Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

When Rules Go Awry: A Single Case Analysis of Cycle Rage

  • Empirical Study/Analysis
  • Published:
Human Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

On a sunny Sunday afternoon in 2012 a conflict arose between two men riding a popular mountain biking track in New Zealand. The bulk of this was filmed from a helmet-mounted action camera, facilitating a single case analysis of the transition from an everyday trouble to an unexpected violent ending. The two riders come across each other travelling downhill at speed on a narrow track. Unease quickly develops for the camera-clad rider wants to pass the rider in front, but except for an intriguing and brief interlude, the first rider will not let the other pass. The second rider grows frustrated, progressing to tailgate the ‘slower’ rider, in the midst of which he invokes a rule of mountain biking conduct. The reflexive implications of the rule-invocation need to be seen to be believed. The video is used as data to get close to such seeing, and despite some limitations, we can see a clear trajectory where the rule significantly contributes to a moment of phenomenological salience. Thereafter, it becomes witnessably relevant to the conflict that develops.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Whereas there are shared elements in all three papers, I regard the current paper as the most precise and developed analysis. Much as conversation analysts feel no need to apologise for submitting small fragments of talk to repeated analyses, I see great value in doggedly working on a singular piece of video data, sometimes over many years. This can lead to the discovery of previously unseen and important interactional detail. A good example here in terms of the analysis of video data is the work of Charles Goodwin (eg., see 2011).

  2. In the majority of cases when a mountain biker finds a faster rider on their tail, they quickly allow that rider to pass. Often, this requires no verbal communication, other times a short alert like ‘track!’ is sufficient communication by the faster rider to enable a passing manoeuvre. Also, almost without exception, thanks and acknowledgement tokens are offered to riders who have allowed others past.

  3. There are various codes of mountain biking, but none of these have the equivalent status of the ‘road code’ by which car drivers can be tested and licensed. Most discussions of trail courtesy in mountain biking have to do with giving way to walkers, runners, and horse riders on shared tracks, and contact with other mountain bikers is often left to commonsense, which is partly why problems can arise.

References

  • Arminen, I. (2008). Scientific and “radical” ethnomethodology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 38(2), 167–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayer, K. (2012). Rider fined over bike rage incident. The New Zealand Herald, July 13. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10821548.

  • Collins, R. (2008). Violence: A micro-sociological theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cooney, M. (2009). The scientific significance of Collins’ Violence. British Journal of Sociology, 60(3), 586–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drew, P. (1998). Complaints about transgressions and misconduct. Research on Language and Social Interaction., 31(3/4), 295–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisner, M., & Karstedt, S. (2009). Introduction: Is a general theory of violence possible? Special issue of International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 3(1), 4–8.

  • Emerson, R. M. (2015). Everyday troubles. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Endreß, M., & Rampp, B. (2013). Special issue: Violence—Introduction. Human Studies, 36(1), 3–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felson, R. B. (2009). Is violence natural, unnatural, or rational? British Journal of Sociology, 60(3), 577–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfinkel, H. (1963). A conception of, and experiments with, ‘trust’ as a condition of stable concerted actions. In O. J. Harvey (Ed.), Motivation and social interaction (pp. 187–238). New York: Ronald Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfinkel, H. (1975). Seminar 3, Garfinkel’s Boston seminar corpus. http://www.language-archives.org/item/oai:talkbank.org:CABank-BostonSeminars.

  • Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology’s program. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, C. (2011). Contextures of action. In J. Streeck, C. Goodwin, & C. LeBaron (Eds.), Embodied interaction: Language and body in the material world (pp. 182–193). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurwitsch, A. (1964). The field of consciousness. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.

  • Haddington, P., Mondada, L., & Nevile, M. (Eds.). (2013). Interaction and mobility: Language and the body in motion. Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haddington, P., & Rauniomaa, M. (2014). Interactions between road users. Space and Culture, 17(2), 176–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J., & Luff, P. (1999). Interaction in isolation: The dislocated world of the London underground. Sociology, 33(3), 555–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heritage, J. (1984a). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 299–345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heritage, J. (1984b). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heritage, J. (1988). Explanations as accounts: A conversation analysis perspective. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Analysing everyday explanation (pp. 107–123). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson-Jacobs, C. (2013). Constructing physical fights. Qualitative Sociology, 36, 23–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. (1988). Seductions of crime. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. (1999). How emotions work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. (2002). Start here: Social ontology and research strategy. Theoretical Criminology, 6(3), 255–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimmel, M. (2010). Review of Collins’ Violence. American Journal of Sociology, 115(6), 1910–1912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klusemann, S. (2012). Massacres as process: A micro-sociological theory of internal patterns of mass atrocities. European Journal of Criminology, 9(5), 468–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laurier, E. (2004). Doing office work on the motorway. Theory, Culture and Society, 21(4/5), 261–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laurier, E. (2014). The graphic transcript. Geography Compass, 8(4), 235–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeBaron, C. D., & Streeck, J. (1997). Built space and the interactional framing of experience during a murder interrogation. Human Studies, 20, 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leder, D. (1990). The absent body. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liberman, K. (2013). More studies in ethnomethodology. Albany: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liberman, K. (2016). What can the human sciences contribute to phenomenology? Human Studies. doi:10.1007/s10746-016-9407-3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Livingston, E. (2008). Ethnographies of reason. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, M. (2016). ‘It’s on video, every second of it’: A micro-sociological analysis of cycle rage. Visual Studies, 31(3), 206–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, M. (2017). On the way to cycle rage: Disputed mobile formations. Mobilities, 12(3), 384–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, M., & Peyrot, M. (1992). Introduction: A reader’s guide to ethnomethodology. Qualitative Sociology, 15(2), 113–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIlvenny, P. (2015). The joy of biking together: Sharing everyday experiences of velomobility. Mobilities, 10(1), 55–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheff, T., & Retzinger, S. M. (1991). Emotions and violence: Shame and rage in destructive conflicts. Lexington: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff, E. A. (1992). Repair after next turn. American Journal of Sociology, 97(5), 1295–1345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schutz, A. (1962). Common-sense and scientific interpretation of human action. Collected papers (Vol. 1, pp. 3–47). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharrock, W., & Dennis, A. (2008). That we obey rules blindly does not mean that we are blindly subservient to rules. Theory, Culture & Society, 25(2), 33–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, R. (2009). Constitutive practices and Garfinkel’s notion of trust: Revisited. Journal of Classical Sociology, 9(4), 475–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weenink, D. (2015). Contesting dominance and performing badness. Sociological Forum, 30(1), 83–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wieder, D. L. (1974). Language and social reality. The Hague: Mouton.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfinger, N. H. (1995). Passing moments: Some social dynamics of pedestrian interaction. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 24(3), 323–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, D. (1971). The practicalities of rule use. In J. Douglas (Ed.), Understanding everyday life (pp. 221–238). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to Max Baddeley, Sanna Fourt-Wells, and Annemarie Jutel for comments and encouragements along the way. Also thanks to the anonymous reviewers for useful comments on earlier versions of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sociology and Social Policy, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand

    Mike Lloyd

Authors
  1. Mike Lloyd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mike Lloyd.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lloyd, M. When Rules Go Awry: A Single Case Analysis of Cycle Rage. Hum Stud 40, 681–706 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-017-9440-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-017-9440-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation