[Closed] Read the BBC article on why many women are reluctant to cycle?

Is the answer because the public at large are pricks?

Spot on? It never reaches any conclusions, it's just a series of experiences and opinions.

Safety.
Sexist abuse.
Etc
etc

Conclusions I would say? 🙂

This seems to be an article less about cycling, and more about the nature of modern-day Britain i.e. Full of dicks. However, much of what the story mentions could be applied to both sexes: For example, I've had my arse slapped by a passing motorist. I've had "witty" comments aimed at me whilst cycling, and running, for that matter.

I'm not saying their comments aren't legitimate, just that the article seems rather blinkered.

Depressing reading. But the bit where she says a bloke said "keep pedalling, nearly there" and she found it patronising? I've had it said to me and I've said it to other blokes. I guess there is a difference between intention and perception.

I shall try to remember all this advice:

Don't boast of your long rides
Don't cultivate a "bicycle face"
Don't refuse assistance up a hill
Don't use bicycle slang. Leave that to the boys
Don't go out after dark without a male escort
Don't scratch a match on the seat of your bloomers
Don't appear in public until you have learned to ride well
Don't appear to be up on "records" and "record smashing"

. . . even though it's from 1895

Yeah, 1895 was a good year for women's cycling.Lol

That was a quote from an American author.

I bet the UK was even more repressed about women on bikes! Lol

Don't go out after dark without a male escort

That could get expensive this time of year

"I've even had 'keep pedalling, nearly there' - from a male cyclist. They wouldn't have said it to another man, it's so patronising and uncalled for.

As someone who enters races well beyond his fitness level, blokes definitely say it to other blokes...

Is it OK to say that I cringe when I read rubbish like that? Sometimes women just need to WTFU and ignore stupid words shouted by stupid males.

Was talking to my daughter at the weekend, she won't go running without a friend. WTF? And this, motivation, I think is a large part of the problem with women. I told her to join my old running club, that went down well!

*shakes fluffy little head*

Spot on? Not really.

1) "The roads aren't safe" - not true, most of them are. Just avoid the bad ones, it's not usually difficult.

2) "Keep pedalling, nearly there" - she suggests that wouldn't happen to a man - well, it does. All the sodding time. Along with any number of other stupid comments. Not usually sexual harassment though.

It's not that the public are all pricks either. I might get comments from a few dozen cars a year, depending on when I ride. But I've been passed by countless thousands.

cinnamon_girl - Member
Is it OK to say that I cringe when I read rubbish like that?

No, that's not alright, it's sexist! 😉

Excuses excuses. It's tiresome.

Edit: just to say that I've had some flippin' good times on my bike as well as running and walking all over the place and I've survived... for 25 years and the majority of the time on my own.

cinnamon_girl - Member
Excuses excuses. It's tiresome.

The women in the article you mean?

It's not that the public are all pricks either. I might get comments from a few dozen cars a year, depending on when I ride. But I've been passed by countless thousands.

Absolute proof that there aren't a load of pricks out there

Yes. I think I'd be good as a motivational speaker. 😆

2) "Keep pedalling, nearly there" - she suggests that wouldn't happen to a man - well, it does. All the sodding time. Along with any number of other stupid comments. Not usually sexual harassment though.

Yeah, that thought crossed my mind, too. Yes, people can be dicks, but some women need to stop being so sensitive. Just get out there and do it. Prove the idiots wrong.**

**Note: I am not legitimising sexism, just saying that not everything is intended as sexism. Even if it was, why should it stop you from doing something you enjoy doing? Plus, where would women be today if the likes of Emmeline Pankhurst were deterred by what people said.

cinnamon_girl - Member
Yes. I think I'd be good as a motivational speaker.

There is someone I wish you could motivate to ride but it's not a woman! Lol

[quote=mikey74 ]

2) "Keep pedalling, nearly there" - she suggests that wouldn't happen to a man - well, it does. All the sodding time. Along with any number of other stupid comments. Not usually sexual harassment though

Yeah, that thought crossed my mind, too. Yes, people can be dicks, but some women need to stop being so sensitive. Just get out there and do it. Prove the idiots wrong.**
**Note: I am not legitimising sexism, just saying that not everything is intended as sexism. Even if it was, why should it stop you from doing something you enjoy doing? Plus, where would women be today if the likes of Emmeline Pankhurst were deterred by what people said.

