Precarious entitlement to public space & utility cycling in Dublin

ABSTRACT

Diverse social science research investigating the experience of cycling mobilities in relation to driving mobilities strongly indicates that matters of spatial entitlement are a central theme in the confluence (and conflict) of these mobilities, particularly in car-dominated contexts. However, while the experience of this meeting of mobilities from a cyclist point of view has been well addressed in an empirical and evocative manner, there appears to be a relative lack of available empirically grounded theory to make sense of such scenarios. Drawing on grounded theory research and interviews with utility cyclists in Dublin, we present the phenomenon of ‘precarious entitlement’ to public space that cyclists in Dublin must negotiate and its associated properties: insecure space, spatial disregard and police neglect. Precarious entitlement as a category provides a theoretical account of cycling experience in Dublin that consolidates a concern with right and risk as a mobile subject travelling in and through public space. Furthermore, this category indicates a unique structural vulnerability and problem of ‘misrecognition’ that utility cyclists in Dublin – and potentially beyond – may encounter and contend with.

KEYWORDS:

• Cycling
• entitlement
• automobility
• public space
• citizenship
• near miss
• harassment

Introduction

Cyclists in Dublin possess an entitlement to use public space in theory that is risky or precarious to exercise in practice. In this paper, we elucidate this phenomenon of ‘precarious entitlement’ to public space that cyclists in Dublin must negotiate and its properties in the context of cycling in Dublin: that is insecure space, spatial disregard and police neglect. The structure of the paper will proceed as follows. First, we review contemporary social science work relating to automobility and the experience of cycling in car-centric contexts and introduce precarious entitlement theory in this context of inquiry. Second, we describe the context of the study, the classical grounded theory methodology employed and the approach to qualitative interview data collection. Third, we posit the core category of the study derived from systematic processes of data collection and analysis – precarious entitlement – and its properties, using illustrations of incidents from the qualitative interview data gathered. Fourth, we argue that precarious entitlement as a category offers an integrated sociological interpretation of the conditions of public space and social relations that utility cyclists encounter and deal with in Dublin, but likely also a variety of contexts in which automobility as a ‘system’ of mobility dominates (e.g., Heesch, Sahlqvist, and Garrard 2011; Bösehans and Massola 2018). This unique theoretical account consolidates a concern with right and risk as a mobile subject travelling in and through public space. Fifth and last, we consider this concept in relation to matters of recognition and argue that precarious entitlement indicates a structural vulnerability that cyclists in car-dominated contexts may contend with.

Automobility, cycling & spatial entitlement

In the West, it is argued that we live in ‘mobile civil societies’ underpinned by the domination of automobility (Urry 2000) in which ‘public spaces’ are transformed into ‘public roads’ (Urry 2000, 194). This domination of the mobility of the hybrid ‘car-driver’ precipitated in part by such a transformation of ‘space’, consequently leads to the marginalisation and subordination of other public mobilities, most notably, cycling and walking, not to mention the social groups with limited access to automobility itself (Sheller and Urry 2000; Urry 2000). However, due to the restructurings of space and time that result from the dominance of this ‘system’ of automobility (Urry 2004), civic actors do not necessarily choose to drive. Rather, they are coerced into the intense flexibility that automobility is thought to facilitate due to the material and social transformations (e.g. petrol supply, road infrastructure, urban planning) that have ensued from its domination. These transformations, then, necessitate automobility. Accordingly, automobility becomes a requirement rather than a choice for members of modern Western societies, thereby leading to public space being experienced from a distance within the confines of a bounded car and being produced in such a way to facilitate automobility above all else (Sheller and Urry 2000).

Into what remains of ‘public’ space, researchers from a variety of backgrounds have empirically investigated the experience of cycling in what could be described as ‘automobilised’ environments (e.g. Aldred and Crossweller 2015; Bösehans and Massola 2018). There is evidence that cyclists in both Ireland and the UK regularly experience a sense of being in danger (Lawson et al. 2013; Aldred and Crosweller 2015; Aldred 2016; Aldred and Goodman 2018). Aldred and Crosweller (2015), for example, conducted a study across the UK in which utility cyclists completed survey questionnaires following a day in which they cycled. Over the two-week period of data collection, more than half of the 1532 respondents reported experiencing a very scary (24.5%) or very annoying incident (50.5%) on their day of survey completion, 85.2% of which involved another road user of which 70% were in motor vehicles. The two main incident types pertaining to these experiences were, firstly, the blocking of the cyclist’s way on the road and, secondly, the experience of unsafe passing manoeuvres that generally involved passing perceived as too close – an example of what can be experienced as a ‘near-miss’ for a given cyclist: an incident that could potentially result in a crash or collision.

Indeed, perceived ‘near misses’ – most notably in the form of a ‘close pass’ – have also been recorded in Australia, where a minimum passing distance law is in effect (Poulos et al. 2017; Haworth, Heesch, and Schramm 2018) as well as Brazil (Bösehans and Massola 2018), along with reports of harassment and aggression on the road from drivers (Heesch, Garrard, and Sahlqvist 2011; Heesch, Sahlqvist, and Garrard 2011; Heesch et al. 2017; Bösehans and Massola 2018; Fruhen, Rossen, and Griffin 2019) including intentionally driving too close, verbal abuse, and the use of offensive gestures and sexual harassment (Heesch, Sahlqvist, and Garrard 2011; Heesch et al. 2017). In an Irish context, then, Lawson et al. (2013) collected fixed survey responses from 1732 Dublin cyclists concerning their perceptions of cycling safety. 98% of these cyclists considered themselves to be competent or highly skilled at cycling yet, at the same time, the majority of respondents considered cycling to be less safe than driving. Notably, it was reported that ‘cyclists feel motorists to be both reckless and careless with regard to the presence of cyclists in Dublin’s transportation network’ (Lawson et al. 2013, 504) and that this perception has a major negative impact on their perceived safety when cycling.

