Woman's Hour - 25 September

Cugel wrote:

Segregation isn't needed as the roads are excellent for cycling, technically.

You keep saying that but I'm still not sure you've had the pleasure of Scottish road surfaces. Or perhaps gravel - with added rocks - is your cup of grog?

Quite right that the proliferation of driving is it though.

Social norms must ultimately be the reason why more UK men cycle than women but I'm certain it's not as simple as you set out. Pretty sure eg. in NL such "protecting women" attitudes are similar yet vastly more women cycle there - and indeed slightly more women than men! I wonder what else could explain that? 🤔

chrisonatrike wrote:

Cugel wrote:

Segregation isn't needed as the roads are excellent for cycling, technically.

You keep saying that but I'm still not sure you've had the pleasure of Scottish road surfaces. Or perhaps gravel - with added rocks - is your cup of grog? Quite right that the proliferation of driving is it though. Social norms must ultimately be the reason why more UK men cycle than women but I'm certain it's not as simple as you set out. Pretty sure eg. in NL such "protecting women" attitudes are similar yet vastly more women cycle there - and indeed slightly more women than men! I wonder what else could explain that? 🤔

Do you feel that the existing cycling infrastucture (shared paths with peds and white-line murder gutters, for example) are better than the roads for cycling? If so, we must disagree. At least the pot-holed roads go places cyclists might want to go. The potholes might even keep the drivist mad speeders to the limits! 

Perhaps you should have a word with the Scotty road menders, to tell them to come to West Wales so as to learn how to do it. The roads out here really are excellent. Oh and with very low traffic, 99% of which is very considerate to cyclists. Coo - cyclist heaven. Suprising, then, that so few are seen about the place. I must have done 20,000 km since moving here 4+ years ago and have seen about 12 cyclists in total when out on the back roads.

**********

What could explain all them Dutch lady cyclists? Well, nice cyce paths might play a small part (but would also appeal to the blokes, so it doesn't seem a likely differentiating factor). Perhaps the greatest factor is that the Dutch, like many other Northern Europeans, aren't so saddled with the over-dominant boy-racer culture that we suffer from in Blighty and other Anglo nations? The Dutch ride bikes primarily for transport rather than "to train" or pose as faux racing cyclists.

Women, being generally more sensible than we hormone-maddened blokes, tend to be more attracted to the practical than to the infantile. I know GCN, for example, has the odd female presenter (just one, is it?) but most of them are 11 year old silly boy-childs with some bike industry PR scripts about the latest bike-toys, eh?  I watch them briefly about once a month. Gawd, they give me the cringe (a sort of empathetic embarressment at their utter inanity)

Steve K wrote:

Cugel wrote:

[snip]

As to such segregation being particularly important for women ..... [snip]

Part of the issue seems to be men telling women that they ought to be frightened of traffic when cycling; and the daft buggers believing what they're told! Once women were told they couldn't be doctors, engineers, soldiers or prime ministers. Cuh! to that, eh? Let the husbands change the bairn's nappy and do the hooverin' whilst the womenfolk go out on their bikes to the cafe, where they will tell risque jokes about blokes.

Except my post was about an item on Woman's Hour about transport priorities for women with a woman presenter and a female guest (and, indeed, a contribution from a female listerner).  Other than me reporting what I heard, there wasn't a male voice anywhere.

Quite clearly the BBC need to invite a male guest onto the show (possibly from West Wales) to tell them where they're going wrong.

mark1a wrote:

Quite clearly the BBC need to invite a male guest onto the show (possibly from West Wales) to tell them where they're going wrong.

I am relieved that you at last have seen sense and come to appreciate my pearls. Perhaps you have been reprogramed with a better notion-grasping algo (that from the Mark VI c)?

Or perhaps your operator has noticed your generally hopeless and content-free comments so supplied a proper one whilst you were being recharged with the steam-driven alternator or having your stiff neck oiled? 

Steve K wrote:

Cugel wrote:

[snip]

As to such segregation being particularly important for women ..... [snip]

Part of the issue seems to be men telling women that they ought to be frightened of traffic when cycling; and the daft buggers believing what they're told! Once women were told they couldn't be doctors, engineers, soldiers or prime ministers. Cuh! to that, eh? Let the husbands change the bairn's nappy and do the hooverin' whilst the womenfolk go out on their bikes to the cafe, where they will tell risque jokes about blokes.

Except my post was about an item on Woman's Hour about transport priorities for women with a woman presenter and a female guest (and, indeed, a contribution from a female listerner).  Other than me reporting what I heard, there wasn't a male voice anywhere.

You heard one voice on that programme say something about seperate cycing infrastructure and, presumably 'cos you like the notion yourself, mentioned only that element of the programme.

In doing so, did you represent the full range of views expressed by all the participants in the discussion - or did they only discuss seperate cycling infrastructure? Seems unlikely.

It was a really good segment on Woman's Hour and certainly made me think. My instant (erroneous) reaction was to wonder why this could be a gender-specific issue, only to be reminded that just getting about is often fraught with worry for women because of the risks caused by men.

And the parallel with cyclists as vulnerable road users is pretty obvious. A lot needs to be done.