Images of cyclists online lack diversity and may potentially contribute to "excluding many people from choosing cycling as an alternative form of transport", a charity has argued.
The analysis, commissioned by climate charity Possible and first reported by Forbes transport journalist Carlton Reid, saw the University of Westminster's Active Travel Academy in London look at 100 photos of "family cycling" from Google Images.
In general, it was found that images displayed "implicitly heterosexual-type nuclear families" and "there was a lack of diversity of representation in terms of disability, body size, and ethnicity", with the majority showing white, slim, non-disabled people riding in the countryside, away from urban areas.
Possible argues the lack of diversity could impact "those who don't see themselves" from thinking that cycling is for them, potentially "excluding many people from choosing cycling as an alternative form of transport".
"Those who don't see themselves in those images or who live in built-up areas may feel as if cycling is not for them because they are not also white, slim, or able-bodied and do not have widespread access to green spaces and calmer roads on which to cycle," Possible suggested.
The research concludes: "While inevitably limited (and only representing one facet of under-representation), the results are important and should raise concern about the narrowness of some of this representation. Specifically, there is a need for authorities and other organisations to widen the range of images that they use to show 'family cycling', which may well include generating and sharing their own images."
It was also suggested that Active Travel England "could take responsibility for sourcing and sharing a wider variety of such images, including those featuring people with larger bodies, different family structures, and more ethnic minority people cycling in locations that are clearly within the UK".
Last year, the Bicycle Association published the insights of its research into diversity in the cycling industry, releasing a report which said the senior leaders are "overwhelmingly white, heterosexual men", as well as noting "widespread experience of unfair treatment, including harassment".
> "The male, white, cycling enthusiast niche has reached its natural limit": Cycling must address lack of diversity, says Bicycle Association
That followed the Association, several months earlier urging the bike industry to change if it wants to grow and reach new customers.
The report found that women hold just eight per cent of cycle workshop roles, 19 per cent of customer-facing roles, and 40 per cent of the industry's administrative roles – though only a small handful of those have progressed to senior leadership positions.
Over 90 per cent of women face barriers to both entering and progressing within the sports industry, citing issues as discrimination, harassment, a lack of role models, difficulty finding a work-life balance, and a lack of training and targeted recruitment among the key "blockers" to progress.
Though no official data for the cycling industry exists at the moment, the report also noted that, anecdotally, Black, Asian, or people from ethnic minorities are underrepresented in the sector, as are individuals from low socio-economic backgrounds or with disabilities. There is also a lack of LGBTQ+ people joining or leading the UK bike industry, the report said.
Add new comment
14 comments
Not quite sure what the news is here?
Do the images reflect the realities of who's cycling? And if not why not?
Being a vanilla dude "I don't know what I don't know" but I can't help feeling there are a couple of more fundamental barriers to cycling... "being able to visualise it" is important, but question:
Just how much would changing the pictures (even if it was to reflect reality better - see the first question) really make a difference to numbers cycling in the UK?
People in the UK give all kinds of reasons why they don't cycle. Skepticism needed - asking about things people previously haven't considered may get you speculation and confabulation... However the top reason given is likely close to the reality: all kinds of people just don't cycle because it's not "safe" (pleasant) or convenient. Then: people don't cycle because very few others (of any gender, age or ethnicity) cycle. Cycling for transport in particular is not perceived as a social activity (and in the UK this is partly by design). Finally many people have a car, right there, so the question doesn't really arise for many...
Indeed, if they are looking to combat barriers to cycling I think there are far bigger ones than the images thrown up by Google. But I suspect they are grinding a different axe.
82% of the people living in the UK are white, so most of the people who cycle will be white.
Isn't this more a question of Google or any other search engines algorithm not selecting images that reflect.the diversity of people cycling rather than there being a massively heavy preponderance of skinny white heterosexual families that cycle.
I haven't read the research in detail (obvs) but "family cycling" is a pretty blunt search. It's not surprising that it returns e.g. lots of images of rural cycling away from traffic - because most of the images appear on leisure and tourism sites. If you were Visit Hampshire, would you use an image of the urban commute through Southampton, or a leisure ride in the New Forest? (There may be a geographical flaw in this argument, but you get the point)
EDIT: I have now read it, it's here. I accept the general premise that cycling images are relatively undiverse; that people who don't see themselves in images of cycling may be in some way dissuaded; and therefore that it is desirable actively to increase diversity in images of cycling. But a search for "family cycling" does not, I would suggest, provide a representative sample of cycling images people might be exposed to. If, for example, you were trying to find about about local cycle routes, you're unlikely to come across and be dissuaded by these images because you wouldn't search for "family cycling" because it's untargeted.
Funnily enough, almost all car ads on TV show the car cruising down an empty boulevard or some unspoilt rural idyll, well away from any traffic! Somehow it does not seem to put off people who buy them for use in nose-to-tail traffic.
They searched for "family" cycling. Is the cause of their upset that they then found representations of kids having both parents in their lives, out together cycling, as a family? And, moreover, enjoying the health benefits. What were they hoping to find?
The referenced example was poorly chosen, but that doesn't change the point. Just perform a google images search for "cyclist". The enormous majority of results are skinny white males, with a few skinny white females thrown in. I scrolled many pages through those results, and other than a couple instances of Biniam Girmay and, oddly, a bunch of Daniela Larreal Chirinos, just about every person was skinny and white -- and those two professional bikeracers are skinny as well.
I've just done a Google of "family cycling" images - results below. Of the top eight images four are all white, one is in silhouette, two are non white and one is a mix of races. So I'm not sure their racial claim holds water. If anything, the representation seems contrived already compared to the reality I see.
I tried the same on DuckDuckGo which uses Bing as its engine, I believe. The top eight images were all white.
But the article is about "Google Images"
Yeah, I was just curious as to how different it might be
Which begs the question - who decides the ratios? The article holds "the authorities and other organisations" accountable. And, I notice DuckDuckGo does surface a few heavier builds.
Indeed, if you Google "cyclist" (not what the article did) then you get overwhelmingly sports cyclists. No surprise that they have the physique typical of their sport. If they had complained that cycling is overwhelmingly portrayed as a sport (and hence the "lycra clad" stereotype) rather than a leisure or utility endeavour then I might agree.