Motonormativity - risk when driving
Discussion
Morning all,
This is a thought provoking article, about how people are willing to accept higher risks in relation to motoring, than in other activities.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/17/moto...
From a sample of 2000, the Swansea professor has asked questions, and found greatly different acceptance rates when the premise is swapped to motoring. Ie
- is it acceptable to smoke cigarettes in densely populated areas, and then changed the words "smoking cigarettes" to "driving".
And
- risk is a natural part of driving / risk is a natural part of working
The study make the point people (ie politicians, policy makers) don't use the same standards when comparing things. They have a word for this - special pleading.
Now: the reason for the post.
My uni career left me in no doubt where teaching students stuff comes in the pecking order Vs raising academic profile and funded research.
Me - I'm not entirely sure you can compare smoking a cigarette with driving. If I was the 2001st person to do the survey, my mind would picture someone smoking in a densely populated area as perhaps being a cinema, restaurant, the tube etc. But indoors and in clsoe proximity to others.
But driving would be say a town, given it's virtually always and outdoor activity, with reasonable separation from others.
Plus smoking is a choice, where as driving is usually for a purpose that can't easily be done another way. The two just aren't comparable to me, despite most of the words in the question being the same, and them resulting in whispy stuff.
Similarly, accepting risk when driving is understood from the very first lesson, and it's why we have a plethora of laws and regulations around it, to manage it fairly well. But it's always there, and should be understood by decent drivers.
Risk at work like using a wobbly ladder, or unblocking the threshing machine with your hands just don't seem comparable to me. It's a complete no-no to any adult really.
To close the article, the example given is a hospital being built out of town and unthinkingly being not accessible for the 20% of the population who don't drive.
Yet even this conclusion ignores factors building a new hospital in a city centre would bring: space constraints, parking issues, land value etc, and the fact most hospitals are well served with buses anyway.
Ultimately, this thread probably comes across as a mild moan, but I would be interested to know if I'm alone in thinking this research is a bit pointless?
Ian
This is a thought provoking article, about how people are willing to accept higher risks in relation to motoring, than in other activities.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/17/moto...
From a sample of 2000, the Swansea professor has asked questions, and found greatly different acceptance rates when the premise is swapped to motoring. Ie
- is it acceptable to smoke cigarettes in densely populated areas, and then changed the words "smoking cigarettes" to "driving".
And
- risk is a natural part of driving / risk is a natural part of working
The study make the point people (ie politicians, policy makers) don't use the same standards when comparing things. They have a word for this - special pleading.
Now: the reason for the post.
My uni career left me in no doubt where teaching students stuff comes in the pecking order Vs raising academic profile and funded research.
Me - I'm not entirely sure you can compare smoking a cigarette with driving. If I was the 2001st person to do the survey, my mind would picture someone smoking in a densely populated area as perhaps being a cinema, restaurant, the tube etc. But indoors and in clsoe proximity to others.
But driving would be say a town, given it's virtually always and outdoor activity, with reasonable separation from others.
Plus smoking is a choice, where as driving is usually for a purpose that can't easily be done another way. The two just aren't comparable to me, despite most of the words in the question being the same, and them resulting in whispy stuff.
Similarly, accepting risk when driving is understood from the very first lesson, and it's why we have a plethora of laws and regulations around it, to manage it fairly well. But it's always there, and should be understood by decent drivers.
Risk at work like using a wobbly ladder, or unblocking the threshing machine with your hands just don't seem comparable to me. It's a complete no-no to any adult really.
To close the article, the example given is a hospital being built out of town and unthinkingly being not accessible for the 20% of the population who don't drive.
Yet even this conclusion ignores factors building a new hospital in a city centre would bring: space constraints, parking issues, land value etc, and the fact most hospitals are well served with buses anyway.
Ultimately, this thread probably comes across as a mild moan, but I would be interested to know if I'm alone in thinking this research is a bit pointless?
Ian
You probably aren’t alone, but you are incorrect.
Behavioural science is a fascinating topic and insight into human dynamics from a social/grouping perspective. Individual humans will always act differently, but at a group level then certain dynamics can be observed.
Mat Syed and Danny Finkelstein often reference out to different books, papers and research on topics like this in their various columns.
OK, I find it a fascinating topic, I understand if others find it dull as hell.
Behavioural science is a fascinating topic and insight into human dynamics from a social/grouping perspective. Individual humans will always act differently, but at a group level then certain dynamics can be observed.
Mat Syed and Danny Finkelstein often reference out to different books, papers and research on topics like this in their various columns.
OK, I find it a fascinating topic, I understand if others find it dull as hell.
I wouldn't say it's pointless. You need to understand the context, purpose and commissioners of such surveys to understand the broader context. MSM tends to extract the things readers may find interesting.
As to the subject matter, I get what it's saying. Driving has become second nature and those who enjoy driving are probably the worse culprits. I'm fairly sure I'm not alone in having the odd moment where I've done something driving and thought immediately afterwards; 'you berk!'.
When you think about driving dispassionately and objectively, given that a small, low-power car has the potential cause more devastation than a gun with a single bullet, it's arguably mad that we allow people to drive following the most basic of training testing. I'm certain I read somewhere that the training and testing to qualify as a fork-lift driver is more intensive and through than that for driving a car.
As to the subject matter, I get what it's saying. Driving has become second nature and those who enjoy driving are probably the worse culprits. I'm fairly sure I'm not alone in having the odd moment where I've done something driving and thought immediately afterwards; 'you berk!'.
When you think about driving dispassionately and objectively, given that a small, low-power car has the potential cause more devastation than a gun with a single bullet, it's arguably mad that we allow people to drive following the most basic of training testing. I'm certain I read somewhere that the training and testing to qualify as a fork-lift driver is more intensive and through than that for driving a car.
Life isn’t risk free .. ultimately it’s fatal for all of us !
Re the hospital, that’s an interesting one. There’s an interesting case of a new national children’s hospital they are building in Dublin. It is in an inner city location with very poor access and no parking and no location to heli-med patients in
They had the choice to build it on a green field site, adjacent to the national motorway network with ample parking and space for a helipad
But they chose to put it in a location where it’s accessibility was probably great for those who live within walking distance .. but crap for everyone else
If your sick child needs to be flown from Donegal to the hospital then you might want to be able to drive there
Re the hospital, that’s an interesting one. There’s an interesting case of a new national children’s hospital they are building in Dublin. It is in an inner city location with very poor access and no parking and no location to heli-med patients in
They had the choice to build it on a green field site, adjacent to the national motorway network with ample parking and space for a helipad
But they chose to put it in a location where it’s accessibility was probably great for those who live within walking distance .. but crap for everyone else
If your sick child needs to be flown from Donegal to the hospital then you might want to be able to drive there
We dont perceive risk very well on average.
Example, morbidly obese girl crying due to fear of flying sat in McDonalds in Manchester Airport when we flew out on holiday, being consoled by her equally large family, a feast laid out before them. So being maybe double or more your normal weight is a risk she had accepted as its some point in the future it will cause her early death having had time to reflect on her choices, but boarding a modern Jet Airliner with a very low possibility of a short rollercoaster type ride and then instant death, terrifying.
Like Autonomous cars, the skepticism is immense, we have accepted that 2000 or so people will die in the UK (many more worldwide) and many more will be injured on the roads each year, but a car driving itself, apparently that can never happen because there may be an accident, and someone may get hurt or killed ? Suppose the impeccable and infallible driving standards mean that no computer could ever surpass those mad skillz...
Example, morbidly obese girl crying due to fear of flying sat in McDonalds in Manchester Airport when we flew out on holiday, being consoled by her equally large family, a feast laid out before them. So being maybe double or more your normal weight is a risk she had accepted as its some point in the future it will cause her early death having had time to reflect on her choices, but boarding a modern Jet Airliner with a very low possibility of a short rollercoaster type ride and then instant death, terrifying.
Like Autonomous cars, the skepticism is immense, we have accepted that 2000 or so people will die in the UK (many more worldwide) and many more will be injured on the roads each year, but a car driving itself, apparently that can never happen because there may be an accident, and someone may get hurt or killed ? Suppose the impeccable and infallible driving standards mean that no computer could ever surpass those mad skillz...
It is an interesting study (and, I think, one that is worthwhile).
There's a thread on twitter by one of the researchers on this study, summing up some of the findings and going into the reasoning and context:
Threadreader version: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/161524815618624...
Original here: https://twitter.com/ianwalker/status/1615248156186...
As with all these things, it exists on a spectrum - the UK is nowhere near as bad as America, which in general is almost terminally, self-destructively 'car-brained' but it's much more prevalent here than in much of Europe (The Netherlands would be the go-to example).
There's a thread on twitter by one of the researchers on this study, summing up some of the findings and going into the reasoning and context:
Threadreader version: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/161524815618624...
Original here: https://twitter.com/ianwalker/status/1615248156186...
Ian Walker said:
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.
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".
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.
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
I agree with his basic premise - 'car brain'/motonomativity is not so much just about accepting higher risks when driving, but the entire social package that we put up with huge social, environmental, communal and financial costs to accomodate cars and the lifestyle, built environment and culture that goes with them which are often ludicrous if actually considered rationally. But it's so engrained, so intertwined and so fundamental to the way we (as individuals and as a society) work and live that its is unthinkingly accepted by most, and almost aggressively protected by some. 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".
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.
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
As with all these things, it exists on a spectrum - the UK is nowhere near as bad as America, which in general is almost terminally, self-destructively 'car-brained' but it's much more prevalent here than in much of Europe (The Netherlands would be the go-to example).
J4CKO said:
We dont perceive risk very well on average.
Example, morbidly obese girl crying due to fear of flying sat in McDonalds in Manchester Airport when we flew out on holiday, being consoled by her equally large family, a feast laid out before them. So being maybe double or more your normal weight is a risk she had accepted as its some point in the future it will cause her early death having had time to reflect on her choices, but boarding a modern Jet Airliner with a very low possibility of a short rollercoaster type ride and then instant death, terrifying.
Like Autonomous cars, the skepticism is immense, we have accepted that 2000 or so people will die in the UK (many more worldwide) and many more will be injured on the roads each year, but a car driving itself, apparently that can never happen because there may be an accident, and someone may get hurt or killed ? Suppose the impeccable and infallible driving standards mean that no computer could ever surpass those mad skillz...
Agency plays a huge part of risk acceptance though - regardless of probabilistic realities.Example, morbidly obese girl crying due to fear of flying sat in McDonalds in Manchester Airport when we flew out on holiday, being consoled by her equally large family, a feast laid out before them. So being maybe double or more your normal weight is a risk she had accepted as its some point in the future it will cause her early death having had time to reflect on her choices, but boarding a modern Jet Airliner with a very low possibility of a short rollercoaster type ride and then instant death, terrifying.
Like Autonomous cars, the skepticism is immense, we have accepted that 2000 or so people will die in the UK (many more worldwide) and many more will be injured on the roads each year, but a car driving itself, apparently that can never happen because there may be an accident, and someone may get hurt or killed ? Suppose the impeccable and infallible driving standards mean that no computer could ever surpass those mad skillz...
2xChevrons said:
It is an interesting study (and, I think, one that is worthwhile).
There's a thread on twitter by one of the researchers on this study, summing up some of the findings and going into the reasoning and context:
Threadreader version: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/161524815618624...
Original here: https://twitter.com/ianwalker/status/1615248156186...
As with all these things, it exists on a spectrum - the UK is nowhere near as bad as America, which in general is almost terminally, self-destructively 'car-brained' but it's much more prevalent here than in much of Europe (The Netherlands would be the go-to example).
Yeah, try riding a bicycle on the road, or mention you do, the roads apparently are owned and paid for by car drivers and nobody else should be allowed to use them it seems.There's a thread on twitter by one of the researchers on this study, summing up some of the findings and going into the reasoning and context:
Threadreader version: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/161524815618624...
Original here: https://twitter.com/ianwalker/status/1615248156186...
Ian Walker said:
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.
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".
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.
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
I agree with his basic premise - 'car brain'/motonomativity is not so much just about accepting higher risks when driving, but the entire social package that we put up with huge social, environmental, communal and financial costs to accomodate cars and the lifestyle, built environment and culture that goes with them which are often ludicrous if actually considered rationally. But it's so engrained, so intertwined and so fundamental to the way we (as individuals and as a society) work and live that its is unthinkingly accepted by most, and almost aggressively protected by some. 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".
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.
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
As with all these things, it exists on a spectrum - the UK is nowhere near as bad as America, which in general is almost terminally, self-destructively 'car-brained' but it's much more prevalent here than in much of Europe (The Netherlands would be the go-to example).
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff