Advocacy & Safety - "Are women cyclists in more danger than men?"

"Women cyclists make up a far higher proportion of deaths involving lorries than men. Why? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8296971.stm)"

I assume "lorrry" = truck.


In 2007, an internal report for Transport for London concluded women cyclists are far more likely to be killed by lorries because, unlike men, they tend to obey red lights and wait at junctions in the driver's blind spot.

There's their first problem. ;)

yes. i think it is the style of riding. less agressive.

when i was just getting used to cycling on roads, i kept to the curb and had a lot more close calls. I find it safer to confidently take control of the traffic around me where it is necessary...take the lane, at lights and junctions place myself in front of cars so they have to wait until i have cleared, going into middle of the road to overtake rather than squeezing past lorries and buses on the inside. if i can't overtake i would just stop and wait rather than undertake.

That's a huge generalization, IMO. I know a lot of female riders that are far more aggressive than I am- more prone to jump stoplights, assume drivers will obey hand signals, etc.

it may be a generalisation but it is more common for men to be more aggressive. why can't you generalise anyway. we are talking in general terms with stats.

That's a huge generalization, IMO.

possibly.


I know a lot of female riders that are far more aggressive than I am- more prone to jump stoplights, assume drivers will obey hand signals, etc.

another "huge generalization."

I don't get the graphic. If there is a truck waiting at a stoplight, I simply stop behind it rather than trying to squeeze around it. What am I doing wrong?

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46520000/gif/_46520231_cyclist_lgv_466.gif

I don't get the graphic. If there is a truck waiting at a stoplight, I simply stop behind it rather than trying to squeeze around it. What am I doing wrong?

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46520000/gif/_46520231_cyclist_lgv_466.gif

you're not doing it wrong. that's the advice they keep putting out on safety ads. some people just don't know it is dangerous.

another "huge generalization."

No, just being anecdotal- pointing out that saying 'because men are more aggressive' isn't THE answer.

No, just being anecdotal- pointing out that saying 'because men are more aggressive' isn't THE answer.

then what is THE answer?

you're not doing it wrong. that's the advice they keep putting out on safety ads. some people just don't know it is dangerous.

Which is dangerous? "Filtering" ahead on the right side to get ahead of a vehicle stopped at light or waiting your turn behind them?

Obviously I don't do much "city" riding because I don't see how passing people already stopped at a sign or light to get to the front of the line is going to do anything but piss them off.

Depends on traffic.

If it's kind of grid-lockish, like in a real city than you're probably better off filtering because you'll end up having to pass them soon anyway. It's safe to pass a truck if they're stopped at a red, you can predict by their lane position if they're turning or going straight and their accelerate slowly anyway.

If it's a fast moving or country road and they'll be passing you in 50 feet anyway, stay behind but take the lane behind it. That way you can accelerate through the intersection at the trucks speed without the risk of a right hook from a driver looking to pass you, and are more visible to drivers looking to turn left coming from the opposite direction.

Which is dangerous? "Filtering" ahead on the right side to get ahead of a vehicle stopped at light or waiting your turn behind them?

Obviously I don't do much "city" riding because I don't see how passing people already stopped at a sign or light to get to the front of the line is going to do anything but piss them off.


my order of preferance

1) wait behind (the hold up is not for long. lights or junction situation)
2) filter but on the outside of the truck as in the picture (long stationary traffic jam)

Obviously I don't do much "city" riding because I don't see how passing people already stopped at a sign or light to get to the front of the line is going to do anything but piss them off.

Ticking off truck drivers is a real good practice. :rolleyes:

"Women cyclists make up a far higher proportion of deaths involving lorries than men. Why? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8296971.stm)"



That's probably because women tend to ride with other Lauries more than men do. Plus, they don't know how to spell 'Laurie' and they ride on the wrong side of the road.

I wouldn't mind riding with Laurie, however you spell it. Maybe I could teach her something, like how to run a red light. OTOH :eek: maybe there's something to this threat of death when riding with Lauries.

Many of the fatalities involving cyclists happen in collisions with a heavy goods vehicle (HGV). This year, seven of the eight people killed by lorries in London have been women.

Considering that women make only 28% of the UK's cycling journeys, this seems extremely high.

Given the very small number of people who have been killed by trucks in London, period, sampling error is as reasonable an explanation for the high proportion of women killed by trucks as any other.

Given the very small number of people who have been killed by trucks in London, period, sampling error is as reasonable an explanation for the high proportion of women killed by trucks as any other.

i think it is a pattern over years. i've heard this before.

Ticking off truck drivers is a real good practice. :rolleyes:

at least they know where you are...

There was a much-publicized cyclist death in DC that happened this way.

