[Closed] Angry commuter - justified??

9 months reduction in average life expectancy for the whole population from pollution. 32 000 premature deaths a year from pollution

Given the pensions problem at the moment, this would be a cost saving.............

Oh - and yes you clearly are hard of thinking. these are figures worked out by experts and widely accepted. Not good enough for you tho - do you have an alternative figure?

and applied to RTAs whereas the figure you quote, and the one i wanted evidence for was

All the deaths and ill health directly and indirectly caused. a million pounds a death.

Loss of earnings?? Surely when someone dies, someone else gets their job and earnings.

A million pounds plus is the accepted figure for the cost of a death on the roads. End of.

TJ, I'm not having an argument. I just don't believe the numbers are a) credible (i.e. not largely made up) and b) truly incremental.

Night night.

So figures that are produced by respected and credible bodies such as the audit commission are not good enough - you know better?

So figures that are produced by respected and credible bodies such as the audit commission are not good enough - you know better?

The £1m is flaky. But the fact still remains that the majority of UK tax payers are car drivers. So whatever the costs are, the idea that non-driving tax payers are subsidising motorists does not add up.

There is 29m people working and paying tax. There are 31m cars on the road. Even taking multiple car ownership into account, it blows this idea apart. Car owners are paying for their own problems.

Morning 🙂 TJ - No I don't know better, I'm jusy sceptical. The threee sources you cite are probably repeating data rather than doing their own original research so don't really add any credibility above repetition.

TJ, do you have a breakdown of that £1m. I assume as you're quoting it as the de facto value of an RTA death you'll have had a look at what it's made up of?

BTW statistics produced by a Govt dept don't always represent the 'truth' as we might recognise it but you know that don't you?

who has priority is irrelevant when they're loading you into the ambulance...

I had this happen once, I was about 1/3 the way over the (narrow) bridge when a car comes rocking towards me having joined the bridge well after I did. The sound of the raised stone kerb rubbing down the side of said vehicle as it pulled over to the left to avoid me was music to my ears.

Cars don't cause stress and inactivity

I went out on my Lefty last night and I had an argument with a tree, it won.

Why has this thread entered the world of b*llox Tax/Death/angry middle aged men moaning about money? WHen surely the point of the thread is to punch old ladies who drive erratically in the face..

C'mon.. sort it out.

Why has this thread entered the world of b*llox Tax/Death/angry middle aged men moaning about money? WHen surely the point of the thread is to punch old ladies who drive erratically in the face..

C'mon.. sort it out.

But the fact still remains that the majority of UK tax payers are car drivers. So whatever the costs are, the idea that non-driving tax payers are subsidising motorists does not add up.

There is 29m people working and paying tax. There are 31m cars on the road. Even taking multiple car ownership into account, it blows this idea apart. Car owners are paying for their own problems.

Ummm... that's a either a serious logic fallacy or just very poor maths skills.

For a start you obviously don't have to be in a job to be paying tax, so limiting it to 29m "working and paying tax" is a pretty bad foundation. There are 62m people in the UK and even children pay some tax (i.e. VAT)

Secondly, you seem to be arguing [i]"Roads cost X - my share should be Y - if you add up ALL my tax then I pay more than Y so clearly I'm paying for my own problem."[/i] That doesn't work. Your total tax revenue is used to pay for lots of things - not just roads.

That argument only makes if you say that the [i]additional[/i] taxation paid because you are a motorist (i.e. fuel duty and VED) covers your "share" of the roads bill.

[url= http://www2.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/roads/condition/expenditure/rde0103.xls ]Fuel Tax and VED pull in £24,615 million and £5,441 million respectively[/url] and the [url= http://www2.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/roads/condition/expenditure/rde0101.xls ]Road Expenditure in England was £7,664 million[/url] so on those figures alone you'd have a point - but as others have pointed out there are huge hidden costs from our dependency on oil that still have to be paid for - not least from the 200,000 people who are injured on the roads each year.

