How To NOT Promote Better Streets For Bikes & Pedestrians

Join daily news updates from CleanTechnica on e-mail. Or follow us on Google News!

A pair weeks in the past, I got here throughout an article that advocated for better pedestrian and cyclist safety. Whereas no person needs individuals to be unsafe and no person likes seeing demise and destruction, there are a number of clichéd issues the article does that I see on a regular basis, they usually’re not good for the trigger the writer (and others like them) advocate for.

On this article, I wish to clarify why the urbanist echo chamber is holding again progress, each by alienating the general public and by turning pedestrian security right into a needlessly divisive subject. As a substitute of preaching to the urbanist choir, more practical communication is badly wanted for the broader public.

Earlier than I dig into the issues, I wish to make it clear that the article I linked to makes some very legitimate and necessary factors. The perfect one was that there are sometimes a number of streets which might be way more harmful than others, and with some inventive engineering, these streets may be made so much safer. It additionally makes the purpose that this shouldn’t be a “drivers versus pedestrians” downside, as no person basically opposes lowering useless deaths.

However, earlier than a reader can get to those factors, they’re bombarded with issues that impress urbanists however trigger most individuals’s eyes to roll (proper as they click on the again button). Let’s discuss a number of of those strategic communication errors.

“Traffic Violence”

One large one is the usage of the time period “traffic violence”. I get that there’s an excessive amount of harmful and even lethal pressure concerned in a automotive accident, particularly once you’re not in a automotive your self. However, to make use of the phrase violence implies intent.

The dictionary definition of violence is both “behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.” or “the unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force.”

Whereas there are definitely conditions like highway rage the place visitors violence is kind of actual, somebody doing one thing silly that by accident hurts somebody merely doesn’t meet the definition of the phrase “violence”. It’s dangerous, and it’s one thing we have to stop when potential, however after we name issues violence that aren’t violence, individuals discover that.

Drivers know that the misuse of the phrase in opposition to them as a category is pushed by malice and hatred. It’s a type of bigotry. So, like all petty bigotries, drivers reply to it by discounting the remainder of the message the speaker is making an attempt to convey. As soon as such a divisive time period is used, something good you might have to say after that falls on deaf ears.

Attacking Automobile Alternative

If there’s one factor Republicans have confirmed over the previous couple of years, it’s that folks hate having their selections taken away. Going after abortion, the LGBT group, and even freedom of speech was so detrimental to the conservative trigger that even a midterm election that ought to have been handily received was pink foam as a substitute of the expected “red wave”.

However, when one is sitting outdoors of the conservative milieu, it’s simpler to see that error than when one lives within the conservative echo chamber. As a substitute of seeing the inevitable results of pushing unpopular and divisive public coverage, most of the most dedicated Republicans are nonetheless crying election fraud. They merely can’t consider that with all of their mates on-line hating Democrats, abortion, and transgender people who their facet might probably lose an election.

These urbanists make a really related mistake, and might’t see it for precisely the identical cause. The very fact is that Individuals love vehicles and SUVs. Is it foolish for a man who works in a cubicle, by no means tows, and by no means drives on filth to drive an F-250 round? Certain. However, he’s hardly alone in making that selection. Thousands and thousands and hundreds of thousands of Individuals need “bigger and more lethal” autos, and since the overwhelming majority of them have by no means hit a pedestrian and by no means will hit a pedestrian, the concept they should change to a bizarre little wedge automotive is seen as an unreasonable assault on their proper to purchase a automobile of their selection.

When urbanists attempt to inform all of those people who they shouldn’t be allowed to personal the automobile they selected, we shouldn’t be stunned once they reject all the urbanist message.

Calling For Pace Limiters On Autos

However, there’s an much more loopy factor urbanists just like the writer are calling for that make drivers really feel like their freedom is beneath even higher assault: calling for automobile pace limiters.

CalBike is sponsoring the Secure Autos Save Lives Invoice, SB 961. Senator Scott Wiener’s invoice will mandate two security measures: pace limiters on passenger autos and facet guards on freight vehicles. https://t.co/oAMIw5S0B9

— California Bicycle Coalition (@CalBike) April 6, 2024

Right here’s the factor: when somebody buys a automotive, they need it to be their automotive. They management it. And, as George Carlin mentioned, everybody who drives slower than us is an fool and everybody who drives quicker than us is a maniac. All of us pace a bit of, however once more, only a few drivers have ever struck a pedestrian or prompted a significant accident. So, when urbanists ask us to put in a cybernanny in our automotive, that’s an enormous turn-off.

Even when the urbanists are 100% proper about all the things, it received’t matter with out public help. You would possibly be capable to get away with pace limiters and pickup truck bans in probably the most city components of California and New York, however everybody else goes to fly you the hen at election time and battle you tooth and nail between elections.

Different Techniques To Strive

As a substitute of making an attempt to make individuals really feel like shit and really feel like they should give one thing up, security advocates as a substitute want to inform drivers what’s in it for them! Right here’s what I’d do if I had been an urbanist:

• As a substitute of speaking about pedestrian security, discuss how we are able to make streets higher for everybody (together with drivers!)
• As a substitute of speaking solely about making room for bikes, discuss how bike infrastructure and guarded lanes helps hold bikes out of visitors lanes and out of drivers’ manner.
• As a substitute of solely specializing in how intersections may be made higher for pedestrians, we are able to additionally level out that fewer conflicts means the intersection is less complicated and fewer anxious for drivers.
• We will additionally level out effectivity benefits to safer streets, discuss how going a bit of slower (because of engineering modifications, not punitive cybernannies) can get you there quicker ultimately, and in any other case discuss up effectivity. In any case, security is extra environment friendly, so let’s promote the effectivity.
• Avoid advocating for divisive coverage that turns it right into a “drivers vs pedestrians” battle.

Featured picture by Jennifer Sensiba.