The transformation of streets after the rise of automobiles is a forgotten story, swept under the rug from popular consciousness. Prior to automobiles, streets were safe for pedestrians to walk on without having to look over their shoulder. They were far less crowded than they are today: open public paths that were every bit as inviting as trails in a park. Most people were content with that simple infrastructure. If someone needed to get somewhere farther than they could walk, all they had to do was hop on a railway line.
As automobiles became more affordable, the wealthy and the elites benefited most from the increased efficiency they provided. They could get to important places faster, creating more opportunities to save time, thus obtaining even more wealth than they already had. Other groups who benefited were city planners, engineers; and of course, those in the auto industry, collectively known as motordom (Norton, 2). All these groups were in high demand as cities remodeled their streets to make them more automobile friendly.
Social groups who did not benefit were police officers and pedestrians- notably children, who suffered most from the arrival of cars. Not only were children more likely to be struck by often fatal accidents, but they were forced to play away from the streets after it became evident that the danger posed by automobiles was too great. A lack of initial legislation on vehicular-pedestrian relations made it easier for drivers to engage in more reckless driving than we see today, posing an elevated risk for pedestrians. Police were also adversely affected by the arrival of automobiles (Norton, 4), for they’d been used to keeping order on a street system that did not involve cars. Vehicular incidents posed a new set of problems for officers who’d been used to patrolling the streets without them.
Automobiles were seen as an intrusion by these groups, and for good reason. Since pedestrians comprised the largest social group at the time, the majority of people felt threatened by the first major advance of new technology in the 20th century. In the early 1920s, many of them could not afford automobiles. They were scarce enough that only those with the means to purchase them were driving in the streets. Yet these were the same people who exercised the most power in local politics. “Motordom… had effective rhetorical weapons, growing local organization, a favorable political climate, substantial wealth, and the sympathy of a growing minority of city motorists” (Norton, 17). Their wealth may have afforded them better lawyers to assist against prosecution, not to mention donations for organizations that would strengthen the automobile industry.
This upper-class affront on the public interest was enough to demonstrate how technology, in all its wonderful yet threatening formations, gradually persuades the lower classes that they need to adapt to changes that leave them initially disadvantaged. The social pressure to adapt to changes brought by technology can be seen as a form of favoritism, as those with power are more easily persuaded by those with cash than those who don’t have it, jumpstarting major infrastructure changes that favor the wealthy. The interpretation that money is power rings true. Those who can afford the newest machines inadvertently widen the gap between income classes, as their new assets create more spaces for capital. It’s an invisible force lurking in our infrastructure, linked by the first people who buy such amazing trendsetters in technology, chaining society to their purchases like pathfinders exploring new lands to settle.
The development of streets indirectly demonstrated injustice at those social groups who were victims of this favoritism. But over time, as more people in the middle and lower classes could afford automobiles, the balance shifted. Things became fairer as the new technology became more affordable. It could be argued that if new technology were accessible to all, whether from government assistance or by laws that reduce private ownership until proper infrastructure is built, the problems posed by developments like this wouldn’t occur. True equality, as the 14th amendment of the U.S. suggests, would involve the means to obtaining the same advantageous technology as others, lest one social group subject another to the dangerous impacts of (some) new development, such as automobiles in the Motor Age.
Automobile technology ultimately made it easier for all social groups to get around. As people could travel farther and reach places faster, it opened up time for them to do other things. People didn’t have to feel crowded on railway lines anymore: or walk the streets in inclement weather. There was less chance of illness, both when you consider viral disease transmission on crowded streets and railways, and protection from the elements. But it can also be said that the technology created more problems than it solved. For instance, it wasn’t until after the increased dangers posed by automobiles that a new crime was socially constructed, called jaywalking. Jaywalking was not a crime prior to the 1930s, and many were not even familiar with the term in 1920 when vehicles were on the rise (Norton, 5). Another problem it created was automobile accidents, which is one of the leading causes of death among teens and young adults (C.D.C.). Other problems were those of increased bureaucracy, safety reforms, noise pollution, and air pollution- a lesser-known problem at the time than it is today.
Gas emissions from automobiles are one of the biggest polluters on the planet. In fact, the rapid global increase in automobile production starting around 1920 directly correlates with rising global temperatures (Royal Society). Though other industries are contributing to the problem of global warming, carbon dioxide emissions from the auto industry are one of the biggest. Warmer temperatures causing sea levels to rise and refugee crises are not the only problems posed by global warming. Air pollution affects one’s health in other ways, such as breathing. Some of the fine particles in smog accumulate from CO2 exposure. The W.H.O. (2018) estimates that air pollution is linked 7 million deaths per year.
Aside from that, pollution isn’t the only environmental problem caused by automobiles. The hunt for natural resources to build cars and keep them running has contributed to the harm of many ecosystems, and the people who dwell in them. Oil spills are a common problem; no body of water is safe from them, including rivers. Drilling impacts local wildlife, disrupting migration patterns and contributing to extinction events. Recently, Shell Nigeria was found guilty of the pollution of Niger River delta communities for decades (B.B.C.). Wars that are waged for oil also shatter communities, and the U.S. may not be immune from that. Accusations of staging wars over oil, such as the 2003 Iraq invasion, are worth mentioning. But generally, wars like these are waged for other stated purposes, despite the victors benefitting from the resources gained. A time in history where it was explicitly stated was Germany’s invasion of Russia in WWII, when petroleum supplies were in high demand to keep the war machine going.
I don’t mean to sound like a luddite by pointing out these negative things about automobiles. Social interaction is probably the greatest contribution they have made to society, as people can travel to events faster and visit relatives who live far away, allowing for larger congregations than in times before the Motor Age. This generally applies across all classes in the U.S., though there are many in the country who cannot afford an automobile, and an even higher percentage outside the U.S. Most of the people in the U.S. have the luxury of being able to carpool, so it isn’t as much of a disadvantage as it is for people living in developing nations, where there can be whole communities without a single vehicle.
Do the benefits outweigh the costs? For oil-based vehicles, I believe they don’t. Pollution rates are far too great for the planet to sustain the current infrastructure. However, with the increased production of hybrid and electric vehicles, I believe we are moving to a place where the benefits can outweigh the costs. Oil-based vehicles will likely be seen as primitive models of more efficient, environmentally friendly ones in the future. All that is needed is better infrastructure to help reduce costs, which many governments are implementing, but it does not seem like they are moving fast enough. What worries me most is that we may have already reached a critical mass of air pollution from which the planet cannot recover. The technology introduced by the Motor Age would play an enormous role if that were to occur.
References:
Norton, Peter D. 2008. Fighting Traffic: The Dawn of the Motor Age in the American City. Cambridge, Massachusetts.
W.H.O. 2018. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/westernpacific/health-topics/air-pollution
C.D.C. 2020. Retrieved from
The Royal Society. 2020. Retrieved from https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-1/
B.B.C. 2021. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-55853024
No comments:
Post a Comment