Similar to the aforementioned transport research investigating the experience of cycling in ‘automobilised’ environments (e.g. Aldred and Crosweller 2015; Bösehans and Massola 2018), researchers in the field of mobilities have alluded to the experiences relating to ‘danger’, ‘risk’, ‘conflict’, ‘safety’ (e.g. Jones 2005, 2012; Larsen 2014; Freudendal-Pedersen 2015a) while cycling. For example, Jones (2005, 826) comments on the continual possibility as a cyclist in Birmingham of having one’s ‘bodily limits being breached beneath the wheels of a Birmingham bus’. Similarly, Larsen (2014, 63) remarks on ‘the dangers of cycling in car-dominated societies, where cyclists rub shoulders, and fight for space, with heavy motor vehicles, and any collision between the two is likely to injure or even kill the cyclist’. However, alongside these concerns, matters of ‘right’, ‘space’, ‘competition’, and ‘scarcity’ are raised (e.g. Larsen 2014; Freudendal-Pedersen 2014, 2015a, 2015b; Scott 2016).

Scott (2016), for example, describes how there are ‘two Ottawas’ for cyclists: one in which cyclists can serenely travel on protected and peaceful cycles paths, free of vehicular traffic; another ‘designed primarily for, and in practice dominated by, people driving cars’ (Scott 2016, 26) in which cyclists must ‘compete with cars, trucks and buses for scarce road space.’ (Scott 2016, 23). The construction of the cyclist and cycling in Ottawa and Ontario policy, Scott (2016) argues, prevents interpretations of violence inflicted on cyclists by drivers as matters of ‘urban equality’ and the ‘rights of the cyclist to the city’ (Scott 2016, 31). Even in the relatively cycle-friendly context of Copenhagen, Freudendal-Pedersen reports ‘ongoing tension regarding the rights of cyclists relative to motorists’ (Freudendal-Pedersen 2015b, 599) and how ‘cycling in Copenhagen is also about being part of the fight between the bicycle and the car.’ (Freudendal‐Pedersen 2015a, 39).

Accordingly, across empirical work investigating cycling experience within different contexts, there appears to be a common thread: the emergence and negotiation of matters of spatial entitlement encountered in the meeting between the distinct yet intertwined mobilities (and moorings) of cycling and driving. How cycling mobilities and driving mobilities relate, and how this intersection is experienced, has been well addressed empirically and evocatively (e.g. Jones 2005; Larsen 2014; Freudendal‐Pedersen 2015a; Scott 2016). However, there appears to be dearth of ‘high impact concepts’ (Glaser 1995) and empirically grounded theory that can adequately articulate and make sense of these complex relations and interactions in experience and practice, perhaps in part due to an emphasis on ‘non-representational’ methods in mobilities research (Cresswell 2010). In this paper, we focus on the ‘core category’ of precarious entitlement theory (Egan 2019), precarious entitlement itself: having an entitlement to use public space in theory that is risky or precarious to exercise in practice. This theory contributes to theoretical work in the mobilities paradigm regarding the situation of cycling as a form of marginalised mobility and consolidates empirical work in the field of cycling risk perception and road user interaction, positioning domineering – or ‘sovereign’ (Sheller 2008) – acts within wider conditions of ‘precarious entitlement’ to public space and reframing such incidences and interactions, in part, from a perspective of ‘misrecognition’ (Honneth 1995). For more on the other aspects of the theory (i.e. how precarious entitlement to public space is dealt with by privatising vulnerability and provoking responsibility) see Egan (2019).

Study context & methodology

This study took place in Dublin, the capital of Ireland. In the most recent policy for cycling in Ireland, Smarter Travel (2009) aimed for cycling to comprise 10% of journeys nationwide by 2020. However, the most recent census statistics indicate that cycling only accounts for 1.7% of total journeys (Central Statistics Office 2017a). These journeys are predominantly made by men (i.e. 74% male versus 26% female), with growth in cycle ridership primarily occurring among men between 25 and 45 (Central Statistics Office 2017b). Along with failed policy objectives and narrow demographics of ridership, the infrastructural context of Dublin has been quantified by Conway et al. (2019), revealing a stark absence of high-quality infrastructure in a comparison to the cycling city of Copenhagen (e.g. 48.7% shared with bus lanes vs. 0%; 16.1% cycle tracks vs 77.2%). Accordingly, Dublin is a city with low – predominantly male – ridership and poor cycle infrastructure.

Classical grounded theory methodology (Glaser and Strauss 1967) was adopted in order to provisionally explore how utility cyclists in Dublin deal with matters of risk. The primary goal of classical grounded theory is to generate relevant theory grounded in data gathered from the area of study. The goal is not, then, to describe participant experiences or verify existing hypothesis. Rather, what is produced is useful theory grounded in data that has been generated via systematic processes of data collection and analysis. Such theory and concepts may be modified in light of new and/or conflicting data and are therefore posited as provisional and relevant only to the unique area from which data were gathered. A good grounded theory, therefore, fits the data patterns it is proposed by the researcher to conceptualise, thereby offering a ‘transcending view’ for both laypersons and researchers alike. Importantly, grounded theory ought to be relevant to participants. This is achieved through the identification and conceptualisation of the ‘main concern’ of participants. This ‘main concern’ is not simply an aggregation of participant concerns but, rather, the researcher’s coding of patterns across the data indicating a ‘main concern’ of participants. The core category of ‘precarious entitlement’, originating from a broader theory of the same name (i.e. a grounded theory of ‘precarious entitlement’), is posited in this paper as a conceptualisation of the main concern or core problem of utility cyclists in Dublin, following a process of rigorous collection and analysis of interview data.

