I have been there many times. In conversations with car enthusiasts, attempts to promote or mention alternative modes of transportation have run into active obstacles. The person I’m talking to refuses to acknowledge any of the facts I present, or says that the proposed policy prescriptions sound great in theory, but no matter what we do, all traffic fatalities They distract my argument with vague generalizations such as “It is impossible to eliminate this.” “Biking is great, but you can’t find places without driving.” some points”
Why does a seemingly innocuous proposal to make room for a safe alternative lead to such an entrenched stance? The answer lies in denialism.
Denialism has its roots in the politics of climate change. It is the rejection of evidence-based arguments, established facts, and consensus views in order to maintain preconceived beliefs and ideologies, usually through a pattern of evasive rhetoric. Scientists have thoroughly studied this concept and the frameworks its proponents use to sow confusion: fake experts, logical fallacies, impossible expectations (moving goalposts), conspiracy theories, choices. Do enough research to plan sex (cherry picking). In academic circles, this framework is called FLICC. Denialism is on the rise in the debate about cycling, and opposition to alternative modes of transportation is on the rise.
fake expert
Fake experts pretend to have expertise, technical training, and knowledge, but they have none of it.
Traffic engineers frequently provide false expertise in traffic. These professionals typically have advanced degrees and official titles, and adhere to many safety standards. But those standards come from distorted models or no models at all, writes urban planner Jeff Speck. Engineers often promote policies that create roads, such as adding more roadways. less secure Ignore the needs of pedestrians and others.
Charles Malone makes this point aptly in his 2010 essay “Confessions of a Recovering Engineer,” noting that as a transportation engineer, you don’t always come up with a bad idea simply because “it was the norm.” He said that he was often forced to do so.
Fake experts tried to derail New York City’s street redesign project. Bernie Haber, former co-chair of the Queens Community Board 11 Transportation Committee, is a prime example. Mr. Haber is a retired transportation engineer whose background speaks to his expertise. In 2017, he tried to undermine CB 11’s vote supporting protected bike lanes on Northern Boulevard. After the board approved the project, Haber immediately convened a meeting of the Transportation Committee and discussed at length an alternative plan that would eliminate important safety measures such as convenient parking and narrower travel lanes. gave a presentation. Fortunately, city officials saw through this pretense, pointed out the flaws in Harbor’s proposal, and installed the project according to the original design.
logical fallacy
A logical fallacy is an argument built on an unsound logical foundation. Former Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe famously demonstrated this in 2015 by bringing snowballs to the Senate chamber and suggesting that climate change was a lie because it was cold enough to snow. His argument ignored vast amounts of scientific evidence.
Transportation makes a logical fallacy when it comes to using bike lanes. When the city installed the Prospect Park West bike lane in 2011, opponents argued that it looked so empty that no one rode bikes. But bike lanes are incredibly efficient. Unless there are astronomical numbers of cyclists, there will be no traffic. Although this is often considered “availability,” it does not mean that the bike lane is not in use. His 2009 DOT study showed that cycling on the streets during weekdays and weekends increased by more than 100% after the installation of bike lanes. The count has continued to rise ever since.
Impossible expectations (moving goalposts)
Impossible expectations and moving goalposts abound in discussions about highway and street expansion. States spend billions of dollars each year expanding highways in hopes of reducing traffic and congestion. More lanes encourage more driving, and traffic conditions still get worse or worse.
The idea that drivers need to travel as fast as possible sets them the impossible goal of never running into a traffic jam. But Governor Hochul touted this very argument in defense of widening Route 17 in the northern part of the state, insisting, “We will.”[improve] Improve quality of life by reducing congestion. ” History and data show that this is not the case. But Hochul supports the unrealistic expectation that by setting moving goalposts of “no traffic,” we can add lanes and eliminate traffic.
Opponents of bike lanes also use this tactic when demanding unlimited levels of community participation. The goalposts move each time you ask for additional feedback. For example, on Underhill Avenue in Brooklyn, DOT has begun gathering local input on his potential 2021 street redesign community engagement. From 2021 to 2024, opponents asked his DOT to revise the proposal three times, each time seeking additional community input. The city’s collaborative efforts spanned a total of two online surveys, five of his DOT street workshops, and his four presentations to local community boards over a three-year period. But even after DOT began installing them, Mayor Adams insisted they be shut down and that city officials collect the emails.even more input. Despite nearly three years of work, the street redesign is still not complete.
conspiracy theory
Conspiracy theories are rife among opponents of alternative transportation. In October 2023, a listener called WNYC and claimed that a tech company had taken over the city’s Department of Transportation. It’s true that advocacy groups like Transportation Alternatives are funded by tech companies, and these organizations are leading campaigns to promote safe and fair roads. But this is very different from the idea that alternative transportation agencies and other advocacy groups secretly control the DOT. If so, how do opponents explain DOT’s repeated disregard for those organizations’ policy priorities and recommendations?Meanwhile, Uber and Lyft actually pivoted. against Congestion pricing – puts you in direct conflict with your supporters.
