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

Steve K wrote:

As PS to this discussion, I noticed that Ned got into a minor twitter spat with a Times sports journalist (Elizabeth Ammon) with him defending people's right to wear lycra (after she'd tweeted complaining about cyclists in lycra).

does she also complain about women going everywhere in their active gear? 

That sort of thing was the gist of many of the responses to her tweet (which she's since deleted, but the responses are still there).  As it happens, I very briefly dated Lizzy in about 2005, so maybe her irrational dislike of cyclists is all my fault (though probably more likely her subsequent partner, but that's another story...)

What sense of humour?

lio wrote:

Went to a Ned Bolting live event about 4 years ago and he was doing the whole anti-MAMIL schtick then too.

Odd really for a bloke who gets well paid to spends several hours day watching and talking endlessly about men in lycra to an international TV audience.

And writes books about them.

Creates podcasts about them.

Goes on tour to talk about them even more...

Or perhaps it's specifically done for his audience - many of them MAMILs, I would have thought - so they can revel in the deep irony and laugh at their own ridiculous fascination with things like clip-in pedals, Strava, bib shorts and chamois cream.

wtjs wrote:

...and hair

See!  I told the Mrs I need to get a new set of bibs.

mdavidford wrote:

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

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

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

All of which seems eminently reasonable to me, as someone who's made the journey in to buying all the kit, but still enjoys more relaxed rides, cycles to the shops, etc. in civvies.

Guilty as charged - I barely even read the whole headline.

I don't really mind the term 'MAMIL' though I think of it as a positive thing. Middle-aged men have got the reputation of buying sporty cars/motorbikes and chasing after younger partners in a supposed attempt to re-live their more youthful days, whereas MAMILs are looking to get fitter and improve themselves without needing to further destroy the environment (and relationships).

hawkinspeter wrote:

 

I don't really mind the term 'MAMIL' though I think of it as a positive thing. 

I thought we were moving away from MAMIL to "lycrist infiltrator", in order to be more inclusive.

mdavidford wrote:

Can't help thinking that people are mostly responding to the out-of-context quote that's been cherry-picked for the headline in a naked attempt to provoke 'debate'

From the article:

"Mamil is a very disparaging term but it represents quite a large cohort of people in this country and I don’t want to decry or put down what they love to do it and how they love to go about their passion. 

It might not be for me, it really isn’t for me, but I think they are part of the landscape that we need to accommodate."

Who has to accomodate them? I don't quite understand that idea. If I want to wear lycra to ride to work or go for a longer ride it's nobody else's concern. I think Ned may have phrased it poorly.

But MAMILs & lycra-clad roadies are not the majority of people who cycle. However, they are a particularly visible sub-group (and a target for newspaper columnists).

Nobody is deterred from driving a car because a middle-aged bloke drove past in a Porsche or a smart convertible with the roof down. I can't imagine anyone decides not to do their CBT and ride a 125cc motorbike because some bloke down the street and his mates all ride GSX-Rs and Fireblades and wear one-piece leathers.

Do people in lycra really deter non-cyclists from getting on a bike? I think it's a myth. What puts most people off trying it are things like the idea of having to wash or change clothes at their destination (though the reality is hardly onerous). But I bet that the thing that deters most people is that they feel it's too dangerous mixing with motorised traffic.

I'm sure it really isn't because someone wearing close-fitting nylon may ride past on their way to work.

Simon E wrote:

From the article:

That's kind of my point - the article has selected bits of what he said, remixed and presented them to make it appear as though he was deprecating people who wear cycle clothing and / or ride their bikes fast, or suggesting they're 'the problem', when he really wasn't.

Bear in mind that this wasn't an article he wrote - it was off-the-cuff responses in an interview, so it's not going to be the clearest, most carefully chosen expression of what he was trying to say.

When you look at everything he said, as he said it, when he talks about 'accommodating' them, he just means they're one part of the picture and people should be fine with that - he's emphasising that he's not attacking that choice, even though it's not one he would make.

my issue with that would be that he's the one drawing that dividing line though. I dont draw that line between lycra clad cyclists or cyclists wearing whatever alternate fabric clothing they like, whether they be slower,quicker whatever, we are all people just riding a bike, we are all one tribe IMO. Any of the bit about "not attacking that choice" is just covering language to try and not upset people, ultimately he is still saying theres a difference between lycra cyclists and other cyclists, and they present a barrier to specifically his type of cyclists.

