I was today years old when I learned that bikes are feminist.
Don’t understand how that can be the case? Here’s a thread explaining why.
Before bikes were invented (in Coventry) women didn't have many choices for how they got around.
Basically, they had three options.
1 -- they could go on foot
2 -- they could ride in a carriage
3 -- they could go on horseback
Regardless of which option they chose (and this choice was usually made for them, determined by their class) -- they would have to do it with a male chaperone.
Slowly.
Gracefully.
Preferrably silently.
Why?
The first bikes didn't really do much to change this as they were developed exclusively for -- you guessed it -- men.
Why? Because you can't ride a bicycle sidesaddle -- which is the only way a woman could ride anything in the 19th century apparently.
But then came the safety bicycle -- designed to be safe for children to ride.
At which point women everywhere thought "well, if it's safe for a child, it's safe for me." And got on their bikes.
What happened next? You guessed it!
Men started freaking out about women having orgasms.
OBVIOUSLY if women went around straddling bicycles then they would start having orgasms out on the street and that would absolutely not be okay.
But not all men were opposed to the bike's potential impact on women.
Some theorised that the motion of riding a bicycle would make them more fit for motherhood.
But it wasn't just orgasms and strong pelvic floors -- there were also risks to cycling.
Doctors warned the rattling of women's innards could lead to tuburculosis, gout, or the dreaded "bicycle face" -- the tense expression that comes from cycling and leaves you unloveable.
Nevertheless, she persisted.
Women cyclists became known as velocipedestriennes and they were badass.
The first thing to go were the restrictively long skirts. There's only so many times you can get your dress caught in a pedal before you say enough is enough.
The bicycling costume was born which was, essentially, trousers.
And the men responded...
..by forming a society which pledged never to talk to bicycling costume wearing women and to attempt to "render such costumes unpopular."
Soon bikes came to be seen as the symbol of the New Woman -- an association so strong that when Cambridge Undergrads protested the admission of women in 1897 they did it by burning an effigy of a woman on a bicycle.
So it's no surprise that bicycles became a campaigning tool of the suffragette movement.
Alice Hawkins, a suffragette, cycled around Leicester promoting the women's rights movement, causing outrage by being one of the first ladies to wear pantaloons in the city.
Susan B. Anthony, perhaps, said it best:
"The bicycle has done more to emancipate women than any one thing in the world. I rejoice every time I see a woman ride by on a bike. It gives her a feeling of self-reliance and independence...the picture of untrammelled womanhood."
But despite years on the saddle -- women still haven't found equality on their bikes.
A new survey has revealed that a quarter of professional female cyclists don't earn a salary cyclingnews.com/news/new-surve…
And despite the historic and passionate obsession with the relationship between the bike and the vulva -- modern saddle design still leaves women with pain and swelling theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2…
And it seems despite having over 100 years to get used to it, folks still aren't happy to see women on their bikes -- with a report finding women cyclists were twice as likely as men to be abused or harrassed on the road.
I lived just across from Olympia, where the red marker is. Every day I would walk up High Street Kensington to get to Holland Park or Gail’s Bakery or even Hyde Park — and I’d wish I was brave enough to cycle the journey.
At first I thought it would be a problem that would be solved as soon as I learnt how to ride a bike. That straight away High Street Kensington would not look so treacherous but instead would look safe and welcoming.
Living in a 15 minute city means being able to access all the things you might need day to day within a 15 minute walk of your home, including:
📓 schools
🏪 shops
🏥 healthcare
👷♀️ work
🌿 green space
Do you already live in one?
When you live in a 15 minute city, the best thing you can do is make it easier to walk and cycle — because only a limited number of people need to drive such small distances.
That means having clear pavements, segregated cycle lanes, street trees and clear signage.
Think eliminating such short car journeys wouldn’t make a difference to the congestion on London’s roads? Think again! A third of all car journeys in the capital are less than 2km content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-note…
One thing I think drivers don't get is that the inconvenience they're experiencing from school streets, LTNs and cycle lanes is miniscule in comparison to the inconvenience other road users have been asked to take for the benefit of drivers over the years.
Your journey is five minutes longer? I feel you! As a cyclist, I'm often forced to take longer routes because the quickest path from A to B doesn't have adequate infrastructure or isn't safe for someone on a bike.
You have to wait at traffic lights on main roads instead of breezing through residential back streets? I feel you! As a pedestrian my journey is frequently interrupted by trying to find a safe place to cross a road, and waiting at lights that prioritise cars over me.
I don't know who needs to hear this but creating pro-LTN petitions to counteract the anti ones isn't a strategic use of your time.
Here's why:
Opponents are sharing their petitions all around the country. They're getting signed by motorist groups, taxi drivers, and other interest groups in an attempt to boost the numbers.
But all that does is make them irrelevant for local authorities trying to gauge local opinon.
That's good news and bad news for supporters.
Because unless you take on the same tactic of sharing the petitions beyond local boundaries (and hence making them irrelevant) you'll never be able to get an equivalent number of signatures.