I-Like-To-Bike

Wait til you get older or get arthritis or have some reason to have difficulty mounting a "men's" bike, a "woman's style bike" style may look more attractive.

And I don't buy that "weaker frame" BS for a second for typical non competitive use. The pound or two two extra weight is another red herring only of significance for those who want to emulate racer boys and girls.

dougmc

That is a fine slippery slope you've set up there.

I assume all your bikes are 7 lb featherweights? If not, then you're on that slope too, and have just decided where to stop, just like any designer of a "woman's" bike has.

And really, a 40 lb bike doesn't ride that differently than a 20 lb bike -- not because of the weight, anyways. That weight really only matters when you're carrying the bike (it matters a lot) or going up a hill (it matters a little) or if you're racing (it matters a little, but races are often won by a little.) (Cyclocross racing usually has all three factors, so it's not a good application for such bikes!)

During normal riding on a flat road? It matters a tiny bit.

Schwerelos

That. If you want to talk about recreational riding, not commuter riding. It's amazing to me how even the single guys in the club I ride with will drop a cute girl without a second thought. And the girls that can hang with the boys certainly won't give up their well earned place in the weekend peleton. The keep up or ride alone attitude does not encourage girls to become part of the sport, IMHO.

I don't understand the focus on commuter cycling. Of course riding to work adds the extra considerations of clothing, make-up, commute time, etc. Isn't it more telling that fewer women bike even when those are not concerns (i.e. on the weekend)?

kiwigem

I'm with Bethany on all the family reasons. I have a countdown going in my head until my youngest is in school and I can bike for more than my "mommy break" (an hour early Saturday mornings when the schedule allows). Another issue that is more of a concern for women than men I think, is vulnerability- not just to an SUV as someone above was saying- but vulnerability to attack. Not everywhere I need to go is in the greatest area of town. I think it would be interesting to find out what percentage of the women who aren't taking up transport cycling REALLY want to but feel that it's just not realistic.

kuan

B. Carfree

Since the last data I saw for female height/weight in America was 2002 (5'3, 163 lbs) and the height had been slowly rising while the weight had gone up over 24 lbs in three decades with a positive derivative, I did indeed extrapolate. When the 2011 numbers come out let's see how "way off" these numbers are.

As far as your significant barriers go, you should have been in the one place and time in the U.S. that had a real bike culture. There were only a few bike lanes and one bike path, but somehow everyone, and I do mean everyone, managed to get on their bikes and ride. Eventually many miles of bike lanes and several bike paths were added. After these amenities were put in place, the bicycle all but disappeared for two decades. So much for the need to Copenhagenize. I'm not saying it would be an entirely bad thing, just that it is neither necessary nor sufficient.

I also talk to people most days about riding bikes. I probably hear the same fears that you are hearing, but I interpret it to mean that people want traffic law enforcement much more than they want infrastructure "enhancements". Part of this is because the culture of law-abiding motorists that follows vigorous traffic law enforcement goes everywhere in the jurisdiction, and somewhat beyond, while infrastructure changes don't.

Enjoy your lunch.

Brontide

So at least you can man up and admit that you made them up. It would take only moments to check NHANES 2006 using wolframalpha to find out that the average height is 5' 4", 165 pounds and a BMI of 28. But for someone with enough knowledge of demographics, you should be wise enough to know that women's distribution is biased and average is skewed towards the heavy side because of outliers. The median is still 5'4", but the weight is down 9 pounds ( 156 ) and the BMI a whole point to 27. Still a little "overweight" but not even close to the the BMI 31 obese woman that you claimed is the average.

EDIT: And it's also a moot point since women are still on average and by median indicators less overweight than their male counterparts.

Looigi

The thing I find alarming is how few guys are involved in crafting; stamping, scrap-booking, beading, .... Something needs to be done.

sharrn

Larger women just need more Rosa Park figures for their comfort. They need to not be so scared of going out and doing what they want or love to do. So what, their a bit larger than the average cyclist, who gives a shiite? Their doing better than most of America already. I agree with Frantik also. Gbh wrote a song about "big women" https://youtu.be/80mxJ8Suinc

I-Like-To-Bike

What the heck is the significance of the "Rosa Park figures" ? Some sort of credence by using a PC buzz word?

Who sez people (men or women) who love bicycling are scared to do so?

As far as big women are concerned seek the John Lee Hooker original of Big Legs, Tight Skirt.
As far as big men are concerned seek Howlin' Wolf's version of 300 Pounds of Joy.

chrisb71

I just learned about this yarn bombing thing: https://www.flickr.com/photos/canadianveggie/5838004811/
Yarn: the new street art

ladyraestewart

It's really a more complex issue than people realize. Many women grow up with low self-esteem. Look around at all society dumps on us daily in terms of looks and it should not surprise anyone. Fathers of little girls have a bigger impact here than they realize -- they rarely tell their daughters how beautiful they are often enough. Then we have the drowning flood of advertising plus the entertainment industry and what do you expect?

