• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Between Protest and Counter-Expertise: User Knowledge, Activism, and the Making of Urban Cycling Networks in the Netherlands Since the 1970s.在抗议与反专业知识之间:自 20 世纪 70 年代以来,用户知识、激进主义与荷兰城市自行车网络的发展。
NTM. 2022 Sep;30(3):281-309. doi: 10.1007/s00048-022-00341-y. Epub 2022 Aug 9.
2
More screen operation than calling: the results of observing cyclists' behaviour while using mobile phones.使用手机时屏幕操作多于通话:观察骑自行车者行为的结果
Accid Anal Prev. 2015 Mar;76:42-8. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2015.01.004. Epub 2015 Jan 12.
3
How to make more cycling good for road safety?如何让更多的自行车骑行更有利于道路安全?
Accid Anal Prev. 2012 Jan;44(1):19-29. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2010.11.010. Epub 2010 Dec 8.
4
Crash risk and subjective risk perception during urban cycling: Accounting for cycling volume.城市骑行中的碰撞风险和主观风险感知:考虑骑行量。
Accid Anal Prev. 2022 Jan;164:106470. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2021.106470. Epub 2021 Nov 10.
5
Does gender really matter? A structural equation model to explain risky and positive cycling behaviors.性别真的重要吗?一个解释风险和积极循环行为的结构方程模型。
Accid Anal Prev. 2018 Sep;118:86-95. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2018.05.022. Epub 2018 Jun 14.
6
Safer cycling in the urban road environment: study approach and protocols guiding an Australian study.城市道路环境中更安全的骑行:指导澳大利亚一项研究的研究方法与方案
Inj Prev. 2015 Feb;21(1):e3. doi: 10.1136/injuryprev-2014-041287. Epub 2014 Jun 10.
7
Are Latin American cycling commuters "at risk"? A comparative study on cycling patterns, behaviors, and crashes with non-commuter cyclists.拉美骑自行车通勤者“有风险”吗?与非通勤骑车者的骑车模式、行为和事故的比较研究。
Accid Anal Prev. 2021 Feb;150:105915. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2020.105915. Epub 2020 Dec 1.
8
Influencing factors of observed speed and rule compliance of speed-pedelec riders in high volume cycling areas: Implications for safety and legislation.高流量骑行区电动助力自行车骑行者观测速度和规则遵守的影响因素:对安全和法规的启示。
Accid Anal Prev. 2021 Sep;159:106239. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2021.106239. Epub 2021 Jun 12.
9
Cyclists' eye movements and crossing judgments at uncontrolled intersections: An eye-tracking study using animated video clips.自行车骑行者在无信号控制交叉口的眼动与穿行判断:使用动画视频片段的眼动追踪研究。
Accid Anal Prev. 2018 Nov;120:270-280. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2018.08.024. Epub 2018 Aug 31.
10
Higher-order cycling skills among 11- to 13-year-old cyclists and relationships with cycling experience, risky behavior, crashes and self-assessed skill.11 至 13 岁自行车骑行者的高阶骑行技能及其与骑行经验、冒险行为、事故和自我评估技能的关系。
J Safety Res. 2018 Dec;67:137-143. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2018.10.003. Epub 2018 Oct 19.

在抗议与反专业知识之间:自 20 世纪 70 年代以来,用户知识、激进主义与荷兰城市自行车网络的发展。

Between Protest and Counter-Expertise: User Knowledge, Activism, and the Making of Urban Cycling Networks in the Netherlands Since the 1970s.

机构信息

Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.

出版信息

NTM. 2022 Sep;30(3):281-309. doi: 10.1007/s00048-022-00341-y. Epub 2022 Aug 9.

DOI:10.1007/s00048-022-00341-y
PMID:35943558
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9388429/
Abstract

Around 1970, high numbers of traffic casualties among cyclists led to the creation of numerous local protest movements in the Netherlands. While activists employed protest strategies, their main interest lie in the way they exemplify a highly successful instance of "lay expertise"; the idea that users of a technology have a fundamentally different and valuable perspective on a technology than experts or system-builders. Specifically, cyclists claimed to be more knowledgeable about cycling conditions and safety than the state-employed engineers and traffic experts who built the roads and cycling path network. A key actor in this story is the Dutch Cyclists' Union (Fietsersbond), a national platform of local action groups formed in 1975. These activists used the cycling experience of everyday utilitarian cyclists to compile maps and blacklists of locations where cycling was dangerous, unpleasant, uncomfortable, or otherwise discouraging. In doing so, they successfully claimed legitimacy as a valuable knowledge partner for local engineers and policymakers. As a result, they gained some level of influence within local governments, a relation which in the intervening years has only grown stronger. This case study shows how users can shape socio-technical systems bottom-up, and can therefore to an extent be seen as a successful example of co-construction of technology.

摘要

大约在 1970 年,大量骑自行车的人在交通事故中伤亡,这导致荷兰出现了许多地方抗议运动。虽然活动家们采用了抗议策略,但他们的主要兴趣在于这些策略体现了一种“非专业专家的高度成功实例”;即技术用户对技术的看法与专家或系统构建者有着根本不同且有价值的观点。具体来说,骑自行车的人声称比建造道路和自行车道网络的国家雇佣的工程师和交通专家更了解自行车的状况和安全性。这个故事中的一个关键角色是荷兰自行车联盟(Fietsersbond),这是一个由当地行动小组于 1975 年成立的全国性平台。这些活动家利用日常实用自行车骑行者的经验,编制了地图和黑名单,列出了危险、不愉快、不舒服或其他令人沮丧的自行车骑行地点。通过这样做,他们成功地声称自己是当地工程师和政策制定者有价值的知识伙伴。因此,他们在地方政府中获得了一定程度的影响力,这种关系在随后的几年里只变得更强了。这个案例研究表明,用户如何能够自下而上地塑造社会技术系统,因此在一定程度上可以被视为技术共同构建的成功范例。