How to identify and overcome Traffic Moralism How to identify and overcome Marjut Ollitervo marjut.ollitervo@pyoraliitto.fi I will introduce a new concept, traffic moralism. It helps to identify this phenomenon when you can name it. And then you know how to deal with it. Since I am a cycling advocate, many of my examples a related to cycling. But this phenomenon is more general than just cycling.

Values in city planning Sustainability, safety, efficiency, livability. Values in strategies. Choosing the values is an ethical question. Achieving the values is a practical question.

The goal: sustainable city Practical question: How to design the city so that it will be sustainable and efficient -> less cars

What is traffic moralism Traffic moralism is reasoning that does not aim for a sustainable city, but for the fulfillment of moral standards. It often interferes or prevents building a sustainable city.

Example: ride through a red light Paris allowed the cyclists to ride against the red light in certain situations. It turned out that this actually improved safety. But we can’t do this in Finland. The reason for this is traffic moralism: riding against the red light is morally wrong, so it must be unsafe. It’s also unfair to the car drivers.

What traffic planning isn’t According to a traffic moralist, traffic planning is to reward good people, punish bad people, to force people into being better people. They think of it as a moral question.

What traffic planning is Traffic planning is not a moral issue, but a practical one. City planning department is not a court of law. Traffic planner’s task is not to give out punishments or rewards or to change the human nature. It’s impossible to change the human nature. If it was possible, we wouldn’t have obesity, poverty or wars. And communism would work.

How should people behave? According to moral standards, how should people behave?

How people actually behave? Reality: How do people actually behave? This is the relevant question in traffic planning. We want to design a city for real people, not imaginary people.

False motives False equality, false safety. For example, “same rules for cyclists and drivers”. Traffic safety campaigns for children. Promoting personal protective equipment for cyclists and pedestrians.There is no proven positive effect on traffic safety with these campaigns. So a traffic moralist appears to be promoting equality and safety.

Real motives What they are really doing is promoting moral justice and being a good person. They want to see moral justice happen. Polishing one’s halo - appearing to be a responsible person. You appear to do something worthwhile for society.

The question to ask What problem are we trying to solve? For example a new law: What problem is this action trying to solve? Is it really a problem? Does this action solve it? Does this action contribute to a sustainable city? Will it get more people cycling or walking?

The question to ask Keep the goal in mind Keep the goal in mind. Does it contribute to a better city? Will it make people want to walk and cycle more? If not, it is a waste of energy.

Example: Photo ID for cyclists Photo ID for cyclists NSW Australia 2016. Next step is to require cyclists to carry their own body bags

Example: Massive fines for cyclists Massively increased fines for cyclists in NSW Australia. Helmet fine $71 ➞ $319 + 350% Running a red light $71 ➞ $425 + 500% Riding dangerously $71 ➞ $ Australia is the promised land of traffic moralism.

Example: helmet laws and campaigns Bicycle helmets and helmet laws. In Finland 2003. One must usually wear a helmet. Doesn’t matter how well it fits or protects your head, as long as you wear one. Primary motive is not safety, but being a responsible person. They knew about Australia. Motive not really safety, but false equality. Does that something really improve safety and how much?

Why is it bad? It’s a red herring. It diverts the focus from the main issue: sustainable city. It affects attitudes, political decision-making and traffic planning.

How to deal with it Don’t start to defend people. Don’t try to change people. It’s irrelevant whether people are good or bad. Accept that people are lazy, selfish and break the rules.

How to deal with it Keep the focus on the key issue. Design a city for the real, unperfect people. Don’t just expect people to change. They won’t. Restrict car traffic.

How to deal with it Solution. Don’t try to defend anybody. Don’t try to change the human nature. It’s impossible. Accept that people are lazy and selfish and design a city for those real people. It is irrelevant whether people are good or bad.