Cars and Their Enemies Summary
In the July 1997 issue of Commentary, James Q. Wilson challenges the consensus among academia’s finest regarding the automobile in his bold article, Cars and Their Enemies. Directed towards the general public, his article discredits many of the supposed negatives of the automobile raised by experts, proves that the personal car is thriving and will continue to thrive because it meets individual preference over other means of transportation, as well as presents solutions to the social costs of cars. Wilson emphasizes that no matter what is said and done in eliminating the social costs of the automobile, experts are not going to stop campaigning against it.
Wilson begins his article with a hypothetical scenario in which the proposition for the mass production of the automobile is being raised today as a current issue. Within this fictional scenario, he explains that many aggressive predictions and complaints regarding the negative effects of cars on society would be made and that due to such strong opposition, the personal car would probably not be created. Wilson returns to this scenario later on in the article, explaining that people living in a carless nation would be forced to have small homes, located in large, highly dense cities where the streets are congested by pedestrians, trucks, and buses (Wilson 22). He also insists that travelling in such a country would be hard, and that when you did, the only places you would be able to travel to would be crowded areas which were able to support a nearby train stop (Wilson 22). Wilson insist that living in such a nation would be unpleasant, having many serious problems, unlike the trivial ones used by anti-car critics to discourage car usage now.
One...
... middle of paper ...
...sts as they keep trying to get people out their cars in vain.
To mitigate the social costs, Wilson offers a variety of suggestions such as raising gasoline taxes, but argues that this will never happen in a nation as democratic as the United States, another concept critics need to grasp (Wilson 22). He names what he thinks are more realistic suggestions such as creating more bike pathways, banning cars from roads with capability of being pedestrian malls, and charging tolls at bridges that go into the city (Wilson 22). He insists that although the social costs are being reduced greatly as time goes on, it will not stop critics from attacking it.
Wilson concludes by explaining the reason the campaign against the car will never end, “critics dislike everything the car stands for and everything society constructs to serve the needs of its occupants” (Wilson 22).
Flink’s Three stages of American automobile consciousness fully express the progress of the whole automobile industry. From the first model T to the automatic production, it gives me an intuitive feeling of the automobile history from a big picture. On the other hand, Kline and Pinch focus more on a certain group of people--farmers or people who live in the rural area, they use it as an entry point to talk about automobile, alone with the role and duty transition between male and
Sports Utility Vehicles have long maintained the reputation of being gas guzzlers and detrimental to the environment. In the article, “Why Environmentalists Attack the SUV,” Mr. John Bragg presents the argument that the SUV is a symbol of Americanism. While it is easy to understand his thinking, it is largely based upon subjective reasoning. Conversely, the SUV.org article, “Environmental Double Standards for Sport Utility Vehicles,” postulates that SUV’s represent a paradox to consumers. Additionally, cartoonist, Khalil Bendib takes a drastic approach by overtly stating that American automotive corporations are directly contributing to the degradation of the environment.
Since the beginning of the United States the American people have been on the move. Public transportation has played a major role in the development of this nation and in bringing its citizens together. In the book “Divided Highways”, author Tom Lewis takes the reader on a journey of the building of the Interstates and the consequences(good and bad) that came from them. Lewis believes that the Interstates are a physical characteristic of America and that it shows “all our glory and our meanness; all our vision and our shortsightedness”(xiv).
Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler surfaced as the “Big Three” auto companies heading into the 1920’s. The invention of the automobile revolutionized transportation; by the 1920’s cars made places easier to access to people. Many of the traditionalists did approve of the automobiles, but some of them just favored the old way of walking places. The traditionalists were fearful of car accidents with the upbringing of the automobile. During the 1920’s a driver’s license was not needed in most states, and there weren’t really any “rules of the road” quite yet. No signs, signals, or traffic guards, and the roads were not ready for automobiles or pedestrians yet. Some traditionalists were not for these life risking ways of automobiles, but they were accepted among most for an increase in transportation and their easy access to even those who were not rich. The modernists at this time were known to want the exciting new changes and risks, so they were all for the automobiles. This rebellious group knew the advancement of technology with automobiles meant transportation to explore, and not be stuck in the same places within walking distance. The 1920’s
Since the early 1990s, the car market has become saturated with sport utility vehicles. While SUV’s have been enthusiastically received by a wide spectrum of the demographic – everyone from teenagers to soccer moms -- not all are excited by its arrival. Some of the current complaints with SUVs have to do with their ridiculous size and relative fuel inefficiency. Others criticize the vehicles as being unsafe, and certainly unnecessary, for the tasks for which they are commonly used. But even with the recent campaigns to educate the public on the possible physical and environmental risks posed by the automobiles, SUV purchases continue to be on the rise. Indeed, with car sales on the decline, and the SUV being seen as a possible savior -- or at least band-aid -- for the struggling motor industry, any movement to ban SUVs in the near future is unlikely.
