Having watched the UK morph from a nation of car-lovers into a country of downtrodden, guilt-ridden motorists, I read student scribe Andy Thompson's anti-car diatribe in The Daily Utah Chronicle with a deep sense of foreboding. The globally-warmed college curmudgeon labeled the automobile a "social epidemic," decried our nation's $135b highway spending as "a giant subsidy to the oil and automobile industry" and called for a mass transit system beside every American highway. Although Thompson's diatribe shows scant regard for the facts– The Big Three are not the "rip up the trolley tracks" political force of old and DaimlerChrysler is no more– a larger, more worrying question looms. Will America's college campuses be the starting point for a Euro-style anti-car jihad? Er, no. At the conclusion of his piece, Thompson dreams of the day when the "automobile is a luxury — one that everyone owns, just uses about as often as you take the boat out." Whew!
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Well some of us college students REQUIRE a car because of inadequate on-campus housing and a city with a mass-transit system that no college student could feel safe using.
Plus cars are just so darn fun :)
College kids can literally afford to hate cars… they all have one. The kids who graduate high school and have to go directly into the real world don’t feel that way. They need a car to get to work.
College kids hate cars the same way they hate democracy (in favor of some working form of Marxism), stupidly and idealistically. College is a fun time to blabber all your half-baked theories about social restructuring, but unless all of America moves to either a. A big New York style supercity with great public transportation infrastructure or b. a college campus, cars are a necessary “evil”, and an indulgence that I’m glad to partake in.
P.S. Europe doesn’t count for comparison because there, a country is about as big as a US state. I’m not taking the damn train 12 hours to North Dakota every time we need to visit my wife’s family.
I love this line: “At the conclusion of his piece, Thompson dreams of the day when the ‘automobile is a luxury — one that everyone owns, just uses about as often as you take the boat out.\'”
Somehow, I have the feeling that good ole’ Andy will be using his automobile whenever he wants.
That’s the way it usually works among those who want to ban this or restrict that for our “own good.”
Be careful generalizing across colleges. While your local Babysitting U may have had everyone with a car, it was very rare for any undergraduate at my school to have one.
All college kids need to rebel against something – since the cars effect on the environment is currently a hot topic that is what they choose today. Note to all adults – lets not spoil their fun and all pretend to be suitably shocked and disgusted and then, just like every generation before them, watch them eat their words as join the real world.
There are still some of us in the UK who are car lovers and haven’t been downtrodden by the self-serving environmental zealots yet.
Especially when “Mr Green Goes Motoring”.
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/driving/features/article1870293.ece
My views on the chap in the above story are not compatible with the no flame rules…
Speaking from experience (I used to manage about 100 apartment units a couple of blocks from the University of Utah), I am neither surprised by the Chrony’s anti-car bias nor am I concerned that these ideas will spread from the ‘U’ into mainstream society.
For the last 30 years the U has been a radical leftist bastion in what may be the reddest of red states. They have no original thoughts (except the Medical school, which is excellent). They simply stand for the opposite of whatever the rest of the mountain west region believes economically, socially and religiously – like spoiled rich kids reactively rebelling against their parents.
Fortunately, most of them grow out of it when they get a job, start paying taxes and have children of their own.
Like any vast generalization about a large and diverse segment of society when applied to an (unsupported) thesis, this is ridiculous. This says more about short-sighted, chest thumping, extremist environmentalism and the lack of empirical skills amongst many ostensibly “educated “people than anything relating to some vague college student zeitgeist.
“Will America’s college campuses be the starting point for a Euro-style anti-car jihad?”
I should hope so. As much as I love cars, they’re a terribly inefficient way to move people from place to place, and they have a downright toxic effect on the health of our cities.
I fully agree. It would be really great if we started imposing a 100% fuel tax, and this coming from a recent college grade who drives a 2 seater with a V8 that gets about 13mpg on a good day.
I’m so sick of everyone begging for fuel taxes. Many say we aren’t paying the “true cost” of gasoline. How do you know?
Maybe the “fair market” value is $0.86 and it’s already been adjusted to $3.00 a gallon. You say that isn’t enough? Who gets to decide how much is too bad for the environment? Before you go asking the Mother of All Screw-Ups (*any* gov’t) to charge you more, think about what will really happen…
100% Fuel Tax? I hope this never happens in my lifetime. Things cost enough now. I would agree with a usage tax for those that don’t own a business, and just like to pimp-around lookin cool. Use the revenue for something good, like forestry replanting.
