Angry commuter – justified??

or a stupid way or a witty way 🙂

or in a statistically flawed way? 🙂

Seeing as nobody in the UK has ever died from pollution then the cost is zero

Not actually true.

The exact same thing happened to me a few years ago apart from the drivers wing mirror got clipped (oops) he then did a uturn drove past me and got out of his car and waited in a layby at the top of the hill. When I got there I put my bike on the floor to talk to him he then proceeded to tell me how damaging his car could be bad for my health and I was lucky “bigger blokes than me might hit you” he was around 6ft i’m 5,8″ I asked him if he fanced his chances he then drove off. This still makes me smile as I avoid violence like the plague usually.

I was lucky “bigger blokes than me might hit you” he was around 6ft i’m 5,8″

😉

I once chased after a guy in his car after he overtook me on a blind corner. When I caught him he stopped and got out, I’m 5’11”, he was about 5’2″ and he looked as HARD AS NAILS!!!! You know the type. We had a chat and I was convinced he was going to start on me and kill me like a badger would. Thankfully we resolved the issue with discussion but he still wouldn’t admit it was a stupid place to overtake me.

A million pounds is the accepted cost of a premature death

Can you explain this, instead of just repeating it?

CharlieMungus – Member

A million pounds is the accepted cost of a premature death

Can you explain this, instead of just repeating it?

Ditto… or does it mean accepted by TJ 🙂

Well I’ve googled this if it helps.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/papers/pdf/422.pdf

The cost there is in american dollars and does seem to concentrate on people stiffing it at work but even in an inferior money, premature deaths seem to cost *significantly more* than a million pounds.

No, i said