First casualty of adversity

There is a saying in the army; something like the first casualty of any war is the plan. This reflects the fact that in adversity normal rules fail, but it is not restricted to war zones, there is a battle raging on all around us and on our streets right now.

If you starve a colony of rats they will eventually start killing each other, so I’m reliably told, to reduce the burden on the available food supply. They start by turning on the weak and old, then turn on the outsiders and any member of the community who is unusual in any way. We do the same, in fact most creatures do this to survive.

The instinct to turn on some members of the community when times get hard can be seen in the ridiculous way that some drivers demonise drivers of other types of vehicle. We all feel the pinch from fuel prices and many of us feel guilt at CO2 output, and whilst this drives some of us to find better ways to get about and to develop better cars, it also drives some people to blame minorities for their own perceived plight. One example that effects me is the way 4x4s are attacked. We have two Land Rovers, and they are used for heavy jobs but not for long journeys so their annual CO2 footprint is quite small, but that doesn’t stop 4×4 haters putting anonymous hate mail under the wipers and campaigning to ban them. The fact that a 20k mile a year Micra chucks out twice as much nasty each year seems to escape them.

Right tool for the right job, different cars have different uses but room for everyone.


This is just one example where society fragments and one section turns on another. Unfortunately all this does is consume energy and resources for no useful result, surely their cause would be better served if our energy is whole heatedly put into solving the problems of CO2 rather than banning this or that sub set of the community. In the UK 4×4 all terrain vehicles count for a very small percentage of the cars on the road, and their lower average mileage means that even with a slight increase in fuel consumption they contribute a minority of the road vehicle CO2, so banning them is not going to help anyway, and crucially all the media attention takes attention away from the truly important debate on how we stop CO2 emissions completely. (And before you go off on one; yes this does assume the CO2 issue is real, I am not going to get involved in that debate as I don’t have enough detailed knowledge to make a positive contribution, but in the context of this article it serves to illustrate how society fragments and how this is counter productive. So please don’t have a go at me about CO2)

Manufacturers are chucking huge quantities of money and resources into solving these big problems, but making plans for future eco products is hampered by the car buying populous constantly bickering amongst themselves about what sort of car is best, for example Ford has repeatedly tried to sell electric city cars such as the Think which was available a decade ago, but no one bought them. We have the hybrid fanciers and the hybrid haters, each throwing salvoes of misinterpreted data at each other to prove their own point of view. We have the big car lobby and the small car evangelists undermining each others right to exist on the road. Performance car enthusiasts are put against green car preachers, each striving to point out the pointlessness of the other’s point of view. The fact is we all have the same right to be here, we are all part of the problem and simply fragmenting will not solve anything.

Rolls Royce have gone to great lengths to demonstarte their EV technology really works.


Imagine if instead of finger pointing we actually joined forces, with car sharing on each part of the street so that one families diesel estate got used by many families for their annual holiday, or the neighbours 4×4 was available to anyone in the community to borrow for really big jobs and getting provisions in the snow. There is no technical obstacle to this, but there is a massive attitude problem which kills the idea dead. In any scheme like this someone always get disproportionately more benefit than someone else, but so what? As long as everyone in that group gets enough benefit what does it matter if someone else gets even more? But most humans rarely think like that.

Of course it is not just the car world that has this problem, recently we saw public sector strikes that seemed to resolve everybody’s opinions either for or against, most opinions seemed to be formed with the minimum of data and the maximum of social prejudice. For my part I voiced the opinion that I found it difficult to agree with the strike when we were all suffering from financial hardships, notice I did not say I disagreed with it, just that I found it difficult. In this example there are genuine grievances, if I signed up for a job on the promise of a good pension and several years of hard work later it suddenly gets taken away then I too would be bloody fuming. Clearly this aspect is a very bad thing to do. But when we look at the other side we find that there simply is not enough money to pay for this as well as everything else, this is a very big problem that has been brewing for many years and is suffered by most western countries. In this case both sides are right, the solution is to generate more wealth to pay for the promises whilst adjusting the terms of employment for new recruits, or something along those lines possibly. But rather than have a national debate about how to fix this and coming up with ideas, we are instead once again fragmenting into ‘sides’ and just having a slanging match.

My V12 Jag racer would use 50 litres of fuel per race, but this was only 8 times a year. Some want to ban racing but commuting uses far more fuel! We need a solution to all problems, not a ban on minorities.


Then there is the current hatred for rich people, it seems that anyone who has managed to amass a decent wedge must be vilified for the obviously evil methods they used to steal the cash of the hard working whatever. Again this is pointless, there are freeloading useless people in every sector of society, no one has a monopoly on bastards. But instead of discussing how we can all get a bit better off the argument descends into taking money off rich people to give to poor people, and in doing so fragments society into those who have money and those who don’t, rather than joining forces and generating new businesses that add value and generate wealth.

My message is a simple one; stop attacking and start building. Time is running short, and there’s a storm coming.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *