Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

Case closed and we can all walk away from this discussion..... now!

What a girl wants: A mixed-methods study of gender differences in the barriers to and enablers of riding a bike in Australia


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... cid=author

Table 4
Proportion of women and men who reported barriers to riding a bike for transport.
Barrier Women N ¼ 385 Men N ¼ 302 p-value*
I do not want to ride on the road with motor vehicle traffic 61.1% 44.7% <0.001
I am concerned I will be injured through a collision with a motor vehicle 58.9% 43.0% <0.001
I am concerned about aggressive behaviour from motor vehicle drivers 55.0% 44.7% <0.001
Bad weather 53.4% 52.7% 0.82
Distance and time to destination is too great 34.9% 29.5% 0.33
I am concerned I will be injured from falling off the bike 34.4% 15.2% <0.001
Bike paths or lanes do not go to my destination 33.1% 34.6% 0.69
Having to change clothes or shower at my destination 31.1% 29.5% 0.63
Not enough storage on a bike 28.0% 19.8% 0.01
Exposure to motor vehicle-related pollution 24.1% 24.5% 0.91
Do not feel physically fit enough 23.6% 11.8% <0.001
I am not close to a bike path or bike lane 18.8% 17.3% 0.62
Need to transport other people or children 18.8% 14.8% 0.19
Having to wear a helmet 7.7% 6.8% 0.68
No interest in riding a bike 6.8% 4.6% 0.24
I need a motor vehicle for my occupation (e.g. tradesperson) 4.0% 6.3% 0.15
Unable to ride a bike (due to injury or medical condition) 3.8% 3.4% 0.68
I do not know how to get to my destination by bike 3.3% 3.4% 0.59
Do not know how to ride a bike 3.3% 1.7% 0.16
No access to a bike 2.0% 2.1% 0.99


Table 5
Proportion of women and men who reported enablers of riding a bike for transport.
Enablers Women N ¼ 385 Men N ¼ 302 p-value
Having a bike-lane physically separated from motor vehicle traffic or an off-road bike path 68.4% 59.1% 0.01
To improve my physical health 64.2% 64.6% 0.95
To reduce my environmental impact 58.1% 54.9% 0.39
If I could easily get to a bike lane or path 48.8% 48.9% 0.96
Well-lit roads/paths 47.5% 43.5% 0.22
To improve my mental health 44.2% 49.4% 0.17
Secure bike storage 43.3% 41.8% 0.66
Being able to take a bike on public transport 35.5% 32.9% 0.44
To save money 35.3% 39.7% 0.24
Signage to show bike route 32.5% 33.8% 0.35
Lower motor vehicle speeds 28.0% 33.8% 0.11
Seeing people like me riding bikes 25.6% 25.3% 0.87
To get to a destination faster 24.7% 32.1% 0.03
Change facilities and showers at destination 24.3% 30.8% 0.06
Having access to an e-bike 15.7% 19.4% 0.17
There are no factors listed that would encourage me 7.3% 7.6% 0.86


Oh and I did get surveyed while on a bike for the paper that Mr F&O linked.
Was a good paper and should have continued. I also remember it well, was a very hot day and coming home from the beach - was in a spot which I would not normally ride as did not want to ride up some of the very steep hills on such a hot day. Was also in a spot which did not reflect what you would normally see with people in and out on a bike. (commuting, shopping, trips to schools all bypass the spot in which I was counted and logged
I did stop and spoke at length the person logging and even later chatted to the head researcher about what I considered was wrong with using locos which did not reflect true random sampling.

he he , in this section....Proportion of women and men who reported enablers of riding a bike for transport.
Not one person said "I real love my helmet and how glad I am to have to wear it...."

trailgumby wrote: ↑

Mon Mar 27, 2023 3:59 pm

fat and old wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 26, 2023 8:49 pm

The drop in school kid rates is always one of the big points raised, and while I have reason to doubt it there was nothing like that in my personal school experience. I started riding to school in grade 5, and was one of 3 who did so. Year 7 and it’s off to big boys school, and I was one of about 15-20. In a school of app 600. Yr 7 was 1977. It floated around that until Yr 10, then it just dropped right off. That was 1980. I remember that cos they got rid of most of the bike racks, they just weren’t being used.

Location of the schools was a big factor I think. Primary was in what was a very sketchy area. Very. And Secondary had main arterial roads all around it you couldn’t avoid.

