Introduction

In this paper we explore the ways in which cycles in various forms have been designed and used by and for disabled persons. Briefly, we use identity first language throughout while acknowledging the presence of considerable debate over language and disability and the agency of individual disabled persons in the act of self-identifying. We engage more fully with these issues later. We show that the connections between cycling and disability have historical roots reaching back as far as the mid-17^th century, although in recent times new materials and technologies have resulted in major improvements to the usefulness of the cycle for disabled persons. In an important recent paper, Inckle (2019) explores this relationship from the user's perspective in a qualitative study that stresses deficits in knowledge and information on the potential and actual use of cycles, and the deficiencies of a binary policy framework that frequently overlooks the provision of infrastructure for disabled cyclists. Andrews et al. (2018), Clayton et al. (2017) and Rissel (2015) also note the paucity of research on the use of cycles by persons with physical disabilities, and a surprising lack of awareness of their possibilities. 1 We hope this paper partly fills this gap by adopting a classificatory approach – in the Linnaean tradition – to the types of cycles that are used by disabled persons, ranging from standard bicycles to those with specific adaptations. 2 We stress the social context of the relationship between disability and cycle design, both in understandings of disability, and in the adaptation, or development from the ground up, of cycle technologies for disabled persons.

In recent times, cycles and the planning and development of cycling infrastructure have increasingly becoming markers of the so-called progressive, sustainable, resilient city – yet just how institutions and the cycling public writ large view disabled persons fitting into the global cycling project – and vice versa, seems opaque at best (Andrews et al., 2018). For those who might be unaware, disabled persons cycle, and for many of the same reasons as every other cycling body – for the thrill of it, for exercise and competitive sport, to increase mobility, to enable accessibility to work, to places of study, to recreational activities, to commerce, and consequently to enhance their participation in social activities. Drawing attention to the centuries old connections between cycling and disability, as we have done here, contributes to centring disability within a contemporary cycling discourse seemingly bent toward fetishizing normative conceptualizations of cycling bodies and activities.

Definitions and understandings of impairment and disability have changed considerably during the period since Stephan Farfler, a non-ambulatory German clockmaker, invented the first recorded tricycle in the mid-seventeenth century. From Farfler's time, through to the twentieth century, outmoded understandings placed disability within the body as a medicalized individual concern, or as divine punishment (in a Judeo-Christian context). With some disturbing exceptions, these antediluvian understandings have since been displaced by models that stress the social, political, and economic context(s) that produce disability which, as a result, have encouraged many disabled persons to consider the possibilities presented by cycles and made some individuals and institutions more open to the possibilities that exist at the intersection of disability and cycling (Wheels for Wellbeing, 2020).

Everyone has different abilities and we all will experience changes to our abilities as we age, but activists have pushed back the social and technical barriers to disability so that the possibilities for disabled persons have increased (Dolmage, 2017; Wong, 2020; Hansen & Philo, 2007). Rather than recognizing a continuum, many Victorian and Edwardian institutions adopted a dichotomy by separating people with a disability from so-called "able-bodied" individuals, giving rise to the asylum, eugenics, and medically directed treatments in which the patient had no say (Bashford & Levine, 2010; Park & Radford, 1998). In that period, disabled persons using cycles were persons living outside the asylum regime. By the 1970s, however, groups of people with disabilities objected to being categorized. Disability was, they insisted, a socially imposed category: a person may have a physical impairment but that does not make that person disabled unless society makes them so (Rocco, 2011; Oliver, 1990, 1999, 2013). 3 The emancipatory and therapeutic potential of cycles for disabled persons, long recognized by a few, became a matter of broader interest resulting, inter alia, in the creation of several small specialized cycle manufacturers as well as activist organizations such as London's Wheels for Wellbeing, and Detroit's MoGo.

During the past 200 years, bicycle and tricycle technology has advanced in response to the needs of diverse users, including racers in a quest for speed, commuters demanding comfort, and persons wishing to overcome disability and regain a level of independence. In other cases, technological advances have evolved serendipitously as mechanics, experimenting with ideas, occasionally came up with solutions that were adaptable to different needs including those with disabilities. Most cycle designs (we use the term 'cycles' to connote bicycles, tricycles and quadricycles 4) were and are based around normative assumptions regarding a species-typical "able" body (Guffey, 2018). To the extent that cycle designers "are born into an already interpreted world, they and their interpretations of the world are necessarily shaped by socially available understandings" (Bonham and Johnston, 2015, p.8). This social constructionist position asserts that current cycle designs are influenced by how pre-existing designs are found both useful, and/or deficient, and how the experiential knowledge of disabled persons, their immediate social contacts, and technologists working with these groups, help to refine existing designs and imagine new possibilities. Cycle design and technology evolve, with social forces (particularly users of specific technologies) exerting pressure for change. This engages with the work of Pinch and Bijker (1984) on the social construction of technology (SCOT) which places technology in its societal context.

Constructivism stresses the social and geographical context in which invention and innovation takes place, including the ability of society to adapt new technologies to specific needs, to prioritize certain projects, and to work collectively in teams that share knowledge and insight (Norcliffe, 2009). Furthermore, as Oudshoorn & Pinch (2003) note, users matter in several ways - by presenting non-normative needs that require answers, by proposing practical solutions, and by asking institutions for results that overcome specific issues. Today, cycles are used for pleasure and recreation, to assist mobility, speed up recuperation in the presence of acquired injury, serve as a therapeutic intervention (e.g., to maintain flexibility and to train the cardiovascular system), promote exercise and mobile activity, and to enable broader participation within typically exclusionary environments developed by ableist institutions. Depending on how one's body works, many disabled people enjoy riding standard cycles, but in addition, a growing number of specialized and customized cycles have been developed, often in response to disabled persons and their families actively pressing for particular solutions that increase mobility and allow them to engage in many daily community activities. The aim of this article is to describe these developments and, where possible, interpret the genealogy of cycles used in diverse ways by disabled persons.

We recognize that there are serious and complex discussions on terminology, labelling, and identity when working on or with disability. Indeed, disability can be seen to impact everyone in various, often subtle ways, such that dichotomies are meaningless. Our standpoint is that the social model leads directly into rights and justice perspectives, constituting the progressive mainstream of the whole movement (Thomas, 2004). Thus, we favour phrases such as "disabled person" though we acknowledge in particular the progressive and radical turn toward identity first language. Furthermore, when we speak about the possibilities of cycles, we do not advocate for the "fixing" of disabled bodies, but for increasing general awareness of the potential of cycling for leisure, work, recovery from illness, and good health. Many disabled persons ride simply for enjoyment as a pleasurable part of their daily lives, while others might choose to use cycles therapeutically as part of a process of working with and through impairment within a disabling social and environmental context.

Our positions, as authors, also differ both experientially, and in terms of our academic roots. Norcliffe is an economic geographer with interests, inter alia, in cycling technology. Buliung is a transport scholar whose lived experience of disability centres on being a parent of a child who uses a wheelchair for independent mobility (Buliung et al., 2021; Ross and Buliung, 2019). Kruse is a human movement scientist who has investigated the effects of training and treatments on individuals with cerebral palsy. Radford has researched the Victorian asylum (Radford 2000, 2020) and disability more generally, and also has a disabled family member. Our individual, personal and multi-disciplinary academic standpoints have enabled a rich conversation about disability cutting across an onto-epistemological terrain that allows us to think through difficult points of intersection between sociological, historical, bio-medical and critical ways of thinking about disability, cycle design/innovation, and use.

This article is organized in four sections. First, we summarize changing understandings and contrasting terms adopted in the disability literature over the past hundred years. Often seen as a means for treatment and management of disabilities, cycles are also used as a source of enjoyment, a means to socialize, and as a recreational vehicle, just like their non-disabled peers. Second, we examine a range of disabling conditions where cycles with specific attributes present useful possibilities. Third, we summarize the technical dimensions that feature in cycles designed for disabled persons. And fourth, we select examples from our research that confirm the relevance of the social construction approach to understanding how disabled persons and technicians have co-produced cycles for disabled persons.

Changing and contrasting concepts of disability

More so in academic exchange than in society as a whole, the disability/ability binary has given way to recent acceptance of the political, economic and social production of disability, of diversity within the group labeled as disabled, and recognition of the complex manner in which disability and ability are co-constructed (Oliver, 1990, 1999, 2009; Goodley, 2014). At its most radical edge, we have also seen the rise of Crip theory wherein labels of "the clinic" are re-appropriated as a move to organize and empower the community (Schalk, 2013). The clinical label, turned on its head and re-appropriated, comes to exist as a labeling of power and identity first, one that challenges normative ideas about bodies and abilities. Persons who identify as having a disability in one area might view themselves as having an enhanced ability in others: thus, the young Swedish climate change activist, Greta Thunberg, views her autism as her "superpower". Asked if being on the autism spectrum gave her a special insight into climate change or a vision on a course of action, she replied "That could be … I go my own way" (Interview William Brangham, PBS Newshour September 13, 2019).

