Skirt on a Bicycle (with pictures)

[AMM]

A while back I mentioned that I ride my bicycle in a skirt, and got some disbelieving responses. So here's some evidence that I do indeed do just that. In fact, my purple nylon skirt is pretty good for bicycling, being about the right length to not show too much and not catch in the spokes.

Here is my usual destination: the dam at the far end of the farther of our village's reservoirs, something like 2 miles from my home, including about 250 vertical feet (~80 m) over a ridge. It's still a bit foggy from the rain that tropical storm Danny brought our way, but it turned hot and sunny later in the day.

bike20090830-lake1.jpg

Here is more or less what I think I look like when riding (minus the wind ), with a view back along the bike path.

bike20090830-skirt1.jpg

A frontal view, in case anyone worries about what the oncoming traffic sees:

bike20090830-skirt2.jpg

P.S.: I apologize for the fact that the pictures are a bit out of focus. The "autofocus" on my digital camera seems to be designed to insure that all pictures are uniformly blurry You should have seen the ones I rejected! (Do they make digital cameras that don't have any autofocus, where you turn the lens to focus, like in the Olde Days?)

[crfriend]

Sir, regarding the side-shot above: You positively rock that look! Well done!

As far as "digi-cams" go, most have "manual" settings, although you need to access them via the assorted buttons. The more up-scale DSLRs (Digital "Single Lens Reflex") ones have a vast similarity to "old school" "chemical" cameras (right on down to synthetic shutter sounds) but come at a bit of a cost premium. The very bottom-end of the digi-cam range (and I'll not even address 'cell-'phone "cameras") usually don't have any sort of manual overrides on them, so it's all "point and shoot" (and misfocus, misexpose, and get the wrong "shutter speed").

[AMM]

As far as "digi-cams" go, most have "manual" settings, although you need to access them via the assorted buttons.

\begin{rant}

The camera I have (borrowed from my brother) does have a "manual focus" feature. So to speak.

You put the camera in a special mode. Then you run around and find something that is at the distance you want, you push the shutter button down partway, and while you are doing that, you find another odd button somewhere on the camera and push it. If you are lucky, and the camera focusses on what you intended it to focus on, and not something else, and if you don't accidentally push some button that turns off the "manual focus", it will keep whatever focus it had. What with waiting for the computer at several points during this process, it comes out to about 20 seconds. Of course, there's no such thing as, say, a distance display to verify that you got the correct distance. You just have to shoot and then look at the results.

With an old-style camera (SLR), I can focus a picture in about 1 second, 2 at the most (e.g, if there aren't any sharp lines in the subject.) AFAIK, auto-focus cameras don't do any better, and they do a lot worse with moving subjects. My current digital camera just gives up on subjects like marching bands. FWIW, I had to use the "manual focus" feature to get the "twirly" pictures to come out -- if I left autofocus on, everything in the picture came out blurry.

Auto-exposure has similar problems.

Back in Ye Olde Days, my father bought me an SLR, and since he wanted to get me a good SLR, it had automatic shutter-speed adjustment. (But manual focus, Gott sei dank.) Now, I did a lot of indoor available-light photography, in rooms with exposed light fixtures. So when I took a picture, I had to make sure I didn't get a light source in the picture, or the only thing that would be visible in the print was the light source. There was a "compensation" adjustment, that would go up or down 2X in exposure, but that wasn't always enough. I eventually bought another camera, with manual exposure -- I would go into the room, set the exposure, and forget it. No more mis-exposed pictures.

Give me manual everything. It's a lot easier.

\end{rant}

[crfriend]

\begin{rant}

I feel a good one comin' on here!

Back in Ye Olde Days, my father bought me an SLR, and since he wanted to get me a good SLR, it had automatic shutter-speed adjustment.

Kids these days... The first camera I was allowed to use was a rangefinder model that (if one wanted to be precise) required an off-board light meter. I still miss the rangefinder focus mechanism. Good exposure can be judged by eye, but it takes practise and intimate knowledge of the film one is using; shutter-speed is easily set by what one is trying to shoot. Digi-cams just get so much of that wrong.

This is now getting way off topic, but I feel privileged to have my grand-dad's SLR -- a fully mechanical (i.e. "no batteries required") device. It needs some work, mainly to retrofit the internal light-meter so it can use modern (read, "non-mercury") batteries, but other than that it works splendidly. A number of years ago (28, perhaps?) I bought a newer one that needs batteries to run well (it is capable of letting off a 1/60 exposure mechanically, but that's it). I feel the need to take another look at the TLR that Sapphire inherited from her dad....

Give me manual everything. It's a lot easier.

Blessed be. It also gives one control over what will get preserved for posterity.

[Kilted_John]

AMM,

Looks great. Quite similar to what I look like on my bike, except the bike is a mountain bike, and I'm doing denim instead.

With respect to photo gear, there is a reason why I still don't own a digicam. I've yet to find one that's affordable, and has the features I want. So, I continue to use film gear and get my negatives scanned to CD's. Only one of my film SLR's has autoexposure capability. A Nikon F4 that I've owned since 2007. The rest are all manual exposure. A couple Nikkormat bodies, a 1972 vintage Nikon F, and a Nikon FM2.

