 |
 |
I know y'all are talking about London, but I can't resist some anthropological commentary to follow up on Graham's remark. Cultural differences between cyclists have a lot to do with how people react to bike infrastructure projects in the U.S. My dissertation research on Los Angeles I heard about opposition to bike lanes from a black community member and opposition to a street closure project from a community organizer representing Latino families. When infrastructure goes in as an economic stimulant to redevelopment, how are the people who will be displaced from those neighborhoods supposed to see it as a good they can use? I know that similar debates have gone on in New York, and I now live in Seattle, where I've been approached by a local bike infrastructure booster group who laments their inability to connect with diverse communities. As an anthropologist and bike advocate, I think it's important to address these cultural gaps at the same time that we focus on making biking easier and safer through infrastructure. Emptying our cities of the poor and communities of color does nothing to promote bicycling among these people. -- Adonia E. Lugo Doctoral Candidate in Anthropology University of California, Irvine On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 8:35 AM, Graham Berridge <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Well it's interesting to see what this has stirred up, with a lot of subjective views about London and cycling. I too can lay claim to 25 years of cycling throughout London, east-west, north-south, day-in/day-out but I'm not sure it necessarily enables me to pronounce with authority , albeit in a well structured way, on the past, present and future state of cycling as some others seem to have done. The starting point for a discussion of this kind, as is eluded to in a few posts, is what exactly are you talking about when you say cyclist? There are so many variables to the term, that one of the problems in discussion of anything to do with cycling is that we are all lumped into the one term. But in actual fact there are considerable differences between different types of cyclists and this affects the very nature of debate. I have just returned from the Australian Cycling Conference in Adelaide which had some really interesting discussions on how to develop and build a cycling infrastructure, with the challenges faced in Sydney and Melbourne being particularly relevant to London. But what came out of most of the debates was this term 'cyclist' and who did that actually mean in relation to urban planning. An interesting study undertaken in Sydney highlighted very graphically the differences in attitude between 'race' commuters (their term) and 'leisure' commuters, to give but just two different types of cyclists. Yes of course all infrastructure and actions on the road affect any cyclists , but the degree to which they do that is interpreted differently by different cyclists. I would have thought the debate about safety etc etc needs to be addressed within a context of what types of cyclists we are talking about? .. I now await a pointing in the right direction of why we are all just all 'cyclists' and interesting research around that, thanks.