Women's Safety in Traffic

I think lacking confidence and assertiveness can be a huge liability though.

The dumbest single move I've seen so far was perpetrated by a lady but that's hardly a scientific study. She tried to undertake a left-turning lorry. Fortunately there was a passenger who was actually looking out for things... and he had to stick his upper body out the window and yell at her to get her attention. She was totally oblivious.

And I saw a guy doing the exact same thing last week.

Lacking confidence and assertiveness is a liability if road users around you pick on this and bully you by pushing you out of the way instead of giving you space and time to do what you have to do. Then you can develop confidence and assertiveness.

Women are statistically safer riders than men. They are less involved in collisions and have a lower risk of injury. The only area where they come to statistical prominence is in left hooks with lorries. Why this is the case is unexplained. Don't believe the urban myth that it's because they're more likely to obey red lights. No factor has been shown to be at play conclusively.

I can dig out figures if people are interested, but on this one we have to wait to know more.

Of course you see women doing stupid things in traffic, but then you see far more men doing stupid things in traffic. This country hasn't really cycled for 40-50 years and there's a huge training backlog which we're only just beginning to address. By all appearances, women are making more use of this offer than men.

Ah, interesting, urban myths are powerful things. I was running a temp of 39.6 (103 in old money) yesterday and frankly am surprised I wasn't just replying with cheesecake recipes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2010/jul/02/cycling-lorries-women-roads

Ostensibly women-themed, but rather inconclusive blog entry. Not much new information in it. It should be noted that it is Cynthia's view that there is no such thing as a 'blind' spot, only 'hard to see' spots. The point is merely meant to pick up that there is nothing inevitable about the role of 'blind' spots, although of course the actual risk that 'hard to see' spots create in an event where someone has not seen is not affected by this analysis.

to the front or behind lorries...never to the side.

Get more girls cycling at a young age, often tween/teen girls seem to stop cycling until a later age where as many tween/teen boys will take the hobby further throughout adolescents, giving them more confidence and (sometimes) better bike handling skills.

Education would be the best start for all cyclists, guys tend to take too many risks when cycling IMO, so it's a tricky line to navigate.

Of course the difference in gender is probably just overly played upon by lazy media folk, let's see some proper research.

In general, if I had to stereotype (and it's hard to avoid in a thread called "Women's Safety In Traffic") I think I'd say that I see much more active idiocy from male riders - such things as RLJs at preposterous points in the phases, going for gaps with no idea what's going on in the space they're riding into and so on. What I've seen more often from female riders is a sort of zoning-out, leading to a failure to predict something awful about to happen. Laura Ashley-type dresses and/or hi-viz seem to be the most strongly predictive of this.

I wish to emphasise that I'm talking very, very broad brush here - we all know many absolutely focussed female riders and plenty of distracted male ones (not least me, which is why I'm a pretty risk-averse rider these days).

I haven't noticed that distinction particularly, Steff. It seems to me quite close to the idea that women are more likely to obey red lights (which I can't say I've witnessed, either) than men, while men are more likely to jump them, which many people think is 'safer'.

I know you're fully aware of this, but I think what we really have to beware of here is our perception of gender in general (which may be stereotyped and inaccurate such as in 'women more passive/quiet/reserved, men more (pro-)active/forthcoming/'--in fact, how many people imagine women and men should be as opposed to what they really are) colour our analysis of such crashes. A bit like the uncertainty principle--the attitude of the observer influences what is being observed.

One reason why it's not known what causes the apparent gender divide in lorry left-hooks is because we don't have very good information on crashes. Police reports tend to focus mainly on the immediate crash location and don't record all the other factors that may have played a role. It would take a good deal of dedicated research into inquests, speaking to familes (to find out information that might not have been recorded at inquest, also because a lot of inquests end quite unsatisfactorily), etc., to compose a full picture.

It would be a worthwhile graduate research project for sure. Until someone is able to take it on, we are probably left to speculate only.

Get more girls cycling at a young age, often tween/teen girls seem to stop cycling until a later age where as many tween/teen boys will take the hobby further throughout adolescents, giving them more confidence and (sometimes) better bike handling skills.

