Cycling and the Social Sciences: An Introduction
I'm absolutely delighted to welcome you all to this symposium of social scientific
research into cycling, hosted by the Centre for Mobilities Research. This event
emerged out of email communications between a small group of us, many of whom
are meeting for the first time, in this room, today. But until recently, I was feeling
rather isolated in my desire to explore cycling social scientifically. My assumptions
were first, that there was precious little social scientific research going on into
cycling, and second, that what research there was was relatively scattered, occurring
in ignorance of other research. However, the process of organising this symposium
has made it clear to me that there is a good deal of important research into cycling
going on within the social sciences in the UK. Today will I think provide ample
evidence of that! And I hope that today's event goes some way to building the profile,
and contributing to the development, of that research.
And the time is surely right for more sustained social scientific interest in cycling;
cycling seems more relevant than ever to a whole range of important contemporary
debates, about how we move around and with what consequences, about the
appropriate pace and scale of everyday life, about how we treat our bodies, our
communities and our planet. And some pro-cycling policy is there. The UK
Government's goal, set out in the National Cycling Strategy, is to quadruple levels of
cycling between 1996 and 2012.
At the outset I want to make it clear that good rigorous social scientific research into
cycling is not at all incompatible with an advocacy of cycling. Social scientists can
promote cycling. Indeed, in a contemporary climate obsessed with concerns about
congestion, pollution, climate change, quality-of-life, health and disease, I think we
should be really fierce in our advocacy of the bicycle. We can't take for granted the
completely obvious - to us - good sense and superiority of cycle technologies as
means of mobility, especially everyday mobility. We are engaged in a struggle to win
over hearts and minds, and ultimately bodies which should be pedalling! I think that
today we will witness many different ways of social science advocating the practice
of cycling, and more widely I assume that pretty much all social scientific research
into cycling is - at some level - an advocacy of cycling.
So what can social scientists contribute to our understandings of cycling? My own
main social scientific interest in cycling is in its transformative potential, or not, to
change the way we live, to contribute towards radical social change and the goal of
environmental sustainability. Considering cycling even from this relatively limited
perspective, I think social scientific inquiry might yield some valuable findings. So by
way of example of what we social scientists might do, I want to take a few minutes
briefly to describe just three potential avenues for future research into cycling,
emerging from my own particular interests.
First, politics. We might productively develop political analyses of cycling. As
voluntary or paid cycling activists, we are good at finding ways of working for
cycling even within anti-cycling structures, working very hard to promote cycling in
conditions which are far from conducive to cycling promotion. Understandably, we
learn to focus on what we can do rather than become disempowered by the
overarching structural conditions which limit our progress. I think social scientists can
make important contributions here, in delving more deeply into something about
which we are already aware; namely, for all the examples of pro-cycling rhetoric,
policy and projects, the practice of cycling remains embedded in systems which are
fundamentally deeply hostile to cycling. Cycling is a practice which is institutionally,
systematically discriminated against, and to ride a bike is often to experience that
discrimination personally. Here I think we can learn from, and contribute to,
knowledge of discrimination not of particular social groups, but specific cultural
practices.
Second, I think social science can examine, better understand, and so potentially
effect cycling's reach. I see a need to make our research horizons spatially and
temporally very broad. Cycling is a global practice, a very important and relevant
global practice. The bicycle is the world's most numerous vehicle. We are especially
good at noticing 'good practice' - we look to the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany
for encouragement, inspiration and to persuade the cycling sceptics. But in many
ways these countries are exceptions, albeit very important exceptions. Elsewhere
across the globe, the fortunes of the bicycle and the private car are often diametrically
opposed; where car use is accelerating, cycling suffers. More bluntly, in countries
such as China and India, countries where cycling remains immensely popular, cyclists
are in the process of being driven off the roads, and in their droves. There are many
good reasons why we should be concerned about, and seek to oppose this trend, and
we might build this opposition into cross-cultural social scientific work. We might
also use historical insights to inform our perspectives. The recently reopened helmet
debate of which many of you are no doubt very aware, for example, bears many
similarities to the rear light debates of the last century. And debates about appropriate
cycling infrastructure, and where cyclists ought properly to ride, have accompanied
cycling since its inception.
Third and finally, what makes people cycle? We think a lot about why people don't
cycle; our focus on promotion tends inevitably and rightly to concentrate effort on
getting new groups of people on their bikes. But one effect of our preoccupation with
the reasons why people aren't cycling is sometimes a lack of examination of the
reasons why various, and really quite diverse, groups of people are cycling.
Obviously, as well as varying greatly across time and space, it is clear that levels of
cycling vary according to gender, class, ethnicity and age. Yet beyond these social
facts, people clearly cycle for all kinds of different reasons, and these people can be
grouped, and these groups can be explored social scientifically, to reveal the cultural
conditions for their cycling. What enables different groups of people to ride bikes?
Can we learn, through exploring the cultures of groups of people who do cycle, how
better to encourage cycling among other groups of people who currently don't cycle?
These occur to me, from my own limited research experience and perspective, as just
some of the things a social science of cycling might do. Of course, social scientific
research into cycling can do a great deal more, and today's papers testify to that. I
think we have a fascinating day ahead of us. Today is a real showcase of current UK
based social scientific research into cycling. And very significantly I think, today's
paper presenters are contributing to the development of an active agenda for social
scientific research into cycling.