Transport Blog

July 2006
Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
						1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
23	24	25	26	27	28	29
30	31

May 24, 2004

Clarkson's £100 Transport Challenge

Further to Clarkson's Great Race, Top Gear last night featured another (supposed) blow to public transport, using the almighty car as its weapon of choice. But it was really much more than that: It was a ringing endorsement of the free market.

Jeremy Clarkson and his Top Gear co-presenters, James May and Richard Hammond, were each given £100 with which to buy a car. It had to be taxed and tested, but otherwise they were free to purchase what they liked. Clarkson opted for an ugly Volvo, May for an Audi, and Hammond for a GTI...a Rover GTI, which was greeted with much derision by Clarkson and May. ("Ha ha ha! A Rover! Ha ha ha! A bleedin' Rover!" -- repeat ad nauseam.) Apart from being unattractive in the extreme, the cars really were in surprisingly good nick -- especially considering that they each cost less than £100.

Of course, Clarkson and co used this as an opportunity to rubbish trains. They calculated that a return train ticket from London to Manchester costs £182, a number to which we might all take exception. That's the price of a standard open return, whereas a saver return for off-peak travel would be £52.10. But I'm willing to let that slide, because if you compare the cost of deciding on the spur-of-the-moment to drive to Manchester with the cost of deciding on the spur-of-the-moment to catch the train to Manchester, and figure in the convenience that driving allows...Well, let's not get hung up on those numbers.

The fact is, for under £100 they got three cars, fully tested and taxed, that got them to Manchester and back. I believe that it was at one point stated that, even with fuel and the cost of the M6 toll road (oh, that glorious M6 toll road -- another post altogether), it still worked out at under £100 for each car and its journey northward and back. That strikes me as pretty good going and, leaving aside the question of the value of public transport, should please any supporter of the free market, in transport or otherwise.

Trackbacks

Comments

Yes, it was a remarkable vindication of the motor car.

Having said that, Clarkson did point out that the reason his Volvo was so cheap (£1) (or was it Hammond?) was because of the EU's recycling laws. In the past the scrap dealer paid you. Now, you pay him.

Do you really think the Volvo 700s and the Audi 80s are ugly? Looks wise they are two of my favorite cars ever.

Posted by Patrick Crozier on May 24, 2004

Patrick, I only watched the first 20 minutes or so of the show, so I must have missed that bit about the EU thingy. Bloody figures.

And yes, I really think they are hideous things, especially the Volvo. I am somewhat picky, though. I don't even rate the Charger, looks-wise. At all.

Posted by Jackie D on May 24, 2004

"Ha ha ha! A Rover! Ha ha ha! A bleedin' Rover!"

I have a Rover.

C***s.

Posted by Andy Wood on May 24, 2004

It hurts because it's true, Andy. (Not that my opinion counts for anything -- see above re the Charger.)

Posted by Jackie D on May 24, 2004

Some points, if I may:
- Rover-bashing is a tiresome habit.
- The Volvo was not roadworthy in the first place as its speedometer was not working.
- This is a false comparison as you cannot make a spur-of-the-moment decision to drive if you have to spend time and effort to buy a car first, whereas you can simply go to your nearest staffed station, by a ticket and catch the next available train.

Posted by Devil's Advocate on May 25, 2004

This is a false comparison as you cannot make a spur-of-the-moment decision to drive if you have to spend time and effort to buy a car first, whereas you can simply go to your nearest staffed station, by a ticket and catch the next available train.

Don't be silly. You only have to go out and buy a car once, not every time you wish to travel.

As for the Volvo's speedometer, I missed that part, but it doesn't affect the Audi or the Rover.

And Rover-bashing may be tiresome, but gosh, it's still amusing, not least because it still gets a reaction out of some people. All in good fun.

Posted by Jackie D on May 25, 2004

Rover-bashing was never that amusing and the joke (which was so weak anyway) has long since worn thin.

The Top Gear test was to buy and run a car for under £100 for their trip to Manchester and back. Therefore all comparisons with other forms of transport should be on a like-for-like basis - which in this case means including the costs of the extra time required to buy the cars in question. Also, don't forget the cars were crashed afterwards, so they couldn't exactly be reused.

Posted by Devil's Advocate on May 26, 2004

yes, let's hear it for spurious back of the fag packet economics by petrol heads...

now, if you would like to add in the social and environmental externalities, then we might get a sensible discussion going.

Posted by pete on May 27, 2004

Well the cars would have gone to the scrapheap anyway so, infact, they *were* reused. They did 500miles more than they otherwise would have.

Which brings us to "social and environmental externalities".

I'm not much of a people person so, for me anyway, sitting in my own company, in a car, with a radio (provided it's got one), and, therefore, avoiding social externalities is a plus point.

Environmentally, well a phenomenal percentage of the energy used in a car's life time is during its manufacture. Getting another 500miles out of the beast raises its energy efficiency upwards a smidgen if anything.

It sounds about face at first but the most environmentally friendly make of car ever is Rolls Royce. Even those big gas guzzlers. The reason is because something like three-quarters of Rolls Royces ever made are still drivable on the road.

Posted by Mark Holland on May 27, 2004

Permalink

IN BRIEF

November 23, 2004

'Captain commuter' wins Sydney a free day on the trains ...link