Will Norman, London’s cycling and walking commissioner, says that efforts to get more women and people from ethnic minorities cycling need to be stepped up.
He told The Independent that white, middle class males represent the typical cyclist in the capital, and accepted that London’s Cycle Superhighways were viewed by many as a means of getting “middle-aged men cycling faster around the city.”
With people from ethnic minorities making up just 15 per cent of London cyclists, and women accounting for one in four bike riders in the city, Norman said he may introduce targets to promote diversity.
“There is a problem with cycling and the way it is perceived of getting middle-aged men cycling faster around the city, which is not the objective at all,” he said.
“It touches on something which is a real challenge for London cycling, which is diversity.
“Even when we have seen the growth in the number of cyclists, we haven’t seen that diversity.
“There are a number of reasons for that,” he continued.
“One is that safety is paramount for getting different people from different walks of life cycling: older people, younger people, those from different backgrounds.”
Norman also defended Mayor of London Sadiq Khan’s record on cycling infrastructure in the face of criticism from campaigners and London Asssembly Members who have been disappointed at what they see as slow progress in delivering schemes.
Some, such as the proposed extension of the East-West Cycle Superhighway onto the Westway, scrapped altogether.
“We have done more in the first year-and-a-half of this administration than Boris [Johnson] did in his first six years,” Norman insisted.
“It seems odd that that is the way people are looking at it because it is not actually true when you look at the figures.”
He insisted that London is on target to double the number of people cycling by 2026, but acknowledged that more action is necessary, saying, “Is it ambitious enough in the longer term? I think we need a higher level of change.
“The target that we have set out in the mayor’s transport strategy is over that 25 years we want to shift to 80 per cent of journeys to be walking, cycling or by public transport.
“That is a much more ambitious target and really is fundamentally rethinking the way that we move around our city.”
Simon Munk, infrastructure campaigner at the London Cycling Campaign, said that the key to getting a more diverse mix of people riding bikes in the city lay in building safe cycle routes.
He said: “The mayor just needs to crack on with making sure that network is there and is high-quality.
”Each new main road cycle track and safe-feeling quiet route brings loads more people to cycling as one of the most convenient, healthy and safe ways to get around.”
Norman added that dockless hire bikes, now a common sight in Outer London boroughs such as Ealing and also present in the Inner London locations such as Islington and Hackney, could also encourage more people to take to two wheels.
“There is an ecosystem of bike hire that is working well,” he said. “I personally think they are great.
“If we can get more people cycling, particularly in some of the outer London boroughs where we don’t have some of the resources to grow the Santander scheme, that is fantastic.
“But it has to be done in a way that works for all Londoners, so having those cluttering up the pavements is really not what we want,” he added.
“If that is done in a responsible way with good numbers then I think that is a very positive thing.”

























122 thoughts on “London needs to shed its white, male, middle-class cyclist image, says Will Norman”
Maybe the white upper class
Maybe the white upper class and middle aged guy who said this should set an example and let a brown person do his job, maybe one who likes bikes and doesn’t disrespect an entire demographic (oh wait, labour)
If you can’t rebut your
If you can’t rebut your critics, attack them.
Sadiq Khan has failed to deliver any new infrastructure and is now turning on his critics rather than explaining why he has not yet made a decision on CS11 or similar.
Identity politics is so 2016.
I’m sure there’s all sorts of
I’m sure there’s all sorts of complex reasons that minority ethnicity groups cycle less than white people, but why does the government feel this is a problem it needs to ‘fix’?
I don’t care about him
I don’t care about him ‘disrespecting’ my demographic, because I’m not one of those white guys who imagines they are a poor put-upon victim of racism (the US seems to be full of that type, and it’s depressing to see them here as well).
But it would be better if this corporate, upper-middle-class white guy (straight out of the Guardian corporate-liberal think-tank demographic, it appears to me) would instead actually start doing something to achieve this ‘wider demographic’ instead of just talking about it.
The good news is, as the LCC guy says, in the first instance at least, that involves doing the same thing that a good number of middle-class white cyclists would like as well – making cycling less stressful and safer and less of an extreme sport.
It seems pretty clear from the evidence that that is the first and simplest way to expand the cycling demographic, so will he please stop talking and get on with it?
The fact that he carefully chooses the first 6 years of Tory Boris’s time, as if the progress of the last couple of years never happened suggests he’s more interested in striking PC postures than in actually doing anything . Which seems fairly standard for a certain kind of Guardian liberal (which is what I suspect he is, given his work history).
Norman said he may introduce
“We have done more in the first year-and-a-half of this administration than Boris [Johnson] did in his first six years,” Norman insisted.
“It seems odd that that is the way people are looking at it because it is not actually true when you look at the figures.”
Excuse me? The figures for incrase in cycling have nothing to do with anything Sadiq Khan has done. All the infrastructure (pretty much) taht has got peopke cycling was put in by Boris Johnson. Doesn’t matter which way you look at it/
CS6 and CS3 weres uspposed to be completed some time ago. Even the CS6 extension still wasn’t fully open when I came down it his morning.
What happened to CS3 to Acton? Cancelled despite it being an easy win – AND other routes could have been found in ADDITION to this.
CS11 ………………? ? ?
Quietways…? They’re not realy ‘q u i e t’ are they!
Do we have to get every local group fighting a ten year battle against the local neighbourhood pro-motor-to-the-supermarket-forum for a consultation on a few metres of cycle lane, or one or two filtering measures (if that)?
It’s Will’s job (on nearly 100k a year) to get this stuff presented, case ready, take some of the heat from all the volunteer campaigners no…?
Get cracking with TfL on a capital wide cycle network with cell-based filtered areas across te board – ‘Except Cyclists’ signs to start with on the majority of One Way streets.
I mean….just CLOSE all the side streets, peaks and residential areas to through traffic ….
Or is there time to prevaricate and…it’s not as if we haven’t got multiple health crises (all of which can be alleviated by getting people cycling) stacking up or anything is it…..! ?
Look. I’m doing Will’s job again. I’m saying the same stuf that he is only more so.
But it’s not my job to do this. Will is meant to get out there and make stuff happen.
No I’m still missing something. Must be.
SK is a fraud and a liar as
SK is a fraud and a liar as are his minions like Norman, he’s done feck all for London.
How ‘many’ is many who decree the patheticly lame cycling infra in London is simply a way to get middle class white men to work quicker? What a disgusting thing to say, you could apply the self same thing to motorways, trunk roads and other through roads around the country, typical anti cycling twat talk!
As for the getting more ethnic minorities in to cycling, oh dear, is he in fact accusing minority race groups, women and the ‘poor’ of being fat, lazy, anti environmentally friendly motons? I mean surely given the bollocks he’s already spouted that’s precisely what he’s said isn’t it?
And as for the double cycling by 2026, that would mean outstripping the maximum capacity of daily journeys on crossrail by a considerable margin, £30Billion was spent on crossrail, just think you could have spent 25% of that in London alone, quadrupled cycling as well as reducing pollution massively not to mention making the capital massively safer too, oh and of course got non white so called middle class men cycling to get across London.
Norman/Khan you’re a bunch of fucktards
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
No. Off to Breitbart news where you belong please.
roadmanshaq wrote:
You don’t get it, I was twisting what was said to impart a different way of looking at things, just as Norman and SK and pretty much every politican has. What was said by Norman could in fact be interpreated that way if you think about it but I only used it as an example of politic speak, just as Norman has done here, basically a load of BS.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Yes, a gammony, racist, tedious spin you could get from any half witted pub bore. So get a life and find something better to do.
roadmanshaq wrote:
IRONY KLAXON
roadmanshaq wrote:
You’re calling me a racist and a gammon, do tell me how you came to that conclusion?
I’d be offended ordinarily if it came from a couple of others who frequent this forum but you, nope, you’re so laughably insane as to not be worth the trouble,
Give your head a knock (sans helmet), you’ve totally lost the plot!
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
It wasn’t. Half that.
Duncann wrote:
It wasn’t. Half that.— BehindTheBikesheds
In 2014 the costs were already well over your £15B figure, that doesn’t even take into account the cost of disruption and pollution building it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-30228899
my point was however that a shit ton of money was spent on getting Londoners from A-B that has a lower maximum capacity than the total number of London cycle commuter journeys as of circa 2015/16.
If the powers that be had spent a fraction of that on cycling infra or simply just removing motors from an East to West highway it could have increased cycling by far more than the ‘doubling’ mentioned but also reduced pollution, increased safety and importantly set the tone for the rest of the worlds big cities from so many angles. Crossrail is shortsighted and a very low benefit ratio, less than 2:1 and that was on the basis of the project costing £15.8B, which it hasn’t so the CBR is actually nearer 1:1 which is pathetic, again even taking some very stretched accounting into the equation and that being best case scenario/max capacity.
Crossrail was poorly thought out, an economic disaster that fails to deliver any economic benefit not to mention will max out capacity wise by 2025/6 when they could have conduited x2/3 more by bike for a shit ton of money less!
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
You notice the headline at that link says “Crossrail 2” (my bold).
Crossrail 2 hasn’t been built. It hasn’t even been approved. It doesn’t exist as a physical thing.
The Crossrail (Crossrail 1, if you like) which is almost finished now will cost about £15bn.
Duncann wrote:
You’re making a big deal about something that isn’t really the point, Crossrail as a whole project, it still won’t have the capacity that increasing cycling by double will have so my point is still relevant.
You can argue the toss about £15Bn or £30Bn, it simply wasn’t/isn’t good value for money, doesn’t have a good value rating for cost benefit ratio and spending a fraction of the amount in London would have had a massively bigger impact on reducing congestion/active travel/obesity/pollution and so on which was the sole point o my argument
The only reason i cycle is to
The only reason i cycle is to appear middle class.
Dagnammit! I could have sworn
Dagnammit! I could have sworn that I raised a forum post about this earlier on, but now there’s an article and my forum post has disappeared. Maybe I need to cut back on the breakfast cider.
Edit: I looked again and found it, so I deleted it.
Some people missing the point
Some people missing the point. Stop focusing on PC tokenism and focus on improving infrastructure for all.
700c wrote:
This country is so fixated on using cars that we need every excuse we can get our hands on to justify spending money to get infrastructure for everyone (despite the return-on-investment of cycling being such great value).
It is a shame to see someone
It is a shame to see someone of Norman’s authority using the tired même of ‘diversity’ to distract from the serious and immediate problems facing cyclists in London.
There may be very real social and cultural reasons why more folk from minorities aren’t cycling. People of Chinese or Indian descent may associate bicycles with a poor man’s mode of transport and be determined to drive the Merc everywhere to impress their family and friends. Followers of Islam aren’t going to be promoting an independent, cheap means of getting around to their womenfolk, are they? And so on.
