Transport: challenging disabling environments

Abstract

This article brings together the concerns of environmental and disability movements through examining the role of transport. Both movements critique current transport policy and practice. The disability movement has analysed how it marginalises the needs of disabled people, while environmentalists argue current transport trends are unsustainable and marginalise alternatives. Although these critiques operate independently and even seem opposed to each other, a common agenda can be developed through extending the social model of disability. The social model can be used to understand how car-dominated transport systems can be understood as disabling populations larger than those conventionally recognised as “disabled”. The car offers the technological fix of enabling abilities, in particular speed and strength, but in practice disables in a number of ways. Urban sprawl and traffic increase barriers to participation and access for many both “able-bodied” and “disabled”, while car dominance damages social interaction and limits sensory perception. Furthermore, the car economy is a major cause of impairment through crashes and physical inactivity. Understanding these together requires integrating the social model of disability with an eco-social model of impairment. This can show how unequal forms of social organisation are embodied in people and environments to produce patterns of impairment, disability and disadvantage. Finally we suggest policies to move towards sustainable societies with increased opportunities for broader social participation. The article argues that the two movements can create and benefit from a shared vision of socially inclusive, low-energy, sustainable transport.

Keywords:

• environmentalism
• disability movement
• transport
• cycling
• automobiles
• green travel

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Jim Blakemore, Paul M. Smith, the journal editors and the peer reviewers.

Notes

1. Disabled Peoples Transport Advisory Committee.

2. A few “disability cycling” organisations and programmes exist (see “Potentials for policy”), but are small, underfunded and seen as “specialist”.

3. The failure to make these judgements accurately has potentially devastating consequences.