In the following I focus on how velo-mobility is described by experts and cyclists. This description follows Lefebvre´s representational space, albeit descriptions often will be exemplified by experiences and thus touches upon the two other elements as well.
One of the important findings when asking the interviewees to describe cyclism is how little the interviewees have reflected on this matter. It is indeed a part of their practical knowledge, which they have given no, or very little thought to - to them it is just a bike.
A: "It is just so easy! (Saying a clicking sound) You just jump in the saddle and ride wherever you have an appointment" (Anna Pp.41)[1]
B: “I have just borrowed my older sisters car. It is one of these very expensive BMW´s so I am very cautious… Whereas if I borrowed a bicycle it would be something like – I mean it’s just a bike!” (Bert Pp.29)[2]
Based on this challenge the first part of the present chapter is done in reference to the alternatives: cars and the public transport and the incentives for choosing the bicycle and not the car. This also shows the advantages of the bicycle in Copenhagen. Afterwards the focus will be on the diversity of perceptions of bicycling and how they change with the change of interviewees’ situations and values. This is followed by the way we use and perceive the urban transportation as cyclists. Finally, the social imaginary of bicycling will be described following the socially organised practices shown in the previous chapter.
8.1 Using auto-mobility and public transport to describe velo-mobility
K: "But if you look at them (red. the cars) in the city… in one way or another it seems really illogical to have a car in here.” (Kirstina Pp.5)[3]
All interviewees have more or less the same perspective on the car. It is not necessary in the city and the car is perceived as a luxury item, and all interviewees have reflected on choosing the car or not. There is a common understanding of the car as pleasant and convenient in heavy weather, but they would never indulge in the luxury of the car. It is not suitable for their daily range of transportation and therefore illogical.
G: “...Or like when you get a dishwasher, people tend to start it with only three cups, just because it is so great they do not have to do it by hand” (Grith Pp.18)[4]
In general the incentives for choosing the bicycle pointed to the interviewees’ personal reasons, such as health and convenience. However, they are all aware of the positive effects cycling has to the environment. This is considered a secondary factor, but still important to them. The line of thought is in general that the fastest and most convenient urban transportation is also environmentally friendly and healthy, and seldom the other way around. In this case the personal and convenient choice is also the altruistic.
The interviewees are all in an economic position to be able to buy a car if they budget for it. However, their considerations for a buying a car go further than just economic considerations. In the discussion ‘car versus bicycle’ (See appendix 4 Coding 3 - Competition between means of transportation) they also include the practical issues of the car and the responsibility it includes such as insurance, parking fees - and places, the decreasing value of used cars, repairs, licenses and legislations. Comparing this to the freedom they enjoy when they just jump in the saddle, to own a car is considered a decrease in personal freedom with all the commitments a car entails in contrast to the "Ford freedom"(See video below).
B: “I find it horrible to be responsible for a thing like that. I don´t even want to think about it! What if it breaks down, then what? Then I need to spend a hell of a time on it (…) it does not appeal to me. I would see this as a burden, then its much more cool to have some good bicycles.” (Bert Pp.30)[5]
Albeit their awareness of the actual opportunities with a car, it is still not an issue.[6] All respondents refer to children as a part of their considerations of purchasing a car in the future. It is clear that children change the interviewees’ priorities of mobility, but at the same time they refer to cargo-bikes as the alternative to the car. The cargo-bike offers some of the same characteristics as the car, with its possibility to carry heavier cargo and a small family. The cargo-bike somehow bridges the freedom connected to urban velo-mobility with the possibility for transporting more than one person from auto-mobility.
The interviewees and experts do not consider urban public transportation as an opponent to the bicycle as such. Public transport is necessary to travel further than the range of the bike and is therefore seen as an assisting means of transportation when the interviewees want to travel further than their bicycle-range. Public transportation is also considered a naturally integrated part of their mobility, whether it is daily commuting or longer recreational trips. In the competition within the range of the bicycle, none of the interviewees can make it faster with bus, metro or S-train in their daily commuting (Appendix 5 - Drawn maps). When the travel time cannot be brought down considerably the interviewees do not have any intentions to use the public transportation.
C: “No, I am actually one of these persons who cycle almost all the time, I can even sometimes ride the bike in a snowstorm, where people would say ‘Hey what are you doing? You can´t cycle on the roads’ I mean someone who easily forgets that there are types of weather that makes cycling impossible.”(Christine Pp.9)[7]
According to the Niels Jensen from the municipality of Copenhagen, most new cyclists convert from being buss-passengers to cyclists. (CPH 30:50). The buss does not feature the above described advantages of the bicycle. It is not flexible when it comes to time or route. For optimal use, the bus requires the passengers to check destination and timetable and thus becomes an obstacle for the personal freedom.
A new initiative however encourages mixing modes of traffic. When using the S-trains, which covers most of greater Copenhagen, passengers can now bring their bicycles along free of charge.
With a goal to decrease the amount of time spent from A to B the initiative will favour the bicycle even more. It will not only affect the public transport, but also increase the competitiveness for bicycles versus the car. (CPH 49:10). In this discussion it is interesting how the public transportation, based on collective ideals, merges with the more individual nature of bicycling. (UNI 40:00).
By describing the car as an illogical choice entailing too many commitments, it shows some of the interviewees’ incentives for choosing the bike. The bike is suited for the interviewees’ mobility needs, with a minimum of commitments and the aforementioned secondarily positive altruistic incentives. The public transport is an important supplement to extend the range of mobility and thus be competitive with the range of the car. Even though the bicycle requires the use of public transport to compete with the car, the interviewees still prefer the bicycle. Both choices require a series of obstructions, whether it is car-parking and insurance, or it is the use of public transport. But the interviewees prefer the freedom of mobility in the city and more planning when going out of the city than the constant commitments of the car.
As aforementioned the reflections on car versus bicycle, they all agreed on children as something that make them reconsider the car. It is clear that the values and perspective on velo-mobility changes through time.
8.2 Changing perspectives on safety
Safety was expected to play major role in the interviews, however this turned out to be wrong. With semi-structured interviews the intention was to let the interviewees broadly reflect on cycling with guiding and open-ended questions. Despite a strong focus on safety from the municipality of Copenhagen, they were reluctant towards it. None of the interviewees mention anything about safety, danger or accidents, when they were asked to describe a good and a bad journey and the pro´s and con´s with bicycling (See Appendix 4 coding 3 - competition among modes of transport). One of the interviewees describes how she regularly go against the road traffic acts and expected bicycle behaviour. A natural consequence must be a higher risk of causing accidents and a decrease in safety for themselves and their fellow road users.
K: "Yes there are a lot (cyclists), so it is potentially quite dangerous to bicycle on the wrong side right there.
J: Yes.
K: But then you just ride here dudududuu (Humming while drawing lines on the map)." (Kirstina Pp.3)[8]
The interviewee is aware of the danger and yet she decides to ride in the wrong direction during rush hour, which signals a certain confidence in the safety of riding a bicycle. She does not even find it dangerous to ride in the wrong direction of the traffic, which in car-terms would be considered a wrong-way driver – usually only done by mentally disturbed drivers. None of the interviewees name specific dangerous streets or roads, which for instance should be avoided. Instead there are places, which - according to the interviewees - require more attention than others, such as Nørrebrogade shown on the video-recordings. (See Appendix 1 - video-recordings). When reflecting on safety issues in the traffic the interviewees rarely articulate the danger or fear. During the interviews the words ‘fear’ and ‘danger’ were mentioned three times in total, and none of the words was used in direct relation to the practice of cycling. (See appendix 4 coding 3: Safety). Instead of being afraid there is perhaps a hint of arrogance towards the potentially threat of cars in the interviewee´s behaviour, which is also shown on video-recordings (See appendix 1 - video-recordings).
