http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: The Invention of America's 'Love Affair' With the Automobile en Sun, 31 May 2026 10:51:06 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20310#post-335065 Thu, 30 Jul 2020 00:17:25 +0000 Murun Buchstansangur 335065@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Dunno, jaywalking laws started to be introduced in the US in the 20s and were the norm by the 30s. Just because the phrase hadn't been coined/excessively used doesn't mean it wasn't a thing. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20310#post-335038 Wed, 29 Jul 2020 19:06:06 +0000 unhurt 335038@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>From 2015 but still useful:</p> <p><a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-29/the-invention-of-america-s-love-affair-with-the-automobile" rel="nofollow">https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-29/the-invention-of-america-s-love-affair-with-the-automobile</a></p> <p><blockquote>Norton's work has documented that for most of the early 20th century there was no clear consensus over whether cars or other users had more of a right to city streets.</p> <p>"This story's success is apparent in a powerful governing assumption: streets are for cars," writes Norton in a chapter about the love affair thesis in the 2014 book Incomplete Streets: Processes, Practices, and Possibilities. "Drivers accept that streets are for cars and don't have much to say about it—until another street user behaves as if streets are for anything else."<br /> </blockquote></p> <p>and</p> <p><blockquote>Norton acknowledges that the "love affair" may well be real for some people. He just wants everyone to appreciate the careful craftsmanship, by vested interests, that went into making it the dominant theory. At the close of his recent chapter in Incomplete Streets, he takes the additional step of suggesting to advocates of alternative transport that they can learn a key lesson from this history about the power of a strong narrative</blockquote> </p>