There are 62m people in the UK and even children pay some tax (i.e. VAT)

Who's trolling now?! Are you seriously trying to say that the tax kids pay on their bags of crisps gets anywhere near close to what drivers pay on their cars? Cars, the second most expensive purchase most people make. 31 million of them driving about. And after the huge VAT injection from the new price - every consecutive time it is sold it gets another on the used price! Then there is the vat on servicing, on tyres, on petrol (as well as the fuel duty), on parking....

A few bags of monster munch are not going to tickle that iceberg. We gather in £520b in income tax. That's getting on for 40% of GDP. Fuel duty alone accounts for 6% of all taxation. Cut it however you like, the majority of tax the gov brings in is paid for by working motorists. Either through direct motoring taxation or general taxation.

I'm actually not making the point you assert. I am refuting TJ's position that non-motorists subsidise motorists and we don't pay our way. We clearly do because we pay more tax. Much more tax than non-motorists, who are in a minority anyway.

You're still ignoring the additional benefits from motoring btw. Try considering the people employed in the motor industry - nearly 1m! The foreign investment in this country due to it. The leisure and tourism industry depend upon it. Freight to support the retail sector. It goes on.... You can't talk about indirect costs of motoring without considering the indirect benefits - yet you persist to.

If anyone wants to give an accurate figure of the above costs and benefits, then there is something to debate. Without it, these loony studies you're quoting are worthless.

Cars, the second most expensive purchase most people make

gwj72

yes motorists pay more tax - but not enough extra to cover all the costs. some of the tax I pay as anon car driver goes to subsidise your car usage.

some of the tax I pay as anon car driver goes to subsidise your car usage

It subsidises roads, which you do use a lot indirectly.

It's a bit stupid to try and divide up taxation like this because as we've shown, it results in endless arguments, statistics and interpretations.

these loony studies you're quoting are worthless

Are you new here or something? You're wasting your time, you cannot argue with this man. Or rather you can, but it's worse than futile. Just smile and nod 🙂

yes motorists pay more tax - but not enough extra to cover all the costs.

Costs being the loony made up ones that discount all additional benefits of motorised transport. See you ignored it again...

@D0NK - You failed your test didn't you?

Are you seriously trying to say that the tax kids pay on their bags of crisps gets anywhere near close to what drivers pay on their cars?

No, I'm making the point that [u]everyone[/u] in the UK contributes some form of tax - not just the 29 million "working and paying tax". There are over 62 million people in the UK, so by your figures well over half are "not working but still paying tax".

I am refuting TJ's position that non-motorists subsidise motorists and we don't pay our way. We clearly do because we pay more tax.

Yes, agreed, a motorist will pay more tax than an exact equivalent who doesn't own a car.

But no, that doesn't refute TJ's position. You can pay more tax and still not cover the cost of motoring to the country. Whether that's true or not depends on how carefully/pedantically you consider the hidden costs (e.g. the 200,000 people injured every year on the road results in NHS costs, social security costs, lost earnings etc). Not to mention that dependency on oil leads us into fighting wars over it (do you think we'd have invaded Iraq if we only needed oil to make poly bags?)

We gather in £520b in income tax. That's getting on for 40% of GDP. Fuel duty alone accounts for 6% of all taxation. Cut it however you like, the majority of tax the gov brings in is paid for by working motorists.

Again you seem to be deliberately blurring the terms "working" and "motorist" together - bizarre as this may seem, not every motorist works and not every worker drives a car. I was in my 30s before I learnt to drive and I'd been working since I was 16.

If anyone wants to give an accurate figure of the above costs and benefits, then there is something to debate. Without it, these loony studies you're quoting are worthless.

The figures I offered were from the official budget of the Department of Transport - and could arguably back your case if you cared to look at them.

gwj72 - Member

You're still ignoring the additional benefits from motoring btw. Try considering the people employed in the motor industry - nearly 1m! The foreign investment in this country due to it. The leisure and tourism industry depend upon it. Freight to support the retail sector. It goes on.... You can't talk about indirect costs of motoring without considering the indirect benefits - yet you persist to.

