Make Bike Riding Safe For Women (And It'll Work For Everyone)

"Safety is both physical and emotional."

When people make a counter-argument to protected bike lanes or designated trails which are separated from roads, who are they thinking about? I don't know what image is in their head, but rhetoric seems to suggest dangerous riders zipping around corners with little to no regard for who may be out of sight. Perhaps downhill races come to mind, or a Tour De France peloton. Are those dangerous riders... predominantly male?

Let's take a moment and think about this logically, though: Who the St. John's bike lanes (and all truly-effective bike infrastructure) is actually for.

My sister and her son riding on the well-used bike trail in Corner Brook

The vulnerable road user. Yes, arguably all bike riders are vulnerable users. So are runners. Walkers. Babies in their strollers on the sidewalks. With cars being stuffed with more internal safety features and computerised gizmos subject to the same flaws of laptop mixed with high rates of "efficient" speed. Motorised vehicles are heavy, and fast. Basic physics make them deadly under the wrong circumstances. Everyone close to a road without a barrier is at risk, but we don't think about it very often.

Close proximity also means a prevalence of verbal abuse.

Designated lanes are good. Separated lanes are better. Physical safety is important, but there's something else at play. Socio-economic dynamics must also be kept in mind. As I've said previously, poor riding etiquette is a symptom of bad infrastructure. So-too are bad attitudes from car drivers personified in the form of harassment -- in particular, sexual harassment for women who ride.

I always think of this blog post from my dear friend Daniel Fuller. Following MUN Gazette and CBC Radio interviews about Bikemaps.org, Daniel received a message. He shared it with her permission. You can read it here.

In it, this person recounts commuter-riding as a woman. She talks about having an ashtray emptied in her face -- horrifying on its own, but made worse in the context of even more abhorrent behaviour. An important excerpt:

"...What has really affected me cycling has been the cat calling and comments about my body. The young men hanging out their window to take a picture of my spandex clad behind. The yelling about what they would do if I agreed to “ride” them. I have never experienced the harassment in all my years of running and cycling as i did this past summer. These experiences make me choose a different route, change my cycling gear and make me not want to ride. I know your research is in making cycling safe and I love the idea of separate bike lanes, and I use the bike lanes all the time and I hope to see more. But safety is both physical and emotional."

Distance and recreational riders will stick to the roads anyways because these routes provide the optimum conditions for endurance and speed training. These are athletes and triathletes who hope to compete, either locally, inter-provincially or on global stages. They deserve the right to do so. Safely.

Meanwhile if you look at the Bike Master Plan in its whole, the veins connect schools, government buildings, post-secondary institutions, malls and downtown shopping centres. These are places of education and employment and people can get to them with minimal proximity to motorised vehicles. MAMILs (Middle Aged Men in Lycra) or other athletes and enthusiasts aren't racing one another to these hubs. What they may do is ride on evenings in autumn when it's too dark to road ride and fat-bike season is just around the corner. During this time casual walkers are less likely to be out in droves and only the most hardcore runners will be out.

So, I'd posit the following: We're not building trails for fast riders. These will be transportation networks for those who need it, and want to do it safely.

A good indicator of proper bike conditions is how many women are riding. Here's a good article to read on the subject -- Basically, women don't ride because it is dangerous to do so. In fact, when you improve or build anything with women in mind, everyone benefits. The concept is called "Gender Mainstreaming" (more on the idea, here). A quote, below:

"Women used public transit more often and made more trips on foot than men. They were also more likely to split their time between work and family commitments like taking care of children and elderly parents. Recognizing this, city planners drafted a plan to improve pedestrian mobility and access to public transit.

Let's set aside for a quick moment the idea of women as primary caretakers, homemakers, and other outdated and sexist notions. That's a conversation for another blog post. Essentially, Gender Mainstreaming recognises that women see problems men simply don't (not an unusual notion / I can't wait to read this book). This includes transportation.

Imagine: Implementing a gender-based lens to responsible development of transportation infrastructure keeping health and environmental outcomes in mind. More families bicycle-commuting to school, workplaces, and back again at the end of the day. Ditching a van in favour of a healthy alternative. Cars don't burn many calories. To make it safe for people who choose to bike either alone or as a family is to encourage an active lifestyle in one of the country's most chronically unhealthy provinces. Bicycles are also ideal forms of transportation for middle-to-low income earners like part time working students or new Canadians. For these folks, a bus pass might not be in the books -- unless subsidised by their school -- let alone a car. For those who might have cars, parking fees add up. With the one-time cost of a single bicycle + bike lock they can achieve the same transportation goals. Maintenance costs much less by hundreds and parking is free.

Now, some men might read this and think "What about me!?", and it's exactly what I'm going for.

It's quite simple. If radical and effective change to bike-safe infrastructure (or any transportation at all) benefits women, then men, families, and low-income peoples will benefit.

If we consider protecting the women on roadways by increasing advocacy and awareness, hopefully discouraging any form  of harassment, then everyone who continues to ride on the road will benefit.

"Dangerous" riding could still happen. I won't pretend otherwise. But, these trails are being made to create safe infrastructure and encourage new riders. If all they know starting out is an equitable environment, then they'll travel accordingly.

The benefits for everyone far outweigh the potential concerns, here. Let's get to work on progress.