Bike sharing beyond the norm
Bike sharing beyond the norm
复制标题
共享单车超越常态
DOI：
10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2019.102492
复制
发表时间：
2019
影响因子：
6.1
通讯作者：
Nixon D
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Nixon D
自行车“共享”现在通常被想象为要么是一排排相同的、有品牌的安全自行车，要么是散布在城市中的停靠站(由地方政府放置或批准)等待的，或者是由城市中/高密度地段的营利性公司提供的同样通用的无坞自行车。在这两种方案中，一种特定的用途和用户被设计或作为脚本纳入计划的重要性和商业模式中(Akrich，1992)：由拥有信用卡/借记卡和/或智能手机以及充足的财务资源的健全、(合理)健康和熟练的个人使用。尽管这种同质化的裁剪可能是最经济高效的，但它可能会将不符合或不能满足脚本的人排除在外，比如那些能力不同或来自较低收入背景的人。这些也是《交通与出行》杂志(Fishman，2016；Spinney and Lin，2018)所考虑的方案。然而，我们认为，上述各种自行车共享的主导地位是偶然的，其他更具包容性、更公正的骑行方式(Nikolaeva等人，2019年)存在并可能激增。共同化在这里被理解为将流动的权利扩大到更广泛的人，迎合不同的和空间上不同的需求，并参与社区决策(同上；吉布森-格雷厄姆，2005年)。我们建议，关键是要重新思考“共享”意味着什么，以及“自行车”到底是什么。在这个观点中，我们简要概述了(以前)现有的自行车共享系统的范围，并建立在对当代基于信用的计划的新批评的基础上，询问从自行车共享和提供的替代公共系统中可以学到什么教训。为此，我们引用了我们对伦敦社区主导的改善自行车运动倡议的研究的例子，为此，我们在2016-2017年采访了全市45名领导人、工作人员/志愿者和组织的受益者(更多细节见Nixon和Schwanen，2018；Schwanen和Nixon，2019)。我们的结论是，共享和提供自行车可以是一种超出盈利和资本主义逻辑的经济实践(Gibson-Graham，2005)，不受出借时间的限制，对更广泛的团体和个人开放。
Bike ‘sharing’is now most often imagined as either rows of identical, branded,‘safety bicycles’1 waiting in docking stations (that are placed or approved by local governments) sprinkled across cities, or the equally generic dockless bicycles provided by for-profit companies within geofenced, medium/high-density zones of cities. In both varieties, a particular kind of usage and user is designed or ‘scripted’(Akrich, 1992) into the schemes' materiality and business models: use by an able-bodied,(reasonably) fit and skilled individual with a credit/debit card and/or smartphone as well as sufficient financial resources. Although perhaps the most economically efficient, this homogenous tailoring may exclude people who do not fit or cannot fulfil the script, such as those differently abled or from lower income backgrounds. These are also the schemes considered in transport and mobilities journals (Fishman, 2016; Spinney and Lin, 2018).However, we argue that the dominance of the aforementioned varieties of bikeshare is contingent and that other, more inclusive and just modes that ‘common’cycling (Nikolaeva et al., 2019) exist and could proliferate. Commoning is here understood as extending the right to mobility to a wider range of people, catering to heterogenous and spatially differentiated needs, and engaging in communal decision-making (ibid.; Gibson-Graham, 2005). Crucial to this, we suggest, is rethinking what ‘sharing’means and what exactly a ‘bike’is. In this Viewpoint we briefly outline a spectrum of (pre) existing bike sharing systems, and build on emerging criticisms of contemporary credit-based schemes, asking what lessons may be learned from alternative, communal systems of bike sharing and provision. For this, we draw on examples from our research on community-led initiatives to improve cycling in London for which we interviewed 45 leaders, staff/volunteers and beneficiaries of organisations across the city in 2016–2017 (more details in Nixon and Schwanen, 2018; Schwanen and Nixon, 2019). We conclude that the sharing and provision of bicycles can be an economic practice outside the logics of profitability and capitalism (Gibson-Graham, 2005), without restrictions on loaning time frames, and open to a wider range of bodies and individuals.
登录
查看更多内容
第 12 章 改变个人出行方式的创新
DOI：
10.23912/978-1-910158-64-7-3302
发表时间：
2016
影响因子：
3.3
作者：
T. Schwanen
通讯作者：
T. Schwanen
共同流动性：迈向流动性转型的新政治
影响因子：
3.3
作者：
Anna Nikolaeva;P. Adey;T. Cresswell;Jane Yeonjae Lee;André Nóvoa;Cristina Temenos
通讯作者：
Cristina Temenos
隐形自行车手？残疾人和自行车规划——伦敦案例研究
影响因子：
3.6
作者：
N. Andrews;I. Clement;R. Aldred
通讯作者：
R. Aldred
影响因子：
5
作者：
Dave. Horton;P. Rosen;P. Cox
通讯作者：
P. Cox
影响因子：
6.1
作者：
Goodman, Anna;Cheshire, James
通讯作者：
Cheshire, James