6p off diesel and petrol for next 3 months.....

[GrumpyGregry]

[QUOTE 2029632, member: 9609"]Without motorised transport I doubt we would have an economy, let alone an NHS.[/quote]
Not everyone equates the demonstrable need for motorized transport for the transportation of goods and the delivery of essential services with the desire of every man and his wife to run a private car. The two things are totally different. But you knew that.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

You work in the public sector ? - I think we need a show of hands for this one. I think I'm in the minority for those who don't.

No I don't work in the public sector, I did for ten years back at the start of my career.

Defined contribution pension scheme aka the stock market casino for me these days.

 

[mangaman]

[QUOTE 2029632, member: 9609"]Without motorised transport I doubt we would have an economy, let alone an NHS.[/quote]

Wow - so we didn't have an economy before the early 20th century?

There was me thinking we had most powerful economy in the world in Victorian times.

 

[Drago]

Funnily enough, we had one of the Worlds biggest and most vibrant economies long before the motor car came along.

When fuel gets too expensive to burn, which is liable to happen long before it runs out, then it'll happen again. However, we have a greater reliance on fossil fuels than, say, Lesotho, so we've further to fall.

Screw climate change - even those that truly believe it don't actually dont anything about it in their daily lives. Our lifestyle and society will be under threat when we reach this point, and that has surely got to be the compelling reason to do something?

 

[mangaman]

[QUOTE 2033095, member: 9609"]And the reason the Victorian economy was the most powerful in the world - fossil fuels, at that moment in time we were world leaders in exploiting all that free energy. And if we are to ever recreate those days we need to become world leaders in exploiting other sources of energy.

But all that is getting well away from the car and the present day; Unfortunately our present economy is totally dependant on it, our whole infrastructure is based around it - remove the car and we won't have much of an economy.[/quote]

To be fair Reiver, I don't think anyone is advocating removing the car completely - just balancing the transport system to a human scale and a more efficient and pleasant one.

 

[Smurfy]

I'll take all that to mean that tyou are still thinking quite narrowly. Think bigger about victims, costs and benefits.

Are you going to tell me the nature of these other motoring related impacts, and explain how they can be quantified in pounds and pence?

If you think that RTAs are the only cost motoring presents to the nhs then you are even more blinkered than I thought.

Actually, if you ever met me, I think you'd find I'm very open minded. Feel free to fire away with all the other costs, with details of how they can be quantified in pounds and pence cost to the NHS.

 

[User482]

Are you going to tell me the nature of these other motoring related impacts, and explain how they can be quantified in pounds and pence?



Actually, if you ever met me, I think you'd find I'm very open minded. Feel free to fire away with all the other costs, with details of how they can be quantified in pounds and pence cost to the NHS.

If you think every negative impact should be reduced to pounds and pence, you are the opposite of open minded.

 

[srw]

And if you can't be bothered to use google on the internet and this forum I'm not going to help you more than to say that it's very easy to find. And has been debated to death.

I look at your signature to find more evidence of your lack of open-mindedness, incidentally.

 

[Smurfy]

I'm quite aware that not every impact can be, or should be reduced to financial terms. However, if someone says on a discussion forum that motoring costs three times the 33 Billion GBP in revenue that it raises, then I think I'm entitled to ask for some supporting information. That's normally how intelligent debate proceeds on discussion forums. No supporting information has been forthcoming, so I think most impartial observers will conclude that those who put forward this viewpoint are unable to source any material to support their argument.

 

[srw]

Plenty of supporting material has been provided - in the form of rather heavy hints that you should look in the archives, where the topic has been done to death many times.

If you don't know how to look in the archives, there's a "search" box at the top right of each page, and also a magic search engine called "google". If that still isn't enough for you, there's a forum aimed at providing technical support where you can post.

 

[Smurfy]

Attempting to shift responsibility onto others to produce material to substantiate ones own views is an extremely poor debating strategy. This appears to me to be an attempt to create a stalemate situation by someone who is unable to back up their argument with good quality sources. The only time I have ever posted comments requiring others to source material is when I know that the discussion forum I am using blocks the posting of URLs. In that case, I always post the search terms and the name of the search engine required to source the material. Clearly that doesn't apply here, so in the absence of any suitable material being posted, the most logical conclusion is that the person concerned doesn't have any supporting material, or does not wish that material to be subjected to scrutiny.

Nevertheless, I'm still open-minded and interested with respect to this factor-of-three-cost assertion, and although I have searched for supporting material, I have yet to find it. If anyone else on here knows where this material is, I'd be glad to see a link to it.

 

[growingvegetables]

Attempting to shift responsibility onto others to produce material to substantiate ones own views is an extremely poor debating strategy.

Clues
- title of the forum is NOT Debating-Strategy-Chat.
- there comes a point when even the most saintly member of a forum gets bored and frustrated when petrol-heads abuse their patient contributions, sometimes over years.

Suggestions
- produce something genuinely new, that actually engages people's interest and attention.
- show people the respect for the work and research they've patiently put in - and look for it.

Surefire recommendation
- if you want to be taken seriously, don't write things like "the most logical conclusion is that the person concerned doesn't have any supporting material, or does not wish that material to be subjected to scrutiny." That sentence says one **** of a lot more about you, than about anybody else.

 

[al78]

Attempting to shift responsibility onto others to produce material to substantiate ones own views is an extremely poor debating strategy. This appears to me to be an attempt to create a stalemate situation by someone who is unable to back up their argument with good quality sources. The only time I have ever posted comments requiring others to source material is when I know that the discussion forum I am using blocks the posting of URLs. In that case, I always post the search terms and the name of the search engine required to source the material. Clearly that doesn't apply here, so in the absence of any suitable material being posted, the most logical conclusion is that the person concerned doesn't have any supporting material, or does not wish that material to be subjected to scrutiny.

Nevertheless, I'm still open-minded and interested with respect to this factor-of-three-cost assertion, and although I have searched for supporting material, I have yet to find it. If anyone else on here knows where this material is, I'd be glad to see a link to it.

Allow me to start.

Yes it is 15 years old, but it does try to quantify the costs that are inflicted upon society. How those figures have changed since then I don't know.

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but I feel that as well as the costs, you have to look at the benefits that motoring bring as well in order to do a fair analysis. For many elderly people in particular, a car enables them to retain their independence and quality of life, how do you put a price on that?

 

[growingvegetables]

For many elderly people in particular, a car enables them to retain their independence and quality of life, how do you put a price on that?

True.

Also - as more and more of society is designed for car owners, there's even more elderly and disabled non-drivers for whom independence and quality of life is seriously compromised. A lot of them can use mobility scooters ..... but not all. Tescos, over a mile away, at the top of a long hard hill, is no replacement for the local shops, long gone.

 

[Smurfy]

Allow me to start.

Yes it is 15 years old, but it does try to quantify the costs that are inflicted upon society. How those figures have changed since then I don't know.

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but I feel that as well as the costs, you have to look at the benefits that motoring bring as well in order to do a fair analysis. For many elderly people in particular, a car enables them to retain their independence and quality of life, how do you put a price on that?

Thanks for posting a link to that report. I'll see if I can get hold of a copy to see what it actually contains.