Transportation Research Part F: Psychology and Behaviour 94 (2023) 453–465

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Part F:

Psychology and Behaviour
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trf

What a girl wants: A mixed-methods study of gender differences in

the barriers to and enablers of riding a bike in Australia
Lauren Pearson a, *, Sandy Reeder a, Belinda Gabbe a, b, Ben Beck a
a
School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Australia
b
Health Data Research UK, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea University, United Kingdom

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Background: There is substantial potential to improve low rates of bike riding participation in
Cycling Australian women. Understanding of the barriers to and enablers of riding a bike is essential for
Active transport planning of urban environments and development of interventions to promote accessible active
Gender
transport. It is well established that there are differences in the needs and experiences of people of
Micromobility
different genders in urban environments, however our understanding of the needs of women who
are not yet riding a bike are limited. We aimed to quantify perceived barriers and enablers to
riding a bike for transport between women and men, and to explore reasoning behind these.
Methods: Using a mixed methods sequential explanatory design, we purposively sampled people
by age, gender and area of residence in Greater Melbourne, Australia. The sample participated in
an online survey of barriers to and enablers of riding a bike. Participants who completed the
online survey indicated if they were interested in participating in further qualitative research
which aimed to gain a deeper understanding of their attitudes toward, barriers to and enablers of
riding a bike. A total of 40 semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 women and 20
men who were categorised as Interested but Concerned in bike riding.
Results: Of the 912 surveys collected, 717 were completed and included in analyses. Significant
differences were identified in the barriers and enablers reported between women and men, where
more women reported concerns regarding riding on the road. In interviews, more women re­
ported issues relating to a lack of confidence and concern about their safety riding a bike around
motor vehicle traffic compared to men.
Conclusions: Women have specific concerns about riding on the road alongside motor vehicle
traffic and the associated risks, and a lack of confidence in their ability and knowledge of bike
riding and bikes themselves. It is imperative that women’s perspectives and needs are considered
in the planning and promotion of bike riding globally to prevent and tackle gendered inequities.

1. Background

The benefits of bike riding for individuals, populations and the environment are well established, including improved mental and
physical health, reduced environmental emissions and reduced motor vehicle congestion (Celis-Morales et al., 2017; Leyland, Spencer,
Beale, Jones, & van Reekum, 2019; Oja et al., 2011; Warburton, Nicol, & Bredin, 2006). Planning to increase cycling participation rates

* Corresponding author at: Sustainable Mobility & Safety Research, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 553 St
Kilda Road, Melbourne, Vic, Australia.
E-mail address: Lauren.pearson@monash.edu (L. Pearson).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2023.03.010
Received 1 August 2022; Received in revised form 9 March 2023; Accepted 12 March 2023
Available online 21 March 2023
1369-8478/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L. Pearson et al. Transportation Research Part F: Psychology and Behaviour 94 (2023) 453–465

has become a focus among many cities globally, but requires understanding of the barriers and enablers people experience to bike
riding. Further, an understanding of groups with traditionally lower participation in bike riding, including women, is needed to
encourage equitable access to transport.
Countries with lower participation rates in bike riding, including Australia, often exhibit a pattern where there are more bike riders
who identify as men, compared to women (Goel et al., 2022). This is in comparison to areas with higher bike riding participation,
where gender differences are less substantial (Prati, 2018) or more women ride a bike than men (Haustein, Koglin, Nielsen, &
Svensson, 2020). Previous international research highlights that women’s attitudes toward and experiences of riding a bike are
different to men’s, including a greater preference for separated infrastructure, concern of injury, vulnerability to harassment and
variability in trip purpose (Aldred, Elliott, Woodcock, & Goodman, 2017; Heim LaFrombois, 2019; Russell, Davies, Wild, & Shaw,
2021; Steinbach, Green, Datta, & Edwards, 2011). In a systematic review from Aldred et al. (2017) found that women report stronger
preferences than men for greater separation from motor traffic. Despite barriers, areas with high rates of women bike riding show the
potential for change and the importance of understanding context-specific drivers.
In Greater Melbourne, Australia, only 1.9% of trips are made by bike, and for every two men riding a bike there is one woman (Beck,
Winters, Thompson, Stevenson, & Pettit, 2021). While participation is low, 77% of women are interested in riding a bike (Pearson
et al., 2022). Previous research in Australia has identified a lack of high-quality cycle paths, lack of connectivity between paths and
mandatory helmet regulation as preventing individuals from participating in bike riding (Fishman, Washington, & Haworth, 2012;
Heesch, Sahlqvist, & Garrard, 2012). This research was, however, conducted in groups who already ride a bike, or was specific to
shared-bike systems. International literature also suffers from a focus on people already riding, rather than those who are not currently
riding but may be interested in riding. Previous research has identified populations with large groups of ‘near-market’ bicyclists,
showing substantial potential for increased participation (Gatersleben & Appleton, 2007; Pearson et al., 2022). This lack of evidence
inhibits abilities to design and implement interventions that address barriers not well captured by larger quantitative studies.
Solely quantitative or qualitative studies may not fully capture the complexity and diversity of barriers and enablers that people
experience for riding a bike. We use a mixed-methods sequential explanatory design as described by Tashakkori and Creswell (2007)
by collecting barrier and enabler responses through an online survey, and further expanding on findings by interviewing select survey
participants to provide detail and understanding of what has been reported.

2. Methods

2.1. Study design

The aim of this paper was to quantify the frequency of perceived barriers and enablers to riding a bike for transport between women
and men and to explore the reasons for the barriers and enablers that women perceived differently to men. To achieve these aims, we
recruited a sample of adults (aged 18 years and older) across selected local government areas within Greater Melbourne, Australia. A
cross-sectional online survey was conducted between 22nd November 2021 and the 16th February 2022, from which a purposively
sampled group of people were invited to participate in an interview. Interviews were conducted with 40 people (20 women and 20
men) between the 21st of March and 28th of April 2022. The purposive sampling criteria was 20 were based on an estimated infor­
mation power. Information power is the expected sample size needed to answer a qualitative research question (Malterud, Siersma, &
Guassora, 2015).
The term “bike riding” and “cycling” have the same theoretical definitions in Australia, however “cycling” is perceived as less
inclusive due to associations with competitive sport cycling and a culture of “middle aged men in lycra” or “MAMILs” (Bauman, Blazek,
Reece, & Bellew, 2018). “Bike riding” is used to ensure inclusivity and applicability of findings to people of all ages and abilities, rather
than only the aforementioned subgroups.

