Vélomobile Formations-in-Action

Abstract

Cycling is not just a skilled accomplishment by individual cyclists, it can also be social. Cycling to work with other commuters or learning to ride a bike with a caregiver, for example, both involve a keen attention to negotiating and maintaining being together in and through cycling and being seen to be together in a “mobile with”. This article reports on an investigation of some of the different vélomobile formations-in-action that involve specific arrangements of bodies on bikes and configurations of a “vélomobile with”. Video recordings of commuter and family bike rides using consumer and micro video cameras from multiangles were made to capture aural and visual features of the local organization of the ride from the participants’ perspective(s). Several phenomena are presented and discussed, including starting, stopping, and maintaining a vélomobile formation; singling up and tucking in; and stretchy mobile formations. The analysis starts by analyzing side-by-side arrangements, which are then temporarily disrupted, and finishes with formations that are more extensively stretched, but which still afford opportunities for social interaction.

Keywords

mobile formation social interaction bicycling mobility talk video

Learning to ride a bike with a caregiver or riding with others on a commuter ride to work are not just skilled accomplishments by individuals. They both involve a keen attention to negotiating and maintaining being together in and through cycling and being seen to be together. Despite the contingencies of a fast-changing mobile environment, co-riders maintain a flexible formation—one might say a slipstream—of co-presence that coalesces in and through talk between co-riders. The study of spatial formations that support co-presence and the ways in which bodies are organized spatially in social interaction has engaged many scholars (Cekaite, 2010; Ciolek & Kendon, 1980; Collett & Marsh, 1981; Goffman, 1963, 1971; Kendon, 1990a, 1990b, 2010; Laurier et al., 2008; McIlvenny, 2009; McIlvenny, Broth, & Haddington, 2009; Scollon, 1997). This article reports on an investigation of some of the different vélomobile formations-in-action that involve specific arrangements of bodies on bikes and configurations of a “vélomobile with.”

In regard to mobile “participation units,” Goffman (1971, p. 19) contends that “individuals navigate streets and shops and attend social occasions either unaccompanied or in the social company of others, that is, they appear in public either in a ‘single’ or in a ‘with.’ These are interactional units, not social-structural ones.” Interestingly, Goffman (1971) also states that

when withs are on the move, any size above three persons restricts easy entrance into talk, since mutual orientation and orientation to the path become incompatible, and increasingly so with size. (Understandably, cyclists who go riding together have a difficult time maintaining a with) [italics added]. (p. 42)

This article will examine Goffman’s (1971) claim and analyze in specific cases how cyclists accomplish and sustain a “with.” In a more recent study that “mobilizes” Goffman, Jensen (2010) proposes that we study what he calls the “mobile with.” Jensen argues that “in the mundane and ordinary everyday life we make multiple ‘temporary congregations’ as we are slipping in and out of different ‘mobile withs’ . . . ‘Mobile withs’ might be exemplified by groups of recreational runners or cyclists [italics added]” (p. 341).

Cycling research has blossomed recently with many new studies (e.g., Aldred & Jungnickel, 2012; Bonham & Koth, 2010; Brown & Spinney, 2010; Horton, Rosen, & Cox, 2007; McCarthy, 2011; Spinney, 2008). We can, of course, compare cycling with other modes of personal locomotion, such as walking or running, as a social and cultural practice (e.g., Anderson, 2004; Edensor, 2010; Ingold & Vergunst, 2008; Lorimer, 2011; Mausner, 2008; Middleton, 2009; Myers, 2011; O’Neill & Hubbard, 2010; Pink, Hubbard, O’Neill, & Radley, 2010; Relieu, 1994; Vergunst, 2010). Early ethnomethodological enquiries into walking as a social practice include Ryave and Schenkein (1974), who provide an ethnomethodological analysis of “doing walking,” especially “walking-together,” based on an analysis of 16 minutes of video recordings of pedestrians on a public pavement. They demonstrate that walking-together is a concerted accomplishment of members of the community involved as a matter of course in its production and recognition. There is a recognizability of “togetherings” and “alongings” involving maintaining spatial proximity in some recognizable pattern. In their article, they neither consider specific cases of verbal exchanges concerning pace or direction nor disruptions of proximity that require repair work. Hester and Francis’s (2003) “self-reflective” study of walking is more phenomenological than Ryave and Schenkein’s, with no video traces of members’ practices to analyze. Allen Collinson (2006) brings an ethnomethodological slant to her auto-ethnographic accounts of running together with a partner. She argues that corunners become attuned to the aural, verbal, and visual indicators necessary to mutually adjust pace, but again there are no video recordings of runners in situ.

