Is Urban Mobility A Human Right?
The further development of Bubble Wrap Society seems to be in full swing all over the world. The buzz about the bicycle over the past 18 months or so has seemingly given rise to increased buzz about bubble-wrapping the vulnerable traffic users like pedestrians and cyclists. It's a kind of counter-attack, not unlike the Audi advert we blogged about recently.
Tom Vanderbilt, author of Traffic and the blog How We Drive has a telling article in Slate about the current cause célèbre among motorists and authorities - cracking down on jaywalking. In his In Defence of Jaywalking Tom covers the new hype about these foolish souls who dare to inconvienence motorists by crossing streets where they're 'not supposed to' are under fire.
Which brings us to the question. Is Urban Mobility a basic human right? Do we not have the right to move about the urban landscape as we see fit? It has been for most of human history, after all.
If the answer is yes to that question, then surely allowing all citizens to exercise freedom of mobility involves making the urban landscape safe. Which means restricting the movements of the dangerous, life-threatening player in town - automobile traffic - instead of the movements of pedestrians and, in some ways, cyclists.
Should pedestrians and cyclists have the priority in cities and towns for choosing sustainable transport forms? Is Safe Urban Mobility a human right?
8 thinking out louds:
Hi,
Do you know Yehuda Moon & The K¡ckstand Ciclery comic strips?
This one is about Fear campaigns on the use of helmets:
http://yehudamoon.com/index.php?date=2009-11-04
In Ireland and Britain, pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians have a Common Law right to use public roads. Motorists don't have this right- driving is a licenced activity, i.e. is not permitted as a basic right, and is only allowed by exemption / special dispensation.
In this regard, you could definitely say that (non-motorised) Urban Mobility is a Human Right, i.e. a right that attaches to us simply by virtue of being human.
http://www.portlandize.com/2009/10/freedom-of-movement.html
Robert P is correct that motorist do not have a right in law to drive. However the problem is that, for what ever reason, as soon as most people get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle they think that they have priority and the the ability to bully more vulnerable road users. Sadly they tend become Toad of Toad Hall, it is this tendency that we need to overcome.
With rights come responsibilities. It is the responsibility of the strongest to protect the weakest, even if it is from themselves. We talk about rights all the time but we don't talk about the work that goes into having the rights. Some of that work is undoing all of the crazy Cold War-industrial revolution thinking that got us to this insanity. (oh my, I may get myself black listed yet : )
we also make up a lot of rights we don't actually have.
Communist Russia was a propaganda machine, but I don't think modern America is too far behind in that respect. It's rough to try to break through the system when the system teaches people not to think. The point isn't just to get people to side with us, but to get people to think about these issues and actually form an opinion.
"To exchange one orthodoxy for another is not necessarily an advance. The enemy is the gramophone mind, whether or not one agrees with the record that is being played at the moment." -George Orwell
"Is Urban Mobility a basic human right?"
Yes. Unless you ride a Segway.
Just kidding. Maybe.
A little essay by André Gorz: The Social Ideology of the Motorcar
http://rts.gn.apc.org/socid.htm
Post a Comment