Southern California - Why Don't More Women in L.A. Ride Bikes?

Seeing the vilification Scott received when he genuinely tried to present his opinion is why most guys will not respond to such questions.

So, a woman asks me, “why don’t more women race?”
I say” Gee I don’t know”.

Someone asks “why don’t more women bicycle commute?”
“Gee I don’t now”

“Why don’t more women in LA ride bikes?”
“Gee I don’t know”

I also find women, are more receptive to replies that come from people of which they are attracted (I don't mean romantically). If you aint it, it doesn’t matter what you say.

So, my answer to most questions, “Gee, I don’t know”

Seeing the vilification Scott received when he genuinely tried to present his opinion is why most guys will not respond to such questions.
So, my answer to most questions, “Gee, I don’t know”


You do realize that Sunday is going to be a very painful day for you, right?

You do realize that Sunday is going to be a very painful day for you, right?

Gee I don't know, is it?

[SIZE=3]Seeing the vilification Scott received when he genuinely tried to present his opinion is why most guys will not respond to such questions.


What villification? I certainly have no issues about DScott responding, except when anyone makes sweeping generalizations/stereotypes about women. However, I also don't totally agree with M.E. about gender having nothing to do with agression/the desire to race. The inequitable M/F ratio in crit racing is too extreme to overlook, so there must be reasons –*biological, environmental, cultural... Certainly the mere fact that many women give up prime years for child birth/rearing has something to do with it. But I'm not a sociologist, nor a bicycle researcher, and can only speak from my own POV (which I did).

As for recreational riders, I'm with Placid Casual on that one. I don't see a dearth of female riders out there. At least where/when I ride. :)

Gee I don't know, is it?

Yup

I'm with Placid Casual on that one.

Did I just write that?

::: shaking head :::

What villification? I certainly have no issues about DScott responding, except when anyone makes sweeping generalizations/stereotypes about women. However, I also don't totally agree with M.E. about gender having nothing to do with agression/the desire to race. The inequitable M/F ratio in crit racing is too extreme to overlook, so there must be reasons –*biological, environmental, cultural... Certainly the mere fact that many women give up prime years for child birth/rearing has something to do with it. But I'm not a sociologist, nor a bicycle researcher, and can only speak from my own POV (which I did).

As for recreational riders, I'm with Placid Casual on that one. I don't see a dearth of female riders out there. At least where/when I ride. :)

I think the ratio would shrink if culturally it was more acceptable for women to race. As it stands, we cannot compare apples to oranges. After all, like most major sports, the cycling world really only glorifies men in the sport (TDF, hello?) and women are still discussed mainly as Podium Girls and judged on their “hotness” and not abilities. If that ever changes, and I hope it does, THEN I suspect that M/F ratio will narrow considerably and maybe even enough so to prove the argument one way or the other. But I am merely hypothesizing as I have no research to back up my opinion either.

What villification? I certainly have no issues about DScott responding, except when anyone makes sweeping generalizations/stereotypes about women.


+1
Everyone who makes sweeping generalizations is a worthless moron.

+1
Everyone who makes sweeping generalizations is a worthless moron.
Ah luv u... :lol:

+1
Everyone who makes sweeping generalizations is a worthless moron.

Yes...yes, they are...:rolleyes::p

Did I just write that?

::: shaking head :::

My work here is done.

(But I'm not leaving)

My work here is done.

(But I'm not leaving)

Good. I like you and don't want you to leave.:D

I don't sweep in my generalizations, I Shop Vac them. Sheesh!

And at least I didn't suggest that the reason that more women don't race is because they're too busy in the kitchen making sammiches.


http://www.free-smiley.info/tongue/tongue-smileys-emoticons14.gif

I don't sweep in my generalizations, I Shop Vac them. Sheesh!

And at least I didn't suggest that the reason that more women don't race is because they're too busy in the kitchen making sammiches.


http://www.free-smiley.info/tongue/tongue-smileys-emoticons14.gif

:lol:

Damn straight...we're making sandwiches on the kitchen floor with the hot neighbor and our girlfriend...

Oh, wait. What kind of sandwiches do YOU mean? :rolleyes:

:lol:

Damn straight...we're making sandwiches on the kitchen floor with the hot neighbor and our girlfriend...

Oh, wait. What kind of sandwiches do YOU mean? :rolleyes:

I'm having a hard time seeing this. Got pics?

And people wonder why...

