car culture

The rise of Motordom and how we learned to blame the victim

Privileged Sport in Puck

Recently, as I was once again honked at with no place to move, I thought of the recent 99 Percent Invisible podcast on The Modern Moloch. In it Roman Mars interviews Peter Norton who describes how the powerful forces behind the automobile aka "Motordom" had a major public relations victory as it convinced us that the person responsible for safety was the victim rather than the operator of the vehicle. Today it's considered normal (at least in North America) that streets are for motor vehicles primarily and that people are only tolerated at best. (Photo credit: Privileged Sport, Puck. Library of Congress, The Invention of Jay-walking.)

In the early 1900s, before the advent of mass usage of the automobile, things were quite different. Nothing went faster than 10 miles per hour. People crossed the street wherever they wanted because it was easy to avoid collisions in slow moving traffic. Like in this early film of Market Street in San Francisco:

The arrival of cars changed this and people were outraged by the children and adults being killed. It's hard to believe it but there were calls to ban or put tight controls on automobiles. There were even comparisons of automobiles to Moloch, the god to which the Ammonites sacrificed their children. And reminiscent of modern ghost bike memorial rides for killed cyclists, "cities held parades and built monuments in memory of children who had been struck and killed by cars" (link)

But powerful forces behind automobiles (which called themselves "Motordom") created a shift in public consciousness through some crafty public relations. "Don’t blame cars, blame human recklessness." As Mars notes, "this subtle shift allowed for streets to be re-imagined as a place where cars belonged, and where people didn’t." So this is where the term "Jay Walking" went from being applied to a country bumpkin to being "rebranded it as a legal term to mean someone who crossed the street at the wrong place or time".

The industry lobbied to change the law, promoting the adoption of traffic statutes to supplant common law. The statutes were designed to restrict pedestrian use of the street and give primacy to cars. The idea of "jaywalking” – a concept that had not really existed prior to 1920 – was enshrined in law. (The Atlantic Cities)

Putting people first
We are now looking at this from the opposite end. Advocates are attempting to kick the car off its pedestal. The two pronged tactic involves changing mindsets on the one hand, and changing the infrastructure on the other.

Streetsblog has been working long to change mindsets with their regular online feature Weekly Carnage which shines a light on car crashes and traffic deaths/injuries. Inevitably very few drivers are changed. Transportation Alternatives of NYC also has an ongoing "Vision Zero NYC" campaign that wants the simple goals of zero deaths, zero injuries, zero fear of traffic. Like Motordom's PR campaign to blame the victim, the Vision Zero campaign is most powerful in changing peoples' mindsets. And in many cities, including Toronto, there are memorial rides whenever a cyclist is killed by a motorist.

The mindset isn't enough. Just as Motordom successfully rebuilt our cities around the automobile, now nothing less than a major restructuring is necessary to take back some space. That includes proper cycling infrastructure, better sidewalks and calmed streets so kids can once again go play in the middle of them.

The Toronto Parking Authority exists solely to subsidize drivers of private automobiles

Solar powered Toronto parking machine, Canada
Photo by phototouring.

I'm no fan of privatizing government services as a panacea, but when it comes to the Toronto Parking Authority I waver. The TPA, as the Toronto Star notes, was explicitly created to undercut the prices of private parking lots. The TPA was created in the '50s "after department stores complained customers weren't shopping downtown because of price gouging by private parking lot operators". I wonder if they bothered to measure and define "price gouging" versus a fair price, or if drivers just felt they were paying too much.

But then driving is not a cheap pastime and parking lots downtown aren't built cheaply. A parking operator downtown must purchase the expensive downtown land, and must make enough money off of parking to make it worthwhile. The owner of the land would probably also consider the alternative uses of that land. We can see that parking is just not as profitable as alternative uses by seeing just how many downtown parking lots are being turned into condos or commercial buildings.

The City has a by-law that limits what the TPA can charge drivers for on-street parking at $3.50 per hour. There is no such limit for public transit fees.

Red light running: the war on people

Warning: this video is graphic in its portrayal of the "war on cars".

If only these drivers were licensed! Oh wait. I can't believe just how many of the red light runners aren't slowing down at all. See scary, graphic video

Toronto, the city of "Bike Rage"

I find it rather interesting that after a summer of fuel provided by our media of the "war on the car" that it took so long for yet another case of Road Rage involving a motorist and a cyclist to occur. After all, this city is known for its Bike Rage, as evidenced here:

Toronto is at the top of the list for both "Drivers attacking cyclists" and "Cyclists attacking drivers." How's that for notoriety?

And now, the media's coverage of the Bryan/Sheppard incident is yet another example of Bike Rage that the world sees, like this:

Which leads to believe that the cyclists in the city aren't seeing the love that they've been promised by City Hall or from Queens Park, and that there are forces out there to keep cyclists "in their place." Meanwhile cyclists aren't content to put up with the awful excuse and behaviour that motorists call "driving" on our city's roads. I thought drivers are licensed, but not that you can tell. Motorists act like maniacs, and are constantly risking the lives of pedestrians, cyclists and each other. They have a deadly weapon under their control yet refuse to acknowledge it. No wonder when a motorist hits a cyclist (as Bryant is alleged to have to done to Sheppard) the cyclist "freaks on their hood" (as Sheppard is alleged to have done to Bryant's car).

Motor Mania

Goofy as Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde characters, Mr. Walker and Mr. Wheeler. As revealing of motorist behaviour and temperament now as in 1950. Admit it: even us cyclists get a bit rabid when behind a car wheel!

Highway 401 cuts Toronto in half

Very few Torontonians attempt to bike across the 401. riconroy has crossed and has survived to give us a video of how little you'd want to repeat that experience. That being said, I've crossed it many times - I hate doing it every time but I can do it well.

How's my Driving?

This interactive on-line “Driving Challenge” from the United Kingdom’s Department for Transport raises some great points about driving distractions, especially the widespread usage of mobile phones.

I missed 8 questions and 5 pedestrian points… think you can beat the Marginator?!? Take the test and post your score in the comments area. No spoilers please! Thanks to Anthony for bringing this link to my attention. Drive safe!

The start of the fall?

This advertisment is meant to offend. It is meant to insult everyone who rides a bike as having made an inferior choice to driving a car, and to insult cyclists' ability to pay for driving as if they were too poor.

It also insults cyclists' aesthetic sensibilities for wearing spandex. And it suggests that there is little or no choice for cyclists but to wear spandex. As is if the fashion industry has never before looked at cycling fashion, and there there is lack of choice of clothing that is comfortable and looks like anything resembling "normal". Or that cycling "sport" fashion is all there is for cyclists.

State Farm insurance has a reason for running an ad like this. They are scared that many people will actually like cycling, and that they won't have as many drivers/cars to insure. Since they don't have an insurance plan for cyclists, that means 100% lost revenues.

Driving, car ownership, even car culture is starting to wane. For many cycling has taken it's place. Cyclists are becoming better organised and are starting gain a voice. We are now the threat.

And I think that we will see more of this kind of defensive behavior from various areas of the motoring industry.

What do you think?

Syndicate content
pennyfarthing ok frye