Approach urbanism with intellectual curiosity
"What can we learn from others" is a bridge too far for more than a few people.
I don't think anyone believes the car industry would be happy for city dwellers to use bicycles instead of cars. It's not like a few bike sales here and there are going to bankrupt Ford, Toyota, or Tesla. But if everyone lived close enough to all their errands that a car became a luxury item instead of a daily tool, well that'd be a serious problem for Big Auto.
Car manufacturers make a product for profit. It's in their interest to make marketing decisions that keep people buying cars. So why do you suppose the car industry played a major role in the promotion of bicycle helmets? Of all the ways to invest advertising dollars in lifestyle campaigns, they saw an ROI in widespread adoption of bike helmets.
Why?
Maybe they understood fear is big business, and that helmets sent a message that bicycling is a dangerous activity. Perhaps they’re savvy enough to support bicycling as a hobby that requires an automobile—a minivan or SUV or truck that’s more expensive than a small sedan.
Bicycling as transportation is an entirely different issue for Big Auto because it reduces car trips. Even in a car-dominant landscape, it would sting the manufacturers if households shifted from three vehicles down to two.
Intellectual curiosity is a curiosity that leads to general knowledge
When we’re young, we can’t stop asking questions because everything feels like magic or a mystery. Where does rain come from? How do clouds change shape? Why do clothes in the dryer stick together? Why are green beans gross until smothered in butter? Who invented letters? Where does trash go? How does music make a person feel happy and sad?
Don't just teach your children to read. Teach them to question what they read. Teach them to question everything.
George Carlin
The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.
Alvin Toffler
School muted or squashed the love of learning from most of us, because everything became a chore. Learn this, but not that. Listen to this, but not that. After so many years of memorizing boring information that we don’t care about, it’s hard work to come back to a childlike wonder of the world.
So great is our innate love of learning and of knowledge that no one can doubt that man’s nature is strongly attracted to these things even without the lure of any profit. For my part, I believe Homer had something of this sort in view in his imaginary account of the songs of the Sirens. Apparently, it was not the sweetness of their voices or the novelty and diversity of their songs, but their professions of knowledge that used to attract the passing voyagers; it was the passion for learning that kept men rooted to the Sirens’ rocky shores.
Marcus Tullius Cicero
Cicero wasn’t referring to getting the scoop on some local gossip or rumors about castle acquisition. It’s a need to know more about a thing or a system of things. Intellectually curious people aren’t satisfied with generic responses to questions. “No, we’re not going to allow accessory dwelling units. They’re unpopular.” That’s not gonna cut it.
Apply this to any urbanism topic: affordable housing, park design, building heights, street furniture, bicycle parking, and architectural details.
Ask questions that peel back the layers of a topic. You don’t have to do this in public or under the pressure of a boss at work. Use your internet search bar to ask some specific questions as a jumpstart. If you’re annoyed by the lack of skyscrapers in Washington, DC, ask “why aren’t there any tall buildings in DC?”
The point of intellectual curiosity isn’t to convince someone that you’re right and they’re wrong. It’s almost the opposite mindset. Assume you have much to learn about a topic that intrigues you. Be skeptical, even of your own held beliefs.
The internet is where humans flock to demonstrate their lack of intellectual curiosity.
Social media rewards polarized points of view. Facebook and Twitter, of course, but even business casual LinkedIn functions in that way. It’s quick and easy to like and/or comment on a post because of the quick dopamine hit. It’s not as appealing to go off on a miniature quest.
Americans love wearing helmets and love telling everyone to wear helmets. It's as settled as “brush your teeth or they’ll rot.” Funnily enough, promoting safe infrastructure gives our culture pause. The idea that a street network could be inviting for casual bicycling without special attire is so foreign to Westerners, Americans especially.
It's difficult to be intellectually curious about helmet-free bicycling cultures when you’re trained from birth that bicycling is a kid’s pastime or an adult’s sport.
Do bike helmets protect us in the way they’re marketed?
Are people riding without a helmet taking unnecessary risks?
Do bike helmets prevent concussions?
It's easier to just insist helmets should be a top priority for safe mobility. Bringing this up on social media is…entertaining.
Comment after comment reinforces the original tweet. People don’t want to be bothered to think deeper. It’s easier to misinterpret my post as “idiots wear helmets.” Approaching helmets with an open mind leads to discovering the perceived safe solution doesn't prevent the thing we're all rightly afraid of—getting hit by motor vehicles.
Broadly speaking, Americans don't want to use the mental capacity to learn what makes bicycling so effortless in other countries. They’d rather get in a defensive posture based on feelings, not inquiry.
"What can we learn from others" is a bridge too far for more than a few people.
The alternative to groupthink is to be a skeptic. In this case, to learn about their origin, design, purpose, and efficacy. (If you’re so inclined.) Take a look at the short video below and ask yourself if there’s anything to be learned from places that have high bicycle use and low helmet use.
What works for others?
How might we copy it?
What makes bicycling so convenient, even in the rain and snow?
What would a local government in the US need to do, if anything, to improve traffic safety?
Is Dutch bicycle infrastructure legal in the US?
The scene above wasn't always this way for Danes. Copenhagen wasn’t always Copenhagen.
If cars used to clog Amsterdam, what changed?
Were cars banned? If not, why did young and old start using bicycles to get around?
Is road design a factor? If so, how?
What can the US copy? If so, can anything be done at the local level?
I wish people were more willing to learn more about a thing that they had a strong position statement about. It doesn’t matter whether or not they come to the same conclusions as me about daily applications. We can both look at the same set of facts, draw different conclusions, and still be smarter than we were the day before.
There are amazing examples of bicycle urbanism around the world. What can we learn from them?