As for recreational riders, I'm with Placid Casual on that one. I don't see a dearth of female riders out there. At least where/when I ride. :)

Do you guys live in the same LA that I live in? :D I mean, yeah, there are women who ride, but they are almost always outnumbered by men in any group be it mountain bikers, roadies, commuters, hipsters....etc. I've heard that's not the case so much on the streets of Portland/New York...but that wasn't my major "puzzlement"...I just wonder why women don't ride more.

Look at the BF rides...more men than women. When I rode in more organized mountain trail rides same thing...several women a bunch of guys.

I emailed Monica Howe and asked her for the stats on the Los Angeles River Ride. OK...daytime ride, mostly off the streets, different lengths, ride at your own pace...even a short ride women could do with their kids. These are the stats she emailed me...


Yes, in fact, I do have that stat handy:

68% male
32% female

I wonder how that compares with other rides?


I'm just really curious WHY there are so many more men who ride bikes than women. :p

I always suggest to single women if they want to meet guys start riding a bike...:)

Do you guys live in the same LA that I live in? :D I mean, yeah, there are women who ride, but they are almost always outnumbered by men in any group be it mountain bikers, roadies, commuters, hipsters....etc.

I think they're all in the LA Tri club or something. They had a day at the track last year and it seemed like the women outnumbered the men.

I always suggest to single women if they want to meet guys start riding a bike...

I wonder if that's what a friend of mine had in mind when she asked me to start taking her out on a real bike...

She's been spinning at the gym for a while, but hadn't ridden a real bike for 5 or more years. Now she's looking for a road bike-- 46-48 cm range, depending on the brand, if anybody has one around they want to get rid of. I'll measure up the bike she's using now and figure out what she needs.

I wonder if that's what a friend of mine had in mind when she asked me to start taking her out on a real bike...

Maybe...:D

Or else (my theory..or wish not sure) is that we're on the verge of a second "big bike boom" like in the seventies and more people in general ( maybe especially women?) will be riding...

I've seen 5 other people riding bikes on my rides around here and they've all been men and old men at that. My conclusion: working on weekends blows and my sample size is way too small.

I've seen 5 other people riding bikes on my rides around here and they've all been men and old men at that. My conclusion: working on weekends blows and my sample size is way too small.

And non-random....

I must have seen about 12 bikes today not even one ridden by a female...

I was thinking alot about it since I posted this thread this morning.

And non-random....

I apologize for my statistical misstep.

I think it's a fascinating question, and we've hit on a number of reasons. Let's start a list:

1. Safety issues
2. Fashion conflicts
3. Embarrassment, Fear and Laziness
4. Fear of suffering
5. Alternative, preferred exercise options (gyms, pools, pilates, etc)
6. Smaller pool of racing women to hook up with
7. Training too intense
8. Indolent absence
9. Racing/training is not fun/social enough
10. ovoleg
11. Innate aggressiveness differences
12. Indifference to the technical/mechanical pleasures
13. big john has captured them all for his harem
14. Child birthing/rearing duties
15. Lack of cultural support/acceptance
16. ovoleg
17. "sandwich making"
18. They're afraid of M.E.

and

19. There's no difference.


Feel free to add your own...



BTW, I googled "women and sports" and found some fascinating links to books and articles I'm too tired to read. Worth a look...

Many seem to point to cultural influences, especially in regard to organized sports, that encourages boys to be physical and active, and discourages girls for the same thing. I think that's changing, or at least I want to believe it's changing. Given the glut of obesity in our culture and the over-emphasis on physical appearance, it damn well better be changing, or our kids are doomed.

Interesting link, especially for those with daughters: http://www.campaignforrealbeauty.co.uk/

I think the ratio would shrink if culturally it was more acceptable for women to race. As it stands, we cannot compare apples to oranges. After all, like most major sports, the cycling world really only glorifies men in the sport (TDF, hello?) and women are still discussed mainly as Podium Girls and judged on their “hotness” and not abilities. If that ever changes, and I hope it does, THEN I suspect that M/F ratio will narrow considerably and maybe even enough so to prove the argument one way or the other. But I am merely hypothesizing as I have no research to back up my opinion either.

I saw this thread earlier but since it has opened discussion about women's racing, I thought I would add some pics from a women's professional race we saw in Italy last week - the Giro Toscana. We were in Tuscany on a tandem tour and one of our rides was from the island of Elba (via the ferry) to a walled city on top of a mountain called Volterra. The climb to the city was a Catagory 1 climb. When we entered the city, a women called to us and said "hey Webcor, Mara is racing today". We were in our Webcor Alto Velo team kits. Webcor builders sponsors a professional women's racing team that competes in the United States and Mara Abbott is one of the Webcor pros. Next year they will also race in Europe. However, two of our women were on the US National Team competing against the Europeans. The Giro Toscana is a professional women's stage race with the hill climb stage finishing in Volterra. The field did two laps through Voltarra and the Catagory 1 climb twice.