I hill walk and there has been the same lefty hand wringing about the low level of participation of ethnic minorities there as well. No-one seems to have considered that, maybe, they don’t actually WANT to go walking in the country. Instead, as so often, the go-to assumption is that evil (male) Whitey must be the reason why there is less participation from different demographics and that Something Must Be Done.
We know that the reason more women don’t cycle is because of the perceived danger of it. So the obvious solution is better, safer infrastructure and actually doing something about the drivers that endanger, injure and kill cyclists with impunity, not to mention stopping the endless propaganda about hi-viz and helmets that promote cycling as a high risk pursuit.
I’ve long concluded that the only thing you should do in terms of ‘diversity’ is to ensure there are no barriers to entry in whatever it is you’re promoting and to prevent discrimination against people once they’ve joined whatever it is you’re promoting. There is quite clearly neither of these two factors in cycling; cheap, safe bikes are readily available, running costs are effectively zero, the roads and paths are free to all users, regardless of sex or race and you don’t even have the costs of training or insurance. It doesn’t get much more egalitarian than this.
Eton Rifle wrote:
I agree with some of what you posted but not so much this sweeping assertion.
While there surely are some Muslim women confined to the home or to within their immediate neighbourhood, there seem to be plenty who make it into central London by public transport (just like almost everyone else). That seems fairly independent to me.
Women are hugely under-represented among London cyclists, regardless of ethnicity or religion. Even among white women it seems to be almost only younger adults who cycle – I rarely see middle-aged or older women on two wheels.
Eton Rifle wrote:
Interesting that you are able to single out Chinese and Indian people for wanting to drive a merc. Do you suppose that there’s larger numbers of them trying to impress family and friends by driving Mercs than non Chinese or Indian people? Very interesting.
Your blanket views on ‘Followers of Islam’ are quite interesting too. You seem like you must have done a lot of research into these minorities and I applaud you for it.
You raise a good point about hill walking too. I wonder why no one seems to have considered that only white people want to go walking in the country. Perhaps ‘other races’ have a cultural aversion to nature or the outside? It would be interesting if an expert in minorities like yourself could ‘chime in’ with some ‘opinions’ (no need to rigorously assess anything, please go with your ‘gut feeling’)
I did have one query about your comment. I wondered what the basis for the ‘go-to assumption is that the evil (male) Whitey has done something’ was? I didn’t see anything in the above article (or even the comments) suggesting that Evil Male Whitey was to blame for the lack of uptake in cycling. I can understand the feeling of persecution you may feel if you are an Evil Male Whitey, given the extremely downtrodden position Evil Male Whitey’s find themselves in today, but rest assured, no one is blaming you for this!
Your conclusions about ‘diversity’ are spot on too. Cheap, safe bikes are extremely straight forward to find and don’t require a specialist press or website reviewing them or providing knowledge about what type of bike to buy (hybrid/city/mountain/road/gravel etc) what components are worth it, what is overpriced or knowledge about locks, lights, what route planner can guide you down quiet streets, etc. And it’s quite true, the roads and paths are free to all users, regardless of sex or race (provided they have a bike, a place to store it securely, commute a distance that is cycleable along quiet roads, don’t need to transport multiple children in a short timescale, are comfortable getting buzzed by traffic, don’t worry about getting into arguments with other road users, are physicall strong and athletic enough to keep your balance when falling could result in getting your torso crushed). And with thoughtful champions of inclusivity like yourself on the roads, indeed, why would anyone not want to share them with you?
belabatnom wrote:
Eton Rifle was simply suggesting that there may be more culturally as to why non-whites are less likely to cycle on London’s streets. I don’t think for one second he was stating as fact any of his suggestions but it’s not unreasonable to suggest Asians moving to Britain for economic advancement would prefer to drive a Mercedes than ride a bike given the status this implies among family and community.
Well, it makes a lot more sense than suggesting ‘whitey’ is the reason non-whites don’t ride in the capital.
If the people using bikes for
I hope there is a better understandign of the issue than the quotes show. If the people using bikes for transport look like the same kind of people cycling for sport, then maybe that would suggest that not enough has been done to make using bikes for transport an attractive option for people who don’t already cycle for sport? 😉
There is something that needs
There is something that needs to be explained and dealt with if people who are not like me (white, middle-class, middle-aged, Guardian-reading, work on the edge of the City, etc) are under-represented, because if this is not dealt with then, social justice aside, the 80% target cannot be achieved. Cycling is not the only part of UK life where we see this or similar levels of exclusion, so something is wrong.
As for the target, assuming we achieve at least 80%, there will be a lot of cycling-specific infrastructure now being built that is no longer needed as the roads will be clear of more or less all non-bus vehicles.
My view has always been that roads are all the cycle infrastructure we need – nothing more needs to be built, really, and what is should be seen as temporary. We should be concentrating our efforts on removing cars etc from non-strategic roads and reducing the need for them on strategic roads.
2Amongst the 56 million
“Amongst the 56 million residents in England and Wales, 86% were White, 8% were Asian/Asian British and 3% were Black/African/Caribbean/Black British.18 Jun 2015”
So it seems the 15% is what you would expect from the figures, so where’s the problem?
OldMixte wrote:
I’m not sure why you’re quoting those figures. 40% of London’s population is non-white.
It’s quite simple: make
It’s quite simple: make cycling safe, convenient, attractive and direct, and everybody will use it, not just the macho white middle class blokes. Deliver the infrastructure, police the roads to get the idiots out of their killing machines, spend the money on cycling not cars, and they will come.
burtthebike wrote:
I think you’ve nailed it here. As more or less everyone thinks roads are currently dangerous to cycle on, it takes a certain attitude to get out there and cycle on them. Maybe us entitled middle-class white blokes (lol) have that attitude. For anyone who might be hesitant about cycling it’s perfectly understandable that roads full of snarling traffic look deeply unattractive. Your points about delivering the infrastructure etc are what is needed to be done. What is lacking is the political courage at every level to push through the changes because the backlash will be considerable.
Cycling – the last bastion of
Cycling – the last bastion of white male power…….
I’m waiting for a gender neutral strava that applies an algorithm to all times so women’s times properly compare with men.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Well my cycling club is about 50:50 BAME and white. But then it’s in sarf London mate.
Thanks, not living up there
Thanks, not living up there didn’t realise that. Can’t see why, apart from making cycling safer, the authorities need to act, surely it’s a matter of choice? I’ve never understood why we don’t see more black professional cyclists when they do so well in other athletic sports.
I moved out of London to
I moved out of London to Heathrow area last year and have not cycled to work since because..
There’s no segrated infrastructure out here to link to London and there’s no space on the trains to take my bike.
Govt sort it out!!
50kcommute wrote:
Grand union canal?
wycombewheeler wrote:
Grand union canal?— 50kcommute
Thanks …gave it a go and it took ages 🙁
wycombewheeler wrote:
Delete as a repeat
wycombewheeler wrote:
Delete as a repeat
I’m with 700c on this. The first rule of Cycling Club is ….. we don’t talk about Cycling Club.
I am struggling with this one
I am struggling with this one. Nobody encouraged me to cycle, I chose to do it. Nobody has ever told me not to cycle. Nobody has ever discouraged me. We are fortunate to live in a country where if you want to cycle you can. Yes, some vehicle drivers are a menace. Yes, some roads are poorly designed. Yes, there are some horrible people out there who do not like cyclists for whatever reason. However, if you want to get on a bike and ride, just do it. Once you have discovered the many benefits of cycling you will not need any further encouragement.
chaos wrote:
what are your demographics? Whatever they are, this response sounds very naive to me, showing a great lack of awareness of the many factors that conspire to prevent people from cycling, or visiting the countryside, or going to the National Gallery, or whatever it is they want to do, but can’t.
one of those factors is precisely the lack of awareness among the traditional white population of things we take for granted, and the problems that other people face, sometimes just walking into a country pub.
Regardless also of race, sex and whatever else, sometimes just having the confidence to go into a new environment is intimidating for people. You can read comments all over the internet about people who’ve had bad experiences in bike shops, for example, because they didn’t know anything about bikes, and were put off by the staff. Or by people like many respondents in this thread who are showing an entirely unwelcoming attitude towards people outside the white, middle-class male demographic. That’s why places like London Bike Kitchen were founded, or Velorution, and any number of other similar enterprises .
ConcordeCX wrote:
Get back to me when you’ve got the confidence to walk around certain city areas as a white. Works both ways and I think you’ll find the crime stats aren’t really indicating that ethnic minorities are being set upon by the cast of Straw Dogs or those who drink in The Slaughtered Lamb so that’s why they’re not off hiking and cycling.
Maybe, just maybe (and this is the bit you don’t understand) certain groups aren’t interested in certain things. Maybe, just maybe cycling is one of them. Maybe we’re in danger of once again having white people doing the thinking and deciding what other people should be interested in. This seems more racist than the openly racist if you ask me.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
well, you tell me which city areas you think I can’t walk around, because I haven’t found any yet.
it’s certainly true that not everybody is interested in cycling, but do you not find it strange that some activities are so monocultural. It requires an explanation if we are to be an inclusive society, and saying that entire groups of people might not be interested, and leaving it at that, isn’t an explanation.
EDIT: there’s a blog post here by an academic specialising in this area which lays out some of the barriers to cycling:
http://rachelaldred.org/writing/culture-equity-and-cycle-infrastructure/
ConcordeCX wrote:
Good read; there are cultural factors for some communities related to status AND there are infastructure access issues. So it’s complex, but the basic message – build more safety in and people will ride. As an aside people like me (the 80%) need to be more generous with space and attitude as cycling becomes more popular and accept that riding as fast as we used to is perhaps no longer appropriate in some areas 😉
alotronic wrote:
Not sure about the complex bit although chucking in “socio-spatial inequalities in cycling environments” just seems flowery language.
Seems most women don’t cycle due to safety concerns, appearance and then children get thrown in the mix. Not sure that amounts to complexity.
hirsute wrote:
My wife commutes to her work on her bicycle. The clunky old Specalized was replaced recently by a new Pinnacle. She’s definitely a woman, as our two kids can attest.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
I live in one of the areas of London where I’ve been told by the Daily Mail and right-leaning colleagues that it’s dangerous to walk around if you’re not white. Well, I’m white and I’ve lived here for nearly 30 years. I’m still here.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Which cities are you referring to? I presume some place in South America or maybe somewhere in Africa? (Where what you say might be true for all I know).
I assume you aren’t referring to anywhere in the UK, because that seems a strange claim to make. Or do you take your travel advice from Donald Trump?
As for ‘certain groups aren’t interested in certain things’ – well, yes, the group known as ‘normal people’ aren’t interested in cycling in stressful and dangerous conditions that require high-speeds and constant alertness.
