ABD quizzes Transport 2000

Top Gear attacker given third degree

By PH Staff / Monday, 18 April 2005 / Loading comments

Bus pollution

The Association of British Drivers (ABD) has launched a broadside against Transport 2000, which recently attacked the Top Gear TV programme for being too yobbish, and enjoying driving.

T2K called instead for a more environmentally sound and safety conscious approach, involving test drives of buses rather than Ferraris. In response, the ABD has asked the transport pressure group four questions:

Transport 2000 claims that public transport is environmentally friendly, yet exhaust emissions from the large diesel engines in buses and trains have been shown to contain the two most carcinogenic chemicals known to science. These are far worse than the banned food colouring Sudan 1. Researchers point out that one is very likely to be the cause of thousands of lung cancer cases in urban areas. Petrol or small diesel engines as found in cars do not have this specific problem. So, why should 620 foodstuffs be taken from shelves in the High Street shops of towns and cities, when buses and trains continue to emit far more genotoxic carcinogens in High Streets and railway stations?
In terms of energy (fuel) consumption as well as the resulting emissions, public transport once again has to concede to the car. Professor Roger Kemp of Lancaster University studied the energy consumption of trains compared to cars, and found that trains, such as inter-city services, are not as energy efficient. This result prompted the Editor of Modern Railways magazine (the ironically named Mr Ford) to write:
"I know this will generate howls of protest, but at present a family of four going by car is about as environmentally friendly as you can get".
This finding is in keeping with a result from Automotive Advisers and Associates of Hilden, Germany, that compared to cars, public transport consumes 60 per cent more energy per person transported and takes up 200 per cent more public space per person transported. So, why does Transport 2000 claim that public transport is more environmentally friendly than the car?
In terms of safety, buses and coaches kill 13 times more pedestrians per mile travelled than 'white van man', and 10 times more than cars including 4 x 4s, according to data from the DfT. So, why does Transport 2000 suggest that cars and motorists are unsafe while championing buses?
The ABD is funded by subscriptions and donations from members. What are the sources of funding for the Transport 2000 organisations? Where can details of funding sources and supporting or link organisations be found on your Web site?
Er, actually, PistonHeads found some of that information on the T2K site here.

Latest General News articles

Oof: new V8-powered BMW Speedtop unveiled

Scarily affordable V12 heroes | Six of the Best

BMW reveals new M2 CS ahead of full debut

Frontline MGA Factory Edition | PH Review

Mercedes E320 CDI estate | Shed of the Week

Popular forums

General Gassing

Chat about all things motoring

The Pie & Piston

Chat about everything else…

Motorsports

Win on Sunday, talk about it on Monday

Supercars

Not all cars are created equal

Events

Meet your hero Matt Bird in person

The Lounge

Need to get something off your chest?

View all forums

Auctions

Buy

Selling

News

Regulars

Forums

My account