PRESS INFORMATION
FROM AARDVARK
How Committed Are We To Environmental Transport?
There has been a drive since the early 1970’s that started with environmental
pressure groups, to move away from private transport wherever possible, the
secondary message has always been to downsize to smaller, more fuel efficient
vehicles. Of late that has become a campaign that has been joined by the motor
industry and governments around the world. However, just how committed can they
be to the ideals, say environmental transport consultants’ Aardvark Associates?
The motor industry giants have been dragged screaming and kicking into realising
that they need environmentally friendly vehicles, they started with smaller cars, and
smaller engines, and then they built demand for more accessories, more comfort, all
needing bigger cars and more powerful engines and the vicious circle begins. Instead
of smaller cars we have larger vehicles with larger engines. Moreover, the motor
industry plans on more powerful, bigger vehicles in the future.
For years there has been a small car niche in continental Europe, with manufacturers
in France, Germany, Spain, and Italy. Volumes have been low, and their success has
been qualified by special license arrangements and some dispensation from Type
Approval regulations that apply to larger vehicles. These small cars known
generically as microcars, are specified in EU legislation as “quadricycles”. They must
fall within limited weight limits, and have power and speed restrictions imposed at the
point of manufacture.
These quadricycles are smaller, lighter and more fuel efficient than any conventional
vehicle. They have limited top speeds – and have lightweight polycarbonate bodies
that absorb pedestrian impact. They can come with electric motive power as an
option, thus transferring the pollution created by their motive power to a controllable
centralised point at the power stations.
So, in quadricycles such as Microcar, Aixam, Ligier, Reva (G-Wizz), and others,
there is a low impact personal transport solution for urban areas. Areas where traffic
speed can be as low as 3-4 miles per hour, and certainly the potential to attain the 30
mph/48 kph legal limit is limited. These are vehicles that take up less road space,
both on the road and when parked; they are pedestrian friendly; they are economical
and environmentally friendly; they are virtually 100 per cent recyclable; they have a
light footprint on the road so cause less road damage; they are in short, a real
solution to urban personal transport, even local suburban and rural personal
transport. No-one, certainly not the manufacturers, claim that these are motorway
vehicles, or grand tourers, anything but.
As sales of these vehicles start to grow in the UK, particularly in urban areas, and
certainly where sales are driven by congestion charging. Does the UK establishment
welcome this move to smaller, more environmentally efficient vehicles with open
arms? Of course it doesn’t.
MORE FOLLOWS
How Committed Are We/2
It raises issues about their crash test safety by slamming them into an offset
stationary block at 39 mph/64 kph – 5 mph/ 8 kph above the 35 mph/56 kph impact
test speed set by EU passenger car Type Approval legislation – a top speed that
most will never attain in city traffic, and in the case of some models, one that is
physically unattainable. It then questions the safety of the very vehicle they have
been campaigning for, for over 30 years and says that it didn’t realise these vehicles
would be permitted on the road when the UK agreed to the EU rules on quadricycles.
Surely someone involved had been to France and seen the microcars on the street
there?
This all raises questions about how committed the country is to the green agenda.
There is now a constant drive against the larger motor car, and at the same time the
smallest, lightest, option is being targeted by the establishment. Could it be that
having unwittingly got what was asked for the government and the motor industry
have realised that they have vested interests to protect. The motor industry their
investments in carbon technology, big cars and internal combustion engines and their
support from their allies in the oil industry, whilst the government needs to defend its
revenues. How delightful it must be to have a tax incentive to drive a zero emission
car whilst there are none available. How different that becomes when the zero
emission vehicle becomes a reality.
Conspiracy theory? Maybe. However, it is clear that the government is duplicitous
when it comes to transport solutions. Taxes on larger vehicles have little impact on
those who can afford to run them. There is limited investment in public transport
when it comes to trains and buses, yet high impact air transport continues to pay no
tax on fuel and there are huge expansion plans for the air traffic sector across the
UK. There is a serious conflict of message when all this is going on, and the smaller,
lighter, more environmentally friendly personal transport solution is coming under
attack. One might also ask, how much safer these vehicles would be if they were in
the majority on the road? Surely then the heavy, powerful hatchback becomes the
dangerous vehicle?
If there is no support for the quadricycle and the case against it is one of safety, then
perhaps it is time we all took to the streets in armoured cars on the basis that they
are much safer when involved in a collision with another vehicle…
ENDS
About Aardvark: Aardvark Associates is an environmental transport consultancy in
the process of compiling a report on the UK market for quadricycle-class vehicles, to
be published in late 2007. People interested in the report are welcome to contact
Aardvark, and will receive an executive summary at the time of publication. The full
report is provisionally priced at £500.
Editors contact:
Ewan Scott
Aardvark Associates tel. 01484 864 520
(mob. 07951 963 433) or 01308 897 911
email:
web:
north@www.aardvarkpr.co.uk
www.aardvarkpr.co.uk
Please note that this document is for information only and is non-contractual;
Aardvark Associates decline all liability in the case of omissions or errors.