Mikey - sounds like that might be a mans name. A number of folk will be along any minute now to inform you that you have no right to comment on account of you having a penis.

Yes, people can be dicks, but some women need to stop being so sensitive.

I'm not going that far. It's much easier to shrug off when you're a reasonable sized bloke than when you're a woman. Just pointing out that whilst the impact of this stuff is different for women, the actions of the ****s in cars are common to both.

I don't like the article though. I wouldn't be surprised if it put even more women off or dented a lot of confidences.

Stop trolling scotroutes!

I wouldn't be surprised if it put even more women off or dented a lot of confidences.

Spot on mol.

I get told "nearly there" or "keep going mate" all the time...

Im not a woman just a fat bastard that looks like he is going to keel over at any second 😆

Mikey - sounds like that might be a mans name. A number of folk will be along any minute now to inform you that you have no right to comment on account of you having a penis.

It is indeed. You may be correct, but I stand by my right to express an opinion, penis n'all.

I don't like the article though. I wouldn't be surprised if it put even more women off or dented a lot of confidences.

Agreed!

wiggles

Im not a woman just a fat bastard that looks like he is going to keel over at any second

You just described me. 😀

There is someone I wish you could motivate to ride but it's not a woman! Lol

Shall I try?

cinnamon_girl - Member
There is someone I wish you could motivate to ride but it's not a woman! Lol
Shall I try?

Nah, have to finish eating this kebab at the mo. 😉

first thing I saw was all the pics of women cyclists are in lycra and helmets. thats enough to put many non enthusiast cyclists off.

[i]"all the pics of women cyclists are in lycra and helmets"[/i]

Scroll down a bit further, tj - there are some very fetching straw boaters.

Starts off crap and I think puts you in a frame of mind for the rest of the article. As said men totally get that flung at them as well.

That said the later stuff is about right, my missus feels more comfortable in female groups, more as an attitude thing than a problem with guys, she'll be getting some Air Maiden sessions this year.

Comment on the roads being dangerous is fair enough. It's all well and good saying "avoid the bad ones" but when they are all bad what do you do then? I can think of two quiet roads out of my town, one has a six mile uphill (which is utterly crap if you're just starting) with an sharp dive back to sea level over a few miles at the end and the other takes you back onto the main road. Neither are exactly confidence building in terms of either stepping up to main raods (the choice is single track or trunk road) or fitness.

The article's trite nonsense.

"Sometimes, when I've been out cycling on my own, I've had male drivers shout at me as they're overtaking," said the 45-year-old British Cycling Breeze Champion. "I've been told to 'read the Highway Code' and 'get off the road'. I've also been sworn at. "I've even had 'keep pedalling, nearly there' - from a male cyclist. They wouldn't have said it to another man, it's so patronising and uncalled for.

"All I want to do is ride my bike and I don't think I should have to put up with abuse from other - mainly male - road users, just because I'm a woman."

I've had all those comments. It has nothing to do with her being a woman. She has a chip on her shoulder and is divisive.

"Women tend to be more concerned about safety than men," said Ms Pidd. "And those fears are perfectly rational. Roads aren't safe for cyclists - you need to be confident to go on the roads."

I read last year that aircon is sexist. Are roads sexist too?

"sometimes it's really mean. Stuff like 'thunder thighs'."

or MAMIL? I wonder why there's no MAWIL in common parlance.

Other comments about new groups being cliquey or riders being put off because they weren't good at sports at school or are worried about their base fitness aren't only applicable to women either. They're possibly more applicable to men who tend to be more competitive and more worried about underperformance, IMO.

Of course if women want to organise exclusive events then good for them. I hope they're not the same ones complaining about the lack of a womens category at an enduro event though.

However, if issues are to be taken seriously they shouldn't be obfuscated. The only one mentioned here is the woman being slapped on the arse by a motorbike rider.

The roads aren't safe" - not true, most of them are. Just avoid the bad ones, it's not usually difficult.

All very well for social rides but if it is for utility that doesn't help if it's where you need to get to is down a non safe road. There may be a alternative route but they are frequently much longer one.

The reasons cited are the exact same reasons that more men don't cycle, it's just that it affects women more and so puts more women off.