Taking an ethnomethodological and conversation-analytical perspective on embodied social interaction (Heath, Hindmarsh, & Luff, 2010; Streeck, Goodwin, & LeBaron, 2011), my video-centered ethnographic approach treats vélomobility as an interactional practice and focuses on situated mobile practices in specific cycling cultures (see also McIlvenny, 2013a, 2013b). It can be argued that by focusing on practices, rather than categorizing different types of mobilities, it becomes possible to view individuals not as mere mobile subjects but as actors who are engaged in shaping and (re)producing mobilities and mobile formations-in-action (for recent work see Haddington, Keisanen, & Nevile, 2012; Haddington, Mondada, & Nevile, 2013; McIlvenny et al., 2009). In regard to interactional formations, Kendon (1990b, p. 209) describes how “people often group themselves into clusters, lines, or circles, or into various other kinds of patterns. These patterns may be highly fluid or they may be relatively sustained. When such a pattern is sustained it will be referred to as a formation.” There are, in fact, a number of different kinds of formations that people can enter into, “their spatial-orientational organization differing according to how the participants’ attentional involvements are organized. This is governed, of course, by what it is the participants have gathered together to do” (2010, p. 5). He examines one particular kind of formation, which he calls an F-formation, which “arises whenever two or more people sustain a spatial and orientational relationship in which the space between them is one to which they have equal, direct and exclusive access” (Kendon, 1990b, p. 210). Extending the work of Kendon, in this article I document how mobile formations—M-formations (not static facing-formations)–arise whenever two or more people sustain a relational spatial and orientational relationship while in motion, in which the relative spacing between them is one to which they have mutually interchangeable, hearable, and visible access. An M-formation system arises when two or more people cooperate together to maintain a relative spacing between them to which they all are visibly orienting, and thus a shared transactional space is dynamically established and maintained.

Data Collection

The video camera has been used to study mobile activities in a variety of ways (Büscher, 2005; Haddington et al., 2012; Haddington et al., 2013; Mausner, 2008; McIlvenny, 2011; McIlvenny et al., 2009; Pink, 2007; vom Lehn & Heath, 2007). Furthermore, video-recording technology has miniaturized to the point that cameras are small and robust enough to use in more extreme circumstances. Thus, there is also a small body of research that uses audio or video technology to study cycling (Brown, Dilley, & Marshall, 2008; Brown & Spinney, 2010; Spinney, 2009, 2011; Walker, 2010). None of the studies to date has used audiovisual technology to specifically capture the local and embodied practices of a joint bike ride, especially not with children accompanied by adults. In my project, multiple video cameras were mounted in various configurations on the participants’ bikes, and, with the family rides, on the participant researcher’s bike. I argue that this level of recording detail was necessary for several reasons:

(a) More than one camera is needed to capture in some analytically interesting way different views of the mobile environment and the participants’ field of vision;

(b) It may be analytically interesting to see not only views of the mobile environment, but also simultaneously views of the participant riders (as Spinney, 2011, suggests);

(c) At first, cameras were placed only on the researcher’s bike on the family rides—a mobile videographer platform to capture different viewsbut it was discovered that new phenomena become observable after adding independent cameras in various configurations to some of the participants’ bikes as well, both on the family and commuter rides.¹

The excerpts used in this article come from the following corpus of recordings made in Denmark and Sweden, which are somewhat representative of Nordic cycling cultures:

Commuters riding city bikes from campus to town (in Danish or English);

Family bike rides with myself (riding a mountain bike or a front-loaded transport/carrier tricycle) and my young daughter (in English).

Adults and children on these rides were recorded with their consent.

Analysis

A basic feature of riding together on bikes is what I call the “vélomobile with,” which has features in common with other embodied mobile activities, such as skateboarding, walking, rollerblading, and so on. This consists not only of arrangements of bodies in motion but also the production and recognition of togethering as a joint embodied accomplishment, which entails categorial work by members, for example, being seen as a family (Noy, 2009) or commuters riding together. In an appropriate bodily arrangement making up an M-formation, co-riders may talk about everyday matters, the environment, traffic, work, and so on, but such talk must attend to the contingencies of mobility. Talk may also be incipient, with lengthy lapses and time-outs peppering the ride.

Different bodily arrangements are possible in order to sustain a vélomobile with. Most bicycles afford a front-facing position that is locked in to the technology of the bicycle in relation to the direction of motion. Thus, co-riders cannot properly orient to each other in a vis-à-vis formation, which is common in everyday conversation among persons who are stationary (and standing). Instead, the possible arrangements include side-by-side and single file (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Arrangements when cycling together in a mobile formation, 2013, line drawing.

Riding together side-by-side gives the most affordable co-presence, but it requires co-riders to maintain the same pace over the terrain. If there are no cycle paths, then co-riders take up more width of the road than if riding single file, and so in some countries riding in this fashion is not permitted by law unless there are special reasons, which of course restricts the possibilities for social cycling. On narrow cycle paths, such an arrangement can block the path for overtaking cyclists. Thus, co-riders may approach a difficult passage point requiring that they “single up” to avoid problems.

Starts and Stops

Riding together is an accomplishment that requires coordination to achieve, maintain, and disengage from. From a standing start, co-riders must accelerate to achieve a coordinated pace with their co-rider(s), whether they are already moving or also just starting up. Equally, co-riders must coordinate their disengagement from a vélomobile with, for example, when coming to a standstill and dismounting. In Excerpt A, we see how two commuter co-riders, who are also partners, negotiate a common pace, and routinely regain a side-by-side arrangement after starting up from a brief stop at some traffic lights. This is undertaken in order to coalesce in the mobile formation they routinely sustain when commuting. They are following a regular route from the university campus to their flat in a Danish town. Two video cameras are mounted on each bike. They are speaking Danish, as shown in the transcript with an English gloss in the line below.²

Excerpt A.