The question of wearing a helmet has shown different but interesting answers among the interviewees. There was a pattern among the interviewees with children, showing a change in understanding cycling. When becoming parents new values are introduced, which involve reflections on their bicycle behaviour.
J: "Yes but does this change when you put Ole on the bike?
K: Yes, sure I’ll drive very slowly and I cross only when green and so. I think it was more a couple of years ago I did that.
J: Yes
K: Now it is more in general I drive more decent in general also when I am alone.” (Kirstina Pp.2)[9]
Along with the responsibility of becoming a parent the interviewees’ bicycle behaviour is reconsidered.
Returning to the interviewee´s fearless approach to cyclism. How is this feeling embedded?
According to the Danish Cycling Federation, we have 100 years of tradition for teaching our children to ride bicycles, starting around the age of 2 beginning with e.g. the three-wheeler. At this age nearly every day is a new adventure and in this case also cycling as well. Learning to ride a bicycle can be a painful experience but so can a swing or climbing a tree. (DCF 2010). This age group is more used to bruises and scratches, tripping and trembling, which is rather unusual later on in life. This can be a reason for the interviewees’ perception of bicycle safety.
K: "And then it is just great to cycle in one way or another. I don’t know, it also reminds you about your childhood.” (Kirstina Pp.7)[10]
It is interesting to focus on the non-presence of fear in the interview, especially in the light of the vast amount of literature on this topic. Again the reason might be the car-centric literature. Most of the literature is based on how to cope with the feeling of safety, to make more people swap their car for the bike. Dave Horton sums up much of the literature with the article ‘Fear of cycling’ (2007). He points to the fact that an increase in safety campaigns is directly related to a decrease in cyclism. (Horton 2007:144). Especially the helmet has been an issue and object for discussion in the literature with the argument saying that an increase in use of helmets causes more lethal accidents, due the helmets’ as fake safety.[11] The change in the interviewees’ values also shows the great variety in perceptions of bicycling. Every cyclist has its own perception of e.g. safety or speed and signalling. The space of velo-mobility is thus perceived as the social imaginary constituted by its practitioners’ personal perceptions and the physical surroundings. Even the physical space is perceived differently, it is perceived differently whether lanes are for bicycles, cars or pedestrians or all of them together, which will be elaborated further in the following.
8.3 The relative notion of the bicycle-map
The aforementioned freedom of the bicycle can be considered a vital part of the interviewee´s daily planning. They enjoy the high degree of independency and freedom the bike provides, which does not fit the commitments a car-ownership entails. However, the bicycle lifestyle both has new opportunities and limits.
G: “There are jobs we don´t apply for, because we don´t have a car full-time… There was a job Rasmus wanted to apply for, but then he found out it was located in Hørsholm…” (Grith Pp.21)[12]
K: "Because if we had a car we might take small weekend-trips or something like that (…) but when we don´t, we are still in the middle of Copenhagen and able to take a fast trip to Malmö or with the train” (Kirstina Pp.5)[13]
As seen above the carless choice affects both work and recreation. This is completely opposite to the lifestyle during the car-boom and the sprawling cities in the 50´s USA, where the car was the symbol of freedom as shown in the Ford commercial below. (Kingsley & Urry 2009:40)
Today the spatial density of Copenhagen however serves almost all the interviewees’ needs, which serves the favour of the bike versus the car.
The status as carless affects the interviewees’ perception of the city and their mobility. In this case it is useful to use the relative perception of space analytically despite this thesis’ relational perspective. The relative perception of space is a more simple perception, which stresses the relative distance in time and leaves out the relational effects of the practices and the space it produces. David Harvey´s description of the relative notion of space captures very well how the interviewee´s see the advantages of biking.
