I'm annoyed with myself for not tweeting about this yesterday on actual #InternationalWomensDay but OH WELL.
I am one @YorkCycle's co-chairs, and I am proud to bring a much-needed female voice to the overwhelmingly male-dominated worlds of cycling and transport planning. /1
I am one @YorkCycle's co-chairs, and I am proud to bring a much-needed female voice to the overwhelmingly male-dominated worlds of cycling and transport planning. /1
The national gender split of cyclists is 70/30 male/female. In York it's a little better at 60/40 but that's still not good enough. Often it's put down to women not liking cycling or having other priorities, but this lazy, false narrative allows the status quo to continue. /2
In countries where cycling is given a reasonable amount of thought and funding, the gender split is equal (in fact in the Netherlands, more women cycle than men). Not only that, but more people with disabilities cycle, as do more older people, and children. /3
It's easy to assume that cycling is a gender-neutral topic. So I HIGHLY recommend reading @CCriadoPerez's Invisible Women (even just the first chapter, if nothing else) to understand how and why gender affects even subjects as dry and genitalia-free as transport planning. /4
The barriers to women cycling range from minor irritations to major dangers.
Cycle racks are routinely placed in dark, dead-end alleyways or unlit areas around the back of buildings; the sorts of places we've been brought up being told to avoid at all costs. /5
Cycle racks are routinely placed in dark, dead-end alleyways or unlit areas around the back of buildings; the sorts of places we've been brought up being told to avoid at all costs. /5
Off-road cycle routes often go through unlit parks or wooded areas, through scary underpasses, over bridges with tall concrete barriers, next to high walls, or other areas where we've been conditioned to avoid since before we were old enough to understand why. /6
Research shows that women more so than men are affected by perceived danger/risk. This means that if a route *looks* dangerous - even if it isn't necessarily - women are less likely to use it. Conversely, making a route *appear* safer will encourage more women to use it. /7
Routes in the UK are usually designed with "standard bikes" in mind. So, two-wheeled, narrow handlebars, carrying a single person with little or no cargo, operated by an able-bodied person. So there are often steps, areas where cyclists must dismount, or literal barriers. /8
For better or worse, women are still overwhelmingly likely to be the primary carer and in charge of household chores. So, they are more likely to be ferrying children to/from school, and doing grocery shopping. /9
This is perfectly feasible, but often requires an adapted cycle: a standard bike with a child seat or panniers attached, perhaps a cargo bike/trike (the sort with a big bucket on the front in which kids/bags/dogs can sit), and often one or more children cycling alongside. /10
For any of those to be practicable alternatives to the car, they require even, continuous, well-maintained, fully-sealed paths, which run a safe distance from motorised vehicles, don't have steps or obstacles, don't mix with off-lead dogs, and don't have barriers like these. /11 
When these paths exist, they need to run along the routes actually used by women. A few radial routes in and out of town are useless if they don't take us where we actually need to go. They're also useless if they require mixing with traffic in order to reach them. /12
Women are statistically less likely than men to use radial (commuter) routes. They are more likely to require circuitous routes around town; to and from their children's school(s), between places where they care for elderly relatives, to the shops, around the edges of town. /13
As cycle campaigners, we are aware of these issues and do our best to explain it to councillors and council officers but by the time the plans reach us, it's often too late. It's astonishing and depressing how little these issues are considered at the planning stages. /14
Cycling CAN be more gender neutral. It requires more female transport planners, and women simply asked for input at the earliest stage in the process.
And let's get one thing clear: having more women cycling doesn't require fewer men cycling. It's not an either/or situation. /15
And let's get one thing clear: having more women cycling doesn't require fewer men cycling. It's not an either/or situation. /15
Not only that, but when the above suggestions are implemented, cycling immediately becomes more accessible to disabled people on adapted cycles, elderly people on e-bikes, and deliveries made via cargo cycle. When we cater for the least capable, EVERYONE can use it. /16
Current cycle infrastructure (paths/routes/parking/signage etc) has been designed/built/implemented by healthy, able-bodied, young to middle-aged men, and consequently they are the demographic who overwhelmingly use it. But it doesn't have to be this way. /17
So let's get more women into transport planning, take into consideration what women need, and listen to what women are saying. Because every time someone gets out of their car and on to a bike, literally EVERYBODY benefits. #InternationalWomensDay #IWD2020 #womencycling
/end
/end