The key issue is risk. If cycling is perceived as risky then more risk averse people will be put off. Testosterone makes you less risk averse, which is why you see lower female participation in risky sports. It's not a difficult thing to understand.

The level of sexism in cycling is also a big problem for men. The whole MAMIL campaign is an awful attack on gender as well as age. Imagine if we started publishing articles on how ridiculous some women look in their yoga pants in the national press.

I used to get no end of derrogotary and harrassing comments from the women in my office when I used to cycle in and out. It genuinely felt horrible each time I came to leave. I even got sent the following image by email from one of the women just before I got up to change:

[img] [/img]

Again, I think the reason it doesn't put more men off than it might otherwise do is that men are typically far less agreeable than women (i.e. they score lower on the trait agreeableness) and so it bothers them less. It bothered me for example but only a little and not enough to put me off.

However, if issues are to be taken seriously they shouldn't be obfuscated. The only one mentioned here is the woman being slapped on the arse by a motorbike rider.

Yup, agree. Afraid most of that article is complete twaddle, with the exception of this case of sexual assault, which got lost in what comes across as mostly very sensitive whining. I've had all the above (except the sexual assault) in the four months I've been riding on the road seriously, having spent the previous 20 years leading a mainly MTB cycling existence.

And:

The roads aren't safe

Well, this is hardly a phenomenon that affects only women. Again, serious issue lost in the noise.

Well, this is hardly a phenomenon that affects only women

Of course not, but it can effect women proportionally more. This is the case with most of the points in the article. Of course many of the issues may not effect individual women, but it on mass, on aggregate proportionally more etc that is the important point that seems to be missed.

I wasn’t overly convinced by the article. All of the stuff mentioned applies to men too. I’ve experienced idiots shouting out of the window of a passing car when I’ve been riding alone or with a group of men. The behaviour of some motorists scares me sometimes but again, female motorists can be to blame as well, including the one who deliberately swerved at me and mr Pea.

Of course not, but it can effect women proportionally more.

How? Are men more resistant to the risks of car doors or articulated lorries?

Of course not, but it can effect women proportionally more.

This is exactly true but that's not neccessarily a reflection that the behaviour shown to women is different to men, just that they react differently to it and that's most likely to product of relative testosterone levels.

Indeed, there is research that shows drivers are more careful around female cyclists. I can't find it but there was some research done a few years ago by a bloke who documented his experiences of close passes while wearing a long haired wig.

How? Are men more resistant to the risks of car doors or articulated lorries?

Well this is the effect of testosterone; men just don't perceive the risks in the same way.

Are you suggesting that I have high levels of testosterone? :p

I might add here that whilst lacking concrete evidence, anecdotally the majority of close shaves that I've had on my bike due to inattentive driving are with vehicles predominantly driven by women. The (thankfully very few) incidents I've had with aggressive drivers have been mostly males.

I would say that the same has also applied whilst I've been driving my 4x4 - obviously implications of one of those near misses or incidents no longer being a miss are much more severe for me on my bike.

As far as I can tell there is little sex specific in that article. The arse slapping may count but I have had that as well so does it? They rest is common to male and female. Now, quite possibly women(as a group and creating vast generalisations) may feel that the other issues mentioned are relevant but they are not stopping only them.

There is nothing stopping women wearing lycra or getting covered in muck apart from their own lack of self esteem. Of the non hard core mountain bikers out there that I see, many more of those who could do with dropping a few pounds yet are wearing tight clothing are women. That suggests that they don't care about this. The number of large ladies wearing lycra around town also makes me think that this isn't an excuse for all. Well no more than for a bloke

Hair? Maybe. My wife hates to get hair wet blaming expensive hair do's and complicated drying rituals. That is probably mostly women specific but that's self inflicted so is best an excuse. 😀

I think that the biggest obstacle is human lack of confidence in joining a new group when you are not very good at something. Joining any road cycling club for the first time needs complete ignorance or supreme confidence if you are not going to be a tad nervous. I bet you could find the same issues if women discussed clay pigeon shooting, 4wding, football or even fishing. Its not sex specific, its lack of confidence and that's down to the individual. If a group wants female members then they have to do something about it. My clubs newly appointed and enthusiastic womens rep lays on short and slow rides. However what has happened is that new men have come out of the woodwork instead.
If a group doesn't want or need womenor any new members then they will not go out of their way to encourage them and why should they?