Lucky are the women who wake up realizing the opinion of anyone but themselves doesn't matter one wit.

nelson249

Although the OP is writing about the States I think the same issues exist north of the border too. I don't think we should underestimate the fear thing. My sister is an avid cyclist too but she doesn't feel comfortable riding on her own. She is living in a city with a comparatively high crime rate and high unemployment. So she waits to connect with a friend or two and consequently does not get near as much riding in as she would like.

skye

Measured average height, weight, and waist circumference for adults ages 20 years and over

• Men:
  Height (inches): 69.4
  Weight (pounds): 194.7
  Waist circumference (inches): 39.7
• Women:
  Height (inches): 63.8
  Weight (pounds): 164.7
  Waist circumference (inches): 37.0

Source: Anthropometric Reference Data for Children and Adults: United States, 2003-2006, tables 4, 6, 10, 12, 19, 20

Americans, in general, are fat, lazy, stupid and getting stupider.

frantik

Americans are not a homogenous group of people so making generalizations kind of makes you sound stupid and lazy.

skye

Good point. Americans in the South are fatter and stupider than the rest of the country.

Lot's Knife

Who cares?

sharrn

All I was saying is that Rosa had a huge part to do with black rights, etc.. She helped get people to change their opinions about the "color wars." Some bigger women probably just need another they can look up to and give them hope that they can be like the woman cycling blah blah blah.. I'm not really talking about the people who already ride. I'm talking about the ones that want to start but won't because "I can't do that." or "I'll never be as good as her." I was just using Rosa as an example. I'm sorry you don't understand the relation.

skye

Poppycock. This whole "women as victims of modern society" whinge is a crock. On what data do you base the rather base claim that fathers "rarely tell their daughters how beautiful they are"?

Many *people* may grow up with low self-esteem (not just women), but that's doubtful, as the most recent studies show that children in the U.S. (boys and girls) possess self-esteem exceeding objective justification (e.g., American kids think they are better than they are). It has little, if anything, to do with dads telling their daughters that they are beautiful.

My guess is that you're extrapolating individual experience to a population. And your thinly-disguised misandry is appalling.

Berta

I'm only going on my own hunches, and only with regard to the area I live in, as to why more women don't ride bikes here in the U.S.

Weight could be a factor, but I'm in an area where women being overweight is not considered particularly shameful. The (few) women riders I see using the paved track around the lake, with both a ped and a bike lane, tend to be somewhat overweight and usually middle aged. There are plenty of overweight women of all ages using the ped lane (and exercise equipment off the track) with apparently no worries about being fat and out and about. Some days, I'm one of them, but I'd mostly rather ride and be somewhere else.

This leads me to wonder if one of the deterrents is the technical nature of bikes. If, for example, your primary physical activity goal is to achieve and maintain health and an acceptable weight, why bother with a bike? Parts can break, tires get flats ten miles from home. You can fall. The bike can fit you badly and the saddle can make the ride unbearable. You might feel too embarrassed when you f' up your bike and have to tell the bike mechanic. If you choose to walk, run, and/or go to a gym, you mostly avoid these issues. How much knowledge does one need for these activities compared to riding a bike? Unless these women feel that riding could be enjoyable and/or absolutely necessary, they probably won't be investing in a bike.

I find that women who ride for enjoyment and utility are often as hungry as men for bike and riding knowledge. I love reading the info here, but I'd find it a real chore if I didn't perceive riding as worthwhile.

I'm not a good one for addressing crime concerns. I'm in a high crime city, and while I try to avoid the worst areas (blocks of lots of boarded-up houses), I am highly attracted to desolate, especially industrial, landscapes and I will ride there if at all possible. I unfortunately don't enjoy riding with people and I often ride at very odd times on the streets (3-6 a.m.) to avoid car traffic. This is definitely not recommended as a way to enjoy bike riding, but I admit to the risks and take responsibility for my weird habits. I believe from experience that most women see themselves as much more visible than I see myself, and that probably accounts for some of my cavalier attitude toward where and when I ride.

Brontide

Men are more overweight ( median and mean ) than women, it can't be the reason unless it's tied to some other factor ( vanity, safety concerns, ... ).

I give a lot of credence to the idea that women are more likely to have an irrational fear of being attacked while cycling alone. A close friend falls into that category.

rumrunn6

no it's a culture thing

dougmc

I stand by the accuracy of my statement. Shaving weight off your bike design is a series of tradeoffs -- and often it's just not worth it. (And often it is.)

Who cares what features you will use? Many people find step-through frames to be desirable. If you don't like it, don't buy one (that seems pretty obvious, doesn't it?)

Don't you remember what you said, what I was responding to?

Absolutely, it's an engineering trade-off. But the way you phrased it right here is a textbook slippery slope.

dougmc

Again, that's a textbook slippery slope. The wikipedia page on slippery slopes might be useful here, in particular example #4 --

That is *exactly* how you've phrased it, twice now. You seem to be arguing from the position of "take 2 lbs, multiply it by a bunch, and it's a lot of weight" and he simply said that a step-through frame adds about two lbs (to give the same strength, anyways.)

See, I disagree. I think step through frames are a great thing for people who want them. Everyone else would be wise to go with whatever they want, be it a top tube ... or a recumbent, or whatever.

Why would somebody mention it? We weren't giving lists of why step-through frames are inferior or unsuitable.

Yes, but his logic wasn't simply "it's just 2 lbs". It was more that a step-through frame wasn't an expensive design trade-off -- it only "costs" 2 lbs. And he was absolutely right. It is only *one* decision, not a road map to the dark side.

Does the rider want a step-through frame? I doubt they care what you declare them to need.

fuji86

She has a point, you'd be surprised how many co-workers would use that as a tool. BO can be a career killer.