In my work on car dependence and travel demand reduction, there is something that I have been fascinated and frustrated by in equal measure. Rarely have I had a personal or professional conversation about the need to reduce car dependence without immediately triggering an extreme reaction seemingly out of nowhere. It goes something like this:
“We cannot carry on expecting to be able to accommodate more and more cars and car use. Something needs to change.”
Response: “That’s impossible. People will not give up their cars”.
Or
“What do you think it would take for you to be able to reduce your own car use?”
Response: “There is no way I can give up my car.”
Or
“We are working on a project to encourage lower individual car ownership in your area”.
Response: “Why should we give up cars when no one else will?”
I think you can spot the pattern here.
Car reduction vs banning cars
It is curious, though, don’t you think? Let’s take another example. When you have conversations about the need to eat less, you are not automatically met with disbelief about being asked to stop eating altogether. Discussions about the need to consume less fast-fashion do not immediately provoke disgust about being asked to walk around naked!
So why do so many equate car reduction with a complete bans on cars?
This automatic, word-associative reaction to the idea of less car use can be likened to a ‘fight or flight’ response that is well-recognised as a standard stress response in the medical sciences.
However, I have yet to see the mobility and car dependence literature explicitly recognise this phenomenon. The idea has profound implications for efforts to influence behaviour because it blocks engagement with notions of change or opportunity. There is a similar phenomenon within the broader climate change literature. The ideas of ‘surrender’ or ‘change is impossible’ have been recognised as ‘discourses of climate delay’ used to justify inaction or inadequate efforts among all actors in society.
Car ‘All or Nothing’ Thinking (C’AN’T)
This reaction is prominent even among people who are, at least partially, accepting of the disbenefits of high levels of car use. Given this, it is fundamental to know how to mitigate against these impulses. To help with this, I propose a new term: Car ‘All or Nothing’ Thinking. C’AN’T requires dedicated handling in research, policy and political engagement so that more open, fruitful and constructive dialogue and actions can emerge.
In INFUZE, we will be holding conversations which implicitly or explicitly infer a different future role for the car in society. This is not the same as suggesting that the car is ‘given up’ – quite the opposite in fact. The idea is to recognise the central role that car use can play in our lives. Then we look at ways of providing car access without the economic and environmental burdens, injustices and constraints that private ownership demands.
However, unless we find the secret to ‘heading it off at the (im)pass’, C’AN’T will block the ability for most car users (and non-users) to work with us to develop a wide range of different positive ‘car-lite’ futures.
Changing the narrative
Part of the antidote to C’AN’T is likely to be to foreground conversations with how great cars can be and using this as a route to opening up a discussion about how to better accommodate them. Of course, this must also acknowledge that cars’ attractive attributes are arguably becoming greater all the time (e.g. increased digital connectivity and gadget-laden comforts), and some of their disadvantages are being mitigated (e.g. through electrification). It would be counterproductive to try and dismiss these developments, even if each of them brings their own burdens on individuals and society in terms of monetary, energy and material resources.
‘All or nothing’ thinking cannot be countered by ‘All or nothing’ thinking. For instance, suggesting that because electric cars are not totally environmentally benign, they are not worthy of any environmental credit would unnecessarily polarise the debate. Instead, we must learn to convincingly show that it is desirable, and most importantly possible, to live with fewer cars of whatever powertrain because of the multiple benefits that this will bring. Actually, if we do this right, there will be very little room for discourses of climate delay, as climate change will not need to be a focus of discussion.
We must now figure out how to leave little, or ideally no, room for C’AN’T and replace this with a CAN DO (Cars Are Necessary but Don’t Own) attitude.