In this post, we look at a recent publication by Mike Lloyd, entitled The non-looks of the mobile world: a video-based study of interactional adaptation in cycle-lanes.
Mike Lloyd is
an Senior Lecturer in Cultural Studies with Victoria University (Wellington,
NZ). His research interests include ethnomethodology, sociology of everyday
life, cycling and interaction and more recently video methodologies.
I initially contacted Mike after reading his article about
NZ MTB trail rage – which was an absolute delight.
Since then, this blog has previously hosted two of Mike’s
articles:
Mike is coming to Brisbane in November for the International Cycling Safety Conference. So we are hoping to go for a ride together! Woohoo!
Image: Mike Lloyd (2019)
Article: The non-looks of the mobile world
In this particular article, Mike examines how cyclists and pedestrians in cycle-lane
space adapt their interactions with each other, paying particular attention to
the role of looking and non- looking as it unfolds moment-by-moment.
Any bike rider will be able
to read and totally appreciate the happenings in this article.
It is very interesting exploring how differences between pedestrians ‘doing and being oblivious’ impact cyclists in bike lanes.
I also like the analytical focus of dissecting action and the absence of looking – or non-looks. Original, interesting and pertinent to all cyclists!
Other key concepts from
this article that stand out are: the gaze to shift another pedestrian, direction
of views, standing in bike lanes, people getting out of cars, pedestrians and
mobile phones, ‘observer’s maxim’ moving for public transport and my favourite:
glance, action, apology.
Creatively, Mike uses video still data from a bicycle Go-Pro to explain key theoretical concepts and outcomes.
His writing is well researched, interesting and entertaining.
This article is valuable contribution
to extend discussions of how bicycles and cycle-lane use feature within
mobility, space/infrastructure and situational interactions discourse.
This
empirical study uses video data to examine interactional adaptation between
cyclists and pedestrians in a relatively new cycle-lane. Existing research on
intersections shows order is achieved through the frequent use of a
look-recognition-acknowledgement sequence. Whereas this is found in the
cycle-lane interactions, there is also an important divergent technique which
on the surface seems less cooperative.
Others are
made to cede space based on ‘doing and being oblivious’, in short, forms of
non-looking force others to take evasive action and subtly alter their line of
travel. Here the dynamic nature of this obliviousness is shown through empirical
examples.
Even though it is not always easy to
distinguish between the two forms of non-looking, it is concluded that ‘doing
oblivious’, whilst possibly annoying for others, is most probably harmless, but
there are good reasons to be more concerned about ‘being oblivious’, for it may
lead to collisions between pedestrians and cyclists.
Aspects of
non-looking provide an important addition to knowledge of the mobile world,
suggesting we renew attention to specific sites where people concert their
movements in minutely detailed ways.
I got an email yesterday saying that my abstract submission for the 10th Annual New Materialisms Conference of Reconfiguring Higher Education has been accepted!
Woohoo!
This conference will be held at University of the Western Cape (Cape Town, South Africa) from 2-4 December 2019.
This is great news!
I have been working furiously on my Ethics Submission. Ethics continues to be an epic mission because of the international fieldwork aspect where I will be bike riding with locals (the Ethics board want Risk Assessments, Ethics for me, the project and the locals). This means an added level of evaluation, justification and paperwork, more so than if I just had local Brisbane participants. But I am up for the challenge!
So for this event, aside from the opportunity to participate in an international theory/practice conference, I am also engineering this trip to work in with my fieldwork.
I am very excited! There are a few big NM names also presenting, including:
Conference Streams
There are 6 conference streams this year. They are:
New materialities, decolonialities, indigenous knowledges
Slow scholarship
Arts-based pedagogies/research in HE
Neurotypicality, the undercommons and HE
New materialist reconfigurings of methodology in HE
Political ethics of care, the politics of affect, and socially just pedagogies
Image: Macro Morocco
My Abstract
Title: An athlete-teacher-researcher mountain bike race (re)turned: entangled becoming-riding-with
In this paper, I share how engaging with new materialist approaches have enabled me to think deeply and disruptively about my unfolding athlete-teacher-researcher performativities and methodology. Using as a starting point a ‘moment of rupture’ (Lennon, 2017) during a popular female-only mountain bike race, I problematize how representation, subjectivity and embodiment matters in my research with respect to my own athlete-teacher-researcher-becoming entanglements. In doing this, I draw on Wanda Pillow’s (2003) concept of ‘reflexivities of discomfort’ and Karen Barad’s (2014) diffractive ‘cut together-apart’ to reframe critical becoming-riding-with moments in alternative ways. In doing so, I delve into some messy and destabilizing ways of becoming-to-know and knowing as I continue to experiment with foregrounding the agential force of bicycles within my research unfolding.
Image: Pxhere
Conference Info.
Taken from the official conference website: Annual New Materialisms Conferences have been organised since 2009 by an international group of scholars who received the EU’s H2020 funding from 2014–18.
The conferences are meant to develop, discuss and communicate new materialisms’ conceptual and methodological innovations, and to stimulate discussion among new materialist scholars and students about themes and phenomena that are dear to the hosting local research community as well as interdisciplinary new materialist scholarship.
After having visited many cities across Europe, as well as Melbourne (Australia), the conference will come to Cape Town (South Africa) in 2019 in order to discuss the dynamic higher education landscape that we find ourselves in today. The recent #Rhodesmustfall and #feesmustfall protests have, in particular, set South African higher education on a new course towards transformation, focusing on equitable access to higher education, Africanisation and decolonisation.
This has raised important questions regarding knowledge production beyond the South African context, particularly in relation to the use and value of western theorists in local research and curricula, as well as who gains epistemological and physical access to higher education.
On the other hand, we have seen many productive junctures between pedagogy and the new materialisms, including the use of Deleuze and Guattari in education studies. In particular, there has been a focus on cartography, schizoanalysis, corporeal theorising, rhizomatic learning and nomadic thought in socially just pedagogical praxis.
These junctures and innovative genealogies and methodologies can both address as well as be further improved and made more precise by engagements with transformation toward accessible, Africanised and decolonised curricula, and research agendas and practices.
It seems fitting, then, that the 3rd South African Deleuze and Guattari Studies Conferencewill be held directly after the 10th Annual New Materialisms Conference as we grapple, together, towards new ways of being and seeing in relation to higher education.
This month, another unsettling story of a youth on a bike being killed emerged– but this one was years ago and even more complex.
The story comes from Reuters journalist Andrew Gray.
In 2003, Andrew was
embedded with a US tank battalion during the Iraq invasion.
Of all that Andrew experienced during his tour, it was a photo of the shooting of a boy riding his bike that had the most enduring and profound impact.
Andrew wanted to know why the
young bike rider was shot.
In a recent
ABC radio interview, Andrew explained why this particular incident haunted
him and why he decided to follow it up.
How ‘the boy on a bike’ reveals so much more.
Image: ABC Earshot
The image above was the impetus
that lead Andrew to interview locals and military personnel, dig into archives,
track down eyewitnesses, and keep pushing for explanations long after others
had moved on.
His journey is now a documentary, called ‘The boy on a bike’.
In the documentary, Andrew tries
to unpack the issues, people and events involved that ended with the shooting
of a boy riding his bike. Andrew said “I’ve spent 16 years trying to find out
the truth about the war crime allegation. None of it has been easy.
It is an incredible story.
While I was reading, I couldn’t help but think of how many other people have been affected by this. Immediately, there is the boy’s family, his community, those who saw what happended, other military personnel, and the news professionals involved in distributing the story – but also those who are hearing the story for the first time.
In his story, Andrew recounts eyewitness statement, raises critical moral questions, delves into the complexity of wartime experiences – and yes, he finally does find out who the bike rider was.
I’ve never quite been able to let go of the story
of the boy on the bike.
It set me on an international quest that has lasted
16 years, to find out if a war crime was committed that day.
I have sat opposite a soldier accused by his
comrades of murder. I have asked people to revisit deeply painful memories. I
have tried to find the answer to a grieving mother’s question: “Why did
they kill my son?”
None of it has been easy.
I’ve had to ask difficult questions of myself too.
Why am I doing this? Is one small incident in a big
war worth it? Is it even possible to reach back through the confusion of war
and the fading of memories to find an answer?
And do I have the right — or the stomach — to
publicly judge soldiers under great pressure in wartime?
It’s Australian Walking and Cycling Conference (AWCC) time again!
Hooray!
I really like this
conference.
The people are great, the program is always interesting – and it doesn’t cost and arm and a leg to get there. Perfecto!
In 2017, I presented an AWCC roundtable session entitled Bicycles Create Change: An
innovative guide to creating memorable and meaningful engagement in community
bike projects.
The session went very well
and it was great to share my work people outside of Griffith Uni and Queensland.
It was also a valuable opportunity to network and meet some incredible people. I came home from the last AWCC with a big smile and many new ideas and resources.
This year, AWCC is returning to Adelaide on October 24-25th 2019.
Image: @bykko_au
AWCC 2019 – Abstracts open!
The 2019 conference and related activities aim
to engage more directly with local issues of climate change mitigation and
adaption in relation to walking and cycling.
The 2019 AWCC theme is Active transport in a changing climate.
Abstracts for AWCC sessions are now open.