“We can create completely different maps of relative locations by differentiating between distances measured in terms of cost, time, modal split (Car, bicycle, skateboard) and even disrupt spatial continuities by looking at networks, topological relations (The optimal route for the postman delivering mail) and this like. We know, given the differential friction of distance encountered on the earth´s surface, that the shortest distance (Measured in terms of time, cost, energy expanded) between two points is not necessarily given by the way the legendary crows fly.” (Harvey 2006:122)
Time and space are perceived differently depending on which means of the transport used. Imagine a map of Copenhagen. The motorist has to check for one-way streets, parking possibilities and bottlenecks on their route from A to B. Going with public transport the map consists of stations, stops, the specific routes and timetables. The cyclists have very little obstacles on their way from A to B in Copenhagen due to bicycle-lanes and the easy merging with the pedestrian maps.[15] Depending on your means of transport, a street can be either a detour or an obstacle towards your goal.
C: “I have guided my parents wrong so many times because I am used to commute as a cyclist in the city and then you can go on all the streets and then suddenly there are big constraints when you want to drive the same routes” (Christine Pp.13)[16]
It is clear that when the interviewee guides her parents around Copenhagen her notion of space is based on the capabilities of the bike, which in this case is closer to the bee-line or the way legendary crows fly. (Harvey 2006:112). Another example is the initial route of the video-recordings. When planning it I did not realise I had to cross a pedestrian street with no access for bicyclists. In this case I have perceived this street as a possible route and a part of my relative map of the city, however the map changed when I realised it was a pedestrian only. (See Appendix 1 - Video recordings).
 |
| Source: Balancia (see references) |
Based on both Balancia’s analysis (figure) on the range of different means of transportation and the bicycle range of the interviewees this is one of the major downsides to velo-mobility, which, for instance, affects what jobs to apply for or where to go for recreation (See appendix 4 coding - Distance/Speed/Proximity and Appendix 5 and Drawn maps Appendix). The interviewees show a gap between the range of the bicycle and the peri-urban landscape. When going far enough by train it is accepted as a long journey, but when going semi-long distances a clear advantage of the car is expressed.
B: “My granddad turned 90 years yesterday. He lives in Lejre or Osted. It is super-inconvenient. First we need to ride the bike to Valby station, and then train to Roskilde and then bus from Roskilde station. In total it was two hours. In a car it would have been tops 45 minutes.” (Bert Pp. 31)[17]
The relative notion of space is shown to be useful when describing how far we want to go with our choice of transportation and the rational reasons for our choices. In a geographer’s perspective the relative notion is considered archaic, however, it is interesting how the interviewees themselves perceive bicycling. They focus on the distance between A and B, and only very little on what they contribute to when riding their bikes in Copenhagen (See Appendix 4 - Coding 3, Incentives paper).
8.4 The social imaginary of the road traffic act
In the previous chapter the interviewees described their illegal behaviour. In the following the description of the space where all the illegalities happen is analysed. What are the incentives behind a socially constituted system with illegal routines?
The bicycle contributes to flexibility and freedom, both in time and space – you can go wherever you want, whenever you want. Another interesting element of the freedom is the very individual perception of the road traffic act. There is a common understanding among the interviewees that the laws are merely perceived as guidelines, which was also stressed when the cyclists reflected on their practice. When drawing the map of their daily cycle routines, all except one described how a part of their route was illegal according to the road traffic act.
C: "…like, just sneaking out here, then it is both easier to enter the bicycle-lane and also leave more space for the motorists. It sounds awfully self-righteous now, because this is in fact just a matter of me wanting to move ahead as fast as possible. Yes – If I drove more regularly I would probably make it safer for my fellow road users.
J: But then you would not be able to make it there in 15 minutes?
C: No, exactly – in that case I would arrive too late.” (Christine Pp. 12)[18]
The quote shows two significant aspects of the interviewee’s social perception of cycling in Copenhagen. The first aspect is the very blurry line between right and wrong when they cycle. The interviewee is clearly aware of the illegality but response by emphasising the fact that it is for the common good. The second aspect is the feeling of doing something wrong for one´s own sake. The illegality, that might cause problems for fellow cyclists, is a part of her daily routine. This raises a kind of bad conscience, which can be found among all the interviewees but one.
