Bru wrote: > Once again, Adrian mashes up several different postings by more than > one author and then twists things around to suit his own arguments. > > And I take on board the well made point that this is way off topic so > this will be my last post on the subject > > <snip the reply to part of a Roger Millin post> > >> "Bru" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>> Poorer people generally don't drive, so they will be little >>>> affected by road pricing. >>> >>> I won't quote masses of stats (tempting though it is ... the >>> relevant link is >>> http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/hbai/hbai2008/contents.asp ) but >> there are >>> about 5.6 million adults in the UK below the poverty line >> >> Er, I think you'll find that uses the nonsensical concept of >> *relative* poverty line, under which someone with only one TV is >> deemed to be poor if everyone else has two. There are indeed truly >> poor people in UK (e.g. without enough to eat), but fortunately not >> that many. > > It's only nonsensical if you personally decide it's nonsensical. It's > merely a statistical tool. However, I do agree that the criteria does > place a lot of people in "poverty" who I would not personally > consider to be impoverished > >>> "Poorer people" generally DO drive, >> >> By "poorer", I mean those who can't afford a car. There are lots of >> those. > > Uh? So poorer people are people who can't afford a car. Okayyyyy ... > so poorer people (by your definition) are completely irrelevant to the > discussion on road pricing since they will be unaffected. > > So what about, oh I don't know, let's call them "not so well off > people" who can, barely, afford a car then? > > > >Try doing the weekly shop for a family of five by bus. It's not an >> option >>> when either you're home or the cheaper supermarkets is not on a bus >>> route. >> >> Which is why you sometimes see the apparently-bizarre situation of >> poor people taking taxis to get their groceries home. I used to see >> it frequently when I worked at a supermarket. And, sad to say, >> poorer people do indeed often live too far from cheaper supermarkets >> to use them, and so fall prey to over-priced local shops. > > Yes, you see just that. And the equally large group of "not so well > off" people who can, just afford a car. > >>> Try getting to work by any other means that a car when the only job >> you can >>> get is working shifts with weekend work included in a warehouse >>> built beside a motorway junction miles from the nearest large >>> population centre. >> >> This is a long-known contributor to unemployment. > > Is it? News to me. > > What is your solution to this problem then Adrian? Solve *this* one > with market forces! After all, it's a problem that was created by > market forces in the first place. > >> The fact remains that poorer people frequently can't afford, and >> therefore don't have, cars. > > A very broad assumption based on a vague and arguable definition of > poor > >>> very few people outside of London, and perhaps one or two other >>> major cities, are making significant numbers of avoidable journeys. >> >> I think you need to reconsider the definition of "avoidable" that you >> are using. > > No Adrian, actually it is YOU that needs to reconsider your > definition of avoidable, not me. > > Which of these journeys would you define as avoidable then? > > 1. A 6.2 mile round trip every day to work > 2. A 5.8 mile round trip once every 10 days or so to the supermarket > 3. An 11 mile round trip once every few weeks to visit parents > 4. A few hundred miles once a year going on holiday > > In the case of 1, there is no available alternative transport at all > - there is no public transport and no pedestrian route to the place > of work. Cycling would be technically an option but cycling along a > busy dual carriageway ... I think not. > > In the case of 2, public transport would be an option but would a) be > significantly more expensive than by car, b) would only give access > to a more expensive supermarket and c> would involve over 3 hours on > a bus rather than 20 minutes in the car. > > In the case of 3, there is no alternative on the usual Sunday (the > only day of the week that doesn't clash with work commitments) as > there is no bus service on a Sunday. > > I suppose, in the case of 4, we could go without a holiday > >>> Road pricing as a replacement for fuel duty is a daft idea too. >>> >>> Fuel duty is actually a very logical method of collecting income >>> from motorists. >> >> But it has the fatal flaw of not varying with the road you drive on. >> To cure congestion, it is essential that the price/km to the driver >> be much higher on congested roads. Fuel duty cannot do that. > > OK, so why bother curing congestion at all? Congestion rarely if ever > affects my life so why should my journeys cost me more? Why not just > leave things alone since congestion is likely to be self limiting > anyway. > > <..> > >>> For starters, try to grasp the fundamental difference between an >>> essential good or service and a luxury one and then realise that >>> for most of the population a car, and most of the journeys made in >>> that car, fall into the first group. >> >> Rubbish. >> >> "Essential" things include food, water, shelter, clothing, medical >> care. You can't live without those. You can live without a car. > > No, I can't. And nor can many others. The extent to which I cannot > live without a car is demonstrated by the fact that in about 15 mins > Enterprise Rentacar are picking me up to get a rental 'cos the bloody > cam-belt just snapped on my Renault. If I don't rent a car we'd have > to get taxis to work and back which, because of our hours of work, > would cost over £80 per day. > > Ergo, the car is an essential. Yes, we *could* live without it (since > we could give up work, move into rented accommodation and sponge off > the state and survive) but we would not have a life without our own > transport. > >>> Trying to price people off the roads just will not work as a >> sustainable >>> long term solution. >> >> Why not? Almost everything else in society works that way. > > Actually, it doesn't. You just think it does. > > It won't work because putting up prices does not, in the long term, > reduce consumption of anything. In the short term, those who can > afford the higher cost continue as before leaving the less well off > to bear the real burden. In the long term, society will adapt to the > higher cost of road travel - wages will rise etc. In a matter of a > few years we would be right back to square one. > > The effect of market forces is always short term. Prices go up, > consumption goes down, wages rise, consumption goes up again. > >> The problem is that road travel is effectively being subsidised by >> being provided at below the market price, and using a daft pricing >> method. As a result, we are collectively travelling much more than >> is sensible. At the market price (of anything) some people decide >> not to buy. That isn't being "priced off", it's simply how a market >> economy works. Hey, I just realised I've been "priced off" buying a >> Porsche! I must write to my MP. > > And here is a classic demonstration of the futility of arguing with > you. If all else fails, simply repeat the original point again > disregarding the intervening arguments to the contrary. > > I have no doubt that you will persist in ignoring the very real > problems that general road pricing could (depending on how it is > structured) cause the less well off and especially those who live in > more rural areas because that is a social issue which cannot be > addressed in terms of pure market economics. > > You have yet, of course, to actually present any coherent, cohesive > and practical argument in favour of road pricing that deals with how > the people who can no longer afford to travel are supposed to get to > work, to the shops etc. > > You are not a dangerous man, but you most certainly are a foolish and > naive one. Fortunately, I very much doubt whether anybody in power is > actually going to listen to your half baked ideas anyway! > > <snip the reply to the other thread about ANPR - can't be bothered > any more)
Bruce...in "Adrian World" we will soon all loose the will to live...and that will solve the precieved popoulation problems. -- Neil Arlidge NB Gaia TNC http://www.tuesdaynightclub.co.uk/tour.html ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canals-list/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canals-list/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
