E-bikes, Kingston Council and the impact on women.

[Justme56]

I saw this on X. Kingston Council completed an equality impact assessment on the procurement of e-bikes. Some interesting comments on the PC of sex and how the purchase would impact women. Obviously there were several complaints and an apology from the Council.

Actually, I do agree with the undertone. I live in Cambridge and cycle everywhere on an e-bike. Normative female clothing and appearance standards are not as straightforward to mix with cycling as men. The vast majority of my male colleagues wear trousers, shirts or t shirts and have short hair. No thought required to jump on a bicycle in that. I have long hair, wear skirts sometimes and makeup sometimes too. So when I cycle, sometimes I chuck on leggings and change when I get there, I make sure my mascara hasn’t run and sort out my hair once I’ve taken my helmet off, none of which my male colleagues do.

Using an e bike has given me the ability to cycle commute a longer distance every day than I wouldn’t otherwise be willing to do, and means I don’t have to shower when I get to work because I’m not sweaty.

I’d be interested to find more about the “peer reviewed academic paper” that this was apparently a direct quote from. Written and peer reviewed by whom? I wonder what other interesting opinions it contains, how much it has been used as a basis for the assessment and also why was it used directly without any reference it seems?

In my experience as one of the NHS auditors, an EQIA that is well-filled out, with actual consideration given to possible real impacts (good or bad) on each protected characteristic is as elusive as a unicorn.

I cannot begin to tell you how many NHS “Trans in the workplace” policies had EQIAs which stated, for every PC, that there would be no, or only a positive impact of the policy, because “trans people can be either sex, trans people can be of any race, trans people can be disabled,” etc.

Beyond box ticking into outright gaslighting.

The duty for local authorities under the PSED is quite easy to fulfil. It almost doesn't matter what they say as long as they show they have considered everything. That blatantly appears not to be case here.

I can understand why “traditional domestic duties” would need to be considered (although the wording is awful). I remember in Invisible Women, there was a part that talked about snow clearing - major routes were cleared, local routes weren’t always. This had a bigger impact on women because significantly more women than men would do a school drop off (using local routes) on their way to work, instead of quickly joining a major route for their direct commute. Giving the benefit of the doubt, this might be what the impact assessment was trying to address.

So completely clueless about the never ending harassment women endure when they cycle - male cyclists treat every situation as a race in my experience and are so aggressive towsrds women, we are generally just considered to be in their way, plus men in white vans shouting sexist remarks and then being sworn at. Its a jungle out there for women on bikes. "looking nice" is really not our biggest problem.

Times article says it came from 'a research article published in Active Travel Studies in 2021, which examined the impact of e-bikes on women in Auckland, New Zealand.'

https://www.thetimes.com/article/69fddc81-cc47-46e8-a5df-c99d001d4f7b?shareToken=b55c4e08125207f05b830dbf70eccec4&ver=article

Really glad the Times has picked this up. But back in the day, the BBC and the Guardian would also have jumped on it. Sign of the times, I guess.

I was literally about to quote this too. It stayed with me that such as obvious thing had never been taken into account.

I work in the outdoor sector and it’s only men that bike into work. Even the fit women who cycle as their sport don’t. I think it’s got more to do with school drop offs and pick ups. Plus having multiple bags of work to lug in is much easier if you are a taller/stronger male.

That's not the case in London. If you go on any of the main cycle routes into the City at 8.15am, you'll see hundreds of women commuting in. Many have paniers - they manage!

The language might be unhelpful, but cycling campaigners have been talking about this sort of thing for years. Differences in typical male/female travel habits (often linked to children and shopping) and clothing choices do seem to affect how many women cycle.

It's less obvious in places with high cycling rates like Cambridge and central London but I think some effect could be seen even there.

Agreed.

I often cycle a short distance to work. I tend to wear trousers for practical reasons anyway, and fortunately my ride to work is downhill so little effort compared to the ride home where I have no pressure to look or become professionally presentable upon arrival.
I have a female colleague who sometimes uses her e-bike, but overall cycling amongst staff is low and I'm not aware of other regular staff cyclists.

The interesting bit is the ratio of male: female students who cycle. I can only think of one girl who I see cycling regularly (and the only "feminine" colourway bike parked up), and she has an older brother who cycles in, so there is a role model presenting cycling as a normal form of transport. The rest of the regular cyclists are all male. The cycle racks are well filled, and we have a local catchment on relatively accessible routes.

While it's superficial, the impact of cycling on clothing choices (within the uniform) and appearance will be a barrier to many of the girls using cycling as transport. There isn't provision to change and freshen up and this would put them on site too early and raise supervision issues. There is more time and higher expectations in meeting feminised beauty standards. Personally a washed face and brushed, tied-up hair is good enough for me, but many females opt to engage to a higher effort and there can be a lot of social pressure on young females, and there isn't a template of girls cycling for transport being set in (our) school. Girls are also more likely to walk in larger groups as social activity whereas cycling is less social while on the move. There will also be a personal safety angle in the equation.

Childcare is no longer a significant issue to me, and my teenage DCs either get taken by DH or bus. However the days of childcare ruled out options such as cycling and buses for me because the increased travel time didn't fit for doing nursery/ school drop-offs and getting to work in the window between childcare opening times and work start time, and it was tight enough by car. At that point, their childcare fitted with my commute better than DH's, and now they go to school in DH's direction. While cargo bikes solve a capacity issue of transporting young children, I would not want to use them on a hilly, busy 40-50mph route for the rest of that journey after drop-off (my workplace has changed)

The tweet is badly written and presents those two issues in a trivial way. There are also other issues such as culture/ role modelling and personal safety, but it doesn't mean that the two issues raised are not relevant.

To be clear, you are ONE of the women who complained to Kingston Council...

This was the research article referenced: E Wild, K, Woodward, A and Shaw, C. 2021. Gender and the E-Bike: Exploring the Role of Electric Bikes in Increasing Women’s Access to Cycling and Physical Activity. Active Travel Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 1(1): 1, 1–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.16997/ats.991 https://activetravelstudies.org/article/991/galley/4877/view/

To be fair, loads of my colleagues, male and female, in the Netherlands ride ebikes precisely for this reason! No shower or snack needed, despite cycling at full speed on the office. My DH is in this category too because otherwise no one would sit next to him in meetings in the summer. It's also really useful if you've got loads of shopping and kids on the bike because traditional domestic roles are heavy. Still sucks that men don't do the shopping though