Social media has us fighting each other about pedantic and semantic issues facing urban mobility—while the powers that be rest upon their status quo… and laugh.
The late, great Sinead O’Connor once blasted “fight the real enemy” into our TV screens—a move that would see her rising career obliterated on the spot.
I’m not going to discuss the Catholic Church in this post, but her words are a good reminder to “speak truth to power” (perhaps said more diplomatically).
To keep your eyes on the prize.
This is one of the reasons I took to blogging rather than social media. Places like Facebook, Twitter and Threads are far too toxic to engage in meaningful discussion.
You simply end up with zealotry on all sides.
And that’s particularly the case with two of the topics I discuss: cycling and electric vehicles.
If you’ve ever socially posted an opinion about either of those things, you likely know what I’m talking about.
With cycling, I’m never that surprised. I just saw an FB post about Subaru’s new cyclist-safety external airbag… and people were posting with their God-given names how they’d prefer to “kill the cyclist” rather than pay for that feature.
Yikes.
Personally, I had to leave my neighbourhood Facebook group because I couldn’t stand all the “cyclists can’t run stop signs!” and “pedestrians aren’t dressed properly!” chatter.
(Not once did I see a post about safe driving.)
But this is all a distraction.
Same with EVs. I am, in many ways, more disappointed with the EV discourse. I like EVs. But at the same time, I believe in holding the industry’s feet to the fire.
You won’t find many people like that on social media. You’re either with the EV transition 100 percent, or against it fully.
Or, coming from the other side—you’re either a Truck Driving Patriot, or an eco-fascist.
Take discussions on Toyota. Once the poster child for the eco-car movement, this venerable Japanese company is now routinely dragged for failing to keep up with the EV transition. And sometimes even blamed for hindering it.
The fact that Toyota has put some 20 million hybrids on the road—replacing 20 million traditional ICEs—over the past 28 years, means nothing.
The fact that Toyota cites their 1:6:90 reason—that is, with the resources required to build the battery for a single BEV, you could build six PHEVs or 90 HEVs—is not good enough.
(Meanwhile Kia and Ford get accolades for building 2,700-kilogram EVs with batteries that use more Lithium than 10,000 iPhones.)
Or that Tesla, which has actually done more to facilitate the transition to EVs than any other company (save, perhaps Toyota, who showed us an electrified future back in 1997)… is now shunned by the same people who are fighting for electrification?
Hey—I’m no fan of Elon Musk either. Not at all. But when I hear someone proclaim they traded their Model S for a Porsche Taycan because they don’t want their vehicle associated with a Nazi… well… maybe they’re just not history buffs?
(Even if you don’t choose something emblazoned with the surname of a member of the Nazi SS, we all know the most environmentally friendly car you can own is the one you currently do. Even if it’s a Tesla.)
So what are we doing folks?
Are we throwing paint on parked Teslas, lambasting the inventor of the hybrid-electric vehicle, screaming at cyclists and pedestrians and wetting our pants over every new $100K EV that rolls off the assemble line?
Or are we laser-focussed on all levels of government, demanding more action directed at transportation equity and a future where we can all move freely and safely?
Don’t worry about your neighbour’s Model S. Or whether Toyota should be building more EVs. Or whether it should be legal for a cyclist to wear black. Or how long it’ll take to get your hands on that new Scout SUV.
Do worry about new highway construction, laws that permit housing densification, active transportation funding and parking minimums.
The other stuff will follow.
In short, choose revolution over civil war.
Leave a Reply