If anyone wants to give an accurate figure of the above costs and benefits, then there is something to debate. Without it, these loony studies you're quoting are worthless

Hallelujah!

Two questions for TJ:

1. Do your numbers take into account all the indirect benefits of having a modern tarnsport system? Oil industry, manufacturing, employment, your own benefits of it etc?

2. Where's my breakdown of your fabled £1m cost per RTA death please?

I think you are guilty of repeating the same tired old stats/arguments endlessly in the vain hope volume will defeat logic. It's not enough to say 'widely accepted' whilst simply repeating unsubstantiatable tripe.

@D0NK - You failed your test didn't you?

He is a troll why you bothering? He admitted facts did not bother him what you hoping to achieve here? Suppose we should just leave him and TJ to it tbh

they are a sign of prestige if you don't have a nice new car your a failure

No a garage full of bikes is proper prestige ...and a tyre pile ..big enough kitchen to dedicate at leat one part to bike bits oh the list goes on 😉

Where's my breakdown of your fabled £1m cost per RTA death please?

Well... [url=

]"Article 2 - A valuation of road accidents and casualties in Great Britain in 2009 data tables" from the DfT[/url] puts the annual cost of all road fatalities as £3,680 million and there were 2,222 people killed in road accidents in 2009 - so that would put the official DfT figure at [b]£1.6 million per fatality[/b].

Incidentally, the same article puts the cost of all road accidents in 2009 at £15,820 million - which is a fair chunk of that Fuel Duty revenue!

Where's my breakdown of your fabled £1m cost per RTA death please?

Well... "Article 2 - A valuation of road accidents and casualties in Great Britain in 2009 data tables" from the DfT puts the annual cost of all road fatalities as £3,680 million and there were 2,222 people killed in road accidents in 2009 - so that would put the official DfT figure at £1.6 million per fatality

To be fair he said that every death costs 1 million, in reference to premature deaths caused by motoring, not just RTAs. Despite repeated requests he has not been able to justify this figure, so this just undermines his....oh hold. Actually it doesn't affect anyone's opinion of him at all.

[b]Cars don't cause stress and inactivity[/b]
hahahahahaha funniest post I've read in a while

Like to unpick why this is so funny? You think cars make people inactive or inactive people drive everywhere? I imagine most people on here own some form of motorised transport, yet, given the forum, most are not inactive.

Is it still funny? or like all jokes is it not so funny once it's explained?

I thought my post last week started something bad............jeeeeeeeez!

I am not sure why you think the activness of a biking forum would be typical in terms of activity for the UK tbh. Could you explain why you think this is a good comparison to make?

Is it still funny? or like all jokes is it not so funny once it's explained?

incidentally, the same article puts the cost of all road accidents in 2009 at £15,820 million - which is a fair chunk of that Fuel Duty revenue!

Which it would be if it was paid for by the exchequer, but its not. In fact less than 7% of this figure is paid from taxes.

33% ie £5,000 million odd is for damage to property, in other words the damage to the car..... (in the main)

Just saying these figures can sound a lot worse than they are

Car drivers tend to drive everywhere and car drivers are often less than calm and in a state of serene bliss. .
Is there anything else obvious you need explaining today as my kids are off school

Yes, explain how you can be sure of the causality in that relationship
Maybe inactive people buy cars. Do you think if they didn't have cars the would be more active or just stay in more.

Secondly, given the origins of this thread, it would seem that cyclist are a equally prone to stress, in fact in this particular case, I don't think the car driver on the bridge went home and whined about it on the internet.

Could you explain why you think this is a good comparison to make?

