Recumbent bicycles have never truly been associated with international cycling. Conventional safety (upright) bicycles have long been at the center of the cycling world, for both sport and transportation. This is despite the fact that recumbent bicycles are faster, more comfortable, and more efficient than the upright bicycles. The aim of this article is to explain the historical and social perspectives that led to the rejection of the recumbent bicycle by utilizing the theory of Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) and Bijker’s two power theory, providing a contrast with the adoption of the safety bicycle.
BijkerWE (1995) Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2.
DolnarH (1902). An American stroke for novelty. The Cyclist (January8): 20.
3.
NyeP (1989) Hearts of Lions: The History of American Bicycle Racing. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
4.
PinchTJBijkerWE (1984) The social construction of facts and artefacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science14(3): 399–441.
5.
RosenP (1993) The social construction of mountain bikes: Technology and postmodernity in the cycle industry. Social Studies of Science23(3): 479–513.
6.
SchmitzA (1994) Why your bicycle hasn’t changed for 106 years. Technical Journal of IHPVA11(3): 4–8.
7.
SchmitzA (2000) Human Power: The Forgotten Energy. Coventry: Hadland Books.
