The Coventry Cathedral hierarchy emphasised that they wanted the service in January (marking the 100th anniversary of the motor car), to be even-handed about the advantages and disadvantages.
Nevertheless, it was, in the end, cars which processed down the aisle, not the road-accident victims, not the asthma sufferers, not the drivers bearing the scars of other people's road-rage, nor representatives of those whose homes are oppressed by the 24-hours-a-day roar and rumble of traffic.
In this, Coventry was very revealing. Whatever people may say that is negative about cars, they will not give them up. The latest Lex survey of motoring showed that 59% of drivers agree with the campaigns to stop new roads being built across the countryside, and 82% supported protests against pollution in cities. But far from getting rid of their own cars, more cars appear on Britain's roads each year: currently 21.3 million, double the number of 30 years ago, and still rising. In London it is estimated that for every 100 people in their cars, another 40 would be out there too if driving was easier. Even among the anti-roads protesters it is ironical that some of the protesters are so wedded to their vehicles that they actually live in them!
Changing attitudes
The Lex survey shows that attitudes to the car are changing. Driving is no longer regarded as much of a pleasure and 'going for a spin', i.e. driving for the pure enjoyment of driving, is a declining pastime, if not a contradiction in terms. But with the decimation of the railways, the bizarre accounting which forces up public transport costs, changes in shopping and other social patterns, the change in what is regarded as normal expectations of life, people perceive themselves as maybe no longer liking, but needing their cars. Cars still feed our sense of freedom and even also play a role in defining our self-image.
The ambivalence over cars is matched by an ambivalence towards public transport. For much of the 1980s public transport was an object of routine disparagement for being 'public'. Now our elected government is actively breaking up the railway system and selling it for reasons which all but the most commitedly faithful see as political rather than practical reasons. At the very least one might wonder what would have happened if the quantities of energy and attention, let alone the £700 million expended on preparing BR for privatisation, had been devoted to improving its services.
Then there is the quandary over road-building. The belief that building more roads only encourages more traffic has been recognised by increasing numbers of people for the past 30 years, and the country trembled with the collective dropping of jaws when even the Department of Transport seemed to accept this. First, they axed much of the programme of road-building in London, and then for reasons of finance as much as transport policy, most other major road projects have been shelved. But the balance of the argument seems to have been reversed for the Newbury bypass.
A future policy?
So what should we do about cars? Everyone agrees the present situation cannot go on unchecked, but who will take the first step? Why should I change my lifestyle if others are not going to do the same?
Often we are tempted to all-or-nothing solutions. Either - don't interfere, let the market (or nature) find its own balance. Or stop all road-building, no matter how many days and nights it takes to get across Newbury, campaigning under the slogan 'Congestion is good for you'!
But in this fallen world, the nature of sin is that it makes life a mess, and simple, clear-cut solutions are rarely available. It is unrealistic to think that cars and the car industry will go away, or even be severely cut back. Even though so much of the British car industry now consists of assembling foreign car kits, it still represents 25% of our manufacturing industry. Action that would adversely affect one's own economy would only be possible through international agreements which individual governments would still have to sell to their people.
It is similarly unrealistic to expect that generations who have been sold the myth of personal freedom through cars will willingly give them up. Governments could try increasing the price of petrol, but the tax increases on cigarettes have shown that people's addictions are fairly price-resistant. More likely is the tightening up on levels of pollution from vehicles, the fiscal encouragement of smaller, more efficient and less-polluting cars, and an encouragement to Sir Clive Sinclair to have another go at the C5. We can also welcome changes to the planning regulations to restrict out-of-town developments and encourage people back into their towns.
Alternative values
There are no clear biblical texts on transport policy other than the apocryphal 'the sound of Saul's Triumph was heard over all Israel.'! But there are some other values on which we should focus to provide positive encouragements for alternatives to car usage, in public transport, walking and cycling.
Cost public transport fairly
As an alternative to cars we need an integrated public transport policy where availability is more important than profitability measured in the narrow interests of a private business, and we need a form of accountancy which shows the wider costs and benefits of different modes of transport. For many years there has been a bogus accounting which makes car-driving look cheap and public transport look inefficient.
If you travel by train, part of your fare will go towards the capital costs of the infrastructure itself, the track and the signalling, etc. Yet on the roads there is no clear connection between the level of car tax and the cost of the roads we drive on. To all intents and purposes, the cost of road-building is written off by the government. If car-tax was set at such a level as to repay the capital costs of road-building, to say nothing of the costs of pollution, the economics of public transport would look radically different..
Similarly, allowance could be made for transport's indirect costs to health. There is considerable evidence that the current major increase in asthma is linked to the increasing pollution from vehicle emissions. In England alone, the NHS now spends over £1m per day treating asthma, and at that rate, in terms of the cost of treatment, it will soon equal smoking.
Car pollution is worst on short journeys, and walking not only cuts out the pollution, but has the beneficial side-effect of slowing down your lifestyle. Cars are an example of our being dominated and trapped by our technology. We tend to live at the fastest pace our technology allows.
In a traditional butcher's or baker's shop we will happily stand and queue to be served, but if the electronic till in the supermarket cannot read a barcode and someone has to go and check the price, we seethe with frustration.
Having a car makes us feel we ought to, or need to, live at the speed the car makes possible and do all the things the car enables us to do. So, far from alleviating the pressures on our lives, the car can actually add to them. It can be very pleasant to resist this pressure. 'I will slow down, do fewer things and enjoy doing them at a more leisurely pace.'
Walking also provides a unique experience of the world. You progress at a natural speed, a speed at which you can take things in, appreciate the details of your environment, feel more at one with your local area. And who knows, you might even meet someone and talk with them.
Cycling
Much the same can be said for cycling. In 1951 cyclists made up 25% of all road traffic. By 1994 cyclists made up only 1% of road-users (more may use the pavements, but often at the risk of vituperative abuse from pedestrians and prosecution by the police). Cycling is perceived as dangerous, and in many cities it is, but, as anyone who has visited The Netherlands will know, it does not have to be.
A bigger problem is that in Britain, cycling is still perceived as naff. Our image of the cyclist is still largely either the little old lady on a bone-shaker, or the serious cycling enthusiast on a prohibitively-expensive mountain bike. The implication is that your cycle either because you like it, or because you can't afford anything better. Sir George Younger, who dispenses with his ministerial chauffeur and cycles to work, is treated as an amusing oddity, not an example for us to follow. What is missing in Britain is the idea you can cycle because it is practical: ordinary people riding ordinary bikes for ordinary purposes.
Conclusion
It is tempting to be very pessimistic about the future of the car, but there are some deeper aspects of our humanity which, at an individual level, can provide positive reasons to entice us out of our cars. We need to account for things fairly and give proper value to the gifts that God has given us, such as clean air and sensitive ears, which do not have simple monetary values.
We also need to understand the idolatrous pull that is exerted through our technology, including our cars, and actively consider how we can resist it, and live our lives freely. As so often it is much easier to criticise what we see than to live out the positive alternative.
The author is an art historian and involved with the Liberal Democrat party.
