Streets in Gauteng are dominated by people using automobiles. This means that other users and types of uses are, in the main, subservient to those of driving. This is in spite of the low levels of car ownership. The 2014 National Household Travel Survey revealed that only 38.5% of households in Gauteng either owned or had access to a private car (Statistics South Africa 2015). In the democratic transition, there was heightened policy attention on the needs of people walking, cycling, using public transportation, as well
as other forms of locomotion (Morgan 2017). One approach, called Complete Streets, seeks to transform streets in Gauteng into spaces with multiple uses and where different users can co-exist (see for example City of Johannesburg 2014). What might such a transformational process entail?
How would users respond to invitations for new ways of inhabiting and moving about streets? How would the nature of street design shape user responses? This chapter considers these and other questions by examining a historical moment in the 1930s when policy-makers in towns and cities along the Witwatersrand mining belt were grappling with road use. With growing motorisation, questions arose as to how to accommodate all road users – not only those in private motor cars. At about the same
time, two municipalities, Johannesburg and Springs, decided to separate road users by offering them their own spaces. However, while Johannesburg, as far as records reveal, created cycle lanes on one road – namely, Louis Botha Avenue – Springs created a net-
work of cycle tracks. Johannesburg’s cycle lanes were separated from motor vehicle space by white paint while most of the tracks in Springs were physically separated by space and barriers.
How do we understand these different degrees of accommodation for utility cycling in the two municipalities? This chapter uses concepts from the literature on transitions to organise the analysis into the reasons for the different council decisions for Johannesburg and Springs in the 1930s. The chapter argues that in Johannesburg, because of socio-economic inequality and actor activities, bicycles and then automobiles were seen as symbols of social status (in as much as they were practical transportation tools). This was compounded by rapid urban expansion within a hillier topography. In Springs, while there was inequality which might have produced the tendency towards conspicuous consumption, this was moderated early on by the influence of Protestant religious beliefs. In turn, these religious beliefs were supported by low levels of economic activity and compact morphology and level terrain. These dynamics shaped council decisions in allocations of bicycle infrastructure and use patterns. I conclude the chapter by drawing out lessons for the contemporary agenda to promote utility cycling. Data-collection methods were mixed, involving archival research, examination of secondary materials including photography and film footage, and ethnography.
On the 22nd of January this year, the then Minister of Transport in South Africa released statistics of injuries and fatalities that occurred on roads over the recently concluded holiday. The data was grim showing that between 1 December 2017 and 9 January 2018 1, 527 people died. Yet the Minister found a silver lining since in comparison to the previous year, the total number of fatalities had declined from 1, 714.
This dark post holiday reckoning is not new. The historical record shows that it is part of what has become a ritual. The ritual usually begins just before the onset of holidays with policy-makers and other road safety proponents beseeching holidaymakers to drive carefully. Tips on safe driving are offered such as not drinking and driving, wearing seatbelts, observing speed limits, being courteous to other road users, and resting when tired.
Over the course of holiday season, reports in media emerge of growing number of road accidents accompanied by deep sadness and regret about many whose lives have been tragically cut short and others whose lives forever changed by injury. The country then gets on with the business of the new year – but only to repeat this pattern at another holiday occasion. While this ‘ritual’ maybe familiar, its long history and magnitude of injuries and fatalities even when compared to other contexts is striking.
A long history of road danger
As far back as the first decade of the 20th century there was public awareness about dangers on the roads. Newspapers ran columns bewailing they called the ‘motor peril (Unknown, 1909). For example, in an editorial, a newspaper argued that “…people are getting tired of breaking sprint and long jump records in avoiding maniacs in motor cars and of burying dogs which have fallen victim to the modern juggernauts of the Rand” (Unknown, 1999).
In 1938, the editors of a newspaper argued:
The public can only regard with anxiety and view with deep regret the number of fatal road accidents which never fail to occur whenever a public holiday, particularly a long weekend is celebrated (Unknown, 1938a).
