Bikes as transport: getting Australian women along for the ride

Cycling for transport in Australia is characterised by several “missing” population groups: women, children, adolescents and older adults.

What an indictment of twenty years of failed Australian bike policy and advocacy. It is clearly time for a new direction, and one not incessantly focussed on "road safety" and helmets. Yes, I will mention helmets. And no, Tim churches, there is no clear evidence of a benefit from mandatory helmet laws. You fail to distinguish again between efficacy in the event of an accident, and the population level findings that compelling cyclists to wear helmets has not reduced the incidence of head injury pro rata. This was clearly demonstrated by Dorothy Robinson as far back as 1996, and goes a long way to explaining why Australia is one of only three countries in the world to go down this path.

But to return to the topic. Only one in five cyclists in Australia is female. That however does not include the Northern Territory, where the figure is one in three. Quite a significant difference. But then you don't have to wear a helmet in the Territory if you ride on a bike path. And by the way, cycling safety in the Territory is similar to the rest of the country, while all other categories of road user have much poorer safety rates.

There are countries in the world where it is quite normal to use a bike to get around. I cannot understand why Australia refuses to learn from them. And yes, compulsory clothing regulation has no part to play in making cycling "normal"

Like Jane O'Donnell, I too am a regular cyclist, ride to work and was also recently hit by a car. My helmet saved my life too - even with it on, I had concussion, and whiplash injuries, amongst other things. I am one of the lucky ones - making a full recovery. It takes me 20 seconds at work to fix my "helmet hair". I wear full make up to work, and ride in my work clothes - on cycles paths most of the way. I don't get too sweaty as I don't push hard on my commutes - just enjoy the ride! I have a large basket on the back of my "ride to work" bike, I put my handbag in it, and can stop off and shop for dinner on the way home. I am also a regular road and mountain bike cyclist - I say "just do it" to women who have not yet given it a go. I think plenty of people are missing out on an anjoyhable part of the work day - some "me" time!

As a female cycling commuter in Adelaide, I am constantly finding myself the object of awe and wonder over my decision to cycle. Although they presumably find no fault with my appearance at work, many of my female colleagues find the idea of cycling horrifying due to the effect it may have on their hair. That, combined with the 'onerous' task of packing a bag filled with work clothes each morning, puts them off. Personally, I find cycling far more relaxing and enjoyable than sitting in peak hour traffic or waiting for public transport. Yes, the risks are higher, but riding defensively reduces them considerably. I don't think cycling will really catch on the way it has in Europe until driving a car becomes a truly awful experience, either through increased traffic, or controls imposed on driving.

Tim,
Thanks for the list of meta analyses claiming a positive relationship between mandatory helmet wearing and reduction in head injuries. I was unaware of Lee et al (2005) and McPherson et al (2008), doubtless because they deal with child only helmet compulsion, which is an area I have limited concern with. I have read the other studies you quote, though not recently. I note with interest that you do not include Attewell Glase and McFadden (2001). This was the meta analysis widely quoted by the RTA in NSW (along with the 2009 Cochrane review) claiming a 65% reduction in head injuries to cyclists as a result of mandatory helmets. You would be aware of Rune Elvik’s recent reanalysis of this, published earlier this year in Accident Analysis and Prevention. Elvik concluded that after the meta analysis had been corrected for publication bias and time trend analysis, the combined effectiveness in reducing head face and neck injuries was 15%, with the later studies showing a reduction in effectiveness to the extent that it was not considered significant. Elvik also found publication bias in the Cochrane review, though the extent is yet to be measured.
A 15% reduction in injuries doesn’t look quite so good. This however is only part of the story. Again from Elvik, this time co-authored by Alena Enke (Making Vision Zero Real - Norwegian Centre for Transport Research 2009) combined evidence from Australia and New Zealand was found to show an increased risk of exposure to accident of 14%, and a reduction in kms cycled of 22% following the introduction of mandatory helmet laws. Increased likelihood of being involved in an accident of 14% effectively cancels out the 15% benefit in the event of an accident.

I have responded to your own recent paper previously on the Conversation. Briefly, the strength of your analysis is also its weakness. The strength is that by factoring out exposure, and only looking at the ratio of head to leg and head to arm injuries, you can draw some conclusions about the effectiveness of mandatory helmet wearing in the event of an accident. You have made a reasonable case from this for claiming a reduction in head injuries of around 15% in the event of an accident (interestingly close to Elvik’s findings from meta analysis). However you cannot make an overall claim of benefit without including exposure. This is a simple matter of logic. The actual measured data from Victoria, NSW, West Australia and New Zealand all tell a similar story. Head injuries declined following mandatory helmet legislation, but they declined by around the same amount as the measured reduction in cycling activity. Other injuries declined by slightly less than the measured amount of cycling. The only reasonable conclusion is that mandating helmet use on a population wide basis has little effect on the overall risk of head injury, but is associated with a slight increase in risk of all injuries. This may be an uncomfortable conclusion, but that doesn’t make it an invalid one. The reasons for this counter intuitive finding are doubtless complex. However risk compensation behaviour and risk homeostasis would be a useful place to start.

Jan’s article was not intended to be about bike helmets, so I apologise for responding at such length to Tim Churches over quite technical matters. I believe in time we will come to see the bicycle helmet as largely irrelevant to overall cycling safety, though it may well retain a place in extreme or competitive sports cycling (as indeed it currently enjoys even in Holland). Where it is not irrelevant is in the effect helmet promotion and helmet compulsion have had on cycling participation. This cannot be simply ignored - you only have to look honestly at the ABS figures for cycling to work in the years 1981, 1986, 1991 and 1996 to see the effect this had. The flatlining of commuter cycling since is in itself an indictment of twenty years of failed bicycle policy.

Jan, you really can’t just ignore helmets as a disincentive to women cycling. I know that the main reason given by women for not cycling is fear of danger. Well it is hardly surprising that cycling is perceived as dangerous if you are required by law to wear a helmet to participate. This puts cycling in the popular mind as being on a par with motor cycling (which is in reality quite dangerous). Hardly something “normal” for your daily trip to the shops.

In conclusion, Australia would do well to learn from success elsewhere. The European Cycling Federation has as policy opposition to mandatory helmet laws, and opposition to the promotion of helmets at all for adults. They have a clear understanding of the effect of the helmet in “denormalising” cycling, and casting a shadow of fear over a truly beneficial way of getting around. Why can’t we see what they see? Or does Australian hubris really lead us to believe that we have got it right?

While what you say Jan makes complete sense I reckon you are missing a least one point-women do not like wearing helmets when riding bicycles to commute. Several young women have told me the reason the bicycles ow provided in Melbourne have not been all that well used is because people do not want to have to carry a helmet everywhere they go. Considering research tends to indicate the wearing of the 'skid lid' is of little value one can hardly blame them!

Change is too slow in coming. Portland and Minneapolis have taken a shortcut. Waterfront promenades and rail trails provide totally segregated routes. The drawback is that cyclists not motivated by fitness perceive the rail-trail routes to be circuitous. I'm part of a group of architects and urban designers looking at ways to mitigate against this, as a first/practical way forward for countries like ours. http://behoovingmoving.livejournal.com/122301.html

great article - restoring the balance between cars & bicycles and giving bikes proper recognition as a valid transport mode is one of the keys to safer urban cycling; helmets are a dis-incentive for slower moving, short trips when people are wearing city clothes. checkout congested Vienna for great improvements to cycling infrastructure - and polite vehicles, giving bikes priority at all marked crossings. Sydney's hills can raise a sweat in summer which can require a change of clothing at destination - cycle route planning needs to seek out clever ways of getting up hills and using infrastructure such as constructed ramps (see Vienna's circulcar ramps on the Danube island giving access to the bridge bikeways) and bridges where these will ease the slope angles.

While I generally agree with your article, I feel you have missed a significant factor. Heat. I live in Brisbane and commuted by bike for many years. It was only possible when my workplace had a shower. Talking to women in the office they were generally not open to cycling because they saw getting dressed and doing makeup at work was too much hassle. This obviously doesn't apply to all women, but does have an affect. I believe if you ran a regression analysis against both heat and required commuting distance you would find a high correlation with female participation.

I live in wollondilly, a large semi-rural shire just south west of Sydney. Cycling is becoming more popular as recreational exercise, but with the distances to schools and shops will probably preclude cycling for everyday domestic purposes for some time. The cost to council for separate cycle facilities would be too great to justify in all but the major townships. In rural areas, where, unlike the city, quiet back streets, interconnecting parks etc are not available, and road speeds are often 80km or more, the need for adequate road shoulders is greatly increased. However, the need for driver education is most important. I think the reason drivers often disrespect cyclists, is that they are confused and defensive about how to handle situations as they arise. Women will not cycle if they feel unsafe, are unsure of their rights on the road and if they are going to be abused by drivers. A major nation-wide road safety campaign should be a priority and a thorough knowledge of driving/cycling situations needed to pass a driving test.

I'm a mum, and I cycle to work, i drop my primary schooler off amongst a sea of SUVs. Saying I don't want to wear a helmet because of my hairstyle is insulting to all women. I was recently hit by a car , Police, Ambulance the works, only some dental work to be done, the helmet saved my brain, and possibly my life. I have since changed my route to only side streets and bike paths. The short strech of shared road that I used to ride, with white painted bike lane is ignored by motorists, fair enough.

My wife, for one, refuses to consider riding on the roads in Sydney, and especially for our children.
There really isn't much of an argument I can make, as it makes little sense to expose bone and flesh to metal objects 20x your mass (with or without a helmet is really a moot point here).
And with an average car traveling at 60kmh having more kinetic energy than a barrage of bullets, and this is reflected in the cost of lives compared to firearms.

While there are very many careful drivers out there, it only takes one mistake, misjudgement, rashness or anger from a motorist with what is effectively a loaded weapon to abuse, threaten, harm and potentially kill a vulnerable road user.