The above-mentioned easy merging of the space of cyclists and the space of pedestrians thus leaves a blurry perception of this particular interface. This picture shows the very little difference between sitting on the bike and having a cyclist´s tag – with all it requires, and dragging the bike and carrying the pedestrian tag. This blurriness, combined with the distinct intention of a minimum of transport-time, has an interesting effect on the produced space of velo-mobility.
A: “It is more in bee-line… when you are biking than when you are motorist. There can be one-way streets and things like that.
J: Yes okay, but usually one-way streets are also…
A: Yes, but I don’t really follow that.
J: No, Okay?
A: Alright that’s a rule… he he, I am getting more and more aware… I think I am such a prig, but maybe I am not…but it is just a little bit easier to… ups, then you just turn over there… "(Anna Pp. 43)[19]
The interviewee does not consider the illegalities illegal as such, which is common among the interviewees (See appendix 4 - coding 3, Legislation). Instead she grade the legislations, so instead of talking about being legal or illegal, she tend to talk about being more or less legal. According to the interviewees, sanctions are rarely seen and have only little or no presence in the interviewees’ lived space of bicycling.
Unlike the car system, with strict, clear laws, inherent good customs ruled by the sanctions and exclusiveness of necessary licenses, the cyclists system is merely anarchy. Everyone can enter the space of velo-mobility and rules are socially imaginary and thus up for personal interpretations as shown by the interviewees practice (See appendix 4 Coding 3, Practicing bicycling).
When the interviewees are forced to reflect on their practical knowledge they become aware of the illegalities, which at the same time show an illegal practice inherent in their practical knowledge of bicycling.
8.5 Summing up and reflecting – Representational space
- What are the leading discourses of the space of velo-mobility? (Representational space)
Like Merleau Ponty, Lefebvre stresses the body as perceiving and perceived (Shields 1999: 168). In relation to this, the interviewees perceive the produced space of velo-mobility; create meanings and practice on the basis of these meanings. In this chapter the interviewees have described the reasons for the ‘spatial writings’, whereas the last chapter focused on how the spatial language was written.
In their daily urban practice the interviewees use the bike to get from A to B as the fastest means of transport entailing a lot of positive altruistic reasons such as health issues and low carbon emissions. The perceptions of bicycle routes are often thought of as a bee-line through the city, despite one-way streets or other obstacles. These obstacles are often being overcome by breaking the road traffic act a little, and make the relative maps of bicyclists very competitive towards walking and driving. The bee-line perspective does, however, change through time, due to the change in life-situation and value. This might lower the competitiveness towards alternative modes of transport during time, and children decrease the bicycles’ competitiveness significantly among the interviewees. Partly due to family expansion, partly because changes in perspectives of safety decrease the willingness to choose the bee-line and, if necessary, break the road traffic act.
Generally, danger and safety is hardly a part of the interviewees’ perception of cycling. The relative perspectives on the bicycle-maps also describe the unlimited numbers of personal descriptions on the produced space of velo-mobility that produces the social imaginary of bicycling in Copenhagen.
The interviewees’ general description of the space of velo-mobility is a flexible and efficient space, which suits the life of the interviewees. To be carless requires a certain living with certain limits of mobility, but so does the car, and the interviewees’ mobility needs are designed for the bicycle.
[1] “er det bare nemt sådan lige [siger check-lyd med munden] at hoppe på cyklen og cykle et eller andet sted hen, hvor man har en aftale“
[2] “Lige nu da låner jeg min storesøsters bil ikke? Det er sådan en BMW der koster jeg ved ikke hvor meget og jeg passer pænt meget på…
J: Ja
B: Hvorimod hvis jeg lånte en cykel så ville nok være sådan lidt… måske… Det er bare en cykel.”
[3] “K: Men hvis man ser dem herinde i byen, så... På en eller anden måde så er det sådan lidt… virkelige ulogisk synes jeg, at have en bil herinde.”
