Ending The War on the Car: How Cyclists Might Talk To Conservatives and Drivers

by Lloyd Alter, Toronto

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/01/ending-the-war-on-the-car.php

The phrase "war on the car" was common in Toronto, Canada whenever a bike lane was installed or new dedicated streetcar lanes proposed. The war quieted down for a while, until the new Mayor rode the meme to victory over bike-riding pinko kooks. Eric De Place at Sightline Daily traces the etymology of the phrase, and found references going back to 1998, but notes that it has generally been limited in use to Toronto and Seattle. But, as in Toronto, it seems to be gaining strength again in Seattle and even nationally. Now it has jumped the Atlantic to the UK, where it is called the War on the Motorist.

De Place writes:

On September 29, almost as if on cue, conservative blogger Stefan Sharkansky wrote a short post about Seattle's new mayor called "Mike McGinn's War On Cars" and dyspeptic radio host Ken Schram aired a segment about "the war on cars."...By mid-October, Fox News had jumped into the fray. Seattle-based reporter Dan Springer led the charge with the language, generating both local and national versions of the same story, "Seattle's War On Cars," on October 13.

Now it has jumped the Atlantic to the UK, as the War on the Motorist. George Monbiot writes in the Guardian about recent government moves that he considers to be a war on pedestrians and cyclists.

The two men who have just announced that they will "end the war on the motorist" - Philip Hammond, the transport secretary, and Eric Pickles, the communities secretary - are living in a dream world. Or, perhaps more accurately, a media world, in which the fantasies of the rightwing tabloids are treated as if they were reality...... If "the war on the motorist" means the puny and half-hearted measures designed to ensure that drivers couldn't push everyone else out of the way, the government announcement that it has come to an end means that we will lose any hope of ensuring that transport is built around the needs of society. Instead, all other human life will have to make way for the car.

That truly does sound familiar. But perhaps there is a way to change the discussion, to take the advice of cyclist Tom Bowden about How to Talk About Cycling to a Conservative. He asks,

What makes you think cycling isn't conservative? Of course it is! It conserves energy, it's individualistic, and it's anything but new-fangled. So they should be receptive.

He suggests avoiding anti-car arguments:

Face it: cars exist and most Americans love them. You'll get nowhere with a conservative if your explicit agenda (or suspected hidden agenda) is an attack on American "car culture."

Don't talk about Copenhagen or Amsterdam:

Refrain from gushing praise of European cycling culture, e.g. the Dutch, the Danes, or whoever. Conservatives are not inclined to emulate pre-colonial imperialist has-beens - at least not consciously.

He concludes:

So. Bottom line (and that is what conservatives like to think they are all about): Cycling saves money, saves lives and makes us stronger as individuals and as a nation. Spending money to support cycling is like putting money in the bank-it pays big dividends at low risk. It's as all American as Mom's apple pie. How much more conservative can you get?

James Schwartz of the Urban Country is a little bit more tongue in cheek as he suggests that motorists should thank cyclists for being on the road. But if one loses the snark, there are some good points to be made in promoting cycling to those who do not.


You're welcome Mr. Motorist. I'm happy that my mode of transportation has allowed more space on the road for you to get to your destination more efficiently. One less car on the road to get in your way and increase congestion, right?

And oh those health care costs. Did you know that heart disease and strokes are two of the top three causes of death in Canada? In America, cardiovascular diseases and stroke cost an estimated $475.3 billion in 2009.

Isn't it great that my commute helps keep me healthy so I can help reduce our health care costs? I would hate to be a burden on your pocketbook.

And how about those gas prices? Isn't it wonderful that my bicycle doesn't require gasoline? It'd be a shame if I contributed to increasing demand for fuel - driving gas prices even higher.

Bicycles should be a libertarian's best friend; their infrastructure uses up very little government resources, they enable people to travel whenever they want without relying on a fixed schedule, laws are very loosely regulated, you don't need a licence to operate one, the government doesn't keep track of who owns a bicycle or how many they own, and bike companies are all private companies that have never received government bailouts or operating subsidies.

With the exception of the freedom from a schedule, the automobile has none of these aspects.

Hipster Duck said:

Bicycles should be a libertarian's best friend; their infrastructure uses up very little government resources, they enable people to travel whenever they want without relying on a fixed schedule, laws are very loosely regulated, you don't need a licence to operate one, the government doesn't keep track of who owns a bicycle or how many they own, and bike companies are all private companies that have never received government bailouts or operating subsidies.

With the exception of the freedom from a schedule, the automobile has none of these aspects.

Click to expand...

Too much logic for them to understand. Fox News says it's bad, then it must be bad. In Beck they trust.

I think it's a good idea to end the war on cars. Cycling has lots of pros on its own.

Coruscanti Cognoscente said:

I think it's a good idea to end the war on cars. Cycling has lots of pros on its own.

Click to expand...

Could you explain what you mean? Cycling to work and to buy groceries requires bicycle infrastructure along routes that go directly from point A to point B. In other words, the way to encourage it is to put bicycle lanes along major arterials.

However, if I understand the "war on the car" stuff correctly, putting in bicycle lanes along major arterials is war on the car.

How do you reconcile the two?

Or are you thinking of cycling as a way of touring parks and the countryside for recreation rather than as a means of transportation?

leopetr said:

Could you explain what you mean? Cycling to work and to buy groceries requires bicycle infrastructure along routes that go directly from point A to point B. In other words, the way to encourage it is to put bicycle lanes along major arterials.

However, if I understand the "war on the car" stuff correctly, putting in bicycle lanes along major arterials is war on the car.

How do you reconcile the two?

Or are you thinking of cycling as a way of touring parks and the countryside for recreation rather than as a means of transportation?

Click to expand...

The 'war on the car' idea stems from the prospect of reducing lanes of traffic for bikes and streetcars etc., making the gridlock streets even gridlockier (well, you know what I mean). At the end of the day however these sorts of ideas are divisive and polarizing. I can't imagine that most wouldn't advocate for, or dare to envision, a city with an extensive network of subways swishing around unimpeded underground, freeing the surface streets for a supportive network of LRTs, for wider pedestrian walkways, and for an extensive system of bike lanes... all of which resulting in less traffic by offering efficient and convenient alternatives. All the griping just seems to be about how we get from where we are now to there.