And, yup, the cyclist was a female.

yes. i think it is the style of riding. less agressive.

when i was just getting used to cycling on roads, i kept to the curb and had a lot more close calls. I find it safer to confidently take control of the traffic around me where it is necessary...take the lane, at lights and junctions place myself in front of cars so they have to wait until i have cleared, going into middle of the road to overtake rather than squeezing past lorries and buses on the inside. if i can't overtake i would just stop and wait rather than undertake.

Whatever the cause, if any, it isn't because the rider is a woman. Motorists tend to give greater deference to women according to studies which include a nonscientific one done by John Stoessel (sp).

I agree that riding aggressively in vehicular manner is safer than timid riding where one is afraid to take the lane or the cyclist squeezes in and moves up on the right (in the U.S.) when traffic is stopped and may not be seen. But what reliable information is out there that claims women do this more than men?

I agree that riding aggressively in vehicular manner is safer than timid riding where one is afraid to take the lane or the cyclist squeezes in and moves up on the right (in the U.S.) when traffic is stopped and may not be seen. But what reliable information is out there that claims women do this more than men?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8296971.stm ? It was in the opening post...


In 2007, an internal report for Transport for London concluded women cyclists are far more likely to be killed by lorries because, unlike men, they tend to obey red lights and wait at junctions in the driver's blind spot.

Whatever the cause, if any, it isn't because the rider is a woman. Motorists tend to give greater deference to women according to studies which include a nonscientific one done by John Stoessel (sp).

I agree that riding aggressively in vehicular manner is safer than timid riding where one is afraid to take the lane or the cyclist squeezes in and moves up on the right (in the U.S.) when traffic is stopped and may not be seen. But what reliable information is out there that claims women do this more than men?

my own eyes.

i think it is a pattern over years. i've heard this before.

I forgot to mention that a historical analysis would have been far more informative.

I don't know that I buy this idea that women cyclists are in more danger because they don't run red lights, but there are certainly any number of sociological factors that would explain differing behavior by men and women cyclists that might put the women in greater danger under these particular circumstances.

This?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wT7zM8XgXQ

J/K :)

I don't know that I buy this idea that women cyclists are in more danger because they don't run red lights,...

How I think it applies is that it's dangerous enough right after a light turns green that sharing the intersection at that moment is riskier than going whenever it's clear.

Add to that waiting in a dangerous location next to a large vehicle (what this study looked at was cyclists vs. trucks) and it looks like waiting at a red isn't the safe thing to do.

I've heard that one tends to head toward what one's looking at. Perhaps lorry drivers tend to stare at female cyclists' derrieres?

I think female cyclist are in a much more dangerous situation than men, especially those that remotely attractive. Not only do they have to avoid cars and trucks but they have to stay away from all the male cyclists hitting on them. :D

This?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wT7zM8XgXQ

J/K :)

that was funny.

i will say that anyone can get hit, anytime. but the study shows more women get hit than men. men, in general are more aggressive that women. yes there are women who are aggressive, those arent the ones getting hit. I'm sure a few of them get hit, but im sure the large numbers are not coming from aggressive women.

i think you can be overly aggressive also and i have seen a few people almost cause serious accidents because they weren't being cautious. i think its important to have a good balance.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8296971.stm ? It was in the opening post...

Yes. I read the article. I did not see the data upon which they relied to make the claim that women are less likely to run red lights, or more likely to wait in junctions in the blind spot. It's the data itself and how it is collected that I am asking about.

Yes. I read the article. I did not see the data upon which they relied to make the claim that women are less likely to run red lights, or more likely to wait in junctions in the blind spot. It's the data itself and how it is collected that I am asking about.

Well, it's not new news, either. Googling for "Transport for London 2007 cyclists report" got me these (of note is the first one, a 2007 article saying the same thing as the 2009 one the OP posted):
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1695668.ece
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/businessandpartners/publications/1421.aspx
http://london4bikes.blogspot.com/2007/12/transport-for-london-cycling-statistics.html

The tfl.gov.uk site with all the PDFs isn't of any help, though, because, as stated in both the articles, the report being discussed was an internal report. The 2007 article also says that it had been kept secret.

Why did they keep it secret? Because it implies that running red lights is safer, that's why, and the transportation authorities can't let themselves appear to advocate breaking the law.

Here's the results of a study that simply (if a 32-page PDF can be "simple") talks about what percentage of cyclists run red lights, what percentage of each gender, and even where they go (straight, left, or right) when running a light. However, it does not have the words "collision" or "accident" anywhere.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/businessandpartners/traffic-note-8-cycling-red-lights.pdf

I almost got hit by two cars today. First one turned left on red, when I was in the cross walk going into my school. Second was turning into a 7-11 parking lot when I was crossing where it turns. It didn't have its turn signal on until it almost hit me. THEN the driver turned it on.

Well, it's not new news, either. Googling for "Transport for London 2007 cyclists report" got me these (of note is the first one, a 2007 article saying the same thing as the 2009 one the OP posted):
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1695668.ece
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/businessandpartners/publications/1421.aspx
http://london4bikes.blogspot.com/2007/12/transport-for-london-cycling-statistics.html

The tfl.gov.uk site with all the PDFs isn't of any help, though, because, as stated in both the articles, the report being discussed was an internal report. The 2007 article also says that it had been kept secret.

Why did they keep it secret? Because it implies that running red lights is safer, that's why, and the transportation authorities can't let themselves appear to advocate breaking the law.

Thanks. It certainly makes sense that if a group of cyclists stays at the intersection in motorists' blind spots rather than safely running the light, they would be at greater risk. It also makes sense that a report that appears to suggest breaking a law is safer than not might get buried. :)

My concern, especially with any claim that appears sexist, is that I would prefer to see the raw data myself, rather than rely on a 3rd hand claim.

My concern, especially with any claim that appears sexist, is that I would prefer to see the raw data myself, rather than rely on a 3rd hand claim.

I'll settle for the third-hand claim, because I'm not going to spend my time sitting there compiling data (data that I didn't collect myself) into some spreadsheets just to reach the same conclusion.

I know that it was a London study and I live in the US, but paying people to do these studies is what taxes are for, anyway.

I'll settle for the third-hand claim, because I'm not going to spend my time sitting there compiling data (data that I didn't collect myself) into some spreadsheets just to reach the same conclusion.

I know that it was a London study and I live in the US, but paying people to do these studies is what taxes are for, anyway.

Hmmm... well... yes, taxes. I guess if taxes paid for the secret study it must be reliable.

Would you as readily accept a claim that appeared racist, as opposed to sexist, without seeing the data?

In this case, we not only don't have the raw data, we have nothing but blurb from a news article.

Hmmm... well... yes, taxes. I guess if taxes paid for the secret study it must be reliable.

Would you as readily accept a claim that appeared racist, as opposed to sexist, without seeing the data?

In this case, we not only don't have the raw data, we have nothing but blurb from a news article.

This wasn't a racist study.

If you want to insult these articles that were written two years apart by calling them mere "blurbs", be my guest. Trust me, news organizations of the London Times's and BBC's caliber don't write "blurbs".

Let me pick on this snide little comment while I'm at it...


Hmmm... well... yes, taxes. I guess if taxes paid for the secret study it must be reliable.

Okay, so do you have the time to sit out there at a half-dozen major intersections for six hours a day (three hours each of morning and evening rush hours) and count every cyclist that approaches from every street and log what gender they are, whether they run a red light or not, and what direction they turn? Are you going to take all that data back and compile it so you can compute the statistics, have it reviewed, write up a coherent 30-page report, and make sure that it's correct enough to be used for reference in the future?

I sure as hell don't have the time to do that. If I did, I'd want to get paid for it, because I obviously wouldn't have any time to do my regular job, and I'd still need to pay for my meals and the roof I sleep under.

Who's gonna pay me? Oh yeah -- the city, that's who.

From the 2007 article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1695668.ece

The Times has obtained a copy of the study, which says that 86 per cent of the women cyclists killed in London between 1999 and 2004 collided with a lorry. By contrast, lorries were involved in 47 per cent of deaths of male cyclists.

That's a HUGE difference. That's not some "blurb".

Keep in mind that these "shocking" statistics apply ONLY to collisions with heavy trucks in London.

In the US, 89% of bicycle fatalities are men, although they are only 61% of US cyclists. In New York City from 1996 to 2005, 91% of the fatalities were men, and in much higher rates than female fatalities -- women's rates were less than 1 per million population, whereas men ranged between 4 and 8 per million, depending on age.

The UK overall has a similar although less extreme gender gap, though of course the article buries the relevant info in the article: "Setting lorries aside, the bigger picture is that far more men are killed on their bikes. In 2008, 84% of the 115 fatalities were men and 81% of reported injuries were to men." 72% of UK cyclists were male.

So while it is useful to provide appropriate safety information, you may want to be a bit cautious before making generalizations about the skills and techniques of women cyclists....

So while it is useful to provide appropriate safety information, you may want to be a bit cautious before making generalizations about the skills and techniques of women cyclists....

everyone is so hypersensitive. women, in general, are less aggressive, that doesn't mean they arent as good.

women, in general, are less aggressive.

Not sure which women you are hanging around with?!

everyone is so hypersensitive. women, in general, are less aggressive, that doesn't mean they arent as good.
It's not an issue of "sensitivity," it's an issue of accuracy and treating the article with some healthy skepticism. It doesn't make much sense to focus on the alleged "threat" to women cyclists, when a) men are at a much higher risk, b) you're dealing with a pretty small sample, which (as mentioned earlier) could easily be just a statistical fluke -- especially since it looks like they selected one year instead of examining multiple years for patterns, and c) the authors and editors are possibly a tad too interested in presenting a splashy, attention-getting and fear-mongering article ("women are at risk!").