I still reckon the rise of the second car in the 70’s and media in the 80’s was a big driver of the long term drop in numbers

Mandatory helmet laws didn't come in until the early 90s. Your school experience is 7 to 10 years too early, unless you became a teacher.

Looking at the quote I worded it badly. Yes, of course my school years were too early to quantify an MHL effect, you're correct on that. What I was getting at was that in my school experience, cycling was next to non existent anyway. The rot was well and truly set in. My older brother went to the same schools as me 13 years earlier (as did my best mate's older brother), and cycling was the way for 3/4 of the school population according to my parents and mates brother.

Just different experiences. Look at Davids. Heaps of kids rode, same timeline as me. I'd guess in the southern/inner southern areas? Warthog, less than me. Maybe in Africa, the Serengeti?

I think that mandatory helmets are part of
I am concerned I will be injured through a collision with a motor vehicle
am concerned I will be injured from falling off the bike

Helmets say "bicycles are dangerous, you might get badly hurt"

Well I for one was concerned I would be injured through a collision with a motor vehicle and was concerned I would be injured from falling off the bike way before MHL came in - (I still have scars on my knees, elbow and scalp to prove it)
My guess is these issues are a pretty common thought for people who bike in nations around the world who dont have MHLs ( well I know it is for the ones I have visited even if I have not biked in them.)

I dunno... i think it's a lot to do with what is "normal". A shedload of people are hurt every year in car crashes but no one thinks about that when they get in a car. Yes there are safety things now, but no one really thought about that before seatbelts and airbags either.

I would be interested to see the same survey done in Holland.

fat and old wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 28, 2023 5:00 pm

The rot was well and truly set in.

When I went to school the bike storage was overflowing (preMHL) but this was in an older (post war) suburb with lots of back lanes and quiet streets.

Late in my teens we moved to a new suburb. I still rode but only on the footpaths and in the cut-de-sacs. Or on bush tracks. (It was a long way out)

interestingly the suburb next door was designed with interlinked parks, paths and underpasses to allow walking and riding. So kids going to those schools still rode to school. By the mid noughties only the BMXers rode past puberty.

Road and regulation design (and administration) is super important to riding rates, along with perceptions of safety.

The rot had been setting in for a long time, with brief moments of enlightenment (such as Perth’s shared path network).

It seems MHLs acted as multiplier, the coupe de grace for certain types of riding, particularly if the local Plod had nothing better to do.

zebee wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 31, 2023 5:18 pm

I dunno... i think it's a lot to do with what is "normal". A shedload of people are hurt every year in car crashes but no one thinks about that when they get in a car. Yes there are safety things now, but no one really thought about that before seatbelts and airbags either.

I would be interested to see the same survey done in Holland.

Maybe but we are in Aust and this is a recent study done in Aust about Aust
https://www.icsc2022.com/wp-content/upl ... SCPRes.pdf

Look at this chart on page 6 for a breakdown of
Having to wear a helmet at 7%
then look at the number in that for -
Deters me a little (say 3 or 4 of the 7%?)
Moderately deters me (say 2 or 3 of the 7?)
Completely deters me (maybe 1 or 2 of the 7?)

https://www.icsc2022.com/wp-content/upl ... SCPRes.pdf

While I get your point, and right or wrong it really is time to let go of this "MHL cause this or caused that".
This study is a move towards making things better for all not just a tiny fraction of people who are vocal or even think about helmets.

Any number above 50% in the first four barriers is still kinda the majority in most cases, so just accept that we are not Holland and while the Dutch have solved many of these issues with better infra at home, they still travel and use bikes in other countries without such a high level of useble bike infra – So my question back is, do you think they still feel safe away from Dutch infra and how would they answer this survey if asked while visiting Aust?

baabaa wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 31, 2023 7:00 pm

While I get your point, and right or wrong it really is time to let go of this "MHL cause this or caused that".

Thanks for the new survey. I’ll have a good look later.

However it appears at odds with the last two serious which said that MHLs have a significant impact (RAC and some heart foundation- they’re linked earlier in this thread.)

I’ll specifically be looking at the design and methodology of this survey.
I’m impressed that helmets get a mention (was the question asked?) but I’ll be looking closely at who they asked.

If you’re asking self-identifying cyclists you’ll get the typical sports cyclist “Meh” response (they’re already wearing specialist outfits, riding fast and showering afterwards).

The almost complete removal of casual transport cycling (below 5km), which is the primary use of bicycles when conditions are favourable, results in seriously skewed data if one is not careful.