Starting up and coalescing in a mobile formation.

As they approach the junction (see Figure 2a), Hank and Lucy are engaged in an argument (Lines 1-31)—an argument that they could have had while standing face-to-face—about a proposed change in the law to make it compulsory for fathers to take a longer parental leave (Lucy is for the change in the law, whereas Hank is not convinced). In reply to Hank, Lucy agrees that (a) some families will say they cannot afford it and (b) some families will argue that the man cannot take parental leave because it will affect his career (Lines 32-35). In Line 35, Lucy begins what can be heard as a third item in a list, “his career or,” which suggests ambivalently that another case can follow, and that Hank could adequately respond to the cases that have already been given. However, she is unable to finish her turn (and Hank is unable to respond), so the argument stalls as they approach the junction. This is an implicit “time-out” in order to deal with other activities, for instance, riding in traffic. This happens just as the co-riders exit onto a narrow cycle lane in order to turn right at the traffic lights up ahead. Hank unilaterally moves forward and “singles up” (see Figure 2b), and the M-formation is temporarily disassembled. Lucy’s turn in Lines 32-35 is now hearable as shaping two conversational possibilities: Lucy can continue or Hank can respond after the suspension is lifted.

Figure 2.

Two commuters making a right turn at a junction, 2013, photo.

Hank pulls up to the stop line at the red traffic lights (Line 38). As he edges forward to make the turn with Lucy following behind (see Figure 2c), the traffic lights change to green for those making a right turn. Hank makes the turn and joins the cycle path (on the right side), with Lucy still following behind (see Figure 2d). As Hank passes over the zebra crossing at the junction, Lucy pulls close to Hank on the outside. Hank glances to his right, then self-selects, and starts up a turn-at-talk (see Figure 2e), which is built as a response to Lucy’s earlier turn: a rebuttal that can also be heard as restarting his earlier attempt “but” (Line 31) with “but then” (Line 47). Hank hesitates and glances to his right again (see Figure 2f). When Lucy pulls level, Hank restarts his turn (Line 52) and the argument continues. Here, the preferred arrangement for this M-formation is quickly returned to in order for talk to continue, though it does not happen seamlessly in this case since Hank has to restart the argument after his first attempt is aborted. In fact, talk is delayed until the necessary arrangement is coalesced through the fine coordination of relative distance, mutual pace, and embodied glances.

Once moving together, co-riders need to sustain a shared pace, otherwise co-presence cannot be maintained, the mobile formation dissolves, and talk or interaction is no longer possible. As we shall see later, formations can be stretched without breaking, and thus interactions have an elasticity that requires co-riders to attend to their mobility as and with their talk-in-motion. For children, this often becomes an explicit matter and needs to be attended to by the adult co-rider(s), for example, by slowing down or directing the child to change gears. Over time, of course, the practice of pace management becomes habituated.

Going in Front and Dropping Back

Many times on a ride on variable terrain, co-riders need to shift while in motion from a side-to-side arrangement to single file—“singling up”—and this necessitates one rider to take the lead and other(s) to drop back behind the leader. A routine practice is to temporarily “single up” until the “obstacle” or “problem” (constituted and made visible by the practice itself) is safely passed. Sometimes, the inside rider leads and sometimes the outside rider, and then later the leader may open up to allow the rider behind to move forward, or the lagging rider may pull up to take an outside position in the side-by-side arrangement. Again, this is a negotiation. Much as co-conversationalists must address the contingencies of who speaks next, so co-riders must collaborate on who leads out of the mobile formation they are attempting to sustain, and how they are to return to the formation. In fact, these two activities must be mutually coordinated in the common case of co-riders who are both talking and riding-in-formation. We can see in Excerpt A above (Lines 34-45), the inside rider Hank leads into “first position” and then, after a stop at the traffic lights, the co-rider Lucy behind him moves forward to return to the side-by-side arrangement. Hank’s position on the cycle path affords Lucy’s return on the left side, which is also the base riding arrangement for this couple on this ride.

In Excerpt B, Mike and Lyn are colleagues commuting from a campus university in Sweden to the town. Mike is wearing a spectacle spycam and Lyn’s bike has a micro video camera on a fixed mount. They are riding at a steady pace in a side-by-side arrangement. In this case, on the same strip of cycle path, three potential obstacles are navigated (a pedestrian, a cyclist, and a car user), and work has to be done by the co-riders to resume their conversation after each obstacle.

Excerpt B.

Negotiating singling up.

In two clear instances, the inside rider Lyn leads into “first position,” and after the obstacle, the co-rider Mike behind moves forward to return to the side-by-side arrangement. In the first instance, to avoid some pedestrians (Lines 1-6), Mike and Lyn have had to exit the cycle path onto the road. Mike has fallen back and Lyn takes “first position” as she rejoins the cycle path (see Figure 3a), which narrows ahead as it crosses over a bridge. As Mike rejoins the cycle path, Lyn starts a first assessment of the “problematic” nature of the incident but cuts short (Line 10). As Mike draws level, Lyn restarts her problem statement (Line 13) by reformulating the gist, that is, that there is a (as yet unnamed) problem (which prompts an account of the cause of the potential collision).