2.2. Sampling and recruitment

We recruited adults (18 years or older) who resided within one of 10 local government areas (LGAs) listed in Table 1 and shown in
Fig. 1. Findings by B. Beck, Winters, Nelson, Pettit, Leao, Saberi, and Stevenson (2022) identified five distinct typologies across
Victoria based on bicycle ridership, network data (density, length and slope of on and off-road infrastructure), population and land use
data through a machine learning approach. We identified local government areas (LGAs) within four of the identified Strata with an

Table 1
Summary statistics for each stratum (B. Beck, et al., 2022).
Characteristic Stratum One Stratum Two Stratum Three Stratum Four

Included LGAs: Melbourne Moreland Maribyrnong Hume

Port Phillip Monash Whittlesea Wyndham
Yarra Glen Eira
Characteristics:
Proportion of Greater Melbourne land area stratum covers 1% 11% 40% 24%
Proportion of the population 12% 43% 18% 23%
Proportion of all bike trips 57% 26% 3% 13%
Proportion of bike trips made by females 41% 24% 23% 33%

454
L. Pearson et al. Transportation Research Part F: Psychology and Behaviour 94 (2023) 453–465

aim to achieve a level of representation across the city. Stratum Five was not included due to low population and network density. The
highest number of bike trips occur in Stratum One (57%), as well as the highest proportion of trips by women (41%). Majority of the
population reside in Stratum Two, despite it only making up 11% of the regions land area. Further detail of each stratum is displayed in
Table 1.

2.2.1. Quantitative study

The aim of the quantitative survey was to obtain a sample that was representative of the age and sex of the LGAs included, based on
2016 Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Census data (2016a). We collected gender and compared this to sex as collected by the ABS,
as they do not collect specific gender data. Two approaches were utilised to achieve this, including print and online distribution. Local
government channels such as social media pages, electronic and print newsletters included a flyer provided by the research team with
an invitation to complete the “Getting Around Victoria Survey”. A title without the use of terms “bike riding” or “cycling” was used to
reduce the potential for selection bias. The research team used the same flyer to advertise the survey through Facebook using targeted
methods. Survey participation was monitored weekly and advertising methods altered to increase visibility to particular ages, genders
and areas where response rates were lower. To encourage a diverse range of participants to complete the survey, participants were
offered a chance to receive one of five $50AUD Visa Gift Cards upon survey completion. If a person completed the survey, they were
asked if they were interested in participating in an interview.
The survey included scenarios to quantify the Four Types of Cyclist (Dill & McNeil, 2013; Geller, 2006), where people were cat­
egorised as either “Strong and Fearless”, “Enthused and Confident”, “Interested but Concerned” or “No Way No How” in relation to
riding a bike. Scenarios involved a variety of infrastructure types and asked the participant to rate their level of perceived comfort
riding a bike in each scenario from a scale of 1 (very uncomfortable) to 4 (very comfortable). Lastly, the participant was asked to rate
their level of interest in riding a bike on a 4-point Likert scale. Using results from scenarios, the participant’s level of interest, if they
had an injury that prevented them from riding a bike and frequency of riding, participants were classified as one of the four types of
cyclist. Each classification represents a level of comfort in particular infrastructure, where people classified as Interested but Con­
cerned are interested in riding a bike only in infrastructure that provides physical separation from motor vehicles (such as a protected
bike lane or an off-road bike path). A summary of characteristics for each of the Four Types of Cyclist are provided in Table 2.

Fig. 1. Process of integration of quantitative and qualitative studies to form mixed-methods findings.

455
L. Pearson et al. Transportation Research Part F: Psychology and Behaviour 94 (2023) 453–465

2.2.2. Qualitative study

A database of potential participants was developed from people who had indicated they were interested in participating in an
interview. As we were interested in people who were potential bike riders, only people who were categorised as Interested but
Concerned as classified by the Four Types of Cyclist (Geller, 2006) were eligible for participation in qualitative interviews. All par­
ticipants who had indicated interest in completing an interview and who were classified as Interested but Concerned were emailed
with information regarding the study, and a link to a pre-interview survey to indicate their availability if they were interested in
participating. The resulting sample developed from people who completed the pre-interview survey were then purposively sampled by
gender and which Strata they resided in. Potential participants were emailed with a confirmation of the time and date they would be
called, provided with a brief interview guide and an explanatory statement. We aimed to sample five women, and five men within each
of the four Strata.

2.3. Data collection

2.3.1. Quantitative
A cross-sectional online survey designed by the study authors and informed by a previous systematic review (Pearson, Berkovic,
Reeder, Gabbe, & Beck, 2022) was administered through Qualtrics Survey Software (Qualtrics, 2005). The survey included questions
regarding demographics, bike ownership and frequency of use, scenarios to identify the Four Types of Cyclist (Dill & McNeil, 2013;
Geller, 2006) and a selection of questions regarding barriers and enablers to riding a bike for transport. A selection of barriers and
enablers were included in the survey and were randomised for each participant. Participants were asked to tick all barriers that de­
terred them from riding a bike, and all enablers that encouraged them.

2.3.2. Qualitative
Data were collected through telephone semi-structured interviews conducted by the first author, who is also a woman and a bike
rider. Verbal consent to participate and audio record was gained at the commencement of the interview. An interview topic guide was
developed by the study authors based on the aims of the research, the survey results, and the Theoretical Domains Framework of
behaviour change (Atkins et al., 2017) (see Supplementary Material). The Theoretical Domains Framework is a system of 14 domains
organised by a collaboration of behavioural and implementation scientists. The result provides a framework to identify the de­
terminants of behaviour. Examples of domains include knowledge, skills, beliefs about capabilities and social influences. This
framework was chosen as we wanted to understand what factors contributed to the behaviours of potential bike riders, and what could
be altered to increase their participation in bike riding. Questions were mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework as shown in
Supplementary Materials. Probes such as “can you tell me more about that?” were used to expand on interview topics where necessary.
Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed using a transcription software, Sonix (2020) and transcripts checked by the interviewer.

2.4. Data analysis

2.4.1. Quantitative analysis

Survey data were uploaded into the statistical program R and integrated development environment RStudio (RStudio Team, 2020)
from Qualtrics (2005) for analysis and cleaning. Demographic data were compared to the aggregated population statistics for each of
the individual LGAs from the 2016 Census (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2018). As speaking a language at home other than English is
not data routinely collected at an LGA level, we compared this to the Victorian population (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2016b).
Descriptive statistics and a frequency table was used to show comparisons of barriers and enablers reported between women and men.
The purpose of the chi-square test was to determine if the barriers and enablers reported differed between women and men.

