Ian WalkerJan 17, 2023

We have a new study out!

The short version is this: "Car Brain" - the cultural blind spot that makes people apply double standards when they think about driving - is real, measurable and pervasive.

Read on for more details... 1/14 @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]

Show threadIan WalkerJan 17, 2023
This work was carried out with top-class humans @[email protected] and @[email protected]. We did something deliberately very simple: we had an independent polling agency contact a representative sample of 2157 people across the UK and ask them five questions 2/14
Show threadIan WalkerJan 17, 2023
Randomly, people either got questions about driving or they got the same set of questions with a couple of words changed so that they asked exactly the same things, but not about driving 3/14
Show threadIan WalkerJan 17, 2023

For example, half were asked if they agreed:

"People shouldn't drive in highly populated areas where other people have to breathe the car fumes"

and half got:

"People shouldn't smoke in highly populated areas where other people have to breathe the cigarette fumes"

4/14

Show threadIan WalkerJan 17, 2023

(We originally considered specific v general questions, e.g.,

"People driving cars in public places should be liable for any harm..."

"People operating machinery in public places should be liable..."

but decided that changing the context was neater and less subjective) 5/14

Show threadIan WalkerJan 17, 2023

Here's the full set of answers. As you can see, responses could change dramatically when driving was mentioned. All except Question 2 were hugely statistically different.

This doesn't make sense! The principle is the same in both forms of each question; only context changes 6/14

Show threadIan WalkerJan 17, 2023
What we demonstrated is an example of the "Special Pleading Fallacy" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading where certain specific cases get a free ride in thought and discourse. People selectively fail to apply the moral and ethical standards they would use in other contexts 7/14
Special pleading - Wikipedia

Show threadIan WalkerJan 17, 2023

Is this self-interest? Cognitive dissonance? Most people drive, so it might make sense they'd make excuses.

But no. We separated out the subset of people who didn't themselves drive and they basically responded the same as the drivers, also making special pleading for cars 8/

Show threadIan WalkerJan 17, 2023
This all required a deeper explanation. We interpreted the findings within a socio-ecological framework: each of us is surrounded by a series of social, physical and cultural environments that shape how we think and act. And how do these look when it comes to motoring...? 9/14
Show threadIan WalkerJan 17, 2023
We routinely see people driving short distances, speeding, parking badly, all while given priority over pedestrians; free parking; urban and residential streets designed for fast driving; subsidies; lax enforcement of traffic laws; clearly deadly vehicles made legal... 10/14
Show threadIan WalkerJan 17, 2023
Growing up surrounded by that environment, people internalise the idea that fast, untrammelled, near-consequence-free motoring is normal and, moreover, people conclude that *this must surely be the proper way of things*. In our paper we call this mindset "Motonormativity" 11/14
Show threadIan WalkerJan 17, 2023
We chose this term to draw parallels with other areas such as heteronormativity, where similarly a certain perspective unthinkingly gets accepted as both normal and proper, with other groups obliged to accommodate this https://www.simplypsychology.org/what-is-heteronormativity.html 12/14
What Is Heteronormativity?

Show threadIan WalkerJan 17, 2023
We suggest this mindset isn't just present in the public, it's also endemic in policymakers and people who look after public health. This explains a lot of planning and policy decisions: they make sense if you assume everyone drives and that this can't, or shouldn't, change 13/14
Show threadIan WalkerJan 17, 2023

We end with a call for policymakers to recognise their unconscious and institutional biases and to implement mechanisms to overcome them in planning and health decisions.

You can read the full paper here for free https://psyarxiv.com/egnmj

Thanks for reading! 14/14

Show threadPepijnJan 17, 2023

@ianwalker

Hi. Thanks for sharing, interesting!

Having only read the summary and looked at your thread I do wonder how you took in account people not only perceiving different risks but risks actually being on a different level or coming from a different source. Ci and Cii for example appear very different to me as the deciding agent (private choice for various reasons vs work where there's always dependency) is not always the same.