Figure 3.

Two commuters: going in front and dropping back, 2013, photo.

In the second instance, while riding side-by-side (see Figure 3d), they single up in order to pass both an oncoming cyclist on the left side and a car user on the right (indicated by a circle and an oval in Figure 3e). This time, Lyn explicitly claims “first position” (Line 30) and at the same time moves forward into single file. As they pass the cyclist and the car user (see Figure 3f), Mike vocalizes (possibly an acknowledgment to those they are passing), and Lyn turns briefly to glance back at Mike who is still trailing behind (see Figure 3g). Thus, Lyn is monitoring the position and potential trajectory of Mike, and hence they are both attending to the timing of their coalescence into the side-by-side arrangement. As Mike begins to draw level to Lyn on the outside again, it is Mike who self-selects (Line 36) and picks up on the complaint that Lyn has made prior to the “trouble” (and which he has also confirmed with both a collaborative completion and an acknowledgment in Lines 27 and 29). In fact, Mike repeats the acknowledgement and provides a caveat, “of course it’s a question of rhythm between bikers,” that may mitigate the strength of Lyn’s complaint (see Figure 3h).

The examples so far illustrate how co-riders coordinate a well-motivated temporary suspension of a commuting mobile formation, a suspension that temporarily stalls conversation in progress, which can be resumed by either co-rider in and as the mobile formation coalesces.

Tucking In

A special case is apparent from the data corpus that occurs when co-riders do not fully lead or drop back. What the outside rider may do is maneuver the bike to a position closer to and/or slightly behind the inside rider (see Figure 1), who may also move closer to the inside curb. This I call “tucking in,” and it is a short-term practice with certain risks, but one which usually enables talk to continue with little or no interruption or suspension.

In Lines 19 to 24 in Excerpt B above, Lyn and Mike are approaching a pedestrian walking in the opposite direction on the left side of the path (indicated by an oval in Figure 3b). As they approach the pedestrian, Mike drops back slightly and Lyn cuts short her account (Line 21). Mike tucks very close to Lyn as they pass the pedestrian. As Mike begins to draw level (see Figure 3c) and close to Lyn (and they pass the pedestrian in this tight formation), Lyn restarts her complaint (in Line 25) by prefacing it with the first part of a contrast pair, which is inserted to preface the unfinished clause “so they don’t,” now repaired to form the second part of the contrast pair (Line 26). Here, we see an orientation to a possible singling up, initiated by Mike, which is attended to by Lyn, who hesitates. When it is clear that a tuck is in progress, rather than a singling up Lyn proceeds to repair the talk that was briefly interrupted.

In Excerpt C, the same two commuters from Excerpt B encounter two runners while riding through parkland on a wide, shared-use cycle path. The runners are running in the same direction on the left side of the path, that is, they have their backs toward the cyclists, and they present a minor and temporary obstacle to the cyclists. Rather than single up, the outside co-rider tucks in just behind the inside co-rider.

Excerpt C.

Tucking in.

Mike and Lyn are in the typical side-by-side arrangement, talking in lingua franca English about the psychology of weather and daylight levels, and comparing the conditions in Sweden with France. After Lyn assesses the contrast in weather between the two countries (Line 10), Mike conjoins a question about Lyn’s perception of the amount of daylight at this time (Lines 11-13). As the rather general question unfolds, Mike is clearly attending to the possible collision with the runners just up ahead (see Figure 4a). He looks back and forth between the runners and Lyn. They are now close to the two runners, and Mike begins to drop back and tuck in closer to Lyn. As Mike and Lyn come level with the two runners on the path (see Figure 4b), the outside rider Mike restarts the question (Line 17), both anticipating a safe passage and making the topical comparison more explicit, while he moves out and draws level with Lyn to return to the base side-by-side arrangement for this mobile commuting formation.

Figure 4.

Tucking in while passing runners, 2013, photo.

Thus, a brief stall in the conversation of 2.5 seconds is repaired by Mike, who restarts turn-taking by reformulating his question, in the form of an insert expansion (Schegloff, 2007), which Lyn eventually answers “yeah yeah” (Line 24). The tuck is a minimally disturbing practice with regard to both ongoing conversation and the base mobile formation that is preferred and sustained.

Singling Up, Time-outs, and Resumption of Talk

When co-riders encounter something that requires them to single up, and they jointly accomplish the transition, then there is often an indirect or direct orientation to a “time out,” that is, turns-at-talk are suspended temporarily, until the mobile formation is assembled once again. Routinely, if talk was interrupted and/or suspended, then the action-in-progress is picked up again or a sequentially relevant next action is started as and with the achievement of co-presence; in fact, as the very performance of co-presence itself. We see this happening in both Excerpts A and B above.

In Excerpt D, we find a more complex suspension that substantially delays the resumption of the conversational topic, even though the formation has coalesced again. The commuters are now riding through an urban environment and are approaching a busy junction on a narrow cycle path next to the road. They are talking about work and are planning a joint presentation for the next day.

Excerpt D.

Digressions.

In Line 8, Lyn initiates a caveat “the only thing is that” to the work task they are currently talking about (see Figure 5a). This is briefly delayed by the preparatory work they undertake to enable their crossing of the approaching intersection. Lyn attempts to restart the caveat, but a tricky maneuver by Lyn (passing on the wrong side of the traffic light and a concrete pillar seen in Figure 5b) to sustain the side-by-side arrangement puts things on hold (see Figure 5c for a photo of the cycle path from another angle).

Figure 5.

Singling up and digressions, 2013, photo.

On this commute, Lyn has chosen her regular route from the campus to the town. As they cross the intersection together, Mike glances to the left and asks Lyn about (further) directions to her accommodation in the city (Lines 16-17)—a question that localizes the request to this stage in their journey and their location right now. As this is resolved, Mike has drifted into single file. Although Mike has not drawn level yet (see Figure 5d), Lyn attempts to restart the work topic (Line 25), but is once again interrupted by having to navigate a small hole in the cycle path, which Lyn passes over roughly (see Figure 5f for a photo of the cycle path from another angle). As Mike levels up with Lyn, he glances at her bike (see Figure 5e), exclaims, and initiates a repair with a next turn repair initiator “what” (Line 31), affording Lyn the opportunity to complete her turn (now that the M-formation has coalesced). Instead, prompted by the hole, Lyn complains about the damage to the infrastructure (Lines 32-33). After discussing the road surface and winter damage, while navigating the narrow cycle path, Mike returns to clarify directions to Lyn’s accommodation (as they pass a potential turning). After this is downgraded as salient (it is the next turning), Lyn finally returns in Line 58 to the work topic using a very similar form to when it was stalled earlier (see Figure 5g) in Line 11.

In this example, three competing mobility contingencies interrupt the return to the work topic. First, the singling up disrupts the side-by-side formation and delays a return to the topic. Then, despite recovering the side-by-side arrangement, directions-in-place become salient, then road conditions are made relevant, then once again directions, and finally the work topic is resumed. It is clear from this case that this commuting formation affords continuity of conversational topic despite repeated suspensions and digressions as a result of the contingencies of riding together in traffic.

Stretchy Formations

By looking closely at children learning to be vélomobile, we gain insight into the mundane practices necessary to be a competent co-rider in formation. Over time, a child habituates technique, skills, and capacities, such as learning to ride in a vélomobile formation and to recognize others doing so competently. Such habituation is clearly scaffolded by adult caregivers, who demonstrably provide the “eyes and ears” to enable the first co-rides to be made. With a bicycle, a child attains a certain level of independence of movement and speed that is both liberating and potentially dangerous. At the same time, a fundamental relationship that is renegotiated on a ride is that between caregiver and child. This section examines how co-riding in and as a family unit is accomplished, and how the mobile formation has elasticity. Stretchy formations are mobile formations that can be accountably stretched by participants, yet they retain essential features of the “mobile with.” Mobile actors orient to the stretchiness of their formation by adjusting pace, qualities of speech, gaze, and so on. It is not that the formation has a fixed dimension that must be adhered to, but that the integrity of the formation and its shape is a members’ matter in situ; it is contingent and negotiated. For example, co-riders do not always ride side-by-side or in close single file. They may maintain a vélomobile with despite the variable distance between them. For instance, children riding with a caregiver may accelerate away or drop back from the adult, yet they remain attentive (in asymmetric ways) to maintaining visual and aural co-presence.

In Excerpt E, a caregiver Pat (riding a three-wheel carrier bike) and a child Aladdin are heading off on a trip to the city. They are approaching a short stretch of steep downhill on a special road that permits only buses and bicycles to pass—this is a route they regularly ride. At the bottom of the road is a major intersection with a busy ring road that they need to cross.

Excerpt E.

Request to single up.

They are riding in a side-by-side arrangement at the top of the hill, when Aladdin requests to go first at this point (Line 5), that is, to single up and stretch the formation (see Figure 6a). Aladdin’s request anticipates their passage through the approaching narrow cycle path next to the anti-car “bus sluice,” which is clearly visible. Initially, Pat acknowledges Aladdin’s request, warns her about possible dangers, and directs her to proceed (Lines 8 and 10), which she acknowledges and then starts to move forward into first position. Quickly, Pat does a postsequence expansion adding a conditionality to the request just granted (Line 13), that is, to ascertain whether or not Aladdin’s brakes are working and thus to make her aware of and attentive to the preparatory work for a safe descent. Aladdin visibly tests the brakes and confirms they do work (see Figure 6b: the circle highlights the act of braking).

Figure 6.

Stretching the mobile formation, 2013, photo.

After they single up and pass the bus sluice in a single file arrangement, they descend the hill and Pat works to unstretch the M-formation in order for a side-by-side arrangement to be reestablished for the safe crossing of the intersection (see Figure 6c). When Pat draws level with Aladdin, the lights at the intersection below turn green (see Figure 6d) and when this is noticed verbally by Pat (Line 20), he suggests that they try to get through (before it turns red again). They negotiate an appropriate, but exhilarating pace to cross quickly and safely with the adult blocking or “shielding” the child from the traffic-bearing side of their formation (see Figure 6e and Figure 6f). Shielding is a practice that caregivers engage in often when riding over a dangerous crossing because the child is vulnerable and at risk of unpredictable traffic behavior, such as a car turning left across traffic at an intersection. One can shield the child by coalescing into a tight side-by-side formation, close to the child and first in line in relation to the flow of traffic. The shielding is not only to protect the child, who may not be able to perceive and reason yet about traffic in this situation, but also to make morally visible the family in motion—a “vélomobile with”—that other traffic recognizes and accommodates to (see McIlvenny, 2013b, for a more detailed analysis of the thrill of speed in this example).

In Excerpt F, Pat and Aladdin are returning from a trip to see a friend on the other side of the city. This is not a route they have taken before. After riding for a while in a side-by-side arrangement, in which they chat about gears, Aladdin begins to accelerate (Line 2) and move away from Pat (see Figure 7a). There is no cycle path on this wide but busy urban street.

Excerpt F.

Stretchy formations and embodied directives.

Figure 7.

Stretching the mobile formation to the limit, 2013, photo.

Orienting to the child’s safety as the mobile formation is stretched to the limit, and making salient a feature of the child’s conduct, Pat directs Aladdin (Lines 4, 6, and 11) to take up a specific position on the road—to “stay in” closer to the kerb—in order to avoid the “cars coming behind” (see Figure 7b).

In Excerpt E (Lines 5-19) earlier, we saw how a child and caregiver negotiate a motivated stretch in which the child singles up. We saw the subtle negotiation of the redistribution of responsibilities for navigation and road conduct, that is, the conduct of the child’s conduct. At some point, however, a formation can begin to break down—one might say that the stretch has reached its limit and the metaphorical rubber band may snap. These are very noticeable in caregiver–child “with”s, for example, when a child has noticeably gone ahead or dropped back too far, which may entail safety issues. A caregiver will do remedial work to repair the break, for instance, by speeding up to rejoin the “with” at an accountably safe distance, or to call out to the child and instruct him or her to rejoin, or to slow down and ask what the problem is, for example, with a flagging child.

In Excerpt F (Lines 2-20), a caregiver urgently calls upon a child up ahead to attend to her position, thus orienting to an emergent trouble here and now with her road conduct. The child has stretched their mobile formation to a limit point, which needs repair on the grounds of safety. Later, in Lines 25 to 28, after pulling up level (see Figure 7c) and reassembling the side-by-side formation, Pat steers his bike close to Aladdin’s to buffer a safe transition, that is, Aladdin can only move in a very specific trajectory if she is to avoid a collision with her co-rider. This is made accountable to the careless conduct of Aladdin while stretching the formation: “you were way way out” (Line 37). Here, we see a very tight side-by-side arrangement that “shields” the child from the road and channels her forward movement. This provides an opportunity for an “instructable passage” in which Pat instructs Aladdin to comply with a maxim of the road: “you need to be near the kerb” (see Figure 7d). Following Cekaite (2010), it is clear that embodied directives are common in family rides, but rather than use touch (or in addition to), the adult may use speed, relative distance, and spatial positioning to shepherd the child in specific directions. Not only distance, but also positioning in relation to traffic is an accountable matter (see Lines 32-40). In this case it is ironic that shortly after, the child narrowly misses an obstacle on the road near the kerb.

Conclusion

This study gives new insights into the interactional mobility practices and mobile formations of cyclists in situ. The analysis has uncovered some of the ways in which co-riders collaborate to accomplish and maintain a mobile formation. Potential disruptions, such as obstacles, obstructions, infrastructure and traffic, are dealt with and ongoing talk is resumed quickly. But there are situations when there is a unilateral or cooperative divergence from the side-by-side arrangement. In an early book, Goffman (1963) notes that with the regulation of involvements or gatherings of people in public there is a certain “tightness” and “looseness” of involvement structure, even within the same social situation. Goffman was referring to different phenomena, but he suggestively allows for a continuum in which involvement is negotiable. Ryave and Schenkein (1974) note that when walking together, “participants who have lost some proximity will engage in repair work ranging from hurrying or slowing to calling out or later explaining the separation” (p. 272). I account for this with the term stretchy formation, which highlights both the dynamism and flexibility of the formation, as well as the possibility of a contingent limit to how far the formation can be stretched, after which remedial action has to be taken or the formation will dissolve. This possibility is of particular concern for the caregiver riding in the child–caregiver vélomobile with. As a child becomes more independent and tests the limit of the stretch by dropping back or surging forward, then the caregiver may act in a range of ways to restore the formation.