2.4.2. Qualitative analysis

Transcripts were imported into NVivo 12 (QSR International Pty Ltd., 2018) for analysis and organisation. Data analysis
commenced following the completion of data collection. Transcripts were analysed thematically using the Framework Method (Ritchie

Table 2
Summary of each of the Four Types of Cyclists’ characteristics.
Type of Cyclist Group Description of characteristics

Strong & Fearless “Very Comfortable” or “Comfortable” on non-residential streets without bike lanes
Enthused & Confident “Very Comfortable” or “Comfortable” on non-residential streets with painted bike lanes
Interested but Concerned “Very Uncomfortable” or “Uncomfortable” on non-residential streets with or without bike lanes

Not “Very Uncomfortable” on a path or trail separate from the street

Does not “Strongly Disagree” with wanting to ride a bike more
Does not meet above conditions, however has ridden a bike in the past 30 days
No Way No How “Very Uncomfortable” or “Uncomfortable” on non-residential streets with or without painted bike lanes
“Very Uncomfortable” on a path or trail separate from the street
“Strongly Disagree” with wanting to ride a bike more
Unable to ride a bike due to injury or other medical condition

456
L. Pearson et al. Transportation Research Part F: Psychology and Behaviour 94 (2023) 453–465

& Spencer, 2002). Transcripts were read and re-read and notes made on initial themes, before being coded line by line and concep­
tually labelled. Codes were reviewed and either made redundant due to lack of supporting data, or clustered to form a coding
framework. Preliminary groupings were formed and a coding framework developed which was checked with study co-authors. Further
transcripts were then coded using this framework, with changes made until no new codes emerged. Identified themes were reviewed to
ensure they were reflected in the coded extracts and the entire data set. Transcripts were checked by the first author to ensure the final
themes were reflective of the data. Final themes and subthemes were developed through consultation and discussion with study
authors. To ensure credibility of the analysis, the first author met with co-authors weekly to discuss identified codes and themes (Hall,
Long, Bermbach, Jordan, & Patterson, 2005).

2.4.3. Mixed-methods integration

We took a sequential explanatory design in the mixed-methods process as described by Tashakkori and Creswell (2007). In this
approach, a quantitative study is followed by a qualitative study to expand on results identified in the first phase. The first phase, the
quantitative survey was conducted to identify frequency and trends of reported barriers and enablers. Results were used to inform the
semi-structured interview guide. Barriers and enablers reported by higher proportions of participants in the survey were probed in the
interview guide to identify explanations for why these factors were reported. The qualitative study (interviews) was conducted and
data analysed to help explain and elaborate the quantitative results. This process is detailed in Fig. 1.

3. Results

Of the 912 people who commenced the survey, 717 completed the survey (79%) and were included in survey analyses. There were
237 participants who met eligibility criteria for the qualitative phase (classified as Interested but Concerned and indicated that they
were interested in participating in future research). These participants were contacted to complete a pre-interview survey if they were
interested in participating in an interview, of which we received 71 responses. Of these respondents, 40 interviews were completed by
20 women and 20 men (5 women and 5 men within each stratum). Interviews ranged from 28 to 78 min, and the median time was 46
min. Two major themes were identified, with corresponding subthemes.

Table 3
Characteristics of the total survey sample compared to population characteristics (Australian Bureau of
Statistics. (2016b), 2016b).
Total Sample Total Population
N ¼ 717 N ¼ 1,154,239

Gender
Woman 53.7% 50.6%
Man 42.2% 49.4%
Non-binary 2.3% NA*
Other 0.5% NA*
Prefer not to say 1.2% NA*
Age category
18–24 7.8% 11.5%
25–34 21.4% 26.6%
35–44 23.3% 19.5%
45–54 15.7% 15.6%
55–64 17.3% 11.9%
65–74 11.1% 8.1%
75+ 3.3% 6.8%
Annual income**
$0 to $10,399 7.6% 9.4%
$10,499 to $20,799 9.6% 22.6%
$20.800 to $31,199 12.1% 13.0%
$31,200 to $41,599 9.6% 12.3%
$41,600 to $51,999 8.2% 10.3%
$52,000 to $64,999 8.5% 10.0%
$65,000 to $77,999 8.2% 7.0%
$78,000 to $103,999 16.9% 7.7%
$104,000 or more 19.1% 7.9%
English main language
Yes 96.0% 77.4%
No 4.0% 22.6%

*Gender diverse data is not routinely collected in the Australian Census to-date (Australian Bureau of
Statistics. (2018), 2018).
**n = 74 indicated “prefer not to say” for their annual income. Proportions have been adjusted to
accommodate this.

457
L. Pearson et al. Transportation Research Part F: Psychology and Behaviour 94 (2023) 453–465

3.1. Sample characteristics

More women than men completed the survey (Table 3). People who identified as non-binary or who chose ‘Other’ or ‘Prefer not to
say’ comprised 4% of the total sample. The sample was similar in age profile to the target population, however had less participants
aged between 25 and 34 years. The sample had a higher income than the target population, where 36% of participants earned
$78,000AUD or more per year, compared to 16% in the target population. There were more people who spoke English as their main
language in the home in comparison to the Victorian population.
There were 20 women, and 20 men in the qualitative sample, and 10 participants within each of the Strata. A higher proportion of
the sample with higher incomes compared to lower incomes, and there were more people in younger age categories in Stratum One and
Two compared to three and four. Further characteristics of participants interviewed are detailed in Supplementary Materials.

3.2. Barriers to riding a bike

Barriers to riding a bike for transport purposes differed between women and men in the quantitative phase (Table 4). Twenty
barriers were measured through the quantitative survey. Factors relating to motor vehicle traffic and having to ride on the road were
more highly reported by women compared to men. These included significant differences between the proportion of women and men
who reported not wanting to ride on the road with motor vehicle traffic, concern about being injured through collision with a motor
vehicle and concern about aggressive behaviour from motor vehicle drivers. Physical fitness was a barrier to riding a bike in twice as
many women as men. Further, a higher proportion of women reported not having enough storage on a bike to be a barrier to them
riding a bike.

3.3. Enablers of riding a bike

Enablers of riding a bike for transport were similar between women and men (Table 5). A higher proportion of men (32%) reported
being able to get to a destination faster as an enabler compared to 25% of women, and a higher proportion of women reported that
having physically protected bike lanes or off-road paths as an enabling factor compared to men. Over half of the women and men
surveyed reported improvements in physical health, and reduction in environmental impact as an enabling factor for riding a bike.

3.4. Qualitative findings

Women and men reported similar barriers to and enablers of riding a bike, however the women interviewed described additional
barriers which were not identified by men. The mutual factors between women and men, and those exclusive to women are presented
in Fig. 2. Even when shared barriers were reported, the explanations for these barriers were different.
Theme One: Knowledge and confidence in ability affects decisions to ride.
In the qualitative phase, several women described encountering issues regarding their confidence in bike riding, from bike pur­
chase, bike maintenance, through to riding their bike. The men interviewed did not report these barriers to riding their bike, or re­
ported them and provided a different explanation for their concern.