We had arrived in time to see and cheer on our women in the race. After the race was over, we talked with the US team about the race. This was a totally cool experience and our timing was lucky. I did not see any podium boys.:p

I cannot speak to ratios of female cyclists to male in LA but in NorCal, we have a lot of women cyclists and racers. The Altovelo women are very serious and competitive. We have very good participation by women at local races and at the Nationals each year.

The climb to Volterra

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u250/rallen94402/Giro%20Toscana/PICT0242.jpg

The finish line

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u250/rallen94402/Giro%20Toscana/PICT0253.jpg

The field - They are on a fairly steep grade. Note the posture and hand positions. They were motoring even at this grade.

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u250/rallen94402/Giro%20Toscana/PICT0250.jpg

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u250/rallen94402/Giro%20Toscana/PICT0244.jpg

The winner

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u250/rallen94402/Tuscan%20Tour/PICT0258.jpg

US National Team after the race

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u250/rallen94402/Giro%20Toscana/PICT0268.jpg

I must have seen about 12 bikes today not even one ridden by a female...


I probably saw about 20 bikes in all today, about a third of them were either fixies or singlespeeds with a female rider on one of them. :D

My broad sweeping generalization is that women look for supportive environments and generally speaking, the bicycle isn't the best place to find that environment.

There are some exceptions and I think there are much higher percentages of women in those environments.

Let's check it out:

- Rose bowl ride - adrenalin addicted speed jocks (I can generalize both ways), not exactly supportive and friendly, to my knowledge, very few women if any attend this ride.

- Club rides - generally friendlier and often well populated by women

- Vertical bob / Big John rides - very friendly and difficult rides, but fun and supportive, often very well attended by women (who would all ride me off their wheel and leave me in the dust)

- Team in Training - my personal experience is there are more women than men in these rides. My team this year is about 75% women (it was about 60% women on my team last year). (Yes, it's not to late to sign up)

To be honest, I think if there were just MORE people riding out there through urban areas, we'd attract more riders. "Most" (yes more generalizations) cycling in LA is done in the outlying areas, in organized groups out of mainstream areas and there just aren't that many urban cyclists.

In Portland, bikers were everywhere, men and women. They were out having a good time, riding with traffic, and just looking like they were having FUN. When I see cyclists in urban high traffic LA, they seem to be alone out there. That doesn't look fun or supportive.

I'm rambling, but that's my .02. Feel free to shred me.

Do you guys live in the same LA that I live in? :D I mean, yeah, there are women who ride, but they are almost always outnumbered by men in any group be it mountain bikers, roadies, commuters, hipsters....etc.

Well, I didn't say it was fifty-fifty. It isn't. But it's not like women on bikes in LA are rare. Far from it, based on my observation and experience.

Yes, women on bikes were much better represented in Portland the time I was up there, but Portland is an exceptional city in a lot of ways. Is there really a difference in the male/female ratio between Los Angeles and New York?

To be honest, I think if there were just MORE people riding out there through urban areas, we'd attract more riders. "Most" (yes more generalizations) cycling in LA is done in the outlying areas, in organized groups out of mainstream areas and there just aren't that many urban cyclists.

You need to get out of Topanga more often.

You need to get out of Topanga more often.

No doubt. I should have qualified some of that with the fact that I live in hippyville and work in Santa Monica.

I lived in Hollywood / Los Feliz area 5-8 years ago and there wasn't much biking going on over there then. I might well be very outdated.

I'd like to turn the question on its head, and ask:

Why does anyone think more women *should* be riding? And, why question their decision *not* to do so?

I think you'll find that women are very capable of making decisions that take into account their individudal needs and preferences.

For an interesting take on this type of question, read Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate." In it, he discusses the hand-wringing over why more women do not go into engineering. His conclusion? Because they don't want to. There are other academic and career avenues that perceived, by the majority of women, as being more desirable for them. Is that a bad thing?

Same reason that women choose to participate on these forums (or not), or choose to participate in, say, the Team Estrogen forums (or not). We think through what is best for us, given our individual needs and desires, and act accordingly.