Elastic interactions take place when mobile actors coordinate mutual co-presence so as to continue to interact and talk while moving, though both or all actors involved may be traveling at different speeds and in different directions. This requires formations to be stretchable, thus retaining their constitutive features. When mobile formations are stretchy and elastic interactions take place, then participation frameworks become more pliable, that is, they are more contingent. While moving, relationships of participation may take the form they often do in sedentary interactions, but they may also be renegotiated as a result of the contingencies of mobility, for example, other participants or actors—a car or pedestrian, or another cyclist ringing her bell as she approaches from behind—may entail the interruption of the formation in progress. As others have noted (Allen Collinson, 2006; Ryave & Schenkein, 1974), being mobile together is a joint production and recognition of a cohort. When riding there are a variety of resources available, for example, common clothing or safety vests, close distance, common velocity, mutual gaze, and so on to perform and be seen as a co-rider with others. Moreover, one can be seen as incumbents of particular membership categories in particular relationships, such as family members, friends, commuters, racers, and so on (Ryave & Schenkein 1974). All these, and more, require a flexible reorganization of participation.

In the analysis above, we see some of the ways in which riding-in-formation is not simply a routine task for maintaining co-presence and for coordinating the ride, it is also a platform for mobile social and cultural life. Further work is needed on how more complex formations, such as the school “bike-train” or the group bike ride, are organized socially. A better understanding of the kinds of urban environments and mobility infrastructures in which cycling takes place, and of the social interaction conducted when navigating such spaces, may shape policy making and inform the design of infrastructures that encourage cycling as a social practice (Pucher & Buehler, 2008; Watson, 2013), for example by facilitating the local negotiation and maintenance of M-formations. Additionally, there is a need for comparative work on other embodied and mobile social sports or leisure activities, such as skiing, skateboarding, horse riding, surfing, and so on.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biography

Paul McIlvenny, PhD, is a professor in the Department of Culture and Global Studies at Aalborg University. He is Director of the Centre for Discourses in Transition (C-DiT) and a board member of the Centre for Mobilities and Urban Studies (C-MUS). He is currently investigating how children learn to cycle and ski downhill/cross-country in different instructional settings. He is also exploring the practice of counter-conduct by participants in creative protest events.

References

Aldred

Jungnickel

(2012). Constructing mobile places between leisure and transport: A case study of two group cycle rides. Sociology, 46, 523-539.

Allen Collinson

. (2006). Running together: Some ethnomethodological considerations. Ethnographic Studies, 8, 17-29.

Anderson

(2004). Talking whilst walking: A geographical archaeology of knowledge. Area, 36, 254-261.

Bonham

Koth

(2010). Universities and the cycling culture. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 15, 94-102.

Brown

K. M.

Dilley

Marshall

(2008). Using a head-mounted video camera to understand social worlds and experiences. Sociological Research Online, 13(6). Retrieved from http://www.socresonline.org.uk/13/6/1.html

Brown

K. M.

Spinney

(2010). Catching a glimpse: The value of video in evoking, understanding and representing the practice of cycling. In Fincham

McGuinness

Murray

(Eds.), Mobile methodologies (pp. 130-151). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

Büscher

(2005). Social life under the microscope? Sociological Research Online, 10(1). Retrieved from http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/1/buscher.html

Cekaite

(2010). Shepherding the child: Embodied directive sequences in parent-child interactions. Text & Talk, 30, 1-25.

Ciolek

T. M.

Kendon

(1980). Environment and the spatial arrangement of conversational encounters. Sociological Inquiry, 50(3-4), 237-271.

10.

Collett

Marsh

(1981). Patterns of public behavior: Collision avoidance on a pedestrian crossing. In Sebeok

Umiker-Sebeok

Kendon

(Eds.), Nonverbal communication, interaction and gesture (pp. 199-217). Hague, Netherlands: Mouton de Gruyter.

11.

Edensor

(2010). Walking in rhythms: Place, regulation, style and the flow of experience. Visual Studies, 25, 69-79.

12.

Goffman

(1963). Behaviour in public places: Notes on the social organization of gatherings. New York, NY: Free Press.

13.

Goffman

(1971). Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. London, England: Allen Lane.

14.

Haddington

Keisanen

Nevile

(2012). Meaning in motion: Sharing the car, sharing the drive. Semiotica, 191(1/4), 101-116.

15.

Haddington

Mondada

Nevile

(Eds.). (2013). Interaction and mobility: Language and the body in motion. Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.

16.

Heath

Hindmarsh

Luff

(2010). Video in qualitative research: Analysing social interaction in everyday life. London, England: Sage.

17.

Hester

Francis

(2003). Analysing visually available mundane order: A walk to the supermarket. Visual Studies, 18, 36-46.

18.

Horton

Rosen

Cox

(Eds.). (2007). Cycling and society. Farnham, England: Ashgate.

19.

Ingold

Vergunst

J. L.

(Eds.). (2008). Ways of walking: Ethnography and practice on foot. Farnham, England: Ashgate.

20.

Jefferson

(2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Lerner

(Ed.), Conversation analysis. Studies from the first generation (pp. 13-31). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

21.

Jensen

O. B.

(2010). Erving Goffman and everyday life mobility. In Jacobsen

M. H.

(Ed.), The contemporary Goffman (pp. 333-351). Abingdon, England: Routledge.

22.

Kendon

(1990a). Behavioural foundations for the process of frame-attunement in face-to-face interaction. In A. Kendon, Conducting interaction: Problems of behavior in focused interaction (pp. 239-262). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

23.

Kendon

(1990b). Spatial coordination in social encounters: The F-formation system. In Kendon

(Ed.), Conducting interaction: Patterns of behavior in focused encounters (pp. 209-237). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

24.

Kendon

(2010). Spacing and orientation in copresent interaction. In Esposito

Campbell

Vogel

Hussain

Nijholt

(Eds.), Development of multimodal interfaces: Active listening and synchrony: Second Cost 2102 International Training School, Dublin, Ireland, March 23-27, 2009 (Vol. 5967, pp. 1-15). Berlin, Germany: Springer.

25.

Laurier

Lorimer

Brown

Jones

Juhlin

Noble

Perry

. . . Weilenmann

(2008). Driving and passengering: Notes on the ordinary organization of car travel. Mobilities, 3, 1-23.

26.

Lorimer

(2011). Walking: New forms and spaces for studies of pedestrianism. In Cresswell

Merriman

(Eds.), Geographies of mobilities: Practices, spaces, subjects (pp. 19-33). Farnham, England: Ashgate.

27.

Mausner

(2008). Capturing the hike experience on video: An alternative framework for studying human response to nature. In Downing

M. J.

Tenney

L. J.

(Eds.), Video vision: Changing the culture of social science research (pp. 173-189). Newcastle, England: Cambridge Scholars Press.

28.

McCarthy

(2011). Im a normal person: An examination of how utilitarian cyclists in Charleston South Carolina use an insider/outsider framework to make sense of risks. Urban Studies, 48, 1439-1455.

29.

McIlvenny

(2009). Communicating a time-out in parent-child conflict: Embodied interaction, domestic space and discipline in a reality TV parenting programme. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 2017-2032.

30.

McIlvenny

(2011). Video interventions in everyday life: Semiotic and spatial practices of embedded video as a therapeutic tool in reality TV parenting programmes. Social Semiotics, 21, 259-288.

31.

McIlvenny

(2013a). Interacting outside the box: Between social interaction and mobilities. In Haddington

Mondada

Nevile

(Eds.), Interaction and mobility: Language and the body in motion (pp. 409-417). Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.

32.

McIlvenny

(2013b). The joy of biking together: Sharing everyday experiences of vélomobility. Mobilities. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/17450101.2013.844950

33.

McIlvenny

Broth

Haddington

(2009). Communicating place, space and mobility. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(10), 1879-1886.

34.

Middleton

(2009). Stepping in time: Walking, time, and space in the city. Environment and Planning A, 41, 1943-1961.

35.

Myers

(2011). Walking again lively: Towards an ambulant and conversive methodology of performance and research. Mobilities, 6, 183-201.

36.

Noy

(2009). On driving a car and being a family: An autoethnography. In Vannini

(Ed.), Material culture and technology in everyday life: Ethnographic approaches (pp. 101-113). Berlin, Germany: Peter Lang.

37.

O’Neill

Hubbard

(2010). Walking, sensing, belonging: Ethno-mimesis as performative praxis. Visual Studies, 25, 46-58.

38.

Pink

(2007). Walking with video. Visual Studies, 22, 240-252.

39.

Pink

Hubbard

O’Neill

Radley

(2010). Walking across disciplines: From ethnography to arts practice. Visual Studies, 25, 1-7.

40.

Pucher

Buehler

(2008). Making cycling irresistible: Lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany. Transport Reviews, 28, 495-528.

41.

Relieu

(1994). Les catégories dans l’action: L’apprentissage des traversées de rue par des non-voyants [Categories in action: Learning to cross the street by blind persons]. In Fradin

Quéré

Widmer

(Eds.), L’enquête sur les catégories (pp. 185-218). Paris, France: École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales.

42.

Ryave

Schenkein

J. N.

(1974). Notes on the art of walking. In Turner

(Ed.), Ethnomethodology (pp. 265-274). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.

43.

Schegloff

E. A.

(2007). Sequence organisation in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis volume 1. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

44.

Scollon

(1997). Handbills, tissues and condoms: A site of engagement for the construction of identity in discourse. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 1, 39-61.

45.

Spinney

(2008). Cycling between the traffic: Mobility, identity and space. Urban Design, 106, 28-30.

46.

Spinney

(2009). Cycling the city: Movement, meaning and method. Geography Compass, 3, 817-835.

47.

Spinney

(2011). A chance to catch a breath: Using mobile video ethnography in cycling research. Mobilities, 6, 161-182.

48.

Streeck

Goodwin

LeBaron

(Eds.). (2011). Embodied interaction: Language and body in the material world. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

49.

Vergunst

(2010). Rhythms of walking: History and presence in a city street. Space and Culture, 13, 376-388.

50.

vom Lehn

Heath

. (2007). Social interaction in museums and galleries: A note on video-based field studies. In Goldman

Pea

Barron

Derry

S. J.

(Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 287-301). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

51.

Walker

(2010). In-vivo sampling of naive drivers: Benefits, practicalities and ethical considerations. In Fincham

McGuinness

Murray

(Eds.), Mobile methodologies (pp. 43-52). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

52.

Watson

(2013). Building future systems of velomobility. In Shove

Spurlin

(Eds.), Sustainable practices: Social theory and climate change (pp. 117-131). Abingdon, England: Routledge.