What is it with women cyclists?
Comments
-
Sorry about rebumping this but 2 hours after I posted that one person gets charged another HGV took out another female cyclist. One junction along! HGV - left hook....
The link in the post above has some of the details, and there's confirmation here:
http://twitter.com/greenwichcouk/statuses/64368022910 -
''I am sorry to say that the 66 year old woman died on Thursday 10th Dec. She was a popular local recently retired careworker and will be sadly missed.''
http://www.greenwich.co.uk/news/02394-c ... -by-lorry/0 -
Visiting the Smoke from the grim North, I saw my first ghost bike today.
It certainly stopped me in my tracks, probably more so because I knew what it signified. It was on the corner of Goswell Road, where I've been attending a conference, and Old Street.
It moved me to hit Google and find out about the rider who was lost there (Rebecca Goosen, in this case, killed by a left-turning cement mixer). I don't really have a point, other than to say that as a memorial, this particular ghost bike has done its job. The sign on the bike reads "Remember me"; and while I never knew her, remember her I have.0 -
And fresh flowers in tribute to Meryem Ozekman at Elephant and Castle. RIP. Does make you think.
And a bit selfishly, the spot where I nearly came to grief thanks to a HGV driver looking out his right hand side while nearly pinning me to the railing on his left as he rounded the exact same bend. :oops:0 -
@ Soul Boy. I saw the flowers and remembered the incident. Tend to look at the spot instinctively each time I cycle past.0
-
Headhuunter wrote:If you see an obstruction ahead, surely you begin to speed up to get as close as possible to the speed of the motor traffic and begin to pull out from 10-20 metres away, integrating yourself into the traffic on the right as you do so. Slowing down or stopping surely makes passing obstacles more dangerous and scary as you suddenly have to put on a last minute spurt or accelerate from standing to get round.
Having done some motorcycle training a number of years ago, and been ticked off for late moving out by the instructor (ex-motorcycle cop) I now do exactly as you describe whenever I can, the only exeptions being when I find I'm "boxed in" by a line of traffic overtaking me at a speed i can't match or syncronise with (i.e. 40mph), which tends to happen usually when I'm coming up behind some slowpoke on a mountain bike!
But works a treat most of the time, I think it even suprises drivers that a cyclist can do 25mph on the flat...
'Twas Mulga Bill, from Eaglehawk, that caught the cycling craze....0 -
chuckcork wrote:Headhuunter wrote:If you see an obstruction ahead, surely you begin to speed up to get as close as possible to the speed of the motor traffic and begin to pull out from 10-20 metres away, integrating yourself into the traffic on the right as you do so. Slowing down or stopping surely makes passing obstacles more dangerous and scary as you suddenly have to put on a last minute spurt or accelerate from standing to get round.
Having done some motorcycle training a number of years ago, and been ticked off for late moving out by the instructor (ex-motorcycle cop) I now do exactly as you describe whenever I can, the only exeptions being when I find I'm "boxed in" by a line of traffic overtaking me at a speed i can't match or syncronise with (i.e. 40mph), which tends to happen usually when I'm coming up behind some slowpoke on a mountain bike!
But works a treat most of the time, I think it even suprises drivers that a cyclist can do 25mph on the flat...
It was a hybrid akcherlly and I'd injured my ankle, so there! :P 0 -
I haven't read through the whole of this thread but if I have it right, the OP is asking why a disproportionate number of female cyclists tend to filter left past large vehicles. I don't know but can make some suggestions (no offence intended to anybody)
1. Perhaps women tend to concentrate on their journey and their place in the road without seeing situations from the point of view of other road users.
I have found it very marked that, when driving, if I pull in behind a parked car to let an oncoming driver through, far fewer women than men tend to wave thanks. I used to think this was just rudeness, but now I think it may have something to do with women not having even noticed I am waiting, or even considered that I have delayed my journey to allow them to continue theirs. Perhaps, then, when cycling, fewer women than men tend to put themselves in the place of the bus/lorry driver as they filter past.
2. Men tend to have more strength than women in order to change speed/direction quickly to avoid dangerous situations.
3. Men tend to be more confident in changing road position whereas women prefer to "hug the kerb", hence the tendency to left-filter.
4. It's a cultural thing: Most men have been cycling since they were small children and so are experienced and versatile riders, whereas girls tend to give up cycling as children, and return years later. I know a few female cycle commuters, and they see cycling as a novelty, and themselves as "brave pioneers", either as feminists or environmentalists, whereas they are only doing something that many male cyclists have been doing all their lives.
PLEASE NOTE I have used the word "tend" in all my points: this is because I am not suggesting that ALL female road users fit the explanations I offer. All to do with statistics and averages, innit.0 -
I think your point 3. is relevant, however I do think you're wide of the mark on the rest.0
-
-
OK...
1. I think if anything quite the opposite, women by nature think more about others than men do, which is why many tend to be kerb-huggers so they don't get in people's way. I can't say why lady drivers don't wave to you, I can only say that no b*gger waves to me in London. How rude.
2. I don't think quick changes of direction are restricted to men, as they're not related particularly to strength, and I do think speed can be more of a problem than a solution.