Last year, while mourning the death of 22 people in a road accident, the then Minister of Transport argued:
Statistics further indicate that these driving crimes increase during peak traffic periods such as Easter and the Festive holidays with most of the crashes happening at night (Maswanganyi, 2017, p. 2).
While all road users are affected by the problem, it is the vulnerable are often most at risk. For example, studies show that road traffic injuries are one of the leading causes of death among children (eg, Burrows, van and Laflamme, 2010). Historical data also shows that pedestrians have been one of the most affected (Botha, 2004; Sukhai, Jones and Haynes, 2009). In 2016 “Pedestrians accounted for 38% of the fatalities with children being particularly affected” (ITF, 2017, p. 476).
Consistently high rates of injuries and fatalities
The second aspect that is striking is the consistently high rates of deaths and injuries on South African roads. See figure below which shows fatality rates per 100, 000 population over time.
In an effort to draw attention to the magnitude of the problem, road safety advocates have used various jarring metaphors. For example, during World War II, a member of parliament remarked on the fact that in two years, more South Africans had been killed and injured on the roads than in combat (Unknown, 1941).
The war metaphor was taken up in 2006 by another politician whose parliamentary role was oversight over national transport. He “compared the road death statistics to a war zone”(Unknown, 2006). Others have evoked the imagery of planescrashing to draw attention to the scale of the crisis. One comment in 1979 even referred to the road atrocities as “genocide…[that was] self inflicted”(Unknown, 1979).
The high rates of fatalities and injuries are even more evident when compared to other countries. Comparative snapshots of the rate of injuries and fatalities suggest that the trendline depicted in the figure above global averages. Data from 2015 (World Health Organisation, 2015) and early 2000s (Norman et al., 2007)for example, shows that the South African rates were higher than global midpoint.
In 1939, it was reported that “The death rate per 100, 000 people in the United States was 9.2., in Great Britain it was 7.9…[and] the Union’s [South Africa] figure was 24.8”(Unknown, 1939). This was probably an unfair comparison given the vastly different socio-economic profiles. Resources at hand shape not only the nature of response to road tragedies but also expenditures such as on infrastructure, law enforcement, and vehicle maintenance which influence safety outcomes.
Yet the poor road safety record in South Africa is observed to be high even when compared to other countries with similar levels of income. For example in 2015 the World Health Organisation estimated that amongst middle income countries, wherein South Africa was classified, 18.4 people out of 100, 000 population due to road accidents while South Africa’s rate was 25.1 (World Health Organisation, 2015).
There maybe some odd comfort in the fact that danger on South Africa’s roads – albeit only using 2015 information – when compared to other African countries is not that anomalous: Recently, a global report concluded that the highest risk of dying in road accidents was found in Africa (World Health Organisation, 2015). Furthermore, some countries on the continent even of similar income levels had worse rates of injuries and fatalities. See figure below.
An end to danger on South Africa’s roads?
Can South Africa’s woes on the roads come to an end?
Certainly overtime there have been numerous initiatives to grapple with the problem. These initiatives identified causes such as speeding, poor road courtesy, driving under the influence, and poor vehicle maintenance. They have also developed solutions such as in the themes of engineering, public education, and new regulations and their enforcement.
A few examples. In the wake of growing accidents along the Main Reef Road – then a major artery connecting towns along the Witwatersrand Reef – a commission was tasked to understand and develop solutions (Main Reef Road Commission, 1937). While the Main Reef effort was an inter-municipal deliberation, at the end of 1938 there was a unanimous call for a national investigation from a breathtaking array of interest groups who had gathered at a hotel in downtown Johannesburg (Daily Express Reporter, 1938; Unknown, 1938b). One such reckoning occurred in 1947 when then Prime Minister of South Africa called for a national conference in Pretoria on road safety (Motor Editor, 1948). In the post apartheid period, a most notable effort is the well-known ‘Arrive Alive’ campaign which was designed to focus both on changing road user behaviours and enforcement of regulations (Lamont and Lee, 2015).