For many different reasons the tolerance of those kinds of stresses seems to vary with various demographic factors (age being perhaps the most obvious one). That’s a good reason to change those conditions, surely?
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
I’d like to know which areas – as a white Londoner it would surely be good to have that knowledge!
Duncann wrote:
These claims of there being areas of cities inaccessible to white British people always seem to come from people who don’t actually live in the city concerned and are happy to believe these spurious reports without verifying them.
Even worse, they sometimes come from someone like Mr Trump who live in completely different countries!
Duncann wrote:
Whitechapel – although there has been little in the media since 13/14 there are still Sharia patrols being carried out in the area on a regular basis along with a long list of speakers at the East London Mosque with form for insisting violence against non-Muslims.
Htc wrote:
I’ve walked through that area a few times and haven’t noticed anything scary at all. Are you sure you’re not imagining these attacks on your person? Maybe it’s the ghost of The Ripper?
hawkinspeter wrote:
I believe the small number of morons reported on in 2013 were prosecuted and that seems to have been the end of it. While predominantly Muslim, Whitechapel is still a pretty mixed area, and there are plenty – probably an increasing number of white folk living there in safety. Indeed, I know a couple and they’ve never mentioned anything like this.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Cool anecdote – where did I mention attacks on my person?! I was simply pointing out that factually there are areas in London where white people are likely to feel uncomfortable and that there is a history of violence against them.
Htc wrote:
You mean, where _you_ would feel uncomfortable. Why not own your own ‘issues’?
Htc wrote:
Change the city name, remove “white” (or better still, change it to “non-white”), and you could be describing rougher bits of many places in the UK.
Sharia patrols make headlines but the far more prevalent drunken white thugs are a much greater threat to the average pale-face’s wellbeing.
Of course, some white people feel “uncomfortable” just because they aren’t the overwhelming majority in a place – but that’s their problem, not the fault of those of with darker skin.
Htc wrote:
Sorry, my mistake. I thought you had some personal experience to add to the discussion, but instead you’re just mindlessly repeating rubbish.
Htc wrote:
this is complete and utter bollocks. Whitechapel is perfectly safe for everyone (except, sometimes, Muslims being harassed by pigshit-thick English nationalists).
Htc wrote:
Have you been to Whitechapel? I go there quite frequently on bike and foot.
There’s some cracking pubs there such as Indo near the station, also some great restaurants such as Tayyabs.
Neither myself or anyone else I know have either felt threatened there or seen a sharia patrol. I imagine the area felt a lot more threatening in the good old days when the Krays were in control of the area, executing people in the Blind Beggar.
ConcordeCX wrote:
I did say “I was struggling with this one”. Maybe my comment was too simplistic, but we are only talking about riding a bike! When I am out on a bike I feel totally anonymous and it makes me happy to see all other riders out there regardless of colour, shape, gender, age, type of bike, etc. I have lived too many years in countries where forums such as this are not even possible, so I would like to think I not naïve. And, on that note, I will bow out of forums and stick to riding my bike.
ConcordeCX wrote:
But aren’t you over complicating it? There’s no physical barrier or skill set required for an able bodied person to ride a bike. It’s also not like trying to get into particular universities or getting good A level grades.
What are these factors then that conspire to prevent people from cycling?
hirsute wrote:
i’ve just posted a link in the post below this one.
if it’s as simple as you think, why is it so predominantly white, middle-class men?
ConcordeCX wrote:
Yes, I just saw that only a few mins before my question was posted.
Will have a read.
hirsute wrote:
“Prevent” is the wrong word (I know it was CCX who used it).
Few people are unable to ride a bike (although it’s not a skill learnt equally by all cultures).
It’s more about deterrence than prevention. Why don’t most people want to? And why is that especially the case for groups who make up 80+% of London’s population (i.e. those who aren’t middle class white males)?
If we want cycling to become a serious solution to London’s transport (and public health) challenges then we need to tackle the factors that deter people from taking it up. It’s also potentially serious amounts of public money.
Safety is the biggest issue for women and women are the largest element of the population. Most of my female colleagues wouldn’t dream of cycling in central London for safety reasons (even if their fears are largely unfounded).
There are other factors which affect different groups in varying measure: where people live and in what sort of accommodation; where and when they work and travel; when they start families (which affects travel and housing decisions); status and cultural issues, etc.
chaos wrote:
People need to feel safe, this is pretty much the prime reason why people won’t/don’t commute. This iwhen you are more likely to be caught up in high density motorised traffic on narrower raods with mulitple hazards hitting your senses every second or so.
Even very experienced cyclists have come on to forums and said they’ve given up because of too many incidents, that’s why despite the shouting cycling numbers/miles travelled have not gone up much across the country as a whole, in fact barely when you take into account population increases. Certainly modal share hasn’t budged.
For the once in a blue moon leisure cyclist joining the ranks of utility/commuter cycling is often a big step and making them feel safe and have a journey that isn’t going to send them on the circular route that’s twice as far/convoluted as simply driving is massively important. SK and his cronies as well as every other local authority have failed to do that since forever.
people cycle despite the lack of infra, despite the LA/police/CPS/judges inaction to protect people on bikes but it does not encourage them whatsoever.
chaos wrote:
If asked why I cycled in London, I’d might initially give a similar answer. I was thinking about why so few others do what I independently, rationally chose for myself.
