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

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 [b]in this situation what we are seeing is that men are reporting very similar experiences[/b], so while the behaviour being reported is highly negative and toxic, it’s not actually ‘sexist’ (though it is harrassment).

Do you receive as much in the way of unsolicited comments while riding from women as from men? Or does your definition of 'very similar experiences' equal men and women both being treated the same [i]by other men[/i].

But you're turning into a "why don't people cycle" when that's not what it is!
It's why don't more [i]women[/i] cycle. Specifically.
Why don't more people cycle is a different question, a different article. But clearly not a different STW thread!

Do you receive as much in the way of unsolicited comments while riding from women as from men?

Yes though obviously they were different in their nature. The comments I got from the women in my office were awful and yes they were sexual in nature, for example the image of Polish cycling team i used to receive in email.

It's why don't more women cycle. Specifically.

It is and think the answer being offered is 'the same reasons as why more men don't cycle it's just that it affects women more'.

It does read as if the article is written along the lines of:

“women don’t cycle because of sexism” but with (oh, and road safety might be a bit of a problem too) almost mentioned as an aside.

All the data I’ve seen suggests that the biggest barrier to cycling (for all groups) is road safety (or perhaps more accurately perceived risk)

I suspect that the point above about women being more risk averse is a good one (and common across other areas). British social attitudes survey tells us that:

[i]In 2016, 59% of adults aged 18+ in England agreed that “it is too dangerous for me to cycle on the roads”. Women were more likely than men to agree (68% to 50%) and people were more likely to agree if they were older. Cyclists are far less likely to believe that cycling was too dangerous for them than non-cyclists (39% to 68%).[/i]

Interestingly, national travel survey tells us that:

[i]In England 2016, 65% of cyclists usually cycled either mainly on the road (35%) or mainly alongside the road side (30%) (on pavements, cycle path or cycle lanes that were not part of a road).
[b]The proportion of cyclists usually cycling off the road in parks, open country or private land has increased over the last ten years, from 19% in 2006 to 24% in 2016.[/b][/i]

Which is interesting on an MTB Access front, I’ll have to see if this breaks down with a significant change in women’s cycling

It is and think the answer being offered is 'the same reasons as why more men don't cycle it's just that it affects women more'.

This

+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

Go kayla. 😀

geetee

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.

You buried it well, but this harks back to your never ending boys are better than girls argument.

As pointed out above, it smacks of victim blaming.

Do you receive as much in the way of unsolicited comments while riding from women as from men?

Yes though obviously they were different in their nature. The comments I got from the women in my office were awful and yes they were sexual in nature, for example the image of Polish cycling team i used to receive in email.

Being on the receiving end of that sort of behaviour from those women in your office sounds very unpleasant. However, I think that it is potentially much worse for women cyclists on the receiving end of unsolicited and unwanted comments from complete strangers while out riding, given that they are likely to be alone at times during the ride and consequently be and feel more vulnerable to any actual or perceived potential physical threat (most leisure cyclists prefer to ride in the countryside, rather than in conurbations), and given that there is an asymmetry in the potential worst case scenario of any sexually abusive behaviour between men and women, i.e. the fear for women is of being raped - a fear which would never occur to a male cyclist. Even though rape may be a very rare crime, the fear of it can significantly influence women's behaviour, e.g. in the same way many women would not go out alone late at night.

You buried it well, but this harks back to your never ending boys are better than girls argument.

I've never said that. I've always said that there are small but important differences in personality traitrs between all men and all women and that this is perhaps a more correct explanation for why you see the differences in life experiences and outcomes rather than because of some global tyrannical capitalist patriarchy.

I have denied the reality of there even being such a thing as patriarchy and fully acknowledg that this is deeply unpopular thing to say. But I do not deny that the experiences of men and women are very different, by and large, and that we should wherevever possible try very hard to create equality of opportunity.

Even though rape may be a very rare crime, the fear of it can significantly influence women's behaviour

I completely agree. It's interseting though isn't it that men are far more likely to be the victims of violence but far less likely to fear it. We're back to the perception of risk and the negative traits of low agreeableness/high neuroticism debate.

I've always said that there are small but important differences in personality traitrs between all men and all women

On average, maybe, but definitely not ALL men and ALL women.

We're back to the perception of risk and the negative traits of low agreeableness/high neuroticism debate.

