Speeding capsules of alienation? Social (dis)connections amongst drivers, cyclists and pedestrians in Vancouver, BC

Geoforum 54 (2014) 91–102

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geoforum journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geoforum

Speeding capsules of alienation? Social (dis)connections amongst drivers, cyclists and pedestrians in Vancouver, BC Denver V. Nixon ⇑ Department of Geography, University of Western Ontario, Social Science Centre, London, ON N6A 5C2, Canada

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 30 May 2013 Received in revised form 30 March 2014 Available online 13 May 2014 Keywords: Mobilities Automobility Cycling Walking Alienation Empathy

a b s t r a c t Every commute practice possesses a different degree and quality of technological mediation. Some mobilities scholars suggest that particular types of modal mediation may either alienate the traveller from, or connect them with, their passing environment. This research draws on forty-six in-depth interviews with drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians commuting in the City of Vancouver, and their commute narratives and GPS logs, to compare the relationships that these participants have with their passing social landscapes. The results both support and productively complicate the theories of modally induced alienation and connection with other concepts such as isolation and marginalization. Intermodal empathy, as formed through multi-mode use, offers hope, at least for mobilities interactions. The article concludes with several policy recommendations. Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Drawing on mixed-methods fieldwork in Vancouver, British Columbia, this article explores the association between mobility technologies and commuters’ sense of social connection. The practices of walking, riding a cycle, and driving an automobile each possess different degrees and types of technological mediation, such as the suspension between the driver and the road, or the shoe between the pedestrian and the ground. Some suggest that more mediating transportation technologies, like automobile windshields, may estrange the commuter from their traversed environments, leading to a form of ‘‘alienation’’ (Fotsch, 2007; Freund and Martin, 2007; Furness, 2007; Kay, 1998; Sennett, 1994; Spinney, 2007). Others argue that the mobile person and their technology of mobility create a ‘‘hybrid’’, an assemblage that may be no less connected than ‘‘bare’’ movement (Dant, 2004; Ihde, 1975; Katz, 1999; Latimer and Munro, 2006; Sheller, 2004; Thrift, 2004). Both these and also others sometimes present ambivalent or even intentionally contradictory assessments of the alienation and hybridity of transportation modes so as to recognize their complexity (Michael, 2000; Urry, 2006, 2007). Here the complexity of technology’s role in mobility practices is recognized, though some provisional associations, ones that ⇑ Current address: Department of Geography, University of British Columbia, 1984 West Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2, Canada. E-mail address: [email protected] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.04.002 0016-7185/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

suggest some alienation, emerge from the interpretation of interview and commute narratives with forty-six pedestrian, cycle, and car commuters. I argue that as the extent and intensity of technological mobility affordances increases, so too may a sense of disconnection from the social environments traversed. For instance, the steel and glass armour of the automobilized body encapsulates it, and the effortless power and speed afforded by the motor blurs the passing landscape and limits conversation with others to those sharing the enclosure. These technological affordances, in some ways of benefit to their users, may create a physical, psychological, and social chasm otherwise not present. This is concerning in a context of intermodal conflict and given the need to shift to more environmentally and socially just mobility. The social dynamics of mobility practices are of critical concern to sustainable mode shift efforts. The new mobilities discourse (Sheller and Urry, 2006) attends to these issues that are generally overlooked in traditional transport geography literature (Lyons, 2004), though at times empirical support for the new theoretical claims is insufficient (Shaw and Hesse, 2010). The following presents an empirical inquiry into mobilities themes such as alienation and social relations, and thus advances this pursuit. The article first provides a review of the key themes of the paper, particularly the epistemological impacts of technology, the separation associated with hard enclosures and high speeds, the internalized and formalized hierarchies that may arise from both this separation and technologically differentiated mobility landscapes, and finally the alienation and connection allegedly cultivated

92

D.V. Nixon / Geoforum 54 (2014) 91–102

through the use of technologically different modes. The methods and results of the field research are then discussed. The paper concludes with a discussion of policy implications.

2. Literature review 2.1. The co-constitution of embodied knowledge, technology, and mobility Aspects of our environments inform and constrain the constitutive processes of our bodies, conceptualizations, and reasoning (Hayles, 1995; Johnson, 1999; Maturana and Poerksen, 2004; Parr, 2010; Thompson, 1996; Thrift, 2008; Varela et al., 1991). Technologies, as both an extension of the user and a part of the user’s environment, mediate interactions between the individual and their social and natural spaces, and in this way play a role in epistemic development and social relations (Feenberg, 1999; Hansen, 2000; Kellner, 2006; Wacjman, 2008). In other words, they have both ontological and constructivist features, and may shape, extend, or limit perception and cognition, as well as the simultaneous or subsequent actions guided by them. Diverse studies suggest that technologies may estrange users from the relationships in which these technologies intervene (e.g. Borgmann, 1994; Bull, 2001; Gregory, 2011; Miller, 2009; Simpson, 1995). Other commentators, however, claim that technologies offer human extension (e.g. Cranny-Francis, 2008; McLuhan, 1964). Feenberg (2002) and Kellner (2006) recommend that scholars overcome these common polemics, as many technologies both integrate and estrange (see also Ihde, 1975). Some argue that it is rather the social relations behind the production and use of technologies that alienate, as in the capitalist mode of production (Marcuse, 1964; Marx, [1844] 1961), but this ignores the mutually causative nature of technologies and social relations. As with technologies in general, transportation technologies may be seen to co-co-constitute their users (e.g. Nixon, 2012; Thrift, 2004; Rissotto and Tonucci, 2002; Rodaway, 1994). Driving, cycling, and walking are all mode practices with different degrees and types of technological intervention. These modes similarly have positive and negative social impacts. For instance, whereas pedestrian infrastructure may cause less bifurcation of communities than do the roads needed for automobility, walking may also incur, within an automobilized environment of reduced accessibility, a cost in travel time. Specific qualities associated with transportation technologies, infrastructures, and legal regimes may change the social relations amongst individuals (Adams, 2001; Cresswell, 2010; Lupton, 1999). Of most concern here are antisocial relationships in the immediate context of the moving person. These may include communication asymmetry and separation associated with the enclosed, speeding vehicle, a cluster of uneven power relations born of mass, armour, and engine, and the legal and infrastructural transportation hierarchy owed to a complex of historical, social, political, and economic influences themselves arguably shaped by their actors’ transportation practices. A review of each of these relationships is warranted.

2.2. Encapsulation Members of contemporary industrialized societies often occupy technologically altered spaces designed to separate them from otherwise uncontrolled environments. Lutz and Lutz-Fernandez call this ‘‘capsule living’’ (2010:144), borrowing from De Cauter (2004) and those who influenced or echoed his work (Boomkens, 1998; Featherstone, 2004; Kurokawa, 1969). De Cauter contends that:

The capsule is a device that creates an artificial ambiente, which minimizes communication with the outside by forming its own time–space milieu, an enclosed (artificial) environment. . . Our daily lives can be perfectly described as movement via transport capsules from one enclave or capsule (home, for example), to another (campus, office, airport, all-in hotel, shopping mall and so on) (2004: 45-46, 82) Synonyms found in the literature for the automobile body or shell include ‘‘carapace’’, ‘‘cage’’, ‘‘cocoon’’, ‘‘exoskeleton,’’ ‘‘monad,’’ and ‘‘segregated space’’ (Barker, 2009:72; Beckmann, 2001:598; Lupton, 1999:65; Mapes, 2009:16; Parr, 2010:18; Taylor, 2003:1617; Thrift, 2004:51). The carapace is designed largely to isolate the driver from the passing environment (Barker, 2009; Freund and Martin, 1993; Vannini, 2009). John Urry writes that, ‘‘the environment beyond the windscreen is an alien other’’ (2000:63). However, equally encapsulating is the speed at which the automobile travels, and more specifically, the ‘‘polyrhythmia’’1 between the speeding car and those outside it (Adams, 2001; 2004; Lefebvre, 2004; Spinney, 2010). As Sheller and Urry contend, ‘‘dwelling at speed, people lose the ability to perceive local detail, to talk to strangers, to learn local ways of life. . .’’ (2000: 747). Thus through the enclosure, and the automobile’s speed, people estrange themselves from the earth and become, in a sense, ‘‘extra-terrestrial’’. Road and parking space too is manipulated to minimize the influence of surrounding environments and non-motorized bodies (Featherstone, 2004). Thus the feedback of information regarding the car’s immediate, dispersed, and latent impacts and dependencies is limited, and alters the driver’s communicable and incommunicable knowledge of the human and non-human environments traversed through ‘‘heavily intermediated representations’’ (Thrift, 2004: 51). Drivers’ sense of time and space, or energy and mass, may be transformed (e.g. Nixon, 2012; Øvergård et al., 2008); so too may be their sense of risk, norms, and social position. In this way automobility may estrange drivers from the spaces and beings they impact, and desensitize them, in an embodied sense, to the environmental and social injustices their mode inflicts. The isolated are more likely to discount the welfare of others (Hoffman et al., 1996). Jain and Guiver contend: ‘‘the reasons for reducing car use can only be appreciated from the perspective ‘outside the car’’’ (2001: 582). When US citizens spend an average of one out of six waking hours inside their automobiles (Williams, 2009), and children increasingly spend larger proportions of their mobile lives within the carapace (Barker et al., 2009; Collins and Kearns, 2001; Fotel and Thomsen, 2004; O’Brien et al., 2000; Rissotto and Tonucci, 2002; Sandqvist, 2002), face-to-face social interactions are displaced (Putnam, 2000), and the social and environmental reasons for reducing car use may not be noticed or recognized. 2.3. Communication asymmetry and power dynamics The separation associated with encapsulated and speedy mobility may also bring about or aggravate harmful behaviour, such as road rage. Taylor (2003) suggests that we tend to ‘‘see other motor vehicles, not the people in them’’ (1620–1621). Katz (1999) argues that the isolated, unidirectional nature of driving establishes a communication asymmetry ripe with potential provocation and misunderstanding, and Featherstone (2004) extends this argument by emphasizing the negative impact of speed on communication. In contrast with pedestrians, whose interactions possess greater potential for face to face body language or even verbal communication (Goffman, 1971), drivers sit facing each 1 ‘‘Arrhythmia’’ is the term more commonly found in the literature (see, for instance, Spinney 2010), but ‘‘polyrhythmia,’’ a musical term used by drummers, better captures the idea of several different but overlapping speeds.

