Traffic violence represents the largest threat to life and limb that most people in contemporary, car-based society experience on a daily basis in public space.
With this magnitude of violence and relatively limited attention it receives, we seem to have collectively accepted it as a tolerable price for our car-based society.
Over time the problem has been reconfigured, in part thanks to statistical discourse, from a moral wrong to a necessary evil. With standardized statistics making “saving lives” the logical moral purpose of traffic safety.
(Vardi 2012)
The naturalization and denial of vehicular violence have allowed car deaths to become largely invisible relative to their horrific ubiquity, shielding it from any substantial critique (Culver 2018)
Paul Virilio (1999) argues instead that we should actively zoom in on the violence to learn: “the unexpectedness and unforeseen nature of an accident makes visible what mostly stays below the surface”.
What frame do Dutch newspapers impose on traffic violence?
😪 Justice-based showing human tragedies?
🎛 Efficiency-based showing glitches of the machine?
“Pedestrian injured due to collision with truck in Ede”
Of 368 newspaper headlines collected in one week of Dutch news:
👉 Most mention a PERSON as victim
👉 Often omit the 2nd party
👉 Or refer to it as VEHICLE
[10/16]
“Cyclist injured in crash with car”
Of 252 reports of crashes between at least two parties:
👉 70% talk about a victim as a person
👉 70% talk about a secondary party as vehicle
[11/16]
In 70 articles a cyclist/pedestrian and a motor vehicle were involved. In their headlines:
👉 Most use a passive, non-agentive syntax
👉 The vulnerable road user is injured/killed
👉 Only 6 suggest that a human actively hurt another human
[12/16]
The vast majority (92%) of articles only factually describe the crash without referring to any pattern. There are almost no links with larger systemic health and safety issues that are related to traffic violence.
Reporting highlights crashes that have a strong visual impact and/or impact on traffic (i.e. congestion/road closures). The human element is largely absent.
[14/16]
This factuality resembles more the reporting of daily weather forecasts than human interest stories.
This is further strengthened by referring to most events as ‘Accidents’ instead of 'Crashes'.
[15/16]
Instead of human tragedies, traffic crashes are presented as glitches in the machine – dehumanized interferences with the overall functioning of a well-oiled machine, where effects on traffic flow trump impacts on the people involved.
(Charlie Chaplin – Modern Times)
[16/16]
This creates the impression that a crash just happened to somebody, that it is an automated, unpreventable effect of the traffic machine.
A malfunctioning of an unstoppable machine, rather than the result of avoidable factors.
Cars have taken over our public space. That APPROPRIATION happens in stealth. Government responses to it seem a-political and technocratic. This hides a 1-directional process that should be highly politicised.
Case: BLOKKENWEG (Ede 🇳🇱)
[2/13]
The BLOKKENWEG parallels the train tracks between Utrecht (to the west) and Arnhem (to the east).
It links directly to an important railway crossing for traveling between Ede-South and Ede center. The street and tracks are separated by public allotments since the 1980s.
[3/13]
Built in the 1920s, it was part of a small garden-city district for workers of the ENKA factory. The houses, meant for white-collar workers, were relatively large. Originally, the street was a gravel road with a dedicated walking path.
Adapting streets to a "six-foot-city" is certainly a question of geometry & space, but also how to govern that space, how to develop capacity to deliver #humanscale networks.
3 principles explored in our latest commentary bit.ly/3h6bkWZ
Photo: @dutch_ish
Principle 1 for #humanscale streets: leverage #accessibility to meaningful destinations. Entire street networks that offer a range of mobility options need to be realized. bit.ly/3h6bkWZ
[1] Iedere schooldag vinden er in NL gemiddeld 17 verkeersongevallen plaats rondom scholen waar politie aan te pas komt.
We kunnen dat verkeersgeweld aanpakken. Maar @VeiligVerkeer hangt liever elk jaar wat spandoekjes op: "De scholen zijn weer begonnen" nrc.nl/nieuws/2020/08…
[2] We zijn gewend geraakt om systematisch verkeersgeweld te zien als onvermijdelijk gevolg van onze mobiliteit.
Dan is het logisch om mensen te leren er mee om te gaan, i.p.v. het op te lossen. Maar wat als we dat geweld op straat niet voor lief nemen? decorrespondent.nl/11507/loopt-he…
[3] Sinds de opkomst van de auto is daar strijd over geleverd: is het nieuwe geweld moreel onacceptabel of een nare statistische bijkomstigheid.
Het morele standpunt werd echter 𝘬𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘨𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘵. En zo werd het debat gedepolitiseerd.
'Who caused the accident?' is a question often used to avoid asking 'What allowed the accident to be so destructive?' (@mrendell)
Unbelievable! While car-makers are flooding our streets with increasingly lethal products, we focus our policies on disciplining 'distracted pedestrians an cyclists'.
[3] 'It is not the car that kills, but the erronous driver'
If that happens over 1.2 million times annually (20-fold if we count severe injuries) it is SYSTEMIC in its design.
Humans are fallible, so be wary of providing them with destructive tools that assume they are not.