Other countries such as Rwanda, South Korea, and Australia have had severe problems with road safety and taken measures that have reduced the carnage. This suggests South Africa also could end danger on roads – as it once ended the long enduring problem of apartheid. But what has been tried so far is clearly not working.
Botha, G. (2004) ‘Road Accidents in South Africa: 1990–2003’, IATSS Research, 28(2), pp. 78–79. doi: 10.1016/S0386-1112(14)60111-4.
Burrows, S., van, N. and Laflamme, L. (2010) ‘Fatal injuries among urban children in South Africa: Risk distribution and potential for reduction’, Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 88(4), pp. 267–272. doi: 10.2471/BLT.09.068486.
Daily Express Reporter (1938) ‘Bid to reduce road deaths in union’, Daily Express, 29 November.
Lamont, M. and Lee, R. (2015) ‘Arrive Alive: Road Safety in Kenya and South Africa’, Technology and Culture; Baltimore, 56(2), pp. 464–488.
Main Reef Road Commission (1937) ‘Report of the Main Reef Road Commission’. Transvaal Province.
Maswanganyi, J. (2017) ‘Address by the Minister of Transport, Mr Joe Maswanganyi, on the Occasion of the Funeral Service of the Twenty Two (22) Kwaximba Road Crash Victims Held at Manzolwandle Sport Ground, Ethekwini Metropolitan Municipality – Kwazulu Natal’. Department of Transport, Republic of South Africa. Available at: http://www.transport.gov.za (Accessed: 2 November 2017).
Motor Editor (1948) ‘Union road safety council being set up by government’, Rand Daily Mail, 20 July.
Norman, R. et al. (2007) ‘The high burden of injuries in South Africa’, Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 85(9), pp. 695–702. doi: 10.1590/S0042-96862007000900015.
Sukhai, A., Jones, A. P. and Haynes, R. (2009) ‘Epidemiology and Risk of Road Traffic Mortality in South Africa’, South African Geographical Journal, 91(1), pp. 4–15. doi: 10.1080/03736245.2009.9725325.
Unknown (1909) ‘The Motor Peril’, Rand Daily Mail, 5 November.
Unknown (1938a) ‘Holiday death roll too high’, Rand Daily Mail, 2 August.
Unknown (1938b) ‘Request for road safety commission: Unanimous resolution at city meeting’, The Star, 8 December.
Unknown (1939) ‘High accident rate in union treated with apathy’, Cape Times, 15 December.
Unknown (1941) ‘Roads ten times deadlier than war’, Rand Daily Mail, 3 September.
Unknown (1979) ‘Deterrent to murder?’, The Citizen, 8 January.
Unknown (1999) ‘The Motor Peril: A century of Sundays : 100 years of breaking news in the Sunday times, 1906-1931’, Sunday Times, 24 October.
Unknown (2006) ‘Transport war zone’, Business Day (South Africa), 29 June.
The chapter explores how experiences of cycling with others can create emotions of mutuality. Such feelings can encourage utility cycling. The chapter is based on auto-ethnographic experiences while cycling in Chicago.
The publisher – Routledge – has made the following short introduction available:
Cycling has been linked with personal and group identities (Popan 2014; Stoffers 2012; Fincham 2007; Ebert 2004; Carstensen and Ebert 2012; Edwards and Leonard 2009; Skinner and Rosen 2007). Skinner and Rosen (2007, 86) suggest that “identity [should be considered] as intrinsic to people’s transport choices.” They offer three models to think about the relationship between identities and transport. In the first model, identities shaped by social contexts sway transport choices. In the second, travel experiences generate collective identities that influence transport mode choice. In the third, the first two interact, such that transport choices are shaped by identities and in turn travel experiences shape identities.
