​An article in which a Romanian expert on urban mobility from an international organization dared to express an opinion about the differences between men and women in terms of attachment to the personal car caused an unusually large number of negative comments yesterday, both on HotNews .ro and on Facebook.

The topic of traffic jams in Bucharest, as well as in other big cities, is of great interest, and the general tendency is to blame the authorities for not building those wide boulevards where we can all fit in our private cars.

Of course, the lack of road infrastructure in Romania is an undeniable reality. On the other hand, it would be naive to say now that the expansion of Bucharest’s boulevards can get rid of traffic jams, considering how many cars are currently on the streets. For example, in 2020, more than 1.5 million cars per 2.1 million inhabitants were registered in the capital alone.

Ana Dragucescu is the urban mobility coordinator for the ICLEI (Local Authorities for Sustainable Development) global network, which includes more than 2,500 regional administrations from over 125 countries.

From this position, an expert from Romania, who lives in Germany, gave an interview to HotNews.ro, in which she explained some things that, by the way, are already known in the West.

For example, he talked about the fact that men and women have different attitudes towards urban mobility. Men are much more attached to personal cars, and women are more willing to use public transport.

The explanations were accompanied by studies and surveys that showed just that.

Because of the difference in behavior between men and women, there is a need for these campaigns to discourage private car driving in the city in favor of greener and less polluting public transport to differentiate by gender. How it happens to others.

There are several examples here, like what the mayor of Paris, Anne Hidalgo, is doing, or what is happening in the city of Umeå in Sweden, where the city hall even has a gender equality expert working on such public policies.

Most of all, Ana Dragucescu “had the courage” to say that the current cities, including Bucharest, are designed by men to support as many cars as possible, and she referred to personal experience, to the discussions and meetings she participated in regarding urban mobility.

Another important and inappropriate topic (judging by the comments) was that the expansion of boulevards will not help in the long run, but on the contrary will stimulate the use of personal cars.

An article published by Pressone in 2019, using the example of the American city of Boston, shows just that: the investment of cities in personal automobile transport turns out to be very harmful in the long run. The streets will remain busy.

Going back to what Ana Dragucescu says, “if you widen the street, the world will know: ‘let’s also take my car this morning, because I heard you drive like through cheese and arrive in Pipera in 10 minutes.’ And the discussion is over. That is, we will return from where we left six months or a year ago.”

The only solution, says an urban mobility expert, is for the municipality to focus on public transport to make it attractive to locals.

However, all this made many readers of the interview extremely angry. “Stupid feminists,” some hastened, turning the discussion into an ideological confrontation of “progressives versus conservatives.” Others disputed his status as an expert on urban mobility.

“Welcome to the modern culture of ‘gender equality.’ Today, we can’t even discuss driving a car without invoking the new clichés of the moment – ​​gender equality, diversity, feminism,” someone wrote on our website.

Some commentators have taken this very personally, listing things that, on the face of it, would make men superior to women, although that is clearly not the point.

“Ladies, men are gods, they created everything (mathematics, musical notes, laws, philosophy, chemistry, physics, wrote and created history, diplomacy, etc.),” ​​wrote another commenter.

Some drivers expressed the opinion that, in their experience, women behind the wheel, not men, cause accidents.

Fortunately, there were also many comments that tried to explain that the issue is not ideology in the movement, but pragmatism.

“This is not about feminism. It is about pragmatism. Do you want to avoid inhaling CO2 and nitrogen oxides? Do you want to go to work in peace? It is possible, if the bus has its own lane and you limit the passage to at least 1/2 euro “shells”, through the center.

If masculinity means having a “10+” BMW shell, ie 10+ years old, eating 10+ around town, definitely a “Diesel” with half the parts you painted and polished and now “like” new” but you told the ITP to pass noxs, I say pass.”

If I were to look at the glass half full, I would say that it is very good that this thread has generated so many comments. It’s a sign that everyone’s patience with hellish traffic in the big city is running out. We are at a crossroads and have to make a decision.

But before we take our anger out on people who dare to tell us the truth, maybe we should ask ourselves if there isn’t something we can do to make our lives easier.

For example, every morning when we are about to leave the house, we ask ourselves: do I really need a car today?

• Read also: Is the Romanian ready to “divorce” his partner, car? Global Web mobility expert: ‘Cities are built by humans to support as many cars as possible’