What can we do to encourage more women to cycle?

[thirdcrank]

I would say that the biggest negative influence to cycling is the growth of motor transport, particularly the private motor car. Many people find a motor car an attractive means of transport while the inexorable increase in motor traffic puts people off cycling, whether or not they have access to a motor car. The logical case for cycling doesn't enter into this.

All I know about the Netherlands is what I've read, and they do say that motor transport in that country was heading the same way as here, until the government there took a decision to provide for cycling and implemented it. The difference here is that our government took a decision to provide for cycling and didn't implement it.

It's true that as things got worse in the second half of the 20C, cycling became increasingly confined to enthusiasts but I think that to blame them for what has happened is to confuse cause and effect.
==============================================================================
PS Too much time on my hands so with apologies to John Lennon, and to everybody else for that matter


Imagine no bike racing, it's easy if you try,
No cash for the Olympics and drug bans for Team Sky.
Imagine all the gloating from a car-mad Daily Mail

Imagine no keen riders, it isn't hard to do,
The dearth of women riders, not blamed on me and you.
Imagine all the people getting in their cars.

Some may feel we're the problem, with drop handlebars,
It hurts from other cyclists, not idiots in cars...

[Vorpal]

It's true that as things got worse in the second half of the 20C, cycling became increasingly confined to enthusiasts but I think that to blame them for what has happened is to confuse cause and effect.

I don't think that CJ is blaming them. I agree with him that it is part of the problem, that cycling is perceived as something for sport and leisure, rather than transport. I don't think that it is the fault of sports cyclists. It is a cultural shift that has occurred gradually. However, British Cycling portrays cycling, primarily as a sport and leisure activity. In recent years they have begun to include utility cycling, but it remains an afterthought. Even Cycling UK to some extent accomodates that portayal of cycling as a sport, by being an organisation of enthusiasts and long distance cyclists. I had thought that the name change was a step away from that image, but instead, it seems to be a step toward obscurity, as BC gets more and more mentions in the press and visibility to the public, whilst Cycling UK seems to get fewer and fewer.

Evidence on this thread, even, is that many regular cyclists perceive it a sport, or at least sporty. The Dutch and Danes perceive cycling as a sort of faster version of walking or a way to carry things more efficiently.

[thirdcrank]

... I don't think that CJ is blaming them. ...

You could have fooled me, but then I'm so thin-skinned.

... The Dutch and Danes perceive cycling as a sort of faster version of walking or a way to carry things more efficiently.

I know even less about Denmark than I do about the Netherlands, but I'll stick to my belief that in the latter case, the big difference there was that the government delivered a policy to promote (preserve?) cycling, before it was too late.

I think you are absolutely right about Cycling UK and obscurity and IMO it's only what they deserve.

Provoked into discussing blame, I'll say this. The National Cycling Strategy was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to achieve something along the Dutch model for cycling in the UK. The policy was there and the CTC made a huge contribution to it including the NCS document itself, Cycle-Friendly Infrastructure, Audit and Review etc. When it became apparent that in spite of all the hype, the government had no intention of delivering this or related policies - anybody remember integrated transport? - the CTC rolled over to be tickled. I remember the tidal change when the highwaymen who had been convinced that they would have to provide for cycling suddenly realised that the pressure was off, and it was just another seven-day wonder. The change in the atmosphere at consultation meetings and the like was palpable. It's easy to take the line that without government agreement, the CTC was powerless, but yet again, I'll mention the amazing surge of support for the Highway Code petition, which surely took the authorities by surprise - and me too. But the CTC blinked first, and trumpeted a garbage HC as a breathtaking victory.

[Vorpal]

Actually I agree with both of you

Most of the cause is the government pandering to the motorists and not building cyclist friendly infrastructure. However, part of the problem is that cycling is perceived as a sport, and it always has been to some extent. This is evidenced by the link you added above when you resurrected thsi thread. At the very bottom of the link, includes some advice for lady cyclists in 1895, where it says

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

I don't think that is wholly down to the issue of what the government have done, or not. The two are clearly interrelated, but decisions made by cycling organisations, not the least of which is the CTC also had a significant influence on that. Significant pockets of cycling culture exist, despite motor-centricity. These pockets are mostly in places where driving motor vehicles is inconvenient due to congestion, medieval centres, and/or other constraints, such as Oxford and Cambridge.

