel at my wheel, I tell them if they give me a few bowling pins I can juggle as well.
OK, I’ll bite… was it hard to learn?
The old school unicycle took maybe a few hours and felt kind of safe to learn. You just step forward to get off.
The electric felt a lot more dangerous to learn. I practiced going back and forth in a hallway (holding the wall), then practiced riding freely and turning in a parking lot, then started riding around my neighborhood.
It is dangerous, though. One wheel in contact with the ground, people don't know how to react to you, plus high speeds and poorly maintained roads mean a mistake by you or another person can mean a hospital trip with serious injuries. I think the risk is easily 10x or more than what it is to ride a bike around.
The electric felt a lot more dangerous to learn. I practiced going back and forth in a hallway (holding the wall), then practiced riding freely and turning in a parking lot, then started riding around my neighborhood.
It is dangerous, though. One wheel in contact with the ground, people don't know how to react to you, plus high speeds and poorly maintained roads mean a mistake by you or another person can mean a hospital trip with serious injuries. I think the risk is easily 10x or more than what it is to ride a bike around.
Not the person you asked, but as a fellow unicyclist, I can say: not really?! I think most people could get the basics (staying upright, and turning a bit sloppily) in a few hours.
When I first learned, I setup a couple large garbage bins several feet apart, and just tried to get from one to the other, using the bins to keep up / turn around / go back. As you improve, move the bins farther apart, and rinse / repeat until you’ve got it.
When I first learned, I setup a couple large garbage bins several feet apart, and just tried to get from one to the other, using the bins to keep up / turn around / go back. As you improve, move the bins farther apart, and rinse / repeat until you’ve got it.
To be able to actually ride, it took me about two weeks, practicing 30 minutes per day. But then I was still pretty wobbly for a month or so.
One question: don't you miss the gears?
An electric unicycle is like an automatic transmission. It just works and goes the speed you demand by leaning. Gears are a bad user experience on bikes too imo; ideally we'd have automated or gradual gearing (in fact, I know some ebikes have this).
Was talking about the traditional version, not the electric one.
On the other hand: no chain that can fall off
Unless it’s an elevated unicycle!
Can't you somehow fold that design down into a normal-height unicycle with gears?
Tricky I think but maybe.
You generally have a fixed wheel on a unicycle. That would make derailleur gears harder to implement as they'd normally work with a freehub of some kind.
Hub gears like a Sturmey-Archer generally need to zero torque going through them to change gear. Again that's hard to do when you're using the forward and backward pedalling to balance.
You generally have a fixed wheel on a unicycle. That would make derailleur gears harder to implement as they'd normally work with a freehub of some kind.
Hub gears like a Sturmey-Archer generally need to zero torque going through them to change gear. Again that's hard to do when you're using the forward and backward pedalling to balance.
There are geared unicycles, e.g. https://krisholm.com/en/gear/component/kh-schlumpf
Folks I know who've used them liked them because they took the place of both a 24" and a 36" wheel, in one unicycle. I don't know that they ever changed gears while riding, although I'm told it's possible.
I use mine to walk my dog and get nothing but amazement and joy from people of literally all ages. People over 4 years old smile, point and say 'that guys unicycling, awesome'. People 4 and under smile, point and say 'doggie, doggie doggie'.
Never a bad word, but I don't ride it like I'm an A-hole bicyclist.
Never a bad word, but I don't ride it like I'm an A-hole bicyclist.
> Never a bad word, but I don't ride it like I'm an A-hole bicyclist.
Your experience differs markedly from the authors ... are you claiming they are an "A-hole bicyclist"?
Your experience differs markedly from the authors ... are you claiming they are an "A-hole bicyclist"?
I highly recommend some of the best content on Youtube, Ed Pratt's series [0] where he unicycles around the world. [0] https://www.youtube.com/@EdPratt
Heartily agree. The idea of loaded unicycle touring as being practical would be easy to dismiss were it not for Ed Pratt.
My sister self-taught unicycling as a teenager, and then used it for short trips to the supermarket (in an area where pedestrians and cyclists are pretty common).
She got lots of attention, but only rarely talked about getting negative comments. (But she's not the type who would rate "I suppose it saves on tyres" as a put-down).
She got lots of attention, but only rarely talked about getting negative comments. (But she's not the type who would rate "I suppose it saves on tyres" as a put-down).
I used to unycicle around when I was about 16YO. I didn't get much response, really, maybe because my age made it less ridiculous or maybe intimidating. Still, I got a lot of free drinks and requests for trying when bringing it to music festivals
As someone who once rode a unicycle (also in the North East of England), I can say that I received almost exactly the same responses listed here.
Very interesting and original.
Seemed a little overly-defensive/uncharitable wrt the banter from men, most of them didn't seem snide or negative but perhaps you had to be there...
Seemed a little overly-defensive/uncharitable wrt the banter from men, most of them didn't seem snide or negative but perhaps you had to be there...
I think the best heckle I had while riding my unicycle was from a policeman who shouted: "Are your brakes working?".
This is funny because (just in case you didn't know) unicycles don't (generally) have brakes - you slow down by putting the pressure on backwards on the pedals.
This is funny because (just in case you didn't know) unicycles don't (generally) have brakes - you slow down by putting the pressure on backwards on the pedals.
I feel like if the policeman had shouted that to the author he would have added it to 'indirect put downs'.
Oddly enough I get a certain number of predictable responses when I'm carrying my double bass around. My favorite reaction so far:
"Nice purse."
"Nice purse."
It's really sad to read about reactions of adolescent and adult males. Something terrible happens to men as they grow up. I don't think it's just biology because well off man have the damage somewhat alleviated.
>> Something terrible happens to men as they grow up
lol... testosterone? or perhaps testosterone combined with thousands of years of "wolf pack" evolution where one has to prod and disrupt to find "their place" in the pecking order?
lol... testosterone? or perhaps testosterone combined with thousands of years of "wolf pack" evolution where one has to prod and disrupt to find "their place" in the pecking order?
Imagine a neutral starting point where maybe it was not without male agression, but no actual millennia yet spent further honing animalistic tendencies along the wolf pack model.
The dog-eat-dog approach appears to have evolved including the same major hormone balance among various species such as canines and humans, you could say it is like aggression and pecking order "on steroids".
But the steroids were always there, it's more like the steroids are being leveraged by the craftiness of the species in an evolutionary biological way.
Resulting in the humans ending up much more evolved when they want to be.
Anyway, from that neutral root a completely different offshoot could independently have spent the same millennia evolving in the complete opposite direction, away from as much resemblance to a canine hierarchy as evolution would allow.
Such disparate cultures may or may not have interacted, clashed or have their decendants coexist today. Nobody would ever know after all this time but among men, maybe some will culturally trend more toward the influence of testosterone in a competitive way when encountering others regardless of whether they are males or females. The male-male competition the most prominent.
While others will be just the opposite and be highly influenced in a co-operative way when encountering others whether male or female. The male-female co-operation the most prominent.
IOW for some men their testosterone is primarily involved in relating to other males without as much consideration for females, other men their testosterone is primarily involved in relating to females without as much consideration for other males. And everything in between.
If any one culture were to become dominant enough, that would make any other one an outlier.
The dog-eat-dog approach appears to have evolved including the same major hormone balance among various species such as canines and humans, you could say it is like aggression and pecking order "on steroids".
But the steroids were always there, it's more like the steroids are being leveraged by the craftiness of the species in an evolutionary biological way.
Resulting in the humans ending up much more evolved when they want to be.
Anyway, from that neutral root a completely different offshoot could independently have spent the same millennia evolving in the complete opposite direction, away from as much resemblance to a canine hierarchy as evolution would allow.
Such disparate cultures may or may not have interacted, clashed or have their decendants coexist today. Nobody would ever know after all this time but among men, maybe some will culturally trend more toward the influence of testosterone in a competitive way when encountering others regardless of whether they are males or females. The male-male competition the most prominent.
While others will be just the opposite and be highly influenced in a co-operative way when encountering others whether male or female. The male-female co-operation the most prominent.
IOW for some men their testosterone is primarily involved in relating to other males without as much consideration for females, other men their testosterone is primarily involved in relating to females without as much consideration for other males. And everything in between.
If any one culture were to become dominant enough, that would make any other one an outlier.
> “And what were your other birthday presents?”
this is a particularly hilarious comment imo
this is a particularly hilarious comment imo
The entire report was hilarious:
>> Competing interests: None, apart from owning a bicycle as well as a unicycle.
>> Competing interests: None, apart from owning a bicycle as well as a unicycle.
"You park your bike for two minutes and that’s what you are left with" got me pretty good as someone who has had a bike stolen before.
I've ridden an electric unicycle around town. I generally get a few stares but little interaction possibly because I travel faster than a unicycle. In a safe environment, it's a relaxing ride but my current city isn't bicycle friendly. I travel too fast for sidewalks and mixed-use trails are marked "no motorized vehicles" though e-bikes are exempted. I have ridden on some trails anyway but each time some old guy gives me shit and it's just not worth the hassle.
An EUC is a legitimately useful vehicle, nobody would view it as a circus gag. The comments you'd get would mention road safety rules, not clowns.
Recently saw a guy near work cycling on a Penny-farthing[1]. That certainly rised my eyebrows, as he navigated the pedestrians on the path.
Interestingly few others seem to take much note.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny-farthing
Interestingly few others seem to take much note.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny-farthing
I find it odd that the author spends so little time discussing cultural differences. He mentions it briefly, and certainly it sounds like he doesn't have enough data on multicultural responses... but that's even more reason to not jump straight to evolutionary biology.
Not to truck in stereotypes, but many of the British men I have known take “banter” to extremes and then say “just joking, mate.” I’d expect a pretty different distribution of responses in rural Thailand or South Compton or Rio.
My main reaction to it is: if you fall off that thing, you're really going to hurt yourself.
I wouldn't say that, though. I just smile. I've seen unicycles before.
I wouldn't say that, though. I just smile. I've seen unicycles before.
I thought the same, but it turns out unicycles are safer to fall off than a bike. When you fall off a bike, one of your legs is usually caught on the wrong side of the top tube. When you fall off a unicycle, there's no top tube to entangle your legs, and it's much easier to "jog off" like nothing happened. Also unicycles are much slower.
The one time I tried riding a unicycle, I couldn't even get on it sufficiently enough to fall off.
I found that I could land cleanly about 95% of the time, but the other 5% I would (e.g.) trip over the pedals and launch the unicycle off in some random direction. Luckily it never hit anything expensive.
Makes sense.
I practice balance on the Bosu. I've only ever actually fallen once. Usually I can just step off, no harm.
I practice balance on the Bosu. I've only ever actually fallen once. Usually I can just step off, no harm.
I went to school at the Colorado School of Mines in Golden Colorado. It sits right beneath Lookout mountain and Mount Zion.
There were all kinds of cool things going on on the mountain. The "d Salute guy", longboarders driving up in a turtle van and riding down, mountain bikers like me riding down, paragliders (I even had a prof who did it!), and yes, a guy who rode a unicycle down the single track trail. Amazing.
There were all kinds of cool things going on on the mountain. The "d Salute guy", longboarders driving up in a turtle van and riding down, mountain bikers like me riding down, paragliders (I even had a prof who did it!), and yes, a guy who rode a unicycle down the single track trail. Amazing.
There were a lot of unicycles over at the California School of Mimes.
Incredibly relevant video posted to Reddit today:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/19eih...
Mostly male onlookers observe a man boarding an electric unicycle with 30 pizzas.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/19eih...
Mostly male onlookers observe a man boarding an electric unicycle with 30 pizzas.
> my reservoir of multipurpose preconceptions could not provide a testable hypothesis; instead, I needed simply to observe neutrally the response
I’m surprised how this "research" ended up on a government funded website.
Or maybe I’m not.
I’m surprised how this "research" ended up on a government funded website.
Or maybe I’m not.
An encounter I had personally that I found the most fun and memorable:
A father, to his ~4yo son: "Look, the man rides on one wheel!"
Son: "Daad, this is a U-NI-CYCLE!"
A father, to his ~4yo son: "Look, the man rides on one wheel!"
Son: "Daad, this is a U-NI-CYCLE!"
Amusing read. “These observations lead to the conclusion that humour evolves from androgen primed aggression.”
I was going to say self-deprecation is not, but then realized self-deprecation is away of defusing "androgen primed aggression" that I used a lot in high school.
>Competing interests: None, apart from owning a bicycle as well as a unicycle.
Have ridden, can confirm: it's annoying. 'Nuff said.
Why does HN keep editing the titles of these things?
I suppose this is a meta question, but why is this in pubmed? While it is in the format of a research paper, this seems like more of a blog post coerced into that format.
I'm not an academic, so I'm curious, are papers like this just for fun or are they intended to actually contribute to our understanding of the world? Because I can't help but think that the methodology in the paper is dubious. Do we just the guy because he is a professor? I suppose ideally the reputation system is such that if it is revealed someone is just making things up they'll get booted out.
Not trying to hate on it, it was just an odd paper so it had me wondering.
I'm not an academic, so I'm curious, are papers like this just for fun or are they intended to actually contribute to our understanding of the world? Because I can't help but think that the methodology in the paper is dubious. Do we just the guy because he is a professor? I suppose ideally the reputation system is such that if it is revealed someone is just making things up they'll get booted out.
Not trying to hate on it, it was just an odd paper so it had me wondering.
It is an article from the bmj “Christmas issue”[0] which is meant to be light hearted or satirical. My personal favorite was about the efficacy of parachutes when jumping out of a plane[1] - which fails to clearly describe that the plane was on the ground. Their point was about replication and clear thorough explanation of methodology in science.
The Christmas issue has been critiqued for exactly the reason you made this comment - indexers don’t pickup on the differences of the Christmas edition making it functionally invisible if you see it in pumped unless you know about it
[0] https://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-authors/article-type...
[1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C11&q=bmj...
The Christmas issue has been critiqued for exactly the reason you made this comment - indexers don’t pickup on the differences of the Christmas edition making it functionally invisible if you see it in pumped unless you know about it
[0] https://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-authors/article-type...
[1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C11&q=bmj...
Because it's in BMJ (a journal), which is indexed. It has things like letters to the editor, obituaries, and "observations", which are indexed as well. Cf. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30842093/
This is a fantastic research paper, better than 90% of the "real" ones. It's natural science in its purest form, grounded in lived experience.
1. Introduce novel stimulus
2. Observe response
3. Hypothesize about cause
So much of the statistical significance and p-values and citations is oppressive bureaucracy at best, cargo cult busywork at worst. This is the good stuff.
1. Introduce novel stimulus
2. Observe response
3. Hypothesize about cause
So much of the statistical significance and p-values and citations is oppressive bureaucracy at best, cargo cult busywork at worst. This is the good stuff.
Except that the conclusion is dogshit. It's such a wild leap that Superman would wonder if he could follow. There's a reason we use formal stats, and it's because our intuition for these things is not reliable.
And you can see why the conclusion's bad. You can imagine a way to prove the author wrong: a hypothetical observation that you expect, that's inconsistent with their conclusion. Or, as we say in the business, “further work”.
No, the reason it's bad is that it's 100% non-sequitur. There's no reason to even consider further evidence before dismissing it.
Other commenters have pointed out that this is basically a parody article, which is the only way it makes sense. But that means anyone who thinks it represents the pinnacle of science has eaten the onion and needs to reevaluate their criteria for scientific work.
Other commenters have pointed out that this is basically a parody article, which is the only way it makes sense. But that means anyone who thinks it represents the pinnacle of science has eaten the onion and needs to reevaluate their criteria for scientific work.
> why is this in pubmed?
[...]
> because he is a professor
Ding ding, we have a winner!
(EDIT: to clarify, I'm not being snarky, if you've spent your adult life contributing to a certain class of publication [which happen to be those indexed by PubMed] perhaps it becomes second nature)
[...]
> because he is a professor
Ding ding, we have a winner!
(EDIT: to clarify, I'm not being snarky, if you've spent your adult life contributing to a certain class of publication [which happen to be those indexed by PubMed] perhaps it becomes second nature)
Two thoughts:
First is that some people, statically male, are simply aggressive, and looking for a target, and that target doesn't matter.
Alternatively, I suspect some amount of aggression is the result of perceived attention seeking behavior. Attention seeking behavior is a common adversarial action when competing for mates and social status. I suspect that unicycling taps in to this.
First is that some people, statically male, are simply aggressive, and looking for a target, and that target doesn't matter.
Alternatively, I suspect some amount of aggression is the result of perceived attention seeking behavior. Attention seeking behavior is a common adversarial action when competing for mates and social status. I suspect that unicycling taps in to this.
I think you hit the nail on the head with that - jealousy / sexual attention-seeking.
At a simple biological level, women can co-exist, and men can't. Not to say men don't make it work, but it's swimming uphill.
At a simple biological level, women can co-exist, and men can't. Not to say men don't make it work, but it's swimming uphill.
yep. See also conventional beauty, sports cars, fashion, and bombastic personalities.
> First is that some people, statically male, are simply aggressive, and looking for a target, and that target doesn't matter.
I have thoughts on this as well. Are women not looking for a target or do they need a less physically challenging target? Girls' bullying certainly seems to exist. A single woman can't feel reel confident picking a fight with a guy, even 2-3 women can't be confident if things escalate.
Most of us can think of that woman who -- backed up by men -- finds her aggressive voice.
I have thoughts on this as well. Are women not looking for a target or do they need a less physically challenging target? Girls' bullying certainly seems to exist. A single woman can't feel reel confident picking a fight with a guy, even 2-3 women can't be confident if things escalate.
Most of us can think of that woman who -- backed up by men -- finds her aggressive voice.
I think the evolutionary behavior component comes down to reproduction.
Males compete with other males, not females for mating and offspring. Other males are competitors and threats in the way that females are not.
Women compete with other women, but the stakes are lower. Males can impregnate multiple females in a short period, while multiple males can not share the the same female to the same degree.
Males compete with other males, not females for mating and offspring. Other males are competitors and threats in the way that females are not.
Women compete with other women, but the stakes are lower. Males can impregnate multiple females in a short period, while multiple males can not share the the same female to the same degree.
The movie "Mean Girls" explores this: women bullying one another socially to attain social status.
I get yelled at a lot when I ride my eBike on our trails. They are explicitly allowed, and I don't ride like a jackwagon. Some people just love to hate. A few of my friends ride OneWheels and various other eSkate devices. They get even more hate. There's one fellow we call "not allowed", who loves to shout "NOT ALLOWED" and try to clothesline my buddies as we pass him. Luckily so far they've been faster than him but one of these days he's going to seriously hurt someone, probably himself.
The best way to get people on board with more bike infrastructure is encouraging ebikes and escooters. In my city, 50% of the bike lane traffic downtown is Lime Scooters--people who would never own or commute with their own bicycle. Suddenly these people have opinions on bike infrastructure and will be more likely to vote and support improvements.
In short, if you want your cities bike infrastructure to get better... encourage the city to embrace point-to-point scooter/bike rentals.
In short, if you want your cities bike infrastructure to get better... encourage the city to embrace point-to-point scooter/bike rentals.
Isn’t that “attempted assault”? If he makes contact, it sure as hell would be an assault. Might point that out to him next time you see him. Or not, if you want to see him get arrested.
I think it's just actual assault. Not sure what an attempted assault would look like.
Yeah definitely just actual assault, contact or injury are not required to make it assault[1]. If you actually make harmful contact it's _also_ battery (hence 'assault and battery').
[1]https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assault
[1]https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assault
[deleted]
People hate especially since eBike riders fuck with stats on trails on platforms like Strava.
They also contribute to path wear since they allow people who have no business being on the tails due to lack of fitness to use them.
Also holy shit, the potholes from eBike riders more or less burning out from standing or trying to go up slopes they are unable to. Fuck eBike riders on trails.
They also contribute to path wear since they allow people who have no business being on the tails due to lack of fitness to use them.
Also holy shit, the potholes from eBike riders more or less burning out from standing or trying to go up slopes they are unable to. Fuck eBike riders on trails.
I've never ridden an eBike as they don't really appeal to me but I kind of think that everyone has a right to be on the trails regardless of fitness.
It's a nice idea but not really appropriate to have people jet up trails at 1000W for minutes while having none of the handling skills to go with it. Stuff is designed for human abilities, keep the motorcycles out of it. If the things were limited to something sane like 250W, sure, but with the wild-west in the US it's hopeless.
This was the "don't ride like a jackwagon" part. My bike has a solid kW output, at least when the battery is full, but I don't zip down the trail at 26 mph all the time.
Sure, occasionally I pull a max-speed segment for hoots, but I don't do it anywhere near anyone who might be scared or injured if I mess up. My trail empties out pretty nicely once you're about 5 miles from "downtown" (of the city along the trail where I enter) so it's easy to find long open stretches to hoon around if you want without endangering anyone but yourself and others on your ride.
I have just under 1000 miles of riding on this particular ebike, and about 2500 miles total, so I'm definitely not an expert rider, but I have _some_ handling skills.
Personally I like the relatively unregulated hardware. I don't need my bike to decide on a safe top speed or power. That's up to me. If I am on the trail around people, I keep it below 15 mph as a rule of thumb. If I'm doing a segment on a road trying to dodge a half-awake car driver, I very much want to be able to pull up to 30 mph fast so I can GTFO from a bad situation.
If you don't like jackwagons riding on the trail, regulate that behavior, not their hardware. Just my 2¢, opinions may vary.
Sure, occasionally I pull a max-speed segment for hoots, but I don't do it anywhere near anyone who might be scared or injured if I mess up. My trail empties out pretty nicely once you're about 5 miles from "downtown" (of the city along the trail where I enter) so it's easy to find long open stretches to hoon around if you want without endangering anyone but yourself and others on your ride.
I have just under 1000 miles of riding on this particular ebike, and about 2500 miles total, so I'm definitely not an expert rider, but I have _some_ handling skills.
Personally I like the relatively unregulated hardware. I don't need my bike to decide on a safe top speed or power. That's up to me. If I am on the trail around people, I keep it below 15 mph as a rule of thumb. If I'm doing a segment on a road trying to dodge a half-awake car driver, I very much want to be able to pull up to 30 mph fast so I can GTFO from a bad situation.
If you don't like jackwagons riding on the trail, regulate that behavior, not their hardware. Just my 2¢, opinions may vary.
All road restrictions are modeled around power. Crashes occur reliably when you mix vehicles with disparate power.
There is simply no reason electric bikes should have the continuous power of two world class pro cyclists in one. It's nice to appeal to people acting sensibly, but of course that doesn't work - not least because the majority of people riding these don't even realize it is not normal to go up 10% grades at 15mph and more
If the story here is we want people to ride that otherwise can't - 250W continuous reliably puts you in the 90th percentile. That is an all out effort for a good half of the population.
There is simply no reason electric bikes should have the continuous power of two world class pro cyclists in one. It's nice to appeal to people acting sensibly, but of course that doesn't work - not least because the majority of people riding these don't even realize it is not normal to go up 10% grades at 15mph and more
If the story here is we want people to ride that otherwise can't - 250W continuous reliably puts you in the 90th percentile. That is an all out effort for a good half of the population.
I am not normally one to cry “ableism!” but seriously. If technology allows more people to enjoy nature and trails, awesome. Nature of all places doesn’t need your gatekeeping.
> people who have no business being on the trails due to lack of fitness
Yikes. you wanna rephrase that?
Yikes. you wanna rephrase that?
How does, “people who have no business SCUBA diving a protected reef due to lack of fitness” strike you?
As with eBikes, just about anyone could strap on a SCUBA and visit places they otherwise couldn’t (IMO shouldn’t).
The fact is, some people are unfit. Whether, physically, or simply lack the ability to be a good steward of public resources. This applies to SCUBA, eBikes, Driving and a bunch of other things. I don’t think that’s objectionable.
As with eBikes, just about anyone could strap on a SCUBA and visit places they otherwise couldn’t (IMO shouldn’t).
The fact is, some people are unfit. Whether, physically, or simply lack the ability to be a good steward of public resources. This applies to SCUBA, eBikes, Driving and a bunch of other things. I don’t think that’s objectionable.
Also, the "ebikes" that are just electric motorcycles with a couple fig-leaf pedals attached...
I've been biking a lot more recently and I uploaded a ride to Strava and was super disappointed that they don't have leaderboards anymore. What even is the point? Is there an alternative? (I assume not because capitalism in [current year] shakes fist protocols not platforms etc etc)
They restricted leaderboards to premium accounts. Stupid, I know.
In my US based upbringing, men making jokes at the expense of other men are either aggression or ways of building rapport, and context matters to decipher which it is. I have male friends who take as much opportunity as possible to turn something I’ve said or done into a joke, sarcastically or sometimes trollishly, and I’ll do the same. This mocking isn’t malicious however.
Aggression and building rapport aren't mutually exclusive - a lot of this is subtle negotiation for relative status. Just because all parties are okay with these as a way to get to a reasonable common ground (and if done right, can lead to strong rapport and relatively equal status) doesn't mean aggression isn't there. I don't think most of this is conscious, but you will also see conspicuously high-status people use self-deprecating humor to lower their perceived threat level, or conversely, people targeting other conspicuously high-status or threatening people to take them down a notch (to some extent, this is what we're seeing here). Or in a more hierarchical situation, high-status people might target lower-status people to reinforce their higher status.
IMHO this type of rapport traces back to playing "The Dozens" although many who participate do not consciously know this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dozens_(game)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dozens_(game)
The recipient of the message, not the sender, determines whether it’s malicious.
No, the recipient determines if it is harmful. Malice is characterized by intent.
Hard disagree. Even if it is hurtful for the recipient, it might have been in good taste and honest, playful banter.
If you let your behaviour be defined by the most sensitive and high σ recipients, you cease to be able to conduct any form of communication apart from talking about the weather. And that might even offend some people then.
If you let your behaviour be defined by the most sensitive and high σ recipients, you cease to be able to conduct any form of communication apart from talking about the weather. And that might even offend some people then.
malicious
adjective Having the nature of or resulting from malice; deliberately harmful; spiteful.
malice noun 1. A desire to harm others or to see others suffer; extreme ill will or spite. 2. The intent to commit an unlawful act without justification or excuse. 3. An improper motive for an action, such as desire to cause injury to another.
adjective Having the nature of or resulting from malice; deliberately harmful; spiteful.
malice noun 1. A desire to harm others or to see others suffer; extreme ill will or spite. 2. The intent to commit an unlawful act without justification or excuse. 3. An improper motive for an action, such as desire to cause injury to another.
[deleted]
[deleted]
We need a similar study for aggression against (road) cyclists too. I've never seen a sport provoke so much aggression from men.
Please let's not go into the car vs bike flamewar topic - it's one of the worst and most repetitive.
(Dogs vs cats is bad too)
(Dogs vs cats is bad too)
The amount of ignorance and pure aggression against road cyclists in America is rising to the level of a hate crime, IMHO. Mostly male, it seems, drivers are not willing to accept that not only must they share the road with cyclists, they must do so in a safe manner. The number of memes and comments promoting violence against cyclists must seem to only come from the most ignorant of society.
I experience this frequently when riding my electric longboard down the side of a particular block of 25mph road downtown. It isn't just men either, I've had quite a few women yell obscenities or throw me off my board by cutting me off and brake checking me. Nothing about this particular block of road seems inappropriate to ride down compared to others, but people fucking rage when they see someone on a board. Not a big city either and just a block away is a thriving area that is designed to have cars frequently stop for walkers.
The number of cyclists I see on a daily basis completely IGNORE traffic signs, lights, signals, and no-turn-on-red leads me to believe the cyclists must hate themselves more than any driver possibly could.
Ah yes, just throw things at all cyclists. Run them off the road.
Every thread about cyclists being abused includes someone like you mentioning that some cyclists ignore stops with the implication that they started the whole fight or that the fight is justified.
Every thread about cyclists being abused includes someone like you mentioning that some cyclists ignore stops with the implication that they started the whole fight or that the fight is justified.
In NYC, 90% of the times I see cyclists - typically because I'm using a crosswalk - they are violating the rules of the road. They don't yield to pedestrians, they don't stay in a lane, they don't signal turns, they don't stop for red lights even to check for cross-traffic.
Sometimes I don't have to be in the crosswalk to notice them, because they'll take an electric-powered cycle onto the sidewalk.
