Anti-social vehicle - test case

[..]

I'd be interested.

I'd be especially interested if you can point me to (just) figures

*here* for average hours per week spent driving and average distance travelled.

The other figures you mention would be a bonus.

Ah.

Thanks.

How about this for an idea...

I drive because I enjoy driving. Life is too short to worry about money and silly statistics.

:-)

On Sun, 16 May 2004 11:42:59 +0100, Simon Proven wrote (more or less):

And spelling? ;-)

On that basis I spend a fortune cycling each week just on the time element alone.

Tony

I'd prefer to hear the result if the same approach were taken to railway travel in the UK (using the full economic costs of course, including the hours worked by those who are forced to pay substantial parts of the fares of the rail-traveller, even though they may themselves rarely or never travel by that C19 mode).

But surely this is an argument against travel per se, rather than cars.

And much the same could be said of all other human activities. Ultimately life is pointless, a time spent running furiously just to stand still. Maybe we should all top ourselves.

--

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (William Pitt,1783)

The National Travel Survey claims 149 hours a year driving, covering 3,411 miles so 23mph on average

So they treat their cars as a hobby. I can pretty much guarantee you'll find something worthwhile that I'd think was incredibly pointless.

WEll we thought it was to oust Saddam but when they shouted STOP!!! after we'd just started to make good headway we sort of figured out the rest.

On Sun, 16 May 2004 14:50:01 +0100, "PeterE" wrote (more or less):

Only if the results are the same across transport modes.

Unless you find travelling from A to B an end in itself, I'm not sure this is true.

Normally I go from A to B so that I can then carry out my human activity there.

Driving nose to tail along the M4 isn't my idea of the purpose of life. :-)

On Sun, 16 May 2004 14:35:45 +0100, "Tony Raven" wrote (more or less):

Then again, maybe your 'all up' m.p.h. is higher than a cars each week?

Unless of course, your bike was made out of unobtanium, in which case all bets are off! :-)

On Sun, 16 May 2004 14:49:54 +0100, "JNugent" wrote (more or less):

I'm happy to hear that result too.

Mind you, the above approach didn't use the full economic costs for cars.

So I'd also want to hear the result for cars if the full economic cost borne by non-travellers was factored in.

Ah, the guilt complex of the motorist.

John B

Nah.

John B

Surely the primary purpose of all life on this planet is to reproduce? Isn't there something in current business doctrine about concentrating on core activities?

Any form aof travel which soaks upa n appreciable proportion of your income, anyway. The annual depreciation on our caris roughly the cost of my touring bike which I bought 20 years ago and still works just fine. All my bikes cost less than a quarter of what my one car costs to insure, there is no VED or fuel duty, and the time I spend travelling keeps me fit s is not truly "lost" time.

Guy

-- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Why worry about 2 abstracts? ;)

I can't understand how this could be so. If you haven't got time to stop how do you have time to use the horn?

Quite. There are lots of obstacles in the road that drivers have to find a way round. Parked cars for one. Drivers don't hoot at parked cars. I don't view a person in the road as any greater obstacle.