A few municipalities are beginning to implement a “second wave” of strategies aimed at broadening the cycling demographic. In Portland, a city already renowned for its urban cycling, a Women on Bikes program targets such concerns as fixing a flat tire. The city is also building its first cycle track—a European-style bike lane that is separated from cars and pedestrians. Across the country state and federally funded Safe Routes to Schools programs are creating practical bike routes for kids so they don’t have to be driven by their parents.
Ahead of the curve may be New York City, where about five miles of traffic-protected bike lanes have recently been installed. Credit goes to the new Department of Transportation commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan, who is upending the department’s long-standing focus on trucks and automobiles. Remarks Pucher: “A woman cyclist became head of the DOT, and wonderful things started happening.”
Note: This article was originally printed with the title, "Shifting Gears."
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
78 Comments
Add CommentHigh cost of maintenence, for the body and the bike!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecurity issues, road hazards, inattentive people all make it a risky endeavor. These other cities are designed for more pedestrian travel than L.A., or N.Y.
more pedestrian travel than NYC? I've never heard of a city in North America or Europe with more pedestrians than NYC.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWomen also need access to restrooms and more protection from muggings and attacks in parks and college campuses. A woman can be very vunerable on a bike. There is still widespread hostility toward women verywhere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSafety is important as many crimes happen to women when they are vulnerable as pedestrians, cylists, and while waiting at bus stops. Access to restrooms is also more important to women than to men.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisas a part-time bicycle commuter and full-time female, a couple of issues i run into are that I don't feel safe riding home in the dark (so much of spring and fall are out for riding), and it is a pain to get dressed at work - and takes a long time. it's much easier to dry and straighten hair and apply makeup at home. i'd guess that if you did research on gym usage, the number of men using the gym either immediately before work or during lunch is significantly higher than women (due to the hair/makeup issue).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, it's mostly layout that affects bike share. You can built as many bike paths as you want, but if it's five miles to your next shopping area people won't bike there, so denser Europe has a big advantage over sprawling US.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately the otherwise good article didn't distinguish between actual risk and perceived risk. A study done in Copenhagen had shown the number of accidents went up after they installed a lot of bike paths. The higher risks are at intersections and the bike path separation decreases the visibility of cyclists - leading to more accidents. The whole concept of passing traffic on the right of right-turning traffic is in logical contradiction to right-hand side traffic.
If you check accident stats in Europe you will find most fatal accidents are on bike paths - usually at intersections where speeds of cyclists and motorized traffic is rather slow.
Pucher's idea of off-street bike path "to the supermarket, the school, the day care center" is interesting, but impractical. It is impossible to build such a system unless you either close down a substantial amount of roadways for motorists (cool idea, but what are the chances?) or you have to build an underground or elaborate bridge system for separate bike paths (anybody have a few extra trillion dollars lying around?)
Otherwise you get a system that is seemingly separate (so called side paths), but has many conflict points (driveways, bus stops, intersections etc) and it will be unsafe to use.
That's exactly what Europe does. The completely separate paths usually don't serve a real destination (as Pucher noted). As soon as shopping or commuting is involved, motorists and bicyclists will be mixed. We should mix as safely as possible and the side paths are not the answer.
In fact the idea in Europe is running out of steam. In Germany the law was changed a decade ago that only bike paths with a sign were mandatory (before any bike path was mandatory). Currently there is a petition in the German parliament to abolish the requirement to use these bike paths completely.
If you think riding your bike is risky check out a traffic skills class near you (http://www.bikeleague.org/cogs/resources/findit/ - look for Bike Ed courses)
As an older female cyclist I enjoy long rides out of town, but riding to work and normal errands is difficult. I'm in Oklahoma City, which is a sprawling town almost without sidewalks, bike lanes, or alternate low traffic routes. My office is easy cycling distance for me (less than 8 miles) but to avoid heavy car traffic it goes through an iffy area where I feel vulnerable to mugging. I'm not young, fast, or male enough to get through there without nervousness. There are few if any bike racks, and the local SUV traffic is not very friendly. I've commuted by bike in other cities, but this one is heard for me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA Lot of fear is expressed here, don't allow that to prevent you from hopping onto your bike or transitioning from your car to using a bike on a regular basis. Riding on my bike I was hit by a car twice, I still ride. Carry mace is my advice, wear it in your sports bra or on a breakaway chain on your neck.....the chances of you getting attacked while on your bike are pretty low, robbers will go for an easier slower target....as for cars wear bright reflective clothing..but still look out, I was hit during the day.....cars don't often see pedestrians walking let alone anyone on a bike. Cheers
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA very simplistic analysis, which misses many of the factors which influence whether someone rides a bike or not. Without going into much more detail, the implicit assumption that if more segregated "woman friendly" cycle paths were constructed, many more people would cycle has been shown to be flawed e.g. Milton Keynes UK.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is required is a change in society, so that cycling is viewed as safe, which it already is, and that driving imposes intolerable burdens on the rest of us.
This article, I believe, accurately begins with the premise that women are far less likely in the aggregate to take risks then men are. And, from the get-go we are asked essentially to accept as fact that those (men and women) who ride bikes are unwilling to ride on the pubic roads because because of unsubstantiated fears regarding the safety of riding on public roads. This too, I can believe.However, the real issue is that of perceived risk v.s. actual risk.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fears of the public stem from uncertainty regarding the actual types and causes of bicycle-automobile accidents and a lack of understanding related to how one operates a bicycle on the road. Additionally, this fear is exacerbated as the same individuals fear bikers when driving due to the uncertain behavior exhibited by other bikers on the road.