I am not exaggerating. I pay attention when I see a bicyclist actually stopping so I can cross in the crosswalk when I have the light, or otherwise following the rules of the road. I wish I had the presence of mine to thank those cyclists. But they are rare.
Sometimes I don't have to be in the crosswalk to notice them, because they'll take an electric-powered cycle onto the sidewalk.
I am not exaggerating. I pay attention when I see a bicyclist actually stopping so I can cross in the crosswalk when I have the light, or otherwise following the rules of the road. I wish I had the presence of mine to thank those cyclists. But they are rare.
> Ah yes, just throw things at all cyclists. Run them off the road.
That doesn't seem fair, that is not what I said. You're misrepresenting me. I do not know if you intended to or not.
A group is generally regarded based on the behavior of a very small minority of its membership, usually the very worst or the very best. This seems like general human nature. There are many examples of this if you care to look for them. I have a few examples in mind, but they are unfortunately politically-charged examples and I have no desire to bring politics into this more than I just did.
That doesn't seem fair, that is not what I said. You're misrepresenting me. I do not know if you intended to or not.
A group is generally regarded based on the behavior of a very small minority of its membership, usually the very worst or the very best. This seems like general human nature. There are many examples of this if you care to look for them. I have a few examples in mind, but they are unfortunately politically-charged examples and I have no desire to bring politics into this more than I just did.
Used to cycle 10km to work. I daily saw motorists ignore all sorts of things too. Every large group has a certain percentage of assholes, on account of the human race just having a certain percentage of them. That's not an excuse for anything, especially when we're talking about pretty dangerous behaviour.
Here's the thing: people WILL literally try to run you off the road, even when you're the most careful law-abiding cyclists that exists. I've had people try to run me off the road even though it was a dedicated cycle path, only to proceed to rant at me that it was all a waste of money. Even standing still at a traffic light will have people drive up way close up to your rear wheel and you look back and they shout "piss off you cunt". The amount of aggression from some is unhinged beyond proportions.
So when people come back with "yeah, but some cyclists break rules" ... Well sure, but that kind of misses the point. You get aggression even when following the rules not doing anything.
Here's the thing: people WILL literally try to run you off the road, even when you're the most careful law-abiding cyclists that exists. I've had people try to run me off the road even though it was a dedicated cycle path, only to proceed to rant at me that it was all a waste of money. Even standing still at a traffic light will have people drive up way close up to your rear wheel and you look back and they shout "piss off you cunt". The amount of aggression from some is unhinged beyond proportions.
So when people come back with "yeah, but some cyclists break rules" ... Well sure, but that kind of misses the point. You get aggression even when following the rules not doing anything.
As the saying goes (and my point) one bad apple spoils the bunch.
I mean you could say "Ah yes, just throw things at all drivers" as well.
Agreed that cars are way more dangerous than bikes, but here in California I do see a lot of aggressive recreational cyclists that act like they have a chip on their shoulder. While they may not be a danger by crashing into things like cars do, their behavior does cause sometimes dangerous issues for other people on the road.
Agreed that cars are way more dangerous than bikes, but here in California I do see a lot of aggressive recreational cyclists that act like they have a chip on their shoulder. While they may not be a danger by crashing into things like cars do, their behavior does cause sometimes dangerous issues for other people on the road.
If every time you walked down the street the people wearing blue shirts spat in your face or sucker punched you a third of the time as they walked past, it wouldn't take long before you had a strong reaction to seeing someone in a blue shirt walking your way, even if they personally did nothing to you. That's human nature.
No one should be throwing things or trying to hurt anyone, but it absolutely is past and repeated negative experiences with cyclists acting irresponsibly that make drivers resent them, just like careless assholes in cars can make cyclists resent drivers.
No one should be throwing things or trying to hurt anyone, but it absolutely is past and repeated negative experiences with cyclists acting irresponsibly that make drivers resent them, just like careless assholes in cars can make cyclists resent drivers.
Your equating of interacting with a cyclist while in a car to being sucker punched and spat upon is a clue that your premise is irrational. Being delayed by a few seconds generally only results in aggression from car drivers if and only if the cause is a cyclist.
My belief is that the worst offending car drivers are simply psychopath bullies who know they can safely abuse, threaten, harass, assault, etc. those pansy spandex wearing cyclists. They do it because they enjoy it.
Some people are simply not fit to be a part of society.
My belief is that the worst offending car drivers are simply psychopath bullies who know they can safely abuse, threaten, harass, assault, etc. those pansy spandex wearing cyclists. They do it because they enjoy it.
Some people are simply not fit to be a part of society.
> Your equating of interacting with a cyclist while in a car to being sucker punched and spat upon is a clue that your premise is irrational.
I never equated the two. I used them as an example of how people come to blame all members of a certain class for the consistently harmful actions of a few members of that class. It's not fair, but it's common.
> Being delayed by a few seconds generally only results in aggression from car drivers if and only if the cause is a cyclist.
"Being delayed by a few seconds" is annoying for everyone no matter what the cause. That's not really the problem drivers have with cyclists though. It's having to slam on their breaks because someone on a bike ran a red light or having to swerve to avoid a cyclist who suddenly and illegally darted into their lane that makes drivers upset.
> My belief is that the worst offending car drivers are simply psychopath bullies
Maybe a number of the most extreme offenders actually are? The majority of people who have problems with cyclists on the road however are certainly not. I'd agree that people abusing cyclists for "fun" really are a problem and that they shouldn't be on the road.
I never equated the two. I used them as an example of how people come to blame all members of a certain class for the consistently harmful actions of a few members of that class. It's not fair, but it's common.
> Being delayed by a few seconds generally only results in aggression from car drivers if and only if the cause is a cyclist.
"Being delayed by a few seconds" is annoying for everyone no matter what the cause. That's not really the problem drivers have with cyclists though. It's having to slam on their breaks because someone on a bike ran a red light or having to swerve to avoid a cyclist who suddenly and illegally darted into their lane that makes drivers upset.
> My belief is that the worst offending car drivers are simply psychopath bullies
Maybe a number of the most extreme offenders actually are? The majority of people who have problems with cyclists on the road however are certainly not. I'd agree that people abusing cyclists for "fun" really are a problem and that they shouldn't be on the road.
Nothing to do with cars. I commute via bicycle and actively hate road cyclist, too. Once a person starts donning spandex they seem to lose their personhood. They become something else. Angrier. Impatient. Self important. Impervious to the rules of the road.
[deleted]
Drivers "hate" cyclists because the lives and safety of both themselves and their passengers depend on everyone else on the road behaving in ways that are safe and predictable. It doesn't matter if the other person is on a bike or in a car, if they're not following the flow of traffic, if they're not following the rules of the road, and if they're acting in unpredictable/unsafe ways they will be seen as a threat, as being irresponsible, and as being rude. That's where the hostility comes from. Many people are going to be hostile to other people who threaten the lives/safety of themselves and their loved ones.
When I sit in my wife's SUV and find that I can no longer see over the hoods of most trucks on the road, I really struggle to see how a single human body on a bike becomes such a threat. Maybe all those guys in trucks are more vulnerable than I realize, but it's just lost on me how that is.
A single human body on a bike becomes a threat when they blow through stop signs and light controlled intersections, don't signal turns, don't yield or follow signs, or when they ride against traffic. Studies have shown that when accidents involving bikes and cars happen bikers are found to have been responsible about as often as drivers (https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2011/05/20/1364622...). Other data suggests that cyclists are more likely to be at fault when an accident results in death or serious injury and drivers are more likely to be at fault when there's little damage (https://fullfact.org/news/are-cyclists-blame-road-accidents/).
Not counted in that kind of data are all the times drives are forced to swerve or slam on their brakes to avoid accidents. The fact that cyclists are harder to see than trucks and SUVs make them even more of a danger to drivers because they can come out of nowhere from directions drivers would never expect traffic to come from and by the time they are visible it may be too late.
I can't say if bikes are more of a danger than trucks but I can absolutely say that they are often a danger to drivers.
Not counted in that kind of data are all the times drives are forced to swerve or slam on their brakes to avoid accidents. The fact that cyclists are harder to see than trucks and SUVs make them even more of a danger to drivers because they can come out of nowhere from directions drivers would never expect traffic to come from and by the time they are visible it may be too late.
I can't say if bikes are more of a danger than trucks but I can absolutely say that they are often a danger to drivers.
"At fault" is moving the goal posts. If a cyclist gets hit they likely die. If a truck gets hit there might not even be any damage. "Forced to swerve" is kind of a silly bar that ignores all the times that cyclists are forced to dodge multi-ton vehicles, again for fear of death, not scratched paint. Look at the painted lines on the roads next time you're driving and note how many tire tracks cross them.
The very assertion that they "come out of nowhere" speaks to the visibility problems inherent to driving a veritable locomotive down a city street. Yesterday, I witnessed a truck going around a curve on hop up on the curb and drive down the sidewalk briefly. This was at ~55 mph, and upon swerving and dropping the wheel back down into the road the truck wobbled and barely managed to miss the other cars in the road; a bike nearby, even on the sidewalk, would not have had a chance. Imagine being on that sidewalk; how's that for coming out of nowhere?
If there is any world in which a cyclist poses more danger to a truck, we're certainly not living in it.
The very assertion that they "come out of nowhere" speaks to the visibility problems inherent to driving a veritable locomotive down a city street. Yesterday, I witnessed a truck going around a curve on hop up on the curb and drive down the sidewalk briefly. This was at ~55 mph, and upon swerving and dropping the wheel back down into the road the truck wobbled and barely managed to miss the other cars in the road; a bike nearby, even on the sidewalk, would not have had a chance. Imagine being on that sidewalk; how's that for coming out of nowhere?
