My last post was an invitation to Brisbane’s upcoming BikeHack19 event. I have had a lot of interesting responses and conversations with friends and colleagues about this event and suggestions for pitches.
I asked Alison Turner, a dear friend, if she would like to come to BikeHack19 with me.
Alison and I have worked on a number of creative projects before. She not only has a head for business and project managing, but she is a skilled artist in her own right and I have called on her (many times!) when working on this-or-that thing either to cast her discerning eye over an idea, to practically help solve a design issue or just to join in making whatever it is I’m working on.
She is great company, a skilled artist, a flexible thinker and killer at scrabble – everything you want in a project buddy!
Unfortunately though, Alison can’t come to
BikeHack19.
But the offer got her thinking.
Alison worked for Australia Sailing for many years and was in charge of training and increasing participation in sailing in Queensland. So unbeknownst to me, she set her business prowess and program insights to good work. After doing some research of her own, she used her experience promoting sailing participation to the BikeHack19 cycling challenge and brainstormed some ideas.
The next time I saw Alison, she presented
me with her brainstorm (see below) and explained it in detail – it was spot on.
Alison and her BikeHack19 brainstorm.
We chatted about the similarities in crossover
of participation issues between sailing and cycling – and how much transferability
there was between the two sports.
I love having people like Alison in our community.
She is an example of those who not only freely give their time and ideas to friends,
but who are equally excited to apply the same effort and passion to building a
more cohesive and active community – what a gift!
I am very appreciative to Alison.
Thanks so much for your ideas and time!
I will definitely be taking these ideas to
BikeHack19.
Here is the fourth and last in the US bicycle politics review essay series written by Dr Jennifer Bonham. This review detailed three key texts. The first post outlined the socio-political context to set the scene. The second post reviewed the book ‘Pedal Power: The quiet rise of the bicycle in American public life’ while the last post focused on Zack Furness’ ‘One Less Car: Bicycling and the Politics of Automobility’. This post looks at Jeff Mapes’ Pedaling Revolution: How Cyclists are Changing American Cities’ which rounds off a very comprehensive and informed discussion about the history and activities of bicycle politics in the USA. This book in an especially valuable inclusion to this discussion given that according to Dr Bonham ‘it comes the closest to conjuring a culture of cycling which values diverse mobilities’ of all the books reviewed. A massive thank you to Dr Bonham for sharing her research, thoughts and passion. Enjoy! NG.
Mapes, J. (2009). Pedaling revolution: How cyclists are changing American cities. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.
More Space
Jeff Mapes’ Pedaling
Revolution: How Cyclists are Changing American Cities targets a general
readership as he traces changes in the status and popularity of cycling in the
United States. A senior political reporter with The Oregonian, Mapes’
sympathy for bicycling is informed by debates over the livability of American
cities, health and the built environment, and the costs of suburbanization and
automobile-oriented transport systems. Mapes does not explicitly challenge
fundamental notions of technological progress or dominant values of
individualism and materialism. Rather, he argues, automobile-oriented transport
systems bring a range of problems—suburban sprawl, affordability, exclusion and
constraint— that will worsen into the future. His analysis is concerned with
the formal political institutions—parliament, elected and appointed officials
in all spheres of government, legislation, funding arrangements—he believes are
essential to increasing bicycle use.
Mapes introduces his
book with a description of the different people to be observed riding bicycles
in North American cities today. As he challenges cycling stereotypes, he is
also quite aware this latest turn to bicycling may be short lived, just one
more crest in a series of highs and lows that reach from the nineteenth to the
twenty-first centuries. The bright moments for “everyday” cycling in the United
States have occurred under “not so everyday” conditions. The 1940s boom came
with wartime petrol rationing and the 1970s boom amid the fuel shortages of the
oil crisis. But Mapes traces threads from the 1970s to the present day as he identifies
the people (bike advocates, bureaucrats, industry representatives,
politicians), maps the legislation (ISTEA), and describes the ideas and
programs (e.g. Safe Routes to School) he believes have enabled a recent
resurgence in cycling.
Once he has
positioned the United States on the brink of change, Mapes turns his attention
to the Netherlands for a glimpse of what the future might hold. He provides a
detailed description of the infrastructure, road rules, etiquette, legislation,
and funding arrangements in place in the Netherlands. Mapes emphasizes the
importance of the Dutch government’s political will in re-orienting the
transport system to accommodate all modes of transport (not just the
automobile) and, in contrast to Wray, he explains this re-orientation largely
in terms of the 1970s oil crisis.
Mapes, like Wray,
discusses the various roles played by bike advocates, advocacy groups, activist
events and sympathetic politicians in developing a culture of cycling in U.S.
cities. The discussion is rich with examples as he takes readers on a cycling
tour of three U.S. cities: the university town of Davis, California; Portland,
Oregon; and New York. Combining tour with commentary, Mapes describes the
streets he cycles along and uses buildings, landmarks, and pieces of
infrastructure as entry points into the network of people, organizations,
events and opportunities he argues have been instrumental in the development of
local cycling cultures. The “bicycle tour” through these cities is particularly
useful as it situates cycling within the broader context of debates about
public space, sub/urbanization, urban planning and transport. In doing this,
Mapes draws back from the car versus bike dichotomy bringing into view myriad
elements, actions and relations that make up the urban landscape and shape
mobility practices today.