D.V. Nixon / Geoforum 54 (2014) 91–102

other’s rear ends, and have few communication options. Most road rage contexts involve forward movement with other vehicles moving in the same direction, as opposed to oncoming traffic or at intersections where most accidents occur (Katz, 1999). For Katz (1999) and to some extent Lupton (1999), the core source of road rage is the phenomenological severance of the driver from the hybridized embodiment of the car when they are cut off by another driver. Other explanations for road rage seem equally convincing, however, such as: the transformation of the sense of freedom and power to one of entrapment and powerlessness and concomitant challenge to the assumed privilege and promise of unimpeded forward momentum (Featherstone, 2004; Michael, 2001; Lupton, 2002; Taylor, 2003); a sense of anonymity provided by the shell of the car (Ellison et al., 1995); an inflated sense of self (Piff et al., 2012; Schreer, 2002); and most pertinent to this article, a severed hybridity, not with the car, but with the greater environment including other people. The driver is indeed cut off—from other people and a sense of responsibility to them. Similarly, the automobile, in addition to putting people in positions where they may feel threatened, also places them in a position to threaten others owing to its size, weight, and armour (Dery, 2006). Aggressive approaches to power are socially condemned in most public contexts but the very prevalence, anonymity, and norm of fast-moving, encapsulated automobiles seem to preserve a space where physical power and violence are sometimes tolerated or even accepted (Ellison et al., 1995; Jain, 2004, 2005). Thus sophisticated behavioural law is required to maintain traffic order, where it is seldom so necessary otherwise, as in the case of walking (Goffman, 1971:9). When human adherence to legal regulations breaks down, the automobile offers few limits on extreme action, as advertised by car manufacturers (Jain, 2005; O’Connell, 1998), and glorified in movies such as the Mad Max film series. 2.4. Transportation Hierarchy The social disjunctions embedded in the contemporary transportation milieu contribute to a transportation hierarchy (Bradshaw, 1992; Handy, 1993) that stratifies modes. The inherent spatio-temporal incompatibility, or polyrhythmia, between the various modes (Freund and Martin, 2007; Lefebvre, 2004; Nixon, 2012; Spinney, 2010) not only undermines intermodal communication, but encourages mobility organized around the prioritization and empowerment of some modes—usually those faster (Bauman, 2000), bigger, and more expensive (Adams, 2001)—and discourages alternatives framed as deviant (Böhm et al., 2006). As Cresswell (2010) argues, practices of movement are produced by, and produce, larger relations of power and domination. Interestingly, no research to date has focused on intermodal conflict, despite its exacerbation by the transportation hierarchy, and its relevance to mode choice (Wahlgren and Schantz, 2012). 2.5. Alienation The concept of alienation can be found in various strands of philosophy (e.g. Arp, 2010; Hegel, [1807] 1931; Sagi, 2002; Sartre, 1992), political economy (e.g. Burkett, 1999; Kellner, 2006; Marx, [1867] 1976; Ollman, 1976), psychology and sociology (e.g. Langman and Kalekin-Fishman, 2006; Seeman, 1959), and environmental thought (e.g. Biro, 2005; Evernden, 1993). Seeman (1959) proposed five facets of alienation: social isolation, powerlessness, normlessness, meaninglessness, and self-estrangement. The forthcoming discussion applies Seeman’s facets in its analysis. Some have characterized these antisocial qualities of automobility as ‘‘alienating’’ (Fotsch, 2007; Furness, 2007; Kay, 1998; Urry, 2006). Cars are not, however, strictly alienating. Automobility may afford opportunities to socially connect, both inside the car and at

93

destinations (Bull, 2001; Collin-Lange, 2013; Farber and Paez, 2009; Featherstone, 2004; Laurier et al., 2008; Laurier, 2010; Maxwell, 2001; Urry, 2000). That said, with respect to origins and destinations, increased mobility ignores the significance of accessibility. As Illich writes, ‘‘motorized vehicles create remoteness which they alone can shrink’’ (1974: 42); Beckmann too suggests that whereas automobilization has reduced some physical boundaries, ‘‘it has also simultaneously moulded another, more dangerous and disperse structure that continually forces people and good to maintain their movement’’ (2001: 598). The specific qualities of the landscape between these two points is also a variable in this calculus; environments that force or encourage slower speeds and open windows may result in automobile travel less proximally alienating than when on a well crafted highway (Edensor, 2004; Featherstone, 2004). Automobiles may also enable caring activities (Barker, 2009; Ferguson, 2009; Sheller, 2004), provide an ‘‘automobile sanctuary’’ for down time (Maxwell, 2001:199; see also: Bull, 2004; Edmondson, 1998; Lupton, 2002; McCreery, 2002), offer a platform for children’s landscape viewing (Barker, 2009), or, according to some, even de-alienate the driver (Miller, 2001; Young, 2001). How these affordances weigh in the balance with the preceding alienating impacts requires much more empirical investigation. 2.6. Connection The more connected, integrated, or embedded the members of a group or society the more likely they are to feel solidarity and empathy, and thus productively cooperate with each other. For example, shared practice is more likely to form strong social ties and solidarity than interdependent, regulated, but ultimately isolated practices (Durkheim, [1893] 1960). People form stronger connections with closer, more familiar, and smaller scale places that possess, or come to possess, social meanings (Dutcher et al., 2007; Knez, 2005; Macnaghten, 2003; Neisser, 1998; Riley, 1992). Game theorists reveal that people are less likely to cooperate and more likely to act in self-interest the more anonymous the other participants in a game (Hoffman et al., 1994, 1996). As Bohnet and Frey discovered, ‘‘anonymity and social isolation lead to heavy discounting of another person’s well-being’’ whereas ‘‘solidarity increases with decreasing social distance’’ (1999: 53). Mutual or even one-way visual recognition/identification between ‘‘players’’, without verbal contact, is enough to induce a statistically significant increase in teamwork or altruism (ibid.). Verbal communication may further increase cooperation, even outside a lab after an experiment (Buchan et al., 2006; Oskamp and Perlman, 1965; Sally, 1995). As Schelling contends, ‘‘if we know the people, we care’’ (1968: 129–130). Identification, interaction, and interpersonal communication, even non-verbal, strengthens social connection. The mobilities literature suggests that walking and cycling may foster a greater connection to environments and people than do motor vehicles (e.g. Furness, 2007), though the evidence is limited. For instance, in his chapter on London cyclists Spinney (2007) argues that the ‘‘deeply sensual and embodied practice’’ (31) of cycling supports the production of meaning in urban spaces otherwise thought of as non-places (Auge, 1995). Demerath and Levinger (2003) and Bean et al. (2008) argue that particular characteristics of pedestrian activity facilitate vital social interaction not associated with other modes. Of course, the alternative modes too possess alienating qualities (Furness, 2007; Jiron, 2009), though these may be owed to the automobilized environments they traverse (Jain and Guiver, 2001; Taylor, 2003). The comments of the participants in the field research and discussion below reveal associations between mobility technologies, encapsulation, conflict and connective empathy. These associations suggest the presence of at least three of Seeman’s facets of alienation.

94

D.V. Nixon / Geoforum 54 (2014) 91–102

3. Methods This research is part of a broader project that studies how different transportation modes mediate their users’ understandings of social and physical environments. The nascent stage of this research demands concept and theory building. Thus it is inherently comparative and follows grounded theory as described by Charmaz (1995, 2000, 2006). This is a constructivist methodological alternative to the originators’ objectivist epistemological position (Glaser and Strauss, 1967), and does not assume the absence of all prior theory. Fieldwork was conducted in the City of Vancouver between April 2009 and January 2010. This location possessed the highest per capita cycling and pedestrian trip rates for major urban centers in Canada (Winters et al., 2007). Purposive sample selection from those recruited through posters, hand distributed postcards, newspaper ads, and internet posts, maximized demographic and commute route heterogeneity, and maintained an equal quota from the pedestrian, cycle, and automobile modes. Sampling ceased once theoretical saturation was reached (Bowen, 2008; Guest et al., 2006), at fifteen commuters per mode and one motorcycle rider. Few participants used strictly one mode, and their subsidiary modes allowed them to draw their own comparisons. The age and gender ratios were roughly representative of the Vancouver adult public (see Supplementary file ‘‘Demographics’’). Children were not interviewed owing to additional research ethics challenges. Participants were asked to a) complete a brief demographic and transportation history questionnaire, b) record a commute narrative of their vocalized stream of consciousness and log their route using a lapel microphone, digital voice recorder, and GPS data logger for two round-trip commutes, and, afterward, c) take part in a 90 min in-depth, semi-standardized, open-ended interview (see Supplementary file ‘‘Interview Timeline’’). Interview and commute narrative transcripts were analyzed through multiple comparative readings and interpretive, focused coding. Participant quotes are followed by a randomly generated participant pseudonym and ‘‘A’’ (auto driver), ‘‘C’’ (cyclist), ‘‘M’’ (motorcyclist), or ‘‘P’’ (pedestrian). ‘‘CN’’ denotes a commute narrative quote. 4. Discussion of results 4.1. Encapsulated bodies: polyrhythmia, communication asymmetry, isolation Thirty-four participants used, or had used, more than one mode. They were asked whether their mode of mobility influenced the connection they felt to their social or physical environment. All spoke of notable differences, and many felt that the automobile socially disconnected and encapsulated them: Driving a car connects you to the environment almost like a fucking flame-thrower. . . I feel that I’m contained, I feel I’m in a container. I feel like I’m in a mobile container. [Dewey(A)] Delilah(C) felt that those in automobiles were ensconced in a ‘‘little steel protection box,’’ and others spoke of the weight and climate controlled interiors of these boxes. Luke(C) described what he saw as the automobile’s ‘‘framing’’ of the world: There’s people who live in a world that has a frame around it. So watching television, driving a car—those are activities where your world has a frame... There’s your little world—you don’t want it disturbed. [Luke(C)] This view of television and driving as framed and thus undisturbed reality echoes De Cauter’s (2004) aforementioned view of the capsular nature of common screens, as well as Sennett’s

suggestion that: ‘‘the traveller [using modern technologies of mobility], like the television viewer, experiences the world in narcotic terms’’ (1994: 18; see also Morse, 1990). Or, the technology of the car may become an ‘‘inhabited’’ ‘‘world in itself’’ (Featherstone, 2004:10; Thrift, 2004:51). De Cauter (2004), Adams (2001, 2004), Lefebvre (2004), Sheller and Urry (2000), and Spinney (2010) all emphasize the importance of speed with respect to capsularization, and participants confirmed this, both with respect to the awareness of surroundings when travelling at different speeds as well as ‘‘blurred’’ cars passing active commuters: Yeah, there’s some runners and that, that you see regularly on the bridge. Cars, No. I don’t really. They’re just a big blur usually. [Blake(C)] Blake(C)’s quote reflects a polyrhythm—that is, a relative difference in speed—with the automobiles that pass, and the cognitive masking of those outside the individual’s own range of speed. In this sense travellers may be enclosed in their own speed, and places and people experienced at different speeds may be, functionally, different places and people. As theorized by several scholars (Adorno and Horkheimer, 1979; De Cauter, 2004; Fotsch, 2007; Freund and Martin, 1993; Mapes, 2009; Urry, 2000), multimode users associated encapsulation with isolation: [In] the car, you’re completely isolated. You can turn on the radio, you don’t have to talk to anyone, you don’t have to see anything. . . So you’re not really experiencing; all you’re experiencing is other people driving. . . [William(C)] I know when I had the car, I felt much more... I felt kind of shutdown in a way. And I guess socially disconnected. [Joyce(C)] Sharita(P) described the car as the perfect medium for achieving the seclusion she had sought as a former alcoholic, whereby she felt: . . .very isolated, in a vehicle. . . because as an alcoholic, my tendency is to isolate. So, when I had a car, you know, you don’t have to talk to anybody, right? [Sharita(P)] Despite this popular sense of isolation, several drivers simultaneously enjoyed their time alone in their automobiles, echoing the sentiment found in other studies (Bull, 2004; Edmondson, 1998; Lupton, 2002; McCreery, 2002) where one may find alone time, ‘‘that is seen as unselfish and cannot be contested’’ (Lutz and Lutz-Fernandez, 2010:145e): I thought about doing the carpool thing. But I like the flexibility of just going when I want to go and arriving when I want to arrive. And I do like having my own space. . . So it’s kind of the downtime. [Delena(A)] No drivers spoke of the ability of their automobiles to connect them to distant social spaces (Barker, 2009; Collin-Lange, 2013; Farber and Paez, 2009; Laurier et al., 2008; Laurier, 2010), but this omission may be owed to the commute focus of the study, and the ban on cellular phone use in British Columbia. In the same way the encapsulating technology of the automobile creates private, isolated space, so too may it create communicative asymmetry with those outside the car but within proximity of the driver (Katz, 1999). For instance, several active mode users were greeted outside of their commute environment by those who recognized them but who they did not recognize. In most cases those who approached these participants were unfamiliar drivers:

D.V. Nixon / Geoforum 54 (2014) 91–102

I’ve had people come up to me and tell me they recognize me from seeing me on the bridge every day. . . And I’m going, sorry I’ve never seen you. . . Lots of times people are honking their horns and I never do find out who it was... [Marilu(P)] . . .People have said to me, you know, ‘‘I saw you, I see you everywhere in Vancouver, for God sake, you walk so much. . . And you know we honked and we honked and we never get any attention.’’ [Ying(P)] These ‘‘famous’’ active commuters are familiar to specific drivers, but not vice versa, because the shell and speed of the automobile renders mutual recognition and communication difficult. The participants’ descriptions collected and connected several themes prevalent in the mobilities literature. The preceding establishes the associations illustrated in Fig. 1. 4.2. Polyrhythmia, communication asymmetry, hierarchies, and disregard The phenomena of polyrhythmia and communication asymmetry were seen to reinforce a transportation hierarchy. A number of cyclists spoke of drivers unsuccessfully racing them to stops and traffic circles: There’s all sorts of you know, specific types. You know, there’s the kind that race up to the stop sign. And when they pull over, if you don’t pull over you’re going to get hit. . . [Makeda(C)] It really pisses me off when I’m already speeding and they’re trying to pass... or they’re coming up to the red light and they’ve decided that they want to be exactly where I am. [Delilah(C)] During commutes, Warren(A_CN) recorded: ‘‘it’s just something about being in a car, it just makes people want to get somewhere faster than the other person.’’ This competition for space reflects the way polyrhythmia and internalized informal hierarchies come to displace formal traffic law. The same can be seen in these drivers’ interpretations of pedestrian behaviour: No, I would say probably most likely pedestrians because they are ignorant people, more than anything. They think, oh it’s a crosswalk and it’s mine now. You see me or you don’t see me, it doesn’t matter. That’s the attitude they have, which is not good. They don’t look before they cross. . . They just walk. And that’s a big, big problem. That’s why people get killed—because they think they own the road at that point. [Alonso(A)] I get very angry when the pedestrian, they won’t try to make eye contact. . . although as a pedestrian they have the right of way, they sometimes, a lot of times they misuse it. . . And I hate