No, that is your own narrow perception of the issues from your own limited perspective and life experience. The experiences of women and men can be very different both in terms of what happens to them, e.g. women can be raped by men but men cannot be raped by women, and also in terms of the effect on them of those experiences.

To attempt to to reduce all these issues to a discussion of perception of risk and personality traits such as low agreeableness/high neuroticism, is facile, trivialises the issues, and distracts/deflects attention from what matters and what could/should be done about the issues.

geetee

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.

You buried it well, but this harks back to your never ending boys are better than girls argument.

no it doesn't, perhaps you should re-read it.

[b]tjagain[/b] - Member

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

we should wherever possible try very hard to create equality of opportunity.

Which people often forget is quite different to equality of outcome.

and distracts/deflects attention from what matters and what could/should be done about the issues.

Like the global patriarchy I suppose.

Much as expected this thread has descended into bickering from those who try to disguise their misogyny with piffle.

geetee1972 - Member

But I do not deny that the experiences of men and women are very different, by and large, and that we should wherevever possible try very hard to create equality of opportunity.

sbob - Member

Which people often forget is quite different to equality of outcome.

Indeed, and by definition if there is a substantially different outcome between two distinct groups, such as men and women, then that is a very clear indicator that there was not equality of opportunity in the first place.

by definition if there is a substantially different outcome between two distinct groups, such as men and women, then that is a very clear indicator that there was not equality of opportunity in the first place.

Really?

So why do so few men ride horses?

well couldn't be arsed to read all the post on here, or the complete article.
However that is an amazing link to a great video on the link provided at the start of the article.

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-42750584/why-italians-are-saying-no-to-takeaway-coffee

Now that is amazing more important than to why people do or don't cycle: COFFEE!!!!

P.S. BTW hello everybody

I’m conducting my own survey amongst my friends, results to follow in a bit

Indeed, and by definition if there is a substantially different outcome between two distinct groups, such as men and women, then that is a very clear indicator that there was not equality of opportunity in the first place.

And how do you account for the differences in choices men and women make in the Scandanavian countries, which are famous for their strong stance on equality.

Much as expected this thread has descended into bickering from those who try to disguise their misogyny with piffle.

Sorry where has there been any evidence of misogyny?

I too shall conduct a survey at work tomorrow, it shall be titled "Fancy a ride?"

tjagain - Member
Much as expected this thread has descended into bickering from those who try to disguise their misogyny with piffle.

properly controlled for age, race, class I hope vicky? 😉

Sorry where has there been any evidence of misogyny?

all of your posts on any related topic geetee.

Throw up a definition of misogyny TJ. I'm struggling to see any in this thread. I actually think you've developed a Pavlovian response to GeeTees posts.

My wife won’t go into the woods in daylight on her own, and wouldn’t let my daughter either. “It’s not safe” apparently.

I have a theory that female perception of risk is handed down through the generations.

Ok, I’ve had some thoughts from 11 of my non-cycling female friends/relations. Ages range from 20 to 50ish. Some have more than 1 reason:
3=Saddle uncomfortable
5=Don’t trust idiot motorists
5=It’s hard work/hate hills
3=can’t handle bike confidently
1=prefer driving
2=don’t enjoy it
1=put off by partner!

I guess I should now ask my non-cycling male friends (i don’t have many non-cycling male friends though!)

So why do so few men ride horses?

Possibly because of a lack of equality of opportunity. Social and cultural expectations and the nature of organised horse riding may be much more encouraging and supportive of girls taking up horse riding, which results in higher number of adult female riders. I think you would be able to find other cultures and/or types of horse riding where the gender balance is different, e.g. horse riding in the Irish traveller/gypsy community and in central Asia.

Moreover, the much higher participation by girls and women in horse riding may itself be related to a lack of equality of opportunity for them to take up and participate in activities with higher levels of male participation, such as cycling, i.e. displacement.

I'm not denying the possibility that girls/women simply like horses/horse riding more than boys and men, and that that gender difference leads to more women riding horses, but we should be wary of assuming that that is the sole reason for the levels of disparity.