Over the course of this study, then, 28 semi-structured, in-depth interviews were carried out with cyclists from across the city. There were 16 male and 12 female participants and participant age ranged from 23 to 78 years old. Interviews lasted on average one hour. Interviewee participant selection and interview questions were initially guided by a provisional interest in exploring how utility cyclists in Dublin dealt with matters of risk such as being ‘at risk’ and putting others and oneself ‘at risk’. However, what emerged as a ‘main concern’ for utility cyclists in Dublin from analysis of interview data was ‘precarious entitlement’ to public space. Accordingly, data collection and analysis were increasingly directed toward the conceptual development of this main concern and the processes of resolving it. In the following section and its three sub-sections, we elicit this ‘main concern’ and ‘core category’ of the theory of ‘precarious entitlement’. Accordingly, we do not present the theory in its entirety (see Egan 2019) but, instead, its essential category, illustrated with reference to data gathered during the study.

‘Precarious entitlement’ to public space

Commencing with an initial sensitising interest in how matters of ‘utility cycling and risk’ were experienced and dealt with by interviewee participants, precarious entitlement to public space was conceptualised as the main concern of utility cyclists in Dublin emerging from systematic processes of grounded theory data collection and analysis. Namely, utility cyclists in Dublin have unique and equal entitlements to public space as imparted in the Rules of the Road (Road Safety Authority 2019). These include an exclusive entitlement to particular spaces (e.g. segregated cycle lanes, cycle lanes with a continuous white line, advanced stop lines) and entitlements shared with other road users within shared spaces (e.g. right of way, the right to occupy a shared traffic lane in the majority of circumstances). Exercising these entitlements, however, is experienced as precarious due to conditions of precarious entitlement to public space. These comprise of insecure space, spatial disregard and police neglect. These properties are distinct enough to be conceptually separated from one another but, at the same time, are somewhat porous as aspects of one property can seep into aspects of another. Considered alternatively, these properties conceptualise the material (insecure space), social/cultural (spatial disregard) and institutional (police neglect) conditions of precarious entitlement. Individually and collectively, then, they contribute to the experience of precariousness in assuming and exercising spatial entitlement as a cyclist in Dublin. As a result, cyclists have spatial entitlements in theory that are experienced as risky or insecure to assume in practice; that is, they are entitlement bearers with entitlements that cannot be trusted, relied upon, or taken for granted, rendering their exercise highly problematic and complex. In the following subsections, we present the properties of precarious entitlement in the context of utility cycling in Dublin with reference to the data these properties conceptualise.

i. Insecure space

The particular public spaces which cyclists travel upon and are entitled to (and, at times, obliged to) travel upon are perceived as insecure. That is, due to aspects of their spatial design, temporal design, and general maintenance, cyclists in Dublin experience these spaces as hazardous and insecure to use, exposing them to various hazards ranging from a potential collision with a motorist to falling from one’s cycle due to destabilisation. Through encountering public spaces that provoke a sense of insecurity, a cyclist’s entitlement to public space is thereby rendered precarious as one perceives they are putting themselves at risk in exercising their entitlement to such a space by occupying and travelling through it.

In terms of spatial design, cyclists in Dublin perceive the designated spaces they are entitled to use – namely, on-road and segregated cycle lanes – as ‘piecemeal’. This description refers to their fragmentation and, consequently, their poor integration as spaces. This fragmented infrastructure leaves cyclists entering and leaving exclusive cycle spaces and, in many instances, entering and leaving shared traffic spaces with little warning. Consequently, cyclists may be positioned in and out of the proximity and trajectory of motor traffic repeatedly and suddenly. Cycle lanes, then, are not perceived as secure – they suddenly disappear and give way to motor traffic and, therefore, cannot be relied upon. This repetitive and often unpredictable exposure to motor-traffic as a result of such fragmentation leads to perceptions of vulnerability. Furthermore, the very positioning of cycle lanes in spaces shared with motor vehicles is perceived as insecure due to one’s near-complete exposure to the powerful vehicles of different motorists. The potential for motorists to easily disregard and/or obstruct a given cyclist and their designated space additionally contributes to this sense of vulnerability and, indeed, the routine occurrence of such behaviour – described in the following ‘spatial disregard’ section – renders insecure space even more problematic. For some, being in such spaces is experienced as being part of a highly unequal and precarious competition for road space where one is especially vulnerable to harm.

Illustrating the impact of spatial design in particular, James describes his experience of insecure space, alluding to the fragmented design of designated cycle spaces and his sense of vulnerability when cycling ‘in close proximity to’ motor vehicles:

… when I started cycling, there was no such thing as a cycle lane. Now there are, but they are not continuous. So they’ll breakup. You’ll get a, you know, 500 metres of a cycle lane, then it stops because the planners couldn’t … find a way to continue it and suddenly you’re in with the rest of the traffic … and then it starts again … and then it stops again (irritated tone) … It’s quite frightening because you’re suddenly in close proximity to all the cars – the big, metal cars – with their airbags and all their safety features are … right beside you.

Yvonne and her young daughter experienced first-hand the impact of ‘piecemeal’ spatial design in relation to cycle lanes. While cycling with her daughter following nearby, both Yvonne and her daughter were passed at a distance perceived to be unsafe at an uncomfortably high speed by a motorist. At the location of the incident, the cycle lane upon which Yvonne was occupying while cycling towards an upcoming bridge ‘magically’ disappeared thus positioning Yvonne and her daughter in a space primarily occupied by motorists. Despite holding the infringing motorist partially responsible, for Yvonne, this scenario was primarily brought about by the insecure design of space. Namely, Yvonne outlines that the sudden removal of the cycle lane while cycling towards the bridge places cyclists in a position of ‘fighting for a space’ with other road users in motorised vehicles:

… a guy close passed me on Drumcondra Bridge – not really fast, but fast enough – and I had my daughter with me and she was on the road. The guy got stuck in traffic so I shouted across to him, he pulled the window down and I said ‘That was a really dangerous pass you did back there’ and he said sorry, in fairness. But, again, that was caused by infrastructure … and I know he shouldn’t have done it but the whole way that Drumcondra Bridge is set up: the cycle lane disappears and then you and a car are fighting for a space … Like, another thing is that there is a cycle track on one side which suddenly disappears that was supposed to continue straight ahead but is now obstructed by pavement and so, when you’re on a bike, all of the taxis suddenly start cutting in across you to go into the bus lane … but, ah!

