Curso C05S1

Cycling can be easily romanticised, more often than not by enthusiasts themselves with their ‘positive-inside’ representations of pleasure often used as a principal motivation to encourage the uptake of cycling (Fincham, 2007). However, the fear of cycling is an important emotional barrier that is located in a number of contexts, materials and skills or lack of (Horton, 2007). This section draws upon research from a sociological perspective, focusing on the cultural and symbolic dimensions of cycling associated to the fear of cycling and perceived safety risks. What is evident is that the three elements of meanings, competencies and materials of social practice theory are used interchangeably by different groups, communities and individuals in order to negate or highlight fears of cycling and safety.

It is generally assumed accessories which attach to bicycles and clothing accessories can accommodate and ‘contribute to greater safety, convenience, comfort, and enjoyment’ when promoting utility cycling (Lovejoy and Handy, 2012, p.75).

Reflective gadgets, flags, wearing high visibility clothing and cycle helmets are all associated to the safety conscious individual (ibid). In place of suitable bicycle infrastructure, devices can be utilised to alleviate safety concerns (Lovejoy and

dangerous and rather a matter of perception (Daley and Rissel, 2011). For them, an individuals riding skill and decisions about route selection, cycling style and clothing choice all enhance the safety of cycling.

Yet, the use of such of accessories to enhance safety is contested. Throughout the first half of the twentieth century, the CTC fought against the compulsory use of rear lights by cyclists, arguing that it would reduce the responsibility of the driver of an

overtaking vehicle to avoid running down a cyclists in front of him (Horton, 2007).

The wearing of ‘specialist clothing’, referring to both ‘‘safety clothing’ (e.g. high-visibility vests and helmets) and/or ‘sporty clothing’ (e.g. elastane shorts and leggings)’, indicates a perception that cycling is dangerous and/or suggests it is an activity that requires much exertion, in order to cycle at a high speed to keep up with motor traffic (Aldred and Dales, 2017, p.349). People often wear safety equipment due to not feeling safe, primarily in relation to injury with motor vehicles (Aldred and Woodcock, 2015). Consequently, individuals cycling on protected cycle lanes are less likely to wear any specialist clothing or helmets (Aldred and Dales, 2017), and feel inherently safe when cycling away from motor vehicles (e.g. parks, cycle tracks, quiet streets) and hence do not wear safety equipment (Aldred and Woodcock, 2015, p.106). This obligation and encouragement of the cyclist to be seen and be safe by wearing safety clothing can make people feel cycling is less safe and therefore demands the association of cycling with danger (Aldred and Woodcock, 2015;

Horton, 2007).

Studies highlighting media coverage of cycling also convey a negative image that instils a perception of cycling being a dangerous activity. Horton’s (2007) study of cycle safety campaigning; especially in the context of child road safety, refers to safety campaigning actually inculcating fear (Horton, 2007). The UK Government’s highway code for young road users ‘Arrive Alive’ conveyed messages to children that the world, particularly the transport network is a dangerous place, full of potential accidents and not a space for playing on bicycles with an emphasis on the child having to take care (Horton, 2007). Such attempts to encourage or normalise cycling and its associated accessories (for instance helmet use), may in fact risk further de-normalising cycling (Aldred and Woodcock, 2015).

As already commented, both on-road and off-road cycling environments are juxtaposed with one another. The majority of on-road cycle lanes reflect the use of white lines and coloured paint to mark the boundary between motorised traffic and space for cycling. At its best, this infrastructure aims to make cycling journeys more

‘attractive, quicker, easier, safer, more pleasant’ (Horton, 2007), yet cyclists can often feel marginalised in these spaces, particularly in relation to their own subjective feelings and perceptions of non-injury incidents. Cyclists, more so new cyclists (deemed to have less than 2 years cycling experience) experience on-road incidents where they feel other road users actively disregard their safety on a daily basis, contributing to a wider sense of marginalisation (Aldred and Goodman, 2018).

The perceived marginalisation and safety fears when cycling on the road is often compared to the UK’s off-road provision, largely in the form of the National Cycle Network (NCN) (Horton, 2007). The popularity of this off-road cycling route, shared not with motorised traffic but with walkers, dogs and horses, may reflect a public perception of cycling predominantly performed in ‘safe’ and pleasant places, with

‘normal roads’ becoming no place to cycle and to be feared (Horton, 2007).

Individuals would sacrifice directness (both distance and time) for a route that has less traffic, slower traffic, quieter streets and more places to stop and rest (Dill and

McNeil, 2012; DfT, 2008). With the variety of cycling not just for transport but for leisure including BMX-ing, mountain biking, cyclo-cross, and track, Horton (2007) contends that new ideas of ‘normal’ are produced and with this the view of the

‘cyclist-on-the-road’ becomes ‘out-of-place’, less normal and less appropriate as a result of its interaction with motorised traffic. Occasional and non-riders highlight this perception of danger when cycling, listing the lack of safe places to cycle especially for transport cycling, yet recreational riding performed on off-road cycling routes generally considered to be enjoyable and healthy (Daley and Rissel, 2011).