95

it, you know. They would like go very slowly in their own world. [Branden(A)] The accusations that the pedestrians move at their own pace, oblivious to others, illustrates the connection between informal hierarchies, polyrhythmia, and communication asymmetry, particularly in the form of eye contact, between the drivers and pedestrians outside of the car. The drivers saw this as a form of disregard that generated anger. This agrees with one study of driver anger and aggression that found that 30% of drivers would react negatively to slow walking pedestrians and 65% to cyclists riding in the middle of the lane (Parker et al., 2002). Some comments clearly revealed informal hierarchies: Interactions with cyclists that seem to forget that eighteen inches of the road is theirs. [Jordon(A)] The City of Vancouver designates seventy inches to bike lanes and the British Columbia Motor Vehicle Act grants cyclists the full lane depending upon conditions, thus Jordon’s small allocation of space reflects more the informal transportation hierarchy than the actual regulatory regime and formal hierarchy. Pedestrians were equally, if not more, critical of drivers who ignored them, particularly in intersections. In a commute environment where automobiles demand the most attention owing to their size and speed, commuters’ cognitive capacity is largely devoted to cars (Hole, 2007; Øvergård et al., 2008; Spence and Read, 2003; Strayer and Drews, 2007; Taylor, 2003), not pedestrians or cyclists, thus leaving active commuters particularly vulnerable (Adams, 2001). The transportation system itself, with its mode split, automobilized space allocation, high speed limits, biased laws, and the hard, heavy technology of the car, may foster driver disregard for the presence of active mode users, and lead to inadvertent unlawful treatment. However, the assumed lack of intentionality was sometimes questioned by active mode users: Three cars in a row, I had a right of way to go straight, turned left in front of me, and it was one after another, and it was like, am I not here? I think they ignored me. . . it was like I didn’t exist. [Lenore(C)] The following illustrates the way polyrhythmia and embedded hierarchies may lead to disregard: There could be a woman with kids and a stroller, pouring rain. . .. And the cars just rush to get to that red light. And there’s people standing there. . . And they just have no clue. They pay no attention whatsoever. And they’re driving down the street like they’re on a freeway somewhere and [yet] it’s a neighbourhood. [Ying(P)] These associations agree with Bohnet and Frey’s (1999) findings that anonymity and isolation lead to discounting of others’ welfare. Alice similarly interweaves the aforementioned associations, but also reveals how these may lead to retaliatory aggression: [Drivers are] just, like I said, sort of more ‘me’ focused and so the poor pedestrian on the side of the road is, like, secondary, third, you know. . . I’m going to work, you’re going to work. But how long do I have to wait before I get to cross the street? And I can’t just plow through ‘cause my safety’s in jeopardy. You can just plow through ‘cause I’m not going to hurt your car unless I stick out my umbrella and make a big scratch down the side. . . That’s the only retaliation I get, you know. [Alice(P)]

Fig. 1. Associations between mobilities themes.

Angelika also used Alice’s umbrella tactic when she used to walk, and attributes her ‘‘pedestrian rage’’ to the hierarchies and differentials of power within the mobility context:

96

D.V. Nixon / Geoforum 54 (2014) 91–102

I used to suffer from pedestrian rage. . . I would hit people’s cars, with my hand or with my umbrella. And I would shout at people, profanely. Because as pedestrians, look, if there’s an accident between two cars, yes it can be big, but if there’s an accident between a pedestrian and a car. . . [Angelika(A)] Hierarchies and disregard, products in part of communication asymmetry and polyrhythmia, augment the growing association map, as seen in Fig. 2. 4.3. Coercive power, aggression, and hierarchy The mass, speed, and hard, enclosed surfaces of the automobile afford coercive power that in turn facilitates aggressive action: One of those squeegee guys tried to clean my car and I told him ‘no’, and then I got really mad, so I honked the horn and he got scared and backed off... Oh there was another time I was driving, legally in the HOV lane and another car... kept trying to pass me and was driving aggressively, so I slowed down to make him upset. [Rachel(A)] Several cyclists spoke of aggressive driver behaviour: You get yelled at, sometimes. Or honked at. Or whatever. . . It’s like, angry motorists, I think that’s the gist of it. [Fletcher(C)] There’s like four lanes. I’m riding in the far right lane, close to the curb, and get someone come up and roll their window down at me and yell to ‘‘get off the fucking road.’’ And that’s where I’m supposed to be. . . I’ve been hit by beer cans, full beer cans. . . So you know that the road rage is there. [Blake(C)] Important here are the ways these aural and projectile attacks are carried out from within protected confines and accompanied by the physical threat of the automobile. Some pedestrians similarly criticized the riding practices of a reckless contingent of cyclists. There are some very polite and respectful cyclists out there. And there are some who just are so aggressive, and just. . . I don’t think they care for the safety of people. [Pariss(P)] Thus bicycle technologies, in providing greater speed and mass, and thus coercive threat, may also come to establish aggressive, hierarchical relations between commuters. Whereas cyclists are ranked above pedestrians in the transportation hierarchy, they are positioned below drivers, as can be seen in Fletcher’s experiences: . . .Making left turns. . . you’re in the left lane and you’re waiting while there’s a green light and people just wait behind you or go

around you. Usually it’s like not an issue if you’re in a car, but you do the exact same thing [on a bike] and people honk their asses off, like ‘‘oh, what are you doing blocking the traffic lane?’’ It’s like, ‘‘um, I’m making a left turn, exactly like a car would be in the exact same situation.’’ Like people just don’t get it. [Fletcher(C)] However, even amongst automobiles hierarchies of potential power and aggression exist. A motorcycle rider and convertible driver described their experiences of aggression and hierarchy, particularly with respect to size differences between vehicles and the aggressive actions of other drivers: Being in a small car, people tend to take advantage of you more. . . If they figure they can have the right of way because they have a bigger truck, they’ll usually take it. And that alienates me. [Jordon(A)] Thus the smaller size and greater exposure of Jordon’s less technologically mediated automobile render him vulnerable to vehicular aggression. Kendal, a driver, described his verbal abuse at the hands of a pedestrian; whether his aggressor’s actions constitute an inversion of the ‘‘might is right’’ rule, or simply a retaliation as described above, is unknown. Recognition of the coercive power associated with greater speed, mass and protection, and its various outcomes, extend the associations further (Fig. 3). 4.4. Marginalization and estrangement Those outside the car were sometimes thought to have internalized the informal hierarchy: Most people just make concessions for the car to go first. I don’t think that’s right. [Aleshia(P)] This internalization of the hierarchy suggests an estrangement between the users of different modes. Some active mode users also described the way in which the hierarchy, disregard and aggression led them to feel marginalized: As a marginalized commuter... we’re not supposed to be on the road. We’re not supposed to have this much space and then when you have a bicycle path that’s designated for cyclists— when we actually do get recognized—it’s doesn’t get recognized by everyone. [Delilah(C)] In contrast with Sheller’s (2004) happy drivers, a number of motor vehicle users struggled with their negative thoughts and judgement while commuting:

Fig. 2. Additional associations between mobilities themes, including disregard and hierarchies.

D.V. Nixon / Geoforum 54 (2014) 91–102

97

Fig. 3. Further associations between mobilities themes, including coercive power and aggression.

This guy [tried] to turn out of an alley across four lanes of traffic and a solid yellow line. I was so angry. I was just swearing out the window at him. Just unapologetic. This is when I had a car. And afterwards I was like, you know, this is not the person I want to be. [Sonya(M)] Another driving participant complained that their commute recordings were significantly more negative than their interviews, and that they felt embarrassed and frustrated by that. The difference in tone between drivers’ commute narrative and interview data suggests that the act of driving, and the personality it brings out, may conflict with the participants’ normal, or desired, self-concept and identity. Michael paraphrases what he sees as a common mini-narrative in road ragers’ accounts, ‘‘when I get behind the wheel of a car, I am a completely different person’’ (2001: 74). This ‘‘split’’ in identities constitutes a form of self-estrangement. With estrangement and marginalization added, the complete map of associations can be seen in Fig. 4. This complex of associations that owe their naissance to the affordances of technological extension cannot be disentangled. Most importantly, the phenomena in the darkly shaded boxes may be the primary sources of alienation. 4.5. Alienation The first twenty-seven interviewees were not asked directly about their sense of alienation for fear of biasing their feedback. Later, the final question—‘‘does your commute ever leave you feeling alienated or displaced?’’— prompted mixed results. Cyclists and pedestrians were ambivalent, often expressing discomfort with the term while providing examples of situations in which they felt physically threatened, disregarded, or devalued. As mentioned above, several preferred the term ‘‘marginalization’’ to alienation. In contrast, half of the drivers unhesitatingly claimed to feel alienated. A multimodal driver contrasted driving and cycling in terms of their sociality and echoed the idea of encapsulation or containment: There is an alienation of being in a car, because again, you’re in a container. . . When you pull up to a light [on a bike] next to a bicyclist, there is a probability that you’re going to chat with that person. When you pull up next to someone at a light in a car, unless you’re on the hustle, you’re not going to be chatting with them. . . [Dewey(A)]

