We face a global epidemic of physical injuries; physical inactivity; and air pollution.
354,272; that is the number of U.S citizens who lost their lives in car accidents, with additional 17,5 million receiving injuries requiring medical attention between 2011-2020. In 2022 alone, 1,293 children aged 0-15 perished in car accidents, with another 157,000 same aged children being involved in car crashes, with total deaths for that year being 42,795. In recent years, traffic related deaths have been on the rise in the USA.
In 2019, car accidents were estimated to cause 340 billion USD in direct costs, with taxpayers accounting for 9% (230$ per household in added taxes), and with quality-of-life valuations taken into account, the total societal harm of motor vehicle crashes was nearly 1,4 trillion $ for that year. [NHTSA]
Globally, 1,2 million people die as a result of road traffic accidents each year, according to Word Health Organization (WHO).
In the U.S, lack of physical activity accounts for 22 percent of coronary heart disease, 22 percent of colon cancer, 18 percent of osteoporotic fractures, 12 percent of diabetes and hypertension, and 5 percent of breast cancer. Moreover, between 1999 and 2015, adult obesity rate increased from 30.5 percent to 39.5 percent.
Only 10% of all trips are made by active mobility (walking, cycling) in the U.S, despite trips less than 2 miles in length accounting for 33% of all journeys, with those less than 3 miles accounting for 43% of all journeys. [NHTSA 2009]
Globally, insufficient physical activity is the 4th leading risk factor for mortality, with 3,2 million deaths attributed to it each year. [WHO]
Recent research finds that, 5,1 million annual deaths are attributed directly to fossil fuel usage. The same study finds that in high income countries, such as the USA, air pollution from fossil fuel usage accounts for around 80 percent of all air pollution related deaths.
University of Melbourne, Australia, estimates that 11,105 premature deaths, 12,210 cardiovascular hospitalizations, 6,840 respiratory hospitalizations and 66,000 active asthma cases may be caused by vehicle emissions each year in Australia (population 26 million). This is particularly worrying, as 20% of U.S citizens live near high volume roads.
Of these, only tailpipe pollution would be eliminated, should EVs replace all ICEVs (Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles). At the same time, however, tire and brake pad wear and tear would increase, as the weight of vehicles increase.
Brake dust alone is 3 times greater source of PM 2.5 particle pollution compared to tailpipe exhaust. In fact, it is estimated that only 7% of PM 2.5 particle pollution from traffic comes from tailpipe exhaust, while 20% comes from brake dust.
While brake dust is bad, tire dust is arguably much worse, it is responsible for 78% of all microplastics in oceans, with EVs releasing 20% more toxic tire particles than their ICE counterparts. You can read more about tire pollution from here.
How motonormativity affects our critical thinking
With a mountain of evidence on the devastating health effects of individual vehicular traffic, how is it then that we continue almost exclusively plan and build for the car, instead of prioritizing people and their health?
This brings us to the main theme; motonormativity. What is it? How does it appear? And how does it affect our day-to-day decisions?
The study, which discovered the term, characterize the phenomenon of motonormativity as “Cultural inability to think objectively and dispassionately in the specific context of individual motor transportation”. An explanatory reason is given “This is because of shared, largely unconscious assumptions about how travel is, and must continue to be, primarily a car-based activity”.
For the study, which was led by Professor Ian Walker from the University of Swansea, 2157 UK adults were given a set of statements on driving-related risks or near identical query, with a couple of words changed, which they rated from strongly agree to strongly disagree.
One of the questions is: (“People shouldn’t drive in highly populated areas where other people have to breathe in the car fumes”), with its counterpart being: (People shouldn’t smoke in highly populated areas where other people have to breathe in the cigarette fumes”). When the question was about smoking, 75% agreed, while only 10% disagreed. When the question was about driving, 52% of the respondents disagreed, with only 17% agreeing and rest being neutral.
Of course, it makes no sense to say that people inhaling toxic air from cars is fine, while saying that smoking is a problem. The effects of both are the same, but people judged them differently. Interestingly, even when omitting those that did not own a car, the answers stayed the same, showing just how rooted motonormativity is in our critical thinking process.
Overlooking things like car related pollution is just one way in which motonormativity appears. Others, more in plain sight, include things like “allowing essential facilities to be placed in out-of-town locations when millions of UK homes have no car”, the study notes. In the UK, 20% of households do not own a car, which translated to over 13 million people.
Or doing the very opposite of what every available research shows, that widening roads do not reduce congestion due to the phenomenon of induced demand. Or constructing transit stops almost exclusively or for car commuters, for example, Antioch BART station and Route 59 Metra station.
Less obvious consequences include things like not allowing parking lot sized-gardens on streets, just because they’re not cars. Or prohibiting teens from playing violent video games, while allowing them to get a driver’s license. Or deaths from car accidents being overlooked compared to other types of deaths. Think of school shootings, every time those tragic events happen, they are covered all over the news, but how many times have you heard of stories about all those children who lost their lives or got seriously injured because of cars?
In a separate interview, Professor Ian Walker gives an example of how motonormativity affects political decisions:
“If you asked a politician whether a new hospital should be inaccessible to one-fifth of the population, obviously they’d say no”.
“Whereas if you asked that same politician whether a hospital should be built on the edge of town, it’s likely that many wouldn’t see the problem, if they have a form of mindset we’re looking at. But in practice, having the hospital outside town is not that different from making it inaccessible when a fifth of households don’t have a car.”
Breaking out of the habit
As one line of the study says, “we find ourselves in the same sort of uncomfortable state as the slowly boiled frog”. Therefore, we have two choices, we can continue being frogs and face the ever more drastic consequences, or smarten up and jump out of the water before it’s too late. We did it with smoking, we can do it with cars as well.
Now, what can you do? Well, the first thing you probably should do, is to read the study by yourself to gain a better understanding of the subject matter.
There is little personal advice I can give, as I’m still processing all of this myself, but try to take some time and think about the different biased ways you view driving, and that what you could do to break away from that type of uncritical thinking.