Peripheral mobilities: looking at dormant, delegitimized and forgotten transport regimes

Abstract

In the transport debate, policy makers seem to be under the spell of a technological determinism, in which innovation Tand novelty are the key concepts. Obsessed with westernised regimes and systems, the current debate misses the relevance of forgotten, peripheral and silent mobilities. In this regard, looking to those peripheral mobilities is not only important for reconstructing our memory, but can also offer tools to build socially and environmentally sustainable transport regimes. I suggest using Walter Benjamin’s Angelus Novus to address the past and future of infrastructural systems and the role of “old” regimes. This paper relies on David Edgerton’s work, but I push the argument further, claiming that an innovation-prone debate today creates the (social and environmental) failures of tomorrow. While electric cars and driver-less vehicles can be useful tools, we should consider that peripheral mobilities could better address the issue of socially and environmentally sustainable transports systems. Long-term vision can bridge the past and future of transport policies and offer hints to social science, humanity and governance.

E-Scooters: A New Smart Mobility Option? The Case of Brisbane, Australia

“…Several scholars frame the main governance challenge for smart cities and smart mobility as a grappling between urban problems and technological solutions (Albino et al, 2015;Dia, 2017;Finger & Audouin, 2019;Legacy et al, 2019;Meyer & Shaheen, 2017;Papa & Lauwers, 2015). Especially in transportation planning, there is seemingly an unwavering belief in technical or engineered solutions, where people often mistakenly conflate technology and innovation (Edgerton, 1999;Moraglio, 2018). Hence, it has been pointed out that while technical solutions may sometimes present a promising breakthrough, they are not absolute answers unless technology is integrated with social innovation, sustainability, and a broader cultural shift (Papa & Lauwers, 2015).…”

Carros globais, desigualdades transnacionais: sobre a economia (in)formal de veículos

“…Em torno do carro gravita um vasto repertório de imagens, regulamentos, moralidades e investimentos estéticos sem o qual seria impossível compreender tanto a perenidade quanto a ubiquidade planetária do sistema de automobilidade (Urry, 2004). Como materialização de uma lógica de mobilidade hierárquica, que fomenta a individualidade, a competição, a agressividade e a dominação pela velocidade do movimento (Virilio, 1996), o carro criou uma relação ambígua entre liberdade e sujeição: ao mesmo tempo que fornece a flexibilidade necessária à expansão territorial da cidade, impõe modelos de ocupação do espaço em que outras formas de se locomover são inibidas, subordinadas ou hostilizadas (Sheller e Urry, 2000;Giucci, 2004;Rolnik e Klintowitz, 2011;Moraglio, 2018), provocando um número absurdo de mortes e ferimentos a cada ano e por toda parte (Culver, 2018).…”