"It's important we build safe cycle routes designed with women in mind": Abuse and unsafe infrastructure preventing more women from cycling, Cycling UK report states

stevemaiden wrote:

Misogynistic rant.

False equivalence.  Statistically women have it much worse in much greater volumes.   Get thee to f**k.  You are part of the problem - the fact that you deny that doesn't change a thing or make your views any less repugnant.

Stale, Male and Pale.... I wonder how many boxes you tick?   Its easy to deny something is a bigger problem from that ivory tower of privledge you no doubt live in.

Please look up the words 'mysoginistic' and 'rant' in the dictionary so you can use them correctly. My post is neither! Please also try to be civilised when you interact with people nothing good comes out of a confrontational approach to life.

Your one on-topic point amongst the tirade of abuse isn't accurate, men are actually victims of serious crime to far higher volumes than women. Unless you don't think being viciously beaten, stabbed or murdered is particularly bad.

Please look up the words 'mysoginistic' and 'rant' in the dictionary(!!)

I obviously haven't!

stevemaiden wrote:

Please look up the words 'mysoginistic' and 'rant' in the dictionary so you can use them correctly. My post is neither! Please also try to be civilised when you interact with people nothing good comes out of a confrontational approach to life. Your one on-topic point amongst the tirade of abuse isn't accurate, men are actually victims of serious crime to far higher volumes than women. Unless you don't think being viciously beaten, stabbed or murdered is particularly bad.

'mysoginistic' definitely isn't in the dictionary

That's true, apologies. I'm myopic, you can understand the confusion.

Goalpost 1

stevemaiden wrote:

Men are raped, and attacked or mugged

Goalpost 2 (running across the pitch)

stevemaiden wrote:

Unless you don't think being viciously beaten, stabbed or murdered is particularly bad.

I have zero intention to debate in a civil manner with a bad faith argument made by a bad faith person. 

This is EXACTLY what I expected from you.   Deny or squirm all you want but Men are the biggest part of the problem, not that you will ever admit it.

I refer you to my original Get Thee.

stevemaiden wrote:

men are actually victims of serious crime to far higher volumes than women.

The numbers don't tell anything like the whole story.

You should try asking some women why they fear making eye contact with men when out walking, jogging, cycling, waiting for the bus...

Why they fear walking home alone, even in broad daylight.

Why they change routes, start panicking when they hear footsteps behind them...

And that's before we start on workplace sexism and mysogyny or what it's like to be a woman in a bar, where even women with company get inappropriate attention. 

Or the many accounts female cyclists have provided of abusive remarks said with far more venom and greater intent than those directed at us male 'lycra louts'. And there's the horrible reality of domestic violence and abuse. I could go on and on and on. It's all very real and absolutely sickening.

You could try asking someone who volunteers at a women's refuge. Or read about some of the abuse, stalking and terrifying threats that women get on social media. Did you miss #MeToo? And the recent stories about men like Russell Brand, Greg Wallace or Jay Blades? (the tip of the iceberg, there will be many others)

Comments like yours just perpetuate the problem, you're aiding the abusers.

Simon E wrote:

Or the many accounts female cyclists have provided of abusive remarks said with far more venom and greater intent than those directed at us male 'lycra louts'.

As a keen cyclist married to a keen cyclist I can testify that there isn't the slightest comparison. The worst unprovoked comments (i.e. when a row hasn't kicked off over something) I get from drivers are the occasional "lycra twat" or "get a car", and those are rare; Mrs H gets regular comments of the "lovely arse darlin'", "wish I was your saddle sweetheart" variety. It seems a lot of men don't appreciate the impact of that sort of regular harrassment from people who, if they chose, could probably inflict sexual violence upon the person they're addressing.

stevemaiden wrote:

Statistics show men are far more likely to be attacked and seriously injured or killed in public by a stranger.

Yes, this is true. Do you know why? Because women chose to avoid that risk by staying at home, avoiding the streets, not going out on their own, certainly not in the dark.

They lower their risk, but at a great cost. Including not going out on bikes so much.

I don't think the stats would support that theory. In the UK around 10 women are killed by strangers each year while 100, or ten times as many, men are. There aren't 10 times fewer women walking the streets after dark, there are actually plenty of women out after dark. The reason for the violence is complex, but the point I'm making is men have the same fears and concerns about personal safety based on a far far higher chance of being a victim.

stevemaiden wrote:

I don't think the stats would support that theory. In the UK around 10 women are killed by strangers each year while 100, or ten times as many, men are. There aren't 10 times fewer women walking the streets after dark, there are actually plenty of women out after dark. The reason for the violence is complex, but the point I'm making is men have the same fears and concerns about personal safety based on a far far higher chance of being a victim.

Just spoke to my colleague WHO LITERALLY HAS A PHD IN THIS SUBJECT. She laughed at your comment, then pointed me in this direction, whcih is a massive survey that shows exactly how frequently women make changes to where they go, and how they go there, in response to fear of violence

: https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2014/violence-against-women-eu-wide...

Seriously, you are either deluded or a troll, if you think men and women have the same fears of violence in public spaces.

That study is likely sound - I haven't stated that women don't consider safety in their plans.

I'd actually argue men have more fear of violence in public, that's one reason why so many of them carry knives. Another thing they do to mitigate risk is join a gang and always go around in groups. Men are always watchful to risk and have a heightened alertness to it and act accordingly. Which is why men often make changes to where they go and how they go there in response to fear.

It's quite shocking that so many women think men don't feel fear of violence and do so regularly. Do you really think that when women who are so fearful of violence act through fear that men who are ten times more likely to be a victim do not??

Please don't tell reasonable people they are deluded or a troll just because you don't agree with them, it's not very civilised.

the little onion wrote:

 

Seriously, you are either deluded or a troll, if you think men and women have the same fears of violence in public spaces.

On the balance of probability, I will go with TROLL

Which proves you are an online bully.

stevemaiden wrote:

Which proves you are an online bully.

LOSER!

It's a pity you can't bring yourself to admit that you lost the argument. You're wrong. Start educating yourself, or get a grown-up to do it for you.

Less academic, but memorably encapsulated recently by Saoirse Ronan 

stevemaiden wrote:

I don't think the stats would support that theory. In the UK around 10 women are killed by strangers each year while 100, or ten times as many, men are.

You're neglecting there the fact that although the numbers of women known to be killed by strangers are fairly low (although higher than you estimate, in the last ten years 274 women have been killed by strangers who were caught, nearly three times your claim), the number of "no suspect" cases is far higher and one must assume that most of those were also strangers. In 2023/4 there were eight murders of women by strangers who were caught, but forty-three women were murdered and no suspect was found.

In more general terms, I think it's irrefutable that women have to, and do, take far more precautions for their own safety than men and that has a huge amount to do with the statistics. To take my own example, being a fairly sizeable chap who can defend himself if necessary, I generally cycle and walk where and when I want. My wife doesn't cycle commute in the dark, either before dawn or after dusk, unless I ride escort with her; similarly if she's coming home late at night either I'll go and meet her from the bus/train and walk home with her or she'll take a cab. I'm probably statistically more likely to get into bother than she is but only because we take those precautions for her safety and because she has to avoid certain situations and scenarios that are dangerous for her but aren't really dangerous for me..

Do you know what it would take, in terms of infrastructure, to convince her to cycle at night?
I'd assume a well lit, well segregated and heavily trafficked cycle lane system.

Thanks for the stats, I won't dispute your figures and will do more research.

Yes I'd agree women do need to take more precautions, and for that reason like you and most men I also go out to meet my wife off public transport after dark and worry if she's late etc. There are unquestionably some freaks out there so that's sensible.

All women should really learn self defence, as should men because criminals don't discriminate between genders. As an example I've been beaten unconcious once as a young lad (unprovoked) and attacked and punched in the face a further two times again unprovoked, one occasion was road rage and the driver was convicted. My wife on the other hand has never been attacked nor been the victim of a crime against the person. I'd imagine that's not unusual, I'd imagine more men have been the victims of crime than women.

So my point is both men and women face barriers, both face danger both from aggressive drivers and thieves, muggers and violent attackers. A man is less likely to be raped but not less likely to suffer from serious assault or be killed.

In terms of the report, it's presenting a false picture. I am as equally fearful cycling down a dark canal path or though an unlit city park of coming to serious harm as any female cyclist - and far more likely to become a victim.

stevemaiden wrote:

In terms of the report, it's presenting a false picture. I am as equally fearful cycling down a dark canal path or though an unlit city park of coming to serious harm as any female cyclist

How can you know that you are "equally fearful" as "any female cyclist"? There is no possible way of quantifying such emotions and female cyclists doubtless have a wide range of fear levels themselves. All you can say is that you have a certain level of fear in such situations.

In terms of you being far more likely to become a victim, there are a lot of factors to be discussed there. In the first instance, as others have mentioned, males are statistically more likely to become victims because a lot more of them are willing to ride in more risky situations. I don't know if there are statistics about the proportion of female cyclists who are subject to crime compared to the proportion of male cyclists, if there are they would make interesting reading. 

There is also the factor of the type of crime to which a female cyclist may be subjected. Men may be more likely to be the subject of violent crime in terms of physical assault, women are more likely, by an order of magnitude, to be subjected to rape or other violent sexual assault, including sexual murder, by a stranger. As far as I can see the trauma of the latter is surely going to be unimaginably greater than the former. I've been mugged at knifepoint, had people deliberately drive cars at me, had people spit in my face and once or twice been punched by drunken idiots looking for a fight; there's no way I would imagine any of those things could be 0.0001% as traumatic as a sexual assault, which is the main thing that women fear and the main reason for them not wanting to risk their safety by putting themselves in dangerous situations. To claim that a man has to deal with the same level of fear and threat is frankly ridiculous.

TBF it's often not safe for women to avoid assault or rape by staying at home (with non-strangers) either.  Understanding of that is growing * but I believe those numbers are still seriously under-reported.

Agree on the criticism of "safety by not being there" also.  That is also part of how we've "made our roads safe" in the case of vulnerable road users.  (What we certainly haven't generally done is provide convenient safe alternatives, especially not for cyclists.)

* Indeed it's remarkably recently it even became being a crime in many cases - and that's still not a global reality.  In the UK we only saw the last exemptions ruled out in 1991 apparently - with the Sexual Offenses Act 2003 confirming that.

At least in part, it is because active infrastructure is put in WITHOUT sufficient attention to unequal gender impacts. The classic unlit towpath or path through a park. 

As the little onion points out there is a cycling aspect to this survey because ... it's about women cycling.

I'm not seeing "women are also afraid to drive places, because they're worried about being mugged in their cars" (indeed - apparently they tend to feel driving is a safer way to travel) *.

Certainly it's also a fact that - currently - a very small percentage of trips are cycled (even less for "transport") in the UK, because it's been made easy to drive, and cycling "isn't something people do", because it doesn't feel safe or convenient to them.  Without clearing the "necessary - but not sufficient" hurdles of "safe and convenient (and social!) networks of routes to cycle on, going to places we want to go, with secure cycle parking" few people will change routines.

It is partly another "chicken and egg" problem of numbers cycling.  If there were as many people out cycling as e.g. walking on streets in the UK (or more) that would probably help but of course...

Meanwhile we know that where things are properly designed, more trips are cycled by women than men [2023] [2015].  e.g. London - another recent survey says "no, doesn't feel safe".

* The nuance here is that in fact women are more alert when getting into /parking vehicles.  In fact apparently they're more often on the lookout generally; e.g. when taking public transport (e.g. buses [1] [2], transport in general ).

But it's a fact that many of what constitute UK "cycle routes" are likely to take you places where you're unlikely to have lots of other people around ("eyes on the street"), where there are plenty of "hiding places" (poor sight lines) and infrequent access points or buildings ("nowhere to run to").  Even the "quiet streets" routes may be perhaps "too quiet".

Because we provide for cycling "where possible" e.g. where it won't impede driving.  Another chicken and egg problem - because there "isn't demand" for cycling compared to driving...

chrisonabike wrote:

I'm not seeing "women are also afraid to drive places, because they're worried about being mugged in their cars" (indeed - apparently they tend to feel driving is a safer way to travel) *.

And yet women as stastically far more likely to be abused whilst driving.... kinda undermines your argument no...?

It might, if they stopped driving.  (Of course, you could argue that driving is simply the least worst / without driving women wouldn't travel much at all, I guess.)

Also - if similar numbers of men were reporting they were not cycling because they were afraid of being mugged or raped then the argument about gender being involved would be less salient.

FWIW I think this is a bit like many "accessibility" improvements: making more "socially safe" infra benefits everyone and don't come with other drawbacks (except cost itself ...).  Doesn't matter if you're a child, a woman or a big tough man.

Why?  The improvements I can think of (which have been made in practice) which are held to enhance social safety are either:

a) fairly simple changes to infra details e.g. avoid creating dark underpasses / tunnels where you can't clearly see through / see who might be lurking outside the exit.

b) in line with creating the kind of cycle infra that people really want anyway *.  That is: routes which go directly to places and which are part of a *network* and which allow for social travel.

* Or in the UK perhaps we should phrase that as "the kind of cycle infra which is associated with a serious, sustained increase in numbers of journeys cycled, in places where they have done this over a reasonable area e.g. large portion of city up to entire country"

It is exactly the places "out of sight" e.g. not overlooked by street traffic and rarely patrolled by the police (give the bobbies bikes!) where e.g. the scrotty yoof like to go and get drunk and or high and sometimes harrass people, and crims like to ride stolen / otherwise not type-classified vehicles, people are out with their "he's friendly honest" XL Bully dogs etc.

That's enough to put people off anyway, but add in (Edinburgh) weird guys pushing people into the canal, and as you mention some rapes and muggings ...

I still use these routes but I can understand why others would not.  And there have been a few occasions where I've heard the scrambler bikes / quads / parties of people clearly "over-merry" and taken a diversion. (TBF some of that can happen anywhere but on the paths you may be stuck).