Other sources of alienation for the drivers were intimidation, such as Jordan’s experiences in a smaller car, and/or estrangement such as Sonya’s automobilized self. Thus four of Seeman’s (1959) five facets of alienation were evident in the drivers’ words, namely: isolation with respect to encapsulation; powerlessness in the hierarchy of drivers with smaller cars facing faster, heavier, aggressive competitors for space; normlessness in the sense of conflicting interpretations of traffic law and transportation hierarchy; and, self-estrangement with regard to a more negative automobilized-self. Cyclists and pedestrians could be seen to suffer powerlessness within the transportation hierarchy, but many preferred terms such as marginalization to describe their experience. Mobility alienation is clearly not a desirable feature of the contemporary transportation milieu. How then can it be reduced? 4.6. Multi-modal empathy The technological difference between modes drives a wedge between them that manifests hierarchies and concomitant marginalization. However, participants who used more than one mode inferred or explicated a potential ‘‘remedy’’ for the negative social impacts and alienation associated with the intensive mobility technologies discussed above. Warren(A) revealed empathy nurtured through multiple mode use: Whether they have a lane or not I try to give [cyclists] a bit more space. . . because I’m a cyclist and I appreciate the space. . . You can’t really pass them. I feel like a lot of people probably get really annoyed with that. I don’t, because I am a cyclist. [Warren(A)] Similar to multi-mode users, the convertible driver suggested that the alienation associated with a less encapsulated automobile body within aggressive enviroments cultivated empathy for other modes: Even if I have the right of way, someone else will just barge ahead—that’s alienating. So I think I can have empathy for a motorcyclist to some extent, or a cyclist. [Jordon(A)] In this case, according to Jordan, the smaller size of his vehicle, and the open vulnerability created by the incomplete carapace, led to a particular type of understanding otherwise missed. However,

98

D.V. Nixon / Geoforum 54 (2014) 91–102

Fig. 4. Final associations between mobilities themes including estrangement and marginalization.

Jordan’s earlier comments about cyclists’ eighteen inches suggests that this understanding could receive further development. Aleshia(P) stated that exclusive immersion in any one mode undermines understanding, whereas multiple mode use cultivates reflexivity: I’ve taken each role, you know, the motorist, the cyclist, the pedestrian. So those moments where you realize that you’re getting angry with somebody for doing something, you’re like, oh, but wait a second, if you’re in that world, then you don’t always realize. [Aleshia(P)] Luke(C) prescribed understanding:

multimode

use

to

cultivate

mutual

I think every motorist should have to ride their bike to work for two weeks a year. . . just so they know what it’s like on the other side of the fence. Like, I know what it’s like to drive a car because I drive a car, but I don’t think most people who drive a car know what it’s like to be on a bike. They have no idea what it feels like to have somebody come blowing by your left elbow at seventy kilometres an hour six inches away. [Luke(C)] The value of multimode use in relieving tensions between modes rests to a great extent in the connection that active modes facilitate, though active mode users may also develop sympathies for the encapsulated nature of driving. Key here is the way less technologically mediated mobilities provide alternative embodied, immersive experiences to those found in an automobile, experiences that provide informative feelings, as suggested by Luke. In breaking free of a single mode, the mobile body may also contribute to the restoration of public mobility spaces, rather than regulated corridors that privilege a single mode ‘‘community’’, protected from the unfamiliar (Staeheli and Mitchell, 2006). 4.7. Connection Numerous multimode users suggested that these lower-tech mobility experiences afforded them a stronger feeling of connection, the antithesis of alienation: Walking is, I mean, you connect much more with, you know, nature, with people, with, you know, the environment, the sun, the—absolutely everything. You can take in so much more than, well, I don’t cycle so I’m not speaking cycling but driving for sure. [Alice(P)]

Oh I feel a greater connection, I guess, biking. . . because there’s times where I stop and then I see people on the sidewalk that I might know, and you can say ‘hi... Just kind of more aware of what your surroundings are when you’re going twenty-five kilometers versus sixty kilometers. So, you tend to kind of pick up on things more. [Arthur(C)] Most of these participants spoke of their capacity to ‘‘take in’’ more while walking or cycling, and thus develop a more ‘‘receptive’’ stance toward their environment, aided in part by slower speeds and an absence of enclosure. Adams suggests that cyclists and pedestrians arguably see the world at a ‘‘higher level of resolution than those moving ten times faster’’ (2004: 35). With respect to Aurthur’s stopping, Demerath and Levinger argue that ‘‘the pausability of travel would appear to be inversely related to its average speed’’ (2003: 230). As evidence of this sense of connection, far more active commuters recognized other individuals during their trips than did drivers. A number of these pedestrians and cyclists engaged these people: I usually say good morning. Usually don’t say much. Maybe a little bit—‘‘nice day today’’, or ‘‘isn’t this a grand morning’’ or something like that. [Jenelle(P)] Usually it’s the street people. . . and I’m on hello terms with them. ‘‘Hi!’’ [laughs] [Hiedi(C)] As discussed earlier, verbal communication tends to encourage cooperative action. Janelle(P) also knew habitual details about the people she passed: Walked by a street person there in the doorway. At least they’re awake this morning. Usually they’re asleep. [Jenelle(P)_CN] It may be that faces, specifically, are more familiar to pedestrians than drivers, and to some extent cyclists, because of their slower speed and the inherently face-to-face nature of their mobility (Demerath and Levinger, 2003; Goffman, 1971). Some pedestrians spoke of developing an attachment to those they recognized despite an absence of verbal communication or solid feeling of ‘knowing’: You get to recognize certain people that you see coming in the opposite direction generally, and yet you never really get to know them. I mean, there’s even a few people who will smile and wave at me as we pass each other, but no idea who each other is or what we do or anything. So it’s kind of like an anonymous acquaintanceship in a way. [Pablo(P)]

D.V. Nixon / Geoforum 54 (2014) 91–102

This confirms the game theory finding, discussed earlier, that simple recognition or non-verbal acknowledgement alone may inspire a sense of connection. Active mode users’ multiple expressions of concern regarding the absence of familiar, but so far unintroduced or unacknowledged people further demonstrated this attachment: I get worried when I don’t see people. . . I wonder what happened. So you do kind of have this attachment to people even though you don’t talk to them. [Pariss(P)] So the past few weeks there’s been a guy sleeping on the bench in the mornings here, he looks quite new to being homeless, but he’s not there this morning. I hope he’s okay. [Ester(P)_CN] Several cyclists spoke of a ‘‘sense of community’’ [Darius(C)] with other riders that led them to assist when necessary: You say ‘hi’ to cyclists. I didn’t have an instance this time around, but quite often somebody’s got a flat tire on the causeway and I’ll stop to make sure at least they have whatever they need. [Arthur(C)] Quotes such as these suggest a sense of connection in the form of a community, perhaps one cultivated in part through shared practice (Durkheim, [1893] 1960). Though this solidarity, found through decreased social distance (Bohnet and Frey, 1999), appears largely desirable, it may similarly lead the divisiveness that sometimes surrounds a community (Staeheli and Mitchell, 2006). Appleyard (1981) found positive effects of de-automobilization on the sociability of those outside the car. The sense of connection described or revealed by the active commuters is afforded by the slower speeds, less armoured form, and less threatening mass than one utilizes in a typical motor vehicle. Stories of isolation, estrangement, or marginalization were largely absent outside of automobilized contexts. 5. Conclusion The evidence presented here suggests that a commuter’s sense of connection may change across a continuum of technological intervention whereby more extensive assemblages undermine social connection and result in a form of alienation. The participants confirmed, connected, and expanded upon some of the prevailing theories regarding encapsulation, aggression, the transportation hierarchy, and the potential for connection. Specifically, these empirical results agree with those who suggest that more technological intervention may lead to more alienation for both those inside and outside the car, whereas less technologically mediated mobilities may cultivate connections outside of automobilized environments. The ‘‘in between’’ experiences of the cyclists, motorcyclist, and convertible driver support the idea of a technological continuum, rather than hi-tech/low-tech binary. However, the small sample size and qualitative approach preclude definitive conclusions and suggest that further research is necessary. This article thus contributes additional, empirically informed, development of these mobilities theories. The preceding also demands some discussion of the implications and policy considerations related to the alienation and social connection of mobility practices. 5.1. Implications The isolation and marginalization associated with the current assemblage of transportation technologies have several potentially aggregated consequences. These are not outcomes demonstrated in the study, but rather informed speculations. First, extensive research into the effects of social status on health reveal that the