Then I remembered when I was about 18 and didn’t even think of cycling until some mates got into MTB-ing. They didn’t actively suggest I take it up but I’m sure they influenced and supported me. I didn’t then think about road cycling (spandex freaks!) until some of my MTB-ing circle got into it and I met some others who did it. No-one actively encouraged me but it switched on a lightbulb that maybe wouldn’t otherwise have lit, or been noticed. Likewise commuting and utility cycling. All my own decisions – but shaped by those around me (who were white middle-class males).
I agree with your pro-cycling arguments – but we’re already sold. If about 80% of London’s population ain’t buying what’s supposed to be good for everyone, though, then there might be a problem with the ‘product’.
chaos wrote:
+1.
Sadly, though, I am white, middle aged and (probably) middle class.
But when I started to ride (at the age of 6), we were working class. But still white.
However, lightly overweight throughout!
There is so much wrong with
There is so much wrong with this article I just can’t bring myself to write a full comment. It makes me so angry. Total toss pot.
I’m in favour of encouraging
I’m in favour of encouraging more people, including ethnic minorities, women, and children, to cycle. Is there any need to have a pop at people who already cycle, because they are perceived to be the wrong ethnicity or gender? They are not in any way preventing anyone else from cycling.
The problem is not the people who do cycle, it’s finding ways to get people who don’t, at the moment, onto bikes.
My impression of Will Norman – and I’m sure I’m quite wrong here – is that he is an idiot. I wish he would just get on with it and build some cycle lanes.
If he wants Dutch
If he wants Dutch demographics he’s going to have to build Dutch infrastructure.
ktache wrote:
finally someone gets it 🙂 whilst everyone is arguing about diversity and what it means to them we are classically being distracted by the solution staring the likes of Will Norman in the face, build more Dutch infra, youll get Dutch infra levels of diversity.
leave roads for cyclists as some kind of krypton factor style assault course, youll get only one type of cyclist.
Awavey wrote:
Gordon Burns?
SK has done sod all for
SK has done sod all for cycling in London. This crass statement lays the groundwork for him to say that cyclists don’t deserve anything from him anyway, because they’re just ‘orrible posh old white guys.
Speaking to ‘Asian’ friends
Speaking to ‘Asian’ friends who tell me that their friends & relatives see cycling as if you are poor and cannot afford a car!
I don’t know if this is a minority view.
Fish_n_Chips wrote:
We’ve all had some mouth-breather lean out of the window and shout “save up for a car!”
Have to say, the only pattern I’ve noticed is that said mouth-breather tends to be driving a car that cost less than some of my bikes…
I don’t live in London but,
I don’t live in London but, having read this article, on my 1 hour ride home last night (Bristol to Bath) I saw plenty of women cyclists. Was slightly worried I couldn’t tick the ethnic minority cyclist box, but then some appeared. What’s this guy on about?
As my wife said last night
As my wife said last night after reading the interview with Will Norman: “It’s not the patriarchy, Stupid – I don’t cycle in London because I’m f#^*ing terrified!”
Both my wife and daughter would love to cycle the 9km and 3km to work and school respectively but each time they take their bikes out, they return deterred, and often shaken (they have no choice but to negotiate parts of London’s South Circular Road).
As many other commenters on here have said already: build the infrastructure, and the diversity of cyclists will increase.
Well, I used to cycle to work
Well, I used to cycle to work from Chigwell to Stockwell. 15 miles right across London. Back then I was a WORKING CLASS white male. Now I’ve been promoted to middle class thanks to my wife being ordained as a vicar I’ll be happy to help reduce numbers by completely avoiding cycling in London. You’re welcome.
As Eton Rifle said, I also
As Eton Rifle said, I also remember the discussions about low participation from minority groups in hill walking and other outdoor activities – skiing being a particular oddity. Lots of reasons given, both cultural and otherwise, and lots of proposed methods of encouragment/removing perceived obstacles, but the hard fact is that you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.
No matter how much I’m encouraged, by any variety of incentives and campaigns, I’m not going to take up, say, Morris Dancing or opera singing.
Regarding numbers of women cycling, this seems to be missing the glaring point that the vast majority of women that aren’t on a bike won’t be cycling for one other simple fact – children*.
I’d cycle to work every day, were it not for the fact that I have to drop the kids off and I can’t get 2 kids, all the things they need for the day and my work stuff on a bike. It’s just not practical.
* The safety point’s already been done. My wife bought a bike on the C2W scheme – she’s never cycled to work on it, as she wouldn’t last 5 minutes on the the roads between our house and her office.
LastBoyScout wrote:
A couple of thoughts in reply:
I’m not entirely disagreeing with you but if we’re content not to care that city cycling is mostly for middle class white men then we should stop promoting it as a serious transport solution?
Duncann wrote:
I was trying to illustrate the effort/futility of trying to encourage people to do something they are fundamentally/culturally not interested in doing in order to achieve an arbitrary target. The original discussion stemmed from research into use of National Parks, which are publicly funded, and the potential withdrawal of those funds if diversity targets weren’t being met. All of which was part of a wider approach to better integration of minority groups.
I agree with your point about cycling participation and mass transport issues.
My point about children was mainly that most people will drive the kids to school and then carry on to wherever, rather than changing mode of transport once the kids are dropped off. I have considered keeping a bike at my parents-in-law for the days when they have the kids, but it’s impractical from a time point of view, unless I bought a second motorbike to keep there. Happily, on the days when they are at school, we can walk there – although the pavement is no less scary than the road with big lorries thundering along part of it.
Anyway what a silly twunt
Anyway what a silly twunt Will Norman appears to be.
Once again a politician raises issue ‘mode du jour’ for the sake of having something ‘easy’ to create soundbite from.
