Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Figures, Tables and Box
- Notes on Contributors
- Introduction
- 1 Theorising Infrastructure: a Politics of Spaces and Edges
- 2 The Cultural Politics of infrastructure: the case of Louis Botha Avenue in Johannesburg, South Africa
- 3 Spatial Dimensions of the Marginalisation of Cycling – Marginalisation Through Rationalisation?
- 4 Mental Barriers in Planning for Cycling
- 5 Safety, Risk and Road Traffic Danger: Towards a Transformational Approach to the Dominant Ideology
- 6 What constructs a cycle city? A comparison of policy narratives in Newcastle and Bremen
- 7 Hard Work in Paradise. The Contested Making of Amsterdam as a Cycling City
- 8 Conflictual Politics of Sustainability: Cycling Organisations and the Øresund Crossing
- 9 Vélomobility in Copenhagen – a Perfect World?
- 10 Navigating Cycling Infrastructure in Sofia, Bulgaria
- 11 Cycling Advocacy in São Paulo: Influence and Effects in Politics
- Conclusion
- Index
9 - Vélomobility in Copenhagen – a Perfect World?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 March 2021
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Figures, Tables and Box
- Notes on Contributors
- Introduction
- 1 Theorising Infrastructure: a Politics of Spaces and Edges
- 2 The Cultural Politics of infrastructure: the case of Louis Botha Avenue in Johannesburg, South Africa
- 3 Spatial Dimensions of the Marginalisation of Cycling – Marginalisation Through Rationalisation?
- 4 Mental Barriers in Planning for Cycling
- 5 Safety, Risk and Road Traffic Danger: Towards a Transformational Approach to the Dominant Ideology
- 6 What constructs a cycle city? A comparison of policy narratives in Newcastle and Bremen
- 7 Hard Work in Paradise. The Contested Making of Amsterdam as a Cycling City
- 8 Conflictual Politics of Sustainability: Cycling Organisations and the Øresund Crossing
- 9 Vélomobility in Copenhagen – a Perfect World?
- 10 Navigating Cycling Infrastructure in Sofia, Bulgaria
- 11 Cycling Advocacy in São Paulo: Influence and Effects in Politics
- Conclusion
- Index
Summary
‘One feels very Danish and social democratic when one is cycling.’
‘I guess I’m thinking that I have to bike because it is good for me with the 8–9 kilometres, actually really good. I can feel the difference, in my mood and in my body generally, so I feel guilty when I use the metro.’
‘The bike gives the most freedom, the metro also has this thing that one doesn't need to think, but the bike means that you can just jump on and drive wherever you want. That's also why I couldn't imagine living in the countryside where you have to drive the same stretch every day by car. I was also brought up with cycling because I was raised in the city and my parents never transported us around the city. Some of the other parents were outraged about that …’
These quotations, taken from extended fieldwork interviews in Copenhagen, give a great sense of the emotional, embodied identity and cultural aspect of cycling that Copenhageners express when asked why they cycle. Whereas in many other places, cycling in a city is seen as a hazardous activity (Spinney, 2010a; Aldred, 2012) Copenhagen offers a different perspective. ‘Copenhageners’ use of bikes is not defined in terms of risk, but rather in terms of urban everyday life on the move, with the sensuous, kinetic, and emotional power of biking emerging as a key to urban spatiality and vitalism’ (Jensen, 2013: 278). Copenhagen is often described as a model cycling city, whose approach should be duplicated throughout the world, and Copenhagen is without a doubt a city that prioritises vélomobility (City of Copenhagen, 2017). However, the downside is a somewhat self-satisfied cycling narrative in Copenhagen, which, I will argue could also be a barrier to further development of Copenhagen as a cycling city.
This chapter discusses these dilemmas in light of qualitative research conducted with cyclists in Copenhagen. It takes a theoretical position rooted in mobility research, questioning dominant planning paradigms that conceptualise the future of cities and mobilities as a matter of more efficient technologies rather than of social cohesion, integration and connectivity (Urry, 2007; Freudendal-Pedersen et al, 2016).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Politics of Cycling InfrastructureSpaces and (In)Equality, pp. 179 - 194Publisher: Bristol University PressPrint publication year: 2020