News | Green Cars | Best in Class | Coming Soon | Concepts | Environment | Classifieds | Forums

Resources

There has been a drive since the early 1970’s that started with environmental pressure groups, to move away from private transport wherever possible, the secondary message has always been to downsize to smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles. Of late that has become a campaign that has been joined by the motor industry and governments around the world. However, just how committed can they be to the ideals, say environmental transport consultants’ Aardvark Associates?

The motor industry giants have been dragged screaming and kicking into realising that they need environmentally friendly vehicles, they started with smaller cars, and smaller engines, and then they built demand for more accessories, more comfort, all needing bigger cars and more powerful engines and the vicious circle begins. Instead of smaller cars we have larger vehicles with larger engines. Moreover, the motor industry plans on more powerful, bigger vehicles in the future.

For years there has been a small car niche in continental Europe, with manufacturers in France, Germany, Spain, and Italy. Volumes have been low, and their success has been qualified by special license arrangements and some dispensation from Type Approval regulations that apply to larger vehicles. These small cars known generically as microcars, are specified in EU legislation as “quadricycles”. They must fall within limited weight limits, and have power and speed restrictions imposed at the point of manufacture.

These quadricycles are smaller, lighter and more fuel efficient than any conventional vehicle. They have limited top speeds – and have lightweight polycarbonate bodies that absorb pedestrian impact. They can come with electric motive power as an option, thus transferring the pollution created by their motive power to a controllable centralised point at the power stations.

So, in quadricycles such as Microcar, Aixam, Reva (G-Wizz), and others, there is a low impact personal transport solution for urban areas. Areas where traffic speed can be as low as 3-4 miles per hour, and certainly the potential to attain the 30 mph/48 kph legal limit is limited. These are vehicles that take up less road space, both on the road and when parked; they are pedestrian friendly; they are economical and environmentally friendly; they are virtually 100 per cent recyclable; they have a light footprint on the road so cause less road damage; they are in short, a real solution to urban personal transport, even local suburban and rural personal transport. No-one, certainly not the manufacturers, claim that these are motorway vehicles, or grand tourers, anything but.

As sales of these vehicles start to grow in the UK, particularly in urban areas, and certainly where sales are driven by congestion charging. Does the UK establishment welcome this move to smaller, more environmentally efficient vehicles with open arms? Of course it doesn’t.

It raises issues about their crash test safety by slamming them into an offset stationary block at 39 mph/64 kph – 5 mph/ 8 kph above the 35 mph/56 kph impact test speed set by EU passenger car Type Approval legislation – a top speed that most will never attain in city traffic, and in the case of some models, one that is physically unattainable. It then questions the safety of the very vehicle they have been campaigning for, for over 30 years and says that it didn’t realise these vehicles would be permitted on the road when the UK agreed to the EU rules on quadricycles. Surely someone involved had been to France and seen the microcars on the street there?

This all raises questions about how committed the country is to the green agenda. There is now a constant drive against the larger motor car, and at the same time the smallest, lightest, option is being targeted by the establishment. Could it be that having unwittingly got what was asked for the government and the motor industry have realised that they have vested interests to protect. The motor industry their investments in carbon technology, big cars and internal combustion engines and their support from their allies in the oil industry, whilst the government needs to defend its revenues. How delightful it must be to have a tax incentive to drive a zero emission car whilst there are none available. How different that becomes when the zero emission vehicle becomes a reality.

Conspiracy theory? Maybe. However, it is clear that the government is duplicitous when it comes to transport solutions. Taxes on larger vehicles have little impact on those who can afford to run them. There is limited investment in public transport when it comes to trains and buses, yet high impact air transport continues to pay no tax on fuel and there are huge expansion plans for the air traffic sector across the UK. There is a serious conflict of message when all this is going on, and the smaller, lighter, more environmentally friendly personal transport solution is coming under attack. One might also ask, how much safer these vehicles would be if they were in the majority on the road? Surely then the heavy, powerful hatchback becomes the dangerous vehicle?

If there is no support for the quadricycle and the case against it is one of safety, then perhaps it is time we all took to the streets in armoured cars on the basis that they are much safer when involved in a collision with another vehicle…

Home Page | About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Site Map