Nearly three quarters of British women never ride a bike. So how can we get women cycling?

A woman on a bike: a rarity, except in Cambridge. Image: Getty.

Women in UK cities have a positive perception of cycling – yet almost three quarters (73 per cent) never ride a bike. This is the finding from Sustrans’ new publication ‘Women: reducing the gender gap’ which surveyed 7,700 people across seven major cities on their travel habits and attitudes to cycling.

Will Norman, the mayor of London’s walking & cycling Commissioner, has recently vowed to tackle the cycling diversity problem in the capital, stating that London cyclists were too “white, male and middle class”. The fact there are more men cycling than women in the UK is well-documented.

But this is concerning, and highlights wider gender inequality: fewer women than men meet the recommended physical activity levels of 150 minutes of moderate physical activity a week in the UK, making them more vulnerable to poor health and premature death.

 

The good news is that there is so much untapped potential here. It’s not that women don’t want to cycle. Our new report, ‘Women: reducing the gender gap’, shows that 30 per cent of women living in major UK cities that don’t currently ride a bike would like to, and many that already do would like to cycle more. The majority of women also view cycling positively, with 74 per cent stating they would like to see greater investment in cycling generally.

By enabling more women to cycle we could unlock this untapped potential. We could make sustainable mobility a real choice for women. We could make our towns and cities more liveable places, with cleaner air, quieter streets and safer roads – all the while increasing cycling trips from the 2 per cent of journeys it is today.

So how do we get more women cycling? Although there are commonalities between groups less likely to cycle, one thing is consistently over-looked by transport planners: the different needs and experiences of women, which are poorly reflected in infrastructure planning and design.


Plan for “tripchaining”

First, time constraints and complex schedules can prevent many women from cycling today. A handful of routes built to get people into the centre of cities is less likely to cater for the women who need cycling infrastructure elsewhere; routes in place that allows for “tripchaining” – for example, from a school, to the shops, to recreation and back to the school.

Most of these journeys will take place in the inner city neighbourhoods or around suburban town centres. So whilst it’s crucial to have infrastructure in place that gets people safely to and from their places of work, women are still over represented in roles that require other journeys in other parts of our towns and cities. And these journeys need to be reflected in planning.

Spend money wisely to make streets safer

Secondly, women report heightened fears of traffic and for their personal safety. This translates into our finding that women have a stronger preference for physical separation from motor traffic than men: 76 per cent of women surveyed who cycle or would like to cycle said they would find cycle routes along the road but physically separated from traffic very useful to begin cycling or to cycle more. Four in five women (79 per cent) said they supported building protected cycle lanes even if it meant less space for other road traffic.

However, in the cities featured in the report, there are only 19 miles of protected bike lanes in total, where data is available. Building more direct protected cycle lanes – safe, quick and convenient – benefits everyone, not just women. Overcoming safety concerns while being useful for every day needs, infrastructure that is inclusive, safe and welcoming is a must to increase cycling across all minority groups.

Gender representation in transport

Thirdly, more needs to be done to support and encourage women into transport planning and infrastructure design roles. If they are better represented in these industries, more of the decisions made should reflect women.

It is a maxim in management that diversity makes for better decisions. Perhaps most importantly, women and other under-represented groups should be better represented from the beginning of proposals for new infrastructure so that their needs are better integrated into stages of consultation, design, delivery and monitoring of all new schemes.

Engagement programmes as part of the planning package

Lastly, we need greater levels of training and outreach to enable more women to travel by bike. Peer to peer influence is said to have the greatest impact on changing behaviour. If we want to increase access to cycling and the numbers of people cycling, regardless of gender, ethnicity or background, we cannot continue with the mentality of “build it and they will come” when it comes to cycling infrastructure.

We need to make cycling infrastructure more inclusive from the start by bringing in local communities from inception to completion of projects – and we need to better understand the needs of everyone.

Rachel White is senior policy & political advisor at Sustrans.

 
 
 
 

The media scumbag’s route of choice: A personal history of London’s C2 bus

A C2 bus at Parliament Hill. Image: David Howard/Wikimedia Commons.

London’s C2 bus route, which runs from Parliament Hill, by Hampstead Heath, down to Conduit Street, just off Regent Street, is one of the bus routes recently earmarked for the chop. It has oft been noted that, of all the routes recently pencilled in for cancellation after a consultation late last year, it was the one most likely to survive, for the simple reason that it links liberal suburban north London with BBC Broadcasting House and Soho; it’s thus the route most likely to be used by people who can convince someone to let them report on its imminent demise.

So it would come as no surprise that former Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger took to the Camden New Journal when the consultation began, arguing that it would be a disservice to the local community to discontinue a route where you can always get a seat – seemingly missing the point that the fact you can always get a seat is not a great sign of the route’s usefulness.

It wasn’t always that way. When I left university in 2000, and moved from accommodation near college to up to a rented shared house in N6, the C2 was my bus. I commuted to Soho for sixteen years: for more than a decade from flats around the Swain’s Lane roundabout, and for five years from Kentish Town. While my place of work bounced around from Golden Square to Lexington Street to Great Marlborough, it was always the most convenient way to get to, and from, work; especially given the difference between bus and tube prices.

So when it comes to the C2 I’ve seen it, I’ve done it, and bought the bus pass. And by bus pass, I mean those little paper ones that still existed at the beginning of this century. Not just before contactless, but before Oyster cards.

More importantly, it was before London buses operated a single zone. There was an outer zone, and an inner zone, with different prices. To travel from one zone to another cost £1.30, meaning an all cash commute was £2.60, whereas a paper bus pass was £2.00. That made it worth your while to divert to an early opening newsagents on your way to the bus stop (GK, in my case), even if you only got two buses a day.

It’s a measure of how greatly London’s buses have improved over the last twenty years, since first brought under control of the mayoralty, that pretty much everything about this anecdotage, including the prices, seems faintly mad. But there’s more: back when I started getting that bus down to Stop N, literally at the very end of the route, the C2 used single decker buses with a single door. It’s an appalling design for use in a crowded city, which meant most of any journey was, for most passengers, spent fighting your way up and down the middle of the bus to find a seat, and then back again to get off; or – and this was more likely – fighting your way up the bus to get into standing space the driver insisted was there, before fighting your way, etc.

Such buses – and in my former life in the English Midlands I went to school on one of these buses every day – are perfectly functional where bus stops are infrequent and buses rarely standing room only. But running through Camden Town at rush hour, they’re wholly unfit for purpose.

A Citypacer. Image: RXUYDC/Wikimedia Commons.

It could have been worse. I didn’t know this at the time, but a few years before the C2 route had been run using Optare City Pacers. Those are, let us be frank, not really buses at all, but minibuses. That’s something the reveals the C2’s origins, as a hopper route to the west end largely intended for the daytime use of Gospel Oak’s pensioners in the years immediately before bus privatisation. (The C11 has a similar origin, taking the same constituency from Archway to England’s Lane.)

Once responsibility for London Buses was moved to the newly established mayoralty, things improved dramatically. Under Ken Livingstone it went double decker in 2005, and 24 hour in 2007. Under Boris Johnson it was extended from its once, and future, terminus of Conduit Street to Victoria Station, swallowing up the cancelled sections of the 8 bus; this extension was quietly disposed of a few years later, once it was clear no one would notice. (I did.)


In those years I must have taken a C2 the best part of ten thousand times; but for all the years when I wouldn’t have been able to live without the C2, times have reduced its utility, and not just for me. I’m now a 214 sort of guy: these days the top chunk of the C2 route is duplicated exactly by that other bus, which starts up in Highgate Village and, once it gets to Swain’s Lane, follows the same path until the fork of Kentish Town Road and Royal College Street, opposite the long defunct South Kentish Town tube station.

From a few hundred metres below that point, at Camden Gardens, stop C, the 88 starts. That duplicates the rest of the C2’s route, with the exception of the run down Albany Street and onto Great Portland, for much of which the C2 is the only bus.

So the C2, old friend that it is, is pretty redundant in the age of the hopper fare, which allows you to change buses without paying a second fare. That’s even more true now the C2’s otherwise un-serviced stops are being giving over to a re-routed 88, which will pick up the C2’s most northern leg, by not finishing at Camden Gardens anymore and instead going all the way to Parliament Hill Fields. Which will be nice for it.

All this, however, ignores the best reason for getting rid of the C2 (or rather for merging it with the 88, which is what’s actually happening): that first character. The letter. Who wants a bus route with a letter in front of it when even half the night buses don’t have the N anymore? It’s relic of the route’s aforementioned origins as a ‘Camdenhopper’.

That C is twenty five years past its own utility. It’s just untidy. City Metric hates that sort of thing. Get rid.