Subsequently says a lot of empty words which mean nothing, point at untruths, skirts around the obvious, lays blame at the feet of someone else and with a good well thought out job done, sinks back into a their velvet upholstered westminster cave.
Happens that if they get enough headlines from the national press from said soundbites, or indeed make it onto Question Time, then there’ll be a ‘good doggy’ pat on the head their head and probably a higher profile job in it for them at the next opportunity.
I’d suggest to Will the
I’d suggest to Will the Genius Norman that
1) the burqua is not very practical for riding a bike ,
2) muslim women are not allowed to go outdoors , (so problem 1 is solved),
That’s a huge demographic you’ll never see on a bike. Did he even understand he was living in Londonistan ?
Jesus, this thread should be
Jesus, this thread should be sponsored by the Daily Mail!
I feel that this opinion
I feel that this opinion piece sums up my position on this well:
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/shortcuts/2018/may/30/dont-blame-men-for-londons-cycling-problems-fix-our-feral-streets
As a non white, Asian cyclist do I win a medal for defying the white, middle class cycling patriarchy?
Seriously though I do feel that having role models helps enormously when getting people from other backgrounds to start cycling.
There are plenty of great male and female role models who are white out there but only a few from minority backgrounds. Maybe a solution would be for Sadiq to leave the car at home and cycle into work, I bet we’d also see quicker progress on cycling infrastructure if he did that…
Up next: the Harlem
Up next: the Harlem Globetrotters’ outreach programs in Connecticut. We report on the (lack of) success of the WonkyHonkyHoopShoot.
Yes yes yes.. all very good,
Yes yes yes.. all very good, but can I just address the elephant in the room here. Will someone answer the question for gawds sake! What is insulting about being called a gammon? …and as google tells me it’s not a province in France, what is gammony?
peted76 wrote:
It’s a pejorative term for an ageing, white man, who is red-faced with anger, such that his skin is similar in colour and texture to a cooked ham.
Mainly used by Owen Jones types to attack people of a right-leaning political bent (or, let’s be honest, even a centrist or a centre-leftie, these days) by insulting their appearance rather than engaging with a reasonable argument, or ridiculing a stupid one.
Given that the insult is based solely on appearance, it’s not a great direction to take a debate in, but those who toss it around usually engage in some spurious whataboutery to justify its use.
Htc wrote:
Meh. I used to cycle, and sometimes walk, through Whitechapel regularly. Maybe I’ll go up and walk around there this weekend, just to see, eh?
I’m sure there are a handful of stupid self-regarding blokes who occasionally imagine they are enforcing Shariah. Much like the white yobs I’ve encountered who think they own the streets or their estate. Muslim yobs just use different terms, but it’s the same fuckwit territorial impulse of people with nothing better going on in their lives.
And, as it happens, I do think hate speech in mosques is a problem. We should perhaps stop sucking up to the Saudis who fund much of this stuff?
(I strongly get the impression there’s a lot of political infighting that goes on in mosques and Islamic cultural centres that generally doesn’t get reported much in the outside world…not least between the different strands of Sunni Islam)
But the idea that this impacts on people on the streets on a daily basis is sorely mistaken. And your ‘feeling uncomfortable’ at being around non-white people is surely your own problem – why project it onto everyone else?
The thing that bothers me
The thing that bothers me about this whole piece is that it could so easily present the same argument and deliver the same message (lets find out why minorities won’t cycle in London) without the devicive «white is bad» bullshit. This is a grandstanding whore of a publicity stunt that took a legitimate social issue and abused it like some ginger stepchild for nothing more than some public attention.
For shame, motherfucker, for shame.
Crampy wrote:
Wholeheartedly agree. In fact, the article could even have posited the question – “who won’t [i]most[/i] people cycle in London?”, given that women aren’t a minority, and neither are BAME people in most of inner London. But then the cretins who infest most of our political machinery aren’t interested in answering real questions, nor in genuinely improving the lives of voters. Otherwise, people like Will Norman would be getting on with actually DELIVERING something, rather than lazily spouting nonsense straight out of a sixth form common room’s identity politics toolkit.
Crampy wrote:
have you actually read the article? Where is the ‘white is bad’ ‘divisive bullshit’?
They talk about perception that it is predominantly a white, middle-class male culture, but nowhere is there any suggestion that any permutation of white, middle-class or male is bad. They are pointing out that it is a monoculture and this by itself can become a barrier to entry for some people.
ConcordeCX wrote:
Surely the very fact that the perceived monoculture is a barrier to entry for those not of that monoculture implies that said monoculture is bad? If the prevailing culture was perceived as good or attractive, then where is the barrier?
Innit?
Crampy wrote:
No. It’s the fact that it’s a monoculture, not that it’s a white, middle-class male monoculture that makes it a barrier. If instead it were a rich, Bangladeshi married women playing hopskotch monoculture then it would still be a barrier, for example to poor Lithuanian teenagers who wanted to play hopskotch. This is not a judgement on class, sex, ethnicity, hopskotch or cycling, it is a judgement on monocultures.
I’m sure you can think of many other monocultures that people find difficult to enter – the weights room in the gym, the WI jam-making circle in the village hall, Indian dance classes, the old West Indian guys playing dominoes in the pub. People from each of these would probably find the others quite intimidating and not even try to enter. But as they are largely not matters of great public policy in the way that transport and health* are, it doesn’t much matter.
But transport and health are important for the whole population for various reasons, and as we try to be an inclusive and welcoming society we want these things to be open to all, for the benefit of all of us.