Or to put it another way: if the question is "Are women cyclists in more danger than men?" then the answer is apparently no.

In the US, 89% of bicycle fatalities are men, although they are only 61% of US cyclists.

I'm curious where that statistic comes from. Does it include kids riding around in the neighborhood? Because around here the proportion of adult cyclists you see out on the roads/streets (where intersections/trucks would be an issue) has got to be at least 80-85% male.

From the 2007 article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1695668.ece


The Times has obtained a copy of the study, which says that 86 per cent of the women cyclists killed in London between 1999 and 2004 collided with a lorry. By contrast, lorries were involved in 47 per cent of deaths of male cyclists.

That's a HUGE difference. That's not some "blurb".

Statistics Fail

Just because a higher percentage of women were killed by trucks than men doesn't mean that their behaviour is any less safe. Men just die more often when cycling doing other stuff. They have a greater variety of dangerous activities.

Statistics Fail in the original link:


Many of the fatalities involving cyclists happen in collisions with a heavy goods vehicle (HGV). This year, seven of the eight people killed by lorries in London have been women.

Considering that women make only 28% of the UK's cycling journeys, this seems extremely high.

Claiming that statistics valid for the UK are the same as London? (Whole-to-part logical fallacy) Maybe a higher percentage of cyclists in London are women. Where is that statistic? Seven out of eight would not be an "extremely high" percentage if more women rode in London.

I lost my first hockey game ever to a team of women who could skate, shoot and check circles around me, so I don't know about the aggressive stuff. They're way more likely to develop breast cancer, though; so yeah... more danger. It's crazy.

So, does this mean we're not generalizing characteristics of an entire population off 8 people?

...cause, I mean, page 1 made it seem like we were gonna, and I really wanted to, then page 2 was like this huge disappointment.

"I'm against picketing but I don't know how to show it" - Mitch Hedburg

If that truck starts to roll back you could be in trouble. Also if the truck takes forever to get through the intersection the vehicle behind you can't take the rage out on you...God forbid, you prevent a vehicle from going through a green light. :rolleyes:

Yeah the picture is correct, you need to be up front and seen.


I don't get the graphic. If there is a truck waiting at a stoplight, I simply stop behind it rather than trying to squeeze around it. What am I doing wrong?

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46520000/gif/_46520231_cyclist_lgv_466.gif

i cant believe that people reach for sexism when a study identifies differences between men and women and try to rationalise what may be the cause. Like it is sexist to explain why more women get breast cancer than men...it is a fact.

I'm a woman, and I think some of the confusion is coming from the word "agressive". I agree that probably most (certainly not all) of the women on bikes on the road are less experienced than their male counterparts, and therefore tentative regarding how to ride. (Perhaps stemming from what activities are views as appropriate growing up? Boys ride bikes, girls play inside?) I didn't read the article, but I'm assuming it isn't talking about 'roadies', but rather about recreational riders.

I don't have a car and ride everywhere I go in addition to 'training', and overwhelmingly most of my close calls in city traffic are from fellow cyclists who don't have a clue. The men, generally speaking, ride like it's Ben-Hur from traffic light to traffic light (which creates it's own problems) but yes, I do often see women riding more hesitantly than they ought, and certainly more hesitantly than they would drive in the same situation. I think it is simply lack of experience and confidence rather than lack of 'agression'. People who don't make cycling in traffic a daily thing are often totally unaware of the rules and conventions that govern it. They can tell that it could be dangerous, but don't know what to do in terms of technique to mitigate those risks, and so they ride either like crazy mad fools or very timidly. Both are dangerous. My city is having some serious issues at the moment over how to better educate casual cyclists. I often try to hand out friendly advice about lane positioning, stopping at intersections, signaling etc, but it's usually not taken well.

On the other hand, on my training rides I usually go with a bunch of guys, and overwhelmingly it's them with the close calls. I ride quickly and reasonably well, but I'm always assuming that the cars I encounter are going to do something dumb ... the guys I ride with, not so much. Frequently they are slamming on the brakes, narrowly avoiding getting hit. The other women I see in kit on the road seem to be very capable, and not in the character of those described in the this thread.

So - from my observations yes: with regard to transportational cycling and no: regarding 'serious' road riding.

I don't get the graphic. If there is a truck waiting at a stoplight, I simply stop behind it rather than trying to squeeze around it. What am I doing wrong?

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46520000/gif/_46520231_cyclist_lgv_466.gif

The truck isn't in the same spot in the two pictures.