Advocacy: Why We Do What We Do

Mike Watson | Advocate Coordinator , Pedal Power ACT

Chapter 3: Motonormativity – “Car Brain”

This is one of the most significant concepts to address when trying to make bikes easier to use, yet one of the hardest things to write about. Still, it matters. A lot.

Let’s unpack motonormativity, or what some people now call “car brain.” I’ll talk about where the idea came from, how it shows up in society today, point you to a brilliant video that explains it far better than I could, and finally, reflect on how Canberra is travelling (pun intended).

Let’s go back in time

When cars were first allowed on public roads in the UK, just before Australia was federated, the maximum speed was 4 mph (about 7 km/h). AND every self-propelled vehicle had to be preceded by someone walking with a red flag, warning everyone of the approaching hazard.

How did this prevent collisions?

Well, if you watch city street footage from 1900 to 1920, you’ll notice something interesting: every vehicle, person, or cart moved at a similar speed. Everyone visually negotiated their movements with others, making eye contact, adjusting, avoiding. In that world, all users of the road were more or less equally important. No one assumed dominance.

This method of navigating, the ‘natural’ model of traffic separation, actually works really well. It’s the same principle most mammals use in crowded spaces: keep your distance, slow down, and avoid bumping into each other. (The only exception? Predators. But that’s not relevant here... I hope.)

What changed?

Cars got faster. A lot faster. At some point, they were simply too quick for people to visually negotiate safe passage. The risk of collision became too great. So we made rules, reasonable ones at first, to keep people safe.

But then came the twist: instead of finding ways to fairly share space, we gave priority to the fastest, biggest, most dangerous vehicles.

Cars were granted right of way. Pedestrians, cyclists, horse-drawn carts, anyone not inside a motor vehicle, had to wait. Cross the road only when it’s safe. Keep to the side. Let the cars through.

This wasn’t just about safety. It was about power.

Enter motonormativity

Over time, this car-first mindset became hardwired into law, planning, and community attitudes. Once you start looking for it, it’s amazing how entrenched it is in everyday life.

Have you ever heard someone say that bike riders should “pay their road taxes,” or to “get off the road”? That’s motonormativity. That’s car brain. The unspoken assumption that the road belongs to cars, and anyone else is a guest—if not an outright inconvenience.

There’s fascinating research in the UK on subjective hazard perception. Two psychologists studied how people assess risk in everyday scenarios [1] . In nearly every case, the public “forgives” unsafe behaviour more when it’s committed from a car. If the same behaviour were done by a pedestrian or cyclist? It’s considered dangerous or antisocial.

One comment stuck with me:

“I would say those cars are often killing people because bikes are forcing them over the middle of the road and causing problems.”

Just think about that for a second. A person is killed by a car, but the bike is blamed. That’s motonormativity in action. The car is normal. Everything else is a disruption.

A Canberra example

Let’s bring this home.

Three years ago in Canberra, a cyclist was deliberately targeted by an angry driver. The driver used their car as a weapon, brake checked the rider and knocking them off their bike. The cyclist was injured and spent several days in hospital.

In court, the driver wasn’t treated like someone who had used a vehicle to cause harm. Instead, they were described as “rattled.” No conviction. No real consequences. Just… rattled.

Now imagine the same attack, but instead of a car, the driver had used a star picket or a metal pole. Same intent. Same injury. Would the courts have responded with the same level of leniency?

That’s motonormativity in action. When the weapon is a car, we excuse it. We absorb it into the normal risks of getting around. But swap the car for any other object, and suddenly the violence becomes obvious, and unacceptable.

Want to understand this better?

Simon from GCN has a brilliant 20-minute video on motonormativity and its effects. It’s smart, clear, and eye-opening. Please watch it if this has piqued your interest—it’s time well spent.

So how do we fix this?

The first step is recognising it.

Motonormativity is the reason so many road users feel unsafe or unwelcome. It’s why bike infrastructure is so often an afterthought. It’s why drivers feel entitled to the road, while cyclists feel they have to apologise for using it.

And it’s why, even with better paths and policies, change is slow, because the deeper issue is cultural.

If we want bike riding to feel safe and normal, we need to challenge the default assumption that cars own the street. We need to design not just better infrastructure, but a fairer mindset.

That’s why we talk about car brain. Because naming it is the first step toward changing it.

[1] Please click here if you want to read the full paper.