[4] “…eller når man får en opvaskemaskine. Folk kan finde på at vaske 3 kopper fordi, hvor er det bare fedt at man ikke skal stå at gøre det i hånden.”
[5] “Jeg synes det er en enorm rædsel at skulle have ansvar for sådan en ting. Jeg vil slet ikke tænke på det. Hvis det går i stykker hvad så? Så skal man til at bruge en helveds masse tid… Det siger mig ikke noget i hvert fald. Jeg vil opleve det som en belastning, så er det meget federe at have sådan nogle gode cykler.”
[6] One of the interviewees is part of a shared car system and others have also considered this possibility.
[7] “Nej jeg er faktisk sådan en der cykler nærmest altid og sådan en der kan finde på at cykle i snestorm , hvor folk siger ”Hvad laver du? Du kan da ikke cykle på vejene” altså sådan en der glemmer at der nogen gange er vejr der gør at man ikke kan cykle.”
[8] “K: Ja, der er mange, så det kunne faktisk godt være ret farligt at cykle i den forkerte side der.
J: ja
K: … Men så cykler man bare den vej dududuuu”
K: Ja helt sikkert, så kører jeg virkelig langsomt og kun kører over for grønt og… Sådan tror jeg… Det er måske også mere tidligere at jeg har kørt sådan der.
J: Ja
K: Så nu tror jeg sådan egentlig, også sådan generelt… ja… Også når jeg kører alene så kører jeg ordentlig”
[10] “K: ok, tre positive. Så tror jeg at jeg vil sige… Man er udenfor… og det forurener ikke… og det er også bare fedt at cykle på en eller anden måde. De ved jeg ikke. Det minder også en lidt om ens barndom.”
[11] A good example is the webpage www.cyclehelmets.org which among other things include a long list of articles on this specific topic. This is also stated on the blog www.copenhagencyclechic.com and by Dave Horton (Horton et al. 2007:138)
[12] …der er nogle jobs som vi ikke kan søge og ikke søger fordi vi ikke har en bil fast… Der var et Job Rasmus ville have søgt, men så lå det i Hørsholm og så…
[13] “K: For hvis vi havde en bil kunne det måske godt være vi lige tog en weekend tur eller…”
[15] See paragraph ‘Mounting’ in ‘Practicing bicycling’ chapter for more details)
[16] “C: Jeg har guider mine forældre forkert så mange gange fordi man er så vant til at være cyklist i byen, så kan man cykle alle veje og så er der pludselig store begrænsninger når man skal køre den rute.”
[17] “Min morfar blev 90 år i går. Han bor i Lejre eller Osted. Det er pisse besværligt. Først cykle til Valby station, så tog til Roskilde så bus fra Roskilde station. Det tog to timer. En Bil tager vel 45 min. Maks.”
[18] “sådan lige sniger sig lidt ud, så er det både nemmere at komme ind på cykelstien og giver mere plads til billisten. Det lyder totalt helligt, fordi det handler i virkeligheden om at jeg vil hurtigt frem. Ja. Ej… Hvis jeg havde kørt ordentlig ville jeg sikkert gøre det mere sikkert for mine medtrafikanter.
J: Jamen men så ville du ikke komme derhen på 15 minutter.
C: Nej lige præcis… Så ville jeg komme for sent.”
[19] “A: …det er mere fugleflugtsruten hahah a når du er cyklist end når du er bilist…der kan være ensrettet og alt muligt, ik
J ja…men de fleste ensrettede er vel også…
A ja, men det følger jeg så ikke…
J nej ok
A nej, der er så en regel….hehehe,,,jeg bliver også mere og mere opmærksom på, at jeg øhhh tror jeg er sådan et dydsmønster, men måske er jeg det ikke helt....ja, men det er sådan lidt nemmere lige at … hov, så kan man lige svinge over der”
No comments:
Post a Comment