Show threadIan WalkerJan 17, 2023
@Pepijn The goal was really to show biases when driving is compared across a range of more neutral topics. If we ONLY did driving v working we'd need to worry about objective data more, but that wasn't really the aim here which was primarily to provide an illustration of a phenomenon that we suspected existed
Show threadDavid Hembrow
@ianwalker @Pepijn I think this bias is something we've all come across before. Certainly, interactions I've had with people in the past where I've asked similar questions have resulted in similar reactions to those which you found in your research.
Anyway, I just want to thank you for doing this research as we now have something other than anecdote to point at.
Jan 17, 2023 at 8:16amWeb
Show threadPepijnJan 17, 2023

@hembrow @ianwalker

As a Dutch person who lived in the UK (Wales) I suspect most people are aware of their own anti-cycling/walking bias but not their own pro-car bias.

I wonder how this is in the Netherlands though: my theory is that a much lower percentage has a anti-cycling/walking bias but a similar portion has the pro-car bias.*

Is either of you aware of research on this?

*leading to things where at stations there's free car parking and (good) paid bike parking and no-one bats an eye

Show threadDavid HembrowJan 17, 2023
@Pepijn @ianwalker That's pretty much how I see it as well. Dutch people are rarely anti-cycle (though many are anti-cycling subset - e.g. don't like racers or cargo bikes or recumbents or any other group of cyclists who they perceive as an out-group) but they're also very pro-car and unfortunately that spills over into areas which damage cycling. Not only with paid parking, but also in the increasing trend to ban cycling in shopping streets. This maximises convenience for those who drove to the centre of town and who don't want to see any bicycles once they're there, but it makes cycling for everyday purposes far less convenient and provides a push towards car ownership and use.
Show threadPepijnJan 17, 2023

@hembrow @ianwalker Solid point on the shopping streets trend. And more and more not even walking with a bicycle is permitted as it's seen as a dirty vehicle that needs to be parked on centralized dedicated infrastructure outside of the shopping zone.

Anecdotal: As I travel a lot with a small foldable bicycle (with a bag around it if it's actually dirty) the Netherlands has been the only country where I got shit for having it with me in shops.

Show threadPepijnJan 17, 2023
@hembrow @ianwalker To be fair: In old cramped and busy pedestrian areas I kinda get the "step of the bicycle and walk with it until you can leave it in front of the shop". This is for example how it has been since the 80s in some streets in my small hometown.
Show threadDavid HembrowJan 17, 2023
@Pepijn @ianwalker That can be the case, but it's not always cramped streets where this happens. There's an example near me in NL of a recent development with wide streets which was designed from day one to provide an essential direct route bikes but where cycling is now banned.
I also saw similar things in the UK in the past. Cycling was banned from central streets of Cambridge in the early 1990s (they "pedestrianized", excluding both cars and bikes as if both these things caused the same harm) and this was the catalyst for the formation of the Cambridge Cycling Campaign. That absurd ban had the effect of forcing cyclists onto longer routes along unpleasantly busy roads which operated as an inner ring road for cars.
If a street was one day a busy through route for cars I find it absurd that the suggestion is that it transformed overnight into a place which couldn't accommodate bicycles.
Show threadPepijnJan 17, 2023

@hembrow @ianwalker Oh yes, absolutely agreed.

It often seems to be linked to what is promoted as "modernizing a car centered street and making it more of an attractive public space" but in effect ends up being a slow-speed pedestrian area.
On of those where commercial activities (spread out outdoor sitting from restaurants, display carts from shops etc) own the public space and cycling is impossible as it was made impractical and almost "antisocial".

Show threadKees AntiFA van MalssenJan 17, 2023

@Pepijn @hembrow @ianwalker To be honest, parking (either car or bike) policies are very much depending on the station you are at. Most stations have at least some free bike parking of reasonable quality, some have also paid (guarded) bike parking. Many have paid car parking and some have also free car parking.

This applies to The Netherlands.