If there is any world in which a cyclist poses more danger to a truck, we're certainly not living in it.
It would likely show better results if it looked at non-sporting events instead. What happens in everyday traffic is likely the cause.
Now I think about it, I'm in doubt if you actually categorized cyclists training on open roads as participating in sports? Swap out "cyclists" with "car enthusiasts". That's nonsense.
ETA: I'm a cyclist myself.
Now I think about it, I'm in doubt if you actually categorized cyclists training on open roads as participating in sports? Swap out "cyclists" with "car enthusiasts". That's nonsense.
ETA: I'm a cyclist myself.
Definition of the English word sport:
- a game, competition, or activity needing physical effort and skill that is played or done according to rules, for enjoyment and/or as a job
- all types of physical activity that people do to keep healthy or for enjoyment
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/sport
- a game, competition, or activity needing physical effort and skill that is played or done according to rules, for enjoyment and/or as a job
- all types of physical activity that people do to keep healthy or for enjoyment
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/sport
You know people also cycle for neither of those reasons? Unless we’re gonna start calling walking to the shops a sport as well.
I cycle purely for transportation, because it’s cheaper and faster than the alternatives. I certainly don’t compete while cycling to work, and don’t cycle for enjoyment or to keep healthy. It certainly hasn’t kept me healthy give a driver seriously injured while cycling to work, hospitalised me for week, fractured multiple vertebrae making me unable to exercise for 2 months, and resulted in my taking 3 months off work to deal with the injuries and trauma.
So yeah, there’s plenty of people out there that cycle in a manner that doesn’t meet your dictionary definition of a sport.
I cycle purely for transportation, because it’s cheaper and faster than the alternatives. I certainly don’t compete while cycling to work, and don’t cycle for enjoyment or to keep healthy. It certainly hasn’t kept me healthy give a driver seriously injured while cycling to work, hospitalised me for week, fractured multiple vertebrae making me unable to exercise for 2 months, and resulted in my taking 3 months off work to deal with the injuries and trauma.
So yeah, there’s plenty of people out there that cycle in a manner that doesn’t meet your dictionary definition of a sport.
Chess and dart is also a sport, and I don't see those as requiring physical effort and skill. Skill, yes. Physical effort? No. I'm not surprised Cambridge cannot create a proper definition of sport.
Road cyclists training on the road train their skills, how? I see no difference in me riding on the road versus Jonas Vingegaard in the "training skill department". Nah, it is recreation or transport in my opinion. Not a sport. The problem is exactly that: When road cyclists think they are doing sports on an open road, they create problems which often end in road rage and sometimes in deaths. The cycling community needs to look inward. They behave like the rotten part of motorcycling.
I stopped riding with other cyclists and motorcyclist for this reason. They are a danger to themselves and each other.
Road cyclists training on the road train their skills, how? I see no difference in me riding on the road versus Jonas Vingegaard in the "training skill department". Nah, it is recreation or transport in my opinion. Not a sport. The problem is exactly that: When road cyclists think they are doing sports on an open road, they create problems which often end in road rage and sometimes in deaths. The cycling community needs to look inward. They behave like the rotten part of motorcycling.
I stopped riding with other cyclists and motorcyclist for this reason. They are a danger to themselves and each other.
In my limited experience biking in different cultures it's quite directly correlated to how much emphasis car culture has in society. Limited experience because I've only cycled in a few countries but is my main mode of transportation.
In Brazil and the USA quite often I experienced aggressive drivers when cycling, actively driving closer to me on a bike while shouting to get off the road, and twice in São Paulo I got hit by a car purposefully (waiting for traffic lights and got bumped from behind by a car once, cycling uphill and a car passed me and swerved onto my side on another).
While in Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands I never experienced a single aggressive driver when cycling. In Germany I had a couple of drivers shouting at me in Berlin but given it's Berlin I can't generalise if German drivers are more adversarial against cyclists, it's a very car-centric culture though so I guess it will correlate.
Just some anecdotes, unsure how much of a pattern it is, would be interesting to compare with other people in car-heavy cultures (Australia perhaps?).
In Brazil and the USA quite often I experienced aggressive drivers when cycling, actively driving closer to me on a bike while shouting to get off the road, and twice in São Paulo I got hit by a car purposefully (waiting for traffic lights and got bumped from behind by a car once, cycling uphill and a car passed me and swerved onto my side on another).
While in Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands I never experienced a single aggressive driver when cycling. In Germany I had a couple of drivers shouting at me in Berlin but given it's Berlin I can't generalise if German drivers are more adversarial against cyclists, it's a very car-centric culture though so I guess it will correlate.
Just some anecdotes, unsure how much of a pattern it is, would be interesting to compare with other people in car-heavy cultures (Australia perhaps?).
Tbf you only have to go online to the cycling forums, or walk any country shared trail to see plenty of aggression, dangerous control and obnoxious, blinkered behaviour and comments.
Cyclists are just as bad as drivers when it comes to contemplating The Other.
Cyclists are just as bad as drivers when it comes to contemplating The Other.
I'll support this comment from a pedestrian, to whom bicycles present some nontrivial danger. Drivers, however, choose to The Other themselves via driving increasingly larger masses of steel, and IME at least seem to be driving ever more incautiously over time in ways that have consequences further down the weight classes. Almost got creased today, even, crossing a quiet suburban street because somebody blew through a four-way stop without looking dead ahead of them. It's supposed to be a 25mph zone.
"They're talking mess at the poor benighted car havers" isn't going to fly. (Signed, a car haver who walks ~five miles a day; you are all full of sin.)
"They're talking mess at the poor benighted car havers" isn't going to fly. (Signed, a car haver who walks ~five miles a day; you are all full of sin.)
As a frequent pedestrian in Los Angeles, the hierarchy of people being absolutely furious at me for walking on the sidewalks or using crosswalks goes (in decreasing order of rage):
1. Pickup/SUV drivers
2. Luxury car drivers
3. Other automobile drivers
4. Cyclists with fancy bikes and cycling gear
5. Dog walkers who are paying attention to their phone, not their dog
6. Ordinary cyclists
7. Pedestrians staring at their phones
Cyclists can't murder motorists with their bikes though, can they?
Cyclists can kill pedestrians. It's definitely happened, although I don't know how common it is.
according to the guardian, in the uk, it's extremely uncommon (but not unheard of), only 1% of ped deaths involved a bike [1]. Motor vehicles are WAY more dangerous, and it kind of seems bad faith to suggest anything otherwise - cars are multi-thousand-pound metal boxes that routinely travel at speeds unattainable by all but world-record holding cyclists. The difference in kinetic energy between a car and a bike is massive.
It seems pretty logical to assume to me that you'd almost always have fewer ped fatalities if more people were biking instead of driving.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/08/killer...
It seems pretty logical to assume to me that you'd almost always have fewer ped fatalities if more people were biking instead of driving.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/08/killer...
Motor vehicles are WAY more dangerous, and it kind of seems bad faith to suggest anything otherwise
The original context was shared country trails; I guess your comment was due to a misreading rather than intentional goalpost-moving but the way those arguing for cyclists seem to leap immediately to deny all and any misdemeanours and bridle at any criticism doesn't help good faith discussions.
The original context was shared country trails; I guess your comment was due to a misreading rather than intentional goalpost-moving but the way those arguing for cyclists seem to leap immediately to deny all and any misdemeanours and bridle at any criticism doesn't help good faith discussions.
The original context was road cyclists; the digression to country trails was to justify aggression and violence towards them.
No, the root of this branch of the cyclist discussion is the country trail; which was highlighted to point out cyclists are just as bad as any other group in their behaviour at times.
Suggesting it was to justify aggression and violence towards anybody is bad faith at best, a lie at worst. Please don't use such tactics here, and certainly not with me.
Suggesting it was to justify aggression and violence towards anybody is bad faith at best, a lie at worst. Please don't use such tactics here, and certainly not with me.
Drivers are killing 50% more pedestrians per year than 2019.
After 20 years of daily rush-hour road cycling in and around London, Cambridge, Coventry, Bristol, Hertfordshire and Surrey, I can report the following verbal responses:
Early years: No reaction
Inquisitive 5-12 year olds: No reaction
Adolescent boys: 1x "Nice bike", 1x trying to race me while doing a wheelie (but no verbal response)
Adult women: No reaction
Adult men: 1x started exchanging nods with me after passing each other going in opposite directions daily for ~3 years (but no verbal response)
Early years: No reaction
Inquisitive 5-12 year olds: No reaction
Adolescent boys: 1x "Nice bike", 1x trying to race me while doing a wheelie (but no verbal response)
Adult women: No reaction
Adult men: 1x started exchanging nods with me after passing each other going in opposite directions daily for ~3 years (but no verbal response)
Wow, that sounds nice.
After 5 years of 3-season daily commuting in the midwestern US, I can report 2 instances of being struck by side mirrors, one instance where the driver matched speed and pushed me off the road and off the shoulder into the ditch before speeding away, 4 times getting hit by thrown beer cans or other trash, twice had tires chirp when someone on their phone noticed me only at the last second, 3 times someone in a diesel has stood on the brake and accelerator simultaneously to "rolled coal" on me, and I've received more middle fingers and curses of the general form "Get off the road, asshole/fucker/idiot!" than I can count.
The other big danger is a lot of new or timid drivers are afraid to cross the center line even in passing zones, and instead of giving the legally mandated 3 feet outside town/5 feet in city limits, will try to pass very slowly in the same lane. This causes a line of traffic on the 35 MPH (nominally ~55 km/h, actually driven at ~45mph/70kph) street, which provokes the drivers caught in the line.
