"As I see it the weakness in Hounslow's case with regard to C9 is that they don't seem to have given nearly enough consideration to several provisions of the 2010 Equalities Act."There is an argument that the current provision of cycling infrastructure discriminates against women and older people.In the UK, women make up 25% of cycling journeys vs 49% in Germany. Cycling rates drop off over the age of 60 in the UK but not in other countries.Cycling infrastructure (or lack of) favours fearless young men (who make up the lion share of the accidents and fatalities out of proportion to their participation) and discriminates against children, women and older people. There is strong support for step free access at tube stations because without it disabled people, older people, parents with prams and other groups are locked out of using public transport. The equalities act should also remove discrimination from cycling which would help to move the debate on from its preoccupation with "aggressive male cyclists on their commute".In The Netherlands, commuting is only the third biggest share of journeys (at 16%) - shopping (22%) and school journeys (18%) are ahead. In the UK, commuting makes up 37% of all cycling trips, with school and shopping journeys about 10% each (pre-pandemic). If cycling infrastructure is upgraded to enable more women to participate, then they will be more likely to cycle with their kids to school, more likely to cycle to the shops, more likely to commute by bike and both genders will be more likely to continue cycling over the age of 60. I note that some posters believe the equalities act can be used as a legal tool to remove cycling infrastructure. It may do the opposite.
Ed Saper ● 1955d