Mapes’ cycling
advocacy is keen but measured. In the final chapters, he focuses on the three
issues he clearly considers to be at the heart of livable cities: cyclist
safety, health, and children’s independent mobility. He presents a useful
summary of the contrasting views of “cyclist safety” from prominent U.S.
cycling activists—including John Forester’s “vehicular cycling,” Randy
Neufield’s traffic calming approach and Anne Lusk’s segregated bikeways—and
discusses their implications for transport infrastructure, public space and the
conduct of the journey by bike.
These debates
currently reverberate in developed and developing countries across the globe.
As Mapes places the bicycle within a broader sub/urban context, he presents
research into the health benefits of cycling alongside discussions between
geographers, planners, transport, and health researchers on the role of the
built environment in facilitating— or not—active modes of travel. Finally,
Mapes examines the decline of cycling in children’s everyday mobility in the
United States and discusses the competing concerns over sedentary lifestyles,
children‘s independent mobility and parental responsibilities.
Pedaling Revolution is not explicit in its theoretical underpinnings nor does it problematize the power relations through which bicycles/bicycling/ bicyclists have been marginalized in contemporary American culture. Further, Mapes’ discussion of bicycle culture tends to be overshadowed by the role he attributes to politicians and bureaucrats in bringing about change. But what is crucially important about Pedaling Revolutionis that it places cycling within a broader spatial and mobility context than either Wray or Furness allow. In doing this, Mapes comes closest to conjuring a culture of cycling which values diverse mobilities.
Image: Mona Caron
Centering Cycling?
Each of these
books advocates for cycling as they explore its position in the United States
and reflect on bringing about change. They are important in their efforts to
persuade a broader audience—beyond the committed cyclist—of the benefits of
public investment in cycling; demonstrating alternative (more or less radical)
ways of being in the world; providing insights into how cycling advocates and
sympathizers have intervened in decision-making processes; the rich and
detailed examples of the individuals, groups, places, and processes that have
been pivotal in fostering change—and the pitfalls to be overcome.
However, their efforts to centre cycling within their respective analyses meet with mixed success. As Wray and Furness introduce cycling through a dichotomous relation with the automobile, the bicycle is immediately “de-centered” and, despite demonstrating alternative futures the struggle for change remains daunting. Their political strategy is to “grow” cycling cultures outward into the broader population so that an increasing number of people come into the “fold” of cycling. Arguably, Mapes retains cycling at the centre of the analysis through reference to broader spatial and mobility contexts. In doing this, his strategy is to foster general conditions which value cycling—a culture which welcomes bicycling without demanding mass participation or positioning cyclists as victims needing concessions or protests.
Image: Pedal Revolution.org
Dr Jennifer Bonham is a senior lecturer in the School of Social Sciences, University of Adelaide. She has a background in human geography specializing in urbanization and cultural practices of travel. Her research focuses on devalued mobilities as it explores the complex relationship between bodies, spaces, practices, and meanings of travel. Her current research explores the gendering of cycling. Jennifer’s work is informed by a concern for equitable and ecologically sustainable cities.
Contact details: School of Social Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide 5005, Australia. jennifer.bonham@adelaide.edu.au
This excerpt is from: Bonham, J. (2011). Bicycle politics: Review essay. Transfers, 1(1), 137. doi:10.3167/trans.2011.010110.
Images and hyperlinks included here are not part of the original publication.
Welcome back to this third post in a series of four taken from Dr Jennifer Bonham’s Bicycle Politics Review Essay IDEAS IN MOTION: ON THE BIKE. In the first post, Dr Bonham provided the background and context for the three bicycle politics books she reviews. The second post reviewed the book ‘Pedal Power: The quiet rise of the bicycle in American public life’. In this post, she reviews Zack Furness’s ‘One Less Car: Bicycling and the Politics of Automobility’. This book is a personal favourite of mine. I have a copy on my desk and I love that this book is a reiteration of Furness’s PhD Dissertation. It was also the first time I saw the term BIKETIVISM. Books like this one keep me motivated in my own community bicycle PhD research. If you get a chance, read this book. It is comprehensive, thought-provoking, full of interesting bike facts and is incredibly well-researched. A must read for any cyclist! Thanks again to Dr Bonham. Enjoy! NG.
Furness, Z. (2010). One less car: Bicycling and the politics of automobility. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Less Cars
Zack Furness is an assistant professor in cultural studies at Columbia College, Chicago. His book One Less Car: Bicycling and the Politics of Automobility is a revised version of his Ph.D. dissertation and it is impressive in its scope and detail. Furness carves out a place for cycling both in the formation of automobility, which he locates in the late nineteenth century, and as a point of resistance to it. The bicycle, he argues, played a central role in a series of cultural transformations in “mobility, technology, and space” (16). These transformations included the construction of a “mobile subjectivity,” the development of a meaning system around personal transportation and the disciplining of bodies and environment to long-distance, independent mobility (17).
These transformations, according to Furness, were key components in the new “system of automobility.”9 Following from this, the automobile did not initiate cultural transformations; rather, the automobile itself “made sense” because these transformations had already taken place. Furness acknowledges cycling was not alone in bringing about some of these changes but he regards it as a proto-type of automoblity so that “automobiles provided an almost logical solution to the culture of mobility forged by cyclists and the bicycle industry” (45).
Having argued that cycling played a key role in the formation of automobility, the substantive chapters of One Less Car operate as point and counterpoint to the automobile norm. In Chapter Three, Furness discusses the early twentieth century growth in automobile ownership, legislative changes regarding conduct on the streets, and the modification of public space to facilitate motor vehicle movement. These changes are explained in terms of the automobile-industrial complex, which facilitated production and consumption on a massive scale. The discussion then turns to cycling as a point of resistance to this complex. Furness locates the emergence of U.S. cycle activism in the 1960s/1970s and places cycling organizations, advocacy groups and activism at the centre of challenges to the automobile that run through to the present day. Like Wray, he explores the role of different political actors and actions in creating alternative mobility cultures, illustrating the case with a detailed and multi-layered account of Critical Mass.10
Moving to contemporary society, Furness is particularly concerned with the mechanisms by which cycling is devalued in relation to the automobile and focuses on specific cultural products—film, television shows, road- safety pedagogy and news reporting—for the way they have created and maintained automobile norms. Bike riding characters in films such as Pee- wee’s Big Adventure and television shows like Get a Life infantilize and emasculate cyclists while road-safety “documentaries” effectively prepare child-bicyclists to become adult-motorists. In terms of news reporting, he argues, cycling has been represented favorably in times of crisis—the war effort and petrol rationing—but more recently power relations have been turned on their head as motorists are positioned as victims of the inept or elitist behavior of cyclists.
Image: Contra Texts
As a counterpoint to these negative representations, the remaining chapters offer thick descriptions of cycling sub-cultures in the U.S. These chapters are the real strength of One Less Car, offering insights into an aspect of U.S. cycling that, until recently, has been overlooked. They examine the linkages within specific sub-cultural groups between bicycling, environmentalism, community development and anti-consumption. These include the “Do it Yourself/Do It Ourselves” ethos of the punk musicians who have embraced bicycling, bike messengers and mutant bike clubs.
Furness also explores the important role of community bike projects within disadvantaged localities as they provide places for people to gather and access resources and knowledge that is usually unavailable. He examines the role that specific projects have played in supplying bikes to people within their own local communities and, with a more critical eye, the place of such projects in developing countries as they assist in creating alternative global networks.
Furness also examines the more problematic aspects of cycling sub-culture—the pervasive sexism of cycling in the U.S. and the assumptions that underpin bicycle projects in developing countries. Furness finishes the book with a brief review of the shift of bike manufacturing out of the U.S. to low-wage countries and contemplates the potential of the industry to once again provide employment in the U.S.
Furness attempts to place the bicycle at the centre of the analysis but, like Wray, he re-inscribes the bicycle/automobile dichotomy and despite paying careful attention to one set of cultural transformations he ignores others. Furness does not draw attention to the micro-political processes through which decisions about the material formation of cars and bikes have been (and continue to be) made. Nor does he relate the bicycle or the automobile to broader discussions in the late nineteenth century about the spatialization of activities and the development of cities, which included the urban industrial economy; urban efficiency, sub/urbanization and public health. Although Furness examines contestation within the various cultural transformations he describes, there is an air of finality in these transformations that offers little hope of change.
Finally, as Furness identifies bicycle activism as the key point of resistance to the automobile in the anti-freeway protests of the 1960s/1970s, he overlooks the efforts of local communities, built environment professionals, politicians, and academics in questioning freeway planning.
Image: behance.net
Notes
10. Critical Mass is a regularly staged bike ride in cities around the world that brings cyclists together in a blend of political statement and celebration of cyclists.
Dr Jennifer Bonham is a senior lecturer in the School of Social Sciences, University of Adelaide. She has a background in human geography specializing in urbanization and cultural practices of travel. Her research focuses on devalued mobilities as it explores the complex relationship between bodies, spaces, practices, and meanings of travel. Her current research explores the gendering of cycling. Jennifer’s work is informed by a concern for equitable and ecologically sustainable cities.
Contact details: School of Social Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide 5005, Australia. jennifer.bonham@adelaide.edu.au
This excerpt is from: Bonham, J. (2011). Bicycle politics: Review Essay. Transfers, 1(1), 137. doi:10.3167/trans.2011.010110.
Images and hyperlinks included here are not part of the original publication.
Welcome back to this second post in a series of four taken from Dr Jennifer Bonham’s Bicycle Politics Review Essay IDEAS IN MOTION: ON THE BIKE. In the last post, Dr Bonham (Uni of Adelaide) provided an introduction and background for this essay and established the histo-politico-social context. This post reviews the first (of three) American books on Bicycle Politics. Thanks again to Dr Bonham. If you have not yet read this book, check out this review and see if you want to head to your local library for more. Enjoy! NG.
Wray, J. H. (2008). Pedal power: The quiet rise of the bicycle in American public life. Boulder, CA: Paradigm Publishers.
Pedal Power
J. Harry
Wray’s Pedal Power: The Quiet Rise of the Bicycle in American Public Life is
an immensely readable account of the nascent shift toward bike friendliness in
the United States. Wray has written both a cycling advocacy text and, as a
professor of politics at De Paul University in Chicago, an accessible
introductory text for students taking courses in culture and politics. Each
chapter offers an entry point into discussions about the nature of politics,
political theory, the mechanisms that foster particular meanings and values
over others, and the processes of political struggle and change.
The early chapters of Pedal Power establish the background for the pivotal third chapter after which the discussion turns to the development of a bicycle culture and the process of creating political change. Wray opens his case with a “bicycle view” strategy—that of the touring cyclist— to contrast the embodied experiences and social interactions enabled through cycling and car driving. He uses a familiar set of concepts in making this comparison: the surface of the road reverberating through the body; muscles responding to topography; elements assailing the flesh.
Further, the fact of sitting “on” a bike and “in” a car facilitates different types of relations with co-travelers (those who walk, ride, drive (passenger) alongside), “by-standers” (those not going anywhere—for the moment), and other species and things. Wray links these different experiences of mobility to different political positions arguing the bicyclist tends to a more progressive (and preferable) politics as the cyclist is always located within his/her context whereas driving tends to isolate and insulate motorists from their environment.
Clearly,
the bicycle and the motorcar will enable different experiences and interactions
but Wray misses a number of opportunities by simplifying the argument into a
bicycle versus car dichotomy. It works toward fixing differences between cars
and bikes and smoothes over the processes through which bodies, machines,
materials, spaces, and concepts have been, and continue to be, wrought
together. Further, it limits our view of other ways of getting around and the
diversity of experiences and interactions these enable. To illustrate this
point, we could assemble cycling (racing, utility, etc.), walking (jogging,
running), taking the tram, bus or train, riding a scooter, wheelchair or sled,
skateboarding, being a passenger in a car, driving a truck, taxi or automobile,
rickshaw cycling, parcour and rollerblading. We could then question the
apparatuses through which these particular categories have been created, or
excised, from the mass of human experience and bracketed into discrete sets of
mobility. Picking apart these categories (the practices, emotions, concepts,
materials and interactions they entail) is a political tactic through which we
would scramble our existing categories, create new ones and challenge the
valuing or prioritization of any one set of practices over another. The point
Wray makes in contrasting bicycling and driving is to challenge the privilege
accorded to motoring practices. However, he also re-inscribes the car/bike
hierarchy as he seeks to value the very characteristics through which cycling
has been devalued.
The
second and third chapters contrast the politics and culture of bike riding in
the Netherlands and the United States. Wray explains bicycle culture in the
Netherlands in terms of a sense of shared responsibility and a political
pragmatism that was brought to bear on the 1960s/1970s backlash against the
motor vehicle. This explanation prepares the ground for a discussion of cycling
and motoring in relation to the core American values of individualism and
materialism. He is specifically concerned with whether and how cycling and
motoring foster and extend each of these values. The “myth” of individualism,
and its strong links to materialism, are explained as the outcome of the
country’s Protestant roots, (initial) fluid class system and the stories
Americans tell about their long frontier history. This individualism was transformed
through the process of industrialization where it was reconstituted as
“personal product choices” (61).
It is
within this context that the motor vehicle figures as a symbol and mechanism
for the further elaboration of consumption and individualism. The motorcar
represents the U.S.’s extreme form of individualism— isolation and separation.
Writing in the lead-up to the 2008 election campaign, Wray argues that growing
disillusionment and discontent in the United States provides fertile ground for
alternative cultural norms. The bicycle is a symbol of that alternative.
Importantly, Wray links the bicycle to both a “tamer” form of individualism and
community cohesion. Rather than the bicycle being a “private” means of
transport, Wray emphasizes the particular social interactions it enables
thereby making a powerful challenge to the traditional public/private transport
dichotomy.
The
second half of Pedal Power is devoted to challenging current cultural
norms, the mechanisms by which participation in everyday cycling is being
encouraged and the role of different players working inside and outside formal
political processes to revalue the bicycle. Wray devotes a chapter each to the
role of: individual cyclists and advocates who provide alternative ways of
seeing and being in the world; bike advocacy groups which reinforce each other
as they lobby for funding and legislative changes from the national through to
the local scale; bicycle activism that engages the wider citizenry in bicycle
politics by encouraging participation in myriad bike-related activities; and
sympathetic politicians who can influence legislation and funding decisions to
further the interests of cycling. These chapters are alive with detail as Wray
offers numerous examples of the people, groups, activities, and legislative
changes he believes are facilitating a culture of bicycle use and political
change.
Image: Mary Kate McDevitt
Dr Jennifer Bonham is a senior lecturer in the School of Social
Sciences, University of Adelaide. She has a background in human geography
specializing in urbanization and cultural practices of travel. Her research
focuses on devalued mobilities as it explores the complex relationship between
bodies, spaces, practices, and meanings of travel. Her current research
explores the gendering of cycling. Jennifer’s work is informed by a concern for
equitable and ecologically sustainable cities.
Contact details: School of
Social Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide 5005, Australia.
jennifer.bonham@adelaide.edu.au
This excerpt is from: Bonham, J. (2011). Bicycle
politics: Review essay. Transfers, 1(1), 137.
doi:10.3167/trans.2011.010110.
Images included here are not part of the original
publication.
Work on my community bicycle PhD research project requires me to read a lot of academic literature on bikes. Whilst it is my immense pleasure, there is always more to read. Recently, I came across a review essay by Dr Jennifer Bonham (University of Adelaide) that summarised and appraised three key (and popular) American ‘bicycle politics’ books. This essay a very interesting read as it identifies critical histo-politico-social aspects of bicycling from each of the books in an accessible, succinct and thoughtful way. Woohoo! What a gift! So here is Dr Bonham’s full essay IDEAS IN MOTION: ON THE BIKE as a series of four blog posts. This first post covers the intro and background, followed by three more – one post each reviewing, in turn, the three bicycle books below. A massive thank you to Jennifer for her analytical synthesis explaining why riding a bike is a political act. Enjoy! NG.
Wray, J. H. (2008). Pedal power: The quiet rise of the bicycle in American public life. Boulder, CA: Paradigm Publishers.
Furness, Z. (2010). One less car: Bicycling and the politics of automobility. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Mapes, J. (2009). Pedalingrevolution: How cyclists are changing American cities. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.
