Twitter, tax and the right to use the road: A parable for our times

I’ve had an uneasy couple of days cycling but perhaps not for any obvious reasons. Last Sunday a cyclist from the Iceni Velo Club in Norwich was knocked off his bike. I live in Devon, I don’t know him and there’s no particular reason this should unsettle me beyond basic human empathy. The cyclist is relatively OK and although cyclists are sometimes injured and worse, cycling is a relatively safe form of transport. However, now when I ride I have an uneasy sense of driver hatred.

Toby Hockley  was on a club ride. He was pedalling along minding his own business when, according to him, a car travelling in the opposite direction took a bend too fast and came over to his side of the road. It knocked him and his bike into the hedge. By the time he was on his feet again, car and driver had disappeared. This is his account of a hit and run. However, he did not report this to the police. Instead, they went looking for him and for the oddest of reasons.

Shortly after Hockley was hit, someone who I will refer to as Jane Doe posted the following on Twitter, a micro-blogging site: Definitely knocked a cyclist off his bike earlier – I have right of way he doesn’t even pay road tax! #bloodycyclists

Yes, that really is what she said. With no knowledge of what had happened to Hockley, the Twitter cycling community took screenshots of the tweet and various others on Doe’s account. They questioned her and also alerted the police. Norfolk police then tweeted her regarding this apparent road traffic collision. First the cycling blogs got hold of the story, then the national press. Of course it could have been an idle boast (!). At this stage no-one knew if she had actually hit anybody. Then twyclists from the Iceni Club said no, one of their members had been hit.

So this is a young woman who thinks it is OK to hit a vulnerable road user, OK to drive off without stopping and so OK to do all of this that she can announce it in public. To be clear # are intended to make it easier for Twitter users to search on various terms. But Jane Doe was not internet savvy. She had mentioned her employers on her Twitter account and she had a Facebook page which was accessible to anybody. It was astonishing in its ordinariness. Flick through Facebook and there are a million Jane Doe’s. This was not some extraordinarily callous young woman with a history of violence but someone who, outwardly at least, seemed pretty innocuous.  And yet this ordinary young woman was expecting no redress when she boasted about hitting someone with a tonne of metal moving at speed. Possibly she expected people to agree with her. And in fact BBC Norfolk had the gall to ask if she had a point, should cyclists pay road tax.

At this point, all the polite words fail me and all I really want to do is swear. A lot. Moving on. Whether or not anyone pays any tax anywhere NO-ONE not even Jane Doe, the hare-brained selfish little nonentity that she is, deserves to get hit by a tonne of metal. Road tax does not actually exist although even the DfT for reasons I cannot fathom still uses the term as a colloquialism for VED. VED is an emissions tax. It gives no right to use the road, it is a tax on harmful emissions. If we subjected bicycles to VED they would fall into Band A, low emissions and so would not incur a charge at all. Thus we would spend millions if we were to bring bikes into the VED system. Anybody not knowing this is pig ignorant.

The thing is, for all Doe’s vitriolic idiocy, she is a very long way from being alone in her contempt and hatred for a group of vulnerable road users. Search on #cyclists on Twitter and threats to harm them are legion. One such came from a woman who threatened to ‘bonnet’ cyclists not on a cycle path. When questioned on this she frantically back pedalled (no pun intended) saying that she only disliked three cyclists in particular, the ones who had held her up when she needed to see her sick niece, and that she had only been concerned for their safety. Threatening someone and then saying you are worried about their safety is what the sickest of bullies do. It’s like waving a loaded gun and saying people ought to wear a bullet-proof vest. If you need to be somewhere in a hurry, leave earlier, don’t threaten to mow people down just because you are having a bad day.

Of course one could say that cyclists bring this on themselves by breaking the law. By cycling on the pavement, jumping red lights and cycling without lights on, cyclists, the reasoning goes, bring this on themselves. This is in fact putting the cart before the horse. Some drivers, frustrated at the difference between what driving promises and what it delivers, hate cyclists because cyclists achieve what drivers cannot – a pleasant commute relatively unhindered by traffic jams. So they look for a cause for their hatred and claim it is cyclists law-breaking behaviour rather than admit it is due to their own peevishness.

The reality is that both cyclists and drivers often break traffic regulations and they shouldn’t. When drivers do this it is routinely accepted. No-one starts hating all drivers because some of them talk on their mobile phones whilst driving. Yet cyclists are hated and not because they break the law. If that were the case we’d hate drivers too. If you look at Doe’s reasoning it is entirely false. Road tax is a non-argument. Likewise the woman who threatened to drive into cyclists who weren’t on a cycle path was told in no uncertain terms that cyclists are not legally obliged to use cycle paths, that those paths are often inadequate and that faster cyclists are advised to stay on the road.