The more physical assaults went down significantly after I mounted a highly-visible action camera on top of my helmet, but verbal assaults seemed to go up.
After 5 years of 3-season daily commuting in the midwestern US, I can report 2 instances of being struck by side mirrors, one instance where the driver matched speed and pushed me off the road and off the shoulder into the ditch before speeding away, 4 times getting hit by thrown beer cans or other trash, twice had tires chirp when someone on their phone noticed me only at the last second, 3 times someone in a diesel has stood on the brake and accelerator simultaneously to "rolled coal" on me, and I've received more middle fingers and curses of the general form "Get off the road, asshole/fucker/idiot!" than I can count.
The other big danger is a lot of new or timid drivers are afraid to cross the center line even in passing zones, and instead of giving the legally mandated 3 feet outside town/5 feet in city limits, will try to pass very slowly in the same lane. This causes a line of traffic on the 35 MPH (nominally ~55 km/h, actually driven at ~45mph/70kph) street, which provokes the drivers caught in the line.
The more physical assaults went down significantly after I mounted a highly-visible action camera on top of my helmet, but verbal assaults seemed to go up.
I've only gotten respect as a road cyclist in Spain, Portugal, France, and Italy. I did a 2500 mile trip roughly on the path Paris->Porto->Barcelona->Rome, without a single bad experience. I got home to New Jersey, the next day I went out for a ride, and a dude in a truck threw multiple batteries at me as he drove past.
Some of my most aggressive encounters have been with women. It's about 50/50 I'd say. This has been in England, Ireland, and New Zealand.
Of course n=1, my experiences may not be representative, etc.
Of course n=1, my experiences may not be representative, etc.
Can't say much about the US, but around here I suppose if the cyclists would stick to the traffic regulations there would be somewhat less aggression against them.
If you've ever been around cars (in a car, as a cyclist or as a pedestrian) and sat and watched them for any period - you'll see a huge number of traffic offenses committed by those in cars - mainly using phones, but also speeding, red light jumping, aggressive under and over-taking. But for some reason most people are blind to this and don't get aggressive with drivers. Why might that be?
Level of responsibility between driver and cyclist is categorically different. A driver will kill when inattentive or impatient. This disconnect between magnitude of input (slouched like a bag of potatoes, dozing) and magnitude of output (casually demolishing a building) is unnatural, it breaks the brain. It's easier to blame the weak, the system, the potholes.
people aren't blind to this at all, being pissed off about it even has it's own name (road rage)
I'd argue it is different in that just seeing or talking about cyclists will often draw anger online and in person - most people don't feel the same way about cars or drivers.
Getting angry when someone cuts you off is different to being angry about cyclists just existing.
Getting angry when someone cuts you off is different to being angry about cyclists just existing.
i guess that's because it's a chore and arguably dangerous to share the road with cyclists no matter what they're doing, and not only when they're ignoring the rules of the road
personally i just cycle on footpaths, i'm not really interested in what the law says. me getting hit by a car is a much more dangerous and likely situation than me riding into a pedestrian, and police aren't going to abandon their car on the road to chase me on foot.
personally i just cycle on footpaths, i'm not really interested in what the law says. me getting hit by a car is a much more dangerous and likely situation than me riding into a pedestrian, and police aren't going to abandon their car on the road to chase me on foot.
> being angry about cyclists just existing.
I don't like some cyclists because of their blatant and unsafe disregard for the rules.
It's not uncommon to see:
- Cyclists ignoring red lights
- Cyclists ignoring stop signs
- Cyclists riding on a busy sidewalk
- Cyclists yelling at pedestrians to move rather than stopping at an intersection as required
- Cyclists taking up the entire lane and not permitting cars to pass
- Cyclists going the wrong way down a one-way street
Some of the worst offenders are e-bike users, who can move very fast and in unexpected ways. It's no fun to have someone silently fly by you from behind, inches away, at 20mph while they are riding what's basically a motorcycle on the sidewalk.
I frequently walk in the city, and scooters/bicycles are far more of a hazard than cars. They often can't decide whether they want to be pedestrians or cars, and they often don't follow the rules for either, putting everyone (including themselves) at risk.
I don't like some cyclists because of their blatant and unsafe disregard for the rules.
It's not uncommon to see:
- Cyclists ignoring red lights
- Cyclists ignoring stop signs
- Cyclists riding on a busy sidewalk
- Cyclists yelling at pedestrians to move rather than stopping at an intersection as required
- Cyclists taking up the entire lane and not permitting cars to pass
- Cyclists going the wrong way down a one-way street
Some of the worst offenders are e-bike users, who can move very fast and in unexpected ways. It's no fun to have someone silently fly by you from behind, inches away, at 20mph while they are riding what's basically a motorcycle on the sidewalk.
I frequently walk in the city, and scooters/bicycles are far more of a hazard than cars. They often can't decide whether they want to be pedestrians or cars, and they often don't follow the rules for either, putting everyone (including themselves) at risk.
> Cyclists taking up the entire lane and not permitting cars to pass
This is explicitly permitted in most places and is often the only safe thing to do. In a situation like that, if you can't overtake such a bike (or car, or tractor) safely, you must wait until it is safe. The bike (or car or tractor) has the right to the entire lane.
This is explicitly permitted in most places and is often the only safe thing to do. In a situation like that, if you can't overtake such a bike (or car, or tractor) safely, you must wait until it is safe. The bike (or car or tractor) has the right to the entire lane.
> scooters/bicycles are far more of a hazard than cars
No they're not, because they carry an order of magnitude less kinetic energy.
> Cyclists taking up the entire lane and not permitting cars to pass
as they fucking should, this is the safest thing to do, you're in a metal box and if I let you pass you'll do it too fast and too close
> Cyclists ignoring red lights > Cyclists ignoring stop signs
In civilized places bikes are explicitly allowed to treat red lights as stop signs and stop signs as yields.
No they're not, because they carry an order of magnitude less kinetic energy.
> Cyclists taking up the entire lane and not permitting cars to pass
as they fucking should, this is the safest thing to do, you're in a metal box and if I let you pass you'll do it too fast and too close
> Cyclists ignoring red lights > Cyclists ignoring stop signs
In civilized places bikes are explicitly allowed to treat red lights as stop signs and stop signs as yields.
> > scooters/bicycles are far more of a hazard than cars
> No they're not, because they carry an order of magnitude less kinetic energy.
Yeah, go ahead and tell them that after they hit you on the sidewalk or going the wrong way down a one-way street.
> No they're not, because they carry an order of magnitude less kinetic energy.
Yeah, go ahead and tell them that after they hit you on the sidewalk or going the wrong way down a one-way street.
It is not uncommon to see car drivers do all these things, including driving on the pavement/sidewalk.
I cannot remember ever seeing a car deliberately drive on the sidewalk. If you've seen this where you are, then I agree that the cars are clearly more dangerous.
Happens all the time the world over, cars regularly mount the pavement to pass other traffic, or just to take a sneaking shortcut - search on youtube if you have been lucky enough to miss this yourself.
First search result: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iuhblb_9qec
First search result: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iuhblb_9qec
Your first search result made the news.
"mounting the pavement" temporarily isn't the same as driving on it for multiple metres.
"mounting the pavement" temporarily isn't the same as driving on it for multiple metres.
I personally count a car driving any distance on a pavement something I don't want to see.
If you claim never to have seen that happen, then you must live in a hugely law abiding place. I live in a small town with a pretty old average age, and I see this regularly here. In London it was worse. Maybe as a cyclist you look out for these things more, or maybe you just get to see them more due to your positioning.
If you claim never to have seen that happen, then you must live in a hugely law abiding place. I live in a small town with a pretty old average age, and I see this regularly here. In London it was worse. Maybe as a cyclist you look out for these things more, or maybe you just get to see them more due to your positioning.
The point is they are not the same thing. Temporarily mounting the pavement at low speed to pass an obstacle isn't the same.
>But for some reason most people are blind to this and don't get aggressive with drivers.
I'm not sure if this is serious, but it's one of the more obviously false claims I've seen on Hacker News:
https://everytownresearch.org/reports-of-road-rage-shootings...
>Experiencing aggressive driving on the road is not uncommon—roughly eight in 10 drivers surveyed by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety reported having at least one incident in the month before the survey.
In response to your other comment:
>angry about cyclists just existing.
I don't think these people are angry at cyclists per se at all, they're angry about a perceived anti-car sociopolitical shift, and cyclists are just a visible artifact of that.
I'm not sure if this is serious, but it's one of the more obviously false claims I've seen on Hacker News:
https://everytownresearch.org/reports-of-road-rage-shootings...
>Experiencing aggressive driving on the road is not uncommon—roughly eight in 10 drivers surveyed by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety reported having at least one incident in the month before the survey.
In response to your other comment:
>angry about cyclists just existing.
I don't think these people are angry at cyclists per se at all, they're angry about a perceived anti-car sociopolitical shift, and cyclists are just a visible artifact of that.
I can only assume that you are not a cyclist? I've just ridden down the road safely and legally and had people shout, swear and swerve their cars at me.
Believe me, people ARE angry at cyclists - it might be for the reasons you suggest, but their anger is directed at the humans on the bikes.
Believe me, people ARE angry at cyclists - it might be for the reasons you suggest, but their anger is directed at the humans on the bikes.
I wish. If drivers stuck to traffic regulations it would be safer for cyclists. The number of cars I see jumping red lights while cycling is obscene, the number of drivers who deliberately closed pass cyclists is also obscene. And that’s before we get to drivers who deliberately injure cyclists, like the guy who deliberately ran me down and hospitalised me for the crime of not wanting him to overtake me while passing through a narrowing in the road that wasn’t wide enough for both of us.
Anecdatum: A week ago, I went to the supermarket across the road. It's a staggered crossing on a main road (Old Kent Road) (with a stupidly designed junction.) In two crossings, I counted 15-20 cars that jumped the red light - either "accidentally" (by entering the junction without a clear exit) or deliberately (speeding up, not slowing down when it changes to yellow, etc.)
That was about 5 minutes of time out of a two hour peak period - I'd be amazed if you didn't get several hundred an hour if you sat there and counted. There are, alas, no cameras on this junction - probably because MetPol would be doing nothing but processing these violations 24/7...
That was about 5 minutes of time out of a two hour peak period - I'd be amazed if you didn't get several hundred an hour if you sat there and counted. There are, alas, no cameras on this junction - probably because MetPol would be doing nothing but processing these violations 24/7...
Ha, I think I know the junctions you’re talking about, near the ASDA right? I avoid going near Old Kent road in anything except a car. That road is an absolute death trap filled with drivers who seem to have no regard for anyone not enclosed in steel, and even then you need to have your wits about when driving.
It strikes me as insane that road with so much pedestrian traffic, lined with shops, in a part of London where only something like 30% of the population drives, has so few provisions for pedestrian or cycle safely. With pavements barely wide enough for walking, covered in obstructions, and road markings that looks more like an IQ test, than anything helpful.
It strikes me as insane that road with so much pedestrian traffic, lined with shops, in a part of London where only something like 30% of the population drives, has so few provisions for pedestrian or cycle safely. With pavements barely wide enough for walking, covered in obstructions, and road markings that looks more like an IQ test, than anything helpful.
> I think I know the junctions you’re talking about, near the ASDA right?
Exactly that one, yes.
> I avoid going near Old Kent road in anything except a car
Yeah, I used to cycle it a fair bit 10-15 years ago but I wouldn't bother these days either (plus there are decent cycleway options for avoiding it.)
Exactly that one, yes.
> I avoid going near Old Kent road in anything except a car
Yeah, I used to cycle it a fair bit 10-15 years ago but I wouldn't bother these days either (plus there are decent cycleway options for avoiding it.)
Where I am, I get a lot of aggressive behavior from drivers because I am sticking to the traffic regulations and they don't like it. The laws here very explicitly give me a clear right to use almost all roads.
Many drivers imagine that bicycles are not permitted in roads and some take it upon themselves to make my life dangerous in an effort to enforce that.
Many drivers imagine that bicycles are not permitted in roads and some take it upon themselves to make my life dangerous in an effort to enforce that.
Even when there's dedicated bike infrastructure, cars seem to love encroaching on that space, in a completely unpredictable, selfish, and dangerous manner. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0w4mfGa22ZY
I don't know about where you live but often as not in the US (varies by state) cyclists have different laws to abide by then cars. Most motorists (and cyclists for that matter) are wholly unaware of this.
If only the traffic regulations, and roads were actually designed for bikes. Check the amazing "Not Just Bikes" channel on Stop signs, intelligent traffic lights, and read on Idaho stop.
Let's not take existing regulations like the "absolute truth and ultimate way of being". Jaywalking used to be illegal, and in my country at least, pot went from being a crime to being sold by state stores.
The difficulty is that the design of cycling infrastructure in many cities (but to be fair, especially in the US) is so poor that it's actually more dangerous to follow the standard cycling rules than it is to take certain liberties away from them.
Motorcycles get treated just as bad. Cruising in the right lane at normal speed? Minding your own business at a stoplight? Someone will take it upon themselves to make sure you are paying attention and the penalty for failure is that you die.
Car people see anything 'weird' and just lose their minds to the point that killing another human is an acceptable outcome to them. It's extremely reliable. Get a bike and you will find out exactly how many psychopaths are out there.
Car people see anything 'weird' and just lose their minds to the point that killing another human is an acceptable outcome to them. It's extremely reliable. Get a bike and you will find out exactly how many psychopaths are out there.
I found the opposite at Red Lights. People see the actual human (me) and act with empathy. Or perhaps they see the knuckle plating on my tactical gloves and think twice about starting a problem.
That's a strawman argument.
EDIT: I make it a point of honour to try to stick to the Highway Code whether on my bike or in my car. Still random drivers harass me when I'm on my bike.
I had someone lean out of a car and try to put a plastic bag over my head when I was cycling once. I would love to hear what I was supposed to have done to justify that.
You just have to look at how the press drone on about "lycra clad louts". There's an obsession with identifying us by what we wear as a justification for violence.
That's not hurt feelings but actual broken bones and blood violence.
Off the top of my head I can think of several newspaper articles calling for barbed wire to be strung across cyclepaths in the UK (Hahaha, joking of course!) and reports where that happened and someone was seriously injured. All in the same paper (Hahaha, no connection obviously!)
YouTube is full of people in cars attacking cyclists and it's got fuck all to do with breaking traffic regulations.
EDIT: I make it a point of honour to try to stick to the Highway Code whether on my bike or in my car. Still random drivers harass me when I'm on my bike.
I had someone lean out of a car and try to put a plastic bag over my head when I was cycling once. I would love to hear what I was supposed to have done to justify that.
You just have to look at how the press drone on about "lycra clad louts". There's an obsession with identifying us by what we wear as a justification for violence.
That's not hurt feelings but actual broken bones and blood violence.
Off the top of my head I can think of several newspaper articles calling for barbed wire to be strung across cyclepaths in the UK (Hahaha, joking of course!) and reports where that happened and someone was seriously injured. All in the same paper (Hahaha, no connection obviously!)
YouTube is full of people in cars attacking cyclists and it's got fuck all to do with breaking traffic regulations.
If you never break a single traffic law while driving you must be very difficult to drive around.
Not excusing the other crazy stuff you've put up with. That's insane.
Not excusing the other crazy stuff you've put up with. That's insane.
I'm not saying I never break traffic rules, I'm saying I don't deliberately do so. I don't run through red lights or use my mobile phone.
Not sure why that would make me difficult to drive around. If I'm on a motorway I overtake and when I've finished my manoeuvre and I just move over again.
If I see an amber light then I do what the Highway code suggests and stop if doing so won't cause a problem. If I see a red light definitely stop.
Not sure why that would make me difficult to drive around. If I'm on a motorway I overtake and when I've finished my manoeuvre and I just move over again.
If I see an amber light then I do what the Highway code suggests and stop if doing so won't cause a problem. If I see a red light definitely stop.
I thought you meant never-ever. If you do what the highway code suggests as you describe, it sounds like you're a good defensive driver. I think you can see why I'm asking though, as there's a big difference between never breaking a traffic rule and making to a point to avoid doing so deliberately, especially the egregious ones.
No, not in my experiences at all. Road rage against non-car traffic seems to be mostly based on the fact that they mildly inconvenient and easy targets. Unfortunately, psychopaths and people with poor impulse control live amongst us and are allowed to drive. Let's be absolutely clear about what's going on here: motorists murder cyclists all the time.
The fact that even those who don't drive cars hate cyclists says something. As a pedestrian I see myself much more endangered by cyclists, which swerve everywhere (including the pavement), than by cars, which stay within their lanes.
Like what?
Edit since you edited yourself (only their first sentence was in the comment when I first replied):
> The fact that even those who don't drive cars hate cyclists says something. As a pedestrian I see myself much more endangered by cyclists, which swerve everywhere (including the pavement), than by cars, which stay within their lanes.
I've only seen swerving cyclists everywhere when infrastructure for cycling is poor or non-existent. Anywhere where there's a minimally decent infrastructure I don't see cyclists sharing space with pedestrians on sidewalks, nor swerving crazily around.
Maybe it's an issue with not providing appropriate infrastructure instead? If there weren't roads you'd see cars not following lanes, etc.
Edit since you edited yourself (only their first sentence was in the comment when I first replied):
> The fact that even those who don't drive cars hate cyclists says something. As a pedestrian I see myself much more endangered by cyclists, which swerve everywhere (including the pavement), than by cars, which stay within their lanes.
I've only seen swerving cyclists everywhere when infrastructure for cycling is poor or non-existent. Anywhere where there's a minimally decent infrastructure I don't see cyclists sharing space with pedestrians on sidewalks, nor swerving crazily around.
Maybe it's an issue with not providing appropriate infrastructure instead? If there weren't roads you'd see cars not following lanes, etc.
This is funny for me, just coming back from Vietnam where most of the traffic is motorcycles/scooters. All the behavior that is ascribed to bicyclists here is how motorcyclists behave over there. They drive on the sidewalk (when it's possible, because most sidewalks are usually blocked by parked scooters, among other things). They do not stop at red lights, they do not stop at pedestrian crossings (even honking their horn at you to get out of the way).
This is simply how cyclists behave in the absence of incentives to act otherwise.
You don't solve this problem by having more infrastructure, you solve this problem by brainwashing the cyclists and drivers to follow the rules, and enforcing the rules.
This is simply how cyclists behave in the absence of incentives to act otherwise.
You don't solve this problem by having more infrastructure, you solve this problem by brainwashing the cyclists and drivers to follow the rules, and enforcing the rules.
Noticed this too, there is some rational annoyance with 'impeding traffic' (perceived or actual) or breaking rules but the impact there is so small that it doesn't explain the negative response. I've had people literally threaten to kill me for making them make a minimal adjustment to drive around me?
My theories about this:
* A cyclist forces the driver to go out of 'auto pilot' and actively think about driving for a few seconds, which annoys people disproportionately
* Cyclists represent a sort of 'others' that we project all kinds of negative feelings on.
