Over at The Truth About Cars, Matt Posky (2021a) recently wrote that his “stomach was in a twist” because the government was “talking about the merits of reducing people’s ability to own things.”
His story proceeded to hyperventilate about two officials — one in Great Britain and the other in San Diego — who advocated multimodal transportation options. When some commentators suggested that Posky was lapsing into conspiracy theories, his response was to add a postscript that included more multimodal initiatives.
If you added up the collective impact of all these measures, they still did not come anywhere close to supporting the headline of Posky’s (2021a) story: “More Western Leaders Call for the End of Private Vehicle Ownership.”
Indeed, there was such a big gap between Posky’s expressed fears and the evidence he provided that I was reminded of the “red scare” of the 1950s. Back then paranoia about communism got so intense that “reds under the bed” was an actual thing (Alpha History, 2022).
In an amusing twist of fate, after I started to write this story Posky submitted a comment to Indie Auto. His missive was in response to my 2020 article entitled, “The Truth About Cars peddles increasingly convoluted EV conspiracies.” We will discuss Posky’s comment in a bit, but first let’s talk about why your stomach should not get twisted up about eco-communists hiding under your bed.
Shared mobility doesn’t equal a ban on owning cars
Last September British Conservative party member Trudy Harrison became an Under Secretary of State at the Department for Transport (gov.uk, 2022). Since that time she has spoken in favor of a shift from private car ownership to shared mobility.
“The challenge is to move further and faster to make shared mobility less of a novelty and increasing the norm to make it as easy, as convenient and as accessible as possible,” Harrison stated at a Collaborative Mobility UK conference last December (see video below). “We are reaching a tipping point where shared mobility in the form of car clubs, scooters and bike shares will soon be a realistic option for many of us to get around” (Sharpe, 2021).
Harrison suggested that there were great opportunities to reduce the public’s dependence upon single-occupancy driving because “a quarter of all car journeys are under two miles.” However, the minister noted that “62% of car trips are taken by lone drivers. That is a staggering statistic, and it has stayed constant for nearly 20 years, which is why the government has committed to increase the average road-vehicle occupancy by 2030” (Autovista24, 2021).
Posky (2021a) misrepresented Harrison’s perspective by concluding that she is “very keen on public transpiration (sic) but not so interested in the plebian (sic) masses having access to their own, individual modes of transport.” In her speech, Harrison emphasized the importance of increasing transportation choices, particularly for rural constituents she represents in Parliament (CoMoUK, 2021; 9:00).
In addition, when a commentator pointed out that Posky had misidentified Harrison as the “UK’s transport minister,” he dismissed that as “pedantic” and did not correct the error (Posky, 2021b). This served to make Harrison look like she has more power over British transportation policy than she actually does.
Also see ‘Chris Tonn shows great promise in automotive marketing’
Nor did Posky provide evidence that Harrison’s goal was to end private vehicle ownership. Even the conservative British newspaper, the Daily Mail, reported that she called for moving away from private ownership and “and towards greater flexibility, with personal choice and low carbon shared transport.” That would “take time” because 80 percent of British households owned at least one car in 2020 (Matthews, 2021).
Instead, Posky quoted from an opinion piece by Steven Symes (2021) that was headlined, “UK Inches Closer To Eliminating Private Car Ownership.” A subhead added, “Soon, Brits will own nothing and will be happier for it. . .”
In a post-truth world ‘nothing’ can mean whatever?
Let’s be clear about what Symes was saying. He didn’t argue that a British government leader was merely calling for a reduction in private car ownership, but rather its complete elimination. Yet Symes, like Posky, didn’t back up his contention with any Actual Facts (TM).
Posky isn’t the only TTAC writer who has gotten away with fact-challenged scaremongering on this topic. Ronnie Schreiber (2019) wrote a piece headlined, “UK Parliament Committee Wants to Ban All Private Cars and Trucks by 2050.” As we discussed here, that’s not what the report actually stated. Yet Schreiber’s screed managed to spur some commentators to speak of violence against elected leaders. This is a good example of what Tristan Harris has referred to as an “outrage-ification” culture fueled by social media (Johnson, 2019).
Also see ‘The Truth About Cars should not enable violent talk’
But back to Posky. When a number of commentators pointed to his recent story’s factual shortcomings, he added what he seemed to think was more evidence. Alas, it wasn’t. Measures such as car-sharing programs, congestion pricing and banning autos in city centers may reduce the dominance of single-occupancy vehicle use, but they don’t come anywhere close to ending private ownership. Indeed, they don’t even try to.
It’s one thing to argue about the effectiveness of ways to reduce greenhouse gases. It’s quite something else to inflame emotions with overamped conspiracizing. The rhetorical techniques Posky used in his recent article are similar to those I have previously critiqued. So let’s now take a look at his comment, which I am posting here in its entirety rather than with the story he responded to.
Posky insists, ‘I have no political agencies’
“Someone just forwarded me this article today and I have to say I feel wildly misrepresented here. My criticisms of vehicular autonomy and and electrification are typically based in how frequently corporate entities and governments lie about the progress made. Similarly, strict emissions regulation have done little to improve the practical fuel economy in the United States. The U.S. average has been stuck at 25 mpg for roughly a decade now and strict regulations arguably help larger businesses (with more money) monopolize the industry.
“Weirdly, the article actually provides examples to several of my reoccurring criticisms of the industry and regulatory bodies (e.g. how cars just keep getting bigger despite CAFE and business groups trying to discourage private ownership). It simply provides a differing perspective. It also offers loads of citations, which is great. But I think the author missed the ball. I have no political agencies, do not hate EVs in concept (they just don’t seem ready for prime time), and really just want to promote consumer advocacy while ignoring social dogmas. I also genuinely do care about the environment and have legitimate doubts that widespread electrification and automation backed by the tax base is the answer.
Governments and corporations are currently (perpetually?) doing a lot of underhanded things under the auspices of environmental protection and customer safety. It seems to me that we need to think critically about that and avoid getting lumped into pro and anti camps while exploring those issues. I want my readers understand my position and then think about the issues for themselves, not agree blindly.”
What can we learn from Posky’s comment?
My main takeaway is that Posky is shy about admitting what he most likes to do: traffic in rigidly ideological talking points, facts be damned.
Why not just come out and say, “I, Matt Posky, am a propagandist. I intend to do my part to crush the eco-communists! That includes misrepresenting their views in order to whip up an emotionally driven backlash against them.”
Of course, I can’t read minds so could be misjudging Posky’s intent. He may be sincerely committed to moving up in the field of mainstream journalism but has gaps in his research, analytical and writing skills.
If so, here’s some unsolicited advice: Run away from TTAC as fast as you can and enter a decent graduate program. That would be an ideal place to learn how to marshal facts and logic that can withstand scrutiny from people outside of your ideological bubble.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Alpha History; 2022. “Reds under the bed.” Accessed Jan. 10.
- Autovista24; 2021. “UK ‘must move away from outdated private vehicle ownership’ models.” Dec. 20.
- CoMoUK; 2021. “Keynote & Challenge Accepted: Decarbonisation and shared transport.” Collaborative Mobility UK. Posted Dec. 9.
- gov.uk; 2022. “Trudy Harrison MP: Parliamentary Under Secretary of State.” Accessed Jan. 10.
- Johnson, Eric; 2019. “Tristan Harris says tech is ‘downgrading’ humanity — but we can fix it.” Vox. Posted May 6.
- Matthews, Chris; 2021. “Owning a car is outdated ’20th-century thinking’ and we must move to ‘shared mobility’ to cut carbon emissions, transport minister says.” Daily Mail. Posted Dec. 11.
- Posky, Matt; 2020a. “Progress, Thy Name is ZETA: New Electric Vehicle Lobbying Group Hits the Scene.” The Truth About Cars. Posted Nov. 17.
- ——; 2020b. “Report: Japan May Ban Internal Combustion Vehicles Next Decade.” The Truth About Cars. Posted Dec. 3.
- ——; 2021a. “More Western Leaders Call for the End of Private Vehicle Ownership.” The Truth About Cars. Posted Dec. 29.
- ——; 2021b. Commentator in “More Western Leaders Call for the End of Private Vehicle Ownership.” The Truth About Cars. Posted 5:51 p.m., Dec. 29.
- Sharpe; 2021. “UK must move away from car ownership, says Transport Minister.” Automotive Management Online. Posted Oct. 12.
- Schreiber, Ronnie; 2019. “UK Parliament Committee Wants to Ban All Private Cars and Trucks by 2050.” The Truth About Cars. Posted Aug. 23.
- Symes, Steven; 2021. “UK Inches Closer To Eliminating Private Car Ownership.” Motorious. Posted Dec. 27.
The pen is still mightier… good job, Steve.