To Chesterton’s Fence transport systems

Chesterton’s Fence is, at heart, the observation that until we know why the past did the things they did we should not change those things the past did. Because if we don’t understand why they did them then we’ll not be able to know whether we should still be doing them.

Seems a fair piece of logic to us.

Which brings us to transport systems. No one has to look far to see those insisting we must have many more railways, much more cycling, recreate tram systems and so on. Because, you know, the car is just so, well, yuck, see?

Which is the thing that needs to be Chesterton’s Fence’d. The car is a later technology than those three - and many more, the horse, canal boat and so on. The car, when left alone to get on with it, largely but not completely replaced those three - and the others, canal boat, horse, carriage and so on. So, why? For if we don’t know why then we cannot know why the car did outcompete. Nor can we know whether that reason still avails or has itself been surpassed?

We do not insist that we’ve the right answer here but we do, absolutely, insist that’s the question that must be answered. Why do - did - humans go absolutely mad for the car once it exists and the mere proletarians rich enough to be able to afford one?

The horse, bicycle and so on we’d suggest is the same reason we now use electricity to turn the rotisserie not a caged dog. Because mechanical power, not animal power, is better. It’s even less emittive - we’ve always loved that calculation that the emissions from the energy necessary to pedal a bike to the shops are greater than using the car to do so. Because photosynthesis to food through humans to transport energy is very, very, inefficient compared to dead dinosaurs who are, after all, already dead.

The car wins over all of those communal forms of transport because the car is not communal. As such it is point to point, from desired point to desired point that is, not from the one defined terminus to another defined terminus. A car will take you to where you actually want to go, from where you start out, in a way that those communal forms simply do not.

As we say, we do not insist we have the right answers here, it’s the question that is important. But if that second answer is correct then no, we do not want to have tube systems in minor provincial cities, trams in villages the length and breadth of this silver girt isle. We need another any point to any point transport system, not a reversion to fixed route.

You know, robotaxis.

Tim Worstall

This point revealed to us by the former keyboard player in Billy Ocean’s touring band. Just to remind of how far we go in our research into interesting points which illuminate.