Education would be the best start for all cyclists, guys tend to take too many risks when cycling IMO, so it's a tricky line to navigate.

Of course the difference in gender is probably just overly played upon by lazy media folk, let's see some proper research.

Not proper research; tangential; but interesting nonetheless. More about why girls stop cycling than safety per se.

http://www.bikebeauty.org/english/Bikebeauty_2010_English/The_Project.html

Had just this exact problem as described by Mr Dovvles this lunchtime crossing Shaftsbury Ave.... the ONLY reason the cyclist came to a halt at the traffic lights was that they had cycled onto the pavement, into my foot, whilst listening to their iPod... and then I received 'that look'... which suggested I was truly evil... (I've had my moments, t'is true but that's for another thread).... and then rode off having jumped the red light through the junction... though, to be fair to her, as she was cycling on the pavement, undertaking a coach, into a busy junction, there was no chance of seeing the red light...... Abs-so-looterly no point in trying to hold a conversation, as I could hear what she was listening to over the noise of the traffic!

p.s. But don't worry, everything would have been fine, helmet was correctly done up!

pffff can we not turn this into "silly woman cyclist oblivious to the world" thread.

pffff can we not turn this into "silly woman cyclist oblivious to the world" thread.

And please let's not turn this into a "silly cyclist of any gender oblivious to the world" thread, either.

edit: didn't know this was in the womens section. sorry.

How's this for stereotyped gender-based speculation with no evidential basis:

Women are at more risk in traffic than men, because to drivers of motor vehicles men represent more of a threat (on some primeval level), so are less likely to be forgotten about.

Nothing stops both genders from being great cyclists (I [strike]stalked[/strike] observed quite few female forum members who are more than just able or adequate cyclists - with great skills often blowing sad efforts of their male counterparts light years away), but...

From my personal experience... I every now and then notice, that guys do mistakes because of stupid bravado and overconfidence. Girls more tend to make mistakes, because they lack confidence.
They tend to stick to the rules, but when other road users don't or they ignore a female cyclists (or drivers for that matter), they seem to make mistakes. Hard to say really, as in the same situation some guys would do something risky and also end up badly.
Both genders can do with cycle training - some to gain confidence, other to calm down.

Maybe a stereotype. Discuss.

How's this for stereotyped gender-based speculation with no evidential basis:

Women are at more risk in traffic than men, because to drivers of motor vehicles men represent more of a threat (on some primeval level), so are less likely to be forgotten about.

Where did you get this from?

.

nowhere. It was just an attempt to think up a plausible sounding gender stereotype based explanation that wasn't also victim blaming, purely to illustrate that all the gender stereotype explanations above were tangling up those ideas unnecessarily.

Obviously there's going to be some confirmation bias here, but it does seem to overwhelmingly the case, from my POV as a driver, that men ride like twats to endanger themselves while women ride in the gutter to the same degree. Considerate driving should actually reduce the danger to cyclist who are failing to claim their space more easily than it can reduce the danger to the sometimes unpredictable idiots who are all over the road being "assertive". On the other hand, lots of car/van/truck/bus drivers are shit, so the riders who think they are safe if they keep 6 inches from the kerb are making a false assumption, while the idiot cyclists do at least seem to be taking some notice of the traffic some of the time.

While we're waiting for decent driving standards, cyclists have to do a couple of things which some of them aren't doing yet. First, make sure drivers can see you. A quite alarming number of cyclists seem to be on stealth undercover missions at night. Pedal reflectors or retro-reflective dots on your heels have no running costs, can't be nicked while your bike is parked, and are the first thing a driver sees on unlit roads, unless you're also wearing a full-on Hi-Viz vest. They not only jump out of the clutter, but their movement instantly identifies you as a cyclist. Best. Night-safety item. Ever. By day, don't merge into the crowd. If you're 6 inches from the kerb, you might as well be a pedestrian on the pavement for all the visual impact you have. Second, make sure drivers actually have to act on having seen you. Again, 6 inches from the kerb is useless. If a driver doesn't have to move the steering wheel to get past you, he won't.

I know that's preaching to the converted, but it's what I see day in and day out as somebody who drives around London for a living taking more notice of cyclists than the average driver. Several female friends have asked for my advice because I'm a known cyclist and they don't feel safe on London's roads, and it's always the same mantra which comes to mind first, based on my 1000 hours or so a year of driving in London.

Get the driver's attention.
Make him act on it.

^T-shirt (in a women's cut first).

Ugh, no, it's true. Take your road space. But I have trouble doing that in those sections of road where there is plenty of space for me and cars and then there's a line of cars parked up on the left. I'm slower than traffic so I have trouble taking my line in enough time to make sure cars see me b/c then they get all hot and either honk at me or swerve around me dangerously. I guess it'll be swerve around me dangerously either way so I'd better take the line and get on with it.

hi
didn't have enough time to read all the replies here, so ern sorry, but, i saw these cards (like the size of business cards) at Condor the other day just by the counter, "Don’t become another cycle statistic". it's from the city of london police and it warns you about HGVs. I usually don't appreciate these initiatives (due to my immaturity) but thought it maybe good to give them out to fellow cyclists... while at lights and stuff ..... ? dunno, but they certainly took my attention.

Interesting thread this - there are some parallels here to my day job in the oil industry. Over the years the industry has had an appauling safety record and have tried many different ways to raise awareness and improve the safety culture on sites.

Large construction firms have discovered that telling people what to do is simply not effective. If you tell someone that they have to wear a helmet - most will, but some will take the decision not to because they have been told to. Instead safety training, whilst still teaching staff how to be safe, now concentrates on informing people of the implications of not being safe.
Its a far harder hitting message to tell someone what could happen to their friends, collegues or family if they do not behave in a safe way. This should be underpinned by cultural change - positive reinforcement.

Its two fold really - in the case of the HGV driver, the behavior needs to be changed by educating them as to the concequences of their actions. The cyclist needs to be educated as to the consequences of getting into that road position. We need to influence the organisations that employ the drivers into a positive safety culture. What is causing the driver to behave in an unsafe manner in these circumstances? Is it lack of mirrors and sensors? Time pressures? The wrong vehicle for the situation? Organisations need to accept that they have responsibility for behaviors that are unsafe and need to take action to allow people to act in a safe manner and look out for one another.

This is not a "HGV drivers are wankers who kill cyclists" problem - its an issue that needs to be addressed positively from both sides.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with letting a fellow cyclist know their behavior is unsafe. If more people understood the impact of their actions - 'dont get down the inside of that truck mate, you need to be around to teach your little one to ride!' is a perfectly valid message. Poster campaigns are effective - or even a business card to hand to another rider? The A1 roadworks have an effective poster campaign - instead of telling you to slow down, they ask you to take care because someones loved ones work here.

Dont ride by and let someone be unsafe... I wish that behavioral safety was part of the test for every driver. When I worked with BP, a driving safely course was part of the site safety training for everyone - they recognised that people wouldnt be making the journey to the site if it wasnt for them and wanted them to act safely and be safe at all times. This extended to a ban on mobile phones (including hands free kits) whilst driving on company business, no call was more important than driving and everyone connected with the project knew that a call would not be answered if the person was driving. This then became normal behavior and expectations were reset as a result. Acting safely is more than being told to - it has to be facilitated and seen to be normal behavior for all no matter what.

More here if you are interested... http://www.hse.gov.uk/humanfactors/introduction.htm

Sorry for the length of the post - but it is something that I believe in.

you're going to pop your collar when you see me then...

Aye but if im correct (please be correct, or i've just made a very bad assumption) you have a hearing impediment Ed, so therefore you are more cautious and also much more aware of your surroundings becuase you had to be. Whereas headphones are used to listen to something that in turn distracts you from your surroundings.....as seen in many a case 'head in the cloud' riders, listening to their tunes with no idea whats going on around them etc

...and I've forgotten the rest of what i was going to write due to 'help the missus' duty

Regardless of my hearing impediment, you could argue the same for drivers who listen to music in their cars which would make them less cautious.

in the end it's really down to the person, some cycle recklessly, some cautiously.