While cycleways eliminates the greatest danger of being on the roads, what will really make a difference is a shift in driving attitude needs to be preceded by policing attitude and that in turn need to be preceded by a legislation to apply "Duty of Care"

The real question is what is the process for the legislation? and how can it be championed ? and how can the barriers to make this change be overcome?

Well done Jan great article. Living in Clifton Hill now (Suburb in the City of Yarra, Vic), it so refreshing to see more and more women riding everyday, many dropping children off on the way to work. It appears to me that there are a number of factors which have influenced this. Urban design (shops, schools, and the CBD are all in easy cycling distance), nearly all streets have cycle lanes and have 40km speed limit, most people work in white collar jobs, cycling has become normalized (people ride in everyday clothing with bicycles designed for urban riding) and the more women see other women riding the more likely they take it up themselves. It takes time to achieve a cultural change and a package of measures need to be adapted to get more women riding as part of everyday life.

I have been riding bicycles as a commuter and as a cycle tourist for many years. Based on what other people have expressed to me as their concerns with riding, particular in Sydney, I think helmets and the lack of separated bike paths are a relatively minor concern in stopping females from using cycling as transport.
The concern that gets expressed to me time and again is the sheer aggression of the traffic, and this is a very valid fear. It would be unusual for me to get through a week of commuter cycling without being on the receiving end of driver aggression. This is despite the fact I try to stick as much as possible to low traffic areas and marked cycle ways.
I recently got rammed by a driver who was trying to sneak up a cycle way and found the bicycle on it to be most inconvenient. We had a heated discussion at the traffic lights where she informed me she was in a car so I had to get the &*#! out the way. And this is a sadly prevalent attitude.
Until this gets addressed, and until the responsibility to avoid injury to vulnerable road users gets placed onto the drivers of motor vehicles, I believe we will have an uphill battle convincing significant numbers of women that cycling is a valid transportation alternative.

Couldn't agree more with Jan's position.

The irony is that cycling will become safer for all cyclists when more people ride; there really is safety in numbers.

'We' (women, men, children, et al) will have a more visible presence on the road to other road users when there are more of us, and we therefore cannot be ignored.
The more there are of 'us', the more 'we' are also beholden to ride safely, with due care, with confidence, and obeying the rules of the road at all times.
'We' are classed as vehicles when we ride on the road: if 'we' want to really p**s off other road users, and maintain an us and them divide, don't obey the road rules.
(And an acquired brain injury is not cool, so please use a helmet.)

There are two strategies I believe that will enable more women to ride. One is to emphasise and celebrate that cycling can be groovy and fashionable, including what you wear when your ride (God bless the fixie crowd for that). The other is to state (the bleeding obvious) that cycling on a daily basis - going shopping, taking kids to school, and so on - is a great way to lose weight and attain fitness.

I've summarised this argument at more length here: http://bit.ly/oSwRT4

All the best

Richard
http://the3rdquarter.com

What struck me particularly in The Netherlands (ten years ago) was the equality between road users. Three enabling factors stood out:

- 30 km/h speed limits in urban areas

- police treating as serious motorist aggression against cyclists and pedestrians

- consistency of rules of movement of all modes: pedestrian, cyclist and motorist.

It is far easier to walk on a Dutch path because you can predict what everyone else will do. In Australia nobody knows quite what to do because we have passively acquiesced to a meaningless "multiculturalism" where nobody knows even which side to pass and people just wander over the path.

In The Netherlands there was never a question as to what a pedestrian would do at a crossing or on a shared way. Their behaviour was according to the traffic rules and the traffic rules were easy to follow because they were highly consistent.

At intersections, Australian pedestrians vacillate as to whether to take their right of way, or simply don't understand if they have it.

Most assume that there are no rules or guidelines for pedestrians and even walking on footpaths is a matter of bluff to get groups of people walking two or three abreast to give you a reasonable amount of space to pass.

When such people take up cycling, they create confusion mixing this kind of chaos with a fear of motorcars.

With no clear sense of order, cycling for many people becomes a contest of wills and a constant battle of bluff.

We need a clear sense of order so that cyclists and pedestrians can take their place in the traffic dance without having to fight for it - as in The Netherlands.

In The Netherlands, this is largely through proper broad-based traffic education in schools, not just the "pre-driver" bulldust of Australian school, directed only at driving.

After trying for 20 years to get real discussion happening on helmet mandation, I am overjoyed it is happening but I will stay out of the present interchange. There are other issues beside that.

Jan, I agree with the proposition that safety is the pre eminent issue for cycling.

I'm curious however about your data. Judging by the share of trips your graph shows bicycles capture in Melbourne and Sydney, I'd say the data for those cities is work trips. This is an important point because the journey to work accounts for less than a third of all trips in Melbourne and Sydney and is generally more amenable to bicycle use than other sorts of journeys, like social and shopping trips.

I'm surprised to see bicycles have such a high mode share in Tokyo.

If you take out the cities where bicycles have >10% mode share, the relationship between mode share and women's use appears to be far less compelling. It could be there are special reasons - that are hard to replicate elsewhere - why cities like Copenhagen and Berlin attract so many cyclists. It might not simply be a matter of building better infrastructure and expecting "they will come".