Table 4
Proportion of women and men who reported barriers to riding a bike for transport.
Barrier Women Men p-value*
N ¼ 385 N ¼ 302

I do not want to ride on the road with motor vehicle traffic 61.1% 44.7% <0.001
I am concerned I will be injured through a collision with a motor vehicle 58.9% 43.0% <0.001
I am concerned about aggressive behaviour from motor vehicle drivers 55.0% 44.7% <0.001
Bad weather 53.4% 52.7% 0.82
Distance and time to destination is too great 34.9% 29.5% 0.33
I am concerned I will be injured from falling off the bike 34.4% 15.2% <0.001
Bike paths or lanes do not go to my destination 33.1% 34.6% 0.69
Having to change clothes or shower at my destination 31.1% 29.5% 0.63
Not enough storage on a bike 28.0% 19.8% 0.01
Exposure to motor vehicle-related pollution 24.1% 24.5% 0.91
Do not feel physically fit enough 23.6% 11.8% <0.001
I am not close to a bike path or bike lane 18.8% 17.3% 0.62
Need to transport other people or children 18.8% 14.8% 0.19
Having to wear a helmet 7.7% 6.8% 0.68
No interest in riding a bike 6.8% 4.6% 0.24
I need a motor vehicle for my occupation (e.g. tradesperson) 4.0% 6.3% 0.15
Unable to ride a bike (due to injury or medical condition) 3.8% 3.4% 0.68
I do not know how to get to my destination by bike 3.3% 3.4% 0.59
Do not know how to ride a bike 3.3% 1.7% 0.16
No access to a bike 2.0% 2.1% 0.99

*Result of chi-square test.

458
L. Pearson et al. Transportation Research Part F: Psychology and Behaviour 94 (2023) 453–465

Table 5
Proportion of women and men who reported enablers of riding a bike for transport.
Enablers Women Men p-value
N ¼ 385 N ¼ 302

Having a bike-lane physically separated from motor vehicle traffic or an off-road bike path 68.4% 59.1% 0.01
To improve my physical health 64.2% 64.6% 0.95
To reduce my environmental impact 58.1% 54.9% 0.39
If I could easily get to a bike lane or path 48.8% 48.9% 0.96
Well-lit roads/paths 47.5% 43.5% 0.22
To improve my mental health 44.2% 49.4% 0.17
Secure bike storage 43.3% 41.8% 0.66
Being able to take a bike on public transport 35.5% 32.9% 0.44
To save money 35.3% 39.7% 0.24
Signage to show bike route 32.5% 33.8% 0.35
Lower motor vehicle speeds 28.0% 33.8% 0.11
Seeing people like me riding bikes 25.6% 25.3% 0.87
To get to a destination faster 24.7% 32.1% 0.03
Change facilities and showers at destination 24.3% 30.8% 0.06
Having access to an e-bike 15.7% 19.4% 0.17
There are no factors listed that would encourage me 7.3% 7.6% 0.86

Fig. 2. A Venn diagram of the barriers to riding a bike identified through interviews.

Subtheme: Knowledge of bikes for purchase, repair and maintenance.

Women reported not knowing what kind of bike to purchase and feeling unsupported by (often male) staff in bike stores, and not
knowing about how to repair their bike if they encountered an issue. These factors affected their confidence in being able to ride for
transport which in turn, affected their participation. Women described their experience in bike stores as a person with limited
knowledge of bikes, which affected their ability to make an informed decision about their purchase. No men that were interviewed
reported issues encountered in the purchase of a bike.
“I don’t know anything about bikes. I don’t know anyone with a bike that knows about bikes. So, it’s the knowledge factor which is a big
barrier. You know, you go into a store and they just want to sell you the biggest investors. The most expensive. Yeah, and I just, I don’t
have the knowledge to sort of work that out. It’s like it comes in different sizes according to, you know, your foot to your head or
something or other” (45–54-year-old woman, Stratum Three)
“I didn’t have a clue. I sort of felt that they had more serious cyclists to deal with and I was just a girlie who wanted a bike. I don’t know
that they saw it that way, but that’s how I thought they saw it.” (55–64-year-old woman, Stratum Four)
No women interviewed stated they were confident with the maintenance of their bike. Some reported that this affected their
confidence in riding a bike by themselves, as they were unsure of what they would do if there was a mechanical issue with their bike.

459
L. Pearson et al. Transportation Research Part F: Psychology and Behaviour 94 (2023) 453–465

“I kept thinking I would like to learn to commute by bike to work, but I was always worried I’d get a puncture and be late for work or
things like that” (35–44-year-old woman, Stratum Three)
“Just some basic knowledge around bike maintenance and bike fixing and that sort of thing. I mean, I’ve basically got a rough idea, but
I’ve never actually had to put it into place. So, learning those sorts of things would be really helpful to me. That confidence that if you get
stranded somewhere that you know, you’re not necessarily, you know, going to fall to pieces” (45–54-year-old woman, Stratum Three)
Men that were interviewed did not report maintenance as a barrier to their riding.
“[Bike maintenance is] no problem, I enjoy the process of taking them apart and rebuilding, so that’s no issue for me.” (25–34-year-old
man, Stratum Two)
One woman described trying to learn about bike maintenance, however feeling as if the resources available were not accessible to
her.
“I was looking at bike maintenance courses and it was kind of like, oh, they want to train people for a mechanic job…I borrowed some
books from the library, but it didn’t help because it was too generic. It was really aimed at people who understood stuff more than I did.”
(65–74-year-old woman, Stratum Three)
Other women spoke about the need for an accessible bike maintenance program where they could bring their own bike and be
taught basic bike mechanics. Some described why they would prefer if it were run specifically for women, by women.
“[Bike maintenance classes] would be good…Because a lot of women will just already have this subconscious thought that they’re not
as good as the men or they don’t know enough and they’ll ask stupid questions or something”. (55–64-year-old woman, Stratum Four)
“I had found that there was an organisation that used to run maintenance courses and special ones for women as well, but they weren’t
running them during the pandemic, so I never managed to get to do one of those…I would love to do a course like that if there was one in
[name of suburb]. I mean, I’m all about it.” (35–44-year old woman, Stratum Two)
Other women described that they had either joined a social bike group or bicycle user group, or were wanting to join, as they could
rely on the knowledge of other members.
“In this bicycle users’ group, there’s people that can do lots of things and they’ll say, Oh, that’s easy. Just do this, you know?” (55–64-
year-old woman, Stratum Four)
Several younger women in the sample reported that while they were not confident with maintenance if something were to happen
to their bike, they had purchased road-side assistance for their bike. They described that this took away the worry about what they
would do if they were unable to ride.
“It’s got a rider rescue program. So apparently like ten times a year, if you get stranded or if your bike breaks down, you don’t know how
to fix it… to me, I was like, oh, that just sounds like a life saver…that would help a lot of people who aren’t confident, especially if they’re
worried about little things like, what am I going to do…Services like that that make it easier to ride as a beginner, it’s helpful.” (18–24-
year-old woman, Stratum Two)
Subtheme: Speed difference between bikes and motor vehicle traffic
Women suggested that they did not feel confident in their physical ability to keep up with the speed of other bike riders or motor
vehicles. They described concern that they were holding people up, or would experience stressful passing events.
“In my experience on bike tracks that have popular and familiar with bike riders has not been very encouraging because I’m not a
confident rider, I’m not fast. And other bike riders can sometimes be rather impatient and not very friendly on a bike path. And that that
just increases my lack of confidence because I feel like I’m in the way of other bike riders.” (55–65-year-old woman, Stratum Three)
“Hills can sometimes be a bit unnerving. It’s not so much that I don’t think that I can get up them, but more that if I’m suddenly going at
snail’s pace and cars are overtaking me or I’m holding them up, that can be a bit stressful.” (35–44-year old woman, Stratum Two)
Men described differences in speed as stressful, and taking away from the pleasant sensory experience of riding, rather than a
concern about their ability to ride with the speed of motor vehicle traffic.
“If I’m on a major road, it’s a bit stressful. But if I’m on the creek or on a park and it’s pretty relaxing. Yeah, I’d rather not be in traffic on
the road.” (25–34-year-old man, Stratum Two)
Theme Two: People want to ride a bike, but safety concerns prevent some from riding
All participants described positive feelings toward bike riding, with many reflecting on their feelings of empowerment, enjoyment
and autonomy when they had ridden a bike.
“The sun is shining and it makes me happy, I get this sense of freedom, I’m in control of what I’m doing and where I’m going and it makes
me stop thinking about whatever else is going on in my life.” (55–64-year-old woman, Stratum Three)
“Feelings of freedom - freedom and joy. It’s like it’s me battling against nature and I’m surviving. So, it’s like, yeah, very independent,
free and yeah, just general good endorphins, I guess, just from exercising and being out outside.” (18–25-year-old man, Stratum One)
Despite this interest in and enjoyment of bike riding, both women and men reported consistent barriers relating to a lack of
dedicated bike infrastructure that permitted efficient, safe and well-connected trips. Women and men had concerns about being