*Note that they may in fact be important to mental health. If you are the only Asian woman living in a remote Scottish village and you feel too intimidated to join the jam-making circle because you don’t understand British culture, this is going to have an important impact on you. However in that case I imagine the jam-making circle would invite you to join, and I suggest that those of us who are male, white and middle class invite others to enjoy cycling too.
ConcordeCX wrote:
I completely agree with the asterisk at the end. It doesnt hurt to be open and inclusive. Be you jam maker, dominoe monger or cyclist. It probably goes a long way to overcoming a lot of these barriers.
Just had a cracking lunch in
Just had a cracking lunch in Whitechapel with Mrs Srchar and Miss Srchar (aged 7 months).
Whitechapel is as safe or dangerous as any bit of a large city. If you go looking for trouble, you’ll find it. If you don’t, you won’t.
srchar wrote:
Surely you mean Ms. Srchar and Ms. Srchar…?
ConcordeCX wrote:
Surely Dave and young Bob should be allowed to self-identify with whatever gender and marital status honorific they choose…?
I’m afraid you’ve lost me,
I’m afraid you’ve lost me, Concorde. Although I believe the [i]truly[/i] right-on prefix is Mx.
srchar wrote:
good point. Now I’m going to have to hand myself in to the Islington & Hornsey Gender Studies and Hemp Clothing Collective for a 6-month re-education retreat.
ConcordeCX wrote:
Mx Srchar was born and raised in Hornsey, although we haven’t made it to a re-education retreat because the customers of the myriad Hemp Clothing Collectives have priced us out.
I just want to be the 100th
I just want to be the 100th comment on a thread where neither helmets or hi-viz are mentioned.
Duncann wrote:
I think you just ruined that for yourself by mentioning both.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Damn! Beat me to it! 🙂
hawkinspeter wrote:
It’s like fresh snow – it’s a beautiful thing but to enjoy it properly you have to destroy it.
Duncann wrote:
I’m afraid BTBS mentioned helmets a couple of pages ago, albeit in the context of self-harm. Which, ironically, can only be blamed on the victim.
Topical report with some
Topical report with some (dodgey) stats
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cycling-uk-safety-bike-lane-potholes-dangerous-roads-government-transport-strategy-a8378346.html
I don’t think this is quite
I don’t think this is quite the minority role model the commissioner has in mind.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/shocking-moment-furious-cyclist-pulls-massive-zombie-knife-on-car-in-south-london-a3852896.html
hirsute wrote:
He is Giving Us All A Bad Name!
Seriously though, WTF?
Duncann wrote:
Somewhere there’s a forum of zombie-knife-wielders complaining about the guy giving them a bad name by associating them with cyclists.
How is “middle class” defined
How is “middle class” defined nowadays, anyway?
brooksby wrote:
If you ever complain that Waitrose has run out of Nocarello olives or alfalfa, then you’re middle class.
hawkinspeter wrote:
If you wander around Waitrose wondering why tzatziki, limoncello yoghurt and pate are defined as “Essential”, are you still working class?
srchar wrote:
FTFY and no, working class people aren’t allowed into Waitrose, the door butlers will confront any working class citizens and ask them very polite questions until they panic and leave.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Didnt Stephen fry once joke that the whole purpose of Sainsburys was to keep the plebs out of Waitrose?
Middle class is pretending to
Middle class is pretending to be smugly shocked at how much your house is worth whilst complaining that it will be so much harder for your children to get on the property ladder. Thinking that you are edgey by telling people you know that you might well vote for Jeremy Corbyn (but you never would). Spend more on humous than you do on fixed odds betting machines. Complain loudly about how the super rich hide their money offshore, but know how much you need to have to make the exercise worthwhile.
.
Middle-class problems
Based on the above, then,
Based on the above, then, pretty sure I’m not middle class. And yet I don’t consider myself working class. Is there anything in between?
brooksby wrote:
you must be lower middle class, you poor thing.
ConcordeCX wrote:
Needs more subdivisions. I’d go with ‘lower middle class’ except by convention that would make me a Daily Mail reader, and I refuse to accept that as my demographic.
Maybe upper-lower-middle-class? But then that’s what Orwell called himself, and he went to Eton. So maybe urban-upper-lower-middle-class (which is a different thing from rural or small-town upper-lower-middle-class, I reckon).
brooksby wrote:
Aye, but do you know your place?
https://youtu.be/nxpZkKKbDgA
Haha – I learned a bit of
Haha – I learned a bit of Italian when I spent some time there a few years ago (if knowing enough to get fed in a cafe counts as “a bit”). So far, I’ve managed to conceal my disgust of the lower middle class philistines in my local pub when they’re ordering a panini and two cappuccinos for lunch. Obviously, I’d never make the same mistake, as I always go for the pie, chips and a pint meal deal.
srchar wrote:
I lived in Italy for a year and speak the language fluently. A few years back, I lamented on Twitter about the Anglicisation of ‘panino‘ (singular, of course) as ‘panini‘.
A friend – a real life one rather than a Twitter ‘friend’ – replied saying that as far as he was concerned, it was perfectly acceptable in English, and explained to me briefly why that was the case.
Given that at the time, said friend worked for Oxford University Press and specifically was involved in approving and adding new entries to the Oxford English Dictionary, I considered my culo well and truly handed to me su un piatto.
Mind you, anyone from Up North who tries telling me that Southerners are pronouncing latte incorrectly can do one 😉