...lusting after dull cars

Okay, I admit it. I have a problem. I'm not alcoholic, I'm not on crack (though some might wonder by the time they've reached the end of my post) and I don't have an embarassing illness.

My problem is that I like crap cars. Boring ones too. I have disturbing thoughts about buying Skoda Felicias and beige Kias and 90s Suzuki Altos and I can't hide it any longer.

I mean, take the Toyota Corolla. Not just any Corolla either, but the saloon. The bug-eyed one, that nobody in the UK actually bought. Well, I really want one. For reasons only known to my subconscious, I like the idea of the dreary saloon with a goofy face, anemic engines and no pretensions of excitement. I've only started to think about that one recently, actually. I'm currently in Dubai, and indeed stuck here thanks to the near-omnipresent ash cloud, and there are loads of the things about.

I mean, look at it. You'd struggle to call it attractive from any angle, though it's not quite ugly either, but it's certainly devoid of any soul. It's a car at it's most basic, a means of transport and nothing more. And I think that's why I like even the shoddiest of cars. At the end of the day, they're still cars and therefore still the best method of transport out there. Even awful cars can be fun, because on a basic level there's still a thrill to be had taking a car to it's limits, no matter how low or badly signposted those limits are.

I'm sure the Corolla saloon is great in that respect, not offering any feedback to speak of, but offering at least a basic connection between yourself and the road, never going quickly enough to get you into trouble, and being soft and wallowy enough for your spine to thank you even on the worst roads. Of which there are a lot around here - perhaps that's one reason they're so popular.

Many car enthusiasts hate cars like that Corolla. They can never offer you the thrills of a sports car or the luxury of a... well, a luxury car. But they're still cars.

Come join me. Embrace the crap cars. Because even a bad car is better than no car.

Image: Wikipedia

Read more »

...public transport

I've been using a lot of it recently. In the affectionate way that cars sometimes do, mine decided to stop working a few weeks back and I've not got around to fixing it yet. As such, my regular 20 minute commute to work has been increased two-fold and now requires a significant amount of walking and twenty-five minutes or so on the city's Metro rail system.

Now by all usual standards, the Metro is wonderful. Even the coldest and windiest platforms still offer a modicum of shelter, which has been useful in the recent weather (ironic how people complain that it never snows "like it used to" in England any more, yet when it does we all moan about the stuff...), and very unusually for public transport, it virtually always runs like clockwork. Posters around the stations proudly proclaim something like 99.5% of arrivals are on time. The Metro is useable, faily convenient and not unreasonably priced.

It's still not very good though.

Of course, I don't intend to single the Metro out. Hundreds of thousands of people travel on it every year and they wouldn't do that if it was useless. But compared to having your own transport, it falls short, and illustrates nicely why there will always be a market for personal cars no matter how much the powers that be try to eradicate their use.

Firstly, personal space. This concept is lost on public transport. Whether you sit or stand, there is someone you don't know quite nearby. This person might have dubious personal hygeine. They might be loud and obnoxious, or quiet and snooty. They might stare at you for the whole journey or they might refuse to acknowledge when you deliberately move to offer them some space. Whichever of the above (and many more) might be used to describe the person nearby, you are still describing something surplus to what you actually want, which is nobody nearby. A car offers this. If someone is nearby in your car, it's because you let them sit there. They have to abide by your rules and if they create a smell, you can tell them so without too much risk of receiving a kick to the stomach.

Public transport is also significantly less "point to point". Neither the Metro, nor any bus, takes me directly from my doorstep to work. This is downright inconvenient, truth be told, and necessitates a significant amount of walking to connect me on either side of the ride. I enjoy walking, but I prefer to do so for pleasure rather than business purposes. If work paid me from the minute I left my door, then I'd happily walk the whole distance, but I'd prefer to do as little as possible for it otherwise it takes away valuable "sitting down" time, which I also enjoy.

Then there's the cost. Just under £3 a day isn't bad, and I'm sure if I bought a weekly, monthly or yearly pass it would be proportionately even less, but unless I sold my car I'd see no benefit in that anyway as then I'd just be paying for two methods of transport rather than one. As I already have one at my disposal, it makes more fiscal sense using it. I've not worked it out but I'm fairly sure my 7 mile round trip costs considerably less in petrol than £3, and even if my commute took in two laps of Silverstone, which it doesn't, I'm still sure that I'd use less than £3 of petrol. So to me, £3 extra to get to work slower sounds a bit rich.

Personal transport lets you have your cake, and eat it. On public transport, someone would steal your cake, and stick the fork in your eye.

Read more »