Since the mid-1990s,
bicycling has been identified as a solution to problems ranging from climate
change and peak oil to urban livability, congestion and public health. A
plethora of guidelines, strategies, policy statements, plans and behavior
change programs have been produced— especially in industrialized countries—in
an effort to encourage cycling. Despite many localities registering increases
in cycling over the past decade, English-speaking countries such as Australia,
Canada, the United Kingdom and United States continue to have extremely low
national rates of cycling. The benefits of cycling are widely accepted and
barriers well documented but changes are slow, uneven, and often contested. The
disjuncture between government rhetoric and commitment to bicycling (via
legislation, funding, infrastructure) foregrounds the broader cultural and
political context within which cycling is located.
Implementing pro-cycling1 policies is difficult in cultural contexts where bicycles/bicyclists are set in a hierarchical relation with automobiles/ motorists and the latter valued over the former. It is equally difficult to effect cultural change when decision makers fail to prioritize cycling on the political agenda. A key research problem has been to understand how the hierarchical relation between different travel practices has been established and reproduced. Often, this problem is approached by centering the automobile in the analysis:2 a tactic which positions the motor vehicle in a series of dichotomous relations with “other” travel practices—private/public, motorized/non-motorized, choice/captive.
Such dichotomous
approaches have been widely criticized for re-creating rather than undermining
established hierarchies.3
An alternative tactic
involves unpicking the mechanisms through which these categories are produced
and bodies are differentially valued. Recently the bike has been placed at the
centre of the analysis in an effort to unsettle its persistent marginalization.
However, this type of analysis will be limited if it simply reproduces the
bicycle/automobile dichotomy.
Throughout the late
twentieth century, “cyclists” and everyday practices of cycling have been
constituted through concepts and research practices within the field of
transport and positioned as problematic—in terms of safety, efficiency,
orderliness. But the past 15 years4 have
seen researchers from a range of disciplines—health, political science,
geography, sociology, urban planning and transport—creating new “versions” of
cycling.5
As they centre
bicycling in their work and offer recommendations on “what is lacking” and
“what should change” they also provide insights into the mechanisms by which
cyclists have been explicitly excluded from or marginalized within public
space, academic study and public policy. This literature is a fundamental part
of political and cultural change not so much for the veracity of its claims but
in re-constituting cycling as an object of study and opening the path to
alternative ways of thinking about and practicing mobility.
From the early 2000s,
there has been a steady growth in research into practices of cycling and
cycling sub-cultures.6
Arguably, this
ethnographically oriented work can be traced to Michel de Certeau’s seminal
essay Walking in the City,7 which made apparent the historical and
cultural specificity of contemporary travel practices. There has been a steady
growth in research into particular travel/mobility practices and sub-cultural
groups who identify through their mobility.8 The study of local cycling groups and
cycling sub-cultures challenges hegemonic meanings, which devalue bicycling,
and offers alternative mobility futures. They can also link bike riders to more
mainstream values and beliefs thereby questioning their marginal status. The
very practice of riding a bike and/ or being part of a cycling sub-culture is
implicitly political as it challenges dominant forms of mobility. However, some
individuals and sub-cultural groups are explicitly political as they use the
subject position of cyclist as a means by which to resist exclusion and
advocate for bike riding.
The books reviewed in this paper examine the bicycle culture-politics nexus in the context of the United States. They provide explanations for the marginalization of cycling but more particularly they are concerned with how to bring about change. Each author addresses culture and politics to different degrees, recognizing them as inextricably linked but emphasizing one or the other in their analyses. They draw upon research from health and environmental sciences, architecture, urban, and transport planning to support their arguments rather than reflecting on this knowledge as a fundamental part of contemporary culture or cultural change. Culture is discussed in terms of the sites through which meanings are attached to cycling—especially film and television, literature, advertising, and news reporting—and how these are being challenged through the bicycle cultures and everyday mobility practices that form part of a growing social movement in cycling.
Image: Bikeyface.com
Notes
Pedestrians, public transport users, scooter riders, roller bladers and so forth could be included along with cycling.
For example, James Flink, The Car Culture (Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1975); Peter Freund and George Martin, The Ecology of the Automobile (Montreal: Black Rose Books Ltd 1993); Mimi Sheller and John Urry, “The City and the Car,” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 24 no. 4 (2000): 737–757.
Feminists from Butler to Hekman have been at the forefront of this critique. Judith Butler, Gender Trouble (New York: Routledge, 1990); Susan Hekman, The Material of Knowledge: Feminist Disclosures (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2010).
This timeline reflects research into everyday cycling in English-speaking countries.
Borrowing Annemarie Mol’s theorization of different versions of reality, I want to suggest we do not have a single object (the cyclist) which is studied through a different lens by each discipline; rather we create the cyclist in different ways through the methodologies we use within each discipline. Annemarie Mol, The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice (Durham: Duke University Press, 2002).
The Ethnographies of Cycling workshop held at Lancaster University in 2009 included presentations from a number of researchers working in this area since the early 2000s. http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/centres/cemore/event/2982/
Michel de Certeau, The Practice of Everyday Life (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984).
Dr Jennifer Bonham is a senior lecturer in the School of Social Sciences, University of Adelaide. She has a background in human geography specializing in urbanization and cultural practices of travel. Her research focuses on devalued mobilities as it explores the complex relationship between bodies, spaces, practices, and meanings of travel. Her current research explores the gendering of cycling. Jennifer’s work is informed by a concern for equitable and ecologically sustainable cities.