460
L. Pearson et al. Transportation Research Part F: Psychology and Behaviour 94 (2023) 453–465

injured in a collision with a car, and found riding on the road alongside motor vehicle traffic stressful.
“I just want a protected bike lane. I don’t want to feel like I’m like potentially open to getting hit by a car.” (75 + year-old man, Stratum
Four)
“If a car is right next to you, you have to sort of keep your wits about you and make sure, you know, keep your eyes where they’re going,
make sure they can see you. All kinds of potentially catastrophic outcomes have to be accounted for. It’s just like you just have to process
more information than if you’re just riding along, you know, somewhere protected, which is just relaxing and good.” (55–64-year-old
man, Stratum Two)
“I wouldn’t ride on the road simply because I find it a bit daunting, I guess. I would go on a bike track… it is like, safer. I feel that it’s
safer. I don’t feel confident to go on the road. Mainly because of a lot of unfortunate accidents that can happen, and that has happened
over the years. So, I don’t want to put myself in that position.” (45–54-year-old woman, Stratum Three)
Women however, reported additional concerns about riding on the road alongside motor vehicle traffic without physical protec­
tion. Women described feeling as if they needed “space to fall”, where they described concern about injury if they fell off their bike and
onto incoming motor vehicle traffic, or onto a busy path used by faster bike riders.
“I’m probably concerned if I stopped suddenly or like, like fell off the bike, I was going to end up in oncoming traffic” (18–24-year-old
woman, Stratum Two)
Further, women described incidents of “road rage” that they had witness towards people riding bikes, and were concerned this
would happen to them.
“I’ve seen road rage when I’m in the car and I guess ever since then I haven’t felt comfortable to, to even consider going on the road on my
bike.” (35–44-year old woman, Stratum Two)
“I’ve been on the road for a long time and it’s only what I’ve seen…that car versus cycle thing is still real. If a bicycle holds that driver up,
something just goes wrong in that person’s brain…that’s the worst thing about me when I think of riding a bike. Who’s out to kill me this
week?” (55–64-year-old woman, Stratum Four)
Subtheme: Rain and wind are safety concerns.
Participants reported adverse weather as a substantial barrier to them riding a bike. Reasoning for this differed between women and
men. Women described that they were concerned particularly about rain and wind as it was another risk for them to consider. Some
described heavy rain posing an extra risk if they were to ride a bike on the road as it could limit motor vehicle driver’s ability to see and
react, and others described concern about wind influencing their ability to ride safely.
“I wouldn’t expect drivers…I think it’s just an added thing for drivers to have to worry about. Yeah. You know, old lady on a bike and,
you know, lights and, rain pelting down or something like that.” (55–64-year-old woman, Stratum Two)
“If days are really windy, honestly, that’s the day that I won’t ride. Like that’s what scares me the most because the bike lanes are so tiny.
I’m scared that if a gust of wind blows me over, I’ll just get, you know, rammed into a car or something like that” (45–54-year-old
woman, Stratum Two)
No men that were interviewed referred to weather as a safety issue. If it was mentioned as a barrier, this was described as relating to
their level of comfort riding a bike in heavy rain.
“I don’t like being covered in waterproof stuff and I don’t like getting wet. I don’t like being cold and wet.” (54–64-year old man,
Stratum Three)
Subtheme: Women want to ride with their children, but concerns about safety hinders potential trips.
In interviews, women with children described that having their children with them was only a concern if the infrastructure on a
particular trip was not of a certain standard so their children could ride with them. In particular, they preferred to be off-road.
“Because they’re under ten and they haven’t got that depth perception yet, I certainly wouldn’t have them on the roads. And even the one
who’s a bit older, I’m still don’t feel comfortable, although she’s probably up to it now, to ride on the roads” (35–44-year old woman,
Stratum Three)
Women preferred riding on protected bike paths or pop-up bike lane with their children, or on “bike-friendly” streets with low
traffic and speed. They reported concerns over lack of connectivity between bike lanes or paths, meaning they would need to detour
and ride a distance that was too far for their children to reach a destination.
“Elizabeth Street? No way. I’m riding down there with a six-year-old…No, not doing Swanston. And then I just went over in my mind. I
could not see a path. So, I mean… I could make those choices for myself as just as an individual. But if I’m trying to think about how I
would do it with (son’s name). Yeah, I wouldn’t…the alternate is to go through Docklands…but it just would have added way too much
distance and he wouldn’t have been able to make it.” (35–44-year old woman, Stratum Two)
Subtheme: Lighting and inclusive spaces
When women explained their preference for lighting in qualitative interviews, it was for both for visibility to prevent injury, and
personal safety. Women described specific scenarios where they felt most concerned about their personal safety, opting to either not
ride their bike, or only ride during daytime hours. This affected their ability to make commuter trips. When asked, men did not report
issues with lighting or areas where they felt their personal safety was threatened.

