I gave a talk at the Jewish Free School today, which used to be in Camden but is now in the wilds of Kingsbury on a purpose built PFI site (prop Jarvis) opened by Tony Blair six years ago. It was a salutory experience. I decided to sock it to the pupils, who were from the upper sixth, about cars and the damaging effects of car dependency and they gave as good as they got.
It was rather like declaring support for Spurs at the Emirates – they cheered when several speakers asked questions that essentially were on the theme: public transport is horrid and for sados, why should we not use our cars. One young man asked a very cute question. While accepting that peak oil might send the price of motoring soaring, he said ‘Why shouldn’t we enjoy the cheap use of cars while we can?’
The teacher who had invited me said that many of these ‘children’ already have their own cars and even though they are not allowed to park them on site, there is no controlled parking zone locally so they just leave them outside. They were on the whole dismissive of public transport, claiming it was expensive – one girl said that it was £2 for a bus when, in fact, it is £1 with an Oyster card but she then said ‘what if you forget your card?’, while another
They did not seem to realise that in their lifetimes it is highly likely that routine motoring will simply become too expensive as the oil starts to run out. They seemed utterly unconcerned about this even when it was pointed out to them.
It was an enjoyable if somewhat dispiriting experience. Audiences like that are far more difficult to handle than adult ones or even TV interviews, because they are ready to challenge all assumptions. Their ignorance of the real world, together with their failure to realise that things will not necessarily go on as they are today, makes it very difficult to find a way to challenge them.
Popularity: 75% [?]
65 Responses
My 5 year old son, on being picked up by my from his after school club (on foot) regularly asks me why I haven’t brought the car. It’s about a 300 yard walk. There’s a similar response if I tell him we’re taking the bus to go swimming or shopping, or walking somewhere. He tends to get a lecture on social responsibility in reply.
What’s also interesting is the link between supporting the unrestrained vision of motoring and decrying the selfish, ignorant nature of the Youth of Today, in that they’re often views held by the same people – from this post it appears they’ve got a certain amount in common, mainly in the selfish, ignorant attitude. This is, of course, commonly shared with the view that Things Were Better In The Past, where things which don’t apparently include ‘fewer cars on the road’. The world may run out of oil, but it won’t ever run out of hypocrites.
Still, only ten years until my generation are in charge. Can’t wait.
Posted on March 12th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Yeah – really interesting.
We have a real problem near us with Univ students who own cars, live many to a house, and no space on street to accomodate the problem. When you talk to local policy makers they simply refuse to believe that students own cars – they think it is like it was years ago and have this stereotype view of students as all scarf wearing cyclists (Oxbridge Style). Yet when I ran a census report it was clear that once you excluded halls of residence (most students don’t live in Halls now) the percentage of households in the area occupied soley by students who owned cars was no different to the rest fo the population – and car ownership was higher per house – as wealtheir students were friends with other wealthy students and thus the house ALL had cars.
Once you’ve got a car – most people then want to drive it, also the finances direct you that way as most costs are up front.
Posted on March 13th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
I suppose the willingness to challenge all assumptions is no bad thing, but the rest of the story is rather depressing. On the one hand, it suggests a failure of the education system that these ‘children’ are so ignorant of the issues – although I’m not sure how aware of those issues I was at that stage, which is more than 30 years ago now.
On the other hand, although it grieves me to have to say it, they do have a point about public transport. Using public transport is not always quite such a satisfactory experience as we would perhaps like to think it is. From the small town where I live to the nearest major city, the train service is reasonable, and probably just as quick as using the car, allowing for parking, etc. The fares are reasonable if you make regular use, and the trains are modern, although the seats are typically packed in like sardines in a tin, and the trains are often full. The basic hourly service is augmented to half hourly throughout most working days – adequate but not excessive. If your journey is of an ‘orbital’ nature, relative to the major city, then the time taken is much less attractive – often three times as long as the same journey would take by car. The rail and bus network is supposedly co-ordinated, but basically only has radial routes.
When you actually come to use the service, punctuality is usually reasonable, and the trains are clean in the mornings – less so later in the day. Several of your fellow passengers are unlikely to respect your wish for a quiet journey – especially later in the day, and some will no doubt have already made the seats dirty by putting their feet on them. Yesterday evening, while waiting for the train to depart to return home at around 19:30, it was fortunate that a couple of policemen were on the platform as they had to break up a fight by the timetable display.
OK, it is not so awful, and I can grin and bear it for the brief time it takes to accomplish the journey to and from the city, but it is certainly not attractive or pleasant, and one cannot be too surprised that those people who have the choice, choose to use their cars. Granted not all of the problems are the fault of the operators of the public transport service, but those operators need to be aware of just how unattractive their services can be at times. Unfortunately, I fear that they, and some of the other ‘decision makers’ are blissfully unaware of these shortcomings.
Posted on March 14th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
What surprises me is that no body is suggestion raising the legal driving age from 17 to 18.
It would reduce the people eligible to drive by a percent or two and likewise the number of journeys made (driving yourself to school puts a different slant on the school run).
Teenagers are not know for their hyper-miling style of driving and young male drivers are a major statistic when it come road traffic accidents.
Plus, and this is harsh, at 17 they don’t have the vote so the political backlash won’t be massive cos the car lobby won’t care that much. When the age for buying cigarettes went up from 16 to 18 there were hardly any complaints. They only big loosers would be driving instructors who would have a very fallow year if it wasn’t phased in a couple of months at a time over several years.
Yes they will be less mobile, but this won’t effect their job prospects because the government wants to keep them all at school until their 18. And why not give them £10 a week of bus tokens, taken straight form the £30 a week they get for staying at school.
Posted on March 17th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Chris – don’t think raising the age by one year to 18 is going to curb the bad behaviour of teenage drivers. Lets face it there are plenty of people in their 20s and 30s that drive like lunatics with the same old “it won’t happen to me” mentality.
What’s needed is a total rethink of how we train people to drive. A three year “probationary period” which restricts the power output of the cars new drivers are allowed to drive (note I say “power output” – not engine size – lets face it, there are a lot of cars with 1.4 litre engines these days which give the performance that 2.0 litre engines gave 20 years ago…). There should be stiffer penalties for clocking up traffic offences during that probationary period. We’ve also shyed away in recent years from punitive insurance premiums for young drivers – unlike in the early to mid ’90s when I was 17-18 years old – my bank manager still remembers them and why I never saw anything bigger than a clapped out old 1.3 litre Ford Escort until I was 25!
Drumming it into them at an early age would go a long way into combatting the selfish attitudes of a lot of people on the highway that the road is theirs to use and abuse with little regard for others.
Posted on March 17th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Interestingly enough, I noticed that this school is actually in London. If that is the case then the students (being in full-time education in London) would actually pay NOTHING for their bus fares thanks if they got an Oyster card through their school (under 18s living in London in full-time education get a free bus pass).
A study by the former Mayor revealed that giving out free bus passes for the young actually reduces car journeys (pickups from mum/dad) and makes the young less likely to want to own a car in the future.
Posted on March 17th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
NIgel makes some key points. For those with choice, public transport is – superficially at least – not that attractive – a large part of this is about the behaviour of other people who use it (which reflects the behaviour issues that exist at large in our society). Also it is dirty and even when you see train cleaners get on board it’s only a quick litter pick – the ingrained filth is never shifted. Even people who you find would see themselves as ‘respectable’ and would be outraged if anyone accused them of being a toe rag seem to think feet on the seats is acceptable.
If decision makers and operators really want to do something about this they have to act. I’m not sure they are that bothered – as like most people they only want to see ‘other people’ get out of their cars, leaving more road space for them. But you’d hope the TOCs would take more effort. After all their business plans presumably rely on people choosing to take their trains (not being forced to).