This refusal to ride on public roads and the accompanying demands for expensive and unnecessary infrastructure can be alleviated through simply licensing and testing cyclists wishing to ride on public roads, enforcing the law when those cyclists violate the law, and finally requiring insurance of those utilizing public roads. I submit that skilled cyclists do not fear to rid on the roads.
Additionally, some statistics on the muggings of women on bikes, men on bikes, and pedestrians in similar areas would be more useful than the anecdotal evidence presented herein. I suspect far fewer "attacks" occur than people actually think.
http://gothie.wordpress.com/
I am a female cyclists that rides for fun and purpose. The more you ride in traffic running your errands, etc. the easier it becomes and the less afraid you are. I ride all over the place - in bike lanes, on shoulders and in the road way with the cars. When I first started, I was a little terrified. But now, it's second nature. And I never worried about anyone mugging me on a bike. They would have to catch me first! And there's always a go around in those neighborhoods that are iffy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo this day, I am more afraid of riding sidewalks and separated bike paths than have a car in front of me and an SUV cruising behind me. I've had more close calls riding a sidewalk than anywhere.
I live in Florida. It is hot and sweaty here. Trying to ride to work in the morning is an issue. I have had to find showers around town. A lot of my friends belong to health club specifically to sue their showers. It's not that I am so worried about my hair not looking as good as it would had I not ridden my bike - I would really like to work all day not covered with dried sweat. Showers are an issue for men and women though.
I think that women and men have the same reasons for not riding their bike. Luckily, I have a group of women bikers that enjoy cruising with traffic. If you are a women cyclist, start hitting the roads - overcome your fear and then take along a friend.
The more of us out there the better off we will all be!
This article is better than similar articles in the NY Times and Treehugger. I was pleasantly surprised to see a mention of the affect gender roles have on the rate of women cycling. I still believe that most of the factors mentioned (most notably, safe bicycling infrastructure) apply to both men and women, though. I have a more complete reaction to the article <a href="http://letsgorideabike.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/more-gender-gap-analysis-from-the-media/">here</a>.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> "High cost of maintenence, for the body and the bike!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou've got to be kidding--lack of exercise will cost you big time, and everything about cars is expensive.
I am a 46-yr old woman who has been bicycling to work for several years. I feel safe on my bike - in the dark at night (get good lights), through questionable neighborhoods (pepper spray for stray dogs), around traffic (don't be timid about claiming your lane, and signal your intentions very clearly). Just go out and try it!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe need traffic laws that make it illegal to kill bicyclists and pedestrians. Make the drivers test difficult, take away license when someone is caught driving dangerously or carelessly. No eating, texting or phoning while driving. Let's stop making cars the number one choice or even the only choice allowed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm struck by the irony that the title is "How to get more bicyclists on the ROAD."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm tired of reading the same tired Pucher nonsense. He knows full well that cultural and geographic differences prohibit us from importing a European infrastructure system setting aside the safety concerns of side paths and cycle tracks, which can only be solved with increased delay for everyone.
There are other ideas out there. Good ones. Do some research.
Yes, women are an indicator species of cycling quality. Their tolerances are different from men's. But you don't need symbolic facilities to encourage them to ride. You need quiet street connectivity, a good, ongoing ed program aimed at women (see Hackney, UK) and civility on the road.
Women don't want to ride on hot, loud, smelly traffic sewers bike lane or otherwise. We have to fix the horrific land use problems facing our suburban/exurban areas. Not just for women.
Women will seek education when they want to do something, and if you make education accessible, fun and social, they'll be all over it. I've done this, it works.
Women have a much lower tolerance for harassment, so they will avoid an environment where honking and yelling is prevalent. We simply have to end the culture of motorist entitlement. Roads are for people.
If there's one good reason to fight against inadequate parallel infrastructure it is that it reinforces a bad culture of motorist entitlement to the road. And since it is inadequate for serving destinations, it makes conditions worse for cyclists when they have to use the road. Remember, respect for cycling as a mode of transportation in the Netherlands existed BEFORE the infrastructure. That's very significant.
I just came back from a ride to a store 5 miles away. The route I took was 95% quiet streets. I could have ridden 1/3 of it in a bike lane on a busy road, but traffic was backed up the entire length of the road and passing it on the right is just asking for trouble. I used a parallel residential street with no traffic, instead. Anyway, the 5% of the journey that wasn't quiet streets is a very busy and complex intersection. You have to have a certain level of confidence and knowledge to handle it, but when you do, it's really, really easy. Most people try to use the crosswalk with all kinds of conflicts and frustration. I use the road with ease, riding at a slow, relaxed pace. They could to, if they knew... if our culture wasn't so retarded about safe cycling, they would know.
The majority of my riding in an urban core is like that. It's quality riding on quiet streets, but without the skillset to handle the 5%, you lose the utility you're riding around in circles in your neighborhood. There is no path system that is going to bypass that 5% and make it safer than learning the skillset.
Pucher's expensive ideas only have power because our culture is ignorant of how safe and easy cycling is. For a much smaller price tag we can use infrastructure to solve spot problems to create permeability and connectivity, we can do social marketing to change the thinking about what roads are for, we can promote fun educational programs to give people the simple skills and confidence to ride anywhere they need to go.