Drivers don’t hate cyclists because cyclists break the law. Those drivers who hate cyclists barely even know the law. But what these drivers need to realise is that we are all connected. A cyclist gets hit in Norwich and cyclists everywhere know about it. For all that the internet may have had negative effects on the way that we communicate it also has positives. Like it or not, we are part of a community both on the roads and on the net. The way we behave on the roads affects all of us. All that #bloodycyclists are trying to do is to get from A to B without harm and injury. And whilst they are doing so, whether within the bounds of the law or not, you should not wish harm on another human being.

And if and when you choose to tweet about #bloodycyclists try the following. Take out the word ‘cyclist’ and replace it with ‘human’. Take out the word ‘car’ or ‘bonnet’ and replace it with the name of any weapon. Read it again,  and ask yourself, is it acceptable to threaten another human with a lethal weapon, just because you think you can get away with it?

Cycling: Advice for Sustrans

For anyone who thinks my response to Sustrans was quite sweary, rest assured that the editing room floor is crunchy with discarded swear words. After years on Guardian Unlimited Talk I perhaps have a skewed view of what counts as swearing but after writing the first version I applied a simple editorial rule: my mum reads my blog. After a Twitter storm, Sustrans have removed the post and have given this response http://www.sustrans.org.uk/blog/why-women-dont-cycle.

So just why did I get so annoyed with them? According to some defenders the original advice, based on 2009 research, has been very useful for beginner cyclists, even if I may find it patronising (may I? Thank you, I’m glad I’ve got your permission to feel a particular way). It was also, according to a Tweet sent by @sustrans, written in part because ‘we also know many girls stop cycling to school between primary & secondary, as they are worried about appearance’. This I think may get to the heart of the issue. It was written for girls rather than women. One should, one would hope, address 11 year old girls and 30 year old women somewhat differently though sadly many people still don’t. And the concerns of a mature woman regarding her appearance are likely to have moved on from those of her 11 year-old self.

Should Sustrans have removed the post? Was it all perfectly all right really? Well I would suggest that if you are going to aim advice specifically at women, you ask yourself two questions. One, would the advice sound appropriate if given to a child. Two, would it sound odd if given to a man? If the answer to the first is yes you are, by definition, being patronising. If the answer to the second is yes you should ask yourself why it sounds odd.

To be clear, I’m not denying some broad general differences in concerns between men and women. I don’t have a problem with advice aimed at women, rather than men, given how few women cycle compared to men. It’s also fairly obvious that advice to men on cycling when pregnant would seem odd. And if you were to offer advice on underwear that’s best for cycling it would differ depending on whether the recipients of the advice have male or female external genitalia.

So, I’ll apply my test questions to some of the advice previously given by Sustrans:

Wear a good pair of gloves to stop your fingers freezing

Would you say this to a child? Yes, if the child were very young or not that bright. Would it sound odd if you said it to a man? Yes. Why? Well not for obviously gendered reasons. It’s not as if there’s much biological difference in the chill factor experienced by male and female hands when cycling. So it would sound odd if you said it to a man because it is in fact advice for a child, not for an adult. And when we gender advice, we tend to bracket women and children together, putting men separately  in the ‘grown adult who knows this stuff already’ category. Thus using these two questions we can get to the heart of the matter: is this advice for a child, or for an adult? Unfortunately, given our propensity to patronise grown women, we have to ask ‘would I say this to a man?’ in order to see if we should be saying it to an adult.

Again consider ‘A breathable waterproof jacket will keep out the rain’. Would you say this to a child? Yes. Would it sound odd if you said it to a man? Yes, again, it fails the ‘would I say it to a grown adult?’ test. You would expect an intelligent adult to know this. In fact anyone not knowing this probably shouldn’t be allowed out on a bike on their own. Continuing:

Waterproof trousers aren’t sexy, but they will keep you dry

Would you say this to a child? Well no, because you don’t expect children to worry about sexiness. You might point out that waterproof trousers keep you dry, though if you do, expect the teenage eye roll that clearly says ‘no shit Sherlock, I’m not that stupid’. Would you say it to a man? No. Not just because it fails the ‘is it adult advice’ rule but because it would sound odd. It doesn’t fit their concerns. Men aren’t generally considered to decide what to wear according to whether a woman (heteronormative assumption alert) will find it attractive. Of course men do worry about what they look like, but they’re not continually judged for their appearance in quite the same way as women are.

So is it legitimate to give advice that addresses women’s concerns about appearance? Sustrans say they drew on research that said women are put off cycling because of its effects on appearance. British Cycling carried out its own research and found that the main concern for women was safety on the roads. There were other concerns as well, amongst which were ‘Negative body image associated with kit, equipment and resultant “muscular” physique’ and the expense of buying kit. So how might one address these concerns when speaking to (or writing for) an adult woman? Given that appearance is a concern about the visual, it seems to me that the best way to combat concerns about appearance is through images, not words. Show women images of other women of all shapes, sizes, physiques and abilities on bikes. The advice given then might sound more like this:

The great thing about cycling is its versatility. Adapt your cycling to suit you and your lifestyle, don’t feel you need to adapt to suit cycling. For many women, cycling is simply a wonderful form of transport, not a substitute for a gym workout. You can hop on a bike wearing whatever you want, from a Chanel suit and full makeup to jeans and just-got-out-of-bed hair. You don’t have to break into a sweat but as these women show, you can sail along looking magnificent on just about any bike.

As you become more experienced and confident you will find what suits you best. Personally I avoid tight skirts on a bike as they’re just uncomfortable (plus, by the time you’ve reached your destination, you might need to sew the skirt back up). Long skirts, coats, and scarves, aside from the obvious hazard * can get caught around brake blocks. You don’t need to buy special kit but from hard won experience do make sure your bike has a rear mudguard to protect you from splatter. Also, waterproof coats are great but you may find that they handily filter all rain water down on to your thighs so you might want to invest in waterproof trousers. These will then filter rain water down into your shoes. You can spot cyclists at work: they are the ones with spare shoes, socks and tights stashed under their desk. It’s a small price to pay for the overall convenience of travel by bike.

* Obvious to everyone except Isadora Duncan

Personally I  would leave decisions about the sexiness or otherwise of waterproof trousers to the individual. They are a grown up, they can work it out for themselves.  However, in Sustrans response to criticism, Melissa Henry argued that

To the women and girls, like my daughter, to whom perception by others is a genuine anxiety helping her overcome this rather than telling her it doesn’t matter is far more likely to change her heart and therefore her mind.

Now I’m not advocating telling women and girls that appearance does not matter. In the case of women, I think they can make their own minds up without me telling them anything. In the case of girls, I would not simply tell a child that appearance didn’t matter. Henry seems to be conflating calls to counteract the primacy of image, with ignoring the issue entirely. I would rather not pander to the idea that image is all by saying ‘Take a comb or brush with you to revive your style’. Instead, just show girls images of women looking great on bikes. Or, you know, get on a bike yourself and lead by example.

It would also help to counteract the notion that you can only look good if you are projecting a particular image of what it means to be sexy by reviving your hairstyle. I would question the notion that waterproof trousers are necessarily unsexy. You can look great in a bin bag, given the right attitude. Girls don’t, as far as I’m concerned, need to be reassured that cycling is OK because you can comb your hair afterwards. They need to be reassured that looking good is not a narrow thing to be defined solely by some misguided idea of what boys might be looking for.

So, separate out advice for women and advice for girls. When offering advice to women, ask yourself if it is appropriate advice for an adult. If it would sound odd if you said it to a man, is that because you would expect a man to know already? If so, don’t say it to a woman. She has a brain, respect that fact. When addressing girls’ concerns, reassure them that their appearance is their business. If they’re striving to look good, they should be doing so for themselves, not for some narrow definition of what somebody else thinks is the embodiment of femininity.

Cycling: Advice for Ladies

On edit 15/05/13: Sustrans have removed the original blogpost. They have put this up instead http://www.sustrans.org.uk/blog/why-women-dont-cycle. I can’t take credit for the removal, they were barracked on Twitter for the original post. Actually I wouldn’t take credit either. I would hope that they have understood why it caused offence.

Sustrans have some valuable advice for us girls, sorry ladies, er, no, what was the word now, so difficult to remember. Anyway, ladies, drawing on the wisdom of Sustrans, here is my advice to you before getting on a bike

What to wear:

Whatever the fuck you like. It’s a bike ride, not the Oscars. Or at least, that’s what you might think the advice would be. But no. Apparently this cycling malarkey is quite complicated for us women.

Just in case you were born in a bubble and have lived there ever since, Sustrans have the following news for you:

A breathable waterproof jacket will keep out the rain. Waterproof trousers aren’t sexy, but they will keep you dry

Well bugger me sideways. There are waterproof jackets? And trousers? Who knew? And these waterproof things, they keep out the rain. Like, Wow, man. That’s almost too much information for my poor little head. Of course, I will, for however long I’m on the bike in the rain, have to drop my fundamental female right to look ‘sexy’. Oh no, how will I cope without endeavouring to look sexy and available for every minute of the day. Oh gosh, well maybe for a few minutes I might just try being warm and comfortable instead.