99

lower an individual’s social status, the lower their life expectancy and the worse their general health indicators even when controlled for income effects (Berkman and Glass, 2000; Chandola et al., 2004; Kawachi et al., 1997; Kuper et al., 2002; Marmot and Shipley, 1996). This ‘‘status syndrome’’ (Marmot, 2004) prompted one physician to call for research into the effects of the transportation hierarchy on human health (Simpson, 2008). It is plausible that those using marginalized modes may come to identify with this diminished status through both their hindered mobility and symbolic interaction (Cooley, 1902; Mead, 1934). Second, the reported desire for privacy, although understandable, may have deleterious consequences, such as the failure of car-pool campaigns (Ferguson, 1997). In this way, the desire for privacy may be self-reinforcing; increased privacy, or isolation, may increase fear by expanding the unknown, leading to further desire for privacy (De Cauter, 2004; Fotsch, 2007; Putnam, 2000; Salerno, 2006; Sennett, 1994). Increasingly large motor vehicles, such as SUVs, serve the function of fortress or ‘‘mobile gated communities’’ against the unknown other (Freund and Martin, 2007:41; Adams, 2004). Third, a majority of the public are unwilling to change modes even when faced with major traffic congestion problems and warnings of dire environmental consequences (Lyle, 2006). The individual and societal patterns maintained through the contemporary transportation system may, in part, explain this cognitive dissonance, and reproduce the problematic system itself. Habermas (1984, 1989) argues that cultural, shared meanings are maintained or changed through everyday interactions and specifically communicative actions, and through this foster a sense of community and collective efficacy (see also Putnam, 2000; Sampson, 1988; Sampson et al., 1997). These social networks and feelings of solidarity socially bind people. Failing this cohesion, members of a society are more likely to defect in pursuit of their own self-interest. If a great proportion of commuters’ travel remains in an automobile, they forfeit the local knowledge and ‘‘face time’’ associated with active modes. Heise (1998) argues that empathy is contingent on the ability to witness the shared emotional responses of others, a contingency difficult to achieve in the highly mediated environments of automobility. If the encapsulated members of a society are disconnected from their social and physical environments, and the ‘‘mental residue’’ of countless mobility experiences accretes a tacit knowledge (Polanyi, 1966) that shapes subsequent practice, they cannot be expected to make an effort, or take a risk, to realize beneficial social change through mode shift. Similarly ‘alienated’ decision makers cannot be expected to altruistically lead effective Transportation Demand Management programs in absence of public pressure. Thus, if it is true that the technological mediation of some modes isolates their users from, or marginalizes, others, transportation problems such as air and noise pollutants, human health impacts, road rage, safety concerns, socially exclusive built environments, constrained individual transportation options, aesthetic changes, and temporally and energetically restructured landscapes (Nixon, 2012; Freund and Martin, 1993; Taylor, 2003), may perpetuate in a form of path dependence. 5.2. Policy suggestions These results also possess several policy implications. Given the conflict evident between modes, a mono-modal society may call into question the possibility of mutual respect across modes. Some multimode users, and some who used less encapsulated motor vehicles, simultaneously revealed empathy for other modes. This article contends that multimode use may present one way to break the aforementioned path dependence. The tension between automobile and active commuters may only be relieved when they ‘‘cross over’’ and immerse themselves in other mobility

100

D.V. Nixon / Geoforum 54 (2014) 91–102

experiences. Thus mode shift programs that encourage ‘‘baby steps’’ are probably of value in their potential to discourage intermodal conflict such as road rage, and expose the unfamiliar to new transportation experiences. Strategically, programs that target direct and indirect transportation decision makers such as politicians, planners, and engineers, may be the most effective. Environments that maximize the potential for face to face interactions, such as pedestrian scaled environments, provide a ‘‘stage’’ on which people can ground or challenge existing social typologies and fears (Demerath and Levinger, 2003:225). Progressive politicians and planners must therefore address the laws and landscape features that conjure the sense of ‘‘unbelonging’’. Decision makers must eliminate regulatory discourse that frames the modes as equal, and instead acknowledge differences and current inequalities (Nixon, 2012). Demerath and Levinger (2003) argue that the creative act of walking encourages practices that establish shared meaning rather than rule compliance; thus interpreting pedestrians as rule-breakers is ‘‘to treat them as drivers on foot’’ (231). The transportation hierarchy must be inverted so as to alleviate feelings of marginalization and injustice amongst active mode users. This may also reduce status syndrome effects. The social particulars of each mode practice should be considered in mode shift plans. For example, social marketers may wish to advertise ways for pedestrians to acknowledge, or ‘‘break the ice,’’ with familiar fellow commuters in ways that insure personal safety and a sense of security. The safety of cyclists increases with more riders (Jacobsen, 2003), and a similar effect may exist for pedestrians whereby the presence of others, or ‘‘eyes on the street’’, decreases the risks associated with ‘‘stranger danger’’ (Duneier, 1999; Jacobs, 1961). Similarly, the sense of isolation felt by some drivers, and its remedy, may be exploited in ad campaigns. Whereas the social alienation sometimes experienced by drivers may alienate, or marginalize, those outside the car, it may also be utilized as a ‘‘push factor’’ paired with the pull of active commuting. Acknowledgements I would like to thank the editor and anonymous referees, Dr. Joy Parr, my defence committee members, and Sonya Solomonovich for their feedback on this work. I also wish to thank my research participants for the time they generously donated, and Dr. Kay Teschke and the School of Population and Public Health at the University of British Columbia for their supportive Visiting Scholar position. This research was financially supported in part by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, and the Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges, and Universities Appendix A. Supplementary material Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2014. 04.002. References Adams, J., 2001. The Social Consequences of Hypermobility. RSA Lecture, November 21st. (retrieved 21.09.13). Adams, J., 2004. Streets and the culture of risk aversion. In: Thrift, J. (Ed.), What Are We Scared Of? The Value of Risk in Designing Public Space. CABE Space, London, pp. 35–44. Adorno, T., Horkheimer, M., 1979. Dialectic of Enlightenment. Verso, London. Appleyard, D., 1981. Liveable Streets. University of California Press, Berkeley. Arp, K., 2010. Beauvoir’s concept of bodily alienation. In: Simons, M. (Ed.), Feminist Interpretations of Simone de Beauvoir. Penn State Press, University Park, PA, pp. 161–178. Auge, M., 1995. Non-Places: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity. Verso, London.

Barker, J., 2009. ‘Driven to distraction?’: Children’s experiences of car travel. Mobilities 4 (1), 59–76. Barker, J., Kraftl, P., Horton, J., Tucker, F., 2009. Introduction: the road less travelled – new directions in children’s and young people’s mobility. Mobilities 4 (1), 1–10. Bauman, Z., 2000. Liquid Modernity. Polity Press, Cambridge. Bean, C., Kearns, R., Collins, D., 2008. Exporing social mobilities: narratives of walking and driving in Auckland, New Zealand. Urban Stud. 45 (13), 2829– 2848. Beckmann, J., 2001. Automobility – a social problem and theoretical concept. Environ. Plann. D 19 (5), 593–607. Berkman, L., Glass, T., 2000. Social integration, social networks, social support and health. In: Berkman, L., Kawachi, I. (Eds.), Social Epidemiology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 137–174. Biro, A., 2005. Denaturalizing Ecological Politics: Alienation From Nature from Rousseau to the Frankfurt School and Beyond. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. Böhm, S., Jones, C., Land, C., Paterson, M., 2006. Introduction: Impossibilities of Automobility. In: Böhm, S., Jones, C., Land, C. & Paterson, M. (Eds.) Against Automobility. The Sociological Review, 54, pp. 3–16. Bohnet, I., Frey, B., 1999. The sound of silence in prisoner’s dilemma and dictator games. J. Econ. Behavior Organ. 38, 43–57. Boomkens, R., 1998. Een Drempelwereld. Moderne ervaring en stedelijke openbaarheid. Nai Uitgevers, Rotterdam. Borgmann, A., 1994. Across the Postmodern Divide. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Bowen, G., 2008. Naturalistic inquiry and the saturation concept: a research note. Qual. Res. 8 (1), 137. Bradshaw, C., 1992. The Green Transportation Hierarchy: A Guide for Personal and Public Decision-Making. Greenprint, Ottawa. Buchan, N., Johnson, E., Croson, R., 2006. Let’s get personal: an international examination of the influence of communication, culture and social distance on other regarding preferences. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 60, 373–398. Bull, M., 2001. The world according to sound: investigating the world of walkman users. New Media Soc. 3 (2), 179–197. Bull, M., 2004. Automobility and the power of sound. Theory, Culture Soc. 21, 243– 259. Burkett, P., 1999. Marx and Nature: A Red and Green Perspective. St. Martin’s Press, New York. Chandola, T., Kuper, H., Singh-Manoux, A., Bartley, M., Marmot, M., 2004. The effect of control at home on the CHD events in the Whitehall II study: gender differences in psychosocial domestic pathways to social inequalities in CHD. Soc. Sci. Med. 58, 1501–1509. Charmaz, K., 1995. Grounded theory. In: Smith, J., Harre, R., Van Langenhove, L. (Eds.), Rethinking Methods in Psychology. Sage, London, pp. 27–49. Charmaz, K., 2000. Grounded theory: objectivist and constructivist methods. In: Denzin, N., Lincoln, Y. (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research, second ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 509–536. Charmaz, K., 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Sage, London. Collin-Lange, V., 2013. Socialities in motion: automobility and car cruising in Iceland. Mobilities 8 (3), 406–423. Collins, D., Kearns, R., 2001. The safe journeys of an enterprising school: negotiating landscapes of opportunity and risk. Health Place 7 (4), 293–306. Cooley, C., 1902. Human Nature and the Social Order. C. Scribner’s Sons, New York. Cranny-Francis, A., 2008. From extension to engagement: mapping the imaginary of wearable technology. Visual Commun. 7 (3), 363–382. Cresswell, T., 2010. Towards a politics of mobility. Environ. Plann. D: Soc. Space 28, 17–31. Dant, T., 2004. The driver-car. Theory, Culture Soc. 21 (4/5), 61–79. De Cauter, L., 2004. The Capsular Civilization: On the City in the Age of Fear. NAi Publishers, Rotterdam. Demerath, L., Levinger, D., 2003. The social qualities of being on foot: a theoretical analysis of pedestrian activity, community, and culture. City Commun. 2 (3), 217–237. Dery, M., 2006. ‘Always Crashing in the Same Car’: A Head-On Collision with the Technosphere. In: Böhm, S., Jones, C., Land, C. & Paterson, M. (Eds.) Against Automobility. The Sociological Review, 54, pp. 223–239. Duneier, M., 1999. Sidewalk. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, New York. Durkheim, E., 1893. The Division of Labour in Society. Free Press, Glencoe, IL. Dutcher, D., Finley, J., Luloff, A., Johnson, J., 2007. Connectivity with nature as a measure of environmental values. Environ. Behavior 39 (4), 474–493. Edensor, T., 2004. Automobility and national identity: representation, geography and driving practice. Theory, Culture Soc. 21 (4/5), 101–120. Edmondson, B., 1998. In the Driver’s Seat. American Demographics (March), 46–52. (retrieved 12.12.11). Ellison, P., Govern, J., Petri, H., Figler, M., 1995. Anonymity and aggressive driving behavior: a field study. J. Soc. Behavior Personal. 10 (1), 265–272. Evernden, N., 1993. Natural Alien: Humankind and Environment, second ed. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. Farber, S., Paez, A., 2009. My car, my friends, and me: a preliminary analysis of automobility and social activity participation. J. Transp. Geogr. 17 (3), 216–225. Featherstone, M., 2004. Automobilities: an introduction. Theory, Culture Soc. 24 (4/ 5), 1–24. Feenberg, A., 1999. Questioning Technology. Routledge, London. Feenberg, A., 2002. Transforming Technology: A Critical Theory Revisited. Oxford University Press, New York.

