The BBC posted the same article with two different headlines:
Are women cyclist in more danger than men?
Are nervous cyclists more likely to be killed?
So women are nervous?
Apparently, women cyclists, who make up only 28% of the UK’s cycling population, are much more likely than men to be killed on the road in accidents involving big trucks.
In 2007, an internal report for Transport for London concluded women cyclists are far more likely to be killed by lorries because, unlike men, they tend to obey red lights and wait at junctions in the driver’s blind spot.
The report said that male cyclists are generally quicker getting away from a red light - or, indeed, jump red lights - and so get out of the danger area.
It’s true that waiting at a red light is actually dangerous for cyclists: pulling away from the lights along with all the accelerating cars is a dangerous operation, and possibly creates more danger than the act of cycling through the red light.
But the BBC isn’t too sure. Is it the male tendency to favour logic or aggression which decreases their risk?
“I’m much more nervous of my cycling ability, I’m frightened people might hit me, which means I don’t cycle in a positive manner.” Feeling nervous about cycling can influence the way people ride, she says. Some women tend to cycle too close to the pavement as they want to stay as far away from traffic as possible. She also feels reluctant to put herself at the front of the traffic at red lights, which is the safest place for cyclists to be.
But this has a counter argument as well. Remember that study that showed cars actually passed helmet-wearing cyclists closer to the handlebars than helmet-free riders?
Ian Walker, a professor of traffic and transport psychology at the University of Bath,…challenges the notion that nervous cyclists are generally more vulnerable because if fear is visible it can help, he says. The more confident you look, the closer the cars get, he says, and a deliberate wobble is sometimes used by cyclists to get more space.
Comments