-J

[Bob]

Always great to see another TeXpert!

[Since1982]

1st. I love your biking skirts. 2nd. I love your bodysuit. 3rd. you need to get rid of that $1.00 twenty five button automatic camera and move up to a $55.00 three button special manual Canon.

[Milfmog]

Hi AMM,

Thanks for sharing those pictures with us. I confess that I'd still be concerned cycling in a skirt that length as it overlaps the rear wheel and I'd be paranoid about it getting caught up. I have cycled in a kilt once or twice, but thinking about the sheer volume of fabric around the top of the rear wheel brings me out in a cold sweat.

I reckon that cycling is a bit like climbing ladders; better done in bifurcated clothing. However, if it works for you then go ahead and enjoy it.

Have fun,


Ian.

[AMM]

I confess that I'd still be concerned cycling in a skirt that length as it overlaps the rear wheel and I'd be paranoid about it getting caught up.

For what it's worth, I haven't had that problem with this skirt. I've got a pleated rayon skirt (not as full) in the same length, which does occasionally get caught between the rim and the brake caliper, or hung up on the acorn nut on the caliper, but it's not really been much of a problem. Even when the back of the skirt ends up hanging off the back of the seat instead of lying on top of it, it usually doesn't jam up.

One issue is that you do get some dirt from the road on the hem at the back of the skirt. I wouldn't ride in a light-colored skirt that I plan to wear for anything else.

[Big and Bashful]

I haven't tried cycling in my kilt, it was too expensive and I think with the amount of fabric, it would fly a lot and also get scuffed on the back wheel of the bike. The bike doesn't have mudguards.
I tried briefly once on my last motorbike, but having been thoroughly educated on protecting my legs/skin when on the bike against gravel rash it didn't seem right, there were also aspects of being male which did not help the comfort level. I didn't try again!
Now cameras, I have a Canon 350D digital SLR with a couple of lenses, it does everything from fully auto to fully manual, focus, aparture, shutter speed, whatever you want it to do, it does. It allow for creative photography, I have even been able to "overexpose" photographs at midnight in the open, without flash, and without a seperate manual shutter cable release pressy thingy.
If you look at my pics and looks fred, you will see piccies from that camera, on a tripod, everything on auto and on a 10 second timer. it works well, the autofocus is faster than most fast things. This was Canons cheapest DSLR and I love it, it makes taking a bad photo very difficult. They must be available second hand as they were superceded several years ago.
Thinks: I must get my Midas skirts together and head for the hills with the camera and a set of legs for it, maybe some of my other skirts as well, as long as it stops raining for a bit!
Another think: I have never tried another skirt on my pushbike, still very reluctant to wear skirts other than my kilt in the neighbourhood where I am known and the bike won't fit my car to go elsewhere. I envy those with supportive wives/girlfriends, sometimes there is a downside to being a loner!

[rick401r]

I've wanted to try wearing a kilt while bikeriding. I've been watching how women arrange their skirts so as to not get caught in the wheels and also, how to not expose too much. It looks like they're sitting on skirt and tucking the sides under.

[Bob]

Bikes are how I get from point A to point B. Some skirts work with my bike, some do not. Those that don't --- well, they don't get worn as much.

[Milfmog]

Bikes are how I get from point A to point B. Some skirts work with my bike, some do not. Those that don't --- well, they don't get worn as much.

Care to share a few pointers on which tyes of skirt work and which do not? I cycle a lot and would like to be able to do so skirted, but have yet to find a suitable compromise between modesty, not getting caught-up in the back wheel and freedom of movement to mount / dismount and pedal.

For information, I generally ride a full suspension mountain bike and have the seat height set relatively high so that once the rear suspension has taken my weight the seat will be at the right height. This means that I have to stand on the pedals to get my backside over the seat, hence having to sweep fabric underneath me before I sit is not a practical option. A significant proportion of my riding is off road or on unmade paths and tracks.

Have fun,


Ian.

[RichardA]

Ian, it's not a skirt you need, It's the bike, I have a "Y" frame MTB which has a very low top tube, it's more like a girls bike from years ago with that bike you can wear any skirt you like as long as it's not too full

[Milfmog]

Ian, it's not a skirt you need, It's the bike, I have a "Y" frame MTB which has a very low top tube, it's more like a girls bike from years ago with that bike you can wear any skirt you like as long as it's not too full

My bike has a low top tube (I like plenty of standover height when riding off road; it can save a considerable amount of discomfort ). The thing that I'm struggling with is the trade off between mobility / flexibility / freedom of movement and keeping the hem out of the rear wheel. Looking at AMMs pictures I may just be paranoid and perhaps I just need to try it and see how I get on. I must confess that I don't see myself giving up the padded cycling shorts for anything other than a short ride down to the shops but it would be nice to do those short rides without having to change first.

Have fun,


Ian.