The Motorist's Identity Crisis

Bicyclists and transit riders are losers - right? Or are they elitist, sneering yuppies? Brian Ladd says that people's attitudes and transportation choices are shaped by deep-seated feelings about respectability, and it planners should pay attention.

Non-motorists often wonder why drivers seem so oblivious to their needs and even their safety. Todd Litman's recent Planetizen post on "The Selfish Automobile" argues persuasively that motorists' sense of entitlement has grown out of plans and hidden subsidies that stack the deck in their favor, while appearing to do the opposite. Automobile dependence, as he describes it, has structural causes and psychological effects. Attitudes, though, can carry their own power. Auto-centered planning and auto-centered lives have made it hard for American motorists even to imagine alternative transportation. The idea of getting around without a car has been just too frighteningly gauche to contemplate. But that may be changing.

A car advertisement picturing a bus that says CREEPS AND WEIRDOS on the front.Most Americans know one thing about the bicyclists they see on the roads: they are losers, and you thank God you're not one of them. Who, after all, rides bikes (at least for transportation, not recreation) in the United States? Mostly kids who aren't old enough to drive-and not even so many of them anymore. Adult cyclists are seen as people too poor to own a car, or too dysfunctional to have a license: grizzled misfits and dark-skinned immigrants you see wobbling along the side of your suburban highway as you zoom past their elbows. Hollywood, as Tom Vanderbilt has shown in a recent Slate article, powerfully reinforces this contempt for the carless.

The reality of biking and bikers is, of course, more complicated. But even the fantasy is more complicated. In American cities with newly thriving bike cultures, cyclists have acquired an entirely different image: as arrogant yuppies. Just look at the letters column or the comments thread any time a daily newspaper publishes a story about bike lanes or shared streets. One motorist after another rages against the privileged spandex crowd that interferes with ordinary working stiffs trying to drive to work: They should be banned from the roads! The police need to crack down on them! Why do we have to get licenses and pay taxes, while they don't? Life is so unfair for us motorists! The venom is often shocking, but the sentiments are heartfelt--even if a cyclist, just home from her daily brush with death, can only shake her head in disbelief.

But wait: weren't motorists the superior ones? Who's sneering at whom here? Could it be that motorists are sitting a little uneasily in their driver's seats? It's harder to dismiss cyclists as beneath contempt when you suspect that they might just be contemptuous of you. What's a poor motorist to think? They've always known that bicyclists are scum, but now they aren't quite sure why.

The same confusion applies to transit users. Here the dichotomy is older and clearer: buses versus trains. On the one hand, you have the image of the typical bus rider (outside of Manhattan and perhaps a few other exclusive locales): the definitive loser. According to a saying that circulates in England, and is often falsely attributed to Margaret Thatcher, a man who has reached the age of thirty and still rides the bus can count himself a failure in life. American bus riders, probably even more than their British counterparts, are painfully aware of what passing motorists think of them. After all, they learned it in high school, where the world divides between kids with cars and those condemned to ride to school in the yellow "loser cruiser."

When a Los Angeles bus rider asked presidential candidate George W. Bush about transit improvements in 2000, Bush responded, "My hope is that you will be able to find good enough work so you'll be able to afford a car." Bush was undoubtedly sincere. Like many Americans-probably most-he saw a bus (like a bicycle) as a nothing more than a pathetic substitute for a car.

On the other hand, the commuter train has survived the entire auto age in several of our older cities, and its clientele has held onto its moderately exclusive image. In the long-vanished age of the "family car"-that is, when there was only one per family-the suburban housewife dropped off her suit-clad husband at the rail station, so she could have the station wagon (that's where the name comes from) for the day. Most suburban commuter lines still do, in fact, serve a fairly upscale clientele: just look at the parking lots. Meanwhile, many U.S. cities without these legacy systems are building new light-rail lines, which are clearly angling for prosperous riders who either own cars or could afford them. Even where these lines are not claiming street space from cars, they are competing for scarce transportation dollars that could be used to build roads. Understandably, some motorists are suspicious of-or simply bewildered by--what appear to be efforts to make mass transit fashionable.

It is easy for number-crunching economists and planners to ignore the power of fashion, but we do so at our peril. People's attitudes and transportation choices are shaped by deep-seated feelings about respectability. This is not to suggest that the practical advantages of cars (whether dependent on subsidies or not) don't matter. They have made it easy for American motorists to avoid contemplating their transportation choices. If at all possible, you drive. Anything else seems inconvenient, uncomfortable--and certainly embarrassing. So the average driver, like the apocryphal Margaret Thatcher and the real George W. Bush, finds bicyclists and bus riders either pitiful or incomprehensible--and politicians cannot resist demonizing bike-friendly policies.

But if cyclists and transit users no longer seem to envy motorists, then motorists might be facing a crisis of confidence. In the short run, their insecurity may harden attitudes, as anxious drivers cling to their steering wheels and rage against the trendsetters. But change may be coming. If teenagers' desire to drive continues to weaken, if Hollywood begins to give bikes and buses a trendy aura, we will know that the tides of fashion are changing. If cars cease to be the essential token of respectability-if you can be cool without one-then the automakers may be in deeper trouble than they think.

