Lovely or otherwise, should women cycle?
The outrageous history of Victorian female cyclists.
“The shouts and yells of the children deafen one, the women shriek with laughter or groan and hiss and all sorts of remarks are shouted at one, occasionally some not fit for publication.”
What on earth could the writer be doing to cause such a reaction? The answer is riding a bike through the streets of London. The year is 1897, and the person who wrote this was called Kitty J Buckman, who was writing to her friend. Was a bike a weird and unusual thing to see? The answer is no. By the 1890s, bicycles were not at all uncommon. They had progressed from the first inventions, through the precarious Penny
Farthing, which looked just as odd and dangerous to Victorian eyes as it does today, to The Ordinary. This chain-driven bicycle with a diamondshaped frame and two equally sized wheels was very similar in appearance and mechanics to today’s models. It was much safer than a Penny Farthing, easier to ride, and less expensive.
The Penny Farthing was for daredevil gentlemen, who had the time and money to master it. The Ordinary was for the middle classes to get about. They adopted it en masse and a colossal cycling craze was born.
The thing was, cycling was a manly pursuit. It had to do with speed, mechanics, travel, physical exercise, and skill. It was entirely outside of the domestic sphere, and cyclists were independent. That was what was so very funny. It was ridiculous for a woman to do something like that! Getting all red in the face and messing her hair up. Sitting astride a saddle with her legs apart. Wearing practical clothing. Visiting foreign towns alone, or with other female friends. Or, even worse, with a male friend! Using up her limited lifetime’s supply of energy, and damaging her reproductive organs in the process. There were so many reasons why women should not cycle. The Hub, a cycling magazine, gave its thoughts on 19 Sept 1896:
“Should women cycle? A medical view of the question.
“Women must remember that they belong to a sex which for centuries has not been accustomed to prolonged exercise in the open air and therefore must act with the discretion and caution which would be quite unnecessary on a man’s part.
“Every woman who rides a wheel should understand that she can do so in moderation only, and if she attempts more she will pay for it dearly. The penalties may not be inflicted this year or next, but they are bound to come.”
Not only that, but there was the question of morality. Tricycles, which had been moderately popular before, offered a modest seating position with the legs together. But they were slow and cumbersome. There was also a danger of getting skirts caught in the mechanism. But bikes were ridden astride, legs apart and visibly moving.
They were even more visible if trousers were worn to make things easier. The reminder that a woman had legs under those long skirts was a shocking thing.
One writer asserted that cycling was “an indolent and indecent practice that could even transport girls to prostitution”.
In general, women were mocked, demeaned, and frowned upon for getting on a bike. Comic illustrations abounded, showing women in trousers standing with their bikes, puffing on pipes and looking down on men in skirts who were dealing with crying babies, insinuating that bicycles were causing a revolution in gender roles. Or they showed helpless women, completely overcome when trying to cycle, unable to handle such a complicated machine.
However, women were entirely capable of ignoring all this. It didn’t stop them. Lady cyclists continued to cycle from
town to town, and several professional female cyclists became extremely famous. Cycle racing was immensely popular in the 1890s, and the press closely covered the men’s events. Although this was positioned more as a novelty, women raced too - it was exciting to see women breaking all the rules by cycling fast and furiously. What would they wear? Would they get all sweaty? Would they fall off?
“To a man of old-fashioned views it is rather a bouleversement of ideas to watch perspiring females cycling against time for all the world to see”, said the Pall Mall Gazette, on 10 Dec 1896. “It must be conceded that woman - lovely or otherwise - does not appear to great advantage in a bicycle race” according to the Sydney Morning Herald, 2 Dec 1896.
Tessie Reynolds was only sixteen when she set a record for cycling from London to Brighton and back - a distance of over 100 miles - in 8 hours and 30 minutes in October 1893. There were crowds of people lining the roads to watch her, and postcards of Miss Reynolds in her controversial “French cycling costume” were extremely popular. It consisted of pantaloons “cropped and cinched below the knee”, with stockings and ankle boots beneath, and a shirt and long coat above, topped with a straw hat. Reynolds was a proponent of dress reform and campaigned for more comfortable clothing for women, not just in cycling but in everyday life.