20 pages on the CUK forum
https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=16725
it does get up to date on p 20

Are you suggesting that I have high levels of testosterone? :p

I don't know you might have relatively speaking. Testosterone levels vary over a population but men as a group have higher levels of it, which explains a lot more than just the fact that there are more men riding bikes than women.

Obviously testosterone is only variable that influences risk taking behaviour or indeed the perception of risk.

"The friends I've met through cycling are my best friends now. When we do our cycling holidays, we're tired and exhausted; you don't want to see another hill but [u]we all encourage each other[/u] and it really builds your self-esteem."

"I've even had 'keep pedalling, nearly there' - from a male cyclist. They wouldn't have said it to another man, [u]it's so patronising and uncalled for[/u].

WTAF! It seems that it is wonderful when other women do it, but horribly patronising when a man does it.

Oh and I've had people do it to me when I am slowly and sweatily trying to get one over on gravity and it isn't patronising or sexist, unless you are looking for offence and excuses.

Are women, either naturally or programmed, more sensitive to comments? If told my wife (or any female I know) she was fat it would chops and cold shoulder for dinner. If I told my mates the same it would just get the same in return.

Here in Germany I never get comments shouted from cars or pedestrians, my girlfriend get some but only maybe a few a year. In England I probably got a similar level to what my girlfriend gets in Germany, but if cycling alone in the UK my girlfriend gets a worrying amount of sexual comments directed at her, enough for her not to cycle alone anymore, she can handle the comments but is afraid of what the next step might be for these creeps.

We get roughly the same amount of close passes, bad driving etc

Is it OK to say that I cringe when I read rubbish like that? Sometimes women just need to WTFU and ignore stupid words shouted by stupid males.

THIS

I do not fall into the delicate snowflake desciption of women cyclists in this article. I have had my fair share of abuse, but I doubt it's any more or less than any other cyclist who dares to take up space on the road.

mattsccm- why on earth would a club not want any women?

A lot of these type of articles seem to take the view that women need to be cosseted and cajoled into riding and the equipment should be pink/purple with the odd flower motif here and there to appease their sensibilities and they should be shown the ways of the road in a nice all female non threatening environment.
I find this depresssing for a couple,of reasons, mainly because women are not all the same, some may want to be wrapped up in cotton wool and treated like a weaker sex but an awful lot just want to crack on a ride their bikes with whoever isn't a arsehole without being patronised and fussed over.
And because these kind of rides shouldn't actually exist, the fact they do suggests there is an attitude problem towards women and to a lesser extent towards men, what's wrong with just going for a ride with your mates and not being a dick (whatever the sex)?

Don't scratch a match on the seat of your bloomers

😆

Don't appear to be up on "records" and "record smashing." That is sporty

Stravaaaaaaa!!!

I find this depresssing for a couple,of reasons, mainly because women are not all the same, some may want to be wrapped up in cotton wool and treated like a weaker sex

Indeed. Perhaps instead of talking about 'women cyclists' we should simply be talking about 'novices' or 'less confident cyclists'. Who could be male or female. And the hardcore can also be male or female.

They rest is common to male and female.

That said however, many women are in a different position to many men whilst out on the roads or indeed any other unprotected situation. The men saying 'oh it's the same for men' are talking from a position of male privilege. If you don't know what that is, then that's because you have it.

And the hardcore can also be male or female.

Well, I was lucky enough to have a starting line pass for a stage of the Tour Down Under this year. By far and away the most "hardcore" pro / ex-pro I met there was Anna Meares

The men saying 'oh it's the same for men' are talking from a position of male privilege.

I think that's highly context dependent. My fate when an idiot opens their door on me is not dependent upon whether I have a cock, boobs, neither or both.

I know a bunch of fatties who don't ride and slim fit girls who do, they're asking for the sexy comments.

They appear to have asked women who do cycle why women who don't, don't. Might as well have asked a man!

In terms of commuting/transport I'd hazard a guess that there is a "family pressures" factor. The reality is if you look at the school gates or nursery collections/drop offs there are still many more women there than men. If you go to the weekend clubs for kids, birthday parties etc. you'll find a female bias doing the logistics there too. These things come with strict deadlines and busy lives - that might not fit with commuting by bike. Transporting kids by bike is feasible but is more faff, more risk perception, and harder work. Whilst technically possible with multiple kids - only the hardest core cyclist would do that on a regular basis.

