Transport Policy 18 (2011) 1–12

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transport Policy

0967-07

doi:10.1

n Corr

E-m

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tranpol

Why did the chicken cross the road, and what’s funny about it? The roleof transportation cartoons in social experiences

Ilan Salomon n, Rachel Singer

The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel

a r t i c l e i n f o

Available online 29 October 2010

Keywords:

Humor theory

Cartoons

Transport user experiences

Transportation policy

0X/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. A

016/j.tranpol.2010.09.002

esponding author. Tel.: +972 2 5883345; fax

ail address: msilans@mscc.huji.ac.il (I. Salomo

a b s t r a c t

This article samples a number of transport related situations that cartoonists sketch in the media,

thereby taking a stand and offering solutions regarding transportation issues. We discuss the

relationship that is created by the cartoonists and ultimately involves both the general public and

transportation professionals. Our analysis offers insight into popular perceptions of transportation

experiences through social commentary, transmitted as graphic humor, regarding common situations,

which are observed in transport systems. A theory and qualitative research based approach is used to

address the complex connections between our daily responses and transportation contexts. An analysis

of topical components of transportation systems and experiences as perceived by users and

policymakers utilize the representations by cartoonists. By examining how the issues interrelate, we

built a storyline that presents observations and critiques.

& 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Is there something inherently funny in trying to understandwhy a chicken crossed a road? Probably not. However, the chickenriddle is very much enmeshed in western culture, particularlyAmerican, and utilized as a neutral platform from which to putforward endless variants of the joke, which describes acertain situation or worldview. When traced back to the originsof the riddle, the answer is quite simple and self evident—‘‘to getto the other side’’. In its essence we have a situation that relates topedestrians of all sorts. To a transport professional a suitableanswer could be gap acceptance. Whether they are people oranimals, the road presents a danger to them and highlights thedecisions involved in choosing to cross it. As Macaulay (Why Did

the Chicken Cross the Road, 1987) has put it, in a broader context,‘‘each cause has an effect’’. Modern-day travel behavior analysiswould suggest that the chicken crossed the road as a result of the‘‘desire to be there’’, namely because the chicken needed toconduct an activity on the other side—a derived demandphilosophy (Mokhtarian and Salomon, 2001). One variation ofthe riddle shows a chicken crossing the road with a determinedlook, while another chicken says ‘‘Now why would you want to do

something like that?’’ (Fig. 1). This question may be answered‘‘because it’s there’’ (‘‘Hazards of the Alps,’’ 1923), the famous

ll rights reserved.

: +972 2 5883347.

n).

quote by George Mallory as to why he wanted to climb MountEverest, suggesting that the desire to travel and see what isbeyond is a part of the curious nature that spurs movement andfinding exact reasons can be elusive.

Beyond the case of the chicken, there are many otherhumorous situations associated with transportation, as withmany other realms of life. In this article we sample a number ofsituations that cartoonists sketch in the media. In doing so thecartoonist takes a stand and offers solutions regarding transpor-tation issues, whether they are relevant or not is a whole otherissue. We discuss the relationship that is created by thecartoonists and ultimately involves both the general public andthe transportation professionals. As transport professionals thisportrayal offers insight into popular perceptions of transportationexperiences through social commentary, which is transmitted as agraphic humor, regarding situations which are observed almostdaily in transport systems.

This paper has two objectives. The first and foremost is toinduce laughter among transportation professionals, who oftenhave much more to cry about than laugh about when it comes totransportation conditions within their purview. Secondly, thispaper analyzes topical components of transportation systems andexperiences as perceived by users and policy makers—these arerepresented by cartoonists who present experiences, critiques andobservations that resonate with the general public as it appears inthe media.

The role of cartoonists, on the one hand, is to providehumorous observations and commentary on the social, economicand technological changes that we experience in reality. On the

Fig. 1 and 2. 2.& Alfred Frueh/The New Yorker Collection/www.cartoonbank.com.

Figs. 3 and 4. 3.& George Booth/The New Yorker Collection/www.cartoonbank.

com. 4.& Charles Saxon/The New Yorker Collection/www.cartoonbank.com.

I. Salomon, R. Singer / Transport Policy 18 (2011) 1–122

other hand, many times they offer solutions and situations whichexist in the realm of the fantastic or in one’s imagination.A dynamic discourse is seen between the situations which thecartoonists lampoon and the actual options available to theprofessionals. In the 1920s, cartoonists had quaint childlike ideasfor solving the emerging motorized traffic problems (Fig. 2). Sixtyyears later we were still in the same boat, with much lesspatience, as seen in the 1980, ‘‘Your car will be right down Mr.

Lundquisty’’ (Fig. 3). The cartoonist has the option of providing a‘‘quick fix’’ on paper. Such a fix is often the option which wouldappeal to the policy maker. Transport professionals attempting tosolve transportation problems on the ground with the resourcesand technologies offered by the transportation systems arecognizant of the complex interaction of transportation with otherlarge-scale social systems, and the constraints and preferences ofpolicy makers and the traveling public. The competent transpor-tation professional should be wary of the overly simplisticsolutions favored by policy makers, which can seem cartoonishin their own right.

In this paper we identify and discuss relevant transportationissues presented through a collection of cartoons, which differ,among other ways, in the background required for their under-standing. What is shared in this paper is the common topicalfocus, namely transportation. Transportation systems are oper-ated and managed by a number of mechanisms, including, but notlimited to, regulations, education, technology, economic mea-sures, etc. A large number of cartoons collected over the yearscombine terminology, theory and policy relevance, and serve asthe basis for this two-pronged effort: an analysis of the serioussocial roles of humor and a joyful effort for the benefit oftransportation professionals.

2. The nature of humor and laughter

The seemingly simple question of ‘‘what is humor’’ provesexceedingly tricky to answer. For 2500 years great philosophicalminds have tackled the question, with little agreement. Laughterand humor are often equated in early humor studies and up untilthe present, though there is a distinction between them. Humor isnot a sufficient condition for laughter, as laughter does notnecessarily follow from humor: when a joke is told some peoplewill laugh while others only smile. Nor is humor a necessarycondition for laughter: laughter is a physiological response to anumber of stimuli generated by different emotional or physicalconditions of the exposed. Many of these stimuli often do nothave to do with what we would call humor (laughing gas andbeing tickled, for instance). There is also laughter that is not aresult of humor, such as in uncomfortable social situations wherepeople laugh in order to relieve tension (Smut, 2009). In this paperwe assume laughter to be a response to humor and limit our focusto a certain kind of stimulus, the cartoon or comic, which can bedefined as a professionally produced source of humor. Cartoonsare an art-form intended to elicit a response from the viewerthrough the often outrageous situations depicted.

3. The theory

There are three widely accepted categories of humor theories:superiority, relief and incongruity (Berger, 1993; Raskin, 1985). In

Figs. 5 and 6. 5.& Arnie Levin/The New Yorker Collection/www.cartoonbank.com.

I. Salomon, R. Singer / Transport Policy 18 (2011) 1–12 3

this section we bring the thoughts of many eminent philosophers,and while this in many ways oversimplifies much of thephilosophy, it serves the introductory purpose here.

The first theory of humor, Superiority Theory, claims thatall humor involves a feeling of superiority to varying degrees.Plato and Aristotle look at the role of superiority when we findsomething to be amusing. In comedy we take a catty pleasurefrom the misfortune of the ridiculous, whom we readily view asinferior to ourselves. Aristotle sees jokes as a form of abuse, whichought to be told without inflicting pain (Nicomachean Ethics

(IV,8)), and wit is ‘‘educated insolence’’ (Rhetoric (II, 12)).Aristotle and Plato do not clearly delineate the superiority

theory; its most noted exposition is attributed to Thomas Hobbes,who expresses it quite loftily when he writes, ‘‘The passion oflaughter is nothing else but the sudden glory arising from somesudden conception of some eminency in ourselves, by comparisonwith the infirmity of others, or with our own formerly’’ (Human

Nature, chapter 8). In a critical reversal of the superiority theory,continental philosopher Robert Solomon offers an ‘‘inferioritytheory’’ (Solomon, 2002) in its stead. The self-recognition of theability not to take yourself seriously, or to see yourself as less thanideal can be a source of humor as well. Superiority theorists tendto focus on what feelings are necessary for there to be humor orwhy we find some things funny (Smut, 2009).

Apparent in many cartoons is a feeling of sudden glorythat sprouts when one can drive or own a car, ‘‘Suddenly I feel so

anti-pedestrian!’’ exclaims one new driver, insinuating that thosewho are not in a vehicle are inferior. Being the owner of a big shinynew vehicle can also do miraculous things for one’s self image, ‘‘This

is me, here’’ (Fig. 4), says one ordinary looking middle aged man in asuit to another as he gently puts his hand on his curvy, snazzysports car that he believes reflects back his own persona. Cartoonsoften play on the fine line that runs between feelings of superiorityand inferiority, generating humorous situations.

The second theory of humor, Relief Theory, describeshumor as a tension release model. This is more a discussion ofstructures and the psychological processes that induce laughterthan a definition of humor. The two main theorists that featurehere are Herbert Spencer and Sigmund Freud. The main claimis that all laughter results from a release of excessive energyor tension. Spencer asserts that excitement and mental agitationproduce an energy that must assert itself and that nervousexcitation begets muscular motion: laughter serves as theexpressive form for this energy. Freud describes three differentsources of laughter – joking, the comic and humor – which savepsychic energy (be it sexual or hostile feelings, cognitive energy oremotional energy) that is later released through laughter (Jokes

and Their Relation to the Unconscious). A point of contention withthis theory is that the most emotionally restrained people shouldenjoy joking the most, though this is sadly not the case (Smut,2009). Relief theories tend to focus on the function that humorserves in human life, as humor can aid people in difficultemotional situations (Freud, 1928). Indeed humor can have manybeneficial social aspects: it can help to alleviate stressfulsituations, taking on a role as a ‘‘social lubricant’’, and humorcan aid in dissipating emotional stress by providing a welcomerelief from an unpleasant situation (Sultanhoff, 2003). Humorallows us to redefine the situation and add an element whichreduces our sense of having a disagreeable experience (Frew,2006). This gives humor the value as a coping mechanism, whichshould not be underestimated. Humor is often a bridge creatingsolidarity between participants in a given situation as theyillustrate to one another the humorous aspect of their jointexperience (Young, 1995).

Humor is also reflected in current social and technologicaltrends and our desire to appear to understand them and be part of

them. An example that relates to advances in technology in recentyears can be seen in a cartoon marveling at the concept of‘‘wireless technology’’. A tightrope walker seems to be walking onair; a spectator of the trick/optical illusion claims ‘‘it appears to be

some kind of wireless technology’’ (Fig. 5), in his attempt tounderstand the feat and sound sophisticated. Even though it isnothing of the kind, it sounds good.

The third theory of Humor, Incongruity Theory, is the mostaccepted theory as it explains the majority of cases of perceivedhumorous and comical situations (Smut, 2009). Aristotle starts offwith the first evolution of this theory when he says that the bestway to get a laugh is to set up an expectation and then give a twist(Rhetoric III, 2). Emmanuel Kant’s sharper statement is explainedthus: ‘‘In everything that is to excite a lively laugh there must besomething absurd. Laughter is an affection arising from the suddentransformation of a strained expectation into nothing’’ (Critique of

Judgment (I, I, 54). Arthur Schopenhauer argues that humor arisesfrom the failure of a concept to account for an object of thought.When the particular outstrips the general, we are faced with anincongruity. Schopenhauer also emphasizes the element of surprise,saying that the greater and more unexpected this incongruity is, themore violent the laughter will be (Smut, 2009).

In a situation that illustrates the dissonance between professedenvironmentalism and the dependence on cars for traveling,we have a discrepancy in the desire not to destroy naturalresources and find more sustainable transport solutions, com-pounded with the fact that we are very much dependent on carsas a leading means of transportation and development. The driverasks ‘‘How do I get to the demonstration against the new road?’’(Fig. 6) while stuck in a traffic jam comprised of would be

I. Salomon, R. Singer / Transport Policy 18 (2011) 1–124

anti-road demonstrators honking in frustration. The pedestriansports a ‘‘save our resources’’ top and frowns at the incongruity ofa traffic jam on the way to a demonstration aimed at limiting roaddevelopment.

4. Data and methods

4.1. Data

This paper assumes a qualitative research approach. There area number of distinct humor agents. These include, for example,puns, oral jokes, cartoons, comic strips, caricature and, increas-ingly, video clips. Each of these can be classified in numerousrelevant ways, such as length or information intensity, abilityto transfer across contexts, etc. In this paper we have chosen toconcentrate on cartoons only. A cartoon is a humorous or satiricaldrawing, which traditionally appears in newspapers or maga-zines. We have collected a few hundred transportation relatedcartoons that relate to ground transportation and represent awide spectrum of issues.

We systematically divided the cartoons into preliminarycategories that we revised several times in an effort to improvethe classification. We understand that we have not touched uponevery category, the distribution is dynamic and the categorizationand division that we chose could be one of many alternatives.The final list of categories includes cars and roads, congestion,environment, gender, history, limos, road signs, parking, pedes-trians, police, policy, rail, repairs, safety, social, technology andtolls. Due to space limitations, the cartoons included here cannotcover the whole field of transportation. In our final analysis that ispresented here we include the aforementioned categories thathave been incorporated into a broader storyline, these include:

rail systems, cars and congestion, selling alternative technologies,gender, policing, driver information, and transportation policy.

The cartoons that we selected from the categories were chosendue to characteristics that are more universal and relate tosituations most people can identify with, rather than being placedin a specific time/place/culture context. The cartoons are fromvarious collections and artists, including The New Yorker,T. McCracken, John Heine, Alex Hughes and architect DavidMacaulay, among others.

4.2. Methods

We categorized hundreds of individual cartoons by theirsubject matter (some could belong to multiple categories) andslowly began a process of narrowing the selection down andchoosing cartoons that relate to one another and reinforce theideas that often come up. On examining how the issuesinterrelate, we built a storyline that analyzes the transportationworld as seen through the prism of cartoons.

This paper can be used as a collection of transportation humor,an album holding 43 cartoons. Alternatively, or in addition, it mayserve as an analysis of humor, focusing on the content of humor andits societal roles. We admit that the selection is based on our ownpersonal taste preferences (i.e. what made us laugh the mosty).

To the question ‘‘what makes a cartoon a success or a flop?’’The answer is the receiver’s response, which is a result of context,cultural background, personal experience, language and taste.The cartoon intends to illustrate a point that it hopes the audiencewill ‘‘get’’, the result is not known beforehand and its success isgauged according to the response.

The conceptual model shown below describes the relationshipbetween transportation issues, people and information flow. To this

I. Salomon, R. Singer / Transport Policy 18 (2011) 1–12 5

end we utilized a model developed by Pearce (2009), relating totourism and humor and adjusted it to focus on cartoons andtransportation.

Information in the form of a cartoon is generated by thecartoonist; the cartoon is an illustration with an underlying message.Under the umbrella of dealing with transportation issues andexperiences the cartoonist treats multiple topics. The cartoon’sunderlying message has intended effects. These include mockingpolicies or situations, raising public awareness and offering solutionsthrough this humorous medium. The cartoon is then publishedthrough an outlet; a cartoon may be relayed though different visualmedia (e.g. newspapers, magazines and the internet). Finally theinformation arrives at the receiver’s end, who decodes the cartoonand decides to accept or reject it as an humor according to societalfilters that are a product of familiarity with the issue, cultural

Figs. 7–9. 7.& Sam Gross/The New Yorker Collection/www.cartoonbank.com.

8.& Sam Gross/The New Yorker Collection/www.cartoonbank.com. 9.& Joseph

Farris/ The New Yorker Collection/www.cartoonbank.com.

background, political correctness (or incorrectness) and personalattributes. There may be multiple levels of understanding a cartoon,as such different professionals, or heavy users of different componentsof transportation systems, can assign additional meanings andidentify with the cartoons as they have a more extensive knowledgeof the system. Societal filters also impact the outlet’s choice of

Figs. 10–12. 10. Cartoon by Nicholson from The Australian "http://www.

nicholsoncartoons.com.au/" www.nicholsoncartoons.com.au.

I. Salomon, R. Singer / Transport Policy 18 (2011) 1–126

cartoons to publish according to the appropriateness of the contentand the intended audience. Various personal transportation experi-ences also impact the way the cartoon’s content is absorbed by thereader. The public feedback to cartoons also has an indirect effect onthe cartoonist, the information generator. There are also larger socialand psychological outcomes from this process, illustrating humor as acoping mechanism and stressing the societal outcomes of visualhumor that are used to critique and analyze transport issues. Theseoutcomes feedback onto future experiences, as viewing a situationcast in an humorous light helps us to perceive situations differently.

5. Analysis

In this section we try to correlate the transportation systemwith humorous situations related to that system. Many of thejokes in this and other collections reflect political climates orchanges within a certain transportation mode that relate to issuessuch as funding, safety, rising fuel prices, labor strikes, etc. Withinall these situations and interactions the observer will find humorin the ridiculous human–human or human–machine interactionsthat come up; many of us may feel they resonate with our owntransportation experiences that we encounter daily.

The technological advances that we enjoy in this day and agehave a long history. Beginning with the invention of the wheelexperts wondered not only how to make it roll, rather are theycapable of stopping it, as seen in ‘‘My next big project is brakes’’as the early experimenters run after the rogue wheel (Fig. 7).This cartoon inadvertently points out that after the wheel fewmajor technological advances were made regarding widespreadground transportation until the arrival of trains in the mid-19thcentury.

Figs. 13 and 14.

5.1. Rail systems

Trains captured the leading role in transport technology duringthe second half of the 19th century. Simultaneously a secondindustry emerged, that of toy trains. The combination of these twogave rise to much humoristic opportunities, and in manycases trains have been personified and ridiculed on the basis ofsize difference, technical capacities and more as shown below. Aclassic book of Jewish humor titled ‘‘Two Jews Took a Train’’(Kerman, 1995), dating back to 1922, supports this contention.

As such, they also provide opportunities for cartoons ridiculingthe interaction between toys and rail technology. We start with alittle king walking down his royal carpet to play with his circulartoy train set (Fig. 8). Leaders and politicians love trains almost asmuch as children (perhaps even more). In another cartoon a littleboy sets up a toy train set that goes into another room; a look ofshock appears on his face as he looks up and discovers a gigantictrain coming round the bend—not what he expected (Fig. 9). Wecan imagine such a shock on the politician’s face when he has todeal with real life issues that he had not foreseen, which couldinclude the rail line becoming a mega-project or a white elephant(Fig. 10) (fortunately for him, however, if not for the taxpayers, heis often out of office for long by the time these issues occur, and itis his successor who must deal with the shock). Strikes andfunding problems become apparent through an alternative tellingof the Little Engine that Could, a moralistic children’s storyemphasizing the value of optimism and hard work with an ‘‘Ithink I can’’ motto. Some critics would contend that the book is ametaphor for the American dream. Here we encounter threevariations of the ‘‘Little Engine’’: it could, when it sees the stationfunding forthcoming (Fig. 11); it could, when it adopts a morephilosophic approach, namely, ‘‘I think I can therefore I think I am’’

Figs. 15 and 16. 15. The Saul Steinberg Foundation/ Artists Rights Society (ARS),

New York. 16.& Alfred Frueh/The New Yorker Collection/www.cartoonbank.com.

Figs. 17 and 18.

Figs. 19–21. 20. John O’Brien / The New Yorker& 1989 Conde Nast Publications.

21& Lee Lorenz/The New Yorker Collection/www.cartoonbank.com.

I. Salomon, R. Singer / Transport Policy 18 (2011) 1–12 7

(Fig. 12). In the third case we have the little train that could not:after not being able to make it over the hill the little engineis in bad shape, looking defeated with a dark urban landscape inthe background. The sign to the passerby reads ‘‘I thought I could,

I thought wrong’’ (Fig. 13).This is the unhappy ending to the Little Engine that tried and

failed, a cynical view on the happy endings taught to children.Such is the disappointment in commuter trains, which is reflectedin the new version of toy trains sold which does not actuallycontain a train—‘‘just two stations, some track and a bunch of little

plastic people standing around with clenched fistsy’’ (Fig. 14).Historically, transportation industries have suffered repeatedlabor strikes, a phenomenon not ignored by cartoonists.

Another version of the toy rail is seen in the subway versionfor city kids who are familiar with subways rather thancommuter trains. In this subway set we see the street levelcomponents – the different variations of stairs and stations withtheir unique designs – while the actual movement of the subwaysis in the child’s imagination (Fig. 15). This imaginative view on theway subways are run is in sharp contrast to the feelings ofthe subway riders themselves. Despite the marvels involved inbuilding a subterranean transport system, a certain feeling of lackarises when the small differences between apes and subwayriders are pointed out in ‘‘700,000 years of progress’’ (Fig. 16).Indeed at rush hours a popular analogy is likening yourselfand your fellow passengers to canned sardines. As the publictransportation passengers and cartoonists make analogies tosardines and apes, humor becomes the sharp tool used to copewith uncomfortable commutes while illustrating the system’sdeficiencies.

There are also those who doubt the whole system of trainsaltogether. An expert explains the weakness of trains such: ‘‘The

whole business is economically unsound. With a train of this length

and 40 miles of track, we find that only 0.0568% of the tracks will be

in use at any given time, representing a constant idle investment of

99.9432%’’.

5.2. Cars and congestion

The 20th century saw the development of the automobile, withthe philosophy of Fordism cars becoming affordable and wide-spread. Cars introduced a new freedom to its users in allowing themmobility as long as they are not stuck in traffic. Cartoonists offerexamples of the ironies of traffic congestion. Such a case we see in acartoon where the passenger cars sit in bumper to bumper trafficclutching the wheel while collectively dreaming of bicycles. (Fig. 17).The question that arises is, ‘‘what is the point of having a car that cango fast when all you do with it is sit in a traffic jam?’’ The non-motorized mode is ultimately much faster in this case.

The extent to which cars have become an integral part of humantravel behavior can be seen in the father–son conversation, which

Figs. 22 and 23. 22.& Frank Modell/The New Yorker Collection/www.cartoonbank.

com.

Fig. 24 and 25. & Mick Stevens/The New Yorker Collection/www.cartoonbank.

com 31633 Reilly, Donald New Yorker Cartoon 9/23/1991.

Figs. 26–28. 28.& Donald Reilly/The New Yorker Collection/www.cartoonbank.

com.

I. Salomon, R. Singer / Transport Policy 18 (2011) 1–128

points to socialization and intergenerational values, where the sonis attesting his credentials: driver’s ed., auto repair and sex ed.,as the basis to his claim on the car (Fig. 18). In another father–sonscene the vast amount of land that is taken for parking lots iscynically portrayed in the vision that a father passes to his sonwhen they stand and look out at a vista, the father saying ‘‘By this

time next year son- all this will be a parking loty’’ (Fig. 19). This leadsto absurd situations where in the endless expanses of parking lots acouple scatters pebbles or breadcrumbs, Hansel and Gretel style,to find their way back to the car (Fig. 20). In the past people wereoften lost in forests, today getting lost in a parking lot trying to findtheir car is far more likely.

In the world of roads and cars much is at stake. Cars are themode of choice in many places and issues of safety, cost andefficiency are crucial in establishing a well run system. Thecurrent debates on the impact of cars on climate change and the

Figs. 29 and 30. 29.& James Stevenson/The New Yorker Collection/www.

cartoonbank.com.

Figs. 31 and 32. 31& William O’Brian/The New Yorker Collection/www.cartoon-

bank.com. 32. & Garrett Price/The New Yorker Collection/www.cartoonbank.com.

I. Salomon, R. Singer / Transport Policy 18 (2011) 1–12 9

environment are loaded with special interest groups trying topromote a vision that best suits their needs rather than thegeneral public’s.

5.3. Selling alternative technologies

As the world increasingly brims with cars the factories churnthem out ever faster with an impressive array of marketingtechniques. In a jab at the car industry’s willingness to marketanything as long as it will make money comes a new product: ‘‘This

might appeal—it runs on vitriol’’ (Fig. 21). A new spin on road rageand car sales, a car that runs on anger and it is marketableyanexcellent way to make the roads a safer place. In a parallel versionanother car dealer promotes a car on the basis that ‘‘I happen to know

that Ralph Nader’s mother drives this model’’ (Fig. 22). This, of course,requires a familiarity with Nader and consumer issues of car safetyin the United States. Another common marketing technique for carsis the ‘‘Bigger is Better’’ approach: whoever drives the biggest, mostgas-guzzling car wins (Fig. 23).

The problem came when, with rising gas prices, people startedspending disproportionate amounts of money at the pump. With arise in environmental awareness people also started to becomeconscious of the additional costs of gasoline, emissions. The clever cardealer tries to capitalize on this when he markets the hybrid vehicle:‘‘It runs on its conventional gasoline-powered engine until it sensesguilt, at which point it switches over to battery power’’ (Fig. 24). Thecar industry makes the most out of the public’s demand for privatecars and tailors sales tactics accordingly. A cartoon showing amassive car landfill with big cars piled one on top of the other relates

to the impact of cars on the environment and the lack of cradle-to-grave thinking in regard to cars and their parts (Fig. 25).

The technologies become more sophisticated and peoplecontinue to demand the mobility that the private car offers andlike to believe that they are environmentally sound at the sametime, though evidence increasingly disputes this (Lave and MacLean,2002).

5.4. Gender

Between the sexes there are never-ending disputes over thestupidity of the opposite gender in driver related issues. This isexplicitly seen in the stereotype of the female driver propagatedby men. Consistently in many cartoons women abide by a formulain which they have no knowledge of the way cars are built or howto drive them. Time and time again the woman gets into anaccident and then tries to rationalize it to her husband (Fig. 26).Women are widely considered to be inferior drivers despitecounterfactual studies (Turner and McClure, 2003; Farrow andBrissing, 1990). Transportation has traditionally been a maledominated field, and perhaps these stereotypes of femalessprouted from a desire to keep it this way. The female criticismis in response to twisted concepts that have men referring to theirshiny new cars in the feminineyand part of their quest forequality. Men in turn never admit to being lost (Fig. 27), theywould rather argue that their genetic programming preventsthem from stopping to ask for directions (Fig. 28).

Fig. 33 and 35. 34.& Mort Gerberg/The New Yorker Collection/www.cartoon-

bank.com. 35.& Robert Mankoff/The New Yorker Collection/www.cartoonbank.

com. Figs. 36–38. 36.& Arnie Levin/The New Yorker Collection/www.cartoonbank.com.

37.& Edward Koren/The New Yorker Collection/www.cartoonbank.com.

I. Salomon, R. Singer / Transport Policy 18 (2011) 1–1210

5.5. Driver information and policing: hazards on the road

When we get lost on the road we turn to others on the way,but giving and getting directions are no simple matter. Trying toexplain how to get from point A to point B is quite the missionwhen on the receiving end. A person who is lost in an unfamiliararea has a big jumble in his head when he gets directions,opposed to the orderly mental map that the cop has of his hometurf, giving an amusing view of the gaps in spatial perceptionsbetween locals and visitors (Fig. 29). Looking for the correctturn and trying to orient oneself while driving in a new place canbe distracting and troublesome. The GPS gadget is becomingincreasingly popular in recent years as it offers a reliable wayto get from here to there without having to rely on others forassistance (as long as you can operate the instrument correctly).GPS units can often give precise directions to the driver in maleor female voices (according to the preference of the driver) whileon the road.

