Mobilizing meanings of mobility: car users’ constructions of the goods and bads of car use

When car users’ are questioned about the advantages and disadvantages of car use the focus should not be on what they say, but on how they present their arguments to the interviewer. This paper shows such arguments can differ in kind. Swedish car users present the advantages––such as ‘time-saving’––by referring to personal and direct experience. The disadvantages are of two kinds. Some are related to direct experience, such as ‘costs’. Some are made credible by reference to public discourse, notably ‘environmental degradation’. This indicates that the facts about the advantages and environmental impacts are constructed in different ways. Facts about the advantages and some of the disadvantages are constructed in a direct and unreflexive way, situated in practical actions, and leave little room for negotiation. Facts about environmental impacts are constructed by others in a distanced and reflexive process, situated in laboratories, etc. Car users adopt these facts through various media. While the arguments on the advantages of car use are presented as unquestionable and absolute, scientific facts about the negative effects of car use are presented as relative and negotiable. This should be seen as a possible explanation why people do not reduce their own car use, although they say that car use in general ought to be limited.