It's not a comparison, It is evidence that cars do not cause inactivity

Guns don't kill people either

Car culture makes cars the form of transport for choice for most people, so most people own a car, owning a car leads to driving [b]everywhere[/b], leads to inactivity. Everyone else also driving everywhere leads to traffic jams leads to stress.

how you can be sure of the causality in that relationship

Do you think if they didn't have cars the would be more active or just stay in more.

it would seem that cyclist are a equally prone to stress

There is actually some decent research on the stress. Car commuters are more stressed than cycle or public transport commuter - significantly so. Large scale research done in the states

However - like many petrol heads you don't want to believe there could be the slightest downside - like all the quibbling about the money.

how you can be sure of the causality in that relationship

[b]Which one bliss or laziyness?[/b]

Actually I meant this one

my kids

😛

As an aside I am getting more convinced their is something statistically re "psychic " powers and am still reading up. Quite interesting actually

There is actually some decent research on the stress. Car commuters are more stressed than cycle or public transport commuter - significantly so. Large scale research done in the states

One thing at a time TJ, you still need to show some evidence of the other 'fact' you made up

However - like many petrol heads you don't want to believe there could be the slightest downside - likem all the quibbling about the money

Charlie - I told you where to find it and indeed others have found some for you.

You just don't want to believe it.

all I said was it was the acccepted figure. It is. Can I have my apology now?

I bought my first car (sierra lx!) so I could get out to the peaks with my bike and drive to the coast to surf. I didn't need it for work at the time.

People buy cars for lots of reasons. For freedom if your sick of your surroundings, for employment if there is no jobs locally, to partake in activities that are not available locally, to visit friends and family or to just have some independence if your dependent on others.

People love cars. Brits especially love their cars. We spend enormous amounts of money buying them and caring for them. We buy new ones for the joy we get. Some of us tinker with them and learn about them. Some take them to tracks and race them. I love my cars. One has a name, he's referred to by everyone by his name not the model. It's got happy memories embedded in its rusty old shell.

You're right, we brits are obsessed with our cars. I make no apology for it. As a minority I'm afraid you're just going to have to learn to live with them.

I think they may still need to work and shop and take their kids to school so I supect they would walk more/be more active.

Maybe, that is one scenario, but it would also increase their access to opportunities for physical activity. Many people drive to the gym and would not go otherwise, many of us transport our bikes to go cycling which we might not do otherwise. The relationship is more complex than saying that car ownership leads to physical inactivity. Surely if this were the case we would see +ve correlations between car ownership and poor health, rather than the converse.

Charlie - I told you where to find it and indeed others have found some for you.

No, you showed me the cost of deaths by RTA
I'm asking you to show me evidence of this.

All the deaths and ill health directly and indirectly caused. a million pounds a death.

Till the oil runs out

Actually I meant this one

my kids

I apologise Dr

However - like many petrol heads you don't want to believe there could be the slightest downside

Worst. Arguer. Ever.

You're right, we brits are obsessed with our cars. I make no apology for it. As a minority I'm afraid you're just going to have to learn to live with them.

That's fine (apart from the pointless appeal to patriotism) - but getting back to the OP (remember that?) - that doesn't mean that other road users should be treated like second class citizens for "getting in the way" of cars on "their road".

At the end of the day the OP describes two people trying to use the road to get somewhere and one of them feeling they have rights over the other because of their chosen vehicles.

That isn't right.

Since commuting for the last few months Ive started to follow two golden rules,

First - always obey the rules of the road, if for example someone does the nice thing like wave you through when you dont have the right to then dont do it - by the time you both hesitate there is carnage and it brings other motorists into the situation who dont know whats going on.

Second - never assume someone has seen you. Always be more alert than those around you, cover your brakes especially with cars approaching side roads to you - sit up and be seen - even stand up on pedals to make yourself seen in certain situations.

Surely if this were the case we would see +ve correlations between car ownership and poor health, rather than the converse.

but getting back to the OP (remember that?)

However - like many pedal heads you don't want to believe there could be the slightest upside

Are you claiming that wealth is related to health? I am busy so bowing oit here. Yes there will be people who use it as you describe. However on average people who own cars will be less active than people who dont and getting a car will make you less active generally

No, I'm claiming the relationship is more complex than the bivariate being proposed