For a long time to come, cars will remain the most practical choice for many people. But motorists' anger and defensiveness may itself be evidence of a cultural revolution in the making.

Brian Ladd is an urban historian and author of the book Autophobia: Love and Hate in the Automotive Age.



car free and happy

This is a excellent analysis of the attitudes motorists have about non-motorists and vice versa. I hope, though, that you update the analysis with some finer gradations of attitude. I know some motorists who would love to give up their car if they could see a way to do that effectively. I don't dislike motorists, but I've been car-free for several decades. I know my attitude has a certain amount of smugness and self-satisfaction--but it is borne out of realizing how much money I've saving every day, how much my health has improved, how satisfying it is not to worry about car parking, maintenance, insurance, and other things. I enjoy the city and my life more by being car-free--a wonderful feeling. I believe that once more people get a taste of freedom from a car, the auto lobbies are going to have to step up publicity and public policy (campaign donations to politicians) and political polarizations to keep people attached to their cars.

Car free

I was carfree in Seattle area for several years and an avid bike commuter in California for a decade before that.

It is not for everyone. Or even for a significant fraction of the population, especially an aging one. Cutting VMT by half is an excellent end point in many current built environments.



Lots of people really have

Lots of people really have no choice but to own a car and drive, for lots more it is the most sensible option. Being in a position to make a positive choice NOT to own a car (while still being mobile, able to access a good job, retail, leisure, etc.) is largely a luxury for those able to live in larger, densely-populated cities which can support good public transport and have short travel distances. It helps if you choose to be childless too.

Many of the European cities offer this option - albeit partly through making car use inconvenient and expensive - but come over here and see the thousands of beautiful women riding serenely around Copenhagen and Amsterdam (and increasingly London and Paris) and then see who feels like a loser!

Who Is the Loser?

"Being in a position to make a positive choice NOT to own a car (while still being mobile, able to access a good job, retail, leisure, etc.) is largely a luxury for those able to live in larger, densely-populated cities which can support good public transport and have short travel distances."

And it follows that those who are auto-dependent are the losers who cannot afford this luxury.

I am exaggerating a bit, but often it is true. More affluent people live in cities or older neighborhoods where they have the option of walking or using transit. Less affluent people have to drive till they qualify and end up living in sprawl suburbs where they have no choice but to drive.

Charles Siegel

Urban design people from giving up their cars

It seems so ridiculous that not owning a car is a luxury rather than the other way around, but it is unfortunately true. Segregated land-uses and poor connectivity within and between neighbourhoods make for long and convoluted bus routing, which makes the provision of efficient transit service impossible. Of course transit isn't a good option when there is no possible way to provide frequent direct service!

We need to ensure that existing neighbourhoods are retrofitted to allow for better transit, bicycle and pedestrian connections, that new neighbourhoods are built better, and that more urban infill development is done. The best non-technical way I've heard it expressed is that neighbourhoods need to be arranged so that they are "on the way" for a bus travelling a simple route between two terminals.

A simple solution

I have affixed the hood ornament from my car to the top of my bike helmet, so everybody understands that I possess enough wealth to own a car but only choose to ride a bicycle. However, since I'm married, I suppose this practice is no longer necessary to attract a mate.

Keep on Sigh-klyn

HaHa.. The wagon needs fixin, jake. Gettur dun in electric. Hybrid seems simplest to me. Gas first. Add battery. Don't even tell me a fuel cell apparatus-thing, like GM's still spending money on, is simpler, no way. Well, ya'll keep on truckin, oops, keep on sigh-klyn.

who is the loser

I'm guessing that the fat person is in the car and the skinny person is riding a bike and taking mass transit. Who looks like the loser?

Who would win?

Very good article and insightful comments.

I'm all for a little competitive argument between different transport users, it is good to be in a democracy and have choice. However, when one group can absolutely demolish the other with a slight 5 degree turn of the steering wheel, the other group can only be so bold. As the bus stereotypes have their basis, at least they don't really have the capacity to harm anyone. It scares me when I ride down an on-street bike lane and remember all the shady people I've seen renewing their licenses at the DMV...

I'll be the first to admit that after being carfree for 4 years now, I have actually grown to be terrified of cars. Who hasn't been waiting at the tram or bus stop on a busy street and just stepped a little to the left to get behind the nearest lightpole or trashcan, just in case.

The other day while I was attempting to finish 'Angry Birds' on the bus, I glanced towards the metal and glass barrier between me and the adjacent hummer, and breathed a sigh of relief.

Brian Labadie

'Going Car-Free' is Only Elitist on Opposite Day

Check it out. This article really sums up what I've been thinking for a long time.

Prepare for the AICP* Exam

Join the thousands of students who have utilized the Planetizen AICP* Exam Preparation Class to prepare for the American Planning Association's AICP* exam.
Starting at $245

Essential Readings in Urban Planning

Planning on taking the AICP* Exam? Register for Planetizen's AICP * Exam Preparation Course to save $25.
Melissa and Doug Town Blocks Wooden Play Set

Block play meets role play

New! Town block set from Melissa and Doug Toys

Get the "Green Bible" of planning books

Understand the complexities of planning at the local level while preparing for the AICP* exam.