* Cycling for transportation in North America is only recently taken seriously and this can be used to blame them for any kind of new societal changes that are perceived negatively (liberalism, inflation, political correctness, higher taxes).
My theories about this:
* A cyclist forces the driver to go out of 'auto pilot' and actively think about driving for a few seconds, which annoys people disproportionately
* Cyclists represent a sort of 'others' that we project all kinds of negative feelings on.
* Cycling for transportation in North America is only recently taken seriously and this can be used to blame them for any kind of new societal changes that are perceived negatively (liberalism, inflation, political correctness, higher taxes).
Road cyclists infuriate me - Ask me anything.
I think most of it comes from shockingly dangerous behavior, which I am concerned will blowback on me.
I've seen cyclists in the freeway slow lane, cut across 8 lanes of busy traffic, and they seem to love windiest roads with hairpin turns and no visibility. Perhaps most brazenly, in the middle lane of 65 mile road, in black at night, with no reflectors.
I think most of it comes from shockingly dangerous behavior, which I am concerned will blowback on me.
I've seen cyclists in the freeway slow lane, cut across 8 lanes of busy traffic, and they seem to love windiest roads with hairpin turns and no visibility. Perhaps most brazenly, in the middle lane of 65 mile road, in black at night, with no reflectors.
I've seen none of those things, ever, living most my life in what passes in the US for a bike-friendly city (Minneapolis). For sure, if I did see those things while driving, and if I could do so safely, I would be rolling down my windows and yelling.
What I have seen, often, is drivers on residential or downtown streets bearing down on law-abiding cyclists with murderous aggression for no apparent reason than simply having to share the road. General statements like yours kind of support the notion that many drivers who have had a crazy experience with a poor cyclist feel justified in taking out the anger from that experience on any and all cyclists.
What I have seen, often, is drivers on residential or downtown streets bearing down on law-abiding cyclists with murderous aggression for no apparent reason than simply having to share the road. General statements like yours kind of support the notion that many drivers who have had a crazy experience with a poor cyclist feel justified in taking out the anger from that experience on any and all cyclists.
Terrible drivers also provoke anger from me, for what it is worth.
While I don't take out mt anger on random bikers, I agree that 'sharing' is a common origin. Many roads are simply not practical or safe to share with bikes.
While I don't take out mt anger on random bikers, I agree that 'sharing' is a common origin. Many roads are simply not practical or safe to share with bikes.
Many roads aren’t practical or safe to share with cars either
agreed. This is what I think is the point of conflict.
If each had all the roads they could want, and didnt have to share, then I dont think either would care about the other.
Reality is that they do have to share, it isn't safe or convenient, and therefore people get angry.
If each had all the roads they could want, and didnt have to share, then I dont think either would care about the other.
Reality is that they do have to share, it isn't safe or convenient, and therefore people get angry.
The responses of men are also cultural. Having lived in east Asia, the aggression he observed feels like a very western thing.
It would be nice to include some context, like was driver on road or pedestrian walkway, were they wearing a helmet, how fast and safely they were driving...
Unicycling is nothing extraordinary that would deserve prize, pizza delivery guys do that all the time. I live in busy tourist city and I am very tired of inconsiderate unicycling drivers!
Different reaction from men can be explained in what would follow in case of crash. Men get far less help when injured. And if driver gets injured, men are expected to step up and provide help!
Unicycling is nothing extraordinary that would deserve prize, pizza delivery guys do that all the time. I live in busy tourist city and I am very tired of inconsiderate unicycling drivers!
Different reaction from men can be explained in what would follow in case of crash. Men get far less help when injured. And if driver gets injured, men are expected to step up and provide help!
I assume you mean electric unicycle?
I can't imagine delivering food on a regular unicycle - it's a lot of work.
The linked article was from 2007. He was definitely talking about a regular unicycle, and I doubt speed was a factor. The "unsafe" perception from others would be from the inherent wobbling associated with someone learning how to ride - it takes a while to get really smooth.
I can't imagine delivering food on a regular unicycle - it's a lot of work.
The linked article was from 2007. He was definitely talking about a regular unicycle, and I doubt speed was a factor. The "unsafe" perception from others would be from the inherent wobbling associated with someone learning how to ride - it takes a while to get really smooth.
Electric or non electric does not matter.
And why would you put "unsafe" into quotes? Person who falls from unicycle is heavy, and can injure themselfs or another person.
And why would you put "unsafe" into quotes? Person who falls from unicycle is heavy, and can injure themselfs or another person.
[deleted]
My mind immediately went to the evolutionary undercurrent of these things.
The unicycle can be considered something impractical and suboptimal almost uniformly. You can't go fast, you can't carry anything, there's no way to give a friend a ride. It is perhaps equivalent to a person not developing their body in a way that makes them a useful citizen/comrade/etc.
The response from men seems to mainly line up with how we'd react to such a thing in evolutionary context. We instinctively realize that unicycle ridding isn't a value-add to either the rider or society - both are less capable than when a more "appropriate" vehicle is used (we have "standardized" on bikes rather than uni-cyclers or trikes because those are clearly superior across almost all non-circus applications.)
Men react as they do because intrinsically we want society and its members to be stronger - as we shoulder the load of those who aren't. So there's sort of a "hope" that enough of these remarks will encourage the person to get their shit together.
Women are more focused on comfort - so they react the way they would to seeing someone physically weak and less capable than the average person - with kindness and almost a pity. I don't think they are lining up to sleep with him.
Obviously these are not exactly "helpful" reactions to someone riding a unicycle around the park but the underlying drives are still roughly right. A nation of unicycle riders is going to get conquered.
The unicycle can be considered something impractical and suboptimal almost uniformly. You can't go fast, you can't carry anything, there's no way to give a friend a ride. It is perhaps equivalent to a person not developing their body in a way that makes them a useful citizen/comrade/etc.
The response from men seems to mainly line up with how we'd react to such a thing in evolutionary context. We instinctively realize that unicycle ridding isn't a value-add to either the rider or society - both are less capable than when a more "appropriate" vehicle is used (we have "standardized" on bikes rather than uni-cyclers or trikes because those are clearly superior across almost all non-circus applications.)
Men react as they do because intrinsically we want society and its members to be stronger - as we shoulder the load of those who aren't. So there's sort of a "hope" that enough of these remarks will encourage the person to get their shit together.
Women are more focused on comfort - so they react the way they would to seeing someone physically weak and less capable than the average person - with kindness and almost a pity. I don't think they are lining up to sleep with him.
Obviously these are not exactly "helpful" reactions to someone riding a unicycle around the park but the underlying drives are still roughly right. A nation of unicycle riders is going to get conquered.
I think your comment is a little bit off-target but adjacent to something interesting:
Putting a lot of time and effort into learning something difficult, but that isn't directly useful for survival, is a form of status signaling. Hence the stereotype of successful artists and musicians and athletes having countless fawning admirers while considerably fewer people are thought to be throwing themselves at accountants and teachers and farmers.
Unicycling is interesting because you could just be going about your day getting from point A to point B, while a hostile audience sees both conspicuous consumption ("I have so much free time that I can learn to unicycle") and conspicuous outrage ("I'm so secure in my status that I can do something nonconformist that maybe also looks kind of silly"), and feels like they have to take you down a notch.
Putting a lot of time and effort into learning something difficult, but that isn't directly useful for survival, is a form of status signaling. Hence the stereotype of successful artists and musicians and athletes having countless fawning admirers while considerably fewer people are thought to be throwing themselves at accountants and teachers and farmers.
Unicycling is interesting because you could just be going about your day getting from point A to point B, while a hostile audience sees both conspicuous consumption ("I have so much free time that I can learn to unicycle") and conspicuous outrage ("I'm so secure in my status that I can do something nonconformist that maybe also looks kind of silly"), and feels like they have to take you down a notch.
> You can't go fast, you can't carry anything. It is perhaps equivalent to a person not developing their body in a way that makes them a useful citizen/comrade/etc
This comment is obviously completely braindead, but I did want to jump in and say that I would rather have a unicycling, gun-toting comrade backing me up than one riding a road bike.
This comment is obviously completely braindead, but I did want to jump in and say that I would rather have a unicycling, gun-toting comrade backing me up than one riding a road bike.
What absolute bollocks.
Everything that the author states matches my own experience -- almost to a T.
I often felt bad -- riding a unicycle is incredibly quiet (as there is no chain or gearing), and it's disturbingly easy to sneak up on a lone pedestrian at night and give them a scare when you announce that you're passing them on the left. I'm a rather large male, and recognize I can strike an imposing figure, and hated scaring people like this. I took up whistling whilst riding near people at night just so they could know that I was there.
This was also an interesting thing to read:
This VERY closely matches my experience -- I was surprised at how much hostility I received from other guys. It wasn't always directly aggressive -- sometimes it was a bit tangential. Guys would often be playing pickup baseball (using a tennis ball) outside my dorm when I would arrive / leave -- and the ball would often come close to me. I only learned much later that they timed their games and would quickly run outside to try to play a few pitches only in order to try and hit me as I was riding by. On one level I thought this was kind of cool that they cared enough to do this, but it also made me sad inside in a way that I have never fully been able to put into words.
There were the regular jeering remarks, and even the more aggressive actions of going so far as to steal my unicycle a couple of times -- thankfully I was always able to recover it (a friend would call me and tell me it was found lying in a parking lot across campus -- clearly abandoned after they gave up trying to ride it).
It's an interesting case-study on how society reacts to outliers -- this was a beautiful set of data to read. Thank you!