I can’t drive. I know a lot of people who can’t drive. A few of them write for this newspaper. I have always resisted the suggestion, with some fury, that being non-car-compliant is emasculating. And yet. A close pal’s tale from outside the supermarket did give me pause. He was sitting in the passenger seat, waiting for his partner, when a delivery driver arrived and asked him politely to move along a few feet. “I’m sorry, I don’t drive,” he told her in his most manly voice.
I can’t quite remember the next bit, but it was something to do with just “putting it in neutral” so they could give it a push. Do I have this right? Anyway, he had to confess he didn’t know what that meant. The delivery woman, walking back to her vehicle, pulled the sort of face she might pull if he’d burst into tears after failing to help her open a stubborn pickle jar.
Anyway, what about that new Road Safety Authority advertisement? As is the way of discourse in the 21st century, an arguable misstep has rapidly escalated into an outrage of continent-shifting proportions. It has briefly become the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of public-information films. The ad has a man who has lost his driving licence being carried from place to place by friends and family – a teammate gives him a piggyback to training; a date has to throw him over her shoulder after a visit to the cinema; his mother has to carry him home from work. “Lose your licence. Lose your independence” the commercial ends.
I was annoyed about it. This may be down partly to an upbringing in the North. Admitting you can’t drive in that part of the world is like admitting you can’t use a knife and fork. This is, perhaps, the only way in which Churchill’s famously dreary steeples of Fermanagh and Tyrone call to mind southern California. In both places, people listen in wonder – and partly in pity – as you explain how the city dweller can use bicycles, buses and trams to go about his or her daily business.
Life in Hollywood: Golden-age photographs of Marilyn Monroe, Elizabeth Taylor, Grace Kelly and more
Colman Domingo: ‘I was noted as one of Time magazine’s 100 most influential people, and I thought, what?’
The Movie Quiz: When did James Bond first get behind the wheel of his Aston Martin DB5?
Cuckoo: Spooky sanatorium thriller is a flamboyantly unhinged tribute to Eurohorror
There is, particularly in the North, not just astonishment that you can’t drive but also utter bewilderment that you don’t particularly want to. The phrase “what red-blooded man..?” is hovering forever unspoken. It is not believed that you can go about your business without begging lifts. But you can. Yes, I understand that things are different in “the country” (somewhere I go as rarely as possible). But any generalised assumption that the carless are without independence is absurd. The fewer vehicles in cities the better. Less pollution. Less congestion. That argument is hardly helped by portraying those without automobiles as burdens.
The chorus of disapproval was soon deafening. Chris Pender, Social Democrat councillor from Kildare, was not holding back. “Jesus Christ, this is not a good look,” he commented. “What about the thousands of people that can’t drive due to a disability or illness or the thousands of us that choose public transport. Are all of us burdens?”
It is not entirely a trivial discussion. Critics argue from a place of sincerity. On the other hand, one can see how the RSA got to this place
Neasa Bheilbigh, chairwoman of the Irish Cycling Campaign, was equally unequivocal. “It trivialises the serious behaviours that lead to licence disqualification and reinforces harmful stereotypes about independence,” she said. Dr Callum Swift, committee member of Irish Doctors for the Environment, was among those writing to this newspaper. Motorists “are the largest financial burden to society”, he said. “We should be encouraging modal shift away from the private car, not shaming those who don’t drive.”
As the debate drifted on to social media, the same people who argue that “if you don’t like the Rose of Tralee, then don’t watch it” were suggesting that “if you don’t drive, then it’s not intended for you”. According to the RSA, the advertisement “was developed following feedback from focus groups with young drivers earlier this year”. It seems that asking for lifts “due to a driving ban was something they dreaded”.
It is not entirely a trivial discussion. Critics argue from a place of sincerity. The “lose your independence” message will surely aggrieve some unable to drive as a result of disability. On the other hand, one can see how the RSA got to this place. The ultimate aim is to persuade drivers, particularly young ones, to handle their vehicles responsibly. No argument there.
The least important issue here is the irritation of those who, like me, regard not driving as one of their greatest achievements in life. But let’s be honest. We didn’t all get here because we were thinking every day of the environment. Never getting around to driving lessons was a factor. Meanness with money may have been another. But, nonetheless, we have, perhaps, ended up doing the right thing. And not just because it disturbs the insufferable petrolheads of Lisburn and Los Angeles.