In terms of 'sport/leisure' cycling there are similar issues. You need to fit it in around a busy life.

Are women, either naturally or programmed, more sensitive to comments?

Massive can of worms there. You're descrbing what has been traditionally called trait neuroticism and some studies and resports suggest that women are more likely to score higher on neuroticism, when meausred using established personality profiles, than men.

This NOT to say that women are 'neurotic'; that is categorically not what is being suggsted; neuroticism can be defined a number of ways but one of them is the tendency to see threat or hostility where non exists (relevant to this debate). It's also variously described as a predliction for anxiety, stress, mood swings, jealousy etc.

I was listening to an episode of 'The Infinite Monkey Cage' where they were talking about perception (episode is 'Through the Windows of Perception' if you're interested) and one of the situaitons explained was the evolutionary mechanism that links your sense of power or status to your liklihood of perceiving risk.

If an individual finds themselves in a low power situation, it makes them far more likely to see threats where non exist. This is simply an evolutionary survival mechanism, since seeing a threat that's not really there is a far less bad outcome than not seeing a threat that really is there. This apparently has been shown to hold for any number of situations, including social status.

If women feel they are in a low power situation when riding a bike, then that's almost certainly going to make them perceive risk and take umbrage more readily than if men feel more empowered.

If this is true, then the conclusion has to be 'how do we make women feel more empowered to ride bikes', to which the answer has to be 'get everyone using the roads to do so more safely and with more courtesy'.

The benefit of this conclusion is that everyone is safer as a result and not just the cyclists.

On the rare occasions when I pass other cyclists on climbs, I do think about pausing for a chat, or making an encouraging comment as I pass. And thinking about it, I to take the gender of the person I am passing into account in deciding what approach to take.

Is it OK to say that I cringe when I read rubbish like that? Sometimes women just need to WTFU

+1. Just HTFU and get on with it, and give some shit back if you have to. I'm a chippy cow at the best of times though 😆

Some weird comments on here. So an article looking for why there are so few women cycling, looks into the reasons and comes up with abuse and danger - people say "Well those apply to men!" what? How is that even relevant?

then the conclusion has to be 'how do we make women feel more empowered to ride bikes', to which the answer has to be 'get everyone using the roads to do so more safely and with more courtesy'.

Completely true and utterly impossible.

[b]poly[/b]

I agree to an extent. Routines, family / time / financial pressures make a difference.

I work at an expensive school. Often fathers drop children off on their way to work. I guess they're likely to be at the top of their professions and not clocking on - off. Flexitime and judged on results.

There are also a good number of mothers who take their children to school and leave their cars parked so that they can head off on a ride after drop off.

Maybe working hours or commuting or salaries are sexist.

My fate when an idiot opens their door on me is not dependent upon whether I have a cock, boobs, neither or both.

I'm not talking about SMIDSY, I'm talking about abusive comments and harassment etc..

My wife maintains it because women are more sensible and risk averse. They take one look at the cycling infrastructure in the UK and say I'm not prepared to put my children or myself in that dangerous position. certainly that is the way she feels and won't cycle on British roads because of the bad design and traffic. Her persepctive is that any method of transport that requires a helmet and hi vis to protect her from the inattention of others is ridiculous.

I on the other hand, whilst not happy about the situation am prepared to take the risk. Neither of us will let our children cycle on the road where we live.

It's really not that risky though. Plus a lot of people I've spoken to aren't aware that the maze of back streets in many cities that you'd never drive down can actually make a good low traffic route that is very safe indeed.

[i]"Her persepctive is that any method of transport that requires a helmet and hi vis to protect her from the inattention of others is ridiculous"[/i]

Yes, and that neatly sums up the problem with riding in the UK, compared with the Netherlands, for example.

geetee1972 wrote:
Indeed, there is research that shows drivers are more careful around female cyclists. I can't find it but there was some research done a few years ago by a bloke who documented his experiences of close passes while wearing a long haired wig.

