Motonormativity

Motonormativity (also motornormativity, windshield bias, car blindness,^[1] or pejoratively car brain) is an unconscious cognitive bias in which the social norms of private motor car ownership and use, and their societal effects and externalities, are assumed to be natural, universal, inevitable, neutral, and non-negotiable.^[2]^[1] It is a type of normativity based on the presupposed role of cars in society.^[2]

Motonormativity is a systemic bias throughout car-centric societies. It is not limited to motorists; people who do not drive also exhibit the bias.^[3] It disproportionately affects those who cannot drive, such as due to age or disability.

The concept of motonormativity describes how car dependency is created and reinforced, and how the health hazards of cars are downplayed and obscured. It also provides a framework to describe social privilege conferred onto motorists and double standards around car use.^[4]

Coinage

The term motonormativity was coined by Swansea University psychologist Ian Walker, Alan Tapp and Adrian Davis in a 2023 study in the United Kingdom.^[5]^[6] The study was replicated in the United States by Tara Goddard in 2024.^[4]

Causes

In the century since its mass adoption, the initial public opposition to the car and its dangers has been largely forgotten, in part due to propaganda and advertising by the automotive industry.^[7] Cars have widely become ubiquitous and essential, as well as symbols of status,^[8]^[7]^[9] identity,^[7] comfort and control,^[8] contributing to their normalization as well as to resistance to reducing their use.^[8]

People embedded within car-dependent systems may struggle to imagine alternatives to the system^[7]^[9]^[10] or appreciate its associated harms.^[10] One possible factor, proposed by Walker, is conflation of all transport and travel with driving.^[10] Another is that environmental and social costs of car use are not easy to compute, causing them to be overlooked.^[8]

The bias is reinforced by cultural narratives that supremacize cars and their drivers, and stigmatize and marginalize pedestrians, cyclists, and other modes of transport.^[3] People internalize these narratives from various influences, ranging from friends and family, to observed behaviors such as speeding and aggressive driving, to the preferential design of the built environment, to the legal system.^[10] This internalization occurs regardless of whether the subject goes on to drive.^[3] Some people may initially dissent from motonormativity, but succumb to pluralistic ignorance that Tapp attributes to media misinformation and cultural denialism.^[9]

There may be cognitive dissonance about the preferability of cars. Journalist and author Sarah Goodyear suggests that the necessity of driving demands purposefully ignoring its risks: "If you allowed yourself to think about how dangerous that is, it would be debilitating."^[7]

For drivers specifically, another suggested factor is the sunk cost of investment in a car, including direct costs such as gasoline and parking.^[9] On the other hand, since the monetary costs of a car are not paid at the same time as using it (unlike a fare), they are also frequently undervalued.^[8]

Significance

According to studies of motonormativity, people are significantly more accepting of negative externalities associated with cars compared to similar non-car scenarios. This demonstrates a pervasive societal tendency to overlook the public health hazards of car-centric systems.^[4]

As a consequence of motonormative bias, attempts to reduce car use are often misinterpreted as attempts to curtail personal freedoms such as freedom of movement; cars become the only conceivable form of mobility.^[3]^[9] Even minor inconveniences to motorists may be considered unacceptable, and thus be flouted or given disproportionate weight.^[11] This perspective can escalate to conspiracy theories, such as believing the 15-minute city principle to be intended to limit mobility. It has also been linked to property damage, such as repeated destruction of traffic enforcement cameras in Toronto.^[11]

This effect has been documented not just in famously car-dependent North America, but around the world.^[12]

Examples

Motonormativity creates the expectation of driving to reach destinations, such as grocery stores, making alternative means of access seem or become unfeasible.^[11] It may cause urban planning decisions to overlook non-drivers: for example, a new hospital being built outside a city, even though that makes it less accessible to city dwellers who cannot drive or do not have a car.^[5] The assumption that all adults have driver's licenses is present even in situations unrelated to driving, and can encumber the usability of other valid identity documents.

Walker has cited certain road safety campaigns targeting children as an example of motonormativity: by encouraging children to wear brightly coloured clothing to avoid being run over, such campaigns normalize the idea of motor traffic as an accepted danger others must adjust to, in a way which in other contexts would be considered victim blaming.^[3]

The bias also encourages passive and euphemistic phrasing, such as accident, to minimize the severity, predictability, and preventability of traffic collisions, shift blame from drivers, and create emotional distance.^[7]

Double standards

Motonormativity often invokes special pleading; cars and driving are treated as exempt from general moral principles.^[3]^[12] Criticism and anger for breaking these principles is redirected toward numerical minorities such as cyclists.^[11]

Motor vehicles are relatively tolerated as a leading cause of death in the U.S., compared to other leading causes, such as cardiovascular disease and cancer, which see widespread demand for radical solutions.^[12] Similarly, car-related risks are considered less preventable or worth preventing than occupational hazards.^[4] Automotive safety features such as seat belts and airbags have been subject to public resistance.^[3] Journalists may devote less attention to traffic collisions than to violent crime, despite traffic fatality being twice as prevalent as murder in the United States.^[13] Individuals are given more discretion to bend traffic rules, even when merely for efficiency, than to bend other health and safety rules such as for food safety.^[4]

A popular example from the studies contrasts tolerance of car exhaust with that of public cigarette smoking.^[2]^[4] Walker argues:

It is nonsensical to say that making people breathe toxic air is a problem when it comes from a cigarette, but it is fine when it comes from a car. The underlying principle is the same, but people in our study were not using the same standards when they judged the two things.^[1]

The bias also manifests in blame attribution for theft. If a parked car left on the street is stolen, police response is considered much more appropriate than for other personal belongings, where the owner is then considered more at fault for leaving their property on the street.^[4]^[1]

References

^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Reid, Carlton (17 January 2023). "Car Blindness Normalizes Dangers Of Motoring, Reveals Study". Forbes. Retrieved 9 January 2026.
^ ^a ^b ^c Walker I, Tapp A, Davis A (2023). "Motonormativity: how social norms hide a major public health hazard". International Journal of Environment and Health. 11 (1): 21–33. Bibcode:2023IJEH...11...21W. doi:10.1504/IJENVH.2023.135446.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g Ro C (7 March 2024). "'Motonormativity': The bias that leads to dangerous driving". BBC Home.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g Goddard, Tara (30 August 2024). "Windshield Bias, Car Brain, Motornormativity: Different Names, Same Obscured Public Health Hazard". Findings. doi:10.32866/001c.122974.
^ ^a ^b Walker P (17 January 2023). "'Motonormativity': Britons more accepting of driving-related risk". The Guardian.
^ Hawkins AJ (31 January 2023). "Cars are rewiring our brains to ignore all the bad stuff about driving". The Verge.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f Yoder, Kate (28 October 2025). "What we lost when cars won". Grist. Retrieved 9 January 2026.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Innocenti A, Lattarulo P, Pazienza MG (2013). "Car stickiness: Heuristics and biases in travel choice". Transport Policy. 25: 158–168. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.11.004.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Colombo, Elena (19 March 2024). "Motonormativity: underestimating cars' risks and pollution". Renewable Matter. Retrieved 9 January 2026.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d "Where Does 'Motonormativity' Come From — And Which Country Has It Worst?". Streetsblog USA. 6 May 2025. Retrieved 9 January 2026.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Moscovitch, Philip (17 July 2025). "What are we thinking? This is your brain on cars". Halifax Examiner. Retrieved 9 January 2026.
^ ^a ^b ^c Kaitlin T (23 May 2023). "'Everyone has Car Brain'". Atlantic.
^ Zipper, David (10 October 2025). "'Car Brain' Is Making the US Unhealthy and Dangerous. EVs Won't Fix It". Bloomberg.com. Retrieved 9 January 2026.