The cultural and social construction of disability influences the policy framework of a given jurisdiction: significant international and even local differences are to be expected. For instance, in the UK, the evolution of the firm Remploy is revealing of political and identity shifts. Created in 1944 under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, Remploy was initially intended to create meaningful employment for persons injured during the Second World War with, at its peak, 83 factories manufacturing a wide range of products (Edwards, 1999). By the 1990s, it began to diversify into finding employment for disabled persons in the service sector. In 2007, Remploy began to open employment offices with the aim of placing disabled persons in mainstream work rather than in dedicated factories, and adopting the slogan 'putting ability first'. Following a change of government in 2010, a phase of privatization began that led to all Remploy factories being closed or sold to the private sector, leaving Remploy as an employment agency matching the skills of disabled workers with productive activities under the Access to Work program (Bombastic Spastic, 2011). This pursuit of neoliberal goals, including the elimination of subsidies, also advanced the ableist aim to eliminate the disability/ability binary in the labour force.

An emerging literature rejects the binary by re-casting particular skills of workers previously categorized as disabled as assets for specific work tasks, including the use of disabled bodies to project a progressive corporate social responsibility (CSR) agenda. In other words, within the context of neoliberal ableism (see Goodley 2014), disabled persons do their daily work, while also elevating the CSR profile of their host company. Another aspect of this model is that it emphasizes the "patient" rather than the treatment: the focus is not on the impairment of a patient but on realizing his or her potential. From this perspective Shakespeare (1996) is highly critical of Oliver Sacks' book An Anthropologist on Mars for exploiting the disabling impairments of patients rather than normalizing them as latent possibilities. In this vein, Remploy seeks productive activities that match the skills of a disabled worker.

A binary approach still persists in some sections of society, resting on older attitudes and on bureaucratic requirements. To get an accessible parking pass, or to become eligible for disability benefits in numerous jurisdictions, one has to prove "disability" or demonstrate that one is "disabled enough", often through troubling, highly stressful bureaucratic and inflexible processes that typically involve a physician acknowledging the presence of a clinically disabling condition. Many groups and individuals that society sees as "disabled" increasingly reject the label. Among the deaf and hard of hearing, for example, a powerful Deaf culture movement rejects the disability label, identifies itself by using an upper case "D" in "Deaf" and regards itself as a cultural group. It has its own language (signing), rejects alternative ways of communication (lip reading makes unacceptable concessions to the hearing world) or cochlear implants (offering a "cure" and therefore implying that deafness is a defect that should be fixed). The assertion of an independent Deaf culture has been powerfully enhanced by the use of social media. Social media is utilized by this group to reconnect, organize and especially as a platform to demonstrate their capabilities. 5

In recent history, the most significant force in changing conceptualizations of disability has been the social model. The social model emerged in the early 1970s among a group of physically disabled men in a Cheshire home for community-assisted living in England, now a group-home alliance for the impaired operating in 55 countries (Barron & Amerena, 2007). Dissatisfied with their lack of independence and segregation within closed environments, they charged that a complex social overlay was superimposed on them without their consent simply because they happened to have an impairment. They insisted on distinguishing between impairment (their individual physical condition or defect or diagnosis) and disability (the social segregation and stigmatization imposed on all of them from the outside). Disability was characterized as a totally social phenomenon. This social model was contrasted with a previous model, identified either as the medical model (since treatment was said to be founded on medical norms), or the individual model as it focused on the individual's impairment and not on the general forces of disablement. They set up a loose association calling itself UPIAS - United Physically Impaired Against Segregation (Imrie and Edwards, 2007) - with its foundational document dated 1975. As is evident in this title, the members of the group identified as impaired, not disabled, and their main goal was integration or mainstreaming. The social model later received its best known formulation in Michael Oliver's landmark book The Politics of Disablement (1990).

Within contemporary disability studies, discussion of the social model usually revolves around its inadequacies, in particular, its inability to accommodate intersubjectivity, intersectionality, and pain, among other things (Withers, 2012; Goodley 2014). Oliver (1990) has an answer to many of these points of criticism, which Goodley (2014) has summarized; suffice it to say that much of the defense rests on deciding what lies within and beyond Oliver's "sociological critique" (Goodley 2014, p. 8). Yet it is hard to imagine social and scholarly perspectives proceeding the way they have had the social model not impacted society in the way it has over the last quarter century.

