jonesy said:
Useful. Thanks Jonesy.
jonesy said:
yello said:Yes, and the literal and metaphorical use of 'marginal' is apt for the cyclist. When the cyclist takes a 'central' position in the motorists view, be it either a physical primary road position or a ideological/political stance, then they become a nuisance*.
dellzeqq said:Thankyou
page 145 is especially interesting. I think that the cyclist transgresses the boundary between body and road space in a way that is genuinely unsettling for many people. Any number of conversations with non-cyclists has convinced me that they see cyclists as a different breed, upsetting the conventions that guarantee their security. The cyclist's lack of physical protection frightens them in two ways - they're reminded of their own vulnerability, but there's also a worry that we've got some kind of super power that is in itself threatening.
It's a little like getting wet, which is seen as disruptive, or eccentric.
I don't know how we go about dealing with this - but I'm convinced that the irrational hatred that comes our way is rooted in fear.
User1314 said:I have decided to stop reading Origamist's posts because I need to refer to a dictionary 24/7.
And I don't really want the use of subtextual cultural theory to read and analyse cycling. After all, if precapitalist narrative holds, we have to choose between dialectic desituationism and postmodernist narrative.
There.
the writer manages to convince me that Dave Horton is right.........Origamist said:
Origamist said:The roads are a fuzzy, liminal zone and psyclists are the transgressive outsiders and absent referents in the psychosocial streetscape.