The accounts of both James and Yvonne give a sense of how spatial design contributes to a perception of insecure space, thereby rendering one’s entitlement to public space as a cyclist precarious. However, similar to spatial design, the temporal design of cycle spaces, impinges on perceptions of public space as ‘insecure’ for cyclists. Participants spoke of the ‘intermittent’ nature of a large number of designated cycle spaces, in which parking and use by motorists is legally permitted during certain hours/days or for certain periods. Indeed, the Rules of the Road delineates that when cycle lanes are designated with a broken white line to the right-hand side, motorists are entitled to make temporary use of them, provided there is no cyclist occupying them. In relation to parking in such a space, a motorist may park for up to 30 minutes providing they are loading or unloading their vehicle and there is no other parking available. Furthermore, some designated cycle spaces are only designated as such within particular margins of time. These are visible on signs that are placed beside them. When such signs are not present, the cycle space is reserved for cyclists at all times (Road Safety Authority 2019). Accordingly, such design leaves cyclists to overtake legitimately parked or infringing cars and mix with motorists in adjacent shared traffic lanes. Without such temporary designation, a given cyclist would be enabled to stay in the cycle lane and continue straight ahead but instead is forced to expose oneself more severely to motor-vehicle traffic.

For Yvonne, ‘intermittent’ cycle lanes contribute to insecure space for cyclists. That is, Yvonne frequently comes across cars parked in designated cycle lanes across the city; nevertheless, some of this parking is, in fact, legal. In this way, only some cycle lanes are exclusively for the use of cyclists whilst others can be parked upon with some regulations. In response to this, while cycling with her children to sports classes, Yvonne and her children will use the footpath rather than enter the insecure space outside of the cycle lane that mixes bicycles with vehicles. Hence, occupation of the cycle lane by motor vehicle forces Yvonne and her children into space mixed with motorists which, as Yvonne describes in the earlier excerpts, she perceives to be grounds of unequal competition between road users. Accordingly, for Yvonne, non-exclusive cycle lanes contribute to the insecure space of cyclists. Similar to the physical fragmentation of the cycle lane that Yvonne encounters, temporal fragmentation occurs too, with some cycle lanes being exclusive only to cyclists across certain margins of time. Cycle lanes are not secure – they suddenly disappear and give way and therefore cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, since exclusive 24-h cycle lanes are not universal across Dublin, Yvonne perceives this contributing to the disregard of cycle lanes by motorists since they develop the general perception that cycle lanes can be parked on in general.

I come across parked cars all of the time. But then, see, some of it’s legal – that’s the problem. Like, again, Ballymun Road … the kids and I cycle up and on that road you’re allowed to park in the cycle lane … so they have to cycle on the footpath … because I’m not letting them out on the road. I mean, the thing is that’s allowed … and that’s kind of schizophrenic of the infrastructure as well. So, the odd cycle lane is 24 hours a day but a lot of cycle lanes are seven until 10 and then five until seven … so that kind of … it’s enough to confuse people so if they see someone parked legally somewhere well, then, I think there will be a perception in their head ‘It’s okay to park in a cycle lane.’ And they’re not going to look and go ‘Oh, this is a 24-hour cycle lane’ or ‘This is an intermittent cycle lane.’ So, I think that doesn’t help. I don’t see why they don’t just … If you’re making a cycle lane, make it a permanent cycle lane and enforce it.

Lastly, the negligent maintenance of public spaces for cyclists specifically but also in spaces shared with other road users renders such spaces ‘insecure’ to use irrespective of other road users but also in light of sharing such spaces with other road users. Hazards resulting from a potential lack of maintenance such as potholes, fallen leaves increasing the perceived risk of slip, uneven surfaces, and unclear designations (i.e. faded cycle symbol sign/colouring) contribute to a perception of insecure space. Such hazards, then, leave a given cyclist, among other things, to decide whether to ‘swerve to get out of it or risk destabilising themselves by driving over it’ – a risk that was realised for some participants in which a motor-vehicle was in close proximity approaching from behind, thereby exposing one to the risk of a subsequent collision.

For example, Patrick perceives insecure space not only via spatial design, but also for an existing segregated cycle lane that he considers poorly maintained. This particular cycle lane is unnerving to use due to its hazardous surface which is uneven and sometimes slippery and, more importantly, does not clearly designate that it is an exclusive space for cyclists. Namely, the cyclist symbol painted on this particular space is wearing away and is often covered by leaves which conceal it. Therefore, nearby pedestrians will frequently infringe upon the cycle lane. These pedestrians are perceived by Patrick, in the case of a collision, as both a risk to the cyclist but also a (potentially greater) risk to the pedestrian themselves. Thus, Patrick even experiences segregated cycle paths in Dublin as insecure, in this case due to a neglected, risky surface that, through its fading and concealed designation, mediates disregard from pedestrians:

It’s rutted, pitted, it kind of got a different colouring which is wearing away … I’ve noticed they rarely clear leaves off of it, so the maintenance of it is very poor. The leaves, you think ‘well, so what’ but when that ices over or is very wet, it’s a very slippery surface for a cyclist. Plus, if there’s leaves right across, the visual distinction for a pedestrian or cyclist isn’t there.

One participant provides a fitting summary of the variety of components that contribute to insecure space for cyclists, leading him to conclude that many designated cycle lanes are merely symbols of safe, exclusive space that cyclists are entitled to use as opposed to effective realisations of this entitlement:

Cycle lanes are pretty crap. I think they’re pretty poor. Yeah, they’re frequently obstructed and they’re poor quality and they’ve potholes … and there’s no sense of a safe space. They’re not really, I mean … they are cycle lanes only insofar as someone has painted the tarmac to … create the idea that ‘Hey! You can actually use this road to cycle.’ They’re not protected cycle … with a few exceptions! But most cycle lanes are poor quality, they are nominal cycle lanes … as in it’s a notion … you know, they’re not protective.

ii. Spatial disregard

Beyond the insecure space which may render a cyclist’s entitlement to use public space precarious, the conduct of other road users can, likewise, lead to a sense of precariousness in occupying or cycling through a space. In this way, another aspect of precarious entitlement in the context of utility cycling in Dublin is spatial disregard.

In one respect, cyclists experience their space being disregarded (i.e., disregard of space). When cyclists use public space they are routinely subject to various infringements of their space by other public space users. Such spaces can include the space required to move safely and comfortably within a cycle or traffic lane. Indeed, drivers are recommended to provide an overtaking distance of 1 m in 50 km/h speed zones or less and 1.5 m in speed zones above 50 km/h (Road Safety Authority 2019, 54). Other spaces, then, include designated space (i.e. cycle lanes and advanced stop lines before traffic lights) and right-of-way (i.e. the space ahead in particular scenarios) as described in the Rules of the Road (Road Safety Authority 2019). Accordingly, through infringing upon a cyclist’s space, one is engaging in spatial disregard. This may take the form of ‘close passing’, in which a motorist may pass a cyclist with what is perceived to be insufficient space for their safety and comfort, putting the cyclist at risk of crash and/or collision in what may often be a shared traffic space. Other variations include illegal parking in and infringement of cycle lanes.

In another respect, cyclist’s experience being directly disregarded as road users in particular public spaces (i.e., disregard in space). For example, when in a shared traffic lane, a cyclist may be beeped by a motorist for occupying the space, thus indicating to the cyclist that they are not entitled to use this space and should vacate it. In another sense, having one’s right-of-way as a cyclist being ‘cut off’ by another road user who has overtaken or having one’s right-of-way ignored by a motorist emerging from a road in which they are required to give way is also a way of being disregarded in a space. Indeed, a pedestrian may engage in this form of spatial disregard due to a lapse of attention or ‘lack of awareness’ of cyclists when crossing the road, which may result in a hazardous collision or crash. However, spatial disregard does not necessarily only occur due to ‘passive negligence’ but can also involve blatant non-recognition of entitlement.

On his regular cycles around the city, Niall encounters spatial disregard in the form of close overtaking from taxi drivers in which he is not given as much space as he feels he is entitled to as a legitimate user of the road. He is afraid of these passes as a cyclist, describing taxi drivers as a ‘nightmare’ since they pass ‘incredibly closely’. This close passing, then, is interpreted as a sign of a taxi driver’s lack of respect for cyclists as legitimate road users.

… they usually pass within inches of you. And, they’re always in a rush, they’re always seemingly impatient. And therefore, you know, it doesn’t matter whether you’re hi-vis, you got lights – whatever – they will pass you incredibly closely … there’s not much respect for cyclists, in my view, from taxi drivers.

He elaborates on how respect is expressed spatially (i.e. how spatial regard is shown) versus the spatial disregard of taxi drivers by contrasting his behaviour when passing a cyclist versus the typical behaviour of a taxi driver:

Because I do cycle and I do drive, when I’m on the road and I see a cyclist, I’ll slow down – I’ll wait until I can pass round, you know. But it’s just – that’s all that is – it’s just me deciding to wait until it’s clear to go round. Whereas taxi drivers they’re always after the next fare, so they’re like (clicks fingers) ‘boom’ – pass you. So I don’t think they have very much respect.

Respect, then, is shown through the provision of space whereas disrespect is manifested by infringement of space.

Spatial disregard also involves mobile infringement of cycle-specific space, such as being ‘cut off’ by a motorist that overtakes and crosses the cycle lane thereby obstructing a cyclist’s right-of-way, or by having a cycle lane occupied and/or walked through by a pedestrian, similarly disregarding the right-of-way of the cyclist in this particular space. As one participant described: ‘Nobody passes any remarks on the cycle lane – neither the pedestrians when it’s on the footpath or motorists when it’s on the road … You know, they don’t stay away from it for you to use it.’ Another participant offered his interpretation of the disregarding behaviour of particular motorists in relation to the cycle lane, namely, that its status as a legitimate space is not appreciated with motorists failing to regard a cycle as ‘actually a lane of traffic, not just something there for the craic.’ As Patrick describes:

The challenges I have particularly are … when … a car is turning left. So you are turning on primarily their blindside. I fully understand and if there is no shared … if there’s no cycle lane, I understand why cars are going and they will turn … they don’t check … but everyone’s in the same lane. But what I do have a big problem with is where there is a clearly marked cycle lane, that they cross that without checking … even though there could be eight, 10 different cyclists coming behind them. When they’re crossing over a clearly marked cycle lane, I really have an issue with that … because they don’t seem to treat a cycle lane like a lane: they wouldn’t do it if it was a car … but they don’t seem to give a shit if it’s a bicycle.

Furthermore, Patrick is highly visible and so believes that motorists often knowingly ignore cyclists:

Now, I would say that, and I know this because I’m wearing hi-viz with reflection and lights – so they can see me …

Spatial disregard, then, is not necessarily a question of a cyclist’s ‘visibility’ but rather a question of recognition of a cyclist’s particular formal entitlement to public space as a legitimate road user.

Spatial disregard is not only experienced in encounters with motorists, however. For Eoin, spatial disregard by pedestrians is considered to be a serious hazard. When cycling through Dublin city pedestrians may cut through parked cars and stationary vehicle traffic to cross the road from the pavement or simply cross a road without looking out for oncoming cyclists. Thus from Eoin’s perspective, pedestrians in Dublin demonstrate a ‘complete lack of awareness’ for cyclists. Consequently, Eoin is always on guard for pedestrians that may disregard his space and right-of-way through such a lack of awareness. Many years before, he learned of the traumatic consequences that assuming the security of his space can have under conditions of precarious entitlement:

Two girls walked in front of me across Abbey Street – they were coming out of Arnotts – and … they just … walked across the road without even looking! It was before I had the bell on the bike so … I could only roar at them … and then I swerved to avoid them. So, I came off quite badly and I ended up with … tibia and fibia broken here, ulnar and radius broken here (gestures to leg and arm). So, it involved … hospital and … three operations, I think? Yeah, so it was … quite serious … They just walked across the road without looking … and, sure, there was nothing to obscure their views, there was no other traffic on the road, eh … I mean, I swerved to avoid them and … when you have to do it at the last minute, you’re mindful that there might be somebody behind you as well, so I ended up clipping one of them with the handlebars and that just … sent me off.

Accordingly, a lack of attention to and awareness of cyclists in this particular space in which Eoin was easily visible led to a multitude of debilitating injuries that affected him for almost a year. In this way, spatial disregard by pedestrians may not just inconvenience cyclists but may also threaten their safety and, therefore, render their spatial entitlements precarious to exercise.

Having explored, then, relatively indirect patterns of spatial disregard involving close passing and disregard of right-of-way, Sophia experiences what we have described earlier as ‘blatant non-recognition’ of entitlement. Sophia encountered such open disregard as an equally entitled road user whilst cycling in a cycle lane with a driver in a traffic lane beside her that was intent on taking a left turn. Despite Sophia being ahead of this driver and proceeding straight ahead, the driver indicated to Sophia via a beep of their car horn for her to move out of the way (one could say to ‘waive’ her entitlement to public space) so they could complete their left turn unobstructed. This incident enrages Sophia due to the open disregard of her entitlement to use public space. Namely, Sophia asserts the legitimacy of the cycle lane as a space of entitlement as well as her ‘right-of-way’ in this instance and, subsequently, denounces the perceived superior ‘sense of’ entitlement of the forceful driver:

So, I was on the cycling lane and the car behind me wanted to do a left turn … eh … and he beeped at me (surprised tone)! And, it really annoyed me because, you know, it’s … I’m on the cycling lane, I have the right-of-way and he beeped at me and I remember I turned and I was like ‘Fuck off’ you know, swore at him … There was no need to beep … I was in the right, he was in the wrong, how dare he … beep at me.

Nevertheless, this incident was not an isolated occurrence. Indeed, Sophia experiences such acts of spatial disregard when exercising her entitlement to shared spaces of the road when the surfaces of the side of the road are too insecure to cycle through. As a form of spatial disregard, routine beeping, then, is to be expected when exercising one’s entitlement to certain spaces shared with motorists. By describing other incidences of this form of disregard, one can see from Sophia’s following account how insecure space due to negligent maintenance of particular public spaces may place a cyclist in scenarios when recognition of equal entitlement to shared space is required but may however be withheld and/or denied, thereby rendering one’s entitlement to public space as a cyclist precarious to exercise. Indeed, in the most recent publication of the Rules of the Road (Road Safety Authority 2019, 54), it has been explicitly stated that cyclists may rightfully adopt the ‘primary position’ (i.e. to position themselves towards the centre of a shared traffic lane) based on ‘need’ and that drivers ought to be aware of this fact:

R: And have you ever experienced that in the past – the beeping?

S: Yeah, every now and then, yeah … there was a stretch of the road where there was a couple of potholes, so, I always preferred to cycle more in the middle of the taxi lane or the bus lane because I know that these potholes are there so I preferred to cycle in the middle of the lane rather than cycling on the side and then swerving, you know … so I had a couple of taxi drivers beeping at me because they thought that I’m hogging the road, I think, which I guess, in a way, I was, but, like I said, I prefer to … I know that it’s coming so I prefer to be in the middle of the lane rather than avoid the potholes at the last minute. So, yeah, they would be beeping but … (makes indifferent noise) … whatever, you know.

Such incidences of blatant spatial disregard were, likewise, recounted by other participants when, for example, one used a full traffic lane to avoid a badly damaged cycle lane only to be told by a motorist to ‘get into the cycle lane’, or when simply cycling in a shared traffic lane being beeped at and commanded to ‘move out of the way’ and ‘get off the road’: the public space that cyclists – as detailed earlier – are fully and equally entitled to use.

Accordingly, spatial disregard is encountered in the porous and interconnected forms that can be generally categorised as disregard of space and disregard in space in which the disregard can be exercised between greater and lesser extents ranging from ‘passive’ to ‘active’ disregard of spatial entitlement. Motorists of all types and pedestrians were often referred to as the primary agents of disregard and incidents of spatial disregard perpetrated by other cyclists were scarcely recounted during interviews. However, Simon, an older man, provided a rich illustration of an unpleasant encounter he experienced on a relatively secure space – a segregated cycle track through an urban park. In reading his account, it is apparent the sense that his entitlement to public space had been disregarded by another cyclist travelling at a much higher speed on a specialised bike. This incident demonstrates the plausibility that precarious entitlement may be experienced even in supposedly comfortable and secure spaces due to spatial disregard or domination from unequally powerful road users – in this case, the cyclist on a racing bike:

I was going through that park … I was doddling along – ok, I was doddling … this guy comes in, coming the other way, on a racing bike, and he’s haring along … and gave me ferocious abuse, because I was in his way!! I couldn’t understand it! Now he’d gone by and I returned the abuse but he was gone by. It was stupid really, I thought it was really stupid. He was haring along on a racing bike … and … ok – you can hare along on a racing bike but, his attitude was that I was in his way … which I found incredible … Perfectly entitled to be there … not in his book, but, in everybody else’s, yes!

iii. Police neglect

Thus, cyclists must deal with both insecure spaces and spatial disregard generally within such insecure public spaces when cycling in Dublin, both of which may be considered attributable to potentially dangerous but certainly threatening interactions between cyclists and other road users. But what about the authorities that protect cyclists from acts of spatial disregard? In the context of this study, the final aspect of precarious entitlement is police neglect. In light of prevalent acts of spatial disregard, cyclists in Dublin perceive that disregard of these spaces and their entitlement to occupy and transit public space in general by others goes unpunished; put another way, the protection of these spaces and their entitlement to public space is neglected by the police through a lack of enforcement. Therefore, police neglect can be conceptualised as an institutional disregard of widespread acts of spatial disregard by other citizens/public space users.

