That study about men expecting women to physically move out the way...

I have only read p.1 yet (I will RTFT in a mo) but I have noticed it in the capital city I work in too - often foreign teenagers, or often middle aged men. But not unknown for it to be women either.

What I have taken to doing is stopping dead if it looks like someone is not going to move aside. I am usually on the building side where I can't step aside, and it is often larger groups going across the path, so I would bash a few of them if I tried avoidance measures. So I just stop walking and then THEY have bashed into ME rather than me getting abuse for having bashed into them.

But I have days when it does just annoy me too - and occasional days where I get bull headed and put my head down, stay in the inside, and walk on as I can't miss my train.

I do OBVIOUSLY take evasive action around pedestrians. That doesn't apply in these instances though. One was actively blocking the pavement to everyone, the other was running directly into me.

Hmm. Thinking about it, I don't ever move out of the way for runners. In my view it's their responsibility to take evasive action around slower pedestrians. Re the oncoming runner - drop your shoulder and carry on, taking half a step to one side. He won't do it again. Or, stop dead, make him do the same.

My anecdata - I was once jogging towards and elderly couple, and moved to one side. He carried on. She suddenly jumped in front of me and shouted 'Boo!', like a 4 year old. If I hadn't taken further evasive action, I'd have flattened her. Some people.

Some anecdotal evidence. Went running this morning in a quiet suburban area.

1. Ran round a corner into an oncoming male runner. I instinctively gave way to him. He didn't divert at all.

1. A man standing in the middle of the pavement doing nothing and blocking the way - I either scrape past a hedge or scrape past parked cards. I presume he can hear me coming as I am both panting and heavy footed. I choose to scrape past the hedge. Grrr.

Ooo! I thought I was imagining this, in my workplace. Sometimes I wonder if I am over sensitive, as it is predominantly men. But, interesting to read it is an actual 'thing'

I was in the queue in the cafe at work t'other day. the queue was long and slow moving; i had just dispensed my coffee and there was no where to move forward to, so i just turned in the direction of the till and prepared to wait. The man behind poked me in the waist and literally elbowed me out of the line, so that he could access the coffee machine. It was bizarre...so i was then stood out of line and only able to rejoin when it began to move forward!!

it is a small thing but i was a bit shocked.

I notice it coming up and down the stairs; im always doing swerving and dodging, and apologising

I must live near an exceptionally polite city. I find myself and others doing the little dance of avoidance whenever there's a chance of a collision.

One does note that in that unscientific yet interesting Sunday Times piece, there was a large proportion of male-female collisions reported in London, but not so many in Bristol or Birmingham.

Is this because London is different from anywhere else, or does it have to do with cities beginning with the initial letter "B"? More study is plainly needed.

Another poster and I have noticed it is really different in a village - competitive courtesy prevails! (I'm someone who has lived in villages, towns and in London and worked for many years in London so have a broad range of pedestrian experience).

I have no proof but I suspect a combination of factors may be contributing to our various impressions.

For example, it is not just that men pavement hog more, but perhaps that men pavement hog more in cities where everyone is rushing around, hurrying to work or home etc, whereas in villages where everyone is more sedate (usually) and you are more likely to meet the same people each day, courtesy by all prevails.

In fact, at risk of making myself unpopular, mums with buggies and/or several children are the worst pavement huggers in villages.. standing in groups chatting away utterly oblivious to us non-parents diving into the street to get around them.

I last worked regularly in London in the late 90s and I confess I did not notice getting bumped or charged down more by men than women, but then like most Londoners I was head down charging to or from work most of the time and oblivious to the sex of the person I was cannoning off!

larry that is a perfectly valid question, but it suggests to me the topic has not been "done to death", but is in fact a very open question worthy of discussion, and analysis.

Are we becoming ruder as a society? Did anyone here work in the City 20 or 30 years ago? Have you noticed a difference? Is it possible that men think, 'You want equality? Okay, I'll treat you like a man - get out of my way!'?

The OP mentions 'that naturally English chivalry thing'. Perhaps that is a casualty of more equality. The question is - do you want it back? Just some thoughts - I don't know either way.

And as for confirmation bias, if I am a woman who is absolutely convinced that men dominate public space, I will notice it every time a man obliges me to move out of the way. When it is a woman, I won't notice it or maybe I will just move and not register or resent it.

Clearly you are not a statistician, or even close to one . 95% confidence does what it says on the packet. It is wrong....ooh 5% of the time.
Equally, in alluding to gaits, confidences etc, you are getting confused what hypothesis is being tested. If bumping were due to sex, all the above would be irrelevant.

Funny you seem to have view on my depth of knowledge on statistical bias, then. Have you hacked me?

Dervel,

I totally agree with taking pride in academic accomplishments and I congratulated Buffy on her Phd. However, to then assume that you have the final word in all discussions, rather than engaging with the issues, is smug and arrogant. Had Buffy stated that she found the study interesting or researched other studies and come back with evidence, that would have been totally acceptable.

However the tone and content of her post were de haut en bas and that is why I find her smug.

larry I think you're being disingenuous here, up thread you bemoan that this topic has been "done to death", reference a newspaper article examines it, as if that should be the final word on the topic.

Buffy quite rightly points out it is if anything not in and of itself conclusive. I also notice you changed your tune from done to death to more research is needed. In essence agreeing with Buffy.

I alao don't see any problem with someone taking pride in their academic accomplishments, no matter how much you attempt to play down a chosen field. I don't really care what subject it is Buffy is smart (and quite possibly more so than I), I'm always interested in her take on things. She also did not need a PhD for me to think that.

I've noticed a difference when wearing jeans vs suit. I am expected to move in jeans, whereas people normally defer to me in a suit. (I'm male btw).