Similarly with cycling, we should be wary of assuming that women and girls have as much opportunity to take up the sport and participate as men and boys, and that if they do not do so then that is down to a choice or failing of women. If significantly less women ride bikes than men, and there is reason to believe the numbers would be much more equal if women did not have such concern about sexual harrassment (whether actual, the fear of it, or misinterpreting comments made by men) and/or are more risk averse when it comes to road safety and cycling, then we need to give those issues serious attention.

I think the issue of different levels of risk aversion between men and women is especially interesting and important for the numbers of people who ride bikes in the UK. Those of us who already ride bikes regularly, whether for leisure, sport or utility/commuting, are a relatively small stakeholder group with very little influence with political decision makers. We have made a decision to continue riding despite the risks, and can easily be ignored by politicians. Ironically, I think politicians might pay much more attention to the potential numbers who don't ride but say they would if they felt the roads were safer. If there is a significant disparity between the sexes, then that may encourage politicians to give the issue even more attention/effort/money.

I think labels like 'patriarchy' are unhelpful and counter productive: witness geetee's sneery dismissive use of the word. I think it's more useful to discuss specifics. In this case, the seemingly different levels of risk aversion between men and women, and its possible influence on the number of female vs male cyclists, raises the question of which sex is 'correct', or rather how those differing levels of risk aversion should influence road safety policy. Our current levels of road safety are very much of the legacy of political decision makers and also car drivers who have been disproportionately men. It would be no bad thing for all of us as cyclists (men and women), if women's greater risk aversion started to have increasing influence on road safety policy and standards, and reduce the impact of that male dominated legacy.

I shave my legs. Women are generally mean about that "oh but you cycle so it's ok!" #WTF!. I'd like equality please...(men are ****s about it too, but I'm ignoring that)

Scotroutes. Perhaps over the top and I usually ignore geetees posts but his posts seem to have a streak of misogyny in them seeing women as inferior and a very patronising tone.

Misogyny meaning hatred of women in its dictionary definition which strictly Geetee isn't.

this for example

I have denied the reality of there even being such a thing as patriarchy and fully acknowledge that this is deeply unpopular thing to say.

and this

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

Denying that there are aspects of society that disadvantage women. sexist in my book. so strictly misoceny by its dictionary definition is not right but sexist certainly is true.

I would have thought that overall, the opportunity to ride a bike would be far greater than the opportunity to ride a horse in this country.

So is there a consensus on whether there is a relationship between testosterone levels and risk taking?

TJ - different =/= better or worse

Scotroutes Geetee denies that male privilege exists despite all the evidence it does. Thats the sexist bit and then attempts to "prove" his point using all sorts of spurious arguments. I know you and I don't see eye to eye over this - I find it odd because you are not a sexist yourself but sometimes you don't seem able to see it in others even when its blatant as it is here. He denies that social influences disadvantage women.

different =/= better or worse

Scotroutes, I think the issues may be much more subtle and insidious than a statement like that is capable of reflecting. Geetee makes some fairly sneery dismissive comments about the global patriarchy, and it's very easy to see that word as conjuring up groups of imaginary pantomime villains plotting in secret to keep women down in the manner of the plot of a Dan Brown novel.

As I said above, I think labels are unhelpful. Rather than talk about patriarchy and misogyny, I think it's more useful to consider that the society that we live in today is the result of centuries where men had greater power and wealth than women, and that has had a legacy which still impacts every one of us today. It was and is not even necessary for men in positions of power now and formerly to act to maintain that power conciously at the expense of women (or to desire to do so): rather simply by virtue of men having or having had disproportionate influence compared with women, their collective actions and decisions will tend to be a negative 'invisible hand' favouring the interests of the social groups to which they belong (e.g. male, white, upper middle class etc.) and resisting equality.

Put differently, I think it's extremely difficult for any of us to fully appreciate how different the lives of others in other social groups can be, let alone altering our behaviour to take account of those differences. Instead we tend to prefer our own kind (or as Margaret Thatcher said of someone, 'Is he one of us?')

Eloquently put slowster

slowster - Member

Indeed, and by definition if there is a substantially different outcome between two distinct groups, such as men and women, then that is a very clear indicator that there was not equality of opportunity in the first place.

Only if the two groups behave the same, which they don't. They are distinct, different, by definition. You have concluded too quickly, and without consideration to other, quite obvious, possibilities.

Generally speaking, men and women are different, behave in different ways and display different qualities. Science has observed this.