Police neglect is most notably experienced through a perceived lack of punishment of illegal parking on designated cycle spaces by motorists, and, indeed, a lack of response to reporting of infringements. Infringement of spaces of exclusive entitlement via unlawful parking in cycle lanes qualifies as a pervasive form of spatial disregard, which may be perpetrated by private car users, delivery truck drivers, taxi drivers, and others. This form of disregard obstructs dedicated cycle spaces making them unusable, thereby forcing a given cyclist to enter space occupied by motor-vehicle road users. Indeed, when cycle lanes are designated with a continuous white line to the right-hand side, these spaces are exclusively for the use of cyclists or wheelchair users at all times and motorists are not legally entitled to enter them and are, therefore, legally obligated to stay out of them. Unlike spaces with broken white lines in which parking is permitted under certain circumstances, then, under no circumstances is parking or infringement allowed in a designated cycle space with a continuous white line Road Safety Authority 2019).

It can be said, then, that police neglect may be considered in two ways: first, as an absence of autonomous policing (i.e. policing activity freestanding of reports of illegal activity) and, second, as an absence of responsive policing (i.e. policing activity in response to reports of illegal activity). Illegal parking in designated cycle lanes – whether these cycle lanes are intermittently legal to park in or exclusive to cyclists at all times – contributes to insecure space for cyclists and is, in addition, a form of spatial disregard since it infringes upon a space that a cyclist is entitled to occupy. A perceived absence of police protection – in both the autonomous and the responsive sense – is perceived to enable drivers to ‘to dump their car wherever’ irrespective of the spatial entitlements of cyclists and other road users.

Julia, for example, sees illegal parking as an extra problem to deal with in addition to the already insecure space that is the unprotected designated cycle lane, where motor vehicles pass closely to the right. However, despite this spatial disregard occurring, it is seldom – if ever – punished. In this way, Julia deals with precarious entitlement in its totality dealing with insecure space, spatial disregard and police neglect. That is, Julia cycles through readily precarious space that is frequently disregarded by motorists with such disregard going unpunished by police. In response to these conditions, Julia feels neglected as a road user on every level. One gets a strong sense of precarious entitlement in general from her spirited narrative:

First of all, the proper infrastructure hasn’t been provided and secondly there is no enforcement of that being a space for cyclists and then, thirdly, the average punter in a car doesn’t see that they have to … you know, be considerate about that either. So, you know, at no level of society is anybody paying any heed to it, you know, making any considerations …

It is important to note that Julia does not only regularly encounter illegally parked cars and perceive police neglect due to the high occurrence of this transgression; namely, Julia does not only perceive police neglect since such transgressions are plainly visible and common thus inferring that police are not engaging in autonomous policing. Indeed, Julia has experienced police actively failing to enforce road traffic law in relation to both illegal parking in the cycle lane and general criminal behaviour by cyclists and motorists alike. Through witnessing this, Julia concludes that road traffic law (with the spatial entitlements of cyclists included) is neglected by police and therefore makes reporting incidences of spatial disregard to the police futile.

I’ve seen the guards just drive past cars parked on the bike lane, I’ve seen the guards drive past cyclists breaking red lights, motorists breaking red lights, I’ve seen them walk past – in Ranelagh – people obviously on the phone in their cars and have done nothing about it, so, I don’t think road traffic law is something that the guards have any focus on … whatsoever. If I felt that reporting incidents would get me somewhere, I 100 percent would report every incident, you know. But, otherwise, no.

In an alternative account, Daniel details his experience of police neglect of the spatial entitlements of cyclists near his workplace. In this particular location, every day, various motor vehicles will be parked on the cycle lane – some of which appeared to be parked on for the sake of getting coffee in a shop nearby. Despite witnessing this behaviour for over a year of commuting by bike to work, Daniel has never seen any punishment by police for these transgressions. However, in the same area, Daniel regularly sees cars that have been parked in paid parking spaces nearby being clamped by Dublin City Council daily for failing to adequately pay for these spaces. For Daniel, this demonstrates the level of neglect by police in enforcing the law pertaining to illegal parking in designated cycle space when compared to the persistent and ongoing enforcement of illegal parking by Dublin City Council.

So, near work, there is a bike lane on the road but generally there’s just like six cars parked on double yellow lines in the cycle lane to get a cup of coffee in the morning. And in the year and a half that I’ve been cycling to that office, I’ve never once seen … the traffic corps or whatever ticket those people who park on it literally every day.

Police neglect, then, for Daniel is a significantly exacerbating factor in relation to precarious entitlement as a cyclist. Not only does he deal with unprotected infrastructure that leaves him vulnerable to motor vehicles, not only does he face illegal infringement of this infrastructure that is already fragile, but, to compound these already precarious conditions, the police fail to protect these insecure spaces from acts of spatial disregard. Thus, much like Julia, Daniel deals with all aspects of precarious entitlement as a cyclist.

Lastly, Eoin has had extensive experience of reporting to the police regarding routine incidences of spatial disregard. Having come across a row of taxis consistently parked in Dublin city centre when cycling home on his lunch break each day, he decided to take action and report these textbook infringements.

Em … guards … I’ve … reported loads to the guards. I went through a phase, there, where I used to cycle home for lunch when I was working in town … and there’s a stretch up beside the Four Courts – there’s taxis parked there, half on the pavement, half in the cycle lane, all day long. I mean, they’re breaking so many laws it’s just unreasonable. And, I would photograph them, photograph the number plates and just email them off to the guards. So, I suppose I would have reported about a hundred drivers or more for doing that.

