I frequently find myself reading the comments section in a newspaper or TV network website after a bicycle story. Whatever the news, whether a gain for cyclists, a loss, or an outright tragedy, some person will almost certainly write in and demand we get with the program, notice what century we live in, and embrace the advantages of the personal automobile. Whether these people say so or not, their position implies that law and road policy should have no consideration for those of us who wilfully and stubbornly refuse the great gift of the automobile, and instead merely impede serious people with real errands and jobs by self-indulgently using our bicycles in public.
In reply, I have this to say: almost all the arguments for conformity that drivers now make, smokers could once have made. The argument that public policy should cater to the majority? The year of my birth, a majority of adult men smoked. "Serious" people smoked. People of all walks of life claimed they could not get by without smoking, just as many people now claim they cannot get by without driving cars. Motorists claim they should get special consideration because they pay excess taxes: smokers paid, and pay today, substantially more in taxes than people who have avoided addiction to nicotine.
Yet governments never brought themselves to promote smoking, never managed to justify any major programs for "smokers only". And they did not, could not, do so because they recognized, tentatively at first and then more strongly as data accumulated and doctors grew more adamant, that smoking causes harm. Today, increasing evidence suggests that an inactive, car centred lifestyle leads to many of the same debilitating and life-shortening conditions that smoking does.
To bring this around to the beginning: you cannot ask me to get with "the program" of car dependence if getting with that program will manifestly cause me illness and shorten my life. If you choose car dependence, good luck to you-- but your right to your chosen way of life does not extend to inflicting harm on me, or to demanding that I inflict it on myself.
Comments
4 Season Cyclist (not verified)
Cars and cigarettes parallels
Tue, 05/18/2010 - 20:24Both are dangerous, bad for your health, polluting etc.
OTOH cars can serve a useful purpose notwithstanding the fact that both the automobile and the infernal combustion engine are victims of their own success.
But some trips are most practical by automobile. Last night I took an AutoShare up to the Aurora / Newmarket area for a meeting. No way could I have biked up there in time or got back at a reasonable hour, and since it was in the country (Aurora sideroad east of Kennedy)transit wouldn't have met the need.
A world without cigarettes wouldn't change my lifestyle, but a world without cars would still require adjustments.
A.R. (not verified)
On the "democratic" planning model
Sat, 05/22/2010 - 12:51Some invoke the idea of democratic road planning geared to the majority, but the kind of planning that only takes into account the needs of drivers and transit users ignores the minority's safety. True democratic decision making isn't just the rule of the majority, but also the protection of minorities.
In the end though, the majority probably own bicycles and need to ride them safely.
geoffrey
hoodwinked!
Sat, 05/22/2010 - 18:47One might ask why anyone would schedule a meeting where only those with access to private motor vehicles would be able to attend. Even if that was not a conscious thought in setting the venue, the implication is that access is restricted. The participation of those willing to rely solely on transit or human power for transportation is effectively denied. If this is a public meeting, it has succeeded in reducing attendees to a private club of those with access to private motorised vehicles. If this is a work or other meeting it has effectively obligated potential participants to buy into the industry on some level. Even if it were merely a consumer or other survey, restricting access impairs the quality of the pool participating and sways its preferences.
You may want to reconsider this determination of necessity and consider whether it may be little more than an obscured sales pitch.