461
L. Pearson et al. Transportation Research Part F: Psychology and Behaviour 94 (2023) 453–465

“I don’t know if I’d ride by myself on the bike paths… I’d ride on the road with the lights. But I don’t know about bike paths because I live
out of the city, but I’m still a woman, you know? I think at night, on my own, I wouldn’t feel as safe as I do that day. And none of them
have got lighting, have they? I don’t know. Maybe in the city they do.” (55–64-year-old woman, Stratum Three)
“When I’m riding home on the beach bike paths, there’s not a lot of lighting at night either. I find that difficult as well, I just think that for
safety…Yeah. It just makes me feel a bit more confident if I’ve got a much better, you know, a visual of what’s in front of me.” (45–54-
year-old woman, Stratum Three)
When discussing lighting, some women described issues with particular types of infrastructure. In particular, underpasses with low
or no lighting were of concern.
“I mean it’s not ideal really and I’m not sure how safe I’d feel. I don’t know that I’d want to go on that underpass underneath.” (35–44-
year old woman, Stratum Three)
“On the Diamond Creek Trail there’s this underpass. Who designs these things, for God’s sake?… It’s so dark and…it’s just dangerous.”
(45–54-year-old woman, Stratum Three)

4. Discussion

In this study, we used a cross-sectional online survey to identify the barriers and enablers for riding a bike experienced by women
and men. We then conducted semi-structured interviews with 40 participants who were interested in riding a bike. We observed
significant differences between the barriers and enablers women and men experience for riding a bike, and identified two major
themes. A significantly higher proportion of women reported concerns about riding on the road alongside motor vehicle traffic
compared to men. Comparing barriers and enablers between women and men using both quantitative and qualitative methods, women
described additional barriers that men did not experience. Shared barriers between women and men had different explanations for why
they were a problem. Women and men described concerns over collision with motor vehicles from either aggressive or distracted
motorists. Exclusively women reported concerns about falling off their bike and into oncoming motor vehicle traffic, and highlighted
the need for ‘space to fall’, a finding not previously reported in published literature. Despite only a small proportion of women
reporting that they were unable to ride a bike, they described other knowledge-related issues where they were unsure about what kind
of bike to purchase, and how to maintain it. Some reported that they did not have this knowledge because they were a woman. These
issues were not reported by the men interviewed.
This study found that preference for separation from motor vehicle traffic was higher in women compared to men. This builds on
previous evidence that differences exist between the preference for infrastructure between women and men, where more women are
concerned about riding a bike on the road and prefer separated infrastructure (Aldred et al., 2017; Emond, Tang, & Handy, 2009;
Garrard, Rose, & Lo, 2008; Heesch et al., 2012). Previous literature has described these experiences by women as being due to fear of
harassment, a lack of confidence and concern about being injured in a collision with a motor vehicle (Heim LaFrombois, 2019; Russell
et al., 2021; Steinbach et al., 2011). A significantly higher proportion of women in this study reported concern about being injured
from falling off their bike compared to men. Women in the qualitative sample had three major concerns when riding on the road with
cars, including not being able to keep up with the speed of motor vehicle traffic and causing frustration, that being on the road may
result in injury from a motorist acting aggressively or being distracted, and that they would fall off their bike and into motor vehicle
traffic, resulting in potentially serious injury. Provision of infrastructure that is physically separated from motor vehicle traffic may
support more women to ride a bike through reducing motor vehicle interactions, reducing the risk of motor vehicle collision injury,
reducing the potential for aggressive behaviour from motor vehicle drivers and by allowing sufficient space for inexperienced riders.
A higher proportion of women reported lack of physical fitness for riding a bike compared to men, and women described concerns
about not having the confidence to ‘keep up’ with the speed of motor vehicle traffic and other bikes. Findings are consistent with other
published research showing a lack of confidence as a major barrier for women riding a bike (Heesch et al., 2012). Similar, women in
previous qualitative research, describe concern over the ‘assertive’ style they perceive as required for riding a bike (Steinbach et al.,
2011) and a need to demand and negotiate public space from men (Heim LaFrombois, 2019). Potential strategies to overcome this
barrier include providing interventions for women to unlearn perceptions that they are in the way of faster traffic (Sersli, Gislason,
Scott, & Winters, 2021), and through e-bikes. E-bikes may assist in overcoming confidence-related barriers women experience to riding
a bike by removing concerns of physical ability. In a case study in Aotearoa New Zealand, women describe e-bikes as enabling them to
“keep up” with other riders, and that they no longer felt they were “holding people up” (Wild, Woodward, & Shaw, 2021). However,
due to cost and access-related issues, this solution may only benefit women in higher-socioeconomic positions (Mayer, 2020). Ini­
tiatives to increase the affordability of e-bikes may assist in equitable access to potentially enabling technology (Blewden, Hawley,
Raja, Thorne, and Mackie, 2021).
This study demonstrated gendered knowledge gaps between women and men regarding bikes. Women reported concerns about not
knowing what kind of bike they needed, and not knowing how to maintain or fix their bike if there was a mechanical fault, also
demonstrated in other previous studies (Heesch et al., 2012). As described by Bonham and Johnson (2015), bikes themselves have
been developed into a gendered object, in part influencing bike riding being a gendered activity. Further, bike and bike riding
advertising and media are often targeted toward, and represented by men (Rissel, Bonfiglioli, Emilsen, & Smith, 2010; Shuman, 1992).
Evaluation of education programs for bike maintenance show that women make up the majority the people attending (Sersli, DeVries,
Gislason, Scott, & Winters, 2019), highlighting that women are interested in learning about bikes. The perpetuation of bikes being a
gendered object may be a barrier to women accessing information about bikes, influencing their ability to make informed and