D.V. Nixon / Geoforum 54 (2014) 91–102 Ferguson, E., 1997. The rise and fall of the American Carpool: 1970–1990. Transportation 24 (4), 349–376. Ferguson, H., 2009. Driven to care: the car, automobility and social work. Mobilities 4 (2), 275–293. Fotel, T., Thomsen, T., 2004. The surveillance of children’s mobility. Surveill. Soc. 1 (4), 535–554. Fotsch, P., 2007. Watching Traffic Go By: Transportation and Isolation in Urban America. University of Texas Press, Arlington, TX. Freund, P., Martin, G., 1993. The Ecology of the Automobile. Black Rose Books, Montréal. Freund, P., Martin, G., 2007. Hyperautomobility, the social organization of space, and health. Mobilities 2 (1), 37–49. Furness, Z., 2007. Critical mass, urban space, and velomobility. Mobilities 2 (2), 299–319. Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L., 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine Publishing Co., Chicago. Goffman, I., 1971. Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. Basic Books, New York. Gregory, D., 2011. From a view to a kill: drones and late modern war. Theory, Culture, Soc. 28 (7–8), 188–215. Guest, G., Bunce, A., Johnson, L., 2006. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 18 (1), 59–82. Habermas, J., 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Beacon Press, Boston. Habermas, J., 1989. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society (T. Burger and F. Lawrence, Trans.). MIT Press, Cambridge. Handy, S., 1993. A cycle of dependence: automobiles, accessibility, and the evolution of the transportation and retail hierarchies. Berkeley Plann. J. 8, 21– 43. Hansen, M., 2000. Embodying Technesis: Technology Beyond Writing. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Hayles, K., 1995. Searching for common ground. In: Soulé, M., Lease, G. (Eds.), Reinventing Nature? Responses to Postmodern Deconstruction. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 47–64. Hegel, G. [1807] 1931. The Phenomenology of Mind (J.B. Baillie, Trans.). Macmillan, London. Heise, D., 1998. Conditions of empathetic solidarity. In: Doreian, P., Fararo, T. (Eds.), The Problem of Solidarity: Theories and Models. Gordon and Breach, Amsterdam, pp. 197–211. Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., Shachat, K., Smith, V., 1994. Preferences, property rights, and anonymity in bargaining games. Games Econ. Behavior 7, 346–380. Hoffman, E., McCabe, E., Smith, V., 1996. Social distance and other-regarding behavior in bargaining games. Am. Econ. Rev. 86, 653–660. Hole, G., 2007. The Psychology of Driving. Lawrence Erlbaum Associations, Mahwah, NJ. Ihde, D., 1975. Experience of technology: human-machine relations. Philos. Soc. Crit. 2, 267–279. Illich, I., 1974. Energy and Equity. Marion Boyars, London. Jacobs, J., 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Random House, Toronto. Jacobsen, P., 2003. Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and bicycling. Injury Prevent. 9, 205–209. Jain, J., Guiver, J., 2001. Turning the car inside out: transport, equity and environment. Soc. Policy Admin. 35 (5), 569–586. Jain, S., 2004. Dangerous intrumentality: the bystander as subject in automobility. Cultural Anthropol. 19 (1), 61–94. Jain, S., 2005. Violent submission: gendered automobility. Cultural Critique 61, 185–214. Jiron, P., 2009. Immobile mobility in daily travelling experience in Santiago de Chile. In: Vannini, P. (Ed.), The Cultures of Alternative Mobilities: Routes Less Travelled. Ashgate, Farnham, pp. 127–139. Johnson, M., 1999. Embodied reason. In: Weiss, G., Haber, H. (Eds.), Perspectives on Embodiment: The Intersections of Nature and Culture. Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 81–102. Katz, J., 1999. How Emotions Work. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Kawachi, I., Kennedy, K., Lochner, K., Prothrow-Smith, D., 1997. Social capital, income inequality, and mortality. Am. J. Public Health 87, 1491–1498. Kay, J., 1998. Asphalt Nation: How the Automobile Took Over America, and How We Can Take It Back. University of California Press, Berkeley. Kellner, D., 2006. New technologies and alienation: some critical reflections. In: Langman, L., Kalekin-Fishman, D. (Eds.), The Evolution of Alienation: Trauma, Promise, and the Millennium. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MA, pp. 47–67. Knez, I., 2005. Attachment and identity as related to a place and its perceived climate. J. Environ. Psychol. 25, 207–218. Kuper, H., Marmot, M., Hemingway, H., 2002. Psychosocial factors in the aetiology and prognosis of coronary disease: a systematic review. Seminars Vascular Med. 2 (3), 267–314. Kurokawa, K., 1969. Metabolism in Architecture. Studio Vista, London. Langman, L., Kalekin-Fishman (Eds.), 2006. The Evolution of Alienation: Trauma, Promise, and the Millennium. Rowman & Littlefield, Toronto. Latimer, J., Munro, R., 2006. Driving the social. Sociol. Rev. 54 (s1), 32–53. Laurier, E., 2010. Being there/seeing there: recording and analyzing life in the car. In: Fincham, B., McGuinness, M., Murray, L. (Eds.), Mobile Methodologies. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY, pp. 103–117.