I don’t think college kids hate cars, but they are clearly not as enthusiastic about them the way that I (and most readers of TTAC) were when we were kids. Their indifference is mostly just a reflection of the same attitudes that exist in the larger society.
Most cars today are too complicated for college kids to tinker with and repair themselves. They’re terribly expensive to purchase, maintain, and insure at a time when wages for middle class people, even college graduates, are stagnant or not rising as fast as inflation. Our roadways are becoming increasingly crowded and driving has turned into an unpleasant experience for many of us, even if you’re driving a great car.
For too many, the thrill is gone.
The attitudes of today’s college students will probably manifest themselves in better and more public transit in the future, but for most of us, there will continue to be no viable alternative to using our cars to commute to work. I saw one article about a study where it was found that the price of gas would have to top $10 a gallon before people would stop commuting to work in their own cars, although they would cut back on and/or eliminate discretionary driving.
“100% Fuel Tax? I hope this never happens in my lifetime. Things cost enough now. I would agree with a usage tax for those that don’t own a business, and just like to pimp-around lookin cool. Use the revenue for something good, like forestry replanting.”
The problem is that gasoline doesn’t cost ENOUGH. The issue isn’t using the revenue for this or that. It’s about making gasoline prohibitively expensive as a fuel source to encourage folks to migrate to more efficient fuels, or to public transportation. The extra revenue from taxation is just a perk.
I think my comment disappeared. Anyway,
jabdalmalik, why on earth would you want to make a energy source so expensive so people have to spend even more to develop and use another source? That could possibly cripple the US economy.
Public Transportation? My city doesn’t have that. Nor does the city I work in, or the one I go to school in.
Just for kicks, can you tell list one of those “efficient fuels”, I’d appreciate it.
Just for kicks, can you tell list one of those “efficient fuels”, I’d appreciate it.
I think he meant cars in general, but I bet someone tries to justify Hydrogen, again.
“jabdalmalik, why on earth would you want to make a energy source so expensive so people have to spend even more to develop and use another source? That could possibly cripple the US economy.”
Oh come on, this is just sillytalk. Since when has frenzied innovation crippled the US economy?
“Public Transportation? My city doesn’t have that. Nor does the city I work in, or the one I go to school in.”
Maybe when gas hits $10 a gallon you and the other residents of your city will start voting for public transportation initiatives instead of highways highways highways for a change.
“Just for kicks, can you tell list one of those “efficient fuels”, I’d appreciate it. ”
I’d be happy if we could tax people into using diesel over the short term. A fuel source doesn’t have to be perfect to be better than gasoline.
But diesel isn’t perfect. There are plenty of other fuels out there that have promise (yes, hydrogen is one), but as it stands none of them can truly be said to be a viable replacement for fossil fuels for those areas of the country where public transportation will never be a viable alternative (and they do exist, I’ll not deny it). But give it a few years. Scientists are clever folks, they’ll have all the kinks ironed out by then.
The government missed it’s chance to raise gas taxes to European levels years ago. Liek when people could afford a somehting like that because they had a lot of disposable income. Peoples paychecks are being squeezed HARD right now from every direction and it’s going to get worse. Doing something like that would hurt and kill a lot of people, the working poor among us, yes they are American’s too with a right to a decent standard of living but people seem to forget that.
What is that poor family that is barely making it going to do now that their commute to work now costs twice as much. Where is the money going to come from, there food budget, medical insurance(if they can even afford that). When you have no luxuries to get rid of you have to start cutting needs. And don’t say they government can help them out, I think they have proven they are inept at doing that already.
Taxing people to death is not the answer, unless you want another American Revolution.
“What is that poor family that is barely making it going to do now that their commute to work now costs twice as much.”
Fuel stamps for poor families doesn’t seem outside the realm of possibility.
“And don’t say they government can help them out, I think they have proven they are inept at doing that already.”
Holy meaningless conservative talking point, Batman!
“Taxing people to death is not the answer, unless you want another American Revolution.”
When it comes to discouraging people from engaging in activities that’re bad for them taxing them to death is actually quite effective. Take a look at cigarettes.