There is more advice about what to wear:

Wear a good pair of gloves to stop your fingers freezing; Scarves also help keep you warm but keep long scarves away from any moving parts. Earmuffs look great and keep your ears safe from wind-chill too.

Well I never. Gloves to keep you warm. Wow. Have you told NASA? It’s such a deep insight I’m sure they’d like to know. And no scarves near moving parts. Oh thank you so much. It would never have occurred to me not to strangle myself by trapping a scarf in a bike wheel. Oh and ear muffs look great. Excellent. I must keep up that looking great thing and it’s so nice to have someone like you tell me it’s OK to wear them on a bike.

Just one question. Since ear muffs look great, do they cancel out the unsexiness of the waterproof trousers?
Oh but Sustrans continue with their excellent advice. How wonderful. What a treasure trove. There’s a section on ‘Staying Fresh.’ I’d love to see the male equivalent for this. Apparently I can wear a t-shirt and change when I get to where I’m going. Golly gosh and hockey sticks. I didn’t know I could get changed. And wear deodorant and take wet wipes with me. Oh me oh my. That’s not at all patronisingly blindingly fucking obvious. Oh no.

But wait, what is this. More pearls of wisdom await:

All that fresh air is good for your skin, so you’ll probably find that you arrive with a beautiful healthy glow. Use waterproof mascara in case it rains, or your eyes water, and take a powder compact for a quick refresher on arrival.
Helmet hair can be an issue: tie back long hair, secure it in a French plait or with a scarf under your helmet to keep it frizz free. Take a comb or brush with you to revive your style when you reach your destination.

Newsflash: I don’t wear makeup. If I did, I’m sure I could work out that waterproof mascara is better in the wet, the clue is kind of in the name. I’m not taking a compact with me anywhere. Piss off you numpties. And yes, thank you dears, I can work out what a comb is for. You patronising bunch of numbnuts.

Finally, we get to the meat of the issue:

Other tips for safe cycling

No, you patronising bellends. You pissing cockdumpling morons. Those are not ‘other tips for safety’. Hair and makeup advice is not effing safety advice in the first place. Have you any idea how patronising, gender-laden, annoying, sexist and idiotic your advice is? No? Well then go away and have a think. A really, really long one.

Welfare reforms: Could I live on £53 per week?

Since Iain Duncan Smith claimed on Radio 4’s Today programme that he could do so, a petition has been launched asking him to put his money where his mouth is, so to speak. Now I penny pinch. As a freelancer, sometimes when I’m waiting for an invoice to be paid I have £3 to live on until it is paid, and I just have to hope that nothing happens, that I don’t have to go anywhere and that there is enough pasta in the cupboard until the invoice clears.

So what do I actually spend money on? Can I cut back to £53 pw? Now I have to confess that my major expense is my horse, which automatically means I could stop bleating about being broke. I mean I could sell him. Personally I view selling the horse in the same way most people view selling their children. However, for the purposes of this calculation let us assume that I don’t have a horse. I will also assume, naively I suspect, that rent is taken care of. So what are my other expenses?

I’m going to calculate this for a year. It evens out expenses as some bills are monthly, others quarterly and some are spread over 10 months of the year. And IDS has been asked to manage on £53 pw for a year. This is as it should be. Anyone can live on £53 a week for one week. You just put off the passport renewal, the hair cut, the dry cleaning and buying that train ticket for the trip to London next month. £2756 for a year presents different problems, especially when paid in fortnightly instalments. This means cash flow problems. It means not buying in bulk in advance, which is cheaper, because you don’t have the cash to buy in bulk. Well not unless you live on less than £53 per week and save as you go, which you might just manage if only you could buy things cheaply and in bulk. Oh.

I will take out the £21pcm I spend on contact lenses and eye care. Let us assume that for a year I will wear glasses only and that they won’t break and my prescription won’t change. Neither will I pay for any eye care. This actually presents a serious problem as I cannot leave the house without glasses or contacts but, well £2756 – £522 = £2504 so it already reduces me to £48.15 per week so I’ll nix the eye  care. Neither will I go to the dentist. Let’s just hope I don’t need to. After all, you can buy DIY dental kits in supermarkets these days. And there’s always a pair of pliers.