I tell you what I want... trails with bathrooms or at least porta-potties. That is the single-most annoying problem with bicylcling for any distance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe number of cyclists on the road in my city has skyrocketed in the last couple of years, and what changed to make that happen? Not cycletracks or bike lanes, though the city is placing them now, after the fact. No, what changed was 1. Gas jumped to $3/gal 2. Significant mass transit cuts ensued so the busses are increasingly impractical 3. a popular fashion trend of urban hipsterism on fixed-gear bikes (without helmets and lights, so the talk about safety-conscious women is given the lie).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOtherwise, I totally agree with valleyhi, rememberwhen, frisbeetarian, Ginger, and AnotherFloridaWoman. And some others whose names I forgot.
Having experienced cycling in both Europe (Amsterdam) where I lived for some time, and the U.S., where I cycle to work everyday in urban traffic and have for many years, I can honestly say that the experience of cycling is infinitely better there than here in the U.S. I am not opposed to educational programs and safe cycling classes and learning vehicular cycling. In fact, I think these should be required in our public schools as they are in the Netherlands, but every time there is a suggestion of doing something pretty different from what we have here now, the cabal come out of the woodworks to trash these ideas and to trot out there favorite study "proving" how unsafe cycle paths are. It is just amazing how resistant the American cycling community is in general to separated cycle paths. The study in Copenhagen referred to by bikelover is highly specific to specific cycle path situations. It is countered by studies in the Netherlands by the Dutch Transportation ministry that reach a different conclusion. And the problem is that trashing Pucher and his work and views misses the whole point. Bikelover states that the article made no distinction between perceived risk and actual risk. But so what? The study found clear barriers to cycling that happen to divide along gender lines, and at least some of the data obtained suggest that this may be related to the desire to avoid riding with motorized traffic (in this case perceived risk is more important than actual risk) and to have a utilitarian cycle infrastructure that encourages cycling for all ages and skill levels. If people say they want these separated facilities, and that they don't want to have to do 'vehicular cycling' in heavy traffic, and that they will ride their bikes more if they can have this, then just give the people what they want. And let's take away car lanes while we're at it. We ought to take studies like these and learn from them, examine best practices in Europe and good American cycling cities like Portland and Davis, and see where separated cycle paths work and provide them where feasible and connect them to good on street routes. Just do it already.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGot to comment again about comments from AnotherFloridaWoman, who says...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If there's one good reason to fight against inadequate parallel infrastructure it is that it reinforces a bad culture of motorist entitlement to the road. And since it is inadequate for serving destinations, it makes conditions worse for cyclists when they have to use the road. Remember, respect for cycling as a mode of transportation in the Netherlands existed BEFORE the infrastructure. That's very significant."
All of these are bold assertions and for the most part not true. No statistical study has ever proven that a parallel infrastructure gives automobile drivers a greater sense of entitlement. But statistical studies in Europe have shown that when bike mode share increases dramatically, accidents go way down.
Bicycle use dropped off dramatically in the late 50's and 60's in northern Europe with some cities like Antwerp actually tearing up bicycle infrastructure to make the cities more friendly to cars. Even in the Netherlands, where bike mode share is the highest in the world, the same thing happened at this time due to the great expansion of the use of motor vehicles. But some governments in Europe initiated very forward-thinking policies in the early 70's and began to dramatically enhance bicycle infrastructure, most notably the Netherlands and Denmark, and they also discouraged automobile use by making routes HARD to navigate by car. They also built much better mass transit systems. Nearly all American cities went the other way, aided and abetted by the federal government who linked transportation dollars to the construction of freeways and automobile facilities. Few cities had the courage to pass up that money from Uncle Sam (Portland was the only major US city I know of).
The statement by AnotherFloridaWoman that..."respect for cycling as a mode of transportation in the Netherlands existed BEFORE the infrastructure..." is true but its also true in the U.S. prior to the 50's and 60's. The expansion of the middle class in this country was accompanied by massive growth in automobile use and massive expansions of city footprints with suburban sprawl. Vehicular cycling purists who incessantly trash cycle paths and their advocates (like Pucher) are self-defeating in their hostility. The key thing to ask now is how can we get the bicycling back. Maybe cycle paths are only a transitory stage but we need WAY more people on bikes here.
As a woman I believe much that was stated above, women tend to be running errands in a household, women tend to be hauling children..in a house hold.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne thing I think is skewed is the amount of women that would use their bicycle for trips longer than 3.5 miles OR in areas that aren't flat and easy to ride. Why? Women have a tougher time staying presentable after a bike ride then men.
I would love to hop on my bike and go to dinner, a business meeting or out with friends. But by the time I get there I look and feel a mess.
Given the inevitability of 'Peak Oil', the next time gasoline hits $4 or 5 dollars, the local gov. should be ready. I think many of the essentials mentioned by these readers will be met then.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCity Gov. should have considered markets, libraries, safety, as well as marketing campaigns to inform the citizenry.
I go to school in the Netherlands and there are a number of differences between riding there and in MA. Some of them are fixable and some are not. You can't fix the weather, you can't fix the hills. You can fix most other things, and it really does not need to be expensive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBike lanes are great, and I really don't see why it would be a problem to put them in if you were redoing the road or sidewalk anyway. Some places are too narrow, but a lot of main roads in my MA city have sidewalks 8 ft wide. That's mostly so they don't get consumed by snowbanks in the winter, when there's no bikes anyway. So why not cut off 3 ft for a bike lane? ...If you have bike lanes, though, the traffic lights at major intersections need to have a point in their cycle when all the bikes go. Bikes DON'T use the same lights as cars. Minor intersections often have a push-button signal for bikes.
But a lot of the trouble is just cultural. I don't think I've ever seen an American bicycle with saddlebags on it. A handlebar-basket is totally unsuitable for carrying a jug of milk, because the weight makes it hard to steer. So of course you don't see many people buying food on their bikes. US stores also tend to be huge, few, and far apart like Walmarts. Whereas in NL there are 4 pharmacy-sized grocery stores and numerous specialty food shops within 5 min of my apartment. Small stores thrive when there are a lot of people on bikes. That kind of economic layout isn't something you can force, but cities that want to help small businesses should consider linking them to bike lanes.
As far as fashion goes, Dutch women have a way with scarves, leather jackets, and leggings and a preternatural ability to make shorts look like classy business attire. I'm not that good, but I do ride in high heels sometimes. I'd never do that on a crummy MA sidewalk. If I had to deal with hills, I'd probably have a small motor, even though my motor-less commute in NL is 6 miles each way.
Anyway, I'd love to, say, go to the post office back home without engaging in combat-driving. It doesn't need to be a major urban project. Just gradually start putting the lanes in when you redo the sidewalks, and use some common sense.
In Europe, many large cities have public transportation systems that make owning a vehicle unnecessary. Not so in the U.S.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI live in southeast Texas. Summers are long, humid and hot. If I rode a bike to work, I would be drenched in sweat in 5 minutes. Not going to happen until my employer installs free showers and locker rooms.
(Wait...did I say sweat?...Texans don't sweat, we perspire! :-)
I agree with the pro-Pucher, pro-Path commenters. We've been running the effective cycling experiment here in the US for years, and we've got nothing to show for it. Yes, for an individual it is a valuable set of skills to have once you have decided to ride a bike, but if you don't learn it as a kid, it is unlikely you ever will. Yes, it is just a matter of "education", but when the first lesson is to ignore that scary stream of cars behind you, most adults write you off as a risk-seeking nut. Doesn't matter that they're wrong, they've already stopped listening -- and if they ride, they'll ride wrong-way, or crowded over in the door zone.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is also a hoot to read about those dangerous bike paths that they have in the Netherlands -- given that their per-mile cyclist fatality rate is 3x lower than ours, they must be doing something right. It is also easier to get people to adopt a culture of politeness, than it is to get them to adopt a culture of putting their (perceived) safety at risk. There was a brief period in the 1970s (during the Arab oil embargo) when drivers were relatively happy to see someone choosing not to compete for "their" gasoline.
I have a big Xtracycle Radish cargo bike (http://www.xtracycle.com), which I ride with my two kids (ages 2.5 and 5.5) on back and usually a full load of coats, jackets, backpacks, lunchboxes, groceries, etc. in my saddle bags.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe advantage of having a big, slow bike is that people take me seriously in traffic. I am also not afraid to gesture to people, ask them to let me pass, etc. Most people are super nice about it. I really haven't experienced any haters.
There is a Dad at my 5.5yo's school who also commutes daily with his two kids on an Xtracycle. It does seem that Dads are a bit more fearless about traffic, etc. For my part, I'll say that I spent 13 years riding a motorcycle in San Francisco as my main form of transport (before kids), so bike riding in the suburbs seems pretty mellow most of the time by comparison. I'm also used to driving defensively, and not feeling scared about being in traffic.
A tip for wanna-be bikers...your route to get someplace by bike will likely be MUCH different from your route in a car. Don't try to replicate your usual route on a bike. Bust out a map and plan your bike route on residential streets.
Or take the easy way out and simply use Google Maps to get directions to your destination. Just make sure to change the toggle to "Walking" instead of "by Car". That will usually give you a nice quiet route with sidewalks, etc. that will be more direct, and avoid highways. Also has the added benefit of letting you know exactly how far away your destination is.
Also, do not be afraid to own the lane. Usually it is safest to be as far to the right as possible, but when you are making a left turn, for example, you are more visible if you move to the middle of the lane (after looking and signaling)."
If I am making a left-hand turn, I ride into the left-hand turn lane and I stick there, at the front right edge of it, allowing a left-turning car to pull up next to me on my left side. Left-turn green light comes on, I go. I'm not in anybody's way, and yet I AM highly visible and also (very important) part of the expected traffic pattern.
Here's me on my chariot, with one kid:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mslaura/3469091782/
and with two kids on board, ready to go to the park. Check out all the stuff I can carry!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mslaura/3383847946/
I think the simplist solution to the problem of getting dressed is to just do as the women in Amsterdam, Copenhagen, etc do--just ride in your work clothes. The notion that one needs special clothes is hard to shake here in the US. Don't think of your ride to work as a sporting event. Think of it as a commute. Instead of spending 5 or 10 minutes at work changing, just ride slower (at about the same level of exertion that you'd expend if you were briskly walking), spend an 5 or 10 minutes on the bike instead. When you get to work, just lock your bike up and go straight to work. I think that you'll fine the difference in exertion between a 30 minute fast commute pace and a 40 minute more relaxed pace to make all the difference. It won't even take any longer, since you save the time you'd otherwise spend changing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a law in Germany preventing supermarkets form devoting more than quite a small floor-area to food sales.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHence more small local supermarkets (and really effective price competition).
This creates home-to-supermarket routes that are quite short and easy to do by bike.
A vast improvement on the US (Walmartopoly) and UK (Tescopoly)
Simple solution. You hit a biker and kill them you go to jail for a long time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFocus should be on walking and biking. The best thing to promote this is sidewalks! Look around, there are not that many outside of the city centers. In many cases, you need a car to cross the street.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA change in society is truly needed. A lot of comparisons have been made to the larger amount of bike commuters in Europe. Perhaps a large reason for the higher numbers bike commuters across the pond has to do with the expense of keeping and using a car within a European city. The costs are MUCH higher than in a U.S. city. When this is combined with the more densely packed populations then biking becomes an easy, cheap, and efficient alternative to walking or driving. It is the right equation for bicycle traffic that still seems a long way off in the U.S.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTwo weeks ago, a workmate of mine had his pelvis shattered after he was riding on his motorcycle and was hit by an idiot in a car.......since you are an idiot, I wonder what that does to YOUR odds..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI commuted for 15 years on road bikes & fixed gears, through the country, through cities, year round, anywhere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reason more people don't is simply because they don't have to, and if there's one thing humans won't do, it's a thing they don't absolutely have to.
We've inherited a society based on the idea that we work toward success, and the marks of success are... As a sincere atheist, it almost pains me to refer back to the seven deadly sins, but so long as our society functions on this level, it will not progress beyond it in any meaningful way.
I am looking forward to residing in Copenhagen someday.
notslic, talk all you want on the internet, but on the road, mind your manners, if not for your own sake. I ride with a team comprised mostly of volunteer firefighters & veterans. It seems like once every six months or so, we cross paths with someone who shares the attitude you're displaying, who chooses to act on their stupidity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you make the mistake of valuing your impatience or selfishness over the life of another human being, simply because they're out enjoying the sunny day on the same road you're on, you can expect an equally or more violent reaction.
Consider how easy it is to beat on people when they're trying to escape from a cramped metal box. I can catch you, knock your window in, pull you halfway out of it and beat you unconscious with a U-lock in just two or three swift motions. Gonna try to get out of your car in a rage? Don't give me the opportunity. I have more leverage than you, and slamming your head in your door a few times is just as quick and effective. For greater offenses, the captain carries.
We're not all pansies, kiddo. Most of us take preserving our lives from assaults fairly seriously.
Hotblack...If the shoe fits...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJan Garrard's research on gender disparity in cycling of all forms (recreational, racing, transport) is held in high regard in Australia. You can find her full research paper as well as a summary at the Bicycle Victoria women's website http://www.bv.com.au/bikes-&-riding/90469/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA riders safety factor rises immediately by riding a recumbent trike.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this...if anyone is interested in 'why'...ask me...as a woman rider of recumbent trikes .. I ride one for health reasons...
Recumbent trikes are safer than the upright 2-wheel bikes. I ride one for health reason and have often watched 2-wheel bike riders pass me (yes, I am a slow rider) and observe how closely cars pass them and contrast it with the leeway they give the rider on recumbent trikes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs bicycling the daily rounds good for planet Earth? Is it good for our cardiovascular health? Is it good for our pocketbooks? The answers are obviously yes! yes! yes! All it takes to get on a bike is a decision. There are bikes designed for almost every need (see Bakfiets, Brompton, Xtracycle). There are clothes that can fit any weather. There are routes that are safer than others. Let's stop making excuses and start riding those bikes!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a no-brainer.... make bicycling safe, and away from major traffic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvery ride a bike on a typical roadway, stuffed with cars? One has to opt for riding on the sidewake, which is often illegal. Not everyone is going to break the law in order to be safe.
One aspect seems absent from this study to me. America still has a higher birth rate than Europe and many of the women who say the "need a car" may be doing so due to the need to haul children about. Single child households and childless households are common in Europe and with only one child a parent can easily take the kid on the bike with them. Even with two children the family can go places together by bicycle. When you introduce the 3 child family, which is quite common in the United States, that is no longer a feasible scenario. Demographic and lifestyle differences would seem to be major contributers the the American avoidance of bicycles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat a puzzle! From reading the article and several educated responses I see that it's complex.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder what the eventual grand answer(s) will be. I wish I could be here a century from now to see. Oh well.
Here and now I hope to see more electric trikes and cycles on the road.
I'm sorry but this "vexing" problem is just silly. Make a bicycle that goes 70 mph, carries your groceries, kids, work documents, is impervious to the elements, and has surround sound and I'm sure you wouldn't still have this "vexing" problem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy do people constantly try to solve problems when refusing to recognize the most obvious factors. Sure riding a bike is great, but try it when you are picking up two kids from school and need to get groceries! Good god how ridiculous.
This statement in the article is not correct in my locale. . . .And when cities do install traffic-protected off-street bike paths, they are almost always along rivers and parks rather than along routes leading to the supermarket, the school, the day care center, Pucher says. . .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere in southern New England, the RRs were overbuilt by a factor of three and we have an abundant network of former RR corridor in most communities that connects were people live work and play.
In fact, there are over 200 such projects underway within 100 miles of my house. [the densest network of rail trails in the U.S.] They connect where people live work and play and they will become a world class network not seen elsewhere in the U.S.
Craig Della Penna
Northampton, MA
It's not just bike paths! You're thinking only of suburbanites in houses on graded land, not genuine, real-life city dwellers. I'm 73 and arthritic, my car is 21 years old and fading, & I'd love to have a bike for around-the-corner shopping and for exercise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut -- where would I keep it? Would taking it in & out prove too difficult? In a large city, even in a middle-class residential neighborhood, only a fool would store a bike outside overnight, even locked! My apartment is a small 2nd floor walkup crammed with bookcases, with no wall room for even a fold-up bike. In any case, there are 33 very steep steps from the street up to my apartment. This is a hilly, terraced city.
Store it in the basement? Well, our basement is accessed only from a narrow, metal-barred outside stairwell with a tiny lower landing and a low door with a deadbolt--barely possible daily access for a fold-up but very uncomfortable for a full size bike. Young persons have moved in, stored bikes in this basement with good intentions--but never used them while they lived here. So it's not just my age and creaky bones.
Until the difficult problems of at-home storage and easy access are solved in apartment buildings without elevators, most city women, old or young, won't be able to use bikes. Or electric bikes or handicap scooters either. I'm afraid I must continue to restrict my rides to the staionary bikes in the gym.
@Nostilic,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTroll fail Troll.
Sidewalks are for pedestrians. Riding a city block between a row of parked cars and moving traffic requires being ready to swerve when a door suddenly opens. Another issue is deciding to pass a city bus when it is stopped for an unknown number of passengers in a crowd. Dedicated bicycle workarounds ensuring no puddles at such points are less costly than making outright long paths that are dangerous through iffy neighborhoods where at off hours we may be unwelcome witnesses to aromas of certain plant operations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm a frequent pedestrian, not a biker. As the number of people on bikes grows, we need strict separation of pedestrian traffic from biker traffic. Mixing two modes of transportation traveling very different speeds is dangerous -- as I know from having been bikers' near-miss numerous times. This means dedicated bikeways and bike lanes on highways, and laws against adult-ridden bikes on sidewalks (many jurisdictions already have such laws.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell,there is a simple question:By the time you pin yorself down going to work by the bike,you do have to wake up earlier than if you were going by motorcycle,for example.Living in the ��fastest world`` in the universe,any sort of time is homongeous valious,even if it is pratically nothing.We can�t leave behind the fact of the importance of time in our lifes,I agree bicycle is more secure,though.Which do you prefer,waking up while yet being asleep or dream a little bit more,and going work faster(avoiding an bike accident from distraction or sleep)?I prefer to sleep,of course!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell,there is a simple question:By the time you pin yorself down going to work by the bike,you do have to wake up earlier than if you were going by motorcycle,for example.Living in the ´´fastest world`` in the universe,any sort of time is homongeous valious,even if it is pratically nothing.We can´t leave behind the fact of the importance of time in our lifes,I agree bicycle is more secure,though.Which do you prefer,waking up while yet being asleep or dream a little bit more,and going work faster(avoiding an bike accident from distraction or sleep)?I prefer to sleep,of course!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell,there is a simple question:By the time you pin yorself down going to work by the bike,you do have to wake up earlier than if you were going by motorcycle,for example.Living in the ´´fastest world`` in the universe,any sort of time is homongeous valious,even if it is pratically nothing.We can´t leave behind the fact of the importance of time in our lifes,I agree bicycle is more secure,though.Which do you prefer,waking up while yet being asleep or dream a little bit more,and going work faster(avoiding an bike accident from distraction or sleep)?I prefer to sleep,of course!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell,there is a simple question:By the time you pin yorself down going to work by the bike,you do have to wake up earlier than if you were going by motorcycle,for example.Living in the ´´fastest world`` in the universe,any sort of time is homongeous valious,even if it is pratically nothing.We can´t leave behind the fact of the importance of time in our lifes,I agree bicycle is more secure,though.Which do you prefer,waking up while yet being asleep or dream a little bit more,and going work faster(avoiding an bike accident from distraction or sleep)?I prefer to sleep,of course!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere cycleways cross roads give the bikes priority. Be severe on dog owners allowing their dogs to roam in cycleways. In France, where I live, it seems dogs are involved in a high proportion of bike accidents.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI live in Sacramento CA., am 43 years old with two children and have no car. I bike everywhere, and have found that it was the intial period of uncertainty that was the hardest, but once I overcame my "fear" (it wasn't really FEAR, more like caution) it has been a incredible experience giving up the car. I am so happy to be able to get everywhere--usually by back streets as the article mentions--and to be free of the internal combustion engine! I have found that once you adjust to the fact that it takes a few more minutes to get places, it is actually more enjoyable, as it places you literally in touch with your environment, at a realistic pace, instead of cooped up behind a screen where you think you have to be everywhere 10 minutes ago. Of course, it's the inertia that must be overcome in the beginning to get people to realize these advantages. I say we need "bike ambassadors!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, if I am compelled to travel through a "sketchy" part of town during dark, I use wasp killer in a can. This is much, much cheaper than mace and you can put it in your water-bottle holder for easy access.
Maybe part of the solution lies in the city centre of Cambridge, UK. This city has the highest percentage of bikers in the UK, partly because the city centre is in fact the remnant of a medieval city with narrow streets that don't connect well. Add to that some counter-intuitive one way roads and a heavy emphasis on big sidewalks and big pedestrian roads, and the city centre is more or less impassable by cars, especially on peak hours.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe in the US you could do with some traffic arrangements that would discourage car usage in city centres.
Snotlick you SO don't get it, you wrote to Hotblack that what he wrote is funny to you, thus he is a "comic writer", just like you. You called it violent fantasy but what he wrote was to bring some reality into your kiss my bumper sticker world, tacks on the roadway while sitting on a cooler of beers. You then wrote your own little "fantasy" about how you picture his ass... you also made references to my buttcrack and prostate. I don't ride in fear, nor do I write in fear, and as far as comical goes, I'll just say that you continue to "crack me up" and I am "prostrate" on the floor. To make a feeble attempt at bringing this back to the article's topic of encouraging more bicycle ridership, other than writing that bicycles are for kids, which certainly is a group of riders to be considered, I take it that you favor a separate system for bikes, i.e. keeping current roads for autos, sidewalks for pedestrians?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow, with the advent of the electric "pedal-assist" bike, there is no excuse to take your car two blocks to the grocery store nor 20 blocks to your office. The advanced LiFePO4 batteries in the latest electric bikes will give you a 50 mile range (flat and steady). What more can you ask? OK, OK, so it rains and snows. But it doesn't do that 365 days out of the year. Get a bike and leave the gas-hog in the garage. Of course, the USA would do well in copying European countries by creating dedicated "bike paths".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is really sad — as a born American — to read all this "fear" of attack at night (hell, even in the daytime). What has the USA come to? Probably what I feared, when I left in the early '70s for safe and sound Scandinavia. It sounds as if bike riders are more concerned about being attacked than being involved in an auto accident. Is this true?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthank you, urban sprawl. thank you, suburbia.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat was supposed to be sarcastic. Also, I like bike lanes, I just think there needs to be a physical barrier between them and the regular lanes (along most of the road).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismake the women ride nude....there ya go....problem solved
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI had no idea about the proportion of women in urban cycling. So I was informed to that degree. I'm a bike-only transportation guy (part of that 2%) - but I fully acknowledge that we've got a long way to go before cycling becomes practical and accepted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe first thing I thought of while reading the article was that the city where I live is rated as fairly bike-friendly. But the article is correct: most of the infrastructure for cycling is oriented toward recreation, not for things like commuting and shopping. I risked my life last Sunday - getting to a store just 3 miles away: all high traffic streets with no bike lanes or sidewalks AND a freeway interchange which is a "Death Zone" for cyclists. I was shaken - took the bus back home though it meant waiting 30 minutes for one to come by.
I'd say that more emphasis on comparative cost would get more people interested. Obviously, travel per mile by bicycle costs about 2% vs automobile. (But that's just paying for and maintaining the bicycle, an honest comparison would have to match up 'fuel cost' as well.)
Oh, and one thing I want to make clear: the most negative factor in getting bicycles accepted is misbehaviors by cyclists who think they're still ten years old and are riding a toy. Scofflaws on bicycles are not acceptable.
I had no idea about the proportion of women in urban cycling. So I was informed to that degree. I'm a bike-only transportation guy (part of that 2%) - but I fully acknowledge that we've got a long way to go before cycling becomes practical and accepted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe first thing I thought of while reading the article was that the city where I live is rated as fairly bike-friendly. But the article is correct: most of the infrastructure for cycling is oriented toward recreation, not for things like commuting and shopping. I risked my life last Sunday - getting to a store just 3 miles away: all high traffic streets with no bike lanes or sidewalks AND a freeway interchange which is a "Death Zone" for cyclists. I was shaken - took the bus back home though it meant waiting 30 minutes for one to come by.
I'd say that more emphasis on comparative cost would get more people interested. Obviously, travel per mile by bicycle costs about 2% vs automobile. (But that's just paying for and maintaining the bicycle, an honest comparison would have to match up 'fuel cost' as well.)
Oh, and one thing I want to make clear: the most negative factor in getting bicycles accepted is misbehaviors by cyclists who think they're still ten years old and are riding a toy. Scofflaws on bicycles are not acceptable.
Dimitris,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour example of Cambridge, UK is wonderful. But the problem in the U.S. is that 98% of adults own /use cars and the infrastructure is overwhelmingly "pro automobile."
If you have in mind changing a city to become like Cambridge, that would be nearly impossible in the U.S. Central city areas are "starving for business" and depend on auto-driving customers to get to their businesses. Much is done to encourage people to "drive downtown and shop" or "get a job downtown, maybe car pool." But little is done to throttle down auto traffic and obviously that mitigates against increased pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.
If, suddenly, 30% of motorists converted to bike travel: that would only choke central city areas with "obstructing" bicycles on the streets and sidewalks. So it's not so simple, even though there are examples like the one you cite.
Where I live, women riding bikes, is all about class and wealth. Ride a bike for any reason either than sport or exercise (in a gym) and you are regarded as either too poor to own a car, or take a taxi, or just too tastelesss to care.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost women would not be caught dead on a bike, fact is, they would never live it down. Bikes are for sportspersons and children, and that's it.
Steve,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood point.
I live in a college town with a high percentage of bike owners. We have two large cycling clubs. And yes, the median income is above average. Even so, I agree that many women here "have excuses" which I didn't see until you brought it up, amount to them saying, "Riding a bicycle doesn't fit my image."
And they are sooo careful to pretend that they "admire" those who do ride bikes.
Further, there's another kind of Bike Avoider even more prevalent: these are adults who grew up and live in "blue collar" towns where most people have been thrown out of factory jobs and now live "less well" at low paying jobs. These people are clinging to what shreds of pride they have and will -never!- ride a bicycle because they consider doing that to be admission of "failure." In those places, even owning a decent-looking pickup truck is a badge of "success."
Safety. Perceived efficiency. Ease or enjoyability are all factors. I find that cycling is often stressful due to traffic and feeling exposed. I also think that we Americans tend to gauge our speed and perceived efficiency by viewing cars and faster moving bikes rather than foot traffic. In Europe I witnessed many of the cyclist were dressed in regular clothing and pedaling at a walkers pace. It got them where they wanted to go much faster than walking and with very little sweat (try it). We dress for the activity and cycle quickly enough to break a sweat, not good once you arrive at work.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not sure that women being more likely to be cautious or to be homemakers accounts for the full gender gap in ridership. My wife, who teaches courses on gender issues, suggested in all seriousness that for professional women a major problem with bike riding is that bike helmets mess up hair and it is difficult to ride comfortably in makeup or professional attire without messing it up due to weather or sweat. I have a male friend who commutes by bike and takes a shower at his office, but he has short hair, no makeup, and doesn't have to dress in a business suit. So it does not take him long at all once he arrives at work to get ready. Even then, he has to keep a change of clothes at the office. I think this may be a key reason why, in our area, I see many more college-age women in casual clothes riding bikes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting Note about the study done in Copenhagen on Cycle Tracks BikeLover. In the article the authors found that the raw # of accidents went up, but the # of accidents compared to # of riders was not used. This gives us little insight into whether or not these facilities reduce the number of accidents relative to the total biking population. The authors conclude by recommending further construction of cycle tracks, despite finding that the number of accidents went up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo support these arguments look at our little film about the question, why girls in Great Britain stop cycling when they become teenagers: "It's the infrastructure, Stupid!" is the answer of our girls. We shall show the whole 55 min. film tomorrow (9th of Dec 2009) in our UK premiere in Darlington in NorthEast England. Have a look at the trailer:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.youtube.com/BeautyandtheBike
There is also a book with the film in English and German with lots of pictures and a more scientific text to it, explaining the problems, young people, who want to cycle have to address.
Sorry, I disagree with you about mixing cyclists and cars. And in Germany there is only a (male) minority asking for the right to do so. They got it by now, by the way. But the main line is still: Separate motorists and bicycles on main and busy roads via a cycle path on pavement level (with priority for cyclists at junctions or intersections) or a wide cycle lane on the road (minimum 1,50 metres). Our film shot in Britain and Germany about young women and cycling gives you the same answer: We want proper cycle facilities on main roads which then give us easy access to schools, colleges, shopping areas, nurseries and so on. Pucher is right but maybe misinterpreted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswww.bikebeauty.org
Burtthebike, what exactly did they do in Milton Keynes??
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCausation vs. correlation is a major problem in this article and in the various "findings" reported within. Equally problematic is the perpetual and inexplicable perpetuation of the confusion between and the conflation of perceived risk vs. actual risk.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've been cycling in "traffic" rural and urban alike for 37 years. I've owned motorcycles and cars and bikes and have used them all with a cross-modal awareness that most people simply are too stupid and narrow-minded to accurately understand what they are doing let alone comprehend the consequences of their actions. More importantly in those 37 years of heightened awareness and a thrill seeking personality I can also say that most people can be taught the difference.
Once enough people actually do understand the differences, then we can do the real work of applied science to bicycling as transport. I'm relatively fearless in traffic, but the small amount I have comes from a practiced application of perceived risk and real risk--and common sense in sharing the road with massive motorized objects marginally operated by mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers...
On a capital planning basis putting a priority on safe routes to schools should be strong - helping to build healthy habits in at-risk youth that will serve as a human as well as physical foundation for expansion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd also hope it would encourage more female use as well!
And what about climate change and you responsibility? Motorbikes are extremely loud and emit a lot of toxic fumes. Grow up, old man!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like this forum community to have a look at our film project "Beauty and the Bike" and its accompanying book. Our web site:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswww.bikebeauty.org
Hope to hear from you!!!!!!
At least there are people protecting the rights of safety for cyclists. It is so important to have safety roads and tracks for us cyclists. I am aware of the dangerous risk for a cyclist, we are prone to injury once an accident occurred but i do hope we can lessen it by using safe routes. Thanks so much for this post. ^_^
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<a href="http://www.researchandcompare.com/category-s/2025.htm">comparesportsproducts</a>
In the south(Ga and SC) my family(bike riders) and I have witnessed and been victims of hit&run car/truck drivers . The mentality that some bikers have of riding abreast doesn't win co-operation, either.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a political equation playing. Bicyclists=enviromentalists=lib'ruls=commie,gay,terrorists,etc. I think it's open seasonIn SC with aggressive Teaparty rhetoric thrown around the air waves. V.Holder Greenville SC