This is the title of a paper I presented at the London School of Economics in 2007. My paper received considerable support and also opposition which I will explain but first, I will mention the Times campaign to improve safety for cyclists in London. Cities fit for cycling came about after Times journalist Mary Bowers was badly injured on her way to work. To succeed this campaign has to be more than pro-cycling it has to also be anti-car. My words will immediately incense car drivers seeking to defend their ‘rights’. Such reaction is understandable from city residents who know only the city of today but it is very short sighted. Policy that deliberately and specifically gives the city back to its people (on foot, by bicycle and on public transport) leads to better cities for everyone across society.
When I spoke at the LSE five years ago it was part of a conference about the future of cities in the developing world. I expected push back from delegates from the developing world objecting to my call to deny them the ‘benefits’ of car infrastructure and ownership. In fact these delegates were mostly in support; opposition was lead by World Bank officials asserting that investment in roads had the best return on investment. The real problem seemed to be that people living in advanced Western economies find it hard to envisage life with much fewer cars.
In London, at least it is acknowledged that there is a need for much better provision for cyclists but this is only a beginning; there is still huge opposition to reducing the reliance on cars, even though this is the sensible policy if only we think deeply and plan carefully.
On a personal note, I know first-hand the problem that has set off the Times campaign. Some years ago I was hit by a car, was badly injured and went through two years of rehabilitation. The driver was prosecuted, found guilty and fined but I do not blame him. The policy makers who design the infrastructure are to blame. The priority is simple and obvious; people should have more priority than cars.
Robert Hurst pointed out - It’s becoming fairly apparent that the dependence we face in America is not so much a dependence on oil, but a dependence on driving itself...... which highlights nicely that we in the West are addicted to driving and have created an environment which reinforces this addiction. Peter is right when he states infrastructure is to blame ... but which politician dares challenge the car in a meaningful way especially as the car is the most successful consumer product ever!
ReplyDeleteInterestingly if you remove cars - people flock into the space.
The Times has taken a good first step into promoting seriously another mode of transport. What is now needed is for [civil] engineers to take up the challenge and design a new way of living!