Skinner, D. and Rosen, P. (2007) ‘Hell is other cyclists: rethinking transport and identity’, in Horton, D., Rosen, P., and Cox, P. (eds) Cycling and Society. Aldershot, Ashgate, pp. 83–96.
Stoffers, M. (2012) ‘Cycling as heritage: Representing the history of cycling in the Netherlands’, The Journal of Transport History, 33(1), pp. 92–114. doi: 10.7227/TJTH.33.1.7.
Stoffers, M. and Ebert, A.-K. (2014) ‘New Directions in Cycling Research: A Report on the Cycling History Roundtable at T<SUP>2</SUP>M Madrid’, Mobility in History, 5(1), pp. 9–19. doi: 10.3167/mih.2014.050102.
As I write there are a few free copies left for download here.
Below the abstract:
There is robust debate in the cycling literature on the relationship between infrastructure and utility cycling. This paper explores whether the provision of bicycle ways can initiate a bicycle commute culture. Drawing on insights from the transitions’ literature, it analyses developments in Johannesburg where, as of 2007, bicycle ways have been installed as a road safety solution. It examines in particular user responses to a series of protected bicycle ways, which were aimed at encouraging populations proximate to two universities to travel by bicycle. I argue that a bicycling commuting culture did not materialise as initially expected because other key elements of a bicycle commuting socio-technical system were absent, weak and misaligned. Some of these included negative symbolic meanings, low levels of bicycle ownership, limited knowledge and information and poor clarity on municipal laws that govern the misuse of bicycle ways. Formation of these elements was constrained by historical factors; embryonic bicycling actor–networks; a robust system of automobility; and context barriers, such as inequality and crime. These findings support other studies, which argue for a systematic and coordinated approach to utility cycling development. Finally, this paper draws attention to social, economic and political place barriers that often receive little prominence in cycling literature.
Cycling advocates in low cycling contexts often point to factors such as poor road safety, distance, and lack of access to bicycles as barriers to cycling uptake in their contexts. Certainly these are legitimate.
But is it perhaps also the case that other ‘invisible’ barriers such as social pressure are equally as important? During the course of my PhD research, I collected many reports in space and time suggesting that the gaze from others is as important in shaping transportation practices. Here are a few.
From Beijing in 2006:
Although I did save a lot of time while cycling, there are disadvantages to cycling. There is nowhere to park near my company, and I had to take a cab when meeting clients. What would they think of me if I cycled up to them?
From Chicago in 1999:
my whole family acts like I’m from Mars because I don’t own a car
From Beijing 1926:
….a university professor in Beijing ‘confessed’ in a letter to the editor of a journal that to save transportation costs, but also to comply with social expectations, he usually called a rickshaw to pick him up, walked most of the distance, then took another rickshaw to reach his destination gracefully (Moghaddass-Esfehani, 2003, p. 97)
Moghaddass-Esfehani, A., 2003. The Bicycle’s Long Way to China: The Appropriation of Cycling as a Foreign Cultural Technique, 1890–1940. In Proceedings, 13th International Cycling History Conference 13. 13th International Cycling History Conference. San Francisco: Van der Plas Publications, pp. 94–101.
The historian of cycling, Carlton Reid (see, e.g., 2017, 2015), recently discovered that in the 1930s Britain commissioned the building of 500 miles of protected cycle ways. Some of these exist to the present day. In design these cycle ways borrowed directly from Dutch practices. Britain was therefore then as more recently in London, going ‘Dutch.’
In the same period, in South Africa, public authorities were grappling with increasing road safety concerns in the context of rapid motorisation(Main Reef Road Commission 1937). One solution, some municipalities looked to was separating different road users. With respect to people cycling, some seemed enchanted with notion of dedicated cycle tracks. And in particular, Britain’s protected cycle ways.