3. Agreed.
4. Although you have a point about women tending to stop cycling then take it up, I don't think an attitude of 'being a pioneer' a) exists in many female cyclists or b) has any bearing on safe cycling, which is after all the issue here.
I have to admit, this last point p!ssed me off when I read it. I for one cycle because I like it and it's a great way to get around, I am an anti-feminist if anything, and definitely not an environmentalist. I find it a bit patronising. Alright, a lot patronising. But I'll let you off.0 -
cyclists are not one group but multiple disparate groups, plus the numbers are so low. 20 something get killed in london 10 ish by lorries of which slightly more than 5 seem to be women.
Now humans are good at spotting patterns and order. To the point of seeing it when there is none.0 -
1. I think if anything quite the opposite, women by nature think more about others than men do
Agreed, but in my experience this empathy goes out of the window when it comes to road use. Honestly - not intending to be sexist here and admittedly I am extrapolating from experience, but just like aggressive and impatient driving tends to be the preserve of men, I do think that SOME women, proportionately higher than men, suffer from a lack of situational awareness on the road. I believe that statistics on insurance claims bear me out on this, in that women are disproportionately likely to be involved in low-speed collisions where observation was at fault. Just like accidents where speed/aggression are at fault are disproportionately caused by men.2. I don't think quick changes of direction are restricted to men, as they're not related particularly to strength, and I do think speed can be more of a problem than a solution.
I take your point about changes in direction, but when it comes to needing a bit of power in order to get up to traffic speed and make a safe manouevre, I'm just going off my own experiences: "Oh sh!t - I'm in a really bad road position here so I'm going to put some power down and get out of the way of that lorry/bus/milk float/old lady/badger..."4. Although you have a point about women tending to stop cycling then take it up, I don't think an attitude of 'being a pioneer' a) exists in many female cyclists or b) has any bearing on safe cycling, which is after all the issue here.
Believe it or not, I was trying to side with women here! There is a pressure in our culture which leads girls to give up cycling. Perhaps because it is seen as unfeminine or uncool by peers, perhaps because girls are not welcomed into the club/race scene, perhaps because parents are more protective of their girls and do not encourage "adventuring", I don't know. But what it means is that women to return to cycling in adulthood do not have the same experience as men who have been cycling their whole lives. If I could do something to change this cultural bias, I would! If I am lucky enough to have a daughter I will start there.I find it a bit patronising. Alright, a lot patronising. But I'll let you off.
Thank you for the let off! Apologies for being patronizing. 0 -
lost_in_thought wrote:I am an anti-feminist if anything, and definitely not an environmentalist. I find it a bit patronising. Alright, a lot patronising. But I'll let you off.
Are you sure about that?
Willing to do an equivalent job for less pay than a man, for example?
Just because most of the feminist cause has been won in the UK, doesn't mean that it all has... Nor does it negate the ideals.0 -
Must admit, I tend to agree with LiT - only the third issue is really valid. Road sense/defensive driving/cycling is really about anticipation and assertiveness to prevent problems rather than power/strength to get out of them.
I don't find a big difference between women and men in the way that they acknowledge giving way etc.
I do think there are a couple of issues where women and men tend to differ that create differences in the type of accidents that they have.
Men tend to be more aggressive and (over) confident. Assertiveness is seldom a problem. Recklessness, impatience or just poor risk/reward judgments are more the problem.
Men do tend to have better spatial awareness - some of the stereotypes about parking and maps are rooted in a grain of truth. Probably has an effect on low speed accidents.
Women are often better at multitasking than men. I think this can be important in absorbing/processing all the different data that is coming your way when driving. However, I'm not sure that this is always a help. The classic is children squabbling in the back of the car - men tend to just shut it out and get on with the driving, women not so much... IME.
Again, all generalisations. As it happens, my wife is an excellent driver and if she has fault behind the wheel it is that she is probably a bit too impatient/assertive/fast. Don't think she's typical though.0 -
It’s an old thread, but the “women cyclists and HGVs” discussion is a common one which never seems to be resolved, so perhaps it is worth clarifying some things mentioned in the latest version.
Using the data given here by ellieb, the death rates are:
Males: 66/87, 28 by HGV
Females: 21/87, 18 by HGV
To test for significance you need a chi square test, which comes out as p<0.001.
In plain English, this means it is highly statistically significant that HGVs are more likely to be the cause of death in women than in men.
To produce a more useful measure of this effect you can use a regression technique to produce an odds ratio. This tells us that the women are 8.14 times more likely to experience death by HGV than men. However, the confidence intervals are wide due to the small number of cases, meaning that the true risk lies between 2.18 and 30.36. Nevertheless, it is significant.
It’s VERY important to note that this significant sex difference is simply for the cause of death; it tells us nothing about the risk of death overall between men and women because we don’t know the size of the populations in which these deaths occurred. (eg. 60.9% of all HGV deaths are in men, but what proportion of cyclists are men? And what about all the demographic differences between groups which might also differ by sex?)
To clarify, t tests and things like that are not appropriate. They are used to explore whether there are (average) differences between two populations (usually two samples) – but these data don’t actually supply any information on the population make-up, and certainly don’t contain any sample information. The data is for cases/deaths only. Also, saying “the sample size is too small to conclude significance” is not quite right because there is no sample.
