‘Car brain’ is how Dr Ian Walker describes the cultural blind spot that makes people apply double standards when they think about driving. In his latest study, he demonstrates how motornomativity is real, measurable and pervasive.
We’ve been listening to a fascinating podcast about our unconscious bias in favour of cars, and how those assumptions shape our streets and hold back the changes needed to create safer roads.
Is it acceptable to cause harm to another person? To steal? To take a flexible approach to health and safety regulations to save a little time? According to new research by Dr Ian Walker, it can depend on whether or not a car is involved.
You might already be familiar with the work of Ian Walker professor of environmental psychology at Swansea University. His research focuses on unconscious causes of everyday behaviour like habits, the environment around us and unconscious stereotypes. He has gained widespread recognition for his work including studies on drivers overtaking cyclists, and a study about how drivers react to cyclists wearing high-vis.
Our collective unconscious bias towards cars was highlighted in a simplistic way by a Norwegian road safety campaign some years ago. The film shows a man using his supermarket trolley in an antisocial way and at one point blasting fellow shoppers with an air horn so he can barge his way to the tills.
Dr Walker was kind enough to be interviewed by us for our documentary about road harm reduction. In it speaks about the cognitive dissonance surrounding attitudes to dangerous drivers.
The ethical choice
The ETA was established in 1990 as an ethical provider of green, reliable travel services. Over 30 years on, we continue to offer cycle insurance , breakdown cover and mobility scooter insurance while putting concern for the environment at the heart of all we do.
The Good Shopping Guide judges us to be the UK’s most ethical provider.
Hilary
Car ownership is now seen to be an “essential”. What shocks me is that people prioritise paying for a car over paying for food and shelter for themselves and their children. For example, see this article:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-51551931
(or search for “BBC debt mentor”).
I myself knew someone who couldn’t always afford his rent, yet was able to pay for a car!
I recently received a “Thank you” leaflet from Shelter. In it one of the homeless people they helped said: “I had nothing left at all. I looked at my car …” !!!!!!!
When I had a car I added up all the costs and calculated that it cost me £3000 a year and 90p per mile without petrol. I don’t know if mine was an extreme case or if I’m just the only person who actually records all their car costs.
I consider a car to be a luxury I can’t afford… yet I’m subsidising people who insist on having this luxury. When did we get into this crazy situation?
I’m slowly realising that people don’t actually realise how much their car costs and I’m thinking there needs to be a campaign to raise awareness about how much people could save if they didn’t have a car.
E
You are absolutely right about this, the cost of cars is crazy and for 90% of people by no means essential. It’s bizarre to me how the cost of petrol is seemingly more important than the cost of food or rent according to our media.
I agree with the campaign idea. Maybe we should expand scrappage schemes which are currently geared around ‘upgrading’ to a newer vehicle to just give a cash grant to those who want to give up the vehicle and not replace it.
I consider myself to not have the income to support owning a car, though I could easy afford to purchase a car, insurance etc with the cash I have, and yet there are people who run themselves into the ground paying for car all the while they complain about VAT on fuel, complain about VED and whatnot despite their driving costing the state ~£20,000 per year (cost of maintaining roads in the UK divided equally by number of vehicles) and what really gets me is that these same people say that railway electrification, frequent buses or HS2 are unaffordable – which couldn’t be further from the truth.