Again, thanks for the lead.

Thoglette wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 31, 2023 7:31 pm

The almost complete removal of casual transport cycling (below 5km), which is the primary use of bicycles when conditions are favourable,

According to who? In my local area, which is rife with shared paths, the primary use of cycles is for exercise. The numbers of commuters has been steadily rising since I started doing so in 2014 both on and off road, but the numbers of cyclists using the shared paths has really gone up. Single, group and families. All hours of the day, but mainly in out of work hours.

Cycling for transport is the aspiration, but cycling for exercise/fun is the reality.

I’ll specifically be looking at the design and methodology of this survey.
I’m impressed that helmets get a mention (was the question asked?) but I’ll be looking closely at who they asked.

This was done by Monash Uni but really why bother or even waste your time looking for a bias? A sample is a sample is a sample - the bigger the sample the better the results can be.
The trend is the key and 7% is nothing to the above 50% results

FWIW I have a (very nice wide) shared bike path over the road so all the riders I see on that, school kids riding to school and back, bikers without lids to beach riders, oldies on ebikes, are all different but will still have a bias to the ones on the busier local roads but they are still on bikes - if they ride on the Sydney to Melb Princes Highway roughly 3 ks west it will be a different type of rider and a different bias again at that time.

Worth nothing but on thurs morning I had a highway patrol car park outside our house at 8 am - at about 8:05 three teenage boys in school uniforms with back packs all laughing bike pass without helmets rode past down the middle of the road - even better it was all three one bike - nothing was done to them even if they could have been using the bike path but was all good on both the riders and police sides.
What is the bias at the time for these four people?
It would change dramatically if the boys all did a big nasty off just in front of the police officer.
( *we are in a 40k primary school zone so would be checking for speeding and these boys would be riding to the high school a few ks down the road)

Anyway I repeat - time to move on this MHL discussion goes nowhere and continues to show no results to make biking better

baabaa wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 01, 2023 9:27 am

Worth nothing but on thurs morning I had a highway patrol car park outside our house at 8 am - at about 8:05 three teenage boys in school uniforms with back packs all laughing bike pass without helmets rode past down the middle of the road - even better it was all three one bike - nothing was done to them even if they could have been using the bike path but was all good on both the riders and police sides.
What is the bias at the time for these four people?

8AM? Isn't that prime time for the officers to be enjoying the customary slap up McDonalds breakfast? Maybe they were otherwise occupied!

tpcycle wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 01, 2023 10:37 am

baabaa wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 01, 2023 9:27 am

Worth nothing but on thurs morning I had a highway patrol car park outside our house at 8 am - at about 8:05 three teenage boys in school uniforms with back packs all laughing bike pass without helmets rode past down the middle of the road - even better it was all three one bike - nothing was done to them even if they could have been using the bike path but was all good on both the riders and police sides.
What is the bias at the time for these four people?

8AM? Isn't that prime time for the officers to be enjoying the customary slap up McDonalds breakfast? Maybe they were otherwise occupied!

You left this bit out

( *we are in a 40k primary school zone so would be checking for speeding and these boys would be riding to the high school a few ks down the road)

I’d say that the Police were doing what most here ask for. Making sure motorists respect VRU’s and children, and ignoring non consequential minor offences like the three mentioned were engaging in?

baabaa wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 31, 2023 7:00 pm

Look at this chart on page 6 for a breakdown of
Having to wear a helmet at 7%
then look at the number in that for -
Deters me a little (say 3 or 4 of the 7%?)
Moderately deters me (say 2 or 3 of the 7?)
Completely deters me (maybe 1 or 2 of the 7?)

https://www.icsc2022.com/wp-content/upl ... SCPRes.pdf

While I get your point, and right or wrong it really is time to let go of this "MHL cause this or caused that".
This study is a move towards making things better for all not just a tiny fraction of people who are vocal or even think about helmets.

There's nothing wrong with self-reported data, but it's not a complete explanation of behaviour. MHL is so embedded that people aren't going to think of not wearing helmets as an option. Empirical evidence shows a strong correlation between mandatory helmet laws and lower cycling rates.
It's rare to find anyone in Australia who doesn't think bike helmets have a huge health protective effect (it took a long time even in this forum for certain precepts to be largely accepted), so it isn't surprising that most people believe that are a necessity. In such social circumstances it's not at all surprising that few people would see them as a barrier to cycling.
That's a very different thing from saying that getting rid of MHLs wouldn't lead to a higher uptake of cycling.

In short - this survey proves little.

In short - this survey proves little.

And around we go again.....

BobtheBuilder wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 01, 2023 1:37 pm

In short - this survey proves little.

I disagree.

It proves the inability of some to admit that 30 years on….a generation…..things have changed. Maybe not for the better, but time moves on inexorably. You said it yourself.

MHL is so embedded that people aren't going to think of not wearing helmets as an option

I think that todays attitudes to risk are lower than 1991’s, or indeed anytime before last week and that MHL’s are symptomatic of the times. Is there anyone that thinks we don’t live in a nanny state? Is there anyone who thinks people take more risk in general that we did 30 or 40 years ago? I doubt it.

Empirical evidence shows a strong correlation between mandatory helmet laws and lower cycling rates.

I think it’s more accurate to state that there was a strong correlation between MHL’s and the sharp decline in cycling rates in some types of cycling. I cite Thoglette

It seems MHLs acted as multiplier, the coupe de grace for certain types of riding

The effect was immediate. Certain types of cycling didn’t recover those lost numbers. But we’re a generation on now. Want proof? Look at the freedom cyclist rides, or look at Human’s report on the age groups of the last one he attended.

It’s just not that big a deal for most people.

MHLs are not an issue for most people because they have the impression cycling is a very dangerous activity, so dangerous you have to wear protective equipment, so the idea of cycling somewhere just doesn't occur to them.

I have had a fair number of arguments with people about how safe cycling really is but it has been hammered into their heads for years that it is dangerous.

When I was younger this was not the impression one was given about cycling.

MHLs have had a terrible impact on the perceived safety of cycling.

DS

Yep, as a kid we used to ride from Dandenong to St Kilda to see Luna park, on three speed Sturmey Archer geared bikes.
Princes highway was a lot narrower in those days. 1960’s
No helmets, jeans and tee shirts, no water bottles, no money in the pockets. Just a puncture kit….
I can’t remember a single incident where a motorist blasted us with their car horn.
I recon it is more to do with a brain set, than a need to protect the brain. I have friends in the health business...they al mandate helmets.

Non of them ride a bike...

DavidS wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 01, 2023 9:30 pm

MHLs are not an issue for most people because they have the impression cycling is a very dangerous activity, so dangerous you have to wear protective equipment, so the idea of cycling somewhere just doesn't occur to them.



DS

I’d agree with that. The majority of research agrees with that. The media agrees with that. Joe Citizen agrees with that

I have had a fair number of arguments with people about how safe cycling really is but it has been hammered into their heads for years that it is dangerous.

And from that you infer that MHL’s are responsible.

You ignore the worldwide drive towards safety and risk aversion in every segment of society. Incredibly safer vehicles than we had in 1991. The push for autonomous cars to take the decision making process away from humans who are obviously flawed. The worksite OH&S which tries to eliminate every possible risk. The pervasive use of CCTV to make our streets, parks, offices, workplaces and houses safer. It’s all encompassing and ever growing.

Yet MHL’s are some aberration that came from nowhere and single handed convinced everyone that riding a bicycle on a road alongside cars, buses and trucks was dangerous. That this would not have been the case without MHL’s.

If sharing the roads is so safe, why do the Dutch seperate cyclists and motor vehicles to an extent that makes them the envy of the world?

If sharing the roads is so safe, why do the Dutch seperate cyclists and motor vehicles to an extent that makes them the envy of the world?

And if you are lazy and slow to bring in infra your govt will try and protect people from being people

(Aust also has a rapidly rising aging population - if we did not have immigration it may well be higher % than what Japan is now)

Not April fools day jokes
Police urge cyclists to wear helmets ahead of mandate on April 1
https://japantoday.com/category/nationa ... on-april-1

Cyclists urged to wear helmets for own protection from April 1
https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14875605

Not taking notice of announcements written on April 1.

Cycling can be dangerous, even at low speeds.

All it takes is a bit of algae growing across a path and damp conditions and people go down despite being super careful. I know of at least three accidents caused by that in the same place, all of them being cautious (which someone will disagree with).

Bad infrastructure that isn’t looked after, dirt runoff from construction areas, etc, all make it more dangerous.

fat and old wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 01, 2023 7:48 am

Thoglette wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 31, 2023 7:31 pm

The almost complete removal of casual transport cycling (below 5km), which is the primary use of bicycles when conditions are favourable,

According to who?