The variations between TOCs are interesting too – some recent time in the south suggests to me that GoVia’s Southern relatively new trains are now pretty dirty (ingrained filth), yet SWT still seem able to keep their fleet looking half decent.
Posted on March 17th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
What no one ever comments upon, when the subject of car ownership is discussed is this; not a single person alive today actually NEEDS a car until they buy one, and then proceed to build there entire working and social life around it.
How many times do you hear the arrogant and selfish car drivers say “I live in a village and there is no bublic transport so i need to drive”, or, “I live in the countryside and there is no public transport” etc. What these selfish people fail to grasp is that they would not be living in a village in the middle of nowhere, or in a converted barn, if they had not owned a car in the first place!
The British countryside is the greatest victim of the car lobby. It has been bought out and invaded by the car commuter who seek the “country life” yet have to have a car to commute to their highly paid city jobs to finance this “country lifestyle”, with all the devastating impact that has on Englands once tranquil rural communities. Those who wish to get into, or remain in farming, cannot do so because the price of country properties have skyrocketed by the influx of the well off car commuter. Our countryside is today no more than a theme park artificial version of it’s former working glory.
The urban sprawl continues to eat up what is left of our precious countryside to satisfy the requirements of the ultra mobile car commuter. How much of the urban sprawl, the shopping complexes, ugly housing and industrial estates that cover this country today would ever have been built without the scurge of the car and it’s driver.
I dispise the car owners with a passion and hatred i cannot even put into words.
“Farms for Farmers – Car commuters – OUT.”
Posted on March 21st, 2009 at 11:25 pm
Phil – so farmers and country people themselves are “arrogant” and “selfish” then? The vast majority of country people I know who are born and bred in the countryside and never go near a city drive cars as well. In fact 99% of them probably. I’ve never seen a farmer that doesn’t have a car (Volvos and Subaru Imprezas are the favourites – usually driven like looneys with little regard to other road users). So is the little old lady who is immobile, and cannot do her shopping or go to church on a Sunday morning “a scourge on society”?
Don’t tar everyone with the same brush – even CW has admitted that he has a car on this blog!
Cars are like gunpowder, cigarettes and alcohol. Something that we sometimes wish we could un-invent. Sadly that isn’t the case. Get over it.
Posted on March 23rd, 2009 at 10:24 am
Rapid – I agree with with Phil to a large extent on this and have commented before on this. The fact is most people (that own homes) live broadly where they choose to live (finances allowing) – in rural areas this is more the case – with the choice having been made by those with most money of course. The ability to choose is transformed by car ownership. If you simply could not afford to drive / own a car – you’d probably ‘choose’ to live much closer to work (and probably as a result inner city areas would be much more gentrified, instead of abandoned, but that is another issue!).
I’d dispute that most rural dwellers have rural roots. I think many people with true rural roots have been priced out and live in ’semi-rural’ towns and enlarged communities, driving back out to work in the countryside, whilst country homes are owned and occupied by people whose income is generated in urban areas (those actually living on farms are excluded from this, but actually that is a lower and lower number these days I think).
My own family is a good example of this, in the late 60s my parents went to live in a rural area as a young couple, as they could afford to drive to work in the nearby town. At that time many neighbours (and their children who I went to school with) had families who lived and worked locally (in the rural economy) – they relied on local shops and facilities, and public transport was better. But now this is totally different when I look at the area (parents still live in the same house so I know it well). Most local shops are now closed (as car owners could easily patronise supermarkets from the 1970s onwards), many more neighbours are retirees and others who have bought into the area just as my family did 40+ years ago. The ‘original’ rural dwellers who could trace their connection locally have died, their children can not afford to live there.
Many of those who do work locally either drive out from cheaper housing estates nearby, or worse, live on site in mobile homes! The transformation is complete – it has done nothing to benefit the locality, it could not have hapened were it not for cheap car ownership, and people like my parents played their part in this ‘revolution’. This is not some ‘chocolate box’ area of rural england – just a scruffy bit of low grade countryside within easy reach (by car) of south coast towns. It staggers me how much worse it must be for people in the ‘chocolate box areas’!
Posted on March 23rd, 2009 at 11:08 am
Dan/Phil – all good stuff here, and I actually AGREE with you.
But the thing that grinds my gears more than anything else on this issue is the villifying of cars and motorists in general as The Enemy. Cars are not for standing still in traffic jams – they are for the open road. People should be allowed to enjoy them in this manner unimpeded, as well as those in remote areas for whom driving is a necessity. End of story.
As for public transport in rural areas – well as soon as the private sector got involved that was it doomed – they want to maximise revenue and all too often there are too few bus routes, and those that do never take direct routes – often taking a 30 mile round journey to take in as many hamlets and villages as possible when the basic point to point distance between termini is only 10 miles. Small wonder even country people eschew buses in favour of cars.
At the same time no-one more than me wants rid of car dependence in cities and see more railways and rapid transit systems being built to curb their use. Policy needs to be directed towards changing behaviour patterns so that car use is discouraged but equally taking a total anti-car stance is never going to wash in this country. Never.
Posted on March 23rd, 2009 at 11:48 am
“Policy needs to be directed towards changing behaviour patterns so that car use is discouraged but equally taking a total anti-car stance is never going to wash in this country. Never.”
You are quite correct there Rapid! But I suppose Phil’s point is that part of the behaviour pattern is self imposed through choices one makes – you then seek to get resources directed to support your own personal favoured choice – and then what we have is the current scenario. I’m sure we all agree on this.
Posted on March 23rd, 2009 at 3:40 pm
“Policy needs to be directed towards changing behaviour patterns so that car use is discouraged but equally taking a total anti-car stance is never going to wash in this country. Never.”
The problem is that car use brings revenue to the government – lots of revenue.
RapidAssistant – you say “As for public transport in rural areas – well as soon as the private sector got involved that was it doomed…” Don’t forget that it was the private sector that started public transport, especially in rural areas. Municipalities got involved in urban services quite early in their development, but no so much in rural/interurban services. The years of decline started in the 1950s, by which time a considerable proportion of rural services were in the hands of operators who were by then in the public sector; this continued through the ’60s and ’70s, during which time even more of the operators came into the public sector. The simple fact is that the decline in rural public transport had nothing to do with ownership of the operators – it happened because too few people use the services, and that in turn is a product of increasing car ownership and use.
As I have mentioned before, public transport now has competition (actually it has had it for many years), and it therefore needs to be ‘competitive’ – i.e it needs to make itself sufficiently attractive to potential customers to be their mode of travel ‘of choice’. The politicians have vested interests not to reduce car use by too great an extent, and the public sector has not proved to be any better at making rural public transport services attractive than the private sector. So it is no good hoping for any help from politicians.
Posted on March 23rd, 2009 at 11:36 pm
Dear Sir,
Please be advised that people (especially teenagers) commonly lose their oyster cards and it should not penalised to suchcock a disproportionate extent, furthermore, the oyster system discriminates against people who do not live in the greater london area, but who do regularly travel in, for school or otherwise.
Furthermore, this system needlessly tourists and the misinformed, who will not be aware of the (overly complicated) methods to avoid over-paying on london transport. this is not fair to a sector who have contributed much money and life to london recent years… you dinky little minge.
p.s. toilet paper.. rofl
Posted on March 24th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
I sat and listened to the talk you gave, and apologise for the rudeness and ignorance of some students.
However, you have not considered the fact that not all students technically live “in London”. Personally, if I decided to get the school bus to and from school, its £2 a journey. That’s £4 every day for me to attend school, £20 a week. I do not have the option to use an oyster card. I cannot afford to pay this, and I find doing a rota with other friends who drive a much cheaper option for me.
Posted on March 24th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Emelio, I’m from Glasgow and I’m in London at least twice a month on business and frequently go in and out from the home counties whilst I’m there. True, it’d be nice if you could use an Oyster PAYG card on all the suburban railway lines, but to my knowledge you can still use travelcards on them (Londoners reading can you correct me if I’m wrong??) Like booking tickets in advance for long distance trains, some people are just too darned lazy to go and suss the system out and start playing it to their advantage.
And if you’re worried about losing the card – register it on the TFL website and you can get a full refund of whatever cash is loaded on it. As an ignorant Scot from 400 miles away if I can do it so can you!
Posted on March 25th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Yes Rapid – quite so – when I’m a tourist – in Rome, Paris, San Francisco etc – I take the trouble to work out how the local transport system works – it’s not that hard (they even have a special Oyster card you can buy if you are a visitor for sale at airports, via tour operators and on Eurostar to name a few places) – but if people want to waste their own money they are free to do so!
Meanwhile – this is a good idea outlined on Newsnight reporters bog – given the state of the economy – could perhaps adopt it here in the UK:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/paulmason/2009/03/hello_from_bankrupt_kiev_4×4_c.html
Posted on March 25th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Look the students of JFS cannot help it if we find Jeremy Clarkson are more compelling speaker then you!
Posted on March 25th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Look the students of JFS cannot help it if we find Jeremy Clarkson a more compelling speaker then you!
Posted on March 25th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Hello christian, It would appear that these “children” you speak of are perhaps not as naive and arrogant as you proclaim them to be. IN fact, I would say that it yourself who is to arrogant to accept others views. There is no doubt we need a cleaner environment and tackling students who drive is the correct thing to do, however patronising them with terms such as “cute” isn’t going to change any views. It seems to me that these students have made some excellent comments on the public transport system. The school is placed just outside Hertfordshire and the school uses the “Sullivan Bus Company” who do not accept Oyster Cards thus they must pay £4 a day. Cycling certainly isn’t an option for many students who carry large folders and heavy books – particularly in our climate. For girls especially, there is no doubt that public transport isn’t always safe – and if you claim it to be – perhaps that it because most thugs would not want to start with such a pompous big man like yourself!
Posted on March 25th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Dear C. Wolmar,
I am very sorry that you had such a horrid time speaking at our school. As a matter of fact I am a student at JFS who attended your lecture and found it very interesting and on a very important and pressing subject. I hope you do not feel to insulted by our school. I have heard younger students take the subject more seriously.
The reason why I posted this comment was not to defend my school as much as to ask you a question regarding the sustainability of transport. I hope you did not mind, but due to the tirade of angry jeering noises and arrogant comments I never managed to ask you a question.
Firstly, I would have liked to know more about what you think about the new plan I read about in the times dated about Wednesday the 11th of March on a Europe wide train service operated by Deutsche Bahn that would link parts of Britain to France and the rest of the continent, and whether this is a sustainable effort. I found it very interesting what you said about a large number of state industries actually supplying a worse service when they are privatised than when they were working for the state and so I would love to know what you think about this question…
My second question is a bit less focused. I was reading a book by a friend of HG Wells (i forgot the name) and he proposed for people to live in colleges and use shared facilities to create a more sustainable environment, and make it easier to provide transport facilities. Do you see this as a logical form of urban planning? Presumably due to your position in TFL you would have considerable knowledge in urban planning.
If you do not feel to put off replying to this message (i’m sorry about the reception of your speech) I would be so glad to receive your message at my e-mail: yonatan_goodman@hotmail.co.uk
Posted on March 25th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Hi i am one of the JFS student that was at your talk and have managed to get a quote in this article. Firstly i would like to explain one of the questions i asked you, which im not sure if yu misunderstood or did not know how to respond to… i responded to one of your statements about the oil “crysis” which you said would be coming, which i do agree with BUT when i responded about technology being inplace that enables cars to be made that dont run on petrol you never really responded directly to my statement… There are such cars already in productino millions running on biofuel which yes still contains petrol buit at a 80:20 petrol alchol ratio. There are also windpowerd cars, electricity powerd cars, and solar powerd cars. All the technology is inplace to be build all pof these car its just the cheap price of petrol means people dont want to change and until the price of oil rises to the point the alternatives become cheaper we will keep on using petrol cars…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/4217258/Supercar-to-wind-power-to-reach-amazing-speeds.html
http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/4970/
http://www.maxpower.co.uk/article.asp?asset=1191
there are a few articles on some of the other technology already avliable to make more enviormentally friendly cars
im not sure if you will even read this but an answer would be greatly appreciated
J
Posted on March 25th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Dear Mr Wolmar,
I’m sorry that the reception you recieved at our school was not ass well recieved as it should have been, and that your speech wasn’t so welcomed.
However, I think it is foolish to think that speaking to a bunch of 17/18 year olds; who have only started driving recently and excited by the prsopect of driving to and from school, would accept the notion of a harmed untangible future. You see, you refer to us as children- yet you expect us to accept such a worldly view as adults. You must decide who we are as your audience.
Upon reading your article, I find your description of us derogitory and patronising, and most unnecessary. Did you really feel so threatened by our challenges that you felt you to write an article attacking students?
As an expert on transport, you should know that actually, it IS £2 a bus journey, and though you are right about it being free with an oyster card, you forget that those (and there are many) travelling from areas such as Borehamwood must pay the full cost, amounting to £4 a day. I think you were referring to the £1 it costs to travel by train with the oyster card
xoxo
Posted on March 25th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
I agree with comment 22, it is your comments that our childish and outrageous rather then the student’s. Are you that set upon your campaign that you consider any challenges and valid opinions that oppose what you have to say childish and cute? Perhaps you should take the train and sit on a broken platform bench waiting for a train that will turn up late or not all all and reflect on what you have to say.
Posted on March 25th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
i did not attend your speach but i have been informed of it by my contempories who did. i would like to say that i resent the fact that you call our generation “arrogant” when it was your generation that caused climate change with an arrogant attitude to consumption in order to boost economies. This arrogant wreckless drive to boost enconomy is particularly damaging in the car industry as attempts to produce elctric and or low emission cars are quashed in order to feed your generation’s greedy, flashy, consumptive ways. the truth of the matter is the arrogant car dependant generation you speak of is the one which is going to have to not only pay the price for your fuck ups through high taxes in the future, but will have to re-design the world to allow the existance of future genrations. SO in the mean time, while we grow up and gain the power and intelligence to save the world for your children, allow us the freedom you had to drive as teenagers so that we can avoid the disgusting, un-reliable, wreckless bus service provided by TFL- It is definately for sados.
Thank you
ps the way you write makes you sound like a bit of a twat
pps i regularly loose my oyster card
Posted on March 25th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Okay guys, you may think that public transport is costing you more because you are seeing the money go out on a daily basis.
Put it this way. What is the REAL cost of motoring when you add up road tax, insurance (not cheap for under 25s, extortionate for under 20s), fuel, repairs, tyres, depreciation, car care etc? Believe me, I have to pay all of those things, and I’m a grown adult who doesn’t have parents footing all or part of the bill. I bet if you added it all up over a year the figure that you have will not be a pretty one. All of a sudden a £2 or even a £4 a day bus fare will look bloody cheap I can assure you.
Posted on March 25th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Bills bills bills, everyone in life has bills and EVERYONE in the 21st century has a car! it is highly practical and allows us to become more flexible – especially when it comes to getting a job! We are able to drive around. If we are going to buy a car – which we are – and cars can be bout second hand cheaply – then we might as well use it! As for road tax and other motor taxes – those are charges the government have made to keep green people happy as they are meant to correct externalities. Now lets talk about the taxes we pay any way that go to london transport – o thats right they add up to be billions! – “all of a sudden a little insurance and tax will look bloody cheap i can assure YOU!”
Posted on March 25th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
The comments from people on this wall seem quite illogical, and after what happened, almost vindictive in nature. This is unfair!
Some people have written about how it is cheaper and more fun to use a car.