Similarly, right-wing conspiracies surrounding the idea of ”15-minute cities” have proliferated in recent years. This concept aligns urban planning so that all residents can meet their needs within walkable areas close to their homes. Skeptics falsely claim that bureaucrats support 15-minute cities because they want to control where people can drive. In fact, there are no travel restrictions associated with the 15-minute city. Rather than expelling working people to far-flung suburbs, the concept simply aims to provide residents with the things they need, such as grocery stores, health care, and employment, close to home.
cherry picking
Cherry-picked evidence distorts reality and prevents informed decision-making. Anti-e-bike advocates often use cherry-picked examples to fuel their case. Members of the E-Vehicle Safety Alliance have repeatedly pointed to the story of Pamela Manasse, who was seriously injured by a moped rider, as evidence that all e-bikes should have license plates or be banned entirely. There is.
However, a single example is not indicative of a broader trend. E-bike opponents deliberately ignore the hundreds of people killed and injured by cars in New York City in favor of highlighting one or a few examples that support their case. This allows them to claim that their cherry-picked examples are actually the norm, making them appear sincere while helping advance their own agenda.
For the E-Vehicle Safety Alliance, this means banning or restricting the use of e-bikes. City Councilman Robert Holden proposed a bill that would require all e-bikes to be licensed and registered. If passed, this legislation would be extremely harmful, reducing the use of electric bicycles, increasing motorcycle and car emissions and traffic, and likely eliminating the economic benefits associated with micromobility. .
How can advocates respond?
So how can advocates and planners navigate the FLICC framework within the driver and transportation context? It’s about admitting it. Facts cannot change denialists’ minds or shut down their arguments.
Diane Benscoter, a cult deprogramming expert who helps people break free from extremist ideologies, argues that the group’s ideological position has great appeal. This is because a group’s ideological position derives from the fundamental human need for a sense of belonging and purpose, resulting in the sense of camaraderie and justice that comes with fighting for a cause. , drawing individuals into a sense of community and common identity. Paradoxically, the aversion to being deceived often outweighs the discomfort of not being part of the group. Advocates must convince individuals that they are being deceived, rather than clinging to the merits of a particular concern.
This process does not necessarily occur immediately. Deeply held beliefs are difficult to eradicate. Progress requires concerted and consistent effort. Proponents of car-first policies need to confront the deception hidden in the promise of car dependence and driving.
Such large-scale cultural shifts in problem perception are much more common than one might think. Public perceptions of tobacco, marriage rights, reproductive rights, and climate change have all changed significantly over the past two decades. Next is driving.
As an example, the U.S. auto industry has significantly shaped government policy toward automobiles and perceptions of driving, infrastructure, and other forms of transportation. Automakers even coined the term “jaywalking” as part of a campaign to advocate for drivers’ right to speed down the road without consequence. This history contradicts a fundamental belief of many Americans on this issue: that policymakers should prioritize driving as the top mode of transportation. When discussions about transportation and road use are saturated with facts, stubborn drivers cannot avoid reality.
Personally, I think it’s impactful to speak out and call out denialist rhetoric when you see it. This happens at community meetings, social media, etc. There is power in saying, “What I want to point out is that this person keeps moving the goalposts. This person keeps moving the goalposts.” As soon as you get a good response to one concern, move on to another. They may never be satisfied. ” This helps take power away from critics and attracts important audiences: fence-keepers, neutral bystanders, and other impartial observers.
By criticizing the rhetoric and sowing seeds of doubt about the origins of pro-driving attitudes, we can change minds. Through several months of conversations, I noticed a change in my interactions with my neighbors and friends in Prospect Heights. People who couldn’t even bring up the topic a few months ago now send me news articles about transportation developments.
Although each case is different, I strive to cultivate a discourse that does not tolerate any negative rhetoric. Automobile detractors and drivers should be repeatedly questioned about the soundness of their beliefs. We must face the driving force behind their concerns. Why do they think parking is important in discussions about livability and safety? What beliefs do they base on asking that question, and what are its origins?
These actions form a recipe for more productive landscapes and short- and long-term changes in perceptions of street issues. Anyone can be swayed by unraveling misconceptions and misinformation with a deliberate and clear approach.