Peace and Planning

I was recently asked why I use the term car supremacy instead of driver supremacy. Indeed, given the specific dynamics I’m focusing on when I examine the conflict system of car supremacy – the power everyday people wield to maintain their privileged position atop the modal hierarchy – it might seem like drivers are really where I should be pointing my critique. However, there are several reasons why I use car supremacy instead of driver supremacy.

1. Perhaps most importantly, when we reduce people to their modal identity (= the way I think about how identities are ascribed to us based on how we use our transportation system…which may not be how we would identify ourselves), we stop seeing them as people. If I’ve learned anything from my peace and conflict program, it’s that when we start seeing people as a collective group – an “other” – we stop seeing them as human beings, which runs the risk of dehumanization based on a socially constructed identity (side note: if you think this can’t possibly happen based on what mode of transportation we use, I have bad news: it has, more than once 😩🤮).
2. While it is crucial to challenge disparaging driver behavior (whether it’s divisive testimonies against street safety measures at public hearings – so often framed as a blame game targeting people who walk and roll – or denigrating attitudes toward other road users on our public right of way – frequently expressed through aggressive or negligent driving), shifting our attention to evolving the cultural mores that normalize said beliefs and transforming the structural processes that enable such treatment is seemingly somehow a more scalable strategy than trying to reform driver behavior one-by-one 🫠
3. One needn’t be a driver to ascribe to the ideological beliefs of car supremacy.
   • As a (hot take 🤔) example: every time an advocate argues that we should support safe streets measures because they would reduce vehicular traffic and in turn make it a better experience for motorists, another log is thrown into the fire of perpetuating notions about the purpose of streets as being conduits of comfortable drivers by facilitating speed and efficiency, even if the advocate’s ultimate aim is to promote safety. For those who would counter that we really need to get drivers on board if we want to achieve safe streets targets, I would agree on the ends but disagree on the means: talking about the benefits of such measures for drivers hasn’t done squat to move the needle on their support for them.
4. Telling someone they are the problem isn’t likely to make them feel all kinds of warm and cuddlies about joining the cause. We want to create opportunities for drivers to see themselves as allies and act as such 🤝 I believe the more we focus on the broader issue of car supremacy as the source of the problem, the more able we are to create a broad coalition of people committed to safe, peaceful streets rooted in an ethics of care 🫶
5. When we whittle it down to a singular modal identity, it simplifies the reality of how most people navigate our built environment.
   • Most people have at least two modal identities. At the most extreme end we can imagine someone who has been born and raised in a rural area and likely relied on a car to get around their entire lives: even this person has been a pedestrian at some point, whether it’s going for a stroll in their neighborhood or walking across a parking lot at their local big box store depot. When we think about an urban environment, the probability of using other modes of transportation increases – perhaps you took the subway to a museum when your regular driving route was undergoing construction, or hopped a bus to work when your car was at the shop, or were running late to lunch with a friend and opted for a scooter rather than face rush hour traffic (hey, I didn’t say that congestion couldn’t be a factor in mode shift…😉). 
   • Similarly, most people who advocate for safe streets are drivers themselves, at least some of the time. 
6. Even if you remove the “need” for drivers – say through, I dunno, autonomous vehicles – we are still left with private cars that remove people from the public right of way and in turn fundamentally alter social relations 🙄

Now, on to my norm disobedience: I was recently in the lovely Finger Lakes region of New York where I had to rent a car to get to my destinations. Apparently Google Maps (and maybe other mapping platforms) tell you where police might be staked out so that you can slow your speed at the appropriate time (does this mean that there is some distracting process that drivers use WHILE DRIVING to report a police presence?!). You can imagine how many feelings I have about this, so to express these feelings I reported that the police officer was still there (at two opportunities, actually), even though there was not a sheriff in sight 😏

What acts of civil disobedience have you tried to dismantle the conflict system of car supremacy? Do you have ideas for how to invite more drivers into the fold of folks advocating for safe, peaceful streets rooted in an ethics of care? I invite you to get curious – what comes to mind when you imagine a peaceful transportation system? ✌️🚸