In Benoni, a local newspaper wrote:
The public of Benoni are acquiring a safety-first complex, and many valuable suggestions are being put forward…A suggestion made in the “Express” recently was that separate tracks should be made for cyclists. We have been able to secure a photo…of such a track opened recently by the British Minister of Transport… (Unknown 1935).
In the context of an inter-municipal dialogue (the Main Reef Road Commission) along the Witwatersrand Reef on road safety, a newspaper based in a town adjacent to Benoni, Springs, said:
The Main Reef Road Commission has recommended that a cycle track should be included in any new main thoroughfare to be constructed along the Reef…A similar scheme was adopted by Mr. Hore-Belisha (then British Minister for Transport), about three years ago, and on the whole has proved satisfactory (Unknown 1938).
None of these references, nor did I until revelations from Carlton Reid’s research, seemed to be aware that Mr. Hore-Belisha had in fact been borrowing from the Netherlands. Of the above mentioned municipalities by the way, only Springs implemented approximations of ‘Dutch’ style protected cycle tracks.
Fast forwarding to today, can planners in South Africa and elsewhere go “Dutch?” And more importantly, can they domesticate “Dutch” road safety solutions? One argument Carlton Reid makes on the reasons for the demise of the 1930s British cycleways is that they were built where they did not serve people travelling by bicycle (presentation at Velocity 2017 conference). This seems like a relevant lesson for today from the past.
Main Reef Road Commission. 1937. “Report of the Main Reef Road Commission.” Transvaal Province. Municipal Reference Library. Johannesburg Central Library.
Reid, Carlton. 2015. Roads Were Not Built for Cars: How Cyclists Were the First to Push for Good Roads & Became the Pioneers of Motoring. Washington, DC: Island Press.
———. 2017. Bike Boom: The Unexpected Resurgence of Cycling. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Unknown. 1935. “Our Traffic Problems: Proposals for Solution Put Forward by Benoni Men.” East Rand Express, February 1.
———. 1938. “Springs Council Action Impresses City Authorities: Special Cycle Tracks Solves Problem.” The Springs & Brakpan Advertiser, January 21.
Is bicycling for transport in Beijing on the upswing?
When I was working on my PhD thesis, part of which examined developments in Beijing, one story in the immediate market liberalisation phase was about the dethroning of the bicycle by the car.
At its peak, in 1980 the bicycle mode share was 62.6% of all trips (Zhao 2014a, 53). This is a staggering rate of bicycle use. By 2012 bicycle mode share had dropped to 14% (BUZA 2015). This trajectory is represented in the figure below.
However, there are indications that bicycling may yet be coming back. News media have recently been using terms such as “craze” and “stylish” to describe the resurgence of bicycling in Beijing, and other cities in China (Bland 2017; Tatlow 2017).
Photo courtesy: Marie Huchzermeyer, 2017
Photo courtesy: Marie Huchzermeyer, 2017
Photo courtesy: Marie Huchzermeyer, 2017
This is a startling transformation. In November 1998, bicycles were banned from a street called Xisidong Avenue in an effort to relieve car congestion (Rosenthal 1998). Cycling was also stigmatised with driving considered the new status symbol (Lu Rucai 2007; Zhao 2014a). In an often quoted remark, in 2010 a contestant on a television show when queried about her willingness to ride a bicycle during a date said “I’d rather cry in the back of a BMW than smile on a bicycle”(Wetherhold 2012).
Colleagues who have recently been in Beijing confirm the pronounced ubiquity of bicycles. One said:
Almost every week it seems as though another bike sharing company has been set up in Beijing. There must be hundreds of thousands of people using shared bikes every day
In another instance:
I am amazed I am at the explosion in shared cycling in China’s cities. In one year it has changed dramatically; quite a reversal, with cycling now a really fashionable thing to do. In Beijing and Shanghai there are now about five or six companies involved in bike sharing.
…A miracle that I wasn’t run over by a bicycle or silent scooter. It’s been a very rapid change, possibly since Njogu visited Beijing for his thesis…Several such companies are parking swipe-and-ride bikes absolutely everywhere, lots of smiling cyclists swarming everywhere (some not very experienced) and very worried pedestrians dodging them…
How do we understand this? More work to be done to comprehend China.
The bicycle is back. Governments at local, regional, national and internationally levels seemingly everywhere are promoting bicycling for transport. So are private entrepreneurs, grassroots organisations, passionate individuals and many others. These actors are after the numerous environmental, social, economic, spatial, health, and other benefits of peddling. Next month, many of these will meet at the Velo-city conference in the Netherlands.
Some bicycle promotion efforts seek to create new bicycling cultures or at least grow bicycle mode share from very low bases. Yet it is also the case that in some places, at neighbourhood scales within towns, or even on particular streets or roads there are what Koeppel (2006) called ‘invisible riders’ for whom as he argued “bicycling isn’t exercise, a hobby, or a statement” (ibid). It is simply a means of getting from a to b. See for example bicycle culture below in Salima, Malawi.
Bicycling in Salima, Malawi. Photo Courtesy, Sarah Nieuwoudt
Bicycling in Salima, Malawi. Photo Courtesy, Sarah Nieuwoudt
Bicycling in Salima, Malawi. Photo Courtesy, Sarah Nieuwoudt
Bicycling in Salima, Malawi. Photo Courtesy, Sarah Nieuwoudt
Bicycling in Salima, Malawi. Photo Courtesy, Sarah Nieuwoudt
In Johannesburg, South Africa, one such set of ‘invisible’ riders exists along a corridor called William Nicol Avenue. See the video below.
Protecting these ‘invisible’ cycling practices – such as through the provision of bicycling infrastructure – maybe easier than starting from scratch. Scholars working in transition studies, show that the societal functions – such as ground transportation – are provided by what they call socio-technical systems (STS). Such STS are comprised of an array of diverse elements such as technology itself (bicycle for instance), infrastructures, knowledge, practices, policy and regulations, subjectivities, symbolic meanings, habits, industry (supply and maintenance) (F. W. Geels 2005). It takes time for each of these individual elements to be formed and align with each other (Frank W. Geels and Kemp 2012).
It holds then, creating new bicycling cultures especially from very low bases may take longer than proponents would like. However, surfacing ‘hidden’ bicycling cultures within contexts where utility cycling is believed to not exist, not only benefits those bicycle users but also could help to shift narratives. That is, it could improve cycling safety for those already bicycling (see video above for example) and provide proof of concept sites that could inspire a new generation of bicycle users and justify resource allocation.
Research in diffusion of innovations has demonstrated that innovations that are visible can gain wider use since potential users can more easily appraise them. This is what Rogers (1983, 232) calls “observability.” In this light, with reference to utility cycling, a recent study suggests that “sheer numbers of bicyclists increases the visibility of the activity which can influence individuals to try it” (Sherwin, Chatterjee, and Jain 2014, 11).
Failure to ‘protect’ invisible riders will inevitably mean that should circumstances change – such as improved incomes – this demographic will abandon bicycling. Observing such a trajectory in India, Brussel and Zuidgeest (2012, 184) argue “we witness in India a reduction in bicycle use among people with a higher income and education.”
Brussel, Mark, and Mark Zuidgeest. 2012. “Cycling in Developing Countries: Context, Challenges and Policy Relevant Research.” In Cycling and Sustainability. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Geels, F. W. 2005. “Processes and Patterns in Transitions and System Innovations: Refining the Co-Evolutionary Multi-Level Perspective.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Transitions towards Sustainability through System Innovation, 72 (6): 681–96. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2004.08.014.
Geels, Frank W., and René Kemp. 2012. “The Multi-Level Perspective as a New Perspective for Studying Socio-Technical Transitions.” In Automobility in Transition? A Socio-Technical Analysis of Sustainable Transport, 49–79. New York, N.Y., United States: Routledge.