Um, the whole world, outside of 2GB land.

We're below 2% of travel being done by bicycle. At the other extreme the Netherlands are about 1/3rd of all trips are by bicycle.

Count the road race and down hill bikes below. (There's 22,000 bike parking spots to count from at this train station in Utrecht)


There's similar scenes in Tokyo

BobtheBuilder wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 01, 2023 1:37 pm

There's nothing wrong with self-reported data, but it's not a complete explanation of behaviour.

Actually, there is.

That is how we ended up with MHLs: we had trauma surgeons who were convinced that there was a major problem with head injuries that could be fixed by mandating the use of helmets. And every trauma surgeon they spoke to agreed. (Cites were provided several pages ago)

Strangely, we didn't take this approach with skin cancer.

(edit: to clarify, if you run a survey on, say, attitudes to swimming, and only ask professional swimmers, or people exiting a pool, or people buying bathers, your survey will not be representative of general attitudes.
This is why phone-polls failed miserably at predicting the last few elections)

fat and old wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 02, 2023 8:33 am

Yet MHL’s are some aberration that came from nowhere and single handed convinced everyone that riding a bicycle on a road alongside cars, buses and trucks was dangerous. That this would not have been the case without MHL’s.

If sharing the roads is so safe, why do the Dutch seperate cyclists and motor vehicles to an extent that makes them the envy of the world?

Read what you've just written again:

You've identified a hazard, caused by poor planning; poor road design, poor regulation design and poor driver behaviour.

Now, somehow MANDATORY helmet use is going to fix this? On each and every road?

Ask an average Australian (particularly one who doesn't ride) and they'll tell you that cycling is dangerous and, if you must ride, you must wear a helmet. This is not the view a Dutchman would have.

Are you asserting that this is an accident?

The whole principle of mandatory helmet laws is that using a bicycle is inherently dangerous. Not merely on busy highways but on every road (even quiet back streets) and, in fact, even OFF the road, within the road reserve (NT being the one exception).

And that a foam hat will protect you.

We've had thirty years of a) telling the public that cycling without a helmet is dangerous and b) blaming the cyclist if they're injured by a car while not wearing a helmet. (Even Mr Plod believes car drivers are responsible for 3/4 of car-bike accidents)

Almost every incident has been reported as follows: "Today, a cyclist collided with a vehicle at XXX. The cyclist had serious injuries/was killed. He was/was not wearing a helmet at the time. The vehicle's driver was uninjured" There's variations on the theme but the story's the same.

Now, helmets are quite useful if you ride in a way that might result in you falling off regularly (e.g. most forms of sports cycling). The thirty year old Big Lie is that helmet LAWs will protect you from motor vehicles.

Once again, repeat after me:
a) Some types of cycling are dangerous. Others are less dangerous than taking a bath.
b) A helmet may help if you fall off and hit your head. Particularly if you're in the drops at 45kph (ask me how I know)
c) If you get hit by an MV doing 60kph or more, or knocked over & crushed, you are not likely to survive regardless of what's on your head
d) cyclists are pretty darn good at working out whether a helmet might help or not

So, to your statement again.

fat and old wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 02, 2023 8:33 am

Yet MHL’s are some aberration that came from nowhere and single handed convinced everyone that riding a bicycle on a road alongside cars, buses and trucks was dangerous. That this would not have been the case without MHL’s.

Yes, MHLs are an aberration. And yes, without MHLs we would not be convinced that riding a bicycle on a road (any road) was dangerous.

You've correctly identified the actual hazard and one of the mitigations, which are (per the standard hierarchy)
a) Remove the hazard (reduce the speeds and remove the most dangerous vehicles )
b) Substitute the hazard (get transport onto rail or bike)
c) Engineer a solution (provide separated infrastructure for fast/major roads)
d) Apply administrative controls (enforce speed limits, have lights on bicycles )
and
e) PPE. Helmets, mandatory or not, would go here. Right at the bottom of the list.

Well said Thoglette, the ridiculous way cycling is treated as a very dangerous activity is directly linked to the MHLs.

Yes, we do more about safety these days. But working in an office (risk of RSI, ask me how I know) is not seen as particularly dangerous, being a pedestrian there are now more crossings and bridges but still not seen as particularly dangerous.

But cycling, I've talked to parents who won't let their kids have bikes these days because the perception is that cycling is particularly dangerous. Not a surprising conclusion given so many activities don't require safety equipment, but apparently cycling does.

DS