The premise of the question is a bit patronizing; it suggests that more women should choose what is, for at least most of us, an optional pursuit.

i see lots of women, but no babes.

i agree x3

I'd like to turn the question on its head, and ask:

Why does anyone think more women *should* be riding? And, why question their decision *not* to do so?

I think you'll find that women are very capable of making decisions that take into account their individudal needs and preferences.

For an interesting take on this type of question, read Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate." In it, he discusses the hand-wringing over why more women do not go into engineering. His conclusion? Because they don't want to. There are other academic and career avenues that perceived, by the majority of women, as being more desirable for them. Is that a bad thing?

Same reason that women choose to participate on these forums (or not), or choose to participate in, say, the Team Estrogen forums (or not). We think through what is best for us, given our individual needs and desires, and act accordingly.

The premise of the question is a bit patronizing; it suggests that more women should choose what is, for at least most of us, an optional pursuit.

It's possible to be offended by anything if you are so inclined. I haven't seen any comments here that suggest that anyone thinks more women *should* be cycling or questioning anyone's right or capability to decide what that want to do. The discussions in this thread are centered around the question of why cycling is not more gender balanced. The question is posed by people who already love the sport and would like to see more people participate. I fail to see anything patronizing about that.

The premise of the question is a bit patronizing; it suggests that more women should choose what is, for at least most of us, an optional pursuit.I don't think so... There's a metric ton worth of gender imbalance due to, imo, dominance hierarchies that stretch back generations and this thread is about one of those. It'll take some time before even these shake themselves out.

It's possible to be offended by anything if you are so inclined. I haven't seen any comments here that suggest that anyone thinks more women *should* be cycling or questioning anyone's right or capability to decide what that want to do. The discussions in this thread are centered around the question of why cycling is not more gender balanced. The question is posed by people who already love the sport and would like to see more people participate. I fail to see anything patronizing about that.

The thread title asks why more women don't cycle. It suggests that more should cycle; hence, my response.

I love certain sports, but wouldn't think to impose that love on others. Just because I dig something, I don't think others should dig it as well.

However, my use of "patronizing" and "offensive" are too strong of words. Agreed. Good catch.

It's possible to be offended by anything if you are so inclined. I haven't seen any comments here that suggest that anyone thinks more women *should* be cycling or questioning anyone's right or capability to decide what that want to do. The discussions in this thread are centered around the question of why cycling is not more gender balanced. The question is posed by people who already love the sport and would like to see more people participate. I fail to see anything patronizing about that.
+1,000,000 And very well put, Dan. I, as a woman, DO think women should participate in all sports as able bodied, talented athletes. Since this is a cycling forum, cycling is the sport of choice for discussion of why there aren't more women involved. Patronizing is the last word I'd associate with the question posed.

Oh, an HERMES, thank you for your post about and wonderful pics of the women athletes out there representing! :)

I'd like to turn the question on its head, and ask:

Why does anyone think more women *should* be riding? And, why question their decision *not* to do so?

I think you'll find that women are very capable of making decisions that take into account their individudal needs and preferences.

For an interesting take on this type of question, read Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate." In it, he discusses the hand-wringing over why more women do not go into engineering. His conclusion? Because they don't want to. There are other academic and career avenues that perceived, by the majority of women, as being more desirable for them. Is that a bad thing?

Same reason that women choose to participate on these forums (or not), or choose to participate in, say, the Team Estrogen forums (or not). We think through what is best for us, given our individual needs and desires, and act accordingly.

The premise of the question is a bit patronizing; it suggests that more women should choose what is, for at least most of us, an optional pursuit.

So your answer to Alice's question is "because they don't want to"?

But why don't they want to?

The thread title asks why more women don't cycle. It suggests that more should cycle; hence, my response.What... How is a question a suggestion?

What... How is a question a suggestion?

Fair question.

As I see it, the original question requires that we buy into the idea that too few women cycle. Otherwise, why would the question even come up?

I question that premise. Why? Because I dispute that there is an optimal number of cyclists, period, based on any particular demographic. Male; female; old; young; urban; rural; poor; rich; etc.

Why are women being singled out here?

I'm not getting where the desired baseline of female cyclists is being derived, and by whom, and why.

I think seeking a parity based on gender is too artificial.

The premise of the question is a bit patronizing; it suggests that more women should choose what is, for at least most of us, an optional pursuit.

