Análisis de la actividad del curso C03S1

An individual who cycles is often termed a ‘cyclist’, yet the phrase can be, and often is, used as a negative connotation in which the individual is reduced to the mobility, defining and determining their identity. The construction of the ‘cyclist’ as a

stigmatised performance, primarily in low-cycling countries, refers to and manifests itself in many ways, with practice theory highlighting that stigma can be associated to and located across all three elements of cycling (materials, meanings and

competence).

For non-riders, cyclists on the road or shared paths are often framed as a public nuisance or risk takers and do not belong in such spaces (Daley and Rissel, 2011).

Particular performances, which do not obey road rules such as riding without helmets, cycling through red lights and against the flow of traffic, tainted their view further.

Yet as Daley and Rissel (2011, p.214) show, certain perceptions of cycling misbehaviour such as cycling in the middle of lane reveal the lack of knowledge about a cyclists legal rights. Those who cycle defend certain behaviours and instead question the validity of applying road rules that are designed for motorists (Daley and Rissel, 2011). This is connected to the wider transportation system in which Horton (2007) argues that the stigmatisation and ‘othering’ of cycling deflects attention away from greater crimes, sacrificing the cyclist in the pursuit of ‘motoring-as-usual’. In representing the practice of cycling as ‘deviant’, competing mobility practices such as driving are reaffirmed as ‘normal’ (Horton, 2007).

Pooley et al. (2013) also connects to the symbolism of the car vs. the bicycle in reference to status. Whilst the car demonstrates ‘making it’ in society, to ride a bike communicates and demonstrates a lack of financial ability to buy a car. Within low-economic contexts, bikes are associated as the ‘preferred mode of transport for drug dealers and the criminal fraternity’ (Pooley et al., 2013, pp.135-136). And where cycling levels are low, it is often ‘othered’, defined as something certain kinds of people would do but none of these ‘others’ being worthy of emulation.

Popular media discourse can also contribute to the stigmatisation of cycling. A Lancashire County Council road safety campaign in 2005 labelled people cycling a

‘saint or sinner’ based on their decision to wear a cycle helmet or not (Horton, 2007).

Although cyclists are at a lower risk of head injury than motorists, pedestrians and children at play, it is questioned why none of these groups are questioned to wear helmets (Horton, 2007). Instead, sinners were given the opportunity to ‘repent’

through a pledge to ‘mend their ways’ and always wear a helmet when cycling.

Certain acts such as listening to personal audio devices may also conjure negative perceptions of the ‘cycling zombie’ from the ‘outside’. Yet Jungnickel and Aldred (2014, p.252) convey how devices are ‘carefully considered, spatially shaped and socially negotiated’. Cyclists comment on buying headphones that allow external sounds to merge with the audio from mobile in order to maintain awareness; for others it provides a motivation to commute and exercise rather than to take the car;

whilst some cyclists would only use a personal audio devices when cycling away from motor traffic in locations that did not require high levels of alertness demanded of a cyclist (ibid).

The stigmatisation of cycling is not only evident from those on the ‘outside’, meaning those who do not cycle, but it is also evident on the ‘inside’ amongst those who do cycle. In constructing the ‘good cyclist’, those who ride perceive an individual has to successfully manage traffic, be self-sufficient in the maintenance of their bike as well as wearing the correct equipment such as a helmet, lights, and a high visibility jacket (Aldred, 2012c). Many of Aldred’s respondents expressed their anxieties of not living up to the expectations of this. As such, the ‘other cyclist’, defined by those who cycle themselves, is often criticised for cycling at night without lights, moving

unpredictably on the road and without indicating, jumping red lights, riding the wrong way up streets or one-way streets (Skinner and Rosen, 2007, p.92). Those cycling for utility and commuting reasons often felt they had less status and acceptance to those cycling for sport or recreation. Whereas, the vulnerability attached to cycling for physical activity in public space is especially fearsome for novices, returning cyclists and those of a self-conscious nature in general. What to wear (and what accessories to use) is often feared what it might signal about those who wear it, and thus attempt to find a middle ground between ‘everyday clothing’ and cycle-specific clothing

In methods to deal with such fear of appearing inept, people do not receive formal training on how to ride a bike or repair it, as well as reverting to cycling as an indoor health practice on static bikes in the gym, away from the public gaze and away from the watchful eyes of others (Pooley et al., 2013; Horton, 2007). If individuals are unable to properly perform cycling and wear items defined as ‘danger gear’ (not using lights, wear black clothes or wear non-reflective clothing) they are deemed

incompetent (Aldred and Woodcock, 2015). Yet being sporty, wearing full body lycra or abnormally enthusiastic results in being a ‘bike nut’ or a ‘hard-core cyclist’ and thus ‘too competent’ (Aldred, 2012c). Even in cities where cycling is normalised, it is judged and stigmatised. This is illustrated by individuals who cycle every day still distinguishing a type of ‘othered’ cyclist who wears lycra, cycles large distances and emphasises speed. Consequently, individuals are often at risk of being perceived either as incompetent or too competent.

In considering social practice theory’s distinction between practices as entities and as performances, it is possible to distinguish variations within a world of practices (Hui, 2017). It is possible then to consider how particular performances of cycling can be stigmatised or othered within the broader entity of cycling. Hui’s development of

‘variations of practices’ reveals potential limits to tolerable variations, in

performances such as cycling whereby some variants are encouraged and others discouraged through the elements used and the meanings associated to this. This is evident in Daley and Rissel’s (2011) statement of those who ride contribute to various

‘classes’ of cyclists referring to their relevant status, predominantly differentiated by the style of bike, purpose for riding, types of accessories and clothing worn by riders.

As already discussed in this section, stigmatised or ‘othered’ performances cannot be boiled down to one specific element. Materials, particularly in reference to

accessories (or the lack of); the competence and knowledge of how to ‘correctly’

cycle and negotiate the road environment; and meanings attached to cycling as conveying environmental and sustainable credentials can all act as negative elements in the development of cycling. Interestingly then, it can be questioned to what extent particular elements in a performance can determine a negative performance and whether one element in itself is enough to stigmatise a cycling performance, regardless of the other elements utilised and configured in the performance.

Social Practice Theory also highlights that individuals distinguish types of involvement and levels of knowledge in order to “articulate different variants of meaningful participation in the practice and the communities that gather around them”

(Hui, 2017, p.56). As such the enactment of such performances establish meaningful boundaries in within which practices are constructed and understood (ibid). For those who do cycle, the bicycle can contribute positively to their own identity and meanings relating to social, ecological and environmental issues. Cycling in suburban middle-class contexts is often understood as conveying environmental awareness and making a sensible and rational choice between less sustainable methods of transport such as the car (Pooley et al., 2013). However, these meanings associated to cycling whilst perceived as positive can also frame a negative image of cycling. Daley and Rissel (2011) analysed how in Australia, what might be conceived as positive images of cycling by those who ride are in fact framed negatively by those who don’t, with cyclists being stereotyped as ‘greenie activists’³, militant students or elitists. These strong identities can also manifest into feelings of marginality and construct an outside status by the performers themselves. For these sub-cultures, there is a strong association of self-identity in which people want to see themselves as unconventional and ‘cool’ within a sub-culture (Fincham, 2007). But, this marginality enhances an

‘othered’ status not only for those particular cycling sub-cultures, but also cycling more generally (Fincham, 2007). Whilst cycle messengers contribute to cycling levels very little, this ‘sub-culture’ or ‘lifestyle’ of cycling can contribute negatively to the portrayal of cycling as a whole (Fincham, 2007). As such, it is argued that particular performances, or as it maybe defined here, particular elements can give all cyclists a bad name, irrespective of whether they were included in the individuals performance (Daley and Rissel, 2011; Skinner and Rosen, 2007).

In reference to cycling advocacy and campaign groups, ‘Londoners on Bikes’

emphasised a strong activist narrative of not identifying as a ‘cyclist’ or with ‘cycling’

as these were perceived as problematic terms that either dehumanised or stigmatised

3 Daley and Rissel (2011, p.215) highlight that the data was originally collected in 2005 and the negative ‘green’ labeling might now be viewed more favorably due to growing media attention and wider discussions around climate change.

people (Aldred, 2013). This ‘pop-up’ social movement considered a particular time-limited aim of influencing a Mayoral election and re-consideration of its bicycle identity. By emphasizing other identities associated to cycling such as ‘Londoner’ and

‘commuter’, the campaign was able to draw other people in to the discussion as a result of the open-ended identities these words portrayed. The identity of a

‘commuter’ enabled a creation of a defensible identity, legitimising the use of road space and enabling paid work. Whilst being a ‘Londoner’ also enabled this attempt to remove the use of the stigmatised cyclist label and assumption that cycling was a niche practice and instead utilised broader narratives. The search for attachment to other identities also related to the interest in bicycles primarily in regards to politics rather than specifically to do with bikes. It therefore connected to both identity and issue goals of the group, broadening the aim to transform urban space, focusing on more than just benefiting ‘cyclists’.

In contrast, the example of the London Cycling Campaign (LCC), who considered a name change to ‘London Cyclists’, juxtaposes the argument against that of Londoners on Bikes. For LCC, the identity of a ‘cyclist’ was less of an out-group and off putting than that of the word ‘campaign’ (Aldred, 2012b). What is important to consider here is that institutions (including cycling advocacy groups, campaigns as well as local and national government) are engaged in the development of cycling and have the

opportunity to shape the set of elements in cycling through them being incorporated and utilised in performances (Hui, 2017).