Third Practitioner Meeting #1
Our third practitioner meeting was – though I say it myself – a lot of fun. We kicked off in the morning with a bike ride thanks to Allan, with support from Paul and Gisele. (Extra thanks to Allan for nipping off home to pick up a spare Brompton to lend out!) This was a real bonus – photos to follow – and got us all in the mood for talking about cycling.
After a warming lunch in Hull’s Guildhall, we got onto serious business – our “Who am I” match-up. Most people had, as asked, brought a picture with them that represented how they saw themselves as a cyclist. The task was then, in teams, to match the name to the picture. Some pictures were printed, some photocopied, some – like Andy’s – hand drawn!
Cartoons and book illustrations also appeared: Pauline chose for her image an illustration by Quentin Blake of ‘ Mrs Armitage on Wheels ‘; which tells the story of how ‘the eccentric heroine sets out on her bike followed by Breakspear the dog. But her bicycle always seems to be in need of improvement…when she adds the mast and sail she really rides into trouble.’
After the match-up, we spoke about where the project had got up to, and handed out lots of stuff including the Cycling Policy Review, Hull and Hackney zines, and join-up postcards. We had a workshop where people discussed research needs, and a couple of sessions where I spoke on the Group Rides paper and Kat spoke on the Zombies paper. Both these are available in draft form on request.
Here’s the slides from the intro and group rides presentations; below are some notes based on the workshop presentations (thanks, Mark and Alix). More detailed transcripts to follow in due course – and thanks all for coming, we hope you enjoyed it too.
Notes on workshops
From first and second groups:
Areas already considered (i.e. where further research might be helpful)
•Age-related attitudes to cycling
•Generation gap – do positive attitudes to cycling skip a generation (i.e. grandparents & grandchildren)?
•In particular is cycling culture in Hull inherited/passed down?
•Demographics – impact of settled population (e.g. Hull) compared to places w. high turnover (e.g. Hackney).
•Solitary cycling vs. groups
Areas for new research
•In-depth look at family cycling – can parents be reached through children
•Attitudes to cycle training – e.g. in Hull issue of people not taking up training even when it’s free. Is this a gender issue?
•Peer group pressure to cycle or not (e.g. new residential development in outer Cambridge with low cycling levels)
•Personality types – are cyclists aspirational, early adopters, social misfits (!?). Does this change with age/location? Map cycling levels against personality types…
•Triggers to start/stop cycling as means of transport
•Relationship between attitude and type of bike (hack, “trendy”/fixed-wheel, adopted,
•Impact of bike theft on attitudes to cycling
•Perceptions of fear/risk (gender based?)
From third group
•Fashions – using ideas / ‘normals’ (norms) from one place, and creating “fetish”.
•By researching, you effect change (measurable?)
•Means of distribution of ideas and results to support attitude change work through local authority practitioners and others.
•Patterns of work (employment) effect on commuting patterns – large employers.
•Effect of infrastructure, e.g. cycle parking provision on cycling levels – really?
•Topography – Switzerland vs Netherlands vs Bristol vs Hull
•Effect of Health Agenda….
•Effect of relationship with nature
•Effect of traffic-free routes?
•Inherent culture – effect on cycling
•Does Cycling Culture fit in with MOSAIC marketing tools at all?
•Champions – well-known, ‘proud to cycle’ figures. Do these effect a change or just add to a variety of add-on reasons.
•Costumes – Hi-vis / safety; fashions; hi-tech gear? Can be given as an excuse (not to cycle). Is it a reason (to cycle)if you’re really keen?
•Normalising cycling.
March 11th, 2011 at 4:00 pm
A few additional thoughts that didn’t emerge in the hubbub of the discussion in which I participated:
Personality type – I know the pioneer/prospector/settler taxonomy has its flaws but I nonetheless find it a useful reminder that most of our standard ways of categorising people (gender, age, ethnicity, wealth) may tell us little about attitude. I raise this because it seems very relevant to cycling cultures: the comparison of Hull and Hackney in our group appeared to suggest a greater presence of pioneers in the latter than the former. Or is that just us jumping to conclusions and associating “grooviness” with a pioneer mentality? In any case, if we are to understand the path from there being little cycling in a location to there being lots, I’d be surprised if this factor were irrelevant.
Social networks – perhaps your interviews have picked this up already; I suspect it’s relevant in that certain personalities are both charismatic (ie influential) and well connected. Did they start the bug? How do social networks compare in significance to social proof?