I don't think it's patronizing to assume, admittedly without hard evidence but based on observation and experience, that there are a substantial number of women in LA who would like to ride bikes on the street (whether it be for fun, to get fit, to make friends, or to reduce pollution) but are put off of it for some reason (be it cultural barriers, innate lack of assertiveness, lousy streets, road-raging drivers, or fear of physical assault). I think that's what people are talking about, not women who simply don't want to ride bikes.

Even so, I maintain that a woman on a bike in Los Angeles is not the head-turning rarity that some are making it out to be. And there are plenty of men who are afraid to ride on the street, including some of my big burly co-workers who think I am insane to ride the five whopping miles home from work at three in the morning.

So your answer to Alice's question is "because they don't want to"?


Yep.

But why don't they want to?

Not my place to question. I trust their judgment.

Same reason why I don't hammer on other folks for their lifestyle choices.

E.g.:

Why don't more men cycle?

I don't think it's patronizing to assume, admittedly without hard evidence but based on observation and experience, that there are a substantial number of women in LA who would like to ride bikes on the street (whether it be for fun, to get fit, to make friends, or to reduce pollution) but are put off of it for some reason (be it cultural barriers, innate lack of assertiveness, lousy streets, road-raging drivers, or fear of physical assault). I think that's what people are talking about, not women who simply don't want to ride bikes.

Even so, I maintain that a woman on a bike in Los Angeles is not the head-turning rarity that some are making it out to be. And there are plenty of men who are afraid to ride on the street, including some of my big burly co-workers who think I am insane to ride the five whopping miles home from work at three in the morning.

I agree, again, that my use of "patronizing" was ill-considered. Point taken.

And I agree that women on bikes in SoCal aren't the exotic phenomena that some might suggest. (Disregarding the doofus "but there are no babes" responses, obviously.)

But, again, I have to ask: why are we focusing on women, vs. cyclists in general? It's not like the guys get a hall pass, here. Road-raging; lousy streets; distracted drivers. Equal-opportunity threats, no?

There was recently an interesting discussion on the women's forum about the amount of flak that women cyclists are subject to, vs. men, and the different risks we are subject to on the road, and the differing perceptions of risk. While women are privy to a particular type of harassment and threat, men are also subject to another type of threat.

As a related aside: having participated in male-prominent sports, my anecdotal experience is that I got a LOT more leeway than the guys. No one threatened to kick my *** out in the surf line up, or for wrecking someone's snowboarding line on the mountain, etc. By contrast, my male friends took serious heat, including the very real threat of bodily harm.

Fair question.

As I see it, the original question requires that we buy into the idea that too few women cycle. Otherwise, why would the question even come up?I don't think it has to work like that. I mean it can, but it's not the case unless the author states it is. For instance, I can ask why toast tends to land butter side down after falling off a table without caring if my toast lands butter side down or not after falling off a table. I think your interpretation of the question is biased by your own opinions. Not to say that it's wrong, since the OP, or even the OP the OP linked, who talked about the gender difference in LA compared to what's seen as a 50/50 split in other cities, never explicitly stated what the motive behind the question was. Just that I don't think it's something that can come from an unbiased assumption.

I question that premise. Why? Because I dispute that there is an optimal number of cyclists, period, based on any particular demographic. Male; female; old; young; urban; rural; poor; rich; etc.

Why are women being singled out here?

I'm not getting where the desired baseline of female cyclists is being derived, and by whom, and why.

I think seeking a parity based on gender is too artificial.I don't think it's artificial so much as superficial. Imo, it's fairly easy to ask compared to old, young, rural, urban, rich, port, etc... Most of the others require some sort of interpretation (for the most part) or more information than can be picked up via a cursory inspection.

I don't think it has to work like that. I mean it can, but it's not the case unless the author states it is.


I agree that it doesn't have to be that way. True.

But, in this case, the author clearly delineated the question along those lines. Let's look at the question:

"Why don't more women in L.A. ride bikes?"

Well, again, who is the author to suggest that more women should ride? And, what is the standard of comparison here? How many is the "right" amount?

Again, the question presumes that biking in L.A. is an inherently good thing. It's not.

I still don't see how asking why more women don't ride implies that more should. A question like "Why didn't more die in the MN bridge collapse?" doesn't imply the individual asking wanted more to die, just that they want to know more about the situation. Wrt the post the OP here linked, the standard of comparison was the supposed equal distribution of sex when riding in other cities, and the author was essentially asking why isn't LA the same. Whether it's "right" or not... Meh?

P.S. I'd love to ride in LA. Even with the supposed crime, it's still doable, unlike in the boonies. And, to a certain extent, potential problems can be dealt with via preparation.