Even if people have good directions it does not follow that theywill be safer drivers, as seen in the case of the policeman whopulls over a man who was swerving and provides the unlikelyexcuse that he got into an argument with his GPS and she grabbedthe wheel (Fig. 30). The male driver blames his ‘‘female’’ GPS forhis dangerous driving, alluding to the pathetic tactics drivers willuse to avoid getting a ticket and taking responsibility for their

driving behavior. Another case which demonstrates the perceivedflexibility of the law shows a man who looks as though he mighthave a connection to the mob saying to a policeman: ‘‘Why don’t

you step inside, Officer, and discuss this in comfort. We’re air-

conditioned’’ (Fig. 31). Policeman can also be bored by the job oralternatively see themselves as above the law, resulting in theludicrous scenario where the policeman looking for action says tothe man he pulled over ‘‘Since you’re going to get a ticket anyway,

how about racing to the overpass?’’ (Fig. 32). Another policing styleis speed enforcement achieved with potholes (Fig. 33), introdu-cing a ‘‘system of enforcement through neglect’’ as a new way toreduce speed.

Road signs, like cops, are used to inform and regulate drivers’behavior; however they can be misunderstood due to theirwording, as in the case of the driver who thinks about thefinancial yield when he comes to a yield sign (Fig. 34). Road signsin cartoons can also be used as a vehicle to reflect the attitude ofthe drivers rather than conveying useful information. A highwaysign that relates to the monotony of the highway and drivers’boredom on a road that goes on and on endlessly is seen in‘‘Welcome to Kansas or some state very much like ity’’ (Fig. 35),or ‘‘Which of these two arrows is longer?’’ (Fig. 36). The road sign‘‘Whatever’’ (Fig. 37) can be interpreted to note not only theobvious dangers of driving carelessly on the road, but can also

Fig. 39–41. 39. From GREAT MOMENTS IN ARCHITECTURE by David Macauley.

Copyright (c) 1978 by David Macauley. Used by permission of Houghton Mifflin

Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved. 40. John Heine. 41 & Jack

Ziegler/The New Yorker Collection/www.cartoonbank.com.

Fig. 42, 43. 42 & Jack Ziegler/The New Yorker Collection/www.cartoonbank.com.

43& J.B. Handelsman/The New Yorker Collection/www.cartoonbank.com.

I. Salomon, R. Singer / Transport Policy 18 (2011) 1–12 11

relate to a sense of apathy toward the environmental concernsand the sedentary lifestyle associated with the car culture.

5.6. Transportation policy

Often transport policy is hazy to the public at large, as well asto the cartoonist who lampoons the situations that arise from thepolicy measures. Transportation professionals have given muchsupport over the last few years to road pricing as a congestionreduction policy. There are two issues at hand here: the principleof paying for road usage and the mechanism used to collectmoney. An ironic situation is depicted where we have endlesscongestion as far as the eye can see on a road, with a road signreading ‘‘Debate on road pricing next exit’’ (Fig. 38). Anotherexample shows how the evolution of toll roads goes back toRoman times, depicting the ruin of a Roman edifice on a roadburied with time reading ‘‘Exact change only’’ (Fig. 39). While themechanism evolving the principle of paying for road usageremains constant. Governments and economists still charge forroad usage, the tollbooths of yore were reincarnated on modernday highways demanding exact change, and today we are gettingever more sophisticated with electronic road pricing (ERP),eliminating the annoying need for exact change with a bother-some bill that arrives in the mail.

An additional challenge that policy makers have with promot-ing public transport is the poor image that it has. Aside from

arriving to work on time there is the desire to arrive in a modethat implies style and prestige, preferably in a fancy car with achauffeur. A frowning big shot with sunglasses rides on wheelsthat are globes—implying the executive culture that has resultedas part of the globalization process (Fig. 40). The fact that the carrides around on the back of the world raises questions aboutwhose expense the ride is on. A greener variation of this theme isthe cool ‘‘environmentally aware’’ executive riding to work on anon-motorized elongated scooter that is being driven by achauffeur—status minus the pollution (Fig. 41).

For those who agree to look into other options unusualpredicaments arise: ‘‘Our short-lived carpool’’ (Fig. 42) delightfullypoints out one of the many challenges carpoolers face when theytry to adopt a policy intended to reduce congestion and theresulting pollution. This sketch, which adds to the variousimplications policies can have on users is satirical, though ittouches on the very human way that we seek to retain status andindependence, often acted on in ways that seem rather bizarre.

6. Conclusion

The type of humor utilized in many of the cartoons points outthe absurd, exaggerates it and then transforms it in a variety ofcreative ways to construct statements on our transportationexperiences. Humor offers a new perspective on a given situationand aids us in sublimating it. This is an important tool thattravelers and professionals utilize when faced with difficult travelconditions. Transportation offers no end of frustrating situations,adding a touch of humor is a coping strategy as many experienceson the road are often enough to ruin one’s day (and often much

I. Salomon, R. Singer / Transport Policy 18 (2011) 1–1212

worsey). While this paper presents published cartoons as thebuilding blocks for understanding transportation humor, we arecognizant that much of the humor produced during travel isspontaneous and verbal. Humor and laughter are parts of our day-to-day response to situations we find ourselves in. Here we try toidentify a theory based approach to address the complexrelationship between these daily responses and transportationcontexts. A last example we bring is a pun on flat tires: the imageof a ‘‘Jack’’ from a deck of playing cards as the unhappy car jackwhile the King changes the tire and the Queen sits idly in the car(Fig. 43) brings an inventive perspective to the uncomfortablesituation of having to change the car tire, the introduction of theroyals in playing cards being reduced to the same difficulty as therest of us changing a tire is a witty scene.

Continuing research on links between transportation and humorcan examine cartoon responses to transport related policy decisionsand other behavioral contexts. While this paper touches broadly onmany issues over a long time span, future work could attempt to‘‘zoom in’’ on more specific transport issues as they develop (e.g.mega projects) as a gauge to public perception. Cartoons illuminateproblem issues and prod policy makers to act accordingly.

We would like to take this final opportunity to point out thathumor can also serve as a useful icebreaker in professionalcontexts, especially when such circumstances involve tension.This was a brief venture into a very rich world of humor andtransportation as seen through these inventive cartoons. Webelieve that transportation professionals can better understandnuances in this collection as they try to think of ways to alleviateexisting problems, many of which are illustrated here.

Acknowledgements

We wholeheartedly thank the following individuals andorganizations for their generosity in making this project possible:

Prof. Hani Mahamassani, Prof. Patricia Mokhtarian, Prof. MosheBen-Akiva, Prof. Eran Feitelson, Prof. Bert Van Wee, Prof. PeterNijkamp, Prof. Piet Bovy, Prof. Martin Wachs and NECTAR.

References

Berger, A., 1993. An Anatomy of Humor. Transaction, New Brunswick, NJ.Farrow, J.A., Brissing, P., 1990. Risk for DWI: a new look at gender differences in

drinking and driving influences, experiences, and attitudes among newadolescent drivers. Health Education & Behavior 17 (2), 213–221.

Freud, S., 1928. Humor. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis 9, 1–6.Frew, E., 2006. The humor tourist: a conceptualization. Journal of Business

Research 56, 643–646.Hazards of the Alps, August 23, 1923. The New York Times, p. 16. Retrieved

October 28, 2009, from New York Times Archives.Kerman, D. (Ed.), 1995. Two Jews Took A Train: The Best of Alter Druyanov. Tel

Aviv: Zmora-Bitan, Tel Aviv.Lave, L., MacLean, H., 2002. An environmental-economic evaluation of hybrid

electric vehicles: Toyota’s Prius vs. its conventional internal combustionengine Corolla. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 7(2), 155–163.

Macaulay, D., 1987. Why the chicken crossed the Road. Boston: Houghton Mifflin/Walter Lorraine Books.

Mokhtarian, P.L., Salomon, I., 2001. How derived is the demand for travel? Someconceptual and measurement considerations. Transportation Research Part A:Policy and Practice 35 (8), 695–719.

Pearce, P.L., 2009. Now that is funny: humor in tourism settings. Annals of TourismResearch 36, 627–644.

Raskin, V., 1985. Semantic Mechanisms of Humor. D. Reidel, Boston.Smut, A., 2009. Humor. Retrieved October 19, 2009, from /http://www.iep.utm.

edu/humor/S.Solomon, Robert, 2002. Are the Three Stooges Funny? Soitainly! (or When is it OK

to Laugh?). In: Joel Rudinow, Anthony graybosch (Eds.), Ethics and Values inthe Information Age, Wadsworth Publisher.

Sultanhoff, S., 2003. Integrating humor in psychotherapy. In: Shaefer, C. (Ed.), PlayTherapy with Adults. John Wiley and Sons, New Jersey, pp. 107–143.

Turner, C., McClure, R., 2003. Age and gender differences in risk-taking behaviouras an explanation for high incidence of motor vehicle crashes as a driver inyoung males. Injury Control & Safety Promotion 10 (3), 123–131.

Young, M., 1995. Black Humor: Making Light of Death. Policing and Society 5,151–167.