I am in no way denying the existence of inequality of opportunity, but you clearly don't understand how different the sexes are, and how relatively small differences in behaviour can result in very large observable differences of outcome.

"I am in no way denying the existence of inequality of opportunity"

Are you saying that we don't have equality of opportunity?

Isn’t the main issue that women seem to be more concerned about road safety because of the way some people drive their cars? In my experience some of those bad drivers are women.
How does that translate into male privilege being the reason that women don’t ride as much as they might? I don’t think anyone has taken much notice of what the 3 female cyclists have had to say in this thread. I’ve now collected opinions from 14 female friends and none of them have said it was because of their appearance or sexual harassment.
The point made earlier- that the percentage of people who cycle regularly is so small that analysing why women don’t, is not that meaningful.

I can’t see that women have better access to horse riding. That’s just for the well-off who also live conveniently close to a stables, or the very well-off who own a horse.

I can’t see that women have better access to horse riding. That’s just for the well-off who also live conveniently close to a stables, or the very well-off who own a horse.

I don’t think anyone has taken much notice of what the 3 female cyclists have had to say in this thread. I’ve now collected opinions from 14 female friends and none of them have said it was because of their appearance or sexual harassment.

The reasons my wife won't cycle
- Roads too dangerous
- Doesn't actually enjoy cycling

I agree with the first one but because I really enjoy cycling I cycle anyway. However, her reasons are not remotely to do with sexual harassment or appearance.

Vickypea. I did not mean male privileged means women don't cycle as much. What I commented on was Geetees continual insistence that male privilege does not exist

My reference to male privilege was in response to the men who think that men and women receiving the same abuse means that things are the same for both sexes.

Vickypea. I did not mean male privileged means women don't cycle as much. What I commented on was Geetees continual insistence that male privilege does not exist

Maybe start a different thread about that then, eh?

makecoldplayhistory - Member

Are you saying that we don't have equality of opportunity?

No, I haven't said either way. 🙂

IIRC, TJ works as a nurse which is a career massively dominated by women (good call TJ).
Perhaps he can give examples of the lower levels of opportunity afforded to him because he is a bloke?

That is steering away from the more specific discussion of women on bikes though.
Must admit, all of my partners have cycled. Maybe it's you lot putting them off? 😆

IIRC, TJ works as a nurse which is a career massively dominated by women (good call TJ).
Perhaps he can give examples of the lower levels of opportunity afforded to him because he is a bloke?

The main issue is you are always noticed and have to always prove yourself. If you don't prove yourself to be good all the time you are considered lazy / bad. You cannot hide at the back in mediocrity. Every mistake you make is noticed more. I have also been held to higher standards than female colleagues. Its not a huge disadvantage but it is noticeable.

I have also been on the wrong end of sexual harassment.

I have also had assumptions made ie I am only going to be interested in promotion not being on the shop floor and I have been patronised by female bosses. Even simple stuff like the uniforms are unisex but designed for women so it doesn't fit me well especially the trousers which are hideous

Its certainly interesting and educational being a minority although its a much larger minority than when I started out. I think its part of the reason why I find some mens attitudes distasteful as I have been on the receiving end of reverse sexism a small amount thus am sensitive to it. Its not comparable to a womans experience in a male dominated profession but its enough to give me an inkling.

slowster - Member

e.g. women can be raped by men but men cannot be raped by women

that sounds like BS, and it is :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_males

[b]TurnerGuy[/b]

In the UK, rape must be by a penis. Therefore women can't rape. Men can be victims but women can't commit the crime.

No idea what this has to do with riding bikes though ...

Turnerguy - do you like Geetee deny male privilege exists?

yes other factors come into play but in many areas women are disadvantaged. See the posts on here about how women are treated in bike shops and car showrooms for one obvious example or how women are judged on their appearance in the way men are not or how a man with multiple sexual partners is judged a stud but a women a slut.

Ring, ring, drool, drool.

[quote=TurnerGuy ]that sounds like BS, and it is :

Wooh, yeah, let's take a quote completely out of context in order to try and score points.

[quote=tjagain ]how a man with multiple sexual partners is judged a stud but a women a slut.

I note that I'm not denying double standards exist, and I certainly don't deny that there is inherent sexism in society, but that is a rubbish example because it relies on a real difference between the sexes. It's way, way harder to be a stud than to be a slut.

This topic has just come up on my company cycle chat.
I might post some of the stuff off here. They will think I'm absolutely MENTAL.

Just straight in there with "Rape must be by a penis". Yeah.

Turnerguy - do you like Geetee deny male privilege exists?

not every geetee post repeats this premise, but you just keep going on about it like a dog with a bone.

In the UK, rape must be by a penis.

my mistake, I was thinking of rape in terms of the mental impact on someone as it seems to me the mental assault aspect of it the biggest issue.

ust straight in there with "Rape must be by a penis". Yeah.

an consomethingion of a marriage needs at least an inch of penetration (or did when I read the book written by the dad of the guy that started Richer Sounds.)

sbob - Member

Indeed, and by definition if there is a substantially different outcome between two distinct groups, such as men and women, then that is a very clear indicator that there was not equality of opportunity in the first place.

Only if the two groups behave the same, which they don't. They are distinct, different, by definition. You have concluded too quickly, and without consideration to other, quite obvious, possibilities.

Generally speaking, men and women are different, behave in different ways and display different qualities. Science has observed this.

I am in no way denying the existence of inequality of opportunity, but you clearly don't understand how different the sexes are, and how relatively small differences in behaviour can result in very large observable differences of outcome.

I deliberately used the phrase 'very clear indicator' rather than 'proof' (and ironically you have accused me of concluding "too quickly, and without consideration to other, quite obvious, possibilities.").

When there is a significant statistical difference between such groups, it may be wrong to jump to the conclusion that the difference is simply down to something like innate differences in behaviour and the general different qualities the groups typically exhibit. I've read often that some of the behavioural differences [i]within[/i] a group of men (or women), can be much greater than the average difference [i]between[/i] men and wonmen.

So the fact that far fewer women cycle than men, might be down to the fact that fewer women than men like cycling as an activity, but it is important sometimes to go beyond that and consider [i]why[/i] they don't like it, which might be due to factors other than a pair of XX chromosomes. For example:

1. Cycling has been a predominantly male activity, which has resulted in numerous aspects of the activity being biased towards men, e.g. predominantly male clubs, bikes and components predominantly designed to fit men, far more money and opportunity for men to earn a living racing bikes etc. All these things are self-reinforcing, and while the situation now is far better than it was, the last 50 years has had a huge legacy effect.

2. Maybe girls are less likely than than boys to be given a bike and taught to ride when young? If that were so, it might have a huge impact on the pool size of potential adult women cyclists.

Are you doubting the definition of rape Dez?

I deliberately used the phrase 'very clear indicator'

Which you shouldn't have done if you only meant "possibly suggests".
🙂

Are you only reading a bit of my post makecoldplay?

The other sentence didn't make sense without me clarifying what you meant.

The company will think you're mental if ...

If rape must involve a penis.

If the definition of rape is outdated.

If a thread about women on bikes has moved on to rape stats and accusations of misogyny, the patriarchy and other [off] topics.

Getting back on topic, if - as per vickypea's sample and kerley's wife - the key reason for fewer women cycling is concern about the safety of the roads, that raises some interesting questions:

It might just reflect different levels of risk perception and aversion between men and women, but I suspect possibly not. I think that those of us who are already cyclists (men and women) are inured to the risks of the roads we ride on locally, and those risks are just as much a barrier to taking up the activity for men as women.

Arguably, it's not important whether non-cyclists or women have a different perception of the risk, or whose perception is most valid. What matters is the fact that the difference between the numbers of men and women cycling could be used as leverage by the cycling lobby when campaigning for improved road safety.

In other words, if a study showed that the numbers of male cyclists would increase from, say, 5% to 8% if road safety were improved, it's still small percentages for a minority activity, and unlikely to gain much political traction. In contrast if a study that showed that there is disproportionately low participation by women which could be corrected by improved road safety, then that might have much more political traction (instead of being about general participation in a very minority activity which has powerful interests ranged against it [roads lobby, many drivers etc.], it's become a question of sex equality and discrimination).

The other sentence didn't make sense without me clarifying what you meant.

Oh, it did. Really.

*Draws attention to article on [url= http://singletrackmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/beyond-fear-and-feelings-an-evidence-based-look-at-why-women-arent-cycling/ ]the front page[/url]*

Runs away.

In the UK, rape must be by a penis. Therefore women can't rape. Men can be victims but women can't commit the crime.

Thanks for that [b]stwhannah[/b]. What are your thoughts? 🙂

In contrast if a study that showed that there is disproportionately low participation by women which could be corrected by improved road safety,

That would be something we all benefit by but the problem is that you wouldn't equalise the numbers in this way because you don't address the underlying difference which is that men and women evaluate risk differently (because of relative testosterone levels). Unfortunately, the difference in risk perception will still exist and that, in theory would still play out in the difference in participation levels.

However, if by using the gender argument we can make the roads safer, if that is what it takes to persuade people to change, the persuade governments to take the issue more seriously, then we should crack on.

you don't address the underlying difference which is that men and women evaluate risk differently (because of relative testosterone levels). Unfortunately, the difference in risk perception will still exist and that, in theory would still play out in the difference in participation levels.

Read the article and the linked article by Alix Stredwick. Women experience higher numbers of close passes, which has nothing to do with their testosterone levels, but is apparently because they are likely to be riding more slowly than men. That in turn is because a lot of their riding is slower utility cycling, e.g. taking the kids to school and picking up some shopping on the way to/from work etc. ('trip-chaining' as the article calls it). As the linked article notes, cycling levels by men and women are pretty much equal in Germany, Holland and Denmark (55% women in Holland) thanks to their better and safer cycling infrastructure.

The implication that more of those faster men will probably be leisure/sport cyclists on lightweight bikes in lycra/race kit, unlike women utility cyclists, is not really covered in the articles in depth, but I think a lot of people who take up cycling as a leisure/sport activity are likely to have used a bike for utility riding or commuting. So increasing the numbers of women utility cyclists may result in increases in other types of cycling by women.

On a side note, many years ago I was collared by my boss to go with him to a bike shop and help him choose a mountain bike. While there he also bought a mountain bike for his wife so that they could ride together. His bike was twice the price of hers and correspondingly lighter/nicer to ride. He also bought a child seat, which of course he told the shop to fit to her bike. I am sure that the fact that she did not ride it much was because of her low testosterone levels and the impact they had on her risk aversion, and had nothing to do with its weight.

The framebuilder Tony Oliver summed it up well in his book Touring Bikes:

Many couples find their speed and abilities different...It puzzles me that in many cases he has a super all-singing frameset with components to match, while she has cast-offs, cheaper tubing and a rotten design. No wonder riding capabilities appear different. Gents, if your companion is of a weaker disposition, then she needs all the help she can get - you ride the junk and get her on to 753.

Read the article and the linked article by Alix Stredwick. Women experience higher numbers of close passes,

Not quite what the article and linked report say. Women reported more close passes but we have no way of knowing if they were physically closer than passes on men or it's just that men have a greater tolerance and so report less. That could be related to testosterone levels. AFAIK there has only been that one tiny, flawed study involving the guy wearing a wig that close to understanding what's happening in practice.

Hmmm, yes. The linked article possibly overstated the findings, e.g. the use of the word proven below in relation to bad driving.

The experience of female cyclists facing disproportionate harassment and bad driving was proven in Aldred’s Near Miss Project. That women were almost twice as likely as men to be subjected to frightening ‘near miss’ incidents seemed mainly linked to the lower average speed reported by female respondents, compared with the men who took part.

As you note, the reports are inherently subjective, and having very quickly skim read [url= http://www.nearmiss.bike/academic-papers/ ]the papers[/url], one of them does state

More research could usefully...attempt more systematically to triangulate ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ data and thus establish, for example, whether women experience more close passes than men per mile, or whether women and men have different definitions of what constitutes a ‘close pass’

although if the experiences of close passes was heavily related to the type of cycling, and women only experience more because they undertake more rides of the type more prone to close passes, I would have thought that it would be possible to use the results from men undertaking similar types of rides as a control (maybe they did, as I say I have only very quickly skim read the papers).

I imagine that more and better data will become available as cameras are used for such studies, but I can't help thinking that the greater cycling participation by women in Germany, Holland and Denmark is compelling evidence of the impact of better and safer infrastructure. Rather than using cameras and lasers to measure the actual proximity of a close pass and see whether the same proximity results in different levels of fear in men and women, we need the political will/popular support/money to start building better infrastructure for cycling.