An Academic Essay

Who Feels Unheard in a Car-Centric World?

Insights into forced (non)driving

Cars driving through Uppsala, Sweden (license plates made invisible). Photo by the author

Do you think all car drivers want to drive or enjoy driving? And do you think all people who do not drive are fine with using other modes of transport?

It’s easy to think that the answer to both is yes. These binaries seemingly make sense, especially if you live in a Western country and either love driving your car, or you’ve chosen to be carless (e.g., for ecological reasons), and it works well for you. However, numerous people are either forced into driving or forced into not driving at all.

In this academic essay, I explore the nuanced human experiences in a world built around cars — with a focus on the US and Europe. This is my take as a social scientist with a background in media and communication science and sociology. Rather than asking to drive or not to drive, I ask why people are involuntary (non)drivers, and how that impacts society as a whole.

Who is carless by choice?

Let’s shortly address those who chose to be carless (not careless, just without a car of their own!). Car ownership and driving are not synonymous — you can have a driver’s license but no car. Still, I am both voluntarily carless (Sattlegger & Rau, 2016) and a ‘choice’ nondriver (Zivarts, 2024). I have mainly lived in urban European environments and since I could always cycle, walk and access a functioning public transit system, I haven’t yet felt forced to get a driver’s license. Like me, some people just don’t like the idea of maintaining and investing in a vehicle, causing carbon emissions, paying for parking or becoming comfortable by having a private moveable cocoon parked around the corner.

Voluntary carlessness can be given up if one’s life situation requires it. All mobility choices shift over people’s lifetime, which is what mobility biographies research explores (Sattlegger & Rau, 2016). For instance, many people purchase a car when they have children. Other so-called mobility milestones may be the move away from home or a job change.

In their interview study conducted in the Austrian capital of Vienna, Lukas Sattlegger and Henrike Rau (2016) noted that a major motive for voluntary carlessness is pro-environmentalism. Yet, some people who’d happily make that sacrifice don’t get to make it, as developed in the following sections.

Who is forced to drive a car?

Many people would love to ditch their car — but they feel like they can’t. This is what the bestselling German author Katja Diehl (2022) describes in her book ‘Autokorrektur’ (Autocorrect). Numerous interviewees from all over Germany explained to her why they feel forced to opt for automobility.

Here is a list of those who feel forced to drive in a German context, although this likely applies to other Western environments (Diehl, 2022):

1. Disabled people, especially those in wheelchairs who have to rely on driving services, book services before taking the train, don’t have accessible sidewalks, etc. Some of them feel much more autonomous and dignified with a private car.
2. People who don’t like driving, or owning a car, for instance because they are afraid of hurting somebody, prefer to work from home or dislike supporting the car as a status symbol. For some, the commute without a car would take too long or employers expect them to drive.
3. People in the countryside, where buses tend to be infrequent, train lines are not properly developed, and car ownership is the default.
4. Families, especially those with many children or single parents, who need to master all their scattered everyday activities like picking up the children and going to work. For parents with several children, a car is often cheaper than, e.g., the train. There are also not always school buses or car-sharing options available.
5. People who can’t afford to use public transport because the transport prices increase exponentially while the cost of car ownership remains fairly stable. (Note that this may have changed with the nationwide ‘Germany ticket’ for 49€/month introduced for public transport in 2023.)
6. People of Color and transgender people who experienced hostility and threats in public transportation, and consider the car a safe space.
7. People who are old or sick, and still drive because they would otherwise depend on other people. Among those are mostly seniors who should not be driving anymore, as they are no longer confident and fit enough, but the law doesn’t enforce this in Germany.

Who is forced to be a nondriver?

US-based author Anna Letitia Zivarts (2024) is disabled: She has nystagmus, a condition of rapid and involuntary eye movement, and sees only about 20 percent of most people’s eyesight (p. xiv). If she drove a car, she would endanger herself and other traffic participants. This makes her dependent on other drivers or a mediocre public transit system and badly maintained sidewalks, which she says is widespread in the US. After conducting interviews in the US and reviewing statistics, Zivarts (2024) established who else is a nondriver against their own will:

1. Disabled people, who may have an invisible disability like nystagmus and feel too ashamed to admit that’s the real reason why they don’t drive. To them, being a nondriver feels like deviating from the norm.
2. People who can’t afford to purchase, operate or maintain a vehicle. This often intersects with the group of disabled people or others on this list.
3. People of Color, who are pulled over and fined more often when driving in the US, pay higher loans and more for car insurance, and may already be poorer. In the US, these people are Black people, Native Americans and Native Alaskans (while in European countries, there would be a slightly different demographic and situation).
4. Immigrants — who either can’t legally drive if they’re undocumented or who are legal residents but for whom car costs are too high of a burden.
5. Seniors who can’t drive for health reasons anymore, but feel ashamed that this makes them depend on other people.
6. Children and teenagers, who may be seen as not needing to be mobile. However, everybody has the right to be mobile, and saying one is ‘too young’ for independent mobility is discriminatory and patronizing.

Have you noticed anything?

Although Diehl’s (2022) and Zivart’s (2024) books are based on interviews from two different countries, I see parallels between forced drivers and forced nondrivers. Go ahead and compare the lists to see it for yourself.

In a nutshell, forced mobility overwhelmingly affects the marginalized members of our society. Older adults are but one example. Their age has made them more frail, but admitting this can feel disgraceful — so they either depend on others to drive them around when that is the only option, or drive despite being unfit for the road. While some disabled people (often with invisible disabilities like blindness) are not allowed to drive and wish for better alternatives, others drive because taking public transport comes with many hurdles (e.g., when people in wheelchairs have to inform the train company before they can travel). Non-white people more often feel forced to drive a car for their safety in Germany, while non-white people in the US are more likely not capable of affording a car. Kids or transgender people are yet other groups whose needs tend to be disregarded.

Both authors also illustrate that people with limited resources can’t afford to own a car, yet sometimes put their few resources into car ownership. Why this contradiction? Both Diehl (2022) and Zivart (2024) point to ‘employability’: Not driving is seen as an impediment for many jobs, not only when explicitly stated by an employment agency or an employer. Hence, the decision is whether to stay poor or to hope that by investing in an expensive car, one can find a good job to lift oneself out of precarity.

Conclusion: From automobility to mobility for all

Whatever the means of transport we choose or are forced to use, we all live in the same world. According to British sociologist John Urry (2004), this world is governed by a ‘system’ of automobility. He coined that term to describe the infrastructure, discourses, funding structures, etc. that are centered around the car, making it the default mobility option. This holds for the US and Europe to different extents. For instance, while cycling is a normalized practice in Germany, it is still more marginalized than driving.

When the car is the default, this excludes many individuals from a self-determined, smooth and positive mobility experience. The right to mobility should be universal, as Daniel Newman (2017) writes: “We all have the right to affordable transportation to meet our basic needs. […] We all have the right to not be forced to use a car.” (pp. 103–104).

What this all boils down to is the following: In a just world, everybody should be able to get around without a car. Nobody should feel ashamed for being unable to drive due to sickness, age or disability. Nobody should feel forced to drive a car because it shields them from discrimination, because it’s the only viable way to bring their kids from A to B, or because the public transport network is not well-developed or too costly.

Using a car can certainly be useful, be it for a family holiday or a road trip to a remote location, moving to a new place, transporting loads or similar travels. But wouldn’t it be more beautiful if cars became less necessary, parking spaces were freed up for people to sit and walk, car-related traffic accidents became an absolute exception, we could breathe clean air in all cities, sleep deeply with open windows and let kids roam freely? I believe that would be better for humans, but also for the planet.

Jönköping, Sweden. A temporary summer street with chairs, tables and plants that usually serves as a parking space for cars. Photo by the author

© Annika Wappelhorst 2024

References

Diehl, K. (2022). Autokorrektur: Mobilität für eine lebenswerte Welt. Fischer Taschenbuch.

Newman, D. (2017). Automobiles and socioeconomic sustainability — Do we need a mobility bill of rights? Transfers 7(2), 100–106. https://doi.org/10.3167/TRANS.2017.070207.

Sattlegger, L. & Rau, H. (2016). Carlessness in a car‐centric world: A reconstructive approach to qualitative mobility biographies research. Journal of Transport Geography 53, 22–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.04.003

Urry, J. (2004). The ‘system’ of automobility. Theory, Culture & Society 21(4–5), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276404046059

Zivarts, A. L. (2024). When driving is not an option: Steering away from car dependency. Island Press.