As you may know, pretty much the only structural difference (setting aside the many possible varieties of gendered accessories, decorations and color schemes) is that boys bikes--or diamond frame bikes, or 'regular' bikes--have a top bar between the seat and the handlebars, like so:
--while girls bikes, or 'step-through' bikes, do not, like so:
The added bar on the diamond frame seems to give the frame some extra stability (or so I would assume, not being a bicycle expert), while the lower bar on the step-through bike allows for, well, stepping through to get on, rather than having to swing your leg over the top.
It was designed for women, because women tended to wear heavy skirts in the early days of bicycling, which are more difficult (and shocking!) to swing over the higher bar of the other frame style.
And of course now you could not pay many boys to ride a girls bike, even through, objectively, there isn't that much difference between the two, and most girls probably don't bicycle in heavy skirts anymore anyway.
One interesting thing (and this is totally related to health!) is that, objectively speaking, the step-through frame, with its lack of a sturdy bar right there perilously close to groin level, would seem to make a lot more sense for boys.
I mean, even as a woman I can say from personal experience that if you happen to stop short or go over a bump or otherwise lose your equilibrium in some fashion and land hard on that bar, it's a whole big barrel of no fun.
Basically, smashing yourself in the crotch with a metal bar is no picnic for anybody. Heed these words of wisdom, good people!
Given the special male sensitivity to threats to that general area, you'd think they'd be cool with a bicycle structure that did not place a metal bar right in prime crotch-smashing range. But no, they'd rather risk the most horrific pain many men can imagine, than ride a girls bike.
Hey, at least risking horrific pain is manly.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment