Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Bicycling Gender gap?
Replies
-
Thanks for pointing this out. I see both sides of the argument. From a marketing perspective, you’d think cycling advocates would focus on the people who are into a thing and why they like it. Calling out to similar people taps into a strong potential market. It’s inherently weird to me to market the reverse. I hate celery, no amount of focus on me from the celery boards is going to get me to eat celery. But, as @AnnPT77 pointed out, it’s hard to know about things you are not exposed to. I did family rides on the bike path growing up, and felt ambivalent about biking. Sure, I admired those crazy fast road riders, but I was the fat artist. I didn’t know any athletes and it never occurred to me that I would be a candidate for ever riding more than 10 miles. I happened to randomly have a cycling housemate in college. I got to see him finish a ride, and it took that for me to realize it was OK and normal to get tired and sweaty after working out (you don’t learn these things only seeing athletes from a distance). He said it’s normal to start short and go a little longer each day. I had no clue, so I tried it on my own. In a few weeks I rode 50 miles. I fell in love with the road and it completely changed my life. I wince to think how close I came to never discovering my life’s passion.I don't think the gender gap is inherently a bad thing. It can be caused by risk preferences, physical anatomy, or helmet head. The more important question is "are women wanting to bike and unable to do so."
I saw an article that argued that point, probably based on the same research. It makes sense- I was squashed between a transit bus and a construction barricade last year. I usually take the full lane at construction zones, but wasn’t focused that ONE time and the bus apparently didn’t see me. I’m still thankful I didn’t die, but I had bruises, soreness, and rashes for several weeks. I will NEVER forget not to take the full lane again. I tend to take the full lane when there is no bike land AND I can keep up with traffic speeds OR where I fear a vehicle might turn right and not see me. Other than that, I try to be as polite as possible. Unlike @knotgood77 I try really hard to be courteous. I can see my defensive style (I take ‘act like a car’ to heart, don’t run the white lines, red lights, etc.) is unusual and may cause more of a hazard (especially downtown, where cars expect me to be erratic). That’s probably my woman-ness coming there.MeanderingMammal wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »It looks like the responses here mostly match the articles linked- safety/fear is the primary factor keeping women off bikes. The gender gap closes in countries that have infrastructure keeping bikes and cars separate. Fear of attack/assault is a concern, but (in general) not so much as fear of vehicles, or else we'd probably see more of a gender gap in walking/running too (we don't) and less gap correlated with infrastructure. It makes sense to me that women (in general) would have stronger safety concerns than men for myriad reasons. This leads me to wonder, of the men who don’t ride, is safety also the major factor (and just being a minority in their gender), or do men choose not to ride for some other reason?
The conversation is conflating user of bikes for commuting, with casual use and more serious sports use. From a purely commuting perspective there had been a lot of research in London on adoption, with perception of traffic safety being the biggest issue. Limited facilities at workplaces is an issue, but that seems to be developing.
What has been found is that the majority of fatal and serious accidents are women, with a difference in the nature of the accident being gender biased. Women are more affected by nearside crush, men more often tail-ended. That seems to reflect different ride styles.
A lot of the investment is better cycle infrastructure reduces the risk of crush incidents.
Reporting bias is an issue, the numbers of incidents are fairly low as a proportion of total commute rides.
Whoah! There are so many reasons for women to be more cautious; from preservation of society by our ancestors (less expendable as caregivers and mothers) to physiology to social conditioning…but I never thought cycling could actually BE more dangerous for women. I know for cyclists in the US, the most fatal collision is being hit from behind, but I don’t know of any gender data. What is the nearside crush? What riding styles contribute to which collision?
The sample sizes are reasonably low, but large enough to reach conclusions.
Road position is a significant contributor. The nearside crush is where someone sits in the nearside third of the lane. That makes it more likely that a driver will risk a less safe pass, because they're not being forced to give safe distance. So you end up with closer passes, increasing sideswipes. If that's a larger vehicle then it becomes more likely that the rider gets trapped.
There are several different aspects of Large Goods Vehicles and Public Service Vehicles that help that, with a lot of advocacy for improved driver visibility.
Cyclists should dominate the road space, not cower in the gutter. The former gets you shouted at, the latter gets you injured or worse.1 -
knotgood77 wrote: »I have found with bicycles, and road riding, the more aggressive I am, the better off I am from a safety perspective. I am not an advocate of passive/defensive m/c riding either though.
Don't take this the wrong way, but passive and defensive driving aren't the same thing. And there certainly is an aggressive element of defensive driving when done correctly.1 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »It looks like the responses here mostly match the articles linked- safety/fear is the primary factor keeping women off bikes. The gender gap closes in countries that have infrastructure keeping bikes and cars separate. Fear of attack/assault is a concern, but (in general) not so much as fear of vehicles, or else we'd probably see more of a gender gap in walking/running too (we don't) and less gap correlated with infrastructure. It makes sense to me that women (in general) would have stronger safety concerns than men for myriad reasons. This leads me to wonder, of the men who don’t ride, is safety also the major factor (and just being a minority in their gender), or do men choose not to ride for some other reason?
The conversation is conflating user of bikes for commuting, with casual use and more serious sports use. From a purely commuting perspective there had been a lot of research in London on adoption, with perception of traffic safety being the biggest issue. Limited facilities at workplaces is an issue, but that seems to be developing.
What has been found is that the majority of fatal and serious accidents are women, with a difference in the nature of the accident being gender biased. Women are more affected by nearside crush, men more often tail-ended. That seems to reflect different ride styles.
A lot of the investment is better cycle infrastructure reduces the risk of crush incidents.
Reporting bias is an issue, the numbers of incidents are fairly low as a proportion of total commute rides.
Whoah! There are so many reasons for women to be more cautious; from preservation of society by our ancestors (less expendable as caregivers and mothers) to physiology to social conditioning…but I never thought cycling could actually BE more dangerous for women. I know for cyclists in the US, the most fatal collision is being hit from behind, but I don’t know of any gender data. What is the nearside crush? What riding styles contribute to which collision?
The sample sizes are reasonably low, but large enough to reach conclusions.
Road position is a significant contributor. The nearside crush is where someone sits in the nearside third of the lane. That makes it more likely that a driver will risk a less safe pass, because they're not being forced to give safe distance. So you end up with closer passes, increasing sideswipes. If that's a larger vehicle then it becomes more likely that the rider gets trapped.
There are several different aspects of Large Goods Vehicles and Public Service Vehicles that help that, with a lot of advocacy for improved driver visibility.
Cyclists should dominate the road space, not cower in the gutter. The former gets you shouted at, the latter gets you injured or worse.
But does the former help driver/cyclist relations? Is that being a good cycling advocate?
People need to not be *kitten*. Both drivers and cyclists.
Well the advice on the highway code is to use the middle third of the lane. The advice for drivers is also to give a bike as much space as they'd give a car, hence the road positioning.
It's worth highlighting that a great many drivers haven't read the highway code since passing their tests, and aren't are that it gets reissued. The fiction of "road tax" gets trotted out by the ill informed with monotonous regularity, as do rants about high via, and helmet use.
Fwiw about 18 months ago the Met Traffic Division did some work on education. They took cyclists and stick them in the cab of a rigid LGV and a 74 passenger PSV, and also took commercial drivers and stuck them on bikes. An eye opener for both communities.
Law varies by jurisdiction. Michigan just passed a requirement to give bicyclists a 3-foot margin when passing them in a car, as I understand it. The bike groups lobbied hard for 5 feet, but couldn't get it through. Yes, cyclists have the right to a lane, here, but cars need not give one a car-equivalent passing margin.
1 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »It looks like the responses here mostly match the articles linked- safety/fear is the primary factor keeping women off bikes. The gender gap closes in countries that have infrastructure keeping bikes and cars separate. Fear of attack/assault is a concern, but (in general) not so much as fear of vehicles, or else we'd probably see more of a gender gap in walking/running too (we don't) and less gap correlated with infrastructure. It makes sense to me that women (in general) would have stronger safety concerns than men for myriad reasons. This leads me to wonder, of the men who don’t ride, is safety also the major factor (and just being a minority in their gender), or do men choose not to ride for some other reason?
The conversation is conflating user of bikes for commuting, with casual use and more serious sports use. From a purely commuting perspective there had been a lot of research in London on adoption, with perception of traffic safety being the biggest issue. Limited facilities at workplaces is an issue, but that seems to be developing.
What has been found is that the majority of fatal and serious accidents are women, with a difference in the nature of the accident being gender biased. Women are more affected by nearside crush, men more often tail-ended. That seems to reflect different ride styles.
A lot of the investment is better cycle infrastructure reduces the risk of crush incidents.
Reporting bias is an issue, the numbers of incidents are fairly low as a proportion of total commute rides.
Whoah! There are so many reasons for women to be more cautious; from preservation of society by our ancestors (less expendable as caregivers and mothers) to physiology to social conditioning…but I never thought cycling could actually BE more dangerous for women. I know for cyclists in the US, the most fatal collision is being hit from behind, but I don’t know of any gender data. What is the nearside crush? What riding styles contribute to which collision?