I still don't see how asking why more women don't ride implies that more should. A question like "Why didn't more die in the MN bridge collapse?" doesn't imply the individual asking wanted more to die, just that they want to know more about the situation. Wrt the post the OP here linked, the standard of comparison was the supposed equal distribution of sex when riding in other cities, and the author was essentially asking why isn't LA the same. Whether it's "right" or not... Meh?


Imagine if the question asked was, instead:

Why do so MANY women ride in L.A.?

See the slant at work there?

I can't work with the comparison to the MN brigde collapse -- I just don't see the logic. But if you can spell it out for me, I'll be happy to stand corrected.

Ok, if as you suggest, the author is essentially asking why L.A. isn't the same as other cities, then, I hate to be rude, but: Duh! It is its own beast. Geography; climate; politics; history. And, knowing that, how the heck does that even matter to a female cyclist? Irrelevant, no?

And, again, I think the equal distribution of sex-based behavior is irrational. If we're gonna go that route, then:

Why don't more women commit murder? Or rape? Hmm?

Imagine if the question asked was, instead:

Why do so MANY women ride in L.A.?

See the slant at work there?That's exactly it. It's the same either way. If you want to assume the purpose behind the question because of the structure, you can, but it's not logical or rational to do so, and there can be a multitude of reasons behind it.

I can't work with the comparison to the MN brigde collapse -- I just don't see the logic. But if you can spell it out for me, I'll be happy to stand corrected.Same as what I said above. Just because someone is curious about something doesn't mean they think it should be different. Saying it's different because it's different really isn't doing much except affirming that we see it's different.

Ok, if as you suggest, the author is essentially asking why L.A. isn't the same as other cities, then, I hate to be rude, but: Duh! It is its own beast. Geography; climate; politics; history. And, knowing that, how the heck does that even matter to a female cyclist? Irrelevant, no?Well... Which is it? ;) I mean, it could be anything, but what specifically strongly influences the distribution of female to male cyclists in LA? Like I said, saying it's different because it's different isn't very useful since it's obvious.

And, again, I think the equal distribution of sex-based behavior is irrational. If we're gonna go that route, then:

Why don't more women commit murder? Or rape? Hmm?It's as irrational as any other commonly shared descriptive category. As to why more women don't commit murder or rape. I don't know... But rationally, I wouldn't expect that you think there should or shouldn't be more just because you asked about it.

Lemme put it another way. Lets pick three different ways to phrase this question based on >,<,=.
Why Don't More Women in L.A. Ride Bikes?
Why Don't Fewer Women in L.A. Ride Bikes?
Why Don't The Exact Same Number Of Women in L.A. Ride Bikes?
Just because the question is phrased a certain way doesn't mean the individual asking wants the phrasing to apply. It may, or it may not. I don't think those three phases mean the person asking would want more, less, or the exact same proportion of women to ride. They may, but the only way I would know that is if they stated it was the case. Anything else is just an assumption.

But, again, I have to ask: why are we focusing on women, vs. cyclists in general?

As it happens, I can tell you exactly why we're focusing on women, rather than on cyclists in general. A few weeks ago, during a discussion on the Midnight Ridazz web forum regarding the planning of a group ride, a few people brought up the issue of comments and pictures in that thread that may have been off-putting or offensive to women. In the course of that discussion, a male poster described an occurrence of somebody using what he regarded as offensive and sexist language in the presence of a female rider at one of the local bike repair cooperatives, and suggested that this kind of language, along with some of the off-color joking that occurs at Midnight Ridazz rides, may be driving women away from the rides.

A spirited discussion ensued over the next few days, with posters of both sexes weighing in on why the male/female ratio on MR rides is so uneven (for what it's worth, the female posters by and large seemed much more concerned about the lack of bathroom breaks and the logistics of getting to and from these late night rides by themselves than they were about sexist remarks).

Meanwhile, contributing Metroblogging LA author Sean Bonner, who was watching and participating in this discussion, decided that it would be useful to use his access to Metroblogging to throw the question to a broader segment of the public. Because of the broader audience, he broadened the question from "what keeps women away from Midnight Ridazz?" to "what keeps women off of bicycles in Los Angeles?".

Then a BF poster saw the blog post and started this discussion.

So here we are, discussing why more women in LA don't ride bikes. You may maintain that it's not the only necessary question, and you may be right, but it doesn't invalidate the question--just as the question "why don't more children have health coverage?" is not made invalid by the necessity of inquiring into the millions of adults who don't have coverage.