Contact details: School of Social Sciences, University of Adelaide,
Adelaide 5005, Australia. jennifer.bonham@adelaide.edu.au
This excerpt is from: Bonham, J. (2011). Bicycle politics: Review essay. Transfers, 1(1), 137. doi:10.3167/trans.2011.010110.
Images included here are not part of the original publication.
As
well as wearing my The
Cycle of Objectification outfit all day, I also attended a few afternoon
IWD women artist events at Griffith Uni, Southbank.
I
wanted to attend these events to support the showcase of feminist voices and feminist
work.
I
was especially keen to hear what some Brisbane feminist artists had to say and
see how they were translating their explorations of feminist issues through
their art practice.
Like me, quite a few participants had
made sashes, costumes, or were dressed in IWD colours.
The
first event I went to was at the Grey Street Gallery to hear Brisbane artist Genevieve
Memory speak about her exhibition Semiotics of the Dress. This
exhibition looked at the history and social significance of dresses.
Next
were three other local artists Jodie, Ashley and Renee, who are currently
exhibiting at the Machinery Gallery Windows, also spoke about their work and
ideations.
From
there the crowd moved to the Glass Box space. The Glass Box had a very interesting
curated exhibition showcasing a number of under grad female art students. It
was a very interesting exhibition drawing on a rage of voices, experiences and
issues. As well as music and artists explaining their work, the curators also
explained their process and intentions for the exhibition.
There was also a live gig by Brisbane musician Taana Rose (below), which was a real treat!
Tanaa Rose
There was also a proto-installation by a duo (I am sorry, I didn’t get their names!) who have an upcoming exhibition. They created a sample of their work yet to be installed in the concourse to explain their conceptualisations and what they wanted to achieve. I really liked the outdoor/interactive aspect of this presentation. It great to use the art college public space to share art with passers-by.
I
really enjoyed all the artist talks and have a new appreciation for the amount
of work and thought that these talented artists apply to their practice.
Image: Brisbane Art Guide
I was stoked to see that Louise Mayhew (Griffith Uni) had organised (for the third year) a Wikipedia-edit-a-thon. Wikipedia is one of the largest websites on the internet, with more than 40 million articles in more than 250 different languages, but women make up less than 10% of editors. This means women’s stories aren’t being told. This event is where you can edit Wikipedia to include women of note who do not currently have a presence on Wikipedia, or who are underrated, forgotten or invisible.
What a great idea!
I immediately
started researching a range of female cyclists and bike riders who are yet to be
fully recognised, or who have been forgotten in history who need to be
included.
It
was an action packed day full of creativity, community, and activism.
What a way to celebrate International Women’s Day!
International Women’s Day (March 8th) is a global day celebrating the social, economic, cultural and political achievements of women. It also marks a call to action for accelerating gender parity. The theme this year was #BalanceforBetter.
The issue I am addressing is the objectification and commodification of women.
The base is a green skirt and purple top as per the International Women’s Day colours (white, purple and green). With it, I wore a necklace, headdress and a sash I had made.
The outfit is all made of recycled materials.
It uses bicycle inner tubes, wheel spokes and bike parts, broken jewellery, second-hand objects and curb-side barbie dolls.
The sash is reminiscent of a beauty pageant, yet echoes the idea that even though women may feel free to move, they are in many ways still ‘keep in line’.
The blondes are at the top, while the brunette (representing any/every ‘other’) is at the bottom of ‘the beauty hierarchy’.
The chocker necklace is made with doll’s high heel shoes to represent the awkward uncomfortablity of women’s fashion.
The headpiece mixes themes of gender expectations, worship, money, sex, religion, plastic surgery and armour together into a quasi-tiara-cum-pagan headdress.
What was the reaction?
I wore this outfit throughout the day. I was working across two
Griffith Uni campuses on the day. This meant that I not only wore it at work
and in my classes (much to the amusement of my students), but also around the academic
office sand in any meetings I went to as well as on public transport going to
and between campuses on the day.
The morning train ride was the most interesting. It was a packed peak-hour train and most people who were crammed in were still waking up. Some people looked at me as if I was crazy. It did take some guts to wear this on the early morning packed commuter train. We were sandwiched in and there was a big group of school kids who were standing behind me looking on incredulously when I asked a fellow traveller to take a quick photo.
I took a few photos throughout the day at different locations – like the one below with Captain Marvel which I just couldn’t resist– hilarious!
I was surprised by how many staff and academics asked for photos.
The students totally got it.
All day I had random calls of ‘good on ya!’, ‘Happy Women’s Day’ and ‘looks great!” which was lovely. I had a strapping young guy call out over the street ‘I love your headpiece!’ and wave, which was awesome.
I know I looked over the top.
I designed the headdress in particular to be a little provocative and to be a little uncomfortable to look at. I wanted my nose to ‘poke out’ between her naked legs.
There were a few design features I had built into the outfit that had a lot more meaning to it than you could get just by looking at it. The brave few who had the guts to come up and talk me were the ones who got to hear about all the intricate nuances, motifs and details.
As an ensemble, it is bright, unusual and low-tech. I wanted to
mash lots of ideas together. A surprising number of people came up to chat to
me about the outfit and to see it up close.
The outfit was a good way to start discussions about important women’s issues. I felt like this year I was raising eyebrows and raising awareness!
Alexander Csoma de Koros was a Hungarian traveller/explorer who traveled to Tibet in 1820 where he learnt the language and culture.
Csoma ended up being a cross-cultural pioneer for both countries and forged a long-standing language, cultural and learning exchange between the two nations which still endures today.