Rogers, Everett M. 1983. Diffusion of Innovations. 3rd edition. Free Press.
Sherwin, Henrietta, Kiron Chatterjee, and Juliet Jain. 2014. “An Exploration of the Importance of Social Influence in the Decision to Start Bicycling in England.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2014.05.001.
In the last few years bicycle lanes have been built in Johannesburg. These were intended to stimulate a commuter cycling culture in the wake of growing road congestion and awareness of the negative economic, health, social and, environmental consequences of private car dependency (City of Johannesburg 2009).
Instead of immediately enticing users because of their safety advantage, the bicycle lanes instead stimulated more howls of outrage than actual usage. A popular argument was that it was a bad allocation of resources in the face of other more pressing needs (e.g. Madibogo 2016). In this line of argument, bicycle lanes were a luxury for the rich even though majority of people who already use bicycles for transport fall in lower income brackets. In spite of the flaws in the argument, it was used as a basis for putting on hold bicycle lane development (Cox 2016).
The question then is how do we understand why the bicycle lanes did not immediately attract hoards of users?
Scholars in transition studies (e.g. Geels 2005), social practice theory (e.g. Shove et al. 2012) and the mobilities literature (e.g. Sheller & Urry 2000) have drawn attention to the systemic dimensions of transport. For these scholars, ways of moving about are conceived of as comprised of a range of different but aligned elements. These include the transportation technology, industries, social groups and institutions, infrastructures, symbolic meanings, habits, social norms, knowledge and subjectivities. For a transportation system to work all the different elements above have to exist. To take a simple example, cars could not be driven if there were no roads or users did not know how to drive them.
A second important insight from this scholarship, is that the transportation system is itself nested in place, meaning that existing characteristics of places shape formation of the system. Some examples of characteristics of places include social values, existing alternative transportation systems (and the different elements that go with), politics, religious beliefs, (in)equality, gender roles, topography, and economic systems – to name a few. To take an extreme but illustrative case, due to religious beliefs, women in Saudi Arabia are not allowed to drive cars – though there are efforts to change this (Taylor 2016).
With this perspective, some answers to the low usage of bicycle lanes are evident. To begin with, the various other elements that constitute a bicycle commuting system have not yet fully formed and aligned together. A forthcoming study by the Centre for Anthropological Research at the University of Johannesburg reveals staggeringly low levels of bicycle ownership. More than 70% of respondents living, working or studying near some bicycle lanes connecting two universities do not own bicycles. For sure this is not surprising given the long history of hollowing out utility cycling in Johannesburg (Morgan 2017). As such City of Johannesburg officials merit significant recognition for mounting an initiative set to change the tide of history.
Secondly there are place specific characteristics that inhibit potential bicycle users. In addition to concerns about blockages (rubble for example) on the bicycle lanes, research exploring the reasons for low uptake of bicycle lanes found that “lack of respect for cyclists and the cycling lane[s], stigma of being a cyclist [and] lack of road safety for cycle users” (Crowhurst et al. 2015, p.11) as barriers. These factors were collaborated by another study which also argued that “potential cyclists may find the system difficult to navigate as a fully integrated and linked system does not yet exist” (Dos Santos et al. 2015, p.5). With the latter argument, the researchers were pointing to the limited extent of the bicycling lanes. Potential bicycle users are also held back by real and perceived concerns of personal safety (theft).
In conclusion, a perspective that conceives of bicycling more systemically and situates it in place can lend insight into the current low levels of utilisation of the bicycling lanes in Johannesburg. The bicycle lanes can then be understood as but one of the necessary elements required for a vibrant commuter cycling culture. A ‘build it and they will come’ approach which relies heavily on bicycling infrastructure will surely not work in isolation. A more useful perspective on the role of bicycle infrastructure is provided by Schoner et al. (2015, p.7) who “in a study into the relationship between bicycle infrastructure and decisions to travel by bicycle” conclude that “bicycle lanes act as ‘magnets’ to attract bicyclists to a neighborhood, rather than being the ‘catalyst’ that encourages non-bikers to shift modes.”