Nevertheless, despite claiming to report roughly 100 incidents of illegal behaviour over numerous months accompanied by detailed photographic evidence, his meticulous reporting efforts did not garner any police response, leaving these acts of spatial disregard unpunished. This not only left Eoin alone to deal with conditions of precarious entitlement due to the blocked cycle lanes which he was entitled to use but were unusable due to illegal, collective infringement, but also left Eoin with the sense that the police were basically uninterested in protecting his entitlements to public space as a cyclist. In this way, Eoin was forced to deal with all three aspects of precarious entitlement: insecure space, spatial disregard and police neglect.

I went through a phase for a few months of systematically doing it, yeah … and, eh … nothing ever happened. Absolutely nothing. The odd time I’ve reported cars for breaking red lights … nothing. I got the impression that guards … traffic police going around the place … that you’re more likely to be stopped as a cyclist than you are as a motorist, you know …

Discussion and Conclusion

Within work exploring cycling mobilities, familiar concepts are drawn upon – concepts that may be critiqued as reductively ‘rational’ and individualised in their use in transport studies (Spinney 2009) – namely, ‘danger’, ‘risk’, ‘conflict’, ‘safety’ (e.g. Jones 2005, 2012; Larsen 2014; Freudendal‐Pedersen 2015a). Yet, alongside these concerns, matters of ‘right’, ‘space’, ‘competition’, and ‘scarcity’ are raised (e.g. Larsen 2014; Freudendal-Pedersen 2014, 2015a, 2015b; Scott 2016). The potential simultaneity of these aspects of experience are not well consolidated, and the cycling mobility practices that address these phenomena in particular have only been marginally conceptualised. Precarious entitlement – as the ‘core’ category of precarious entitlement theory (Egan 2019) – provides an empirically grounded account of cycling experience in Dublin primarily (but not only) in relation to driving mobilities and materialities, consolidating a concern with right and a concern with risk as a mobile subject travelling in and through public space. This answers the call within the field for relational, as opposed to individualised, perspectives on mobilities (Adey 2006; Scott 2016; Cresswell 2010) whilst incorporating the ‘fixities’ (Sheller and Urry 2006, 210) that enable mobilities in the first place; in this case, the ‘fixity’ of public space upon which rights or entitlements are interpreted, signified and enacted in the intersecting mobility practices of people cycling and driving.

Precarious entitlement as a category provides an account of how automobility dominates in relation to cycling mobilities. Automobility can be seen to dominate the structuring of space for mobility (Sheller and Urry 2000); in precarious entitlement theory, this is imparted by the category of insecure space. As Kesselring and Vogl (2013, 20) argue: infrastructures ought to be viewed as materialised social structures/mobilities regimes that regulate movements in space. Additionally, automobility can be seen to dominate space through the unbridled exercise of arbitrary will by drivers, as indicated by spatial disregard and police neglect, of which there is a growing literature evidencing perceptions of ‘risk’, ‘near misses’, ‘harassment’, ‘violence’, and ‘aggression’ that can be jointly or alternatively understood as incidents of systemic ‘spatial disregard’ (e.g., Lawson et al. 2013; Aldred and Crosweller 2015; Freitas and Maciel 2017; Heesch et al. 2017; Poulos et al. 2017; Balkmar 2018; Fruhen, Rossen, and Griffin 2019; Oldmeadow et al. 2019; Poulos et al. 2019). Importantly, police neglect can be interpreted as part of a mobilities regime (Kesselring and Vogl 2013) that challenges assumptions relating to the ‘regulation’ (Urry 2000) and ‘disciplining’ (Packer 2003) of automobility. Instead, police neglect points to a highly unregulated and undisciplined automobility that cyclists must negotiate. In other words, police neglect reveals an ‘undisciplined sensescape’ (Jones 2012, 652) dominated by ‘sovereign’ (Sheller 2008) driving practices resulting in precarious entitlement to public space.

With this multi-faceted domination in mind, precarious entitlement reveals a lack of recognition from members of civil society and the executive institutions of the state for cyclists as distinct ‘hybrid’ (Urry 2000; Spinney, Aldred, and Brown 2015) group of entitlement bearers/citizens. Through having (arguably still inadequate) forms of legal recognition as road users that are misrecognised by members of civil society and the executive institutions of the state, as a cyclist, one has legal recognition in theory that is routinely misrecognised in practice. Experiences of disrespect are commonplace leading to fear, humiliation, and anger. In this way, precarious entitlement is not only a problem of security and safety for cyclists but also – or, rather, simultaneously – a problem of social subordination in everyday interactions (Fraser 2002). Precarious entitlement, then, theoretically contributes to a growing body of scholarship indicating the significance of recognition for cyclists as road user group (e.g., Aldred 2013; Prati, Marín Puchades, and Pietrantoni 2017; Oldmeadow et al. 2019)

In considering cyclists in Dublin and other car-centric contexts as subject to conditions of precarious entitlement, descriptions of cyclists as ‘vulnerable’ road users take on a new meaning. Precarious entitlement transforms what is often prescribed to be a personal vulnerability into a structural vulnerability (ten Have 2016) – at least in the context of Dublin. Such a definition implicates the role of public space, fellow citizens and the apparatus of the state in producing the vulnerability of a group that is heavily subject to ‘responsibilisation’ (Rose 1996) tactics based on ontologies of autonomy that assume a construction of vulnerability as ‘individual deficit’ (ten Have, H 2016, 256). This diagnosis of structural vulnerability faced by utility cyclists in Dublin may act as an antidote to the mass responsibilisation of cyclists in an Irish context (e.g. Road Safety Authority 2020) by articulating the importance of relations of mutual recognition between road users for safety, the capability to use public space and the social basis of self-respect (Honneth 1995).

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the School of Nursing, Psychotherapy and Community Health Postgraduate Research Supervision Enhancement Scheme.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.