It is now 50 years since the Great Smog in London; then as now pollution
deaths are climbing, now it is not coal fires but traffic, especially slow
cars caught in jams. Obvious conclusion, car drivers are to blame for deaths
now, just as the Smog killed so many then, so place further curbs on car
drivers. Well not quite. The Smog had a political element, the UK economy was
on its uppers after WW2, partly because the USA had lent, not given us aid in
that war, and it was now payback time. So the best quality UK coal was going
abroad, and UK householders got all the cheap sulphury stuff. In effect some
of the last casualties of WW2 were in the early 1950s and caused by our ally
the USA, not Germany. Blaming the householders for the Smog, although they
were causing it, would not really have made sense, as there was no
alternative means of heating their houses. No coal, more would have died of
hypothermia.
Now why do so many insist on driving in London? It's not exactly car drivers
paradise there what with road works, average speed under 10mph (under walking
pace for many roads much of the day), high car tax, petrol duty, speed
cameras (bet they never get used much) oncoming road tolls, etc etc. After
all we have excellent cheap frequent buses, affordable train and tube season
tickets, a safe system for women after 6pm, easy cross-suburban bus journeys,
err well don't we?
Of course its cheaper for the government to blame drivers, then ram home that
blame with revenue raising measures, than to actually spend money on better,
safer, cheaper, frequent, public transport. Guess what with multinationals
looking for low tax locations it mightn't be a good idea to tax them for a
decent transport system. That would drive them off quickly. Almost as quickly
as an 8-milion strong city that's grinding to a halt for lack of decent
transport in fact.
Hillary Shaw, School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT
[log in to unmask]
|