1. The problem is not whether or not to use the care its about relying on cars as the only form of transport.
2. The individual cost may be cheaper but there is also an environmental cost to using cars.
3. The use of cars is immoral. Cars should be banned. It results in road accidents, stimulates anti-social stigma and a selfish baseless attitude in people.
4. Cars make places (as Christian Wolmar noted in his speech) places that are unsightly and unhealthy places. You are unlikely to find a luxury housing area in the middle of the M1.
5. The use of cars is also unsustainable. The use of public transport is because it relies on providing services that exist for all people throughout a period of time, whereas cars depend on the individuals capacity to satisfy their economic cost.
6. The more cars are used, the worse London Transport will get (harder to run with fewer people and staff cuts), the more costly London Transport will get (privatisation) and the more we will rely on cars. Cars then get more expensive because demand for petrol goes up. It is a vicious circle.
7. A person who uses a car will be unlikely to support any green initiative as they become guilty of destroying the environment and do not want to acknowledge that guilt. Basically, you dumb arrogant snotty kids from our school who wrote what you said and said what your wrote are all in denial!
Posted on March 25th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
1) Everyone knows cars aren’t the only use of transport – Chrisitan’s talk was to influence us to travel to SCHOOL by public transport not car – slightly different
2) yes there is environmental damage but what about the damage to the environment of laying down huge train tracks and bus lanes.
3) IMMORAL? killing is immoral, adultery is immoral – i could go on but that comment was to ridiculous to even bother to respond to. “cars should be banned” – are you backwards? you must live in some ridiculous remote village where you have everything in one shop or you live in the centre of london where public transport is possible to use. Driving encourages social activity – allows one to visit each other easily- and driving is only selfish to those stuck in the rain waiting for a bus as everyone drives past without offering you the lift you so dearly crave.
4)You are unlikely to find a luxury housing area in the centre of the thameslink track or any track for that matter. The graffiti on the tube lines isn’t exactly pleasant to the eye.
5)Unsustainable? a period of time? – is that the sustainable tube lines that come in the period of times that they choose – because i don’t know when the last time you could find a sustainable on time train!
6 Very good you know the simple principles of economics. Our argument was that public transport is to expensive! – if it were cheaper we WOULD use it – not that we don’t want to use it. But Christian dismissed this as claimed we were wrong.
7)What you have just claimed is ridiculous. We simply questioned practicality of using public transport to get to school as opposed to using our cars. Get out your green bubble you moron.
Posted on March 26th, 2009 at 12:16 am
On sitting in your talk on transport I in fact felt I wanted to join in with the crowd challenging you on what you were saying not becuase I think public transport is bad and that I should drive everywhere but because you had no idea what you were talking about
its all very nice to splurt out the history of the tube and say all these facts but in reality for A large number of students at JFS its just not practical to gte a bus, if you are not in London and are even as far out as Elstree (a mere 5/10 minutes away from what is deemed London) you still pay for transport. Even in London public transport due to inefficiency can delay us LOADS, a 10 minute journey in the car can take 40 minutes to an hour due to the bus services beig infrequent and slow. You also don’t think of students who live quite far out of London and there is NO transport outside or a car.
plus the oyster card system often has faults and that always leaves the user with problems not the company, for example when my oyster card stopped working becuase they had accidently cancelled the wrong card on replacing my card (as they must each year for no reason except to get another fiver in their pocket and cause hassle) I had to pay full fare for over a month which meant £4 a day 5 days a week and an extortionate fare if i needed to get the train.
on top of this Tfl is so unrelaible you could easily wait an hour for a bus for go on a 20 minute journey and trains and bus services are constantly being cancelled or delayed.
basically you are a posh moron who has no real idea of whats going on with us, its not our ignorance (in that there are much bigger factors which we should concern ourself with in terms of environment, oil etc) but yours tosspot
Posted on March 26th, 2009 at 8:46 am
It’s good to see some debate here but I have to say that some (NOT ALL) of you JFS kids come across as ‘rich kids’ with mummy and daddy footing the bills. Well, with no city jobs any more sooner or later SOME of you are going to end up down the dole office with not so much money – I just hope your car will raise a few quid when a car dealer comes along!
Clearly you don’t want to be called arrogant (who would) but you certainly come across as arrogant on your comments here! But sadly it is the ‘arrogance of the wealthy’ that comes across in your comments. If you don’t recognise that, no problem – many who read what you say will.
However, there is an issue here – and that is who holds accountable the decison makers at your school (governors, local planners, whoever – no doubt all “mature” adults) who let the thing be built in such an unsustainable location in the first place – when it would be feasible and for some inevitable that cars would be used. Clearly these are the people who have failed not just the school children but also wider society!
Well done to those of the pupils who have shown a bit more depth of analysis in your comments here!
PS – If you actually read his post Christian described you as “Pupils” (your teacher described you as “Children”) and described a question as “cute”, not the questioner – I read no inference that he thought any of you were “cute” – so I don’t think it is arrogant or patronising.
He does say you are “ignorant of the real world” and when I was 17/18 I’d have been annoyed about that – but now I’m somewhat older I can see how ignorant of the real world I was at that age. basically if you live in your parental home, and / or rely on them for the money you spend, you are (rightly or wrorngly) at least insulated from the “real world” to a certain extent. I’m afraid you only realise that when you leave that insulation.
Posted on March 26th, 2009 at 10:29 am
It is very gratifying to get so many comments, as my idea was to stimulate debate. Dan in the previous post has articulated much of what I would say, but I would like to add that none of the comments address the fundamental issue which I raised in the talk. Irrespective of the potential damage of climate change caused by oil consumption – which is likely to be considerable – people who are teenagers today are likely to live through an era of very fundamental change brought about by the end of the cheap oil era. Preparing yourself for dealing with that is probably your most important challenge.
Secondly, I wanted to raise the issue of the impact of cars on society. Even to those who love their cars must accept that there are a huge number of negatives – ranging from urban sprawl to road deaths – which make the aim of trying to reduce car dependence highly desirable. And yes, sometimes it will involve sacrifices and hassle, but nothing to compare with the disaster that will befall the world if everyone continues as they are.
Posted on March 26th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Perhaps your utterly pratonising opinions on young people is part of the reason why the talk failed to resonate with your audience.
The simple fact is, adults care little more about your Luddite campaign to ban cars, as evidenced by the growing number of drivers and the increased car use.
Public transport outside of town centres is infrequent, uncomfortable and over-priced. Why wait in the rain for 15 minutes at a bus-stop with all the glass smashed out of it, when I could sit in my car with the heating on, and make my journey quicker, more comfortable and have door-to-door convenience.
As oil runs out, there will undoubtledly be alternative energy sources to fuel our private vehicle consumption, because technology adapts. Although this idea may seem abhorrent to you, technological progress will ensure that car continue to run with or without oil, and simple economics will cause people to switch from oil-powered cars to electronic ones.
Your own blinkered view of young people is highly offensive, and your simplistic and draconian measures to solve fundamental environmental problems are naive and dangerous.
Posted on March 26th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
You reminded me that I did not address a previous comment about technical fixes. This is fantasy I’m afraid. Apart, as I reiterate, the climate change issues, the idea that a replacement for oil and for petrol or diesel motorised transport can be easily found and that as the price of oil goes up, such solutions will suddenly emerge is like believing in Father Christmas quite frankly. Why do you think that decent electric cars have not yet emerged despite having first been used over 100 years ago?
The energy has to come from somewhere and producing it will be expensive and perhaps not possible. The notion that some biomass can be discovered that will not use up vast quantities of the world’s agricultural resources is fanciful. Moreover, oil has all kinds of other uses – such as producing much of the material on the machine I am writing on – and its shortage will create massive problems across a wide range of industries.
Posted on March 26th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Hi i am one of the JFS student that was at your talk and have managed to get a quote in this article. Firstly i would like to explain one of the questions i asked you, which im not sure if yu misunderstood or did not know how to respond to… i responded to one of your statements about the oil “crysis” which you said would be coming, which i do agree with BUT when i responded about technology being inplace that enables cars to be made that dont run on petrol you never really responded directly to my statement… There are such cars already in productino millions running on biofuel which yes still contains petrol buit at a 80:20 petrol alchol ratio. There are also windpowerd cars, electricity powerd cars, and solar powerd cars. All the technology is inplace to be build all pof these car its just the cheap price of petrol means people dont want to change and until the price of oil rises to the point the alternatives become cheaper we will keep on using petrol cars…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/4217258/Supercar-to-wind-power-to-reach-amazing-speeds.html
http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/4970/
http://www.maxpower.co.uk/article.asp?asset=1191
there are a few articles on some of the other technology already avliable to make more enviormentally friendly cars
im not sure if you will even read this but an answer would be greatly appreciated
J
Posted on March 26th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Christian, you speak of a ‘fantasy’ of thinking that solutions to replace oil can easily be found. However, a solution has already been found, as aired on top gear not so long ago, in the Honda ‘Clarity’. The Clarity is powered by an electric motor that runs on the electricity generated in the hydrogen fuel cell. And just like all hydrogen powered vehicles, its only emission is water. Drinkable H2O. No matter how small the number of available cars, this is still no ‘fantasy’ Mr. Wolmar. As of right now, there are hydrogen Hondas out there in the hands of consumers which are selling at a very fast rate (in comparison to the less demanded electric cars). And although at present this revolutionary car is only available in California, this is only the beginning. It’ll be a while before they’re mainstream since we have to get a whole refueling infrastructure set up, but this is the first real step in changing the bad name given to cars by you Green peace tree huggers.
Posted on March 26th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Dan, I am student and I have a job. I work every other day after school and on the weekends. I saved up for my car and bought it myself. My parents would of paid for me to go on the bus and seeing as it costs exactly the same to drive – i am not a snobby rich child, i am a sensible, economically efficient student. You on the other hand, you are just a random loser with nothing better to do then argue with some students about something that doesn’t concern you. Im sure your as much of a fag as Christian .
Fantasy for technical advances? have you not been alive for the between the 60s – 2009? O wait you clearly have judging from your old fashion opinions. None the less you must of been living under a rock (so it would seem) if you truly believe there won’t be advances in electric cards, hydrogen powered cars. Theres the g-wiz! BMW have made a hydrogen powered car and many other companies have advanced. The simple matter is that it is cheaper for EVERYONE to run and creat oil cars. When the cost of oil falls and costo f technical developments decrease – which WILL happen as we have seen in the pass , this fantasy will, this fantasy IS a reality. You are truly a dumb fuck chrisitan
Posted on March 26th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
I saw that on top gear to! It generates enough power for an entire street. Christian – it seems that you don’t know half enough about public transport or cars for that matter. If you want a debate it is a good idea to know both sides of the argument. You for sure don’t know both sides. I advice you to watch topgear – jeremy clarkson knows waaay more then you.
Posted on March 26th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
I live in Kingsbury (near the beautiful JFS school) and I feel you have given an unfair representation of the school.
From students I have spoken to, the vast majority juggle schoolwork and job commitments and pay for their car use (including petrol and insurance) out of their earnings.
You have wrongly portrayed them as spoilt brats. My daughter suffers from epilepsy and many-a-time JFS students have tended to her when she is having a fit. Some students have even looked after her for the duration of her convulsions and then walked her back to our home, and even come to visit her the next day to see she is recovering well.
These are nice kids, and you are making them out to be spoilt brats.
Posted on March 26th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
It is entirely offensive that students are using such vulgar language. How can you expect to be treated as adults or be taken seriously, if your language is so crude!
Posted on March 26th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
@ Michelle
Yeah, you’re right. No adults use rude words…
Students are offended because he is giving an unfair representation of them to the general public (via the internet) and didn’t even bother to check his facts before writing this. Half of the kids live outside London and have to pay £4 a day to get to school if they don’t drive.
Posted on March 26th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Mike,
I dont think any of the adults on this forum have used words such as “muff muncher” and “dumb fuck”. Also the issue that you have just written about has been mentioned countless amounts of time! Even if it is a valid point, the manner in which some students are presenting it in is unacceptable!
Posted on March 26th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Solar Powered Car
Many of you will have seen the solar powered cars racing across the Australian bush year after year, they never look that comfortable and have always remined me of the ill fated Sinclair C5. Simon Robertson has created a viable alternative from his Peugeot 106. He has fitted it with a kerb side car charger and now he even generates his own electricity. His electricity is generated from photovolatic panels on the roof of his house in Lambeth, London UK. In a recent Positive News article he stated, ‘I am trying to be an eco-warrior without having to change my lifestyle too much.’ At times Simon generates too much electricity and sells it back to Ecotricity through their renewable awards scheme.
Compressed Air Car
The compressed air car will be on offer in Paris by June 2005 at a cost of around $10 000 for a basic vehicle. The air car is powered by an electric pump that compresses the air into a tank, the air in turn pumps some pistons. The cars top speed is 70 mph (115 kph) and it can travel up to 50 miles (80 k) on a full ‘tank’.(supposedly further at lower speeeds). The pump that is used to power the car simply plugs into a normal household socket and takes four hours for a full charge. As fro the cost of a full charge, apparently only $2.50 at French electricity prices. The only emmision to come out of the exhaust is cold air.
There are downsides to this car, most notebly is the fact that there is only one dealership and thats in France. So if repairs were needed it could be quite costly to get parts.
Also, converting electricity to compressed is thought to be inefficient. Karsten Krause of the European Federation for Transport and Environment, a green lobby group based in Brussels, states that the car consumes more energy from the power plant than it deliver on the road. He says “You may not have any pollution from the car itself, but you’re just transferring the environmental burden to another place.”
Maybe any prospective buyers should have a chat with Simon Robertson.
Alcohol Fuel and Brazil
Brazil rules the roost when it comes to alternative transport, at one time over 90% of their cars were alcohol propelled. Brazil has known about using alchol to propel their cars since the 1920’s and due to the petrol shortage during World War 2 many cars ran on 75% alchol 25% ether mix.
The Brazilain govenment launched the National Alcohol Program, the PROALCOHOL (Proálcool) in 1975 in the midst of world petrol prices increases. The production of sugar cane was stepped up to cater for this growth market. Although good news for the environment this was not so much good news for the population of Brazil. Many were forced out of the countryside due to this expansion and now live in slums on the outskirts of Brazils cities.
The Proalchol programe ending in the early 90’s and now, although alchol fueled cars are still manufactured and driven in Brazil, the doninant fuel is again petrolium.(gasoline)
The future looks greener in Brazil as they are now a forerunner in the flex-fuel division of the car market. 20% of Brazilian cars are fitted with an engine that can run on alchol or petrol.(gasoline) They hope to start exporting these cars around the world.
Bio diesel and Cooking Oil
I have a friend, who shall remain nameless for legal reasons, who runs his vechicle on vegetable oil. He says that he did not convert his engine and he just pours the oil straight into his diesel tank. The journey forever website suggest that he could be damaging his engine by doing this, as he will ‘coke up the engine and injectors’. They have a wealth of information on the subject on their website. The UK govenment do not take too kindly to people like my friend and have placed a tax on vegetable oil fuel making it almost as expensive as petrol this tax is 22p per litre. YOu have to produce a letter and show the police that you have declared it and paid it, but I would not have thought that the police will be that bothered really. Are they going to take a note of your milage and work out your fuel consumption so that they know down to the last penny if you have paid enough tax? If you use chip fat or other used oil that you get for free you could run an environmentaly friendly car for 22p per litre (the tax). Or as, strangly enough you do not have to pay tax on a stationary engine, you could power a generator and charge up an electric car!
Many people make their own bio-diesel using a 30% kerosene and 70% vegetable oil mix and some use 50/50 mixes. As there is no engine conversion needed, this option seems to be one of the most feasable that I have featured so far. It might not be the most environmentaly freindly of the alternatives but “for every gallon of vegetable oil you use, that’s one gallon of fossil-fuel saved, and that much less carbon in the atmosphere.”
Bio-diesel has already proved itself to be a viable alternative, for instance, my local council, Bath & North East Somerset, has a fleet of 120 vehicles running on the stuff. It saves them 20p per litre (as aposed to using diesel) which they put back into the manufacture of it.
Hydrogen Powered Cars
When many think of cars running on alternative fuels they think one thing, it’s going to be slow. BMW have smashed this popular misconception with a car that can reach speeds of 185 mph (300 kph). They are even considering regestering it for next years racing curcit. The H2R differs from most other hydrogen powered cars that run on a fuel cell, it is powered by a combustion engine and emits only steam.
Recently one of the opposition parties in the UK, the Liberal Democrats, announced that they were going to be promoting Hydrogen fuel cells as the fuel of the future. Fuel cells use hydrogen or hydrogen rich fuels to generate electricity.
(http://www.selfsufficientish.com/car.htm)
do some research Christian before coming to a school and giving a lecture. The enviormental and economic problems asociated with cars are real BUT they are not what you depicted at your lecture. Also i appologize for students “vulgar” language, the less articulate of us students find it hard to find other words to express their anger.
Christian you have not given a fair view on the JFS students and have made them out to be stupid, spoilt and immature in this article.
Posted on March 26th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Your apology is much appreciated
Posted on March 26th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
@ Michelle.
I understand your concerns and those words are utterly inappropriate. However neither you or I were present at this lecture so cannot comment on why these students feel so hard-done by.
Kids, please stop letting yourselves down further by swearing. If you want to argue, do so in a civilised manner.
Mike
Posted on March 26th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
These students arent ignorant. The school they go to is a very good one, where all of them are fully aware of climate change and the implications of driving cars.
Its a matter of choice. Arrogance and ignorance are not part of the issue. Part of being a speaker is knowing how to speak to your audience. An assembly full of educated 17/18 year olds- many of whom have just passed their driving tests, who come from all over london (the school has a large catchment area) have the right to drive.
Surely you should be inspired by their interest and their wilingness to challenge the view put towards them. For a school audience like them, there is hundreds who would stare and not reply, not challenge – with the words going out one ear and into the other.
Posted on March 26th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Hi,
Firstly I’d like to apologise for the conduct of some of the other JFS students who have done a pretty good job of portraying the majority of us in a bad light.
I can’t really comment on your talk as I’m in year 12 so didn’t hear it but I think that neither you nor some of the other extreme characters are being realistic.
On the whole students just see the ability to drive as an exciting new chapter for them and relish the freedom. Moreover they spend a lot of their time not spent doing school work trying to raise money so they can afford this extra freedom.
In my opinion there are extortionate taxes on driving as it is and if someone can manage to pay them then they have every right to exercise the freedom of driving. With these tax revenues the government should have more than enough money to redirect into developing alternatives to oil. I’m somewhat cynical but I’m pretty sure most people will agree that the government aren’t redirecting these funds to solve the ‘green’ issues.
I travel on public transport almost everywhere and I would be the first to admit that if I through some means or another could get together the money to get me off the stinky packed buses into a car I’d do it! To me the ecological effects don’t bother me so much, mainly because I suddenly remember that shocking statistic, China accounts for 15% of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions – I’m merely a drop in the ocean. On a slightly unrelated note I do try and use my bike as a way to get out of the TFL warzones when I can!
Again, I apologise for the negative experience you had at JFS and hope that through this discussion you can see that although we can’t heckle as loud as the others the majority of us are pretty rational young-adults.
Alex
Posted on March 26th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
@ Alex: That was a really nice comment of you Alex.
It is true. A lot of people from this school have very loud mouths and try to make out they represent a larger body. The people who wrote on your wall that they are ‘insulted parents’ are simply JFS students who want to make themselves big, because no sane parent would comment on a speech they never themselves heard.
Christian Wolmar, if I am totally truthful I never managed to walk out of the speech with all questions answered but you never had the chance to talk. I agree with your view on London Transport, and that cars are an ecological, social and economic timebomb that will blow up in the faces of people who use them sooner or later with consequences. I got a bit worried by a comment you wrote here… You are an extremely articulate man when it comes to writing and you have all the right ideas. All I can say is that I praise you, and hope you have much success.
I hope you do not let immature arrogant people represent ‘us’ from JFS because as a yeargroup many of us have different opinions. Most of the students in our school are fully aware of the damage that cars cause and all that jargon on environmental cars people cannot realistically afford is the cover up of the simple truth that most people want to experience the ‘new thrill’ of being able to drive.
Ideally there would be no cars as people would tend to live in urban areas where transport is available. I think people who suggest hybrids are efficient should at least read up on them a bit more… In addition those people who feel cars should be defended because they are ’so good’ for the environment as opposed to public transport should then be getting electric cars. In my opinion the first step would be to ban all cars that are not biofuels or electric which will massively reduce congestion better than any congestion charge (which I am in favour of). Currently it is fashionable to disregard the impact on the environment but soon that will be different and people will see in what way they can ‘be green’ and show that they are sustainable, moral and agreeable individuals.
Posted on March 27th, 2009 at 12:04 am
Just a couple of final points
1) Hydrogen cars are, so far, vastly more inefficient than petrol cars. They still need energy – electricity – to produce the hydrogen and therefore while they emit only water at the point of use, they are still environmentally damaging since the electricity has to be generated. They are certainly not cheaper to run and there are issues about carrying large amounts of hydrogen.
2) All the other technologies mentioned have similar problems. As i said in my comment above, all of them need energy to power them and that energy has both a cost and an environmental effect.
3) I am delighted to have stimulated a debate. I have never insulted any of the JFS students – merely said that they are over enamoured with cars. Some of the students have resorted to insults which betrays their youth and I do not take them seriously.
I will not make any more comments on this but feel free to continue the debate.
Posted on March 27th, 2009 at 12:21 am
The bizarre thing about many of the JFS students who have posted on this forum is that (as a reader of the original post) it never seemed to me that Christian had portrayed them in a bad light in what was written (actually, to me it portrayed them in quite a good light – as people with few preconceptions, and a willingness to challenge all the assumptions) – then a few of the JFS students posted and I changed my mind, since the comments betrayed (as I said earlier) a staggering level of arrogance, some ignorance, and quite a lot of downright vulgar abusiveness. So, to others who have written to defend the JFS students (e.g. Mike Smith) whilst I don’t doubt the facts of your defence, it’s the students themselves who are their own worst enemies!
To Reports – whilst I’m reluctant to engage in debate with someone who wishes to call others in the discussion “losers” all I can say is that when I was your age I did the same – worked to afford to buy my first car and to drive it when I wanted to. With the benefit of hindsight I can assure you that was a big waste of money that would have been better saved up so that after I finished my degree I didn’t have student debt. Moreover I could only really afford to do this at that age as I lived with my parents, who essentially subsidised me by providing relatively free housing. Unless you rent your own place, pick up all the bills and run your car from the work you do alongside your college studies, your purchases are subsidised by someone else’s income – that’s no problem – but just be honest about it.
Clearly there are issues about oil consumption and car use, and maybe (just maybe) there will be technological solutions. How much better, for example, for dwindling oil supplies to be used to make, for example, medicines, than for them to burned up by people taking a quick trip to the shop for a pint of milk they forgot to buy earlier?
But for me the issue is about car use (not ownership) since if everyone wanted to use cars to the extent some of their advocates here suggest it would simply not be possible (or acceptable since it would involve demolishing quite a few people’s homes) to provide the road infrastructure to facilitate this in what is a relatively high population density, predominantly urban living, society – and society would never tolerate the costs (either through taxation or road user charging or any other model), and as Alex says – this is already despite high levels of road user “taxation” in various forms.
By the way I say all this as someone who owns 2 cars – I just try to limit my use of them!
Posted on March 27th, 2009 at 10:59 am
No one wished to engage in a debate with you. We wished to let Christian know what we think of him! He did in fact patronise us and very immaturely bad mouthed us over the internet. He was reluctant to answer our questions and dismissed them as children’s questions. As the result of this we have no respect for him as we have shown.
And your point to Reports about picking all the bills up is ridiculous – whether someone takes the train to school or car to school still costs the same to some! It is without a shadow of a doubt EASIER, more comfortable, relaxing and most importantly RELIABLE for a student to go to school by car. That is our point. We do not for a minute doubt there are serious environmental issues, we are simply reluctant to give up our own life styles as like every generation before us and like the vast majority of humans – we don’t care until its actually a problem. As selfish and arrogant as you may believe it to be – thats how our world is and we shouldn’t be criticized for our own beliefs just because a couple of environmentalists think they have all the easy answers – there are no easy answers! Provide one and we will listen – we listened to Chrisitan during his talk despite what he thinks but we also gave him easy answers which he was unable to answer. So I suggest you go on to some religous website now and write how concerned you are with the amount of swearing and nudity there is on tv. byeeee.
Posted on March 28th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Michael, it is amusing that you refer to this topic as a ‘debate.’ Having read the article above, i don’t feel as if you wanted to incur debate at all. In fact, you portray yourself as exceedingly bigoted, emphasising the notion that only your view is valid, not the opinion of a ‘child’ who is ’so ignorant of these issues’ as you so patronisingly put it.
You might be surprised to know that these ‘children’ have played an active part in London Transport, having had to come to Kingsbury from all areas both in and out of London, and are very aware of the current situation regarding the destruction of the environment.
However, i don’t feel that this is the matter at hand. Rather than discussing the idea that there are better alternatives to driving, i feel you have simply used this forum to attack the students of JFS. Being present at the lecture i understand that the behaviour of a few students may have been slightly inappropriate, if not intimidating, but the questions put forward were very rational, and were challenging your argument rather than trying to disqualify it. It was therefore highly unnecessary for you to approach this site, writing an article that is of such untruth.
Firstly, i would like to express the fact that by no means did you ’sock it to the kids.’ In fact, you presented a very poor argument.
Furthermore, if i am not wrong, you are a grown man and you have given many talks prior to JFS. Can you honestly say that you have never come across a challenge before? are you saying that adults have not the ability to challenge you as well as youths? The behaviour you portray on this website renders you more childish than the students of whom you speak. Does it make you feel more worthy to be able to patronise 18 year olds by calling them ‘cute?’ Are you simply too ill-educated to rise above this? You say you want to encourage others to be more economically friendly, but this article is evidence to the fact that before others become more eco-friendly as a result of your preaching, you yourself need to become more friendly full-stop.
Admittedly, students can become very hot-headed when faced with an issue with which they disagree, and as a student myself, i think that some students have proved you right with use of such disgusting language. However i feel that you have responded in a totally inappropriate manner.
If you want to remain ‘Britain’s leading transport commentator,’ you might like to be more objective; if you did not present yourself in such an imposing manner, you might find that your audience is more co-operative, and perhaps would not have to resort to such childish behaviour.
Posted on March 28th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
I think the person above mean ‘christian,’ not michael
Posted on March 28th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
“1) Hydrogen cars are, so far, vastly more inefficient than petrol cars. They still need energy – electricity – to produce the hydrogen and therefore while they emit only water at the point of use, they are still environmentally damaging since the electricity has to be generated. They are certainly not cheaper to run and there are issues about carrying large amounts of hydrogen.
2) All the other technologies mentioned have similar problems. As i said in my comment above, all of them need energy to power them and that energy has both a cost and an environmental effect.” — Christian, it would appear that as absolutely every living thing requires energy – namely humans – you would be much happier if everyone was dead. Electricity can be generated at a lesser cost to the enviorement then the use of petrol – just admit you are wrong! And as for hydrogen cars – there are ways of safely condensing it so it is not a harm to anyone if the car crashes somehow. Grow up you giant kid!
Posted on March 30th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
> Cycling certainly isn’t an option for many students who carry large folders and heavy books –
> particularly in our climate.
As somebody who has cycled to uni, shopping and work for 12 years I have to ask the question: Are you afraid of sweating a tiny bit? Put your luggage on the rack and get a bit of exercise.
Posted on March 30th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
Amused: To me the point is that a purely electric car seems to be much simpler than a hydrogen car – I suspect you can fit a decent amount of batteries within the weight of a hydrogen tank.
I suspect you will find that high-voltage cables transport electricity more efficiently than hydrogen if you do the numbers.
Posted on March 30th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Perhaps…
…if all the older housing stock in central London (and other cities) hadn’t been given up for offices, halls, bedsits and colleges, people and families could live near to their jobs and schools.
…if public transport was run as a safe, clean, convenient, co-ordinated system with an emphasis on service provision ahead of dividends to shareholders, younger people (and everyone else) might find it more attractive.
…if the British government wasn’t pathologically opposed to trams, urban public would be more attractive and successful in general.
…if clean, safe, *reliable*, dedicated bus services were included in the scope of PFI contracts like the one for JFS, students would use them.
…if cycle lanes were properly demarcated like they are in most other European cities (e.g. Hamburg), cycling in London would be less of a deathwish.
…if public transport wasn’t confused by some very silly jurisdictional boundaries, people in Borehamwood wouldn’t feel the need to drive to this school – I mean, honestly…
…if public transport was more attractive at a basic level, it wouldn’t have to rely on complex arguments about ‘total cost’ to convence people to use it.
By the way, this is one of the most dynamic debates I’ve seen online, primarily due to the involvement of sixth formers as well as us jaded old followers of the transport press. I think you (Christian) should start talking to schools more, seeing as they’re actually far more relevant to these future-shaping topics than ageing politicians and managers.
Posted on April 3rd, 2009 at 4:52 pm
If the car habit is to be prevented, the way that workplace locations are chosen will have to change. Too often people’s opportunities are limited because many workplaces are not accessible by public transport.
Orbital routes are a necessity. So is integration in both fares and timetables. Otherwise people have to pay a lot extra to change to a bus to go less than a mile from the station to their doorsteps.
In some cases, public transport services could be increased as an alternative to adding extra lanes to trunk roads. The York to Scarborough railway line with the A64 road is an example. (http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/take_action/transport_trumps/yorkshire_humber)
Posted on April 9th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Imagine a mega-city of close to 500 square miles without any public transport?
This city will have hundreds of thousands of acres of ashphalt and concrete parking lots, thousands of miles of 2,4,6,8 & 12 lane surface streets, main roads and high-speed expressways. hospitals, schools, office parks, apartments, sports palaces, churches and even ‘parks’ will have 80% parking lot/20% structure.
The roadways will be lined with thousands of new motorcar dealers, strip malls, big-box retailers, chain drug stores, gazoline ’stations’ & fast-food ‘depots’ at every corner of this monstrous grid.
99% of all origins & destinations will NOT be within walking distance—only accessible by private SUV (gazoline slurping sport-utility-vehicle).
Along the expressways wil be posted huge new car & fast-food billboard in order to make the anxious automobile-entombed occupants hungry enough for them to drive-in—gulp down their fast-food meal—drive out—drive on—keep driving—keep gas guzzling!
The media will bombard you with 24hr motorcar sales, auto-insurance, oil company and fast food advertisements every where you travel within this automobile utopian mega city.
Have you guessed the city?…
It’s Detroit, Michigan, and there are hundreds of automobile dependant concreted sprawling wastelands just like it across all of North America- (USA & Canada).
***Count your blessings UK & Europe—appreciate and support your public transport.***
Posted on July 6th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Yes Michael – well put. Of course the USA only really got like this I guess about post 1940/45?
I was in Chicago 2 years back staying with friends in an inner suburb, housing built circa 1925. It was remarkable how like europe it felt in that older neighbourhood (even well served by commuter and metro – Metra and CTC – trains), yet as we visited friends in other places you moved through ‘burbs built in the 50s / 60s / 70s/ 2000s etc – each one got visibly lower in housing density, more sprawling, larger homes (so more energy to heat / cool etc), and more car dependent as walking became impossible in the more modern ones since there was simply no where to walk to – or anywhere was too far to walk.
And, not that this is exactly a causal relationship – isn’t Detroit now an economic disaster area after the car building industry has left it high and dry? I’ve not been there so I apologise to motor city residents if I bismirch their home town – it’s just that is the way the media have been reporting it.
Posted on July 6th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
I don’t understand how the public transport cost is the same as the ‘running a car’ cost.
£20 a week would barely cover the cost of my car insurance, and I’m nearly thirty. (I’ve never had an accident, insurance claim or insurance refused, but my no claims bonus has lapsed).
I don’t believe all the cars in the world (or anything like) could be fuelled on ethanol or vegetable oil. That would push the price of crops through the roof and of course those in the poorest parts of the world would be further pushed into famine, as the rich land owners would rather sell crops they can sell to the west for $$$ instead of growing the food their countries need.
Electric cars… the energy still has to be generated. And even if it is generated via renewables, there’s the icky toxic batteries that have a limited lifespan.
I passed my driving test at 17. I had a brand new car at 18. I was a full blown petrol-head by the time I was 21 and I have about four cars! Back then, I didn’t really care about anything else. As I’ve grown up, I’ve become much more aware of what I do and how it effects others.
I still drive regularly, hiring cars when required. Each time I do, I think of my partner who is asthmatic. (There are strong correlations between diesel particulates and respiratory diseases.). I think of the noise in my neighbourhood from the nearby road, which never ceases. Medical studies show that noise levels can cause hardening of the arteries. I think of the number of times I’ve waited at the side of that road, to cross to the shops, often for many minutes waiting for a gap in the traffic. I’m fit and agile, so I can make it across quite quickly, so I think of the older people who must feel ‘marooned’.
Everytime I strap my children into the car, I think about all the young innocent children that are killed on our roads each year. And every time I cycle, I think about all the drivers who put their convenience before my safetly. It would only take them a few extra seconds to wait until it was safe to overtake. Or maybe even realise it’s not worth overtaking because I’m actually faster than the city traffic (overall mean speed).
Of course, none of the problems like this caused by the students at JFS. However, more and more people are needed to take a stand against our car culture. Yes, as individuals we need to do what we can to reduce the impact our daily lives collectively have on everybody everywhere. But I don’t believe it should mean our lives a second rate for it, putting up with stinking unreliable public transport, getting splashed at the roadside by drivers who don’t slow down nor fearing for personal safety as we cycle home late at night.
We should be standing together to escalate these issues to local and national Government. We need more sustainable infrastructure, serious investment in public transport. People moved out of cities to escape the smog of manufacturing. Now it’s only the movement of people creating the smog. If we reduced the amount of combustion occurring, our cities would become much more pleasant places to live. It this day and age, we should be able to use all the information that is available so that we are geographically arranged as to reduce the need to travel.
That’s not to say we should not travel to visit relatives etc. – it just means it has to be moderated. As it is, we are travelling to far, to freely, to easily and the net result is that we will eventually choke.
Posted on July 20th, 2009 at 2:44 am
Ed Said: “I don’t understand how the public transport cost is the same as the ‘running a car’ cost.”
Because unlike most people, you actually look at the whole costs of running a car. Most people only consider the mrginal costs (fuel), which makes public transport seem the moer expensive option.
I don’t have a car, because it is cheaper for me to use public transport, then to buy and maintain a car. However, if I already owned a car, then it would be cheaper for me to drive, because most of the costs of driving are the same no matter how little you use it.
Posted on October 2nd, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Tom West makes a valid point about public transport being cheaper than car ownership, but this isn’t a universal truth.
The problem isn’t a “car culture”—as some would like to phrase it—but the desire of people to get from A to B with as little faff and stress as possible, within a reasonable time, and for a reasonable cost.
Cars can take you door-to-door. No tram, train or bus can do this, though they can get close if you’re willing to change modes as necessary during your journey. Cars offer a superior *interface*. It’s just that the true cost of that interface—and a long legacy of poor design decisions—is only now becoming clear.
(For those who bang on about how evil cars are, I’m afraid they’re rapidly catching up with rail when it comes to fuel efficiency. TGV trains aren’t *that* ecologically sound: again, all that electricity has to come from somewhere. In France, much of it comes from nuclear power stations, which have a much lower carbon footprint. In the UK, on the other hand, most of our electricity is generated from fossil fuels.)
Another issue is the misleading perception that any future replacement for the automobile must require absolutely no new infrastructure (or as little as possible), and that it, too, must carry around its own power source and generation facilities. Quite why such an inherently inefficient requirement is acceptable escapes me.
The vast majority of cars, vans and trucks *never* go off-road. Since those roads are built from tarmac and concrete, lit by lamposts, covered in coloured lines, smothered in signage, traffic lights and more, why is it unacceptable to build some form of power *transmission* system into the things too? (Hint: we do this with trains and trams already. Regenerative braking trials aside, electric trains do not generate their own electricity!)
Remove the need to cart a small power station around in every single car, and you can make them lighter. Make them lighter and they become more economical to run, using less energy and also resulting in less wear and tear on the road.
And, of course, if your “nuCar” is already taking its electricity from wires, induction loops or whathaveyou, it’s only a tiny step from there to having it drive itself and eliminating one of the most unreliable elements of automobiles today: the human driver.
Posted on October 5th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
To put it another way: stop demanding a “drop-in” replacement for today’s automobiles, because it’s likely that the most efficient option will require some major infrastructural changes.
The car wasn’t a drop-in replacement for horse-drawn transport. Our entire national road network is explicitly designed for the automobile—street lighting, road signage, Belisha beacons, zebra crossings, traffic lights, island crossings, double-yellow lines, you name it. *None* of that clutter existed before the rise of the automobile. And that’s without going into the issue of road surfaces, motorways, dual-carriageways…
Consider, for example, that building a road tunnel today is expensive because you need to include heavy-duty fire suppression, emergency exits and industrial-grade ventilation systems. Remove the emissions from the car and you don’t need that. Remove the *power generation* requirement too and you’re unlikely to have many fires either. Suddenly, building a road tunnel gets a *lot* cheaper.
Why do I mention this? Because whether your future car runs on petrol, diesel or sunshine and roses, it’ll still occupy *space*. The electric, hydrogen or solar-powered car will have no effect on congestion. But it *will* make alleviating that congestion easier by letting us build more infrastructure more cheaply than would otherwise be the case.
(Of course, the ultimate solution is probably an evolution of the “Personal Rapid Transit” options already out there.)
Posted on October 5th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
At least part of the debate on car costs can be answered with available data. The AA divides costs into ’standing charges’ and ‘running costs’. For the most expensive (petrol) cars (over £30000) standing charges remain the greater cost until well over 30000 miles/annum.Total running cost/mile exceeds petrol only cost by 52%. For small cars (up to £12000) the break even point is around 12000 miles, and total running costs exceed petrol only costs by 77%.
see http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/running_costs/index.html
Posted on December 2nd, 2009 at 12:10 am
Add A Comment