. While nobody wants people to be unsafe and nobody likes seeing death and destruction, there are a few clichéd things the article does that I see all the time, and they’re not good for the cause the author advocate for.
But, before a reader can get to these points, they’re bombarded with things that impress urbanists but cause most people’s eyes to roll . Let’s talk about a few of these strategic communication errors.One big one is the use of the term “traffic violence”. I get that there is a great deal of dangerous and even deadly force involved in a car accident, especially when you’re not in a car yourself. But, to use the word violence implies intent.
Drivers know that the misuse of the word against them as a class is driven by malice and hatred. It’s a form of bigotry. So, like all petty bigotries, drivers respond to it by discounting the rest of the message the speaker is trying to convey. Once such a divisive term is used, anything good you may have to say after that falls on deaf ears.If there’s one thing Republicans have proven over the last few years, it’s that people hate having their choices taken away.
When urbanists try to tell all of these people that they shouldn’t be allowed to own the vehicle they chose, we shouldn’t be surprised when they reject the entire urbanist message.But, there’s an even more crazy thing urbanists like the author are calling for that make drivers feel like their freedom is under even greater attack: calling for vehicle speed limiters.