If we think of utility cycling and sport cycling and being two sides of a scale, we can say that in most of the UK, cycling is dominate by those on the sport cycling side. However, the utility cycling side has far more potential. All sort of things have or had the potential to influence which way the UK goes, and there have been several points in history where the UK as a whole could have added substantially to utility side of the scale and either didn't, or actually loaded the other side. Motoring culture has consequently become the 10-tonne weight holding down that side of the scale.

Another part of this is certainly due to the UK's approach to capitalism, and that the UK is further to the political right on economic and social issues than many other European countries (this also applies to other English speaking countries). Motor traffic supports economic growth, which is seen as a GOOD THING. Some other countries, including the Netherlands and the Nordic countries, give greater weight to the social aspects of transport. It would be difficult to blame that on any one thing, but the groundwork was laid before the suffragettes were discovering the freedom that the bicycle granted them.

[thirdcrank]

It says something about the state of my memory that I had forgotten that I'd seen that BBC News item and plonked it on here. While I can see what you mean about the ancient twaddle somebody dug out to pad that article, it may say something about attitudes to women generally but to suggest that women are somehow deterred by anything sporty or technical merely reinforces a gender stereotype typified in that ancient twaddle.

I'll stick to my original point from a decade ago that successfully encouraging more people to cycle will apply to both sexes proportionately. I fear we'll never know because nobody in the UK has tried.

[CJ]

Cycle sport is not the root cause, that is - as many have said - the way in which motor traffic has been permitted by spineless politicians, to dominate public space. The volume of traffic is not even to blame. The Dutch, believe it or not, actually drive slightly further per head of population than do the British! The difference is that the Dutch have built more new roads to divert that traffic away from populated areas, whilst also building new bike paths and returning old road space to cycling. That was expensive, but Dutch politicians are not shy of taxation.

The dominance of all cycling by cycle sport is merely the result of those political decisions - or indecision more like - that allowed cycling in general to decline in English-speaking countries.

There are many good things about sport, not least of which is the healthy outlet it provides during peacetime for warlike aggression! But sport is by definition elitist and promotes a culture of superiority. Those who excel in the sporting use of a bicycle, for example, are apt to consider themselves gifted with insights far beyond the sporting realm, into ALL uses of a bicycle. And because sport is spectacular the media stoke those sporting egos and trumpet the naive pronouncements of sporting stars on aspects of cycling that are frankly, none of their business.

It is possible for a sporting cyclist to see the bigger picture, to appreciate that cycling for travel and transport is an utterly different proposition. Chris Boardman is a shining example. But so rare.

It is hard to blame the sportsman for his inflated ego and well-meant but too often inappropriate advice. He (and sometimes she) cannot help it. And I do enjoy watching cycle sport. Because I also ride a bike, I have some inkling of what it might feel like - but no more than that. I do not pretend to know what's actually involved in attaining those performances. If only there were a bit more humility from them when it comes to our kind of cycling.

For starters, it would help a lot if the sporting side accepted that there IS a world of difference between cycle sport and transport, just as there is between motor sport and motoring, between running and walking. For sure there's a bit of technical crossover - in BOTH directions (derailleur gears were originally known as the tourists deviation!) - but only weird people run to work and when the manoeuvres of the racetrack are enacted on the public road, it isn't a good thing! In countries where cycling plays its full travel and transport role, the difference between that and cycle sport is clear. And in those countries, far more women cycle.

[SA_SA_SA]

... The Dutch, believe it or not, actually drive slightly further per head of population than do the British! The difference is that....

That always seems rather puzzling: why is their cycling not significantly replacing car journeys? Isn't that why cycling is thought of as green ?
Do the Dutch think car fuel usage/CO2/pollution etc generation is sustainable at those levels?

[Wanlock Dod]

... The Dutch, believe it or not, actually drive slightly further per head of population than do the British! The difference is that....

That always seems rather puzzling: why is their cycling not significantly replacing car journeys? Isn't that why cycling is thought of as green ?
Do the Dutch think car fuel usage/CO2/pollution etc generation is sustainable at those levels?

The car journeys that people in the UK are making which the Dutch are replacing by bike are typically the short ones that go into town centres at relatively low speeds and cause various adverse effects such as congestion and air pollution. The car journeys that are made in the UK are probably overall rather less efficient as a result because congestion is probably a more important factor on average. UK society is dependent upon cars because there aren't really any practical alternatives to travelling distances of between about 0.5 to 5 km.

[SA_SA_SA]

But surely trains are better(greener) than cars for long distance too.

[CJ]

... The Dutch, believe it or not, actually drive slightly further per head of population than do the British! The difference is that....

That always seems rather puzzling: why is their cycling not significantly replacing car journeys? Isn't that why cycling is thought of as green ?
Do the Dutch think car fuel usage/CO2/pollution etc generation is sustainable at those levels?

I don't know what they think about it, I just know it happens. OECD statistics say so.

And I can only speculate about why it happens. 'First off, the figures like 50% that are often quoted for cycling's modal share in Dutch cities, are for the central district only, where cars are impractical due to the network of one-way (motors only) and no-exit (for motors) roads that prevent a motorist reaching any other part of the centre without driving out to the ring-road, around and back in. And this could, in part, explain how the 50% who are not cycling make up the 'missing' mileage! The Dutch nevertheless, taking a national average over both town and countryside, make 27% of trips by bike. However this accounts for only 8% of the mileage total. So they also do a lot of longer distance travel and much of it by car. That's purely a product of affluence. One thing that stands out clearly from the OECD figures is the correlation between per capita GDP and per capita distance driven.

Fact is: people who have both time and money like to travel a lot, and using bikes for short trips doesn't put much of a dent in that. Cycling is nevertheless worth encouraging relative to driving, because it makes the most densely populated places where most people live, much more pleasant for most people to live in. Plus it keeps them healthy.

So the most effective way of reducing driving would be to sabotage the economy. So here's a cheerful thought: Brexit will be brilliant for biking! Extrapolating present trends we'll still have jobs alright, but so badly paid (once bosses are free from EU restrictions and our workers have to compete directly with all those low-cost countries this 'nation of shopkeepers' will be trading so freely with) that we'll ALL be cycling to work!

One country however is a massive outlier. Admittedly it's rich but its populace drives at least 50% further than any comparably wealthy country. Even Canada and Australia don't come close. Do you know which it is yet?

Here's a possibly interesting graph I made earlier.

Driving versus GDP

[CJ]

But surely trains are better(greener) than cars for long distance too.

Inadequacies of their medium to long-distance passenger rail networks probably explains the differences in amount of driving (observable in my chart above) between otherwise similar European countries - and the massive outlier: which doesn't really DO passenger trains anymore! And actually, UK is being quite good - probably because we only have half of a motorway network, so driving is a bit rubbish too!

[Wanlock Dod]

Additionally, in the Netherlands more driving is unlikely to suppress cycling because where it really matters the modes are segregated (and many of the drivers also ride bikes sometimes). Elsewhere more driving tends to mean less cycling.

[Cyril Haearn]

That is a queer business, even if true
Or even if untrue?
Nederland has lots of railways but driving there is easy, lots of motorways with up to five lanes, Scotland has a bridge over the Atlantic and Nederland has tunnels under the North Sea
Ontsteck uw leuchten!

[Cyril Haearn]

There is a great deal to be said for some of the policies of the Singaporean government about motors
Is it too hot to cycle there?

What about Hong Kong?

[SA_SA_SA]

....

Interesting Graph etc: So riding a bike in town didn't imbue the Dutch with a need to save fuel/reduce global warming causes by driving less.

...most effective way of reducing driving would be to sabotage the economy. ...Brexit will be brilliant for biking...

Bahh: Brexit should not be mentioned on unrelated threads: I predict the UK will be OK
(NB this gives no clue to how I voted but the fact I was partly (unnecessarily?) worried about the SNP woman's threats to break up the UK upon a leave vote probably does .... )

Sometimes the EU is made to sound more like the Hotel California