To commemorate Csoma’s spirit of cultural support and exchange, Hungarian conceptual tech lab Kitchen Budapest has created a low-tech kinetic image projector called Csoma’s Wheel.
Csoma’s Wheel is a bicycle-based installation that uses traditional Tibetan prayer wheel design as the base structure to create an electronic art/image projector.
The LED flashing prayer-wheel is made from
two bicycle wheels, bike and other parts, LEDs and a concrete block. When the
wheel is rotated by hand, the spinning generates enough electricity to power a
strip of LEDs that shine light through a perforated screen or drum. From these
LEDs, a basic animated image is projected onto the concrete block.
The homes and schools are all completely solar-powered.
This NGO uses sustainable local materials
(adobe bricks), revives and utilises traditional construction and handicraft skills,
supports local economic and labour/skill (income-generating) opportunities,
builds more schools and homes and provides solar power.
In
keeping with Alexander’s spirit, there is a strong emphasis on promoting local
heritage and using local Zanglar skills, practices and materials to reduce
reliance on high tech, resource-dependant, imported materials.
The bicycle prayer-wheel projector was installed to complement the recent completion of major construction to Csoma’s Sanctuary, which is visited by many international visitors each year.
This is certainly one of the more unique and innovative ways to use bicycles!
This blog prides itself on sharing the grassroots stories, events and experiences of local and international community cyclists. Around the world, cyclists are grappling with many issues – and this story from JP hit a particular nerve in drawing attention to the issue of air pollution. The article republished here was an open letter written by San Paulo local bicycle activist JP Amaral for Global Call to Climate Action at the end of last year. Recently, I reported on Areli Carreón who is the first ever Latin American Bicycle Mayor (Mexico City) because it is important to hear more from our concerned and proactive Latin American cycling brothers and sisters. A big thanks to JP for sharing his thoughts, research and insights with us. We applaud your work and are sending you much support from down under!
I used to believe poor air quality was a major barrier to cycling in our urban centers and couldn’t understand the reason for my respiratory problems in my hometown São Paulo, where air pollution levels are 60% above the WHO’s safety limits and responsible for 6,421 deaths each year.
However, as I started cycling, the health benefits were immediate, especially for my respiratory system.
Image: The Conversation
Now, after 10 years working on sustainable urban mobility, being co-founder of Bike Anjo, a large national network of volunteers promoting cycling as a means of transport in Brazil, and an active member of the international Bicycle Mayor Network, I understand that the health benefits of cycling and walking outweigh the harm from inhaling air loaded with traffic fumes.
This is a message we always try to get across to the people we help in learning to cycle or tracing their daily routes. Moreover, research studies have shown that car drivers in heavy traffic inhale more pollution.
The biggest metropolitan area in South America (population: 21.2 million), São Paulo is notorious for its traffic; a recent study found that São Paulo inhabitants spent 86 hours on average in 2017 stuck in traffic (or 22% of total drive time), putting it in the top five cities for traffic congestion.
In this city, cars and motorcycles are a much-desired escape from long, arduous journeys on public transport, especially for the poor living on the outskirts who commute every day into the city centre.
Over the past decade, Federal government incentives to the car industry have brought down the price of cars, making them significantly more accessible. It is not surprising then that the main source of air pollution in São Paulo – as in several world cities – is the vehicular fleet, accounting for 80% of total air pollutants.
Despite this unfavourable scenario, cycling has been growing in popularity in recent years: we’ve gone from 100,000 bike trips a day in 2007 to 300,000 trips a day in 2012, and a recent study by the Secretary of Transport estimated over 1 million bike trips a day in São Paulo.
Cycling in Sao Paulo (Brazil). Image: Raw Story
Investments in cycling infrastructure and a series of incentives, such as 400 km of new bike lanes and bike paths, new bike sharing systems and banning car traffic in some of the city’s busiest streets on Sundays have contributed to this culture change. Surfing on this trend, Bike Anjo expanded its network of volunteers, helping “paulistanos” explore safe cycling routes and cycle with more confidence.
This year, our successful Bike to Work campaign has highlighted the health benefits of cycling, focusing on two women who agreed to ride their bikes to work for an entire month for the first time, whilst having their health monitored by doctors.
Having experienced so many physical and mental health benefits from this challenging experiment, they both decided to continue their daily bicycling commutes. We hope that this experience, featured on national television, has encouraged many Brazilians to do the same.
While behaviour change campaigns such as this one can make a difference, a long lasting change in transport culture must be underpinned by robust public policies that are conducive to active mobility. At the federal level, a progressive piece of policy framework was proposed as the “National Urban Mobility Act”, in 2012, putting forward active mobility as the prioritized mode of transport in Brazilian cities.
However, the national plan implementation depends entirely on the formulation of municipal urban mobility plans, which are either non existent or at early stages of implementation in most of Brazil’s municipalities. Through working with civil society actors, Bike Anjo and the Brazilian Cyclists’ Union (UCB) have been trying to assist municipalities in getting their plans off the paper and into action.
The gaps are numerous; from policy design to implementation, from federal to municipal level, and importantly, the tendency of treating issues in silos.
Health policies rarely engage in dialogue with mobility policies, despite existing evidence that reducing air pollution in urban centres through clean, sustainable transport results in better public health outcomes and significant savings in government expenditures.
Air pollution is now responsible for over 7 million premature deaths per year, globally. The urgency of reducing such mortality rates, coupled with that of mitigating the impacts of climate change, leaves us with no more time to tolerate carbon emissions from fossil fueled transport.