462
L. Pearson et al. Transportation Research Part F: Psychology and Behaviour 94 (2023) 453–465

confident choices about purchase and maintenance. As described by Daley and Rissel (2011), there is need to improve messaging of
bike riding as being an everyday, accessible physical activity that can be undertaken by all genders. Further, accessible bicycle
maintenance courses that aim to address individual-level barriers such as skills, knowledge, and confidence may be useful in
conjunction in other infrastructural changes may enable greater numbers of women to ride a bike (Sersli, Scott, & Winters, 2019).
Women who had children in this study described wanting to ride with their children, but only in protected infrastructure or where
there was low volume, and low speed motor vehicle traffic, and other ‘cycle-friendly’ features. Previous research exploring the needs of
women who ride with children describe a preference for off-road biking to keep children away from road traffic, and cite specific issues
with riding on-road, including parked vehicles and narrow streets (Sersli, Gislason, Scott, & Winters, 2020). Women in this study
particularly expressed concern over the lack of connectivity between available infrastructure that was suitable for riding with their
children, meaning they would need to take substantial detours in order to utilise infrastructure that they perceived to be safe for
themselves and their child/children. This resulted in longer distances which were not possible with children. Considering the difficulty
in implementing high-quality protected and connected bike infrastructure across entire cities (Aldred, Croft, & Goodman, 2019; Wilson
& Mitra, 2020), connections of very low motor vehicle volume and speed could be effective. Further research exploring the subjective
experience of people and families travelling in a variety of infrastructure types may benefit this understanding.
Nearly half of the women in the survey reported well-lit areas as an enabler of them riding their bike. In the qualitative phase,
women described specific areas and types of infrastructure where they felt a threat to their person safety on a bike. These findings are
consistent with other literature, where women report acute experiences of fears for their personal safety on their travel journeys (Frater
& Kingham, 2018; Russell et al., 2021; Steinbach et al., 2011). Concerns about safety in specific areas may result in women altering or
altogether cutting out travel to places (Gargiulo et al., 2020). Despite these concerns, there is evidence that changes in urban envi­
ronment can affect women’s perception of safety (Harvey, Aultman-Hall, Hurley, & Troy, 2015; Navarrete-Hernandez, Vetro, &
Concha, 2021). A common response to this is installation of further lighting to enhance perceived safety, however there is evidence
that this is not sufficient (Lighting, 2019). Instead, the quality of lighting, and the materials the lighting reflects from influence
women’s perceived safety in an area (Kalms, Hunt, and Yang, 2019). Interventions codesigned with women from a range of back­
grounds to increase the perceived safety in areas of concern may be beneficial, as has been done in other transport spaces (Matthewson
& Kalms, 2021). Inclusion of end-users (women) through a process of identification of areas of concern, design and testing of potential
interventions would enable development of urban environments that meet their needs. By creating inclusive spaces, this may reduce
the acute concerns women have for their personal safety when on a bike.
This study presents new findings that give explanation and understanding to commonly reported barriers and enablers, including
concerns about riding on the road, weather and physical fitness. It is the first study in Australia to use mixed-methods design involving
qualitative data collection to explore barriers to bike riding, providing much needed insight into the needs of people who want to ride a
bike. The use of mixed methods enabled understanding of different explanations women and men have for reporting particular barriers
and enablers to riding a bike. By identifying these explanations, appropriate actions can be taken to increase equitable bike riding
participation. Further, we utilised an evidence-based framework for behaviour change, the TDF, to enable better understanding of the
barriers to and enablers of riding a bike. This permitted understanding of potential factors not well captured through participants and
researcher’s initial conceptions of what factors effect bike riding, such as how individuals weigh barriers and enablers together.
This study is not, however, without limitations. While there were 11 responses collected in the quantitative phase from people who
identify as either non-binary or gender diverse, robust analyses were unable to be conducted between gender stratifications. This is
important as non-binary and/or gender diverse people have unique experiences of transport, where they may take less direct routes,
and use more expensive travel alternative to mitigate potential personal safety issues (Weintrob, Hansell, Zebracki, Barnard, & Lucas,
2021). As data regarding ethnicity and socioeconomic status were not recorded for the qualitative phase, an intersectional approach to
analysis was unable to be conducted. While we present the gendered differences in barriers to riding a bike, there are likely a diversity
of barriers that women experience not well captured by not using an intersectional approach, such as those described in Russell et al.
(2021). Further research of women and bike riding should consider taking further measures to consider intersectionality.
This study provides important insight into the barriers women that are interested in riding a bike experience. We found significant
differences between the barriers and enablers women and men experience for riding a bike, including a higher proportion of women
having concerns about riding on the road alongside motor vehicle traffic. Further, we identified a novel finding of women being
concerned about falling from their bike into oncoming motor vehicle traffic, or other bike riders. The incorporation of qualitative data
allowed explanation of barriers with previously limited knowledge, including weather being a safety-related variable, and specific
reasons for concerns about travelling on the road. Future planning to increase participation in bike riding must consider the needs and
perspectives of women to create spaces that enable equitable participation in bike riding, enhancing transport and health equities.

5. Financial Disclosure

Lauren Pearson receives a Research Training Program Stipend from the Australian Government as a part of her PhD. Belinda Gabbe
was supported by an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (FT170100048). Ben Beck was supported by an Australian
Research Council Future Fellowship (FT210100183).

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Lauren Pearson: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing, Visualization, Project administration. Sandy Reeder: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Resources, Writing –

463
L. Pearson et al. Transportation Research Part F: Psychology and Behaviour 94 (2023) 453–465

review & editing, Supervision. Belinda Gabbe: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Resources, Writing – review & editing,
Supervision. Ben Beck: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing, Supervision, Visualization, Project administration.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Data availability

The data that has been used is confidential.

Appendix A. Supplementary material

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2023.03.010.

References

Aldred, R., Croft, J., & Goodman, A. (2019). Impacts of an active travel intervention with a cycling focus in a suburban context: One-year findings from an evaluation
of London’s in-progress mini-Hollands programme. Transportation Research Part a-Policy and Practice, 123, 147–169.
Aldred, R., Elliott, B., Woodcock, J., & Goodman, A. (2017). Cycling provision separated from motor traffic: A systematic review exploring whether stated preferences
vary by gender and age. Transport Reviews, 37, 29–55.
Atkins, L., Francis, J., Islam, R., O’Connor, D., Patey, A., Ivers, N., … Michie, S. (2017). A guide to using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change to
investigate implementation problems. Implementation Science, 12, 1–18.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2016b). 2016 Census QuickStats - Greater Melbourne.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2018). Census of Population and Housing, 2016, 2011 and 2006.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2016a). 2016 Census. Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Beck, B., Winters, M., Thompson, J., Stevenson, M., & Pettit, C. (2021). Spatial variation in bicycling: A retrospective review of travel survey data from Greater
Melbourne, Australia. SocArXiv Papers.
Beck, B., Winters, M., Nelson, T., Pettit, C., Leao, S. Z., Saberi, M., …, Stevenson, M. (2022). Developing urban biking typologies: Quantifying the complex interactions
of bicycle ridership, bicycle network and built environment characteristics. Environment and Planning B-Urban Analytics and City Science, 23998083221100827.
Blewden, M., Hawley, G., Raja, A., Thorne, R., & Mackie, H. (2021). Impacts of a public sector e-bike scheme: final evaluation report.
Bauman, A. E., Blazek, K., Reece, L., & Bellew, W. (2018). The emergence and characteristics of the Australian Mamil. Medical Journal of Australia, 209(11), 490–494.
Bonham, J., & Johnson, M. (2015). Cycling futures. University of Adelaide Press.
Celis-Morales, C. A., Lyall, D. M., Welsh, P., Anderson, J., Steell, L., Guo, Y. B., … Gill, J. M. R. (2017). Association between active commuting and incident
cardiovascular disease, cancer, and mortality: Prospective cohort study. Bmj-British Medical Journal, 357, Article j1456.
Daley, M., & Rissel, C. (2011). Perspectives and images of cycling as a barrier or facilitator of cycling. Transport Policy, 18, 211–216.
Dill, J., & McNeil, N. (2013). Four types of cyclists? Examination of typology for better understanding of bicycling behavior and potential. Transportation Research
Record, 2387, 129–138.
Emond, C. R., Tang, W., & Handy, S. L. (2009). Explaining gender difference in bicycling behavior. Transportation Research Record, 2125, 16–25.
Fishman, E., Washington, S., & Haworth, N. (2012). Barriers and facilitators to public bicycle scheme use: A qualitative approach. Transportation Research Part F-Traffic
Psychology and Behaviour, 15, 686–698.
Frater, J., & Kingham, S. (2018). Gender equity in health and the influence of intrapersonal factors on adolescent girls’ decisions to bicycle to school. Journal of
Transport Geography, 71, 130–138.
Gargiulo, I., Garcia, X., Benages-Albert, M., Martinez, J., Pfeffer, K., & Vall-Casas, P. (2020). Women’s safety perception assessment in an urban stream corridor:
Developing a safety map based on qualitative GIS. Landscape and Urban Planning, 198, Article 103779.
Garrard, J., Rose, G., & Lo, S. K. (2008). Promoting transportation cycling for women: The role of bicycle infrastructure. Preventive Medicine, 46, 55–59.
Gatersleben, B., & Appleton, K. M. (2007). Contemplating cycling to work: Attitudes and perceptions in different stages of change. Transportation Research Part a-Policy
and Practice, 41, 302–312.
Geller, R. (2006). Four types of cyclists. Portland, OR: Portland Office of Transportation.
Goel, R., Goodman, A., Aldred, R., Nakamura, R., Tatah, L., Garcia, L. M. T., … de Nazelle, A. (2022). Cycling behaviour in 17 countries across 6 continents: Levels of
cycling, who cycles, for what purpose, and how far? Transport Reviews, 42, 58–81.
Hall, W. A., Long, B., Bermbach, N., Jordan, S., & Patterson, K. (2005). Qualitative teamwork issues and strategies: Coordination through mutual adjustment.
Qualitative Health Research, 15, 394–410.
Harvey, C., Aultman-Hall, L., Hurley, S. E., & Troy, A. (2015). Effects of skeletal streetscape design on perceived safety. Landscape and Urban Planning, 142, 18–28.
Haustein, S., Koglin, T., Nielsen, T. A. S., & Svensson, Å. (2020). A comparison of cycling cultures in Stockholm and Copenhagen. International Journal of Sustainable
Transportation, 14, 280–293.
Heesch, K. C., Sahlqvist, S., & Garrard, J. (2012). Gender differences in recreational and transport cycling: A cross-sectional mixed-methods comparison of cycling
patterns, motivators, and constraints. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 9, 106.
Heim LaFrombois, M. E. (2019). (Re)Producing and challenging gender in and through urban space: Women bicyclists’ experiences in Chicago. Gender, Place &
Culture, 26, 659–679.
Kalms, N., Hunt, T., & Yang, H. (2019). More lighting alone does not create safer cities. Look at what research with young women tells us.
Leyland, L. A., Spencer, B., Beale, N., Jones, T., & van Reekum, C. M. (2019). The effect of cycling on cognitive function and well-being in older adults. PLoS One1, 14,
e0211779.
Lighting, A. (2019). Perceptions of safety lighting study. Arup Melbourne.
Malterud, K., Siersma, V. D., & Guassora, A. D. (2015). Sample size in qualitative interview studies. Qualitative Health Research., 26(13), 1753–1760.
Matthewson, G., & Kalms, N. (2021). Unwanted sexual behaviour and public transport: The imperative for gender-sensitive co-design. In Advancing a Design Approach
to Enriching Public Mobility (pp. 53–67). Springer.
Mayer, A. (2020). Motivations and barriers to electric bike use in the U.S.: Views from online forum participants. International Journal of Urban Sustainable
Development, 12, 160–168.

