Skip to main content

The underlying cause of much bad driving and bad cycling

The fundamental problem, the underlying reason why we see more bad driving and bad cycling than we used to, is individualism (neo-liberalism, consumerism, materialism). People increasingly act selfishly unless they are forced to do otherwise, because our individualistic culture teaches them that it is acceptable to do so. This is the single biggest reason why many people cycle without lights, and on pavements, and why many drivers increasingly run red lights, block intersections, treat cyclists as scum, etc. Until we change the whole political and economic system, we will make limited progress in this matter.
This is yet another reason why a new Greener Britain is so desperately needed.

Comments

The Rioja Kid said…
Is there any evidence that we do in fact see more bad driving and bad cycling than we used to? (Other than the triviality that we see more individual instances of bad driving because there are more people and more cars). Last I heard, Smeed's Law (that road fatalities varied as the 2/3 power of car ownership) still held in the UK.
26 November 2007 at 10:09
Rupert said…
It is very clear that there is more running of red lights and less using of bike lights than a generation ago. The police just don't stop people for such offences any more.
26 November 2007 at 20:26
Paul said…
What is your time frame Rupert - elaborate on 'generation'
27 April 2008 at 23:52
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Reasonable manners, in the blogosphere

Dear readers of Rupert's Read; One thing I am pleased about about this blog is that when we have had debates or disagreements here, they have virtually always been good-tempered. Because the norm out there in the blogosphere is often not like that. Take 'Comment is Free', for example, on the Guardian Unlimited site: the level of debate on CIF is pretty awful, frankly, in terms of civility. It is a very unpleasant place to take part in any debate, generally, unless perhaps (as most commenters do) one hides behind the veil of anonymity (which 'ain't allowed' here). And the truth is, in case any fellow commenters reading this don't realise it, that there are many many people who get put off even reading (let alone posting to) CIF because of the volume of plain nasty comments that they risk getting, when they do. I am slightly singling out CIF here, because I believe that this is actually one of the worst places on the blogosphere in terms of this kind of ...
15 comments
Read more

Medialens under the lens, over Syria and Libya: Becoming the new Dave Sparts?

I have long been an active supporter of Medialens ( http://www.medialens.org/ ). Like many others, I have supported them with money, time, tips, and I have been proud to have done so. For they have done very important groundbreaking work over the years challenging the inanities and distortions of the 'mainstream' media. They have for example written important critiques of mainstream media coverage of dangerous climate change, of Iraq Body Count, of the corporate nature of most of our media, and much more besides. They have held the corporate media to account time and again. They ought to be saluted for all of that. It is therefore with a sense of deep regret (as well as of some foreboding) that I have finally to write to address the ways in which, lately, some of the wheels seem to be coming off their wagon. An early warning sign perhaps was their long-running spat with George Monbiot, over the Rwandan genocide and the terrible atr...
16 comments
Read more