The sample sizes are reasonably low, but large enough to reach conclusions.
Road position is a significant contributor. The nearside crush is where someone sits in the nearside third of the lane. That makes it more likely that a driver will risk a less safe pass, because they're not being forced to give safe distance. So you end up with closer passes, increasing sideswipes. If that's a larger vehicle then it becomes more likely that the rider gets trapped.
There are several different aspects of Large Goods Vehicles and Public Service Vehicles that help that, with a lot of advocacy for improved driver visibility.
Cyclists should dominate the road space, not cower in the gutter. The former gets you shouted at, the latter gets you injured or worse.
But does the former help driver/cyclist relations? Is that being a good cycling advocate?
People need to not be *kitten*. Both drivers and cyclists.
Well the advice on the highway code is to use the middle third of the lane. The advice for drivers is also to give a bike as much space as they'd give a car, hence the road positioning.
It's worth highlighting that a great many drivers haven't read the highway code since passing their tests, and aren't are that it gets reissued. The fiction of "road tax" gets trotted out by the ill informed with monotonous regularity, as do rants about high via, and helmet use.
Fwiw about 18 months ago the Met Traffic Division did some work on education. They took cyclists and stick them in the cab of a rigid LGV and a 74 passenger PSV, and also took commercial drivers and stuck them on bikes. An eye opener for both communities.
Law varies by jurisdiction. Michigan just passed a requirement to give bicyclists a 3-foot margin when passing them in a car, as I understand it. The bike groups lobbied hard for 5 feet, but couldn't get it through. Yes, cyclists have the right to a lane, here, but cars need not give one a car-equivalent passing margin.
3 feet is more than I usually give cars. But I take your point.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »knotgood77 wrote: »I have found with bicycles, and road riding, the more aggressive I am, the better off I am from a safety perspective. I am not an advocate of passive/defensive m/c riding either though.
Don't take this the wrong way, but passive and defensive driving aren't the same thing. And there certainly is an aggressive element of defensive driving when done correctly.
I don't have a lot of cycling experience, but I do cycle sometimes. I think a big risk of riding on roads is that drivers don't see you. I take the whole lane so that they will notice me, but once they see me and slow down, I'll get over to the side and let them pass if it is safe to do so.
2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »knotgood77 wrote: »I have found with bicycles, and road riding, the more aggressive I am, the better off I am from a safety perspective. I am not an advocate of passive/defensive m/c riding either though.
Don't take this the wrong way, but passive and defensive driving aren't the same thing. And there certainly is an aggressive element of defensive driving when done correctly.
I don't have a lot of cycling experience, but I do cycle sometimes. I think a big risk of riding on roads is that drivers don't see you. I take the whole lane so that they will notice me, but once they see me and slow down, I'll get over to the side and let them pass if it is safe to do so.
As an often pedestrian, frequent driver, and less than sometime bicyclist. When driving, If you act like a car, I'll respect you like a car. If you act like a pedestrian. I'll treat you like a pedestrian. take 1/2-3/4 of the lane, and respect the red lights... I'll stay behind you and give you room. Run red lights, weave on/off sidewalks. I'm probably going to be more cautious of you, but also less respectful, if/when I pass you.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Don't take this the wrong way, but passive and defensive driving aren't the same thing. And there certainly is an aggressive element of defensive driving when done correctly.
I guess for clarity maybe it is worth adding in the terms proactive, and reactive. I choose to ride in a way that allows me to not be reactive to forces around me.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »It looks like the responses here mostly match the articles linked- safety/fear is the primary factor keeping women off bikes. The gender gap closes in countries that have infrastructure keeping bikes and cars separate. Fear of attack/assault is a concern, but (in general) not so much as fear of vehicles, or else we'd probably see more of a gender gap in walking/running too (we don't) and less gap correlated with infrastructure. It makes sense to me that women (in general) would have stronger safety concerns than men for myriad reasons. This leads me to wonder, of the men who don’t ride, is safety also the major factor (and just being a minority in their gender), or do men choose not to ride for some other reason?
The conversation is conflating user of bikes for commuting, with casual use and more serious sports use. From a purely commuting perspective there had been a lot of research in London on adoption, with perception of traffic safety being the biggest issue. Limited facilities at workplaces is an issue, but that seems to be developing.
What has been found is that the majority of fatal and serious accidents are women, with a difference in the nature of the accident being gender biased. Women are more affected by nearside crush, men more often tail-ended. That seems to reflect different ride styles.
A lot of the investment is better cycle infrastructure reduces the risk of crush incidents.
Reporting bias is an issue, the numbers of incidents are fairly low as a proportion of total commute rides.
Whoah! There are so many reasons for women to be more cautious; from preservation of society by our ancestors (less expendable as caregivers and mothers) to physiology to social conditioning…but I never thought cycling could actually BE more dangerous for women. I know for cyclists in the US, the most fatal collision is being hit from behind, but I don’t know of any gender data. What is the nearside crush? What riding styles contribute to which collision?
The sample sizes are reasonably low, but large enough to reach conclusions.
Road position is a significant contributor. The nearside crush is where someone sits in the nearside third of the lane. That makes it more likely that a driver will risk a less safe pass, because they're not being forced to give safe distance. So you end up with closer passes, increasing sideswipes. If that's a larger vehicle then it becomes more likely that the rider gets trapped.
There are several different aspects of Large Goods Vehicles and Public Service Vehicles that help that, with a lot of advocacy for improved driver visibility.
Cyclists should dominate the road space, not cower in the gutter. The former gets you shouted at, the latter gets you injured or worse.
But does the former help driver/cyclist relations? Is that being a good cycling advocate?
People need to not be *kitten*. Both drivers and cyclists.
Well the advice on the highway code is to use the middle third of the lane. The advice for drivers is also to give a bike as much space as they'd give a car, hence the road positioning.
It's worth highlighting that a great many drivers haven't read the highway code since passing their tests, and aren't are that it gets reissued. The fiction of "road tax" gets trotted out by the ill informed with monotonous regularity, as do rants about high via, and helmet use.
Fwiw about 18 months ago the Met Traffic Division did some work on education. They took cyclists and stick them in the cab of a rigid LGV and a 74 passenger PSV, and also took commercial drivers and stuck them on bikes. An eye opener for both communities.
Law varies by jurisdiction. Michigan just passed a requirement to give bicyclists a 3-foot margin when passing them in a car, as I understand it. The bike groups lobbied hard for 5 feet, but couldn't get it through. Yes, cyclists have the right to a lane, here, but cars need not give one a car-equivalent passing margin.
Indeed, but given that i was responding to a point about cycling in London I've referred to the law that I'm familiar with and allies in the context of my comments. We don't have a mandated clear distance, although a recent campaign in Scotland used imagery of a policeman standing in the gap between cage and bike.0 -
knotgood77 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Don't take this the wrong way, but passive and defensive driving aren't the same thing. And there certainly is an aggressive element of defensive driving when done correctly.
I guess for clarity maybe it is worth adding in the terms proactive, and reactive. I choose to ride in a way that allows me to not be reactive to forces around me.
That's AKA as defensive driving.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »knotgood77 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Don't take this the wrong way, but passive and defensive driving aren't the same thing. And there certainly is an aggressive element of defensive driving when done correctly.
I guess for clarity maybe it is worth adding in the terms proactive, and reactive. I choose to ride in a way that allows me to not be reactive to forces around me.
That's AKA as defensive driving.
however you like to interpret this I guess
,lol Not many a driver will call my riding style of bike or m/c passive or defensive....but you pick what ever word you like. There are probably a couple that will fit "kitten" into their description somehow.....and that's fine. I come home intact on the regular.
0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »knotgood77 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Don't take this the wrong way, but passive and defensive driving aren't the same thing. And there certainly is an aggressive element of defensive driving when done correctly.
I guess for clarity maybe it is worth adding in the terms proactive, and reactive. I choose to ride in a way that allows me to not be reactive to forces around me.
That's AKA as defensive driving.
I noticed a distinct difference in how protective security driving applies in the US forces compared to UK in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Much of the time I drove my own vehicle, but there were times I was with PSDs from both sides.
I generally found that my own driving, or Brit PSDs, led to marginally quicker and less stressful journeys as a result of owning the space around us more proactively.
0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »knotgood77 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Don't take this the wrong way, but passive and defensive driving aren't the same thing. And there certainly is an aggressive element of defensive driving when done correctly.
I guess for clarity maybe it is worth adding in the terms proactive, and reactive. I choose to ride in a way that allows me to not be reactive to forces around me.
That's AKA as defensive driving.
I noticed a distinct difference in how protective security driving applies in the US forces compared to UK in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Much of the time I drove my own vehicle, but there were times I was with PSDs from both sides.
I generally found that my own driving, or Brit PSDs, led to marginally quicker and less stressful journeys as a result of owning the space around us more proactively.
I'd submit that is in large part due to uneven training or worse incomplete or nonexistent training. I had the chance to run through a 2 week basic tactical driving curriculum, in addition to the standard threat detection and identification coursework, but it was mostly technique based rather than functional. It made me a better driver, but it didn't necessarily improve my driving.
Most people fail to practice basic defensive/proactive techniques like mirror management, blind spot tracking, windshield driving(that's where you're not exclusively watching the bumper of the car in front of you, but also using his windshield to watch for brake lights further out), etc.1 -
Other than that, I try to be as polite as possible. Unlike @knotgood77 I try really hard to be courteous. I can see my defensive style (I take ‘act like a car’ to heart, don’t run the white lines, red lights, etc.) is unusual
I've done work related training in driving and motorcycling, at high speeds. I had traffic police instructors for those, and in my current role I'm involved in training for blue-light response drivers.
One of the key lessons in all of that is to remain courteous, give people fair notice of what you're going to do and respecting their viewpoints. Driving an unmarked car, or bike, at high speed means people don't know you've got the authority to do so, and you can expect some confrontation. Confrontation wastes time, and increases stress levels. Neither of those is useful, and stress at high speeds is dangerous. Courtesy costs nothing, and helps defuse the confrontation.1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »knotgood77 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Don't take this the wrong way, but passive and defensive driving aren't the same thing. And there certainly is an aggressive element of defensive driving when done correctly.
I guess for clarity maybe it is worth adding in the terms proactive, and reactive. I choose to ride in a way that allows me to not be reactive to forces around me.
That's AKA as defensive driving.
I noticed a distinct difference in how protective security driving applies in the US forces compared to UK in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Much of the time I drove my own vehicle, but there were times I was with PSDs from both sides.
I generally found that my own driving, or Brit PSDs, led to marginally quicker and less stressful journeys as a result of owning the space around us more proactively.
I'd submit that is in large part due to uneven training or worse incomplete or nonexistent training. I had the chance to run through a 2 week basic tactical driving curriculum, in addition to the standard threat detection and identification coursework, but it was mostly technique based rather than functional. It made me a better driver, but it didn't necessarily improve my driving.
Most people fail to practice basic defensive/proactive techniques like mirror management, blind spot tracking, windshield driving(that's where you're not exclusively watching the bumper of the car in front of you, but also using his windshield to watch for brake lights further out), etc.
Many of my team in Afghanistan were US mil, and my commentary driving was always a source of amusement. For us, communication inside the vehicle was essential for situational awareness, and the driver leads that. The team were unfamiliar with that, and actually the idea that the boss would drive as well.
By the end of my tour I had most of the team capable of a good commentary, demonstrating that they could see lots of what was coming up.0 -
ladyreva78 wrote: »This week, I had decided to start biking to the train station.
Monday? Great. 30 minutes there. 30 minutes back.
Tuesday? partially great. 30 Minutes there. Bus ride home. Some piece of *kitten* had stolen my bike.
I won't be riding my bike to the train station anymore. I won't be riding any bike since right now I can't afford to replace it.
That's unfortunate. I similarly never leave a bike at the station. When I'm commuting into London I use a Brompton; folding bike. An expensive piece of kit but a very comfortable, and fast, ride.
Of I'm commuting locally I'll use my CX bike, but I'm going into a site with and guarding so risk of loss is negligible.
What I would say is that in both cases the M/F mix is about 50/50.
Recreational riding, probably fewer women. But that's an N=1, which doesn't add much value.0 -
knotgood77 wrote: »I have found with bicycles, and road riding, the more aggressive I am, the better off I am from a safety perspective. I am not an advocate of passive/defensive m/c riding either though.
Ride confident and competent.
I saw a confident but not so competent rider on a city street, passing cars on the right, risking someone turning into him or a driver opening his door, making a bad day for the cyclist.
Of course, he would have blamed the motorist for his folly had he been caught up by a door or a car turning right as he was passing on the right.
If I'm going to ride like that, I'll take the lane. I can do the 20-25 MPH the downtown traffic was doing in small town main street. But passing cars on the right at 20-25 MPH in heavy traffic with parked cars to his right was a confident, but not so competent move.
Makes it harder for the rest of us.1 -
Just saw this article
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/13/safety-women-cycling-roads2 -
In regard to casual cycling, I think most ladies don't want to get sweaty on a bike on the way to work. The helmet certainly messes with a hair style. Personally, I spin three times a week and it's mostly ladies in my class. I live in NYC. I'd love to ride outside but I never learned how plus I'm accident-prone enough just walking down the street.
If you are referring to professional cycling, the best years of a ladies' career are when she'd most likely be in school or having babies.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions