London needs to shed its white, male, middle-class cyclist image, says Will Norman

Duncann wrote:

I just want to be the 100th comment on a thread where neither helmets or hi-viz are mentioned.

I'm afraid BTBS mentioned helmets a couple of pages ago, albeit in the context of self-harm. Which, ironically, can only be blamed on the victim.

brooksby wrote:

Based on the above, then, pretty sure I’m not middle class. And yet I don’t consider myself working class.  Is there anything in between?

Aye, but do you know your place?

https://youtu.be/nxpZkKKbDgA

ConcordeCX wrote:

Crampy wrote:

The thing that bothers me about this whole piece is that it could so easily present the same argument and deliver the same message (lets find out why minorities won’t cycle in London) without the devicive «white is bad» bullshit. This is a grandstanding whore of a publicity stunt that took a legitimate social issue and abused it like some ginger stepchild for nothing more than some public attention.

For shame, motherfucker, for shame.

have you actually read the article? Where is the ‘white is bad’ ‘divisive bullshit’?

They talk about perception that it is predominantly a white, middle-class male culture, but nowhere is there any suggestion that any permutation of white, middle-class or male is bad. They are pointing out that it is a monoculture and this by itself can become a barrier to entry for some people.

Surely the very fact that the perceived monoculture is a barrier to entry for those not of that monoculture  implies that said monoculture is bad? If the prevailing culture was perceived as good or attractive, then where is the barrier? 

Innit?

Crampy wrote:

ConcordeCX wrote:

Crampy wrote:

The thing that bothers me about this whole piece is that it could so easily present the same argument and deliver the same message (lets find out why minorities won’t cycle in London) without the devicive «white is bad» bullshit. This is a grandstanding whore of a publicity stunt that took a legitimate social issue and abused it like some ginger stepchild for nothing more than some public attention.

For shame, motherfucker, for shame.

have you actually read the article? Where is the ‘white is bad’ ‘divisive bullshit’?

They talk about perception that it is predominantly a white, middle-class male culture, but nowhere is there any suggestion that any permutation of white, middle-class or male is bad. They are pointing out that it is a monoculture and this by itself can become a barrier to entry for some people.

Surely the very fact that the perceived monoculture is a barrier to entry for those not of that monoculture  implies that said monoculture is bad? If the prevailing culture was perceived as good or attractive, then where is the barrier? 

Innit?

No. It's the fact that it's a monoculture, not that it's a white, middle-class male monoculture that makes it a barrier. If instead it were a rich, Bangladeshi married women playing hopskotch monoculture then it would still be a barrier, for example to poor Lithuanian teenagers who wanted to play hopskotch. This is not a judgement on class, sex, ethnicity, hopskotch or cycling, it is a judgement on monocultures.

I'm sure you can think of many other monocultures that people find difficult to enter - the weights room in the gym, the WI jam-making circle in the village hall, Indian dance classes, the old West Indian guys playing dominoes in the pub. People from each of these would probably find the others quite intimidating and not even try to enter. But as they are largely not matters of great public policy in the way that transport and health* are, it doesn't much matter.

But transport and health are important for the whole population for various reasons, and as we try to be an inclusive and welcoming society we want these things to be open to all, for the benefit of all of us.

*Note that they may in fact be important to mental health. If you are the only Asian woman living in a remote Scottish village and you feel too intimidated to join the jam-making circle because you don't understand British culture, this is going to have an important impact on you. However in that case I imagine the jam-making circle would invite you to join, and I suggest that those of us who are male, white and middle class invite others to enjoy cycling too.

ConcordeCX wrote:

Crampy wrote:

ConcordeCX wrote:

Crampy wrote:

The thing that bothers me about this whole piece is that it could so easily present the same argument and deliver the same message (lets find out why minorities won’t cycle in London) without the devicive «white is bad» bullshit. This is a grandstanding whore of a publicity stunt that took a legitimate social issue and abused it like some ginger stepchild for nothing more than some public attention.

For shame, motherfucker, for shame.

have you actually read the article? Where is the ‘white is bad’ ‘divisive bullshit’?

They talk about perception that it is predominantly a white, middle-class male culture, but nowhere is there any suggestion that any permutation of white, middle-class or male is bad. They are pointing out that it is a monoculture and this by itself can become a barrier to entry for some people.

Surely the very fact that the perceived monoculture is a barrier to entry for those not of that monoculture  implies that said monoculture is bad? If the prevailing culture was perceived as good or attractive, then where is the barrier? 

Innit?

No. It's the fact that it's a monoculture, not that it's a white, middle-class male monoculture that makes it a barrier. If instead it were a rich, Bangladeshi married women playing hopskotch monoculture then it would still be a barrier, for example to poor Lithuanian teenagers who wanted to play hopskotch. This is not a judgement on class, sex, ethnicity, hopskotch or cycling, it is a judgement on monocultures.

I'm sure you can think of many other monocultures that people find difficult to enter - the weights room in the gym, the WI jam-making circle in the village hall, Indian dance classes, the old West Indian guys playing dominoes in the pub. People from each of these would probably find the others quite intimidating and not even try to enter. But as they are largely not matters of great public policy in the way that transport and health* are, it doesn't much matter.

But transport and health are important for the whole population for various reasons, and as we try to be an inclusive and welcoming society we want these things to be open to all, for the benefit of all of us.

*Note that they may in fact be important to mental health. If you are the only Asian woman living in a remote Scottish village and you feel too intimidated to join the jam-making circle because you don't understand British culture, this is going to have an important impact on you. However in that case I imagine the jam-making circle would invite you to join, and I suggest that those of us who are male, white and middle class invite others to enjoy cycling too.

 

I completely agree with the asterisk at the end. It doesnt hurt to be open and inclusive. Be you jam maker, dominoe monger or cyclist. It probably goes a long way to overcoming a lot of these barriers.

peted76 wrote:

What is insulting about being called a gammon?

It's a pejorative term for an ageing, white man, who is red-faced with anger, such that his skin is similar in colour and texture to a cooked ham.

Mainly used by Owen Jones types to attack people of a right-leaning political bent (or, let's be honest, even a centrist or a centre-leftie, these days) by insulting their appearance rather than engaging with a reasonable argument, or ridiculing a stupid one.

Given that the insult is based solely on appearance, it's not a great direction to take a debate in, but those who toss it around usually engage in some spurious whataboutery to justify its use.

LastBoyScout wrote:

As Eton Rifle said, I also remember the discussions about low participation from minority groups in hill walking and other outdoor activities - skiing being a particular oddity. Lots of reasons given, both cultural and otherwise, and lots of proposed methods of encouragment/removing perceived obstacles, but the hard fact is that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

No matter how much I'm encouraged, by any variety of incentives and campaigns, I'm not going to take up, say, Morris Dancing or opera singing.

Regarding numbers of women cycling, this seems to be missing the glaring point that the vast majority of women that aren't on a bike won't be cycling for one other simple fact - children*.

I'd cycle to work every day, were it not for the fact that I have to drop the kids off and I can't get 2 kids, all the things they need for the day and my work stuff on a bike. It's just not practical.

* The safety point's already been done. My wife bought a bike on the C2W scheme - she's never cycled to work on it, as she wouldn't last 5 minutes on the the roads between our house and her office.

A couple of thoughts in reply:

• While there are similarities in participation levels, and possibly the reasons for those - hillwalking, skiing, opera, recreational cycling, etc. are just hobbies. It doesn't matter too much who does or doesn't like them. Different (pedal) strokes for different folks, as you say. But those things aren't being proposed as publicly-funded solutions to major policy problems - which cycling is. It's also being proposed as an alternative means of something we must do anyway, i.e. travel around the city. I don't think there are many consequences to people not skiing - but the consequence of low cycling levels is greater car use, overloaded public transport, congestion, pollution, obesity, etc. That's why it's an important public policy issue.
• I partly agree with the children point, and it's probably more true for some ethnic minorities who are less likely to delay family than career-oriented white middle classes in London (overall, women become mothers later in London that the UK average). But children used to walk to school. Now they get driven. Various reasons for that - but safety (perceived and actual) is again an important factor.

I'm not entirely disagreeing with you but if we're content not to care that city cycling is mostly for middle class white men then we should stop promoting it as a serious transport solution?

Duncann wrote:

A couple of thoughts in reply:

• While there are similarities in participation levels, and possibly the reasons for those - hillwalking, skiing, opera, recreational cycling, etc. are just hobbies. It doesn't matter too much who does or doesn't like them. Different (pedal) strokes for different folks, as you say. But those things aren't being proposed as publicly-funded solutions to major policy problems - which cycling is. It's also being proposed as an alternative means of something we must do anyway, i.e. travel around the city. I don't think there are many consequences to people not skiing - but the consequence of low cycling levels is greater car use, overloaded public transport, congestion, pollution, obesity, etc. That's why it's an important public policy issue.
• I partly agree with the children point, and it's probably more true for some ethnic minorities who are less likely to delay family than career-oriented white middle classes in London (overall, women become mothers later in London that the UK average). But children used to walk to school. Now they get driven. Various reasons for that - but safety (perceived and actual) is again an important factor.

I'm not entirely disagreeing with you but if we're content not to care that city cycling is mostly for middle class white men then we should stop promoting it as a serious transport solution?

I was trying to illustrate the effort/futility of trying to encourage people to do something they are fundamentally/culturally not interested in doing in order to achieve an arbitrary target. The original discussion stemmed from research into use of National Parks, which are publicly funded, and the potential withdrawal of those funds if diversity targets weren't being met. All of which was part of a wider approach to better integration of minority groups.

I agree with your point about cycling participation and mass transport issues.

My point about children was mainly that most people will drive the kids to school and then carry on to wherever, rather than changing mode of transport once the kids are dropped off. I have considered keeping a bike at my parents-in-law for the days when they have the kids, but it's impractical from a time point of view, unless I bought a second motorbike to keep there. Happily, on the days when they are at school, we can walk there - although the pavement is no less scary than the road with big lorries thundering along part of it.

Fish_n_Chips wrote:

Speaking to ‘Asian’ friends who tell me that their friends & relatives see cycling as if you are poor and cannot afford a car!

We've all had some mouth-breather lean out of the window and shout "save up for a car!"

Have to say, the only pattern I've noticed is that said mouth-breather tends to be driving a car that cost less than some of my bikes...

ktache wrote:

If he wants Dutch demographics he's going to have to build Dutch infrastructure.

finally  someone gets it whilst everyone is arguing about diversity and what it means to them we are classically being distracted by the solution staring the likes of Will Norman in the face, build more Dutch infra, youll get Dutch infra levels of diversity.

leave roads for cyclists as some kind of krypton factor style assault course, youll get only one type of cyclist.

Awavey wrote:

ktache wrote:

If he wants Dutch demographics he's going to have to build Dutch infrastructure.

finally  someone gets it whilst everyone is arguing about diversity and what it means to them we are classically being distracted by the solution staring the likes of Will Norman in the face, build more Dutch infra, youll get Dutch infra levels of diversity.

leave roads for cyclists as some kind of krypton factor style assault course, youll get only one type of cyclist.

Gordon Burns?

chaos wrote:

I am struggling with this one. Nobody encouraged me to cycle, I chose to do it. Nobody has ever told me not to cycle. Nobody has ever discouraged me. We are fortunate to live in a country where if you want to cycle you can. Yes, some vehicle drivers are a menace. Yes, some roads are poorly designed. Yes, there are some horrible people out there who do not like cyclists for whatever reason. However, if you want to get on a bike and ride, just do it. Once you have discovered the many benefits of cycling you will not need any further encouragement.

what are your demographics? Whatever they are, this response sounds very naive to me, showing a great lack of awareness of the many factors that conspire to prevent people from cycling, or visiting the countryside, or going to the National Gallery, or whatever it is they want to do, but can't.

one of those factors is precisely the lack of awareness among the traditional white population of things we take for granted, and the problems that other people face, sometimes just walking into a country pub.

Regardless also of race, sex and whatever else, sometimes just having the confidence to go into a new environment is intimidating for people. You can read comments all over the internet about people who've had bad experiences in bike shops, for example, because they didn't know anything about bikes, and were put off by the staff. Or by people like many respondents in this thread who are showing an entirely unwelcoming attitude towards people outside the white, middle-class male demographic. That's why places like London Bike Kitchen were founded, or Velorution, and any number of other similar enterprises .

ConcordeCX wrote:

chaos wrote:

I am struggling with this one. Nobody encouraged me to cycle, I chose to do it. Nobody has ever told me not to cycle. Nobody has ever discouraged me. We are fortunate to live in a country where if you want to cycle you can. Yes, some vehicle drivers are a menace. Yes, some roads are poorly designed. Yes, there are some horrible people out there who do not like cyclists for whatever reason. However, if you want to get on a bike and ride, just do it. Once you have discovered the many benefits of cycling you will not need any further encouragement.

what are your demographics? Whatever they are, this response sounds very naive to me, showing a great lack of awareness of the many factors that conspire to prevent people from cycling, or visiting the countryside, or going to the National Gallery, or whatever it is they want to do, but can't.

one of those factors is precisely the lack of awareness among the traditional white population of things we take for granted, and the problems that other people face, sometimes just walking into a country pub.

Regardless also of race, sex and whatever else, sometimes just having the confidence to go into a new environment is intimidating for people. You can read comments all over the internet about people who've had bad experiences in bike shops, for example, because they didn't know anything about bikes, and were put off by the staff. Or by people like many respondents in this thread who are showing an entirely unwelcoming attitude towards people outside the white, middle-class male demographic. That's why places like London Bike Kitchen were founded, or Velorution, and any number of other similar enterprises .

 

Get back to me when you've got the confidence to walk around certain city areas as a white. Works both ways and I think you'll find the crime stats aren't really indicating that ethnic minorities are being set upon by the cast of Straw Dogs or those who drink in The Slaughtered Lamb so that's why they're not off hiking and cycling. 

Maybe, just maybe (and this is the bit you don't understand) certain groups aren't interested in certain things. Maybe, just maybe cycling is one of them. Maybe we're in danger of once again having white people doing the thinking and deciding what other people should be interested in. This seems more racist than the openly racist if you ask me. 

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

ConcordeCX wrote:

chaos wrote:

I am struggling with this one. Nobody encouraged me to cycle, I chose to do it. Nobody has ever told me not to cycle. Nobody has ever discouraged me. We are fortunate to live in a country where if you want to cycle you can. Yes, some vehicle drivers are a menace. Yes, some roads are poorly designed. Yes, there are some horrible people out there who do not like cyclists for whatever reason. However, if you want to get on a bike and ride, just do it. Once you have discovered the many benefits of cycling you will not need any further encouragement.

what are your demographics? Whatever they are, this response sounds very naive to me, showing a great lack of awareness of the many factors that conspire to prevent people from cycling, or visiting the countryside, or going to the National Gallery, or whatever it is they want to do, but can't.

one of those factors is precisely the lack of awareness among the traditional white population of things we take for granted, and the problems that other people face, sometimes just walking into a country pub.

Regardless also of race, sex and whatever else, sometimes just having the confidence to go into a new environment is intimidating for people. You can read comments all over the internet about people who've had bad experiences in bike shops, for example, because they didn't know anything about bikes, and were put off by the staff. Or by people like many respondents in this thread who are showing an entirely unwelcoming attitude towards people outside the white, middle-class male demographic. That's why places like London Bike Kitchen were founded, or Velorution, and any number of other similar enterprises .

 

Get back to me when you've got the confidence to walk around certain city areas as a white. Works both ways and I think you'll find the crime stats aren't really indicating that ethnic minorities are being set upon by the cast of Straw Dogs or those who drink in The Slaughtered Lamb so that's why they're not off hiking and cycling. 

Maybe, just maybe (and this is the bit you don't understand) certain groups aren't interested in certain things. Maybe, just maybe cycling is one of them. Maybe we're in danger of once again having white people doing the thinking and deciding what other people should be interested in. This seems more racist than the openly racist if you ask me. 

 

well, you tell me which city areas you think I can't walk around, because I haven't found any yet.

it's certainly true that not everybody is interested in cycling, but do you not find it strange that some activities are so monocultural. It requires an explanation if we are to be an inclusive society, and saying that entire groups of people might not be interested, and leaving it at that, isn't an explanation.

EDIT: there's a blog post here by an academic specialising in this area which lays out some of the barriers to cycling:

http://rachelaldred.org/writing/culture-equity-and-cycle-infrastructure/