CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

Putting the sexism into transport policy

(25 posts)
  • Started 11 years ago by Kim
  • Latest reply from holisticglint

No tags yet.


  1. Kim
    Member

    There has been something thing bothering me about the recent changes to the policy on cycling in Scotland (well actually there is a lot that bothers me about the policy on cycling in Scotland, but that's why we have PoP) and it has to do with the emphasis on commuters. Have you noticed the way in which the 10% of all journeys keeps becoming 10% of commuter journeys by bike? As if the only journeys which are important in peoples lives are the ones to and from work.

    Then this evening, reading a blog post by Rachel Aldred I found the ideal why of challenging this subversion of policy. She points out that an adult centred commuter journey target is fundamentally sexist, her argument is "that getting children cycling is good in itself; moreover, child-friendly infrastructure should mean universal design that works well for everyone. But thinking about connectedness, if we care about adults cycling, we have to care about children cycling. Otherwise, we are limiting cycling for adults to those journeys they make without children. And this has equalities implications. Given unequal childcare responsibilities, we are then restricting women more than men. Single parents, overwhelmingly women, are disproportionately affected. Need to drop your children off at the workplace nursery, or at a school on your way to work? Sorry, the infrastructure wasn’t built for you to do that, we’ve been planning for our ideal commuter, and he doesn’t have any childcare or shopping responsibilities (or any other messy non-work life which spills over into his work trips)."

    Therefore such a policy discriminates against women and should be deemed illegal. I think this is a point we need to put forward strongly when ever there is any suggestion that cycling is just about commuter journeys.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  2. chdot
    Admin

    "Have you noticed the way in which the 10% of all journeys keeps becoming 10% of commuter journeys by bike?"

    Yes.

    I think one reason is that 'they' realised that the '10% of all' is absolutely impossible without the sort of policy changes that almost no politician is willing to contemplate.

    "As if the only journeys which are important in peoples lives are the ones to and from work."

    Mmm, that's an interesting notion. If that's going on I suspect it's subconscious. A simpler 'reason' is that it's not really about (all) 'journeys to work', it's about commuting-time journeys which would be easier to measure as more concentrated and (in general) along definable corridors.

    The reason for encouraging (if councils/governments really are!) 'cycling to work' is about 'congestion' and, to a lesser extent, about 'road space'.

    Rachel's piece covers a lot of ground and discusses a lot of things (some of which may be more related to London than anywhere else) including modal shift 'swaps' involving cars, buses and bikes.

    I definitely agree about paying more attention to infrastructure that makes it 'possible' for children to cycle (and parents willing to allow them). CEC agrees - which is why it is producing its Family Network. Unfortunately too much if it is not close to being good enough for its intended purpose.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  3. Instography
    Member

    You make a connection that Rachel doesn't make between cycling policy and it's gender outcomes and I'm not sure it's reasonable to enlist her argument against the idea that children have broader travel options into your argument about cycling targets in Scotland.

    The policy slide in Scotland is, I suspect much more prosaic. The percentage of commuting journeys by bike is double the proportion of all journeys by bike. If you can slide your target from all to commuters you've made some progress already.

    The unintended consequence of provision towards a commuting target may be less advantageous towards women. I can see how that would work in London, maybe even Glasgow but it's not clear to me how, in Edinburgh, that would automatically be the case. If main routes into the centre of Edinburgh were cyclable by commuters in a 'mass' way, they would also be cyclable by parents with children. Certainly, if commuters could get from Limekilns to Dunfermline safely by bike, my kids would be able to cycle to school. If it were possible for most people to cycle to Inverkeithing to catch the train, Inverkeithing High becomes a cycle school for many of the surrounding villages and, possibly as important, women don't spend time putting kids in the car and driving to the station to pick up the man off the train. He can use a bike. In these sorts of cases, providing for cycling benefits the whole family - kids too.

    But having said all that, I generally agree - provision should make towns and the roads between towns generally cyclable.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  4. Roibeard
    Member

    I think the assumption is that commuter cyclist = 20mph sprint speed, take the lane, go with the traffic flow cyclist[1], which takes us back into the dual network territory - mix with traffic as a commuter (i.e. no change) or meander with the pedestrians if you can't hack it.

    I can see how this approach could be discriminatory, as vehicular cycling with children requires nerves of steel and assertiveness to match...

    Robert
    [1] Commuter = Magnatom for short!

    Posted 11 years ago #

  5. chdot
    Admin

    "I think the assumption is"

    Just for clarity - whose assumption?

    (Presume you are referring back to 'targets' being changed to "journeys to work".)

    Posted 11 years ago #

  6. kaputnik
    Moderator

    I made the mistake of towing the trailer from Meadowbank to Marchmont the other evening ~ 630PM via London Road, Regent Terrace, Waterloo Place, the Bridges.

    Hauling a fairly heavy and not too nippy/narrow load on a bike without a particularly low gear it made me all too aware how totally inadequate our streets are for even basic journeys across the centre of town. If you had a child seat or child trailer or were carrying your shopping, or were generally just not the sort of cyclist who is fast/fit/confident enough to mix it and weave it with traffic, it's hugely offputting and I arrived at my destination very hot, bothered and stressed.

    I was thinking how I'd never allow a child unescorted on any of the roads I took, and also if I was a new or unconfident cyclist that I wouldn't do that either.

    I avoided the Holyrood Park because Brenda was having a garden party and lots of path was fenced off and the grass had been turned into a car park and road closures meant there were big tailbacks in the Canongait area.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  7. SRD
    Moderator

    I'm still suffering from un-ending chest infection, so cycling very slowly and very aware of issues such as k'nik describes.

    BUT i don't understand why women cycling is equated with less confident, slower, or with kids.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  8. chdot
    Admin

    "BUT i don't understand why women cycling is equated with less confident, slower, or with kids."

    I think you do...

    It's just another 'convenient'/lazy stereotype.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  9. SRD
    Moderator

    nothing particularly new here, but:

    "Bike ability: Are planners geared up for the cycling revolution?"

    http://www.theplanner.co.uk/features/bike-ability-are-planners-geared-up-for-the-cycling-revolution

    Posted 11 years ago #

  10. PS
    Member

    There are plenty of men out there who, if they do cycle, are slower, less confident and cycle with kids.

    Also, plenty of men who may be fast, confident and don't cycle with kids but who would welcome the opportunity to cycle in a less stressful environment or indeed cycle with slower, less confident friends (of whatever gender).

    Posted 11 years ago #

  11. chdot
    Admin

    "Are planners geared up for the cycling revolution?"

    They have to ask the question?!

    Worth reading though -

    "

    The upshot is that as cycling numbers in UK towns and cities rises, the DfT has no cycling infrastructure guidance for planners, designers, engineers and builders. It’s a far cry from the Netherlands.

    ...

    Town and city centres are access roads and thus largely ‘shared space’ with just a tiny amount of motorised traffic. “You can cycle across a city and you might have five encounters with road traffic,” says Treasure. “It’s a big problem that in the UK we don’t have that system.

    “In the Netherlands, their towns and cities are so much more liveable and so much more pleasant. Cycling is a way of creating a better city, a better town. Because you don’t need to signalise everything, you don’t need to have big junctions. Things work themselves out. And if people are cycling and walking you can fit a thousand people through a junction in much less time.”

    ...

    “there’s also New York, where they stuck it in on a temporary basis and it’s still going. We don’t have the professional confidence or the public mandate to do that in the same way.”

    In New York, it took a bold decision by the Mayor to prioritise cycling and it was done quickly and cost-effectively. In Holland, it took a bold decision by politicians to reverse the domination of the car in the public realm.

    "

    http://www.theplanner.co.uk/features/bike-ability-are-planners-geared-up-for-the-cycling-revolution

    Posted 11 years ago #

  12. chdot
    Admin

    Also from that piece -

    "

    In 2011, an all-party Parliamentary cycling group commissioned the Get Britain Cycling report (pdf) which set out the bold aim to increase the proportion of cycle journeys in Britain from two per cent in 2011 to 10 per cent by 2025, and 25 per cent in 2050. They estimated that this would require a cycling budget of £10-£20 per person per year, or 4-8 per cent of the current transport budget. England presently spends less than £2 per head on cycling and Scotland roughly £4.

    "

    Posted 11 years ago #

  13. Roibeard
    Member

    "Assumption" wasn't the correct word, I was composing in too much of a hurry...

    Probably what I meant was "risk" - in that the risk is that commuter = current cyclist (young, fit and not adverse to mixing it with traffic).

    The level of fitness and attitude to risk then tends to make it a male pursuit, as evidenced by the current cycling demographic.

    And in defiance of the school run by mums implication, I do our school run, but perhaps it wouldn't be by bike if I hadn't been prepared to do it. Yet even now Ruth is much less confident at taking the kids through town by bike than I am.

    Robert

    Posted 11 years ago #

  14. sallyhinch
    Member

    I would have said at the 'bike curious' event that the demonstrators were about 50-50 men and women, although that may reflect the demographics of the recruitment process which was basically asking folk on here.

    It was certainly the passing dads whose eyes lit up at the sight of all the 'kit' involved in carrying kids (to use another entirely lazy and spurious stereotype)...

    Posted 11 years ago #

  15. SRD
    Moderator

    i've assumed that commuters are targeted for a bunch of reasons in no particular order

    * easier to reach them - ie through employers
    * getting employers on board makes it more of a 'partnership' - which is popular these days
    * most workplaces fairly evenly split between men and women these days (just than women in less senior positions etc)
    * all of the above also true of focus on schools and unis

    one benefit to the focus on commuters seems to be that it ought to focus on how to make major thoroughfares bike-friendly. complaints about the family netwrok are that it uses quiet back streets etc ./ surely a focus on commuters could position us quite nicely to ask for eg the redesign of Teviot/Forrest Rd as spokes has done, and some decent bike infra on arterial routes into city centre?

    Posted 11 years ago #

  16. chdot
    Admin

    "quite nicely to ask for eg the redesign of Teviot/Forrest Rd"

    Yes, but 'we' shouldn't have to.

    This is one city that really ought to 'understand' the 'issues' and have MUCH bolder political leadership.

    And one that makes things happen...

    Posted 11 years ago #

  17. sallyhinch
    Member

    There's also the fact that if you do a journey regularly you will put up with slightly scarier conditions because you know what you're doing. A right turn at a junction you know well where the timing of the lights can be relied on and you even remember where the pot holes are is much less daunting than trying to tackle it for the first time while also working out your route to somewhere new and/or dealing with carrying shopping, kids etc. Plus work is one of the few places where you might expect to have access to a shower and changing facilities - not likely at the supermarket or a meeting venue (for those who like to change/shower). And you don't expect to enjoy your journey to work, so you'll put up with nastier roads. I think Rachel Aldred did a post about this too...

    Posted 11 years ago #

  18. Morningsider
    Member

    The change form "all" to "everyday" (commuter) trips was made as it is a far easier target to reach, for a number of reasons:

    1. Trips to work only make up about a quarter of all trips.
    2. More people cycle to work than for any other reason already.
    3. Commuter trips are regular, predictable and generally focused on large numbers of people travelling to relatively small areas where workplaces are concentrated - meaning small interventions may make fairly large changes.
    4. People in work are more likely to be fit and healthy enough to cycle than other groups (e.g. older people).

    I imagine the hope is to get people on the cusp of cycling to work to actually cycle, there should be just about enough of these people to get respectably near the 10% target.

    On the other hand "other" trips are far more random and require the development of far more comprehensive cycle networks and fairly radical changes to travel patterns, streetscapes and ways of living.

    This is a problem caused by the setting of a cycling modal share target in isolation from other transport, planning, health or education policies. The people charged with hitting the target will try their best to do so - but with little thought to possible wider benefits or to exceeding that target (for which there is no incentive).

    Posted 11 years ago #

  19. Kim
    Member

    "quite nicely to ask for eg the redesign of Teviot/Forrest Rd"

    Well that would result in a refresh of the existing paint on the road and a branding exercise with a snappy new name, calling it something like the "Quality Bike Corridor". Oh, hang on they have already tried that, that is one of the places where they claim success because apparently calling it the QBiC has increased commuter traffic. But has it really changed it to make is a viable transport option for those from 8 to 80? No.