The social model has been re-stated in various forms and a number of times, usually without the essential Marxian analysis that originally underlay it. One notable geographical statement that by contrast places the Marxian element front and centre is Brendan Gleeson's Geographies of Disability (1996). Gleeson finds the origins of stigmatization and enforced segregation of disabled persons in the rise of capitalism. His claim that disability was virtually absent from medieval society seems ludicrous at first until one recognizes the insistence of the social model on separating disability from impairment. While the latter was ubiquitous in medieval society the argument advanced is that the systematic segregation of disablement awaited the arrival of capitalist society. Indeed to this day among old-order Anabaptist groups, persons with disabilities are cared for within the family and the congregation, and are not segregated. There is no doubt that forces for segregation developed powerfully in the nineteenth century and dominated discourses well into the twentieth, but it seems preferable to interpret them less as a feature of capitalist production than one of several changes which in combination have been identified as modernity (Radford 1994, 2020). An insufficient understanding of genetics led scientists to propose faulty interpretations of disability. Intensified segregation and stigmatization adopted in that era were clearly linked with an obsessive focus on diagnosis, classification, measurement, and testing, which was supported by medicine, psychology, and social science. These links are especially clear in the realms of psychiatric and intellectual disablement, and the closed custodial institutions ("asylums") they produced which have been called "icons of modernity" (Radford, 2000). A lessening of these forces, which many authors see as beginning in the 1970s, might be associated with postmodernity (Radford, 1994).

In this article we adopt a broad social model perspective, recognizing the social forces of disablement and the distinction between impairment and disability. We do not, however, adopt the strict terminological difference as its use has not gained widespread acceptance either in the disability studies literature or in society in general. The emergence of the social model broadly corresponds with the development of socially based interpretations of technological change that have been applied by Wiebe Bijker to cycling. Bijker (1995: 6) stresses the politics of technology, its impacts on gender relations, and the way "technologies are shaped and acquire their meanings in the heterogeneity of social interactions", and not in the technology itself. Here, we focus on disability rather than gender but, like Bijker, we stress the context of technological change, and while we accept that the ingenuity of individuals is sometimes important, in the case of disabled persons, collective and iterative adaptations of existing technologies have often been influential. Thinking through the intersection between social models of disability and technological innovation – we view disabling environments, material conditions, social circumstances and institutions as producing the "social" context contributing to the construction of new technologies, in this case, cycles for disabled persons.

Technical dimensions that feature in cycles designed for disabled persons

A lengthy search of published and on-line literature, including the web sites of over a dozen makers located in several countries, plus in-person interviews at the fabrication shops of two makers, and phone interviews with five users led to the identification of seven main types of cycles used by disabled persons (Hickman, 2015; Wheels for Wellbeing, 2020). 6 We recognize that variations on themes make this classification somewhat arbitrary, but we believe that it is the first historically-based classification of cycles used by disabled persons. Recently developed versions of these types make use the latest technologies and materials, but for each type we have identified antecedents indicating that users and their support groups had previously recognized a specific need and sought a technical solution, as proposed by theories stressing the social context of technical innovation.

Several overarching considerations have been recognized by designers. The machine needs to be accessible to a person who has mobility issues: this may require an open front, a low top tube, rear access, a lifting pedal, or a two-track tricycle configuration leaving the front unblocked. Stability is a common priority, often requiring a wide wheel-base, canted wheels, a low centre of gravity, and/or a (semi) recumbent riding position. Speed is rarely a priority, hence low-gearing, which makes for less resistance and ease of climbing slopes, is generally an advantage. Footstraps, calf braces for legs, seat belts and headrests are among the support devices used to position riders for a comfortable ride. Since the rider may be lower to the road and slower than most cyclists, enhanced visibility, using flags, lights and brightly colored clothing is often preferred. Comfort is also important, especially as pain accompanies many forms of disability: soft materials and massage seats, a recumbent position, and arm, leg and head supports, all may provide relief for the rider.

