Road pricing bill before Commons

[Ardesco]

1 - walk half a mile to the bus stop
2 - bus into town
3 - 1 mile wal to train station
4 - train into city centre
5 - 1 mile walk in city centre
6 - bus/trian out to the site

the whole process would take 2 hours, which would be reversed to get home. This is also the best estimate - It's public transport so it is liable to delays and missed connections. You arrive stressed, probably sweaty and most probably late.

Or

1 - get into your car and get there dry and ontime 1 hour later.

I will aim to take the quickest route whatever it is. If the time taken is roughly the same either way i'd probably opt for car, but it all depends on the parking situation. Nothing worse than hanging about for a train/bus/tube knowing just how much of your life is being wasted away....

[threaded]

"During rush hour I'm faster on my bicycle than the train, bus or driving a car."

It can't be downhill all the way there and back.

The bits between the uphill and flat bits are!

[Ardesco]

"During rush hour I'm faster on my bicycle than the train, bus or driving a car."

It can't be downhill all the way there and back.

Yes it can threadeds house is so huge that it takes up one whole side of a mountain. Set off at the top, work is halfway down and then rest of the way down to get home, then use the lift in his house to get back to the top ready to leave the next day

[dang65]

Buses and trains are also dangerous. So are kitchen knives, footballs and electrical appliances.

Well, we could go mad with statistics here. It's true that more people are killed or seriously injured at home than on the roads. But there's far more people at home than on the roads.

As for trains being dangerous:

In 2005 there were a total of 271,017 casualties on the roads, of which 28,954 were serious injuries and 3,201 were fatalities.

In 2005 there were a total of 5,172 casualties on the railways, of which 332 were serious injuries and 313 were fatalities (280 of those being suicides).

I don't know how many more people use the road than use trains (one can only take so much Googling for stats) but I'm guessing it's not that many more on the road to justify such a massive difference in casualties.

Cars = dangerous. Big time dangerous.

[Churchill]

Well, we could go mad with statistics here. It's true that more people are killed or seriously injured at home than on the roads. But there's far more people at home than on the roads.

As for trains being dangerous:

In 2005 there were a total of 271,017 casualties on the roads, of which 28,954 were serious injuries and 3,201 were fatalities.

In 2005 there were a total of 5,172 casualties on the railways, of which 332 were serious injuries and 313 were fatalities (280 of those being suicides).

I don't know how many more people use the road than use trains (one can only take so much Googling for stats) but I'm guessing it's not that many more on the road to justify such a massive difference in casualties.

Cars = dangerous. Big time dangerous.

Some car drivers = Dangerous

[dang65]

the whole process would take 2 hours, which would be reversed to get home. This is also the best estimate - It's public transport so it is liable to delays and missed connections. You arrive stressed, probably sweaty and most probably late.

I haven't arrived late to work on one single occasion since I started this contract last November. I'm certainly not stressed when I get to work. Quite the contrary. I've had an hour to read the paper on the train, followed by a fifteen minute stroll from the station to work breathing fresh air and listening to the birdies tweeting (or the rain falling on my umbrella if you prefer - either is quite pleasant).

On the odd occasion when I drive in, I pull into the car park and spend about five minutes waiting for the shaking to stop before I can get out.

[BoredBloke]

And how many of these casualties were down to people stepping off the curbs without looking or kids riding bikes with no lights in dark clothing. Also, are you attributing all these to privately owned cars? So do busses/trucks/taxis not have accidents also? How many were actually drink related on either part?

[DodgyAgent]

But anyway, I'm not lecturing people about the environment. I'm just saying that by using your own personal vehicle to get you around everywhere you are causing congestion and noise and danger and damage to the roads. For that you have to pay. I have to pay too when I use my car. I'm not telling people not to use their cars, just to stop complaining about being made to pay for the privilege.

I don't know how many times I've said that now.

You have now changed your tune. Instead of spewing out a diatribe of anti car nonsense that had the gall to criticise drivers you are now backtracking big time I quote your words:

I'm not really clear why 1.8m blinkered idiots going onto a website and clicking a button should have earned any sort right to force the other 60 million of us to put up with their noise, smell, speed, psychopathic behaviour, obesity and general destruction of the countryside and clogging of towns.

Your basic assumption that people drive unnecessarily (to you maybe though the sheer righteous arrogance of your presumptions is staggering in its stupidity and naivety) has been blown out of the water. So by neatly ignoring those who have challenged your basic assumptions you do not appear to appreciate how hard it now is for anyone to take you seriously

[dang65]

Some car drivers = Dangerous

271,017 casualties.

I'm guessing slightly more than "some".

[Ardesco]

Well, we could go mad with statistics here. It's true that more people are killed or seriously injured at home than on the roads. But there's far more people at home than on the roads.

As for trains being dangerous:

In 2005 there were a total of 271,017 casualties on the roads, of which 28,954 were serious injuries and 3,201 were fatalities.

In 2005 there were a total of 5,172 casualties on the railways, of which 332 were serious injuries and 313 were fatalities (280 of those being suicides).

I bet if we took that as the percentage of trains that are on the tracks and crashed compared to a percentage of cars that are on the road and crashed the trains would look worse.

However if we took it as a total number of trains that crashed and compared it to a total number of cars that crashed trains cars would look worse.

Or we could see how many people were affected by a single incident making trains look far more dangerous

Or...

Have i made my point yet ??

Statistics = meaningless mumbo jumbo