With perceived ‘safe’ on-road infrastructure often lacking in British contexts, Spinney (2007) comments how this can be offset by an individual’s competence and

knowledge. Relating particularly on stretches of roads where interaction with traffic (particularly fast moving cars) is high, one individual slows the situation down by going slow herself, thus attempting to reduce the amount of sensory information she is being ‘bombarded’ with. On the other hand, others deal with situations differently

by attempting to minimise the speed of traffic by attempting to go as fast as possible themselves. Spinney (2007, p.39) argues “the ability of a rider to manipulate their environment is thus dictated by the skills and technology that they have at their disposal, both which are culturally framed.” Here then, individuals may experience environments differently due to their own personal knowledge and competence or association (or lack of) to a cycling community, with the example of the bicycle messenger community highlighting a strong cultural framing, with strong bike

handling skills, attention to bicycle technology and a perceived recklessness (Spinney, 2007).

Latham and Wood’s (2015) vignettes of certain cycling performances of ‘rule

breaking, rule making, and rule bending’ further highlights styles and techniques that actively alter the road into a safer and more efficient environment for cycling. The example of ‘Dick’s’ attentiveness to the workings of the road infrastructure, more specifically the workings of traffic lights on a particular intersection allows him to create extra-legal rules and norms that allow him to cross the junction with speed and confidence (Latham and Wood, 2015, pp.309-311). This draws similarities to Aldred and Jungnickel’s (2012) exploration of place creation through the concept of rhythm (as outlined in Lefebvre, 2004), with the reinterpretation of mobile spaces. The paper argues that social experiences such as group cycle leisure rides subvert and modify the rhythm of the normalised motorised streetscape to one that is more flexible and social through the use of speech and signals. It is accepted that roads are a functional space in which fast efficient movements are prioritised and social practices such as talking to one another whilst cycling two abreast on the road (although legal) disrupt the infrastructural settlement as the cyclists utilise the environment for their

movement purpose. But it is also important to highlight other performances in which individuals, with weekend and recreational cycling experience, resort to becoming

‘bike-wheeling pedestrians’ at particular road intersections, due to infrastructure exceeding their abilities (Latham and Wood, 2015, pp.306-309). Furthermore, cycling training schemes teach individuals to cycle via convoluted routes because they are

‘safer’ than main-roads, focusing primarily on the practices and psychology of the individual, emphasising the responsibility of the individual to maintain personal safety. And whilst this strives to reduce casualties and convey cycling as ‘safe’, it

actually inculcates fear into those individual and provides disincentives to cycle (Horton, 2007).

This section has explored how the fear of cycling and issues of safety manifest themselves differently by various groups, communities and individuals. It is particularly important to draw to attention social practice theories meanings, materials, and competencies and how safety through knowledge, clothing, and

infrastructure can construct different performances of ‘safe cycling’. In using a social practice theory lens, further issues such as safety can be explored in understanding how different elements are interdependent on other elements, or how elements may be used in response to others (or the lack of). This is highlighted by Shove when

commenting that objects, artefacts and infrastructures can determine boundaries of competence necessary to perform a practice (2017). This is often evident in cycling, as shown in regards to the lack of cycling infrastructure in British contexts being offset by and individual’s competence and knowledge (Spinney, 2007). Whilst, individuals wear specialist clothing or helmets as a result of the lack of protection the road environment affords.

Shove et al., refer to the rise driving practices as a result of passing certain capacities from person to machine. Previous know-how that was embodied in the ‘mechanic driver’ was delegated to the vehicle itself, reconstituting the meaning of the practice in the process (Shove et al., 2012). Car owners became ‘drivers’, when they viewed driving as a means of making outings and sharing these experiences with friends and family. The mechanical demands which were previously critical, became more of a distraction, a nuisance, and possibly an embarrassment (ibid). As such, elements of meanings and materiality also co-evolved. Boundaries may therefore change with the introduction of new innovative material in which aspects and competencies may transfer from the human, to being delegated by the technology of the material (Shove et al., 2012). The example of the NCN highlights how this interaction between

infrastructural materials and required human competencies informs understandings of cycling with recreational forms (on the NCN) being enjoyable and healthy, yet safe spaces for transport cycling (on the road) lacking (Daley and Rissel, 2011). In

referring back to the research questions, it is also important to consider this in respect to how ‘previous generations structure the careers and experiences of contemporary

carriers’ or would be carriers (Shove et al., 2012, p.33) in constructing inclusive, or potentially exclusive ways of cycling.