A completely unnecessary us and them concoction, he even uses "we" and "they." Very strange. I commute in work shoes and trousers with Lycra on top, where do I fit in Ned's new world order?

Awavey wrote:

my issue with that would be that he's the one drawing that dividing line though.

Except he's not. It was framed that way in the question that was put to him, and he's responding saying that he doesn't think setting groups against each other like that is very useful.

well I think he is in the way he answered. The question posed by the viewer was "what needs to be done to make cycling more accessible, shaking off the MAMIL image?"

now Ned might have gone the long way around to get to his point to try and least offend people, even though he says he needs to be careful how he answers it, and even if he doesnt like the term MAMIL (so lets use the Dutch term wielrenner instead), he doesnt dismiss the stereotype it creates.

and he was ultimately agreeing with that strawman the questioner tagged on, and in so doing drawing a dividing line among groups of cyclists based on what they wear or how they cycle,that there are a bunch of sporty cyclists who ride lots of miles,use strava and who in doing so create an image that puts others off simply riding a bike to the shops in "normal" clothes, which he attempts to correct in how he approaches cycling.

Whilst I dont agree that sporty cyclists make cycling less accessible, MAMIL is a well overused media term, more often than not applied to utility cyclists wearing "normal" clothes anyway, but it doesnt need to shake that sporty image off to make cycling accessible because it isnt the problem, I dont understand why people fixate on the lycra thing so much anyway, especially when no-one remotely fixates on what people wear in any other activity they carry out. and FWIW I reckon alot of MAMILs and WILMAs who might well stack up lots of miles on strava at the weekend, are just as likely to hop on a bike in their "normal" clothes to ride to the shops anyway, because they arent defined by one label when they cycle, they are just people who ride bikes.

and the thing that will unlock accessibility to cycling,especially for people not interested and that will make it seem less about sporty riding and into utility riding, is making routes for people to ride that makes them feel safe riding a bike, and just as importantly feeling they can leave their bike at their destination safely, and worry alot less about stereotypes and labelling people, and that should have been the main thrust of his answer.

Well I don't agree with that characterisation of what he said. But I've also realised that I don't care enough to argue the point, so will just agree to disagree. 

Road.cc have definitely played it up for clicks and comments, though, and it's hard to see how that helps anything (beyond their engagement figures / advertising revenue).

Simon E wrote:

What puts most people off trying it are things like the idea of having to wash or change clothes at their destination (though the reality is hardly onerous). But I bet that the thing that deters most people is that they feel it's too dangerous mixing with motorised traffic.

I'm sure it really isn't because someone wearing close-fitting nylon may ride past on their way to work.

Amen brother. I think the supposed characteristics of an extremely minor out-group are irrelevant to most people's decisions in the way that joggers wearing lycra doesn't affect people's choice to go for a walk. Much more important is "what are all my friends / the people I hope to be like doing"?  That and the overall perception of cycling as a leisure activity rather than a normal mode of transport and neither safe or convenient might have more to do with it.

Gawd, make your mind up, eh?!

Guilty as charged - I barely even read the whole headline.

I don't really mind the term 'MAMIL' though I think of it as a positive thing. Middle-aged men have got the reputation of buying sporty cars/motorbikes and chasing after younger partners in a supposed attempt to re-live their more youthful days, whereas MAMILs are looking to get fitter and improve themselves without needing to further destroy the environment (and relationships).

mdavidford | 1841 posts | 1 hour ago
3 likes  

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

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

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

Flintshire Boy wrote:

mdavidford | 1841 posts | 1 hour ago
3 likes  

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

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

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

Yeah that's fair enough - in which case it's a bit disappointing for the road.cc staff to do this tbh, though I suppose it's standard stuff for journalists to do this these days

He wasn't even talking about other people being hostile to MAMILs, he was simply voicing a perfectly valid opinion that people may look at MAMILs (of whom I am one) and think that is all that cycling is about and not consider becoming cyclists themselves because they think that the expensive gear/big mileage/high speed culture is the only one out there.

There's enough hostility to cycling from non-cyclists without us creating divisions between ourselves and one of our great supporters making a perfectly innocuous and valid point.