Image: Dublin Cycling Campaign
The latest UN scientific report has warned we may have only 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe if global warming exceeds 1.5C, singling out the transport sector as the fastest growing contributor to climate emissions
This first global WHO conference on health and air pollution is a unique occasion where national leaders from different sectors facing similar local challenges can meet and exchange experiences, learn from civil society and ultimately commit to agreed targets to meet the WHO’s air quality guidelines by 2030, matching the needs of reducing carbon emissions.
Image: WHO
Clean, renewable energy, electric vehicles, the elimination of fossil fuels subsidies, smarter urban planning, and better public transport infrastructure are some of the choices policy makers can make to avoid countless preventable deaths, drastically improve air quality and health, and contribute towards a safer climate.
At the conference, I plan to highlight how cycling can play a major role in transforming mobility around the world. Given the convenience, health benefits and affordability of bicycles, they could provide a far greater proportion of sustainable urban transport, helping reduce not only air pollution, but energy use and CO2 emissions worldwide.
Active mobility is often underestimated, but if you think about it, bicycles could be the ultimate icon of sustainable transport. As the far right takes power in countries across the planet, including most recently Brazil, city level solutions offer real hope and the best bet for change.
Image: WHO Image: WHO
About the author JP Amaral is an active member of the international Bicycle Mayor Network initiated by Amsterdam based social enterprise BYCS, and co-founder of the Bike Anjo Network (bikeanjo.org), currently coordinating the “Bicycle in the Plans” project. He has a bachelor degree on Environmental Management at the University of São Paulo and has been working in sustainable urban mobility since 2008. He is certified as an auditor on the BYPAD methodology – Bicycle Planning Audit, and is the Bicycle Mayor of São Paulo. He is also fellow member of the Red Bull Amaphyko network for social entrepreneurs and of the German Chancellor Fellowship program for tomorrow’s leaders from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, working with international cooperation towards cycling promotion, especially between Brazil and Europe.
Bike Anjo (Bike Angels) is a network of voluntary cyclists who engage people to use bicycles as a mean of transforming cities – from teaching how to ride a bicycle to identifying safe cycling routes for São Paulo inhabitants and building national campaigns.
The Bicycle Mayor Network is a global network of changemakers – initiated by Amsterdam based social enterprise BYCS – that radically accelerates cycling progress in cities worldwide. The individual use the power of their network to influence politics and the broader public to start cycling. Bicycle mayors transform cities, cities transform the world.
This time last year, I was down in Melbourne performing our roving performance The BioBike Your Future Thanks You! at the Sustainable Living Festival. This just happened to coincide with Bike Rave Melburn 2018 Pink Flamingo – which of course I went to. I took the BioBike with me, met up with some mates and got amongst it at the rave. As always, we had an absolute blast! It was awesome being back in my home town, catching up with old crew, making new friends, checking out people’s wicked pimped out rides and cruising around Melbs as the sun when down to pumping tunes – all on two wheels (*sigh*).
FB: @Bike Rave AUS
Brisbane, my dear, when are you having a bike rave?
Sat 16th February was the 2019 GOLD – Melbourne Bike Rave!
Hells Yeah!!!
Thanks to everyone who sent through pics and well wishes – I missed being with you all this year…but was stoked to see such an awesome turn out!
“Dare to love yourself as if you were a rainbow with gold at both ends.”
Bike Rave is a free event – but we ask you to bring along a cash donation for charity Bicycles for Humanity. We will be collecting throughout the evening.
THE MUSIC: We have curated a whopping 4.5-hour mix from some very talented DJ’s for this Bike Rave. The mix is full of pumping party tunes to keep you dancing all night long. You should download this and put it onto an mp3 player.
SOUND: Bike Rave is a DIY event. Grab an MP3 player and put the mix on it. Bring your own speakers, build a sound bike, be creative! Need sound for your bike? Get a basket and some computer speakers, or head to Jaycar, JB-HIFI, etc to set up a self-contained set. There are some great solutions from $15, and some pretty impressive creations. Just remember to charge those batteries.
BRIGHT LIGHTS: Think bright lights, reflective jackets, fluoro hair, glow sticks, EL wire, or anything else that flashes and blinks. This isn’t just about making sure that you look awesome, make sure your bike is pimped out also.
DRESS UP: Gold, shiny, shimmer, bling, the ol’ razzle-dazzle. We want the Bike Rave to be a shiny shimmering mess as we ride along the river into the sunset.
THE WEATHER: If it’s nice out, we ride. If it’s cloudy, we ride. If it’s raining a little, we might ride. If it’s pouring, we don’t ride. Our speakers will get messed up. If you aren’t sure, show up anyways. Someone will be there from 5:30pm to let people know if the ride is canceled.
Bike Rave was founded in Vancouver but is shared around the world.
@alleyratlowriders
RAVE RULES: There are a few rules that we would like you to follow to ride the rave. This makes it safer for everyone and avoids problems on the night. We’ve never had an issue in the 6 years of running this event, so let’s work together to keep it that way.
Protect Your Head Stay to the Left Stop at Lights Ride Straight Don’t Hate Pack Your Trash Don’t Get Smashed
IMPORTANT! We are not responsible for your safety; YOU ARE! We have done our best to ensure that the route is well lit and safe, but it does involve a little riding on the road and in the dark and past people. We should attempt to obey all traffic laws. If we get split up, we can rejoin at one of the several stopping points along the ride, so please stop at red lights and stop signs.
Bike ravers around the world unite! See you all next year!