Given my exposure as a member of the Johannesburg Urban Cyclists Association, I am aware that policy-makers in the city of Johannesburg were moving towards a more systemic approach in supporting commuter cycling. There were (and are) intentions for example to increase bicycle access along the university corridor whether through bicycling sharing schemes or through rental models. The difficultly is that these ideas followed the bicycle lanes – they did not go in concert with building the other elements of the commuter cycling system.
More users of Johannesburg’s bicycle lanes will come when other elements of the commuting bicycling system are built and the place-specific obstacles are addressed. Even in the face of city council hostility to transportation cycling, I am aware that there are many other actors working to support the practice. Furthermore, elections come and go so Johannesburg residents could make other choices in the future that reduce road congestion and noise, clean the air, produce healthier residents and more.
City of Johannesburg, 2009. Framework for Non-Motorised Transport.
Crowhurst, R. et al., 2015. Users and Potential Users’ Perceptions of the Cycle Lanes and Their Intentions to Utilise Them. Johannesburg, South Africa: University of the Witwatersrand. Available at: http://www.juca.org.za/?p=817 [Accessed August 15, 2016].
Dos Santos, N. et al., 2015. Other Road Users Perceptions & Attitudes Towards the Cycle Lanes. Johannesburg, South Africa: University of the Witwatersrand. Available at: http://www.juca.org.za/?p=817 [Accessed August 15, 2016].
Geels, F.W., 2005. Processes and patterns in transitions and system innovations: Refining the co-evolutionary multi-level perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72(6), pp.681–696.
Morgan, N., 2017. An inquiry into changes in everyday bicycling cultures: the case of Johannesburg in conversation with Amsterdam, Beijing and Chicago. Johannesburg, South Africa: University of the Witwatersrand.
Schoner, J.E., Cao, J. & Levinson, D.M., 2015. Catalysts and magnets: Built environment and bicycle commuting. Journal of Transport Geography, 47, pp.100–108.
Sheller, M. & Urry, J., 2000. The City and the Car. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24(4), pp.737–757.
Shove, E., Pantzar, M. & Watson, M., 2012. The Dynamics of Social Practice: Everyday Life and how it Changes, Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Why do places exhibit sometimes very different bicycling cultures? Some being predominated by cycling as a sport or for recreation. While in others, people may use bicycles mainly for transportation? In others the use of bicycles maybe as varied as can be imagined.
Why is it some places may start from a broadly similar appraisal and practices and then radically diverge over time? I am currently researching a variation of this question. The historical evidence shows in two neighboring towns in South Africa, high levels of utility cycling at the turn of the 20th century. On Johannesburg see previous post. These urban areas, Springs and Johannesburg, with similar origins as mining hubs are about 50 kilometers (31 miles) apart.
Springs sustained a reasonably robust commuter cycling culture for sometime. From the 1930s into the 1950s and 1980s Springs built separated and barrier protected cycling tracks. In Johannesburg however, there is scant historical evidence of catering for bicycle users on the road network – apart for some painted white lines on one of the major arterial routes.
In the 1970s, during the fuel crises, there was a genuine interest in rediscovering bicycling as amode of transport in Springs. See image below.
In Johannesburg however, while there were policy measures to reduce private motor car use, it was reported that residents generally stuck to their autos. Even those who stuck to their autos, largely failed to share journeys – in the form of car pooling (Clarke 1987, p.219).
How do we understand these different trajectories? This is the broad question I am working on. By sometime in October 2017 I should have an answer.
Clarke, J. ed., 1987. Like it was: The Star 100 years in Johannesburg, Johannesburg: Argus Print. & Pub. Co.