Conclusion: social models revisited

One of the specialized makers (Freedom) use the term "adaptive" to describe their cycles; they state: "each bike is built to the person and their special needs" adding that "any bike can be further customized and adjusted to the exact specifications and unique requirements of the rider, ensuring that each Freedom Concepts bike is a perfect fit". 10 These cycles address the needs of specific users whose input therefore has to matter to their designers. In interviews we found that all makers regularly interact with purchasers (users and their families), and over time make design modifications based on feedback (social exchange). One maker (interview at RickSycle of London, Ontario) reported 5 rounds of modifications as users responded to their design changes, while Theraplay claimed it had conducted 40,000 assessments as riders test out the suitability of their models. 11 And most machines are offered with "options" that a user can add-on if it seems appropriate. The Dutch maker of specialized cycles, Van Raam, allows purchasers to configure their bike on-line. 12 This adaptive strategy simultaneously empowers users by tailoring a bike to their needs, which increases mobility and, therefore, their ability to engage in daily life.

Many small makers came to the activity because of individual, family or community needs, hence their interest in the project is necessarily socially motivated. Theraplay "was approached by a local charity working with children with Spina Bifida and was asked to design and produce a hand driven tricycle for … children with this condition", while Freedom Concepts received a request to build a cycle for a child with cerebral palsy. MoGo of Detroit stated that they exchange information on cycles for disabled persons with bicycle sharing schemes in several other cities that have recently launched an adaptive component, including: Portland's Adaptive Biketown, Milwaukee (Bublr Bikes), Capital Bike Share (Washington D.C.), Heartland Bike Share (Lincoln, NE), the Bay Wheels Bike Share (Oakland, CA), and Seattle, WA. In short, they have formed a network of biking sharing organizations that caters to riders with special needs, giving them more control over their lives.

This article complements the research of Inckle (2019) on disabled cyclists and the unfortunate tendency to focus on user's deficits rather than the possibilities located at the intersection of disability and cycling. We have taken a socio-historical approach to trace this relationship between cycling and disability over several centuries and in doing so clearly demonstrate the possibilities for innovation and activity and personal mobility that can arise from centering disability in processes related to the design and use of cycles. We do this by drawing on two closely related social models. The social model of disability challenges the individual nature of disability, rejects binary interpretations and invokes the social context for addressing disability. Applied to the use of cycles, we find that numerous technical adaptations have been made to work for individual needs, often proposed by disabled persons themselves.

The SCOT model emphasises the interaction of makers and users in prioritising projects and in developing and adapting technologies. As the interviews demonstrate, makers pay careful attention to social needs in designing products and adapting technology. Users, family members and their friends react to designs and prototypes, suggest modifications and in some cases recommend total rejection. This learning process requires innovation, modification, acceptance, and rejection: the ultimate test is whether the final user likes and purchases the artefact. As we have noted, all of the makers we have contacted confirm that the design of their bicycles is an interactive process as known technologies are re-jigged to match the needs of the individual, and then modified – often on several occasions - as users provide feedback. Several makers customize their cycles and a few now allow buyers to incorporate a range of modifications on-line.

Our aim in this article has been to connect the needs and desires of disabled persons with the development of cycles. In practice, we find quite a close socially-driven connection. Cycles have been adapted to work for disabled persons since the pre-industrial era and, by incorporating new materials and technologies, significant improvements in the functionality of cycles have resulted. The seven basic types of cycles – the standard pedal bicycles, hand bikes, chair transporters, sociables, stability machines, tandems and power-assisted cycles - have all been used by disabled persons for over a century. This is not a surprising discovery: the bicycle has long been adapted to a variety of uses, from military/paratrooper bicycles, to delivery cycles, to ice cream sales, to field ambulance, to indoor fitness machine, to transporter to work, to study, shop and play. A cycle is evidently an artefact that lends itself to adaptation.

Unfortunately, the possibilities offered by cycles to disabled persons have not been as widely recognized as might be hoped. Adoption has been slow, perhaps because of the high cost of some of the more advanced machines, 13 but new lightweight materials, electronic gearing and increasing comfort make cycles more user-friendly. As Wheels for Wellbeing, an advocacy group based in London (UK) laments, the two main obstacles they face are social ones. This advocacy organization "spends most of its time … convincing disabled people that they can cycle … and convincing everyone else, from family members to government ministers, that disabled people can, and do, cycle, and that disabled people need to be included in cycling policy and design guidance" (Hickman and Clement, 2018, 207). We have shown that many improved cycling technologies are now available to disabled persons, and that those who have taken advantage of the resulting possibilities have found satisfaction and pleasure in so doing.