Andrew Simms, a policy director and head of the Climate Change Program for the New Economics Foundation in England, presents his argument about the impact SUV’s have on our roadways, and the air we breathe. “Would You Buy a Car That Looked like This? “. The title alone gives great insight on what the article is going to be about, (vehicles). “They clog the streets and litter the pages of weekend colour *supplements. Sport utility vehicles or SUV’s have become badges of middle class aspiration” (Simms 542). Simms opening statement not only gives his opinion on how SUV’s are the new trend, but he also paints a picture of what we see every day driving down our roadways. Simms also compares the tobacco industry’s gap between image and reality to that of SUV’s; stating that the cause and consequences of climate change resemble smoking and cancer. Simms comparison between SUV’s and cigarettes shows how dangerous he believes SUV’s are.
In Christopher Wells’ book Car Country: An Environmental History he starts by speaking about his experience over the years with automobiles. He describes how happy he was to own his first automobile. Mr. Wells goes into detail about the inconveniences of driving in towns where everything is fairly accessible, and the necessity of an automobile in major cities. Although Mr. Wells enjoyed his first car, his local surrounding helped shape the attitude he has towards motor vehicles to this day. Mr. Wells also argued that car dependence in America is connected with the landscape. Wells rejects the notion that America ‘s automobile landscape emerged as a byproduct of consumer’s desires for motor vehicles or as the result of conspiracies to eliminate
Automobiles play a major role in today's society. Almost every American owns at least one motorized transportation vehicle. Some say they make our lives better by reaching places faster than before. Others say they are a harmful to the environment. Have they made our society better or worse? They may be fast, but do we as humans want our environment to suffer because of time. Face it, cars pollute. And they release destructive chemicals into the air. Air pollution can threaten the health of many subjects in the environment including human beings.
buggy, ships, trains, and walking (“A Brief History of The Auto”). But when the automobile was ...
Automobiles play an essential role in American society. As if being the major means of transportation was not impressive enough, automotives can be seen on T.V., in movies, in magazines, and can sometimes be indicative of a person’s wealth and social status. On average, Americans drive nearly 40 miles and drive for just over 50 minutes driving per person per day (http://www.bts.gov). That means a person spends roughly one-sixteenth of a day driving. It would make sense, then, to make such an essential part of society as efficient, cost effective, and clean as possible. However, that is not the case. As the years have passed cars have actually begun to move away from efficiency. Hawken writes, “[The automobile] design process has made cars ever heavier, more complex, and usually costlier. These are all unmistakable signs that automaking has beco...
Wachs, Martin. "The Automobile and Gender: an Historical Perspective." University of Califonia Journal. Proquest. Richter Library, Miami.
It seemed absurd for propose that a public space would be taken away from the people in order to enable private transport, in that time it was primarily the rich that could own a motor vehicle. To comprehend exactly what that means would be similar to take parks or public gathering space and build a new expansion for a company in place of the public space. Peter Norton wrote in a very compelling article on the effects of technology and culture. The street was regarded to most people as a public space that is open to anyone willing to be involved in keeping pedestrian alike
Several scholars that support the idea of independently-operating vehicles often tend to ignore the serious safety concerns and reality of the technology. Cars capable of autonomous operation have a negative impact on society because vehicles are incapable
Cars, Trucks, Vans, oh my! In the Western world, we have an overwhelming number of vehicles to get around. Many people have their own vehicle, if not two and if they don’t, they have the option of using a taxi, Uber, or Lyft. Many people at Purdue University drive their car to class even if they live on campus out of sheer convenience. The arguable over usage of vehicles in the US is harmful to the environment, unsustainable, and expensive.
Nowadays, cars are a common sight. Traffic jams have become a daily affair. My parents never sat in a car when they were young. They says that in their youth, people got around on foot or on bicycles. Cars and buses were rare. Only a few rich people could afford cars. The streets were unpaved and not dangerous. There was no pollution nor the deafening roar of