464
L. Pearson et al. Transportation Research Part F: Psychology and Behaviour 94 (2023) 453–465

Navarrete-Hernandez, P., Vetro, A., & Concha, P. (2021). Building safer public spaces: Exploring gender difference in the perception of safety in public space through
urban design interventions. Landscape and Urban Planning, 214, Article 104180.
Oja, P., Titze, S., Bauman, A., de Geus, B., Krenn, P., Reger-Nash, B., & Kohlberger, T. (2011). Health benefits of cycling: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of
Medicine & Science in Sports, 21, 496–509.
Pearson, L., Dipnall, J., Gabbe, B., Braaf, S., White, S., Backhouse, M., & Beck, B. (2022). The potential for bike riding across entire cities: Quantifying spatial variation
in interest in bike riding. Journal of Transport & Health, 24, Article 101290.
Pearson, L. K., Berkovic, D., Reeder, S., Gabbe, B. J., & Beck, B. (2022). Adults’ self-reported barriers and enablers to riding a bike for transport: a systematic review.
medRxiv.
Prati, G. (2018). Gender equality and women’s participation in transport cycling. Journal of Transport Geography, 66, 369–375.
QSR International Pty Ltd. (2018). NVivo In (12 Pro ed.).
Qualtrics. (2005). Qualtrics. Provo, Utah, USA.
Rissel, C., Bonfiglioli, C., Emilsen, A., & Smith, B. J. (2010). Representations of cycling in metropolitan newspapers - Changes over time and differences between
Sydney and Melbourne, Australia. BMC Public Health, 10, 1–8.
Ritchie, J., & Spencer, L. (2002). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In Analyzing qualitative data (pp. 187–208). Routledge.
RStudio Team. (2020). RStudio: Integrated development for R. Boston, MA: RStudio, PBC.
Russell, M., Davies, C., Wild, K., & Shaw, C. (2021). Pedalling towards equity: Exploring women’s cycling in a New Zealand city. Journal of Transport Geography, 91,
Article 102987.
Sersli, S., DeVries, D., Gislason, M., Scott, N., & Winters, M. (2019). Changes in bicycling frequency in children and adults after bicycle skills training: A scoping
review. Transportation Research Part a-Policy and Practice, 123, 170–187.
Sersli, S., Scott, N., & Winters, M. (2019). Effectiveness of a bicycle skills training intervention on increasing bicycling and confidence: A longitudinal quasi-experimental study.
[References]: Journal of Transport & Health, 14, ArtID 100577.
Sersli, S., Gislason, M., Scott, N., & Winters, M. (2020). Riding alone and together: Is mobility of care at odds with mothers’ bicycling? Journal of Transport Geography,
83.
Sersli, S., Gislason, M., Scott, N., & Winters, M. (2021). Easy as riding a bike? Bicycling competence as (re)learning to negotiate space. Qualitative Research in Sport,
Exercise and Health, 14, 268–288.
Shuman, S. (1992). Two classes of DNA end-joining reactions catalyzed by vaccinia topoisomerase I. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 267, 16755–16758.
SonixSonix. (2020). Sonix. San Francisco.
Steinbach, R., Green, J., Datta, J., & Edwards, P. (2011). Cycling and the city: A case study of how gendered, ethnic and class identities can shape healthy transport
choices. Social Science & Medicine, 72, 1123–1130.
Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. W. (2007). The new era of mixed methods (pp. 3–7). Sage Publications.
Warburton, D. E., Nicol, C. W., & Bredin, S. S. (2006). Health benefits of physical activity: The evidence. CMAJ Canadian Medical Association Journal, 174, 801–809.
Weintrob, A., Hansell, L., Zebracki, M., Barnard, Y., & Lucas, K. (2021). Queer mobilities: Critical LGBTQ perspectives of public transport spaces. Mobilities, 16,
775–791.
Wild, K., Woodward, A., & Shaw, C. (2021). Gender and the E-bike: Exploring the role of electric bikes in increasing women’s access to cycling and physical activity.
Active Travel Studies, 1.
Wilson, A., & Mitra, R. (2020). Implementing cycling infrastructure in a politicized space: Lessons from Toronto, Canada. Journal of Transport Geography, 86, Article
102760.

465