Session Formats
Learnshops: 20 min podium presentations with 10 mins Q & A.
Spin cycles: Short, fast-paced podium PPTs of 3.45 mins for 15 slides.
Roundtables: To a table of 10 – present for 10 with 15 mins group discussion
Key dates
Abstract submission opens: Monday 22 April
Abstract submission closes: Monday 22 July
Authors notified of outcome: Monday 19 August
Authors notified of program placement (date/time): Mon 26 Aug
Presenting author registration deadline: Monday 16 September
The simple acts of walking and cycling have
the potential to transform the places we live, our economies and how we engage
with our environment. The Australian Walking and Cycling conference explores
the potential for walking and cycling to not only provide for transport and
recreation but solutions to challenges of liveability, health, community
building, economic development and sustainability. As one of Australia’s
longest running, best regarded and most affordable active travel conferences,
we bring together practitioners and researchers from Australia and across the
world to share their work and engage with conference participants.
Conference theme: Active transport in a changing
climate
We aspire to promote work which creates a transport
mode shift away from cars towards walking and cycling, and using active means
to link with improved public transport in suburbs and rural towns. We want to
shift away from CO2 reliant mobility and keep people active as temperatures
rise, and extreme weather becomes more common.
What can a transport mode shift in our suburbs and
rural towns contribute to CO2 reduction nationally? What concomitant air
quality benefits are felt in suburban streets and towns as a result?
Acknowledging that climate change is occurring, what changes are to be made to
suburban and town environments so that walking and cycling are almost always
convenient, pleasurable, safe and life affirming even in the face of rising
temperatures? What does a small town or suburban neighbourhood retrofit look
like in the next ten or twenty years, so that people are out and about and
interacting? How do people of all ages and abilities avoid retreating to
air-conditioned ‘comfort’ – ‘comfort’ that is inactive, isolated and CO2
producing?
These questions indicate the directions we hope to explore in the 2019 conference.
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.
Brisbane is hosting Australia’s first-ever hackathon about bike
riding BikeHack19 later this month.
In a similar vein to a 3 Day Start Up or tech Hackathons, this event is focused on solving a problem. In this case, the cycling challenge is…..
How can bike riding be more accessible and appealing in
Queensland so people ride bikes more often?
This event is not focused on changing policy, but it is an exploration
of any other possibilities that could include bike tech, gamification, design,
data, support services or new business ideas.
Anyone over the age of 18 can participate as long as they
are not a government employee.
When I went earlier this week to
BikeHack19’s info night, I was sitting next to a tech start-up entrepreneur
on one side and an engineer on the other. Other people I spoke to came from widely
diverse backgrounds including sociologists, researchers, students, town
planners, public health academics and programmers. I was surprised at how few
cyclists there were.
Here’s the event schedule.
BikeHack19 is promoted as being an opportunity to meet new
people and expand networks. As well as working with fellow hackers in teams over
the weekend to process their ideas, there are also industry experts, advisors
and funders on hand to suggest and mentor teams throughout the process.
Previously, I participated in a 3 Day Start-Up (3DS) intensive which ran 40 Griffith PhD
candidates through an entrepreneurial practical intensive on how to develop aspects
of their PhD research into a start-up business. It was fun, but very intense. Five
key reflections emerged for me from my 3DS experience – insights that I will need
to revisit as I consider if I will participate in BikeHack19.
To help focus and refine ideas, the organisers commissioned Enhance Research
to look into the issue using a 3-phase research design. They collated findings
into 3 ‘profiles’ on the common type of bike riders in Queensland and their
motivation.
These profiles (see them below) inform the three challenge categories and can be used as a stimulus ‘target market’ for the teams.
Cash Prizes
Overall,
there is $25,000 in prize money – much more than other similar events.
The $25,000 is divided into four cash prizes.
Overall team with best idea: – $10,000
One (1) overall winner prize of $10,000 for ‘best overall idea’ and three category winner prizes ($5,000 each) will go to the teams that come up the best ideas that address each of the three categories:
Active
Transport – $5,000 prize
Happy,
Healthy Families – $5,000 prize
Tourism
and Recreation – $5,000 prize
Winners will be determined by a judging panel on the Sunday
night. Prize money will be distributed to each member of the winning team,
equally with no
strings attached.
What is expected by the end of the weekend?
There are no hard and fast rules on what is expected as a finished ‘product’
to be pitched in the final presentation on Sunday evening. The focus is more
on teams working through stages of ideation, process and development of solutions
to the challenge.
So if you have an idea about how to get more Queenslanders on bicycles – check out BikeHack19 and pitch your idea.
Who knows maybe your idea will win!
To be part of BikeHack19 will cost you $30. Register here
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.