Newspapers and magazines complained about the “scantiness” of the outfit and fretted they didn’t want to see a woman’s “abnormal hips” pedalling a bike. However, the stunt was a great success for the rational clothing movement. American and other foreign journals printed her photo in the outfit. When she was 18, she applied to start a Brighton branch of the national Female Cycling Association but was denied, ostensibly because of her youth but probably because of her scandalous associations. She continued wearing her outfit for competitions, and also promoted bikes with frames designed specifically for women. Later in life, Reynolds became a road safety officer, another unusual career for women of the period.
Rosina Lane (Amelia Rosina Duerre)
was another famous figure in the cycling world. In contrast to the very young Tessie Reynolds, her career began at 35, after having four children. Rosina Lane was her maiden and professional name, perhaps to distance herself from her husband, Arthur Duerre, who was also a professional cyclist. Amongst other places, they both raced at the Royal Aquarium in West London. This was a specially built velodrome inside a pleasure garden where professional cycling events were regularly held alongside other entertainments.
Whilst waiting for the race to start, you could watch some dancing elephants, boxing kangaroos or a magician. It was perhaps inevitable that female cyclists were judged as a similar novelty act in this kind of setting.
In 1896 Lane had won 22 races and took home about £100 per annum (about £12,000 today) in wages and winnings. That year she took part in a six-day, eight hours a day relay race at the Aquarium. The organisers had advertised for competitors in both England and France, “Fair ladies preferred”. Travel and hotel stays were paid for, as well as a small wage. There were four teams of three riders. Lane’s team came last, but her personal total was an astonishing 365 miles, placing her fourth out of twelve. The overall winner, Monica Harwood, won £100, a gold purse, a jewelled watch, and a diamond-studded gold bracelet. As well as this, at least one male onlooker showered participants with cash prizes, a bit like a customer at a strip club tucking a note in someone’s garters.
The press commented mainly on the appearance and outfits of the participants. The Referee & Cycle Trade Journal mentioned ‘contorted faces, bent backs, hair fair flying wildly around their heads, their costumes soaked in certain spots where perspiration had oozed through’. According to Berrow’s Worcester Journal: “They all wore knickerbockers […]. The French ladies wore a tightfitting jersey which formed one piece with the breeches and several wore sashes of distinguishing colours. The English ladies wore pretty blouses decked with ribbons, and their hair daintily dressed, while the French ladies wore their hair in plain ‘bobs’ at the back’. The Manchester Guardian said:’ The French girls nearly all wore golf jerseys, full bloomers to the knee, and belts or silk sashes. The English girls had a variety of costumes, about the ugliest being a tight-fitting tailor bodice, worn with knickerbockers, and a skirt drawn up with cords into a tunic. A competitor aged fourteen
was got up in tight satin breeches, embroidered stockings, and an elaborate blouse with a scarf’.
The outfit which was described as “the ugliest” was Lane’s. She was wearing a convertible skirt which her sister-in-law, Alice Bygrave had invented. The idea was that it could be tugged upwards for cycling or let down when the rider got off the bike, thus looking like a conventional outfit and avoiding ridicule. The design had a patent and a title, “The Bygrave convertible skirt”. Rosina was wearing the costume as an advert for her family. Despite the sniffy comment from The Guardian, it was a popular and successful product.
Unfortunately, Lane’s career came to a sudden end only a couple of years later after an accident in Richmond Park, where she and her bike were crushed against a wall by a carriage. In court, witnesses said she had her head down and was cycling fast, so it was her fault. The opposition brought up a previous court attendance and fine for Scorching - fast, reckless, unladylike cycling - scorching the roads. But whatever her riding style, she would have had little chance against a horse and carriage on the wrong side of the road, which this one incontrovertibly was. She won the case but was only given £55 in damages, and had a lifelong disability. These were not the only time Rosina was in court. Later she was convicted of running an illegal betting house. After that, the papers had a field day during her acrimonious divorce from her husband, a very unusual action at the time. She may never have cycled again, but she seems to have had an interesting life nevertheless.
Kitty Buckman, Tessie Reynolds, Rosina Lane and Alice Bygrave are only a few examples of the determined, spirited and independent women who are our bicycling forebears. Countless others ran the gamut of catcalls and comments, invented products and accessories and kept on cycling so that today, we can thank them for our freedom on the roads.