I will include internet access. If the government want me to be able to earn my own keep in future I will need the internet to job hunt. I could go to the local library and get this for free but they will only give me 30 minutes per day which frankly isn’t enough to find a job in the current market. It certainly isn’t enough to build up a freelance portfolio. To get the internet access I need a landline telephone even if I don’t actually phone anybody on it. This presents another problem. Since I have the internet, those nice people at TV licensing will make my life hell if I do not buy a TV licence on the grounds that I might have a device for watching the telly and I might be downloading programmes, evil lawbreaker than I am. I will also include a mobile phone. I realise that I cannot eat the phone but heck, even poor people need to communicate.

The good news is that I live in a studio flat. I am thinking of claiming a rebate on the bedroom tax since I don’t actually have a bedroom. Neither do I run a car so none of those lovely hard working tax payers will have to subsidise an overlarge house or my petrol, nasty scrounger that I am, at least for the purposes of this thought experiment. Also, please note, the council tax bill is 20% of the bill for my property. Since the government’s changes, Exeter City Council will give a maximum 80% discount. Otherwise if you’re on JSA, ESA, universal credit or just plain dead, you have to find 20% from somewhere. Just mug a city banker, I promise karma won’t mind.

So here are the sums for per annum expenses:

Electric and gas                                 480.00

Water                                                   312.00

Council tax                                          197.93

Telephone                                          180.00

TV                                                         145.50*

Internet                                               102.00

Mobile phone                                       60.00

Total expenditure                             1477.43

Annual income                                 2756.00

Balance                                                1278.57

* There is a slight problem here. That’s the cheapest option. If you pay weekly it might be more expensive. Things generally are.

This leaves me £24.12 per week for food and anything else once my basic bills are paid. Now I know I can get by on that, although I would be quite miserable. I don’t have a problem with buying second hand clothes and I can go years between haircuts. I know which household goods are cheaper in Wilkinsons and I avoid the Poundshop (Oh look, it’s only a pound, buy it! Errm, no, you don’t need it and it’s cheaper elsewhere). I know which of the Sainsbury’s Basics range are cheaper by weight and which are in a smaller packet so look cheaper but actually cost more per kilo. I know when yellow sticker time is. I doubt IDS knows what it is.

I could manage if I had to and if, for the entire year, nothing went wrong, I never went out and I didn’t need a prescription or a new pair of shoes. In short, I could manage if I obeyed Kinnock’s warning not to be young, ill, old or ordinary. IDS wouldn’t manage and watching him try would achieve little. It certainly wouldn’t increase the empathy of anyone in the Tory party. And that is the real problem. They don’t care whether or not they could manage on £53 pw because they have an unshakeable belief that it won’t happen to them. They believe this because they think that only the feckless need state handouts and they don’t think they are feckless.

What the average Tory politician, and the entire cabinet, do not realise is that the Welfare State is not there for the benefit of feckless scroungers. It is there for the benefit of all of us. It is there so that if you are young, old, ill or just ordinary there is a safety net to prevent you from starving on the streets. It should provide education and health care for all and a basic standard of living for those who cannot work. And if you never actually use the Welfare State at least remember this – your world is still better for its existence because you are not plagued by the crime that results from the hungry, impoverished, ill and uneducated trying to scratch a living. You benefit by living in a society that is kind enough and decent enough to care for its weakest members.

Except that we no longer do this. This vile excuse for a government quite deliberately whips up ill feeling by creating a false dichotomy between hard workers and benefit scroungers, as if no hard worker ever found themselves out of work. By labelling anyone needing state aid as a scrounger they have legitimised their moves to take away that aid. They are dismantling the Welfare State and using a rhetoric of hatred and disgust in order to minimise protest against such a move. So it makes no difference if IDS tries to live for a week or a year or the rest of his tawdry life on £53 a week or £53 an hour. It won’t, for a second, change the views of this shambling cunch of bunts.

Why a feminist needs a bicycle like a fish needs water

This week, British Cycling launched its Get Women Cycling campaign , aiming to get 1 million more women cycling by 2020. The campaign brochure, mercifully, starts with pictures of women racing on track bikes. I say ‘mercifully’ in the light of the European Commission’s dire campaign to get more women into science, of which more below. British Cycling wants bike riding to become a normal activity for women and the organisation is aware that concern about safety is the biggest barrier.