(Source: I’m an epidemiologist)0 -
I imagine you regularly tear your hair out over newspaper headlines of the "X triples the risk of cancer" kind (or maybe you're just resigned to it). I haven't really used my statistics much since A-level, but I know enough to be wary. It is shocking how 'scientific' figures are thrown around with such abandon when the average person (whatever that might be) has so little grasp of how statistics actually work.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rjsterry wrote:I imagine you regularly tear your hair out over newspaper headlines of the "X triples the risk of cancer" kind (or maybe you're just resigned to it). I haven't really used my statistics much since A-level, but I know enough to be wary. It is shocking how 'scientific' figures are thrown around with such abandon when the average person (whatever that might be) has so little grasp of how statistics actually work.
I do. I utterly blame Ben Goldacre for this: http://www.badscience.net/
Don't go to that link if you wish to remain in blissful ignorance and NOT shout at newspaper articles nigh on every time you read them.Chunky Cyclists need your love too! :-)
2009 Specialized Tricross Sport
2011 Trek Madone 4.5
2012 Felt F65X
Proud CX Pervert and quiet roadie. 12 mile commuter0 -
nyanza wrote:It’s an old thread, but the “women cyclists and HGVs” discussion is a common one which never seems to be resolved, so perhaps it is worth clarifying some things mentioned in the latest version.
Using the data given here by ellieb, the death rates are:
Males: 66/87, 28 by HGV
Females: 21/87, 18 by HGV
To test for significance you need a chi square test, which comes out as p<0.001.
In plain English, this means it is highly statistically significant that HGVs are more likely to be the cause of death in women than in men.
To produce a more useful measure of this effect you can use a regression technique to produce an odds ratio. This tells us that the women are 8.14 times more likely to experience death by HGV than men. However, the confidence intervals are wide due to the small number of cases, meaning that the true risk lies between 2.18 and 30.36. Nevertheless, it is significant.
It’s VERY important to note that this significant sex difference is simply for the cause of death; it tells us nothing about the risk of death overall between men and women because we don’t know the size of the populations in which these deaths occurred. (eg. 60.9% of all HGV deaths are in men, but what proportion of cyclists are men? And what about all the demographic differences between groups which might also differ by sex?)
To clarify, t tests and things like that are not appropriate. They are used to explore whether there are (average) differences between two populations (usually two samples) – but these data don’t actually supply any information on the population make-up, and certainly don’t contain any sample information. The data is for cases/deaths only. Also, saying “the sample size is too small to conclude significance” is not quite right because there is no sample.
(Source: I’m an epidemiologist)
Interesting, interesting.
Now, how would you explain it to a 5-year-old?
(I don't understand :oops: )0 -
Chunky Cyclists need your love too! :-)
2009 Specialized Tricross Sport
2011 Trek Madone 4.5
2012 Felt F65X
Proud CX Pervert and quiet roadie. 12 mile commuter0 -
Put another way, the statistics only tell us that 18 of the 21 women who were killed on their bikes, were killed by HGVs. And that this compares with 28 out of 66 men. We don't know what the relative numbers of male and female cyclists are, so we can't say how likely being killed by an HGV on your bike is, just that this particular cause of death seems to disproportionately affect women.
I think that's about the size of it but please correct me if I've missed anything.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
The figures have no context around them to make them meaningful. Plus if you sub-divide the statistics enough times you end up with an apparently significant figure when in reality there is none.Chunky Cyclists need your love too! :-)
2009 Specialized Tricross Sport
2011 Trek Madone 4.5
2012 Felt F65X
Proud CX Pervert and quiet roadie. 12 mile commuter0 -
Kieran_Burns wrote:
So one example of egregious use of small-sample statistics => all small-sample statistical analysis is rubbish?
Forgive me, but I think you need a bigger sample if you're going to draw those kind of conclusions.......0 -
That's about right!We don't know what the relative numbers of male and female cyclists are, so we can't say how likely being killed by an HGV on your bike is, just that this particular cause of death seems to disproportionately affect women.
I think that's about the size of it but please correct me if I've missed anything.
Well the Lucia case doesn't really show that the statistics were flagging a false positive (ie. finding a suspicious pattern when there was none) - the major problem seemed to be that a lawyer with no understanding of statistics was allowed to make statements which were complete nonsense. It was a legal system that failed rather than the science.The figures have no context around them to make them meaningful. Plus if you sub-divide the statistics enough times you end up with an apparently significant figure when in reality there is none.
Sure there’s no context surrounding the figures, but that doesn’t undermine the fact there is a significant difference. The lack of context just doesn’t tell us what the reasons are for the difference, that’s all. For example, perhaps age is part of the ‘context’. If you control for age (using stat techniques to artificially make everyone the same age) and the sex differences then disappear, then you can conclude that it’s something about the differences in the ages of the deceased that leads to more female deaths. So age differences are the reason for these deaths by HGVs, but the fact remains that the sex difference is still there.
(I hope this makes sense. It’s rather tricky to explain in a rush!)0
