2023-12-04 23:00:00
The National Low Carbon Strategy provides for the end of sales of thermal cars by 2035. The thermal personal vehicle will then be replaced by its equivalent but without GHG or pollutant emissions during its use. This mass arrival of EVs is part of a profound process of combating climate change, without raising the question of changes in lifestyles. Certain results of work in the psychosociology of mobility raise the risk of an unexpected effect: what if the arrival of the EV caused a decline in other modes? From the point of view of behavioral sciences, we can ask the question as follows: how does a structural measure participating in mitigation efforts interact with subjective factors, sometimes with synergies, sometimes in mutual ignorance, and sometimes with perverse effects? ? And what are these subjective factors that play a role?
First of all, the majority of French people have a pragmatic perception of the car: it must allow them to accomplish their daily tasks. Especially when the routes are complex and time is tight, i.e. “every day following work!” »: “Take the children to school, take them to sports, make them shower, eat (and do homework!), and put them to bed early enough”; “It’s just impossible to do on public transport or by bike! » Even individuals convinced by the environmental crisis tend to take their car with a second child due to the time constraints and the fatigue (physical and cognitive) induced.
Then, part of the population grants the car a special place in their subjectivity: it is a place where they can be in their personal bubble. Time in a car, alone, is time for oneself: “We can sing (wrong, it doesn’t matter)”, “we can think or not think regarding much, indeed!” » and above all, “do not worry regarding others”. These individuals tend to perceive public transport “like transporting cattle”, so it is not surprising that it puts them off. Other individuals, on the contrary, will only feel in their bubble when using public transport: they do not “worry regarding driving”, they “can ignore traffic jams”; they read, check their cell phones. Stuck in the same traffic jam, both categories will feel better if they are in their preferred mode… and even worse if they are in the mode they don’t like!
In other words, the same objective situation – the same traffic jam – is not experienced in the same way depending on one’s predilections. This is the strength of subjectivity which is too often ignored in awareness campaigns and recommendations aimed at modal shift… But how does this lead me to hypothesize a return to personal mobility in 2035?
Simply, the advantages of the EV respond to both the criticisms of the thermal car, while reinforcing the individual preferences of a part of the population (the personal bubble) and facilitating daily travel with complex itineraries. But this is where a tension appears, a potential paradox: “Plus, it’s good for the environment!” » A part of the population who feels ethically (ecology or new social norms) that they should use their car less will no longer have this influencing factor. For the average citizen, paying attention to their heating and using a car will be more than enough to satisfy their level of precaution for the transition, knowing that in 2023, sorting appears to be the first individual measure to fight once morest climate change!
In other words, in 2035, aren’t many of us likely to ask ourselves the following question: with the EV, why continue to make efforts to be multimodal?
S. La Branche and A. Susa. “The unbearable climatic lightness of sobriety in France? A sociological exploration”. 2023. Pages 102 to 107.
1701752948
#Mobilis #stands #return #individual #mobility
