Abstract

In the field of cycling studies, explicit and implicit theories of risk are frequently used for the purposes of research design, data collection, data analysis, and policy. In this article, we argue that this field may benefit from theories and concepts that speak to – but go beyond – theories of risk, and more directly focus on matters of right and recognition. Drawing on grounded theory research involving interviews with 28 cyclists in Dublin, Ireland, we analyse the ‘risk talk’ from five participant accounts through an application of the rights-orientated perspective of precarious entitlement theory. We argue for its utility as a theory, specifically as a complementary alternative to risk-focused approaches. First, we illustrate how precarious entitlement goes beyond the conceptual limits of understanding cycling experience from perspectives of ‘risk’ and ‘safety’, by consolidating a concern with ‘right’ and ‘risk’. Second, we illustrate how interpreting particular cycling practices as patterns of submission and social struggle (privatising vulnerability and provoking responsibility) can transcend individualised interpretations of such practices as ‘risk management’ and ‘risk-taking’. In the discussion, we consider the value of this theory in relation to existing research in this field, with reference to socio-cultural risk theory. In conclusion, we argue for a more transparently rights-based approach to cycle policy in light of the dominance of a specific variety of risk discourse that arguably obscures a consideration of rights to use public space and what a realisation of such rights might require from both the public and the state.

摘要

在自行车研究领域，显性和隐性风险理论经常用于研究设计、数据收集、数据分析和政策的目的。在本文中，我们认为该领域可能会受益于涉及风险理论但又超越风险理论的理论和概念，并且更直接地关注权利和认可问题。基于对爱尔兰都柏林 28 名自行车手进行访谈的扎根理论研究，我们通过应用不稳定权利理论的权利导向视角，分析了 5 位参与者的“风险谈话”。我们主张它作为一种理论的实用性，特别是作为以风险为中心的方法的补充替代方案。首先，我们说明不稳定的权利通过巩固对“正确”和“风险”的关注，超越了从“风险”和“安全”角度理解骑行体验的概念限制。其次，我们说明如何将特定的骑行实践解释为服从和社会斗争的模式（将脆弱性私有化并引发责任））可以超越对“风险管理”和“冒险”等实践的个性化解释。在讨论中，我们参考社会文化风险理论，考虑该理论相对于该领域现有研究的价值。总之，鉴于特定种类的风险话语占主导地位，我们主张对自行车政策采取更加透明的基于权利的方法，这些风险话语可能模糊了对使用公共空间的权利的考虑，以及实现这些权利可能需要的条件公众和国家。