    Now have a look at this presentation from Seville and see how their approach differer to Edinburgh's (and I am not talking about the bike share scheme). In Seville they have developed a network of conected, safe, and direct cycle routes across the city which any one can use. They have gone from 12Km to 120Km in the space of four years.

    Seville is not unique in doing something like this there are other cities across the world doing the same sort of thing. Now why can't we do that sort of thing here?

    Posted 11 years ago #

  20. SRD
    Moderator

    I'm sure we'd all love to see that happen here.

    How do you propose we go about it?

    Posted 11 years ago #

  21. crowriver
    Member

    I made the mistake of towing the trailer from Meadowbank to Marchmont the other evening ~ 630PM via London Road, Regent Terrace, Waterloo Place, the Bridges.

    That was 'brave', kappers.

    I have actually done that trip (well from Abbeyhill so cutting out the bus/pothole nightmare junction at Cadzow Place) with my 'big' trailer (self-made in a Greener Leith workshop with Nick Lobnitz). On the way back I was hauling a bike for my son that someone gave me. It wasn't peak home commute time, but mid-afternoon so the traffic was not as bad nor the drivers as aggressive/impatient.

    My attitude was to take it slowly, try to be serene and calm. But also to 'take the lane' and sod the road users behind me: they're just going to have to wait. It's true this caused a few impatient types to aggressively overtake, beep horns or cut me up . Being aware I was essentially holding them up, I did not issue any retorts, and no words were exchanged at any point.

    Basically it was fine. A big trailer means folk seem to mainly give a wide berth. At least they can't just ignore you for a SMIDSY because they certainly can't miss a bike with a trailer. Maybe helped I had a big tall safety flag mast attached to the rear right hand side.

    OTOH this week I've been doing a 5 minute micro-commute east along London Road with No.1 son (on his own bike) and No.2 daughter (kid seat on my bike) to Meadowbank Stadium during peak get to work hour. Even with a bus lane/cycle lane all the way, it takes nerves of steel and constant shoulder checking. After dropping son off at athletics we took to the quiter side streets and cut through to the Restalrig Railway Path/Seafield Path to Porty for gymnastics. No way I'm spending longer than I have to on London Road/Porty Road at that time of day with a kid on the back...

    Posted 11 years ago #

  22. chdot
    Admin

    "I'm sure we'd all love to see that happen here.

    How do you propose we go about it?"

    You mean more than 'we' already do!(?)

    Perhaps a more organised approach to dealing with issues raised on CCE.

    List for Lesley is a partial record of the inadequate things that CEC has done in recent months.

    I think there probably needs to be greater scrutiny of the CEC Active Travel Action Plan and the things that are being done as a part of this - eg Family Network.

    I'm not clear whether current work like that in George Street (and Leith Walk) fit directly into this - or whether any road works (eg recently on Russell Road) pay any attention to the ATAP principles.

    I think 'we' clearly want joined up routes (networks even) that are rideable by people "8-80".

    Perhaps 'we' should assess how much of this already exists and identify all the 'missing links' and find out when these are planned to be dealt with...

    Perhaps some sort of Edinburgh subset of Pedal for Parliament - an ad hoc grouping of people to investigate further.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  23. SRD
    Moderator

    Yes, we could all be more pro-active and do more of what we do already.

    But that's not going to result in some great transformation of council policy.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  24. chdot
    Admin

    "But that's not going to result in some great transformation of council policy."

    Probably not.

    The process might highlight a few things.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  25. holisticglint
    Member

    "Are planners geared up for the cycling revolution?"

    Clearly no - if you want to get really depressed go and look at the cycling provision being build with the new construction along the A7 corridor between RIE and Sheriffhall. Huge wide access roads with big grass verges with only shared use paths which give way to road traffic at every junction and not effort to integrate with existing infrastructure.

    If proper infrastructure was part of the planning rules then the council would be getting miles of segregated cycle route for free from developers which could then be joined up for a little more investment.

    But that would be sensible...

    Posted 11 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin