Driving is not a skill I possess, and I’m acquainted with many others likewise unable to command a car- a selection of these people pen articles for this publication. I’ve consistently rebutted the accusation, albeit vehemently, that non-aptitude for handling a car is indicative of a deficiency in masculinity. Notwithstanding this, an anecdote from a dear friend about an incident just outside a store did lead me to reflect. He was sat expectantly in the front seat of his car, awaiting his significant other, when a woman delivering goods courteously asked him to advance his car a little. “Regrettably, I’m not a driver,” he informed her with as masculine a tone as he could muster.
The following part is slightly fuzzy in my memory, but it involved him being instructed to switch his car to neutral so that it could be given a nudge. I hope my recall is accurate here. Regardless, he had to own up to not knowing what that implied. The delivering woman, on her way back to her vehicle, portrayed as much surprise as she might have if he’d broken down in a sobbing fit after unsuccessfully offering assistance with a stubbornly sealed jar of gherkins.
What can be said about the latest advertisement from the Road Safety Authority? As to be expected in the present day world of communication, a potentially controversial slip has been blown out of proportion into a scandal of monumental scale. The publicity film has swiftly rivalled the catalytic effect of the event that initiated World War I. The promotion presents a man who, after having lost his driving licence, relies on his friends and family for transportation – he is carried piggyback to his football training by a fellow team member; his date shoulders him after a trip to the cinema; he leans on his mother for a lift from the office to his home. “Forfeit your licence. Forfeit your independence”, concludes the infomercial.
This irked me, perhaps partly due to my upbringing in the North. Being unable to drive in this region is as embarrassing as declaring a lack of skills with basic table manners. Ironically, the famously tedious steeples of Fermanagh and Tyrone of Churchill’s anecdotes remind one of southern California in this aspect only. In both locales, people often react with incredulity and partly pity when you explain how urban living allows you to rely on bicycles, buses and trams for daily commuting.
The question of when James Bond first took control of his iconic Aston Martin DB5 is a popular one among cinema enthusiasts. Meanwhile, the film Cuckoo presents a deliciously unhinged homage to Eurohorror, set in a creepily atmospheric sanatorium.
In many parts of the North, there’s a prevalent surprise – and often confusion – directed at those who neither drive nor express a desire to. It’s often assumed that not being able to drive, especially due to urban circumstances, means a loss of independence and constant reliance on others for transportation. However, this misconception is entirely unwarranted. Urban centres, less clogged with automobiles, are healthier with reduced pollution and traffic. This fact tends to mitigate the idea that non-drivers are somehow an imposition on society.
This topic has raised a lot of furore. Local Social Democrat councillor of Kildare, Chris Pender, vehemently disagreed with the portrayal of non-drivers as nuisances. He highlighted the many who, due to health reasons or preference for public transport, choose not to drive. The issue is deep-seated and not trivial, garnering valid points from both sides of the aisle.
Prominent figures like Neasa Bheilbigh, head of the Irish Cycling Campaign, and Dr Callum Swift, a committee member of Irish Doctors for the Environment, also chimed in. Both pointed out the dangers of minimising the serious consequences of violating driving regulations and perpetuating negative stereotypes of independence. Dr Swift even argued that the burden on society is more from motorists than non-motorists. He emphasised the need for less reliance on private vehicles and more support for public transport to avoid penalising non-drivers.
As conversation spread on social media, people who previously advised non-fans of “the Rose of Tralee” to simply not tune in were suggesting non-drivers to do the same. The Road Safety Authority defended the controversial ad campaign, explaining it was a result of discussions with young driver focus groups earlier in the year. It appeared that the fear of asking for transportation due to a driving ban was a significant concern among them.
The discussion is by no means insignificant. Detractors voice their opinions with honest intent. The implication of losing one’s autonomy can certainly upset those who, due to disabilities, are unable to drive. Yet, it is easy to comprehend how the RSA arrived at this stance. The primary objective is to motivate drivers, in particular, the younger generation, to operate their vehicles with care. There is consensus on this point.
The least significant concern is the annoyance felt by those, like myself, who consider non-driving to be a significant personal accomplishment. But let’s be frank. We didn’t all reach this point out of daily concern for the environment. A lack of motivation to take driving lessons could have played a part. A tendency to be frugal could’ve been another reason. But, in any case, we might have ended up making the right decision. And this isn’t solely to ruffle the feathers of the overbearing car enthusiasts in Lisburn and Los Angeles.