There is however something that saddens me about all this. I don’t need to be encouraged to cycle because it’s never occurred to me not to. Historically the bicycle is linked to the suffrage movement. Bikes and women go together. The bicycle gave women the freedom to move independently. It saw the rise of sensible clothing for women. Sheila Hanlon at the Women’s Library is investigating the links between suffrage campaigners and cycling. The suffragists were sportswomen – the Pankhursts were avid cyclists and supporters of the Clarion Cycling Club. One can be both feminine, whatever that means, and sporty. Being female is not, or need not be, about looking pretty. You can be a woman and celebrate your physicality. You do not have to dislike your body and fret about your weight. You can love your body and celebrate its speed and grace as you pedal. There is nothing quite like the surge of power that comes along with the hum of a bike’s wheels and the knowledge that it’s powered by you. Bikes and women should be natural partners so why is that in the twenty-first century, after several waves of feminism, only 1 in 4 once-a-week cyclists are women?

It’s not just cycling that lacks female participation. Faced with the problem of a lack of women in science, the European Commission came up with this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g032MPrSjFA a video mind numbing in its sexism, reinforcement of gender stereotypes and seemingly genuine belief that women aren’t interested in anything unless you can put lipstick on it. Science, according to them, is a ‘girl thing’ because it features heels, good looking men, make up and pretty colours. There’s only one thing to say that: bollocks. Fortunately, to save me from deconstructing this pile of steaming piffle we have this : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtZCq83v92s Don’t watch that at work. It’s safe enough but your colleagues might wonder why you’re weeping with laughter.

All of this reminds me of a key problem within western society, in fact perhaps in all societies. We laud things associated with masculinity and mock things associated with femininity. We use ‘throwing like a girl’ as an insult. We forget that overarm bowling was invented by a woman because she couldn’t bowl underarm whilst wearing a skirt. Yes, that’s right. Every fast bowler, spin bowler, the best bowlers the world has ever seen, all of them, to a man, have thrown like a girl. We should celebrate being female and celebrate women’s physicality without reducing them to physical objects or reinforcing stereotypes that women like anything pink, sparkly, shiny and cute. We need to change our attitude so that throwing like a girl becomes a compliment. We need to re-unite women with the bicycle and all it stands for.

It is to the credit of British Cycling that they have asked women why women don’t cycle. They cite:

Lack of time
Lack of confidence on a bike and cycling on the highway
Lack of female role models, eg ride leaders
Lack of knowledge of bike maintenance and associated vulnerabilities
Negative body image associated with kit, equipment and resultant ‘muscular’ physique
Costs associated with purchase of bike
Impracticalities of bike transportation.

Note,  the objections to cycling have absolutely bugger all, naff all, nothing, to do with helmet hair, lipstick, pink lego, heels, or any of the other insulting claptrap that gets thrown at women. British Cycling have listened and their plans do not include insulting videos or promises of makeup. They know they need more female leaders if they are to get more women cycling.

Primarily I think British Cycling should focus on making roads safer and on encouraging better cycling infrastructure. Women wouldn’t need to find time to cycle if they were routinely using their bikes for transport. You don’t need more confidence if you can cycle safely away from motorised traffic. Costs are kept down if cycling becomes a form of transport, which it would be if we had the infrastructure. There’s no need to worry about bike transportation if it’s safe to go anywhere by bike without first driving to somewhere safe. But there is something else that I think British Cycling could do and another idea that I’m forming. It’s in its early stages but I’m thinking about Eva, feminism, bikes, and women specific geometry. Allow me to explain.

Eva is the name of my new bike. She (she really is a she) is a Specialized Vita, hence her full name Eva Evita. Look, it’s normal to name bikes, or at least normal for me. Eva has women’s specific geometry. That is, her frame is designed for a woman. Of course, there is a whole thesis in the fact that other bikes are seen as neutral or unisex whereas Eva and her kin are seen as women-specific when the reality is that a unisex bike has men-specific geometry. In too many spheres men are seen as the template and women as the deviation from the norm. Eva, unfortunately, does not dispel this. But that’s for another time. Unisex bikes, truth to tell, are designed for men. This means that in 35 years of cycling, as a woman, I have always been riding bikes that did not quite fit. Much as loved them, there was always the slight sense that something was off. In order to get the length I needed between seat and handlebars, the seat was too high. If I got the seat low enough, the handlebars were in my lap. I learned to ride so that I could just get a toe on the floor if I tipped the bike sideways.

Eva was, therefore, an utter revelation. She fits. And because she fits she makes the absolute most of my strength. I’m not struggling or reaching but using every fraction of my muscular power to push Eva forward because she is designed for my proportions. She is designed to make the most of a woman’s physicality. And this is important. As a woman I am always aware that I am less strong than the average man and I have always made up for this by maximising the strength that I have. Eva is engineered for me. Eva goes like shit off a shovel. She scared the bejeesus out of me until I got used to her speed. My speed.