101

Laurier, E., Lorimer, H., Brown, B., Jones, O., Juhlin, O., Noble, A., Perry, M., Daniel, P., Sormani, P., Strebel, I., Swan, L., Taylor, A., Watts, L., Weilenmann, A., 2008. Driving and ‘passengering’: notes on the ordinary organization of car travel. Mobilities 3 (1), 1–23. Lefebvre, H., 2004. Rhythmanalysis: Space, Time, and Everyday Life. Continuum, London. Lupton, D., 1999. Monsters in metal cocoons: ‘road rage’ and cyborg bodies. Body Soc. 5 (1), 52–72. Lupton, D., 2002. Road rage: drivers’ understandings and experiences. J. Sociol. 38 (3), 275–290. Lutz, C., Lutz-Fernandez, A., 2010. Carjacked: The Culture of the Automobile and It’s Effect on Our Lives. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. Lyle, G., 2006. Press Release. BCAA & Innovative Research Group Inc.. Lyons, G., 2004. Transport and society. Transp. Rev.: A Transnational Transdisciplinary J. 24 (4), 485–509. Macnaghten, P., 2003. Embodying the environment in everyday life practices. Sociol. Rev. 51 (1), 63–84. Mapes, J., 2009. Pedaling Revolution: How Cyclists are Changing American Cities. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. Marcuse, H., 1964. One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society. Beacon Press, Boston, MA. Marmot, M., 2004. Status Syndrome: How Your Social Standing Directly Affects Your Health and Life Expectancy. Bloomsbury, London. Marmot, M., Shipley, M., 1996. Do socioeconomic difference in mortality persist after retirement? 25 Year follow up of civil servants from the first Whitehall study. Br. Med. J. 313, 1177–1180. Marx, K. [1844] 1961. Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 (Martin Milligan, Trans.). Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow. Marx, K., 1976. Capital, vol. 1. Penguin, London. Maturana, H., Poerksen, P., 2004. From Being to Doing: The Origins of the Biology of Cognition. Carl-Auer, Heidelberg. Maxwell, S., 2001. Negotiations of car use in everyday life. In: Miller, D. (Ed.), Car Cultures. Berg, Oxford, pp. 203–222. McCreery, S., 2002. Come together. In: Wollen, P. (Ed.), Autopia. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 307–311. McLuhan, M., 1964. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. McGraw Hill, New York, NY. Mead, G., 1934. Mind, Self and Society: From the Standpoint of a Social, Behaviorist. Ed. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Charles W. Morris. Michael, M., 2000. These boots are made for walking: mundane technology, the body and human-environment relations. Body Soc. 6 (3–4), 107–126. Michael, M., 2001. The invisible car: the cultural purification of road rage. In: Miller, D. (Ed.), Car Cultures. Berg, Oxford, pp. 59–80. Miller, D., 2001. Car Cultures. Berg, Oxford. Miller, K., 2009. Progressive and Regressive Aspects of Information Technology in Society: A Third Sector Perspective. Ph.D. dissertation, College of Public Affairs and Community Service, University of Nebraska at Omaha. Morse, M., 1990. The ontology of everyday distraction. In: Mellencamp, P. (Ed.), Logics of Television. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, pp. 193–221. Neisser, U., 1998. Five kinds of self-knowledge. Philos. Psychol. 1, 35–59. Nixon, D., 2012. A sense of momentum: mobility practices and dis/embodied landscapes of energy use. Environ. Plann. A 44, 1661–1678. O’Brien, M., Jones, D., Sloan, D., 2000. Children’s independent spatial mobility in the urban public realm. Childhood 7 (3), 257–277. O’Connell, S., 1998. The Car in British Society: Class, Gender and Motoring 1896– 1939. Manchester University Press, Manchester. Ollman, B., 1976. Alienation: Marx’s Conception of Man in a Capitalist Society, second ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Oskamp, S., Perlman, D., 1965. Factors affecting cooperation in a prisoner’s dilemma game. J. Conflict Resolut. 9 (3), 359–374. Øvergård, K., Bjørkli, C., Hoff, T., 2008. The bodily basis of control in technically aided movement. In: Bergmann, S., Hoff, T., Sager, T. (Eds.), Spaces of Mobility: The Planning, Ethics, Engineering and Religion of Human Motion. Equinox, London, pp. 101–123. Parker, D., Lajunen, T., Summala, H., 2002. Anger and aggression among drivers in three european countries. Accid. Anal. Prev. 34, 229–235. Parr, J., 2010. Sensing Changes: Technologies, Environments, and the Everyday, 1953–2003. UBC Press, Vancouver. Piff, P., Stancato, D., Côté, S., Mendoza-Denton, R., Keltner, D., 2012. Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 109 (11), 4086– 4091. Polanyi, M., 1966. The Tacit Dimension. Doubleday, Garden City, NY. Putnam, R., 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon & Schuster, Toronto. Riley, R.B., 1992. Attachment to the ordinary landscape. In: Altman, I., Low, S. (Eds.), Place Attachment. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 13–35. Rissotto, A., Tonucci, F., 2002. Freedom of movement and environmental knowledge in elementary school children. J. Environ. Psychol. 22 (1–2), 65–77. Rodaway, P., 1994. Sensuous Geographies: Body, Sense and Place. Routledge, London. Sagi, A., 2002. Albert Camus and the Philosophy of the Absurd. Rodopi, Amsterdam. Salerno, R., 2006. Alienated communities: between aloneness and connectedness. In: Langman, L., Kalekin-Fishman, D. (Eds.), The Evolution of Alienation: Trauma, Promise, and the Millennium. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MA, pp. 253–268.

102

D.V. Nixon / Geoforum 54 (2014) 91–102

Sally, D., 1995. Conversation and cooperation in social dilemmas. Rational. Soc. 7 (1), 58–92. Sampson, R., 1988. Local friendship ties and community attachment in mass society: a multi-level systemic model. Am. Sociol. Rev. 53, 766–779. Sampson, R., Raudenbush, S., Earls, F., 1997. Neighborhoods and violent crime: a multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science 277, 918–924. Sandqvist, K., 2002. How does a family car matter? Leisure, travel and attitudes of adolescents in inner city stockholm. World Transp. Policy Pract. 8 (1), 11–18. Sartre, J.-P., 1992. Notebooks for an Ethics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Schelling, T.C., 1968. The life you save may be your own. In: Chace, S., Jr. (Ed.), Problems in Public Expenditure Analysis. Brooking Institution, Washington, DC, pp. 127–162. Schreer, G., 2002. Narcissism and aggression: is inflated self-esteem related to aggressive driving? North Am. J. Psychol. 4 (3), 333–342. Seeman, M., 1959. On the meaning of alienation. Am. Sociol. Rev. 24 (6), 783–791. Sennett, R., 1994. Flesh and Stone. WW Norton, New York, NY. Shaw, J., Hesse, M., 2010. Transport, geography and the ‘new’ mobilities. Trans. Inst. British Geograph. 35 (3), 305–312. Sheller, M., 2004. Automotive emotions: feeling the car. Theory, Culture Soc. 21, 221–242. Sheller, M., Urry, J., 2000. The city and the car. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 24, 737–757. Sheller, M., Urry, J., 2006. The new mobilities paradigm. Environ. Plann. A 38, 207– 226. Simpson, L., 1995. Technology, Time, and the Conversations of Modernity. Routledge, New York. Simpson, P., 2008. The Road to Health and Equality. Paper presented at the Towards Carfree Cities VIII 2008 Annual Meeting. Portland. Spence, C., Read, L., 2003. Speech shadowing while driving: on the difficulty of splitting attention between the eye and the ear. Psychol. Sci. 14, 251–256. Spinney, J., 2007. Cycling the city: non-place and the sensory construction of meaning in a mobile practice. In: Horton, D., Rosen, P., Cox, P. (Eds.), Cycling and Society. Ashgate, Burlington, VT, pp. 25–46. Spinney, J., 2010. Improvising rhythms: re-reading urban time and space through everyday practices of cycling. In: Edensor, T. (Ed.), Geographies of Rhythm: Nature, Place, Mobilities and Bodies. Ashgate, Burlington, VT, pp. 113–127.

Staeheli, L., Mitchell, D., 2006. USA’s destiny? Regulating space and creating community in american shopping malls. Urban Stud. 43 (5/6), 977–992. Strayer, D., Drews, F., 2007. Multitasking in the automobile. In: Kramer, A., Wiegmann, D., Kirlik, A. (Eds.), Attention: From Theory to Practice. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 121–133. Taylor, N., 2003. The aesthetic experience of traffic in the modern city. Urban Stud. 40 (8), 1609–1625. Thompson, E., 1996. The mindful body: embodiment and cognitive science. In: O’Donovan-Anderson, M. (Ed.), The Incorporated Self: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Embodiment. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MD, pp. 127– 144. Thrift, N., 2004. Driving in the city. Theory, Culture Soc. 21 (4/5), 41–59. Thrift, N., 2008. Non-representational Theory: Space, Politics, Affect. Routledge, London. Urry, J., 2000. Mobilities for the Twenty-First Century. Routledge, New York. Urry, J., 2006. Inhabiting the car. Sociol. Rev. 54 (s1), 17–31. Urry, J., 2007. Mobilities. Polity Press, Malden, MA. Vannini, P., 2009. The cultures of alternative mobilities. In: Vannini, P. (Ed.), The Cultures of Alternative Mobilities: Routes Less Travelled. Ashgate, Farnham, pp. 1–18. Varela, F., Thompson, E., Rosch, E., 1991. The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Wacjman, J., 2008. Life in the fast lane? Towards a sociology of technology and time. Br. J. Sociol. 59 (1), 59–77. Wahlgren, L., Schantz, P., 2012. Exploring bikeability in a metropolitan setting: stimulating and hindering factors in commuting route environments. BMC Public Health 12, 168. Williams, D., 2009. The Arbitron National In-Car Study, 2009 ed. Arbitron, New York. Winters, M., Friesen, M., Koehoorn, M., Teschke, K., 2007. Utilitarian bicycling: a multilevel analysis of climate and personal influences. Am. J. Prev. Med. 32 (1), 52–58. Young, D., 2001. The life and death of cars: private vehicles on the Pitjanjuatjara lands, South Australia. In: Miller, D. (Ed.), Car Cultures. Berg, Oxford, pp. 35–58.