Here you go: [url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/5334208.stm ]BBC article[/url]

And especially for all you guys fed up of close passes: [url= https://www.eta.co.uk/2011/04/01/safest-bicycle-helmet-has-built-in-wig/ ]Safety helmet[/url] 😉
(I've just realised why TJ, with his luxuriant flowing locks, doesn't feel the need to wear a helmet 😀 )

Yes it does Esme. My wife is Dutch and has probably cycled more miles than many people in the UK. She grew up cycling 10km each way to school then college and then university. She toured the country by bike. She still works in Holland occasionally and always texts me a photo of her cycling to the office on a rented bike. Bad weather has never phased her and she loves to cycle. We have cycle toured in several European countries and only the UK has this affect on her. In her opinion the drivers here are pychopathic and the lack of infrastructure criminal. All this is despite her being a huge anglophile (well up to the brexit vote anyway).

How is that even relevant?

Because if the experience is the same then it's not the experience that causes low female participation, it's some other variable not accounted for in the article.

[quote=winston ]Her persepctive is that any method of transport that requires a helmet and hi vis to protect her from the inattention of others is ridiculous.

and right here you have the reason promotion of helmets and hi vis for cycling is a negative thing

cranberry - Member

"I've even had 'keep pedalling, nearly there' - from a male cyclist. They wouldn't have said it to another man, it's so patronising and uncalled for.

WTAF! It seems that it is wonderful when other women do it, but horribly patronising when a man does it.

Oh and I've had people do it to me when I am slowly and sweatily trying to get one over on gravity and it isn't patronising or sexist, unless you are looking for offence and excuses.

Those people who did it to you, were they by any chance overwhelmingly - or even exclusively - men?

As is implicit in the comment geetee1972 makes about women potentially being more likely to take umbrage than men, you cannot ignore the fact that an umprompted comment like 'keep pedalling, nearly there' from a stranger may be perceived and received very differently by different people (even if the person making the statement was trying to be encouraging rather than patronising or mocking). It can be difficult enough sometimes for a man to judge the nuance/intent of such 'banter' or encouragement from another man if they are strangers, and frankly I would probably only be confident that it was encouragement if it was made to me by another cyclist.

I cannot ever recall any such exhortation being made to me by a woman (cyclist or otherwise), and I can understand how a woman might take offence if she would never speak similarly to a man in those circumstances (and the fact that most/almost all women do not so, is as significant as many of them taking offence at such comments from men: which sex gets to decide what is and is not appropriate behaviour between the sexes?).

It's absurd to pretend that there is not in some situations a general imbalance between the sexes, and to consider that that would not or should not have an impact on how we treat and react to members of the opposite sex in those situations. In other words, if you are thinking of saying something that could easily be misconstrued or give offence, you either need to know your audience well enough to be confident that they would not take it the wrong way, or you need to be that very rare person: someone who is not only extremely encouraging and positive towards others, but also whose encouragement is unmistakeably genuine and honest even to a complete stranger.

I wonder how I would react if Nicole Cooke rode up alongside me and gave me some advice about improving my position and technique (before riding off and leaving me far behind). Taking it further, how many male racing cyclists have female coaches?

[i]Because if the experience is the same then it's not the experience that causes low female participation, it's some other variable not accounted for in the article.[/i]

What? Because something doesn't effect men, then that means it doesn't effect women and therefore it must be something else? Jeez, I must be thick, because that sounds nonsensical to me.

What? Because something doesn't effect men, then that means it doesn't effect women and therefore it must be something else? Jeez, I must be thick, because that sounds nonsensical to me.

That's not what I sad. What I said was that if the input variable is the same for men and women, but the response to it is different, then it's not the input variable that is the reason for the response, it's something else that's not been taken into consideration.

Nope, don't get that at all. Sounds like you've said the same thing again.
Men and women have different responses. Yeah, and there is [i]no problem[/i] with male participation, so it's the [i]male response[/i] that is irrelevant, not the input variable.

I think this article/blogpost makes a good point: https://waronthemotorist.wordpress.com/2018/01/21/why-doesnt-population-x-cycle/

Because it’s not just x who don’t cycle. Black and minority ethnic populations don’t cycle, but neither do white populations. Women don’t cycle, but neither do men. And the number one reason all of these populations don’t cycle is the same

We're way over at the right of the chart below.

[img] [/img]
80% of people on bikes might be male and so we ask "why don't women ride?", but 95% of men aren't regular bike riders, and 98% of women aren't regular bike riders (all numbers made up for illustration). If we made things completely equal between the sexes, you'd still have 95% of people not riding a bike.

If you look at somewhere like the Netherlands and Copenhagen, the average person on a bike* is more likely to be female than not. Because women are more likely to make the sort of linked, short trips with a small amount of 'luggage' (a toddler in a seat, trailer or bakfiets, a bag or two of shopping, PE kit for the kit just old enough to ride their own bike) that are perfect to do by bike. But in those places, it's safe and easy to make the journey by bike. In the UK it isn't, so we quite understandably choose to get in our cars instead.

As the link above says, it's not about diminishing the problems that women have with harassment, aggression, etc, but we need to not lose sight of the fact that most people aren't riding bikes. Rather than saying "what % of cyclists are women?" we should be saying "what % of people are riding bikes?" and do what we can to get the number higher, and on a similar level between different sexes, races, income levels etc.

*not 'cyclist', it's not a hobby or a sport, just a form of transport

Nope, don't get that at all. Sounds like you've said the same thing again.

OK, I'll try to put it a different way.

The article is arguing that a key reason for the low participation of women in cycling is because they are exposed to sexist attitudes and harassment while out on the bike. The definition of ‘sexist’ is treating one gender differently from another and in this situation what we are seeing is that men are reporting very similar experiences, so while the behaviour being reported is highly negative and toxic, it’s not actually ‘sexist’ (though it is harrassment).

So if men and women are experiencing the same thing, but the reaction of women is different to men, then the explanation is that women experience things differently to men and are, in this instance at least, more likely to find that experience negative. It’s been asked why and the suggestions offered were that innate trait differences across broad populations of men and women cause men and women to experience things differently.

None of this means we shouldn’t take note of the problem and seek to address it because by doing so, we ALL benefit. But I think we can rule out the grand tyrannical patriarchy argument because the evidence just doesn’t support it (and it is getting really quite boring.)

[responding to bails post] OK, fair enough - so the article about : "About 50% fewer women than men cycle twice a week or more...and when it comes to cycling on the roads, the number drops again." is pointless.

Not worth even thinking about. (not sarcasm. Moving on!)

Because if the experience is the same then it's not the experience that causes low female participation, it's some other variable not accounted for in the article.

This is very close to victim blaming. Arguing that men experience the same/are exposed to the same risks, and that because they respond generally as a group in a particular way that is different to how many women respond, does not mean that the women's response is inappropriate (or that the men's response reflects a better/healthier attitude to risk, because they ignore the risk or are more willing to put up with it).

What? Because something doesn't effect men, then that means it doesn't effect women and therefore it must be something else? Jeez, I must be thick, because that sounds nonsensical to me.

No, I don't think you're thick. But deliberately or not you are not understanding what was posted.

Most of the factors that put many women off cycling also put many men off, right down to inappropriate comments on appearance. Most of the danger of riding a bike on the road is totally indiscriminate, and there is plenty anecdotal evidence analogous to the helmet debate that suggests that men in lycra are actually more likely to have close shaves due to the misguided perception that their appearance indicates they're experienced and therefore a close pass is less likely an issue.

I do accept that there may be many reasons why women may not feel comfortable riding alone that would be similar to why they do not feel safe running or walking alone either. But just as the first point is not a gender thing, this last point is sadly not just a cycling thing.

Perversely, the abuse that males get for being cyclists (that they would not normally receive when not on the bike) is probably an uncomfortable insight for most of us into some of the abuse women get in all walks of life on a daily basis.

OK, fair enough - so the article about : "About 50% fewer women than men cycle twice a week or more...and when it comes to cycling on the roads, the number drops again." is pointless.

Well it's not pointless if what it does is force us to ask the question 'why are't more people cycling'. And if in seeing such a big gap in female participation we then conclude it's becuase the negative experience of being on the road affects them much more than men, then that's a good thing to realise.

I've ridden bikes my whole life, more at some points than others but always I've felt vulnerable, harrassed and at risk. That negative experience hasn't always put me off, but it does to some extent now.

So no not pointless, actually quite important.

does not mean that the women's response is inappropriate

No it doesn't I quite agree and I clearly didn't say that. The response is what the response is.

What is innapropriate is classifying the problem wrongly because of it.