On Eva, I’m not hauling around a too-big bike. I see a gap in the traffic and I’m confident I can go for it. Eva and I move as one. Vitally, Eva’s design acknowledges anatomical differences between men and women without castigating women for it or using them to deny women something. Eva’s design does not imply that my mental characteristics are different. She’s not designed specifically for high heels, although since she has flat pedals I could wear them if I wanted to. She gives me choice.

As I wrote elsewhere, when I rode my old Dawes, people often mistook me for a man. No-one has done this yet when I’m on Eva. They might in the future but I think it is unlikely. On Eva I still move confidently and assertively in a way more usually associated with men. However, there is something decidedly female about Eva. She’s white, so it’s a gender-neutral colour. The frame is diamond shaped, not step through. The trim is dark blue and green, stylish but not overtly feminine. And yet Eva is female. She suits me. I’m not sure what it is about the appearance of the Specialized Vita but it says Female without saying ‘stereotypically feminine’. Eva enables me to celebrate being a woman in my own right whilst acknowledging my physical differences. I can cycle as a woman, not as a feminine object. Eva is empowering for she says I can be female and with this I can be anything I want to be. I can make the most of my strength.

For me, as a feminist, this is key. I don’t have to be some sort of ersatz man to gain status. Neither do I have to tick all the boxes for ‘looks stereotypically feminine’ to be acknowledged as a woman. And there is a new feminism about the place. I rejoice in this. No longer do women feel they have to apologise for being feminist. The Everyday Sexism project reminds us that we still need feminism. There are still battles to be fought for equality.

If British Cycling wishes to succeed it would do well to engage with the modern feminist movement. Cycling can bring women health, freedom, fitness, confidence in their bodies, and camaraderie with each other, all things that feminism seeks. More than this,  if British Cycling can make the roads safer for women they can make them safer for everyone. It is a fundamental truth of feminism that if society becomes better for women, it becomes better for men too. For a society to be better for women, it first has to acknowledge that might is not right. It must become fairer, giving opportunities based on ability, equality and merit, not on strength or influence.

This then is the Eva theory of feminism, cycling and equality, in its early stages. Eva acknowledges physical differences but still enables strength. She’s female without conforming to stereotype. She gives me power, independence and joy in my own physicality. If British Cycling wants more women on bikes, it could do worse than to look to Eva. As for me, well I need my bike in the same way that a fish needs water.

Brendan’s last week: Friday

There are lots of tears in the hospital. I think that, having made the set, Hollyoaks are determined to get their money’s worth out of it. Cheryl tries to stick to the story Brendan came up with despite Ste’s questioning. Unfortunately she’s so bad at lying she can’t even face Ste and probably wouldn’t fare much better with Dumb and Dumber.  Cheryl says she heard what Seamus said to Brendan although Seamus was dead when she got there.  Ste’s almost as slow on the uptake as Cheryl is bad at lying but even he knows that the dead aren’t famed for their chattiness and realises that it was Cheryl, not Brendan, who shot Seamus,.

Half way intelligent cop has disappeared. Dumb and Dumber want to interview Cheryl. And Brendan’s not actually dead, just a bit wounded. The man has more lives than a cat although since he failed to be dead when he was blown up I suppose it was silly to think a police shoot out would stop him. How different the ending to Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid would have been if Brendan had featured.

Sienna thinks Seamus’s winning betting slip should go to Cheryl. Whatever. Myra breaks the news of the death and shooting to Nate in her own special way. Then she informs Darren that Nate is a millionaire with a country estate and will marry Cheryl so Darren decides maybe he can keep the betting slip.

Brendan is trying to convince Ste to let him take the blame. Max tells Sienna and friends that ‘It’s murder out there’.  Yes Max, that’s Hollyoaks for you. Will decides to turn detective to help his mother so frankly the woman is doomed.

Cheryl confesses to Nate that Seamus used to hurt Brendan. Cheryl tells Nate their relationship is over. I wish Nate didn’t remind me of chutney. Every time I see him I wonder if his breath smells of cheese. This worries me.

Ste tells Brendan it ends here. Poor old Ste, covered in bruises, asking if Brendan knows what love is. It’s like a lesson in denial. And Kieron needs a proper acting job away from Hollyoaks. Dumb or possibly Dumber comes to take Brendan away from the hospital to prison.

Darren tells his dad they don’t need to move. They are the new owners of the pub. He’s won the bet. Lying about the betting slip probably isn’t a great move. And Nancy hates the fact that he appears to be gambling again but goes along with it to keep the pub. Oh I don’t care. I want Esther back.

Anna tells her family that she got Mark to safety from Patrick and meant to go back for Sienna. She claims Patrick is the one who is dangerous and manipulative. Max however thinks that Anna tried to gas the kids and suffocate Sienna. This is Max who thought ‘Kevin’ the barman who drugged her was lovely and who fell for Walker’s ‘I’m a good cop me’ act.

Anna says she’s better but also makes it clear she did try to hurt the twins. Anna gets taken away by men in white t-shirts as if we’re in Hollyoaks: The Victorian Years. Patrick does a special villainous aside just so we all know it’s him really. Mind you, I’m not too sure about Sienna either.

Ste is falling apart. He wants Cheryl to go with Nate. She says she’ll confess to the murder. Ste does not want Brendan’s sacrifice to be for nothing. He bellows this just as Nate approaches. Ste bless him is rather accident prone. Cheryl tells Nate the truth and still blames herself for not seeing what was happening. Nate points out she saved Brendan when he really needed her. I’m warming to Nate. So long as he leaves I’ll like him. Ste tells Cheryl ‘you run as fast and as far as you can and don’t look back.’ He might have added ‘before anybody else is murdered, shot, strangled, or hit by an exploding van door’.

Mercy’s missing and creepy doc is back. Hollyoaks then murder a U2 song. There really should be an embargo on cover versions of their songs. If you hate U2 you won’t care if you never hear one again and if you like them you certainly don’t want to hear that kind of dirge. Ste’s kids are back. Cheryl at least gets a glamorous and tear free exit looking like a cross between Marilyn Monroe and Audrey Hepburn, if such a thing is possible.

And Brendan. Well Brendan is looking at a long stretch in prison although the man is still alive and this is Hollyoaks. Who knows what will happen.

Brendan’s last week: Thursday

So Seamus is dead and Cheryl is cracking up. Anna the Creepy Carer has some explaining to do. She says she has thought of the family every single day. Dodger says he thinks of the family everyday and then forgets he’s got a twin. Sienna does not look impressed.

Ste has heard gunshots which will put the kibosh on any cover up even though Brendan’s made Cheryl wash any gunshot residue off her hands and has fired the gun himself. Cheryl feels guilty about not seeing what Seamus did to Brendan and no amount of hand washing will rid her of either blood or guilt. Brendan wouldn’t tell her about the abuse because he loved her and didn’t want her world to come crashing down. Cheryl confesses that she too had wanted to be daddy’s favourite. Except no, not like that.

Dodger thought Anna was dead then was convinced she’d come back.  Will takes after his mother at least in general creepiness and manipulation. I need a stiff gin to get through this episode. Sienna doesn’t want Anna as a mum which is cool as Ann doesn’t recognise her anyway. She really is quite unhinged and I’m not sure this is the best way to portray mental health problems. In fact I’m fairly sure it isn’t. Anna can’t face Patrick. The cops are everywhere thanks to Ste.

Meanwhile back at the club/ O.K. Corral Brendan unplugs the phone. He wants to lie to get out of this. He’ll take the wrap for Cheryl. In fact he says he’s taking the bullet for her. I’m not quite that’s what that expression means.

The police, who have found someone halfway intelligent, are trying to make contact with Brendan. Darren and Nancy are arguing over a horse race.  Turns out it was a horse called Lady Luck and she’s romped home so Darren goes off to find Seamus and give him the good news.

Patrick encounters Anna. Will gets protective. Patrick says something about medication. Anna is convinced Patrick used to beat her. Anna’s other husband/ Dodger’s other dad whose name I never knew so I can’t say I’ve forgotten it does a big The Family’s Here speech. I momentarily wonder if I’ve switched to Eastenders.

Brendan and Cheryl argue. Brendan wants to protect her for ever. He can’t let Seamus win. (Or Walker for that matter). Brendan sees it as past crimes catching up on him.  Cheryl says he can’t go to prison so Brendan tells her he killed nana. Cheryl at this stage seems too stunned to take this in. #StopCherylCryingIDon’tLikeIt

Patrick shouts at his lawyer like some kind of 1980s yuppy throwback. He knew where Anna was, mainly because it seems he had her locked up in a hospital. Darren wonders where Seamus is as he was just about to make his night. Oh his night’s been made Darren. Take the betting slip and run, run like Lady Luck.

Cheryl wonders if the police will believe about the abuse and so understand why they shot Seamus. Brendan tells Cheryl he’s going to meet the police and she’s not to follow him out.  I think it might be suicide by cop. Out at the top of the club steps Brendan confesses to assorted murders, all the glare of several helicopter floodlights on him. Cheryl realises a second too late what Brendan’s planning. Brendan shuts the door on her, pulls a gun on the police and his world goes black.