Absolutely, just as soon as I can induce you to read the article.

There you might learn that the council of Cambridgeshire is going to spend money on a review of the current gritting network to ensure that it is up-to-date and cost effective, as slip-and-fall claims that occur on the roads and sidewalks that go unsalted in favor of more major thouroughfares against the city cost money that might otherwise be saved if these sidewalks and residential roads took more of a precedence and potentially save money in the long run by implementing a more equitable and efficient system.

No where does it state that the service to major roads will be cut. Intentional, scientifically executed oversight of government services are necessary and if it takes a bit of a kick in the ass to make it happen, so be it.

>but prioritising footpaths over major service roads is idiotic

Why does it have to be one or the other? He's not saying "stop salting major roads" that's a false dichotomy.

The argument isn't about whether or not to treat roads, it's about the fact that roads more heavily used by stay-at-home caretakers aren't being salted. Those aren't just private estate roads, they are the public roads between residential areas, the roads that don't necessarily all go through business centers. This issue stretches beyond just the "gritting routes" it's also a public transportation issue that travel between residential neighborhoods is a lot more difficult, expensive, and poorly executed to manage than travel to business centers.

But it's a fact. More men do drive to work than women. Simply acknowledging reality isn't sexist, nor is it saying that women don't work at all. The routes from residential areas to business areas are well salted . But then the routes caretakers use to drive the children around to school and activities, visit family in other residential areas, and to do general tasks that aren't in business areas aren't as salted because their needs aren't being considered.

The salting route policy is favoring workers needs and not caretakers needs. And because those roles are statistically fulfilled by men and women respectively, the policy is sexist. It effects women negatively more often than men. Acknowledging a majority doesn't ignore that some women work and some men are stay-at-home caretakers.

They're the kind of work that housewives do - going to other homes to help out their families, grocery shopping, other shopping, dropping off and picking up children from school, social activities, doctors appointments.

Why? Honestly, what's the problem with that analysis?