Kingston Council in southwest London withdrew a statement from an equalities impact assessment that claimed e‑bikes would help women “stay looking nice.” The council issued an apology, removed the line and replaced it with a broader claim about active travel, after residents condemned the wording as sexist.

Kingston Council's "stay looking nice" comment sparks backlash

The original equalities report said e‑bikes could "make it easier for women to meet their traditional domestic responsibilities, as well as stay looking nice on a bike." Residents reacted angrily, labeling the language a "two‑tier approach to equalities" and accusing the council of treating women as second‑class citizens. As reported, the comment was quickly shared on social media, amplifying the criticism.

Liberal Democrat control of Kingston Council under scrutiny

The council, led by Liberal Democrat councillors, now faces questions about its internal review processes. Critics argue that the party’s commitment to progressive policies is undermined when outdated gender stereotypes appear in official documents. According to the report, the council has pledged to work with communities to ensure everyone feels safe, valued and heard,but the incident has put its equality credentials on the line.

Revised EQIA replaces sexist line with active‑travel focus

The offending sentence was removed and rewritten to state that e‑bikes "may increase active travel amongst women as well as the wider population by, for example, enabling carrying of goods or shopping and allowing more complex trip chaining." This new wording shifts the emphasis from appearance to practicl benefits,aligning with broader UK goals to boost cycling participation across demographics.

Council cites peer‑reviewed paper as source of offending quote

In its apology,Kingston Council explained that the controversial phrase was a direct quote from a peer‑reviewed academic paper used in the assessment.. The council admitted that extracting the quote without context was a mistake and that it should not have been included in the EQIA. this admission highlights a gap between academic research and public‑facing policy language.

Who approved the original wording?

The report does not identify which officer or committee signed off on the original language, leaving a key accountability question unanswered. Residents continue to demand transparency about the internal review chain that allowed the phrase to be published.

According to the council’s statement, the apology is intended to demonstrate a commitment to more mindful language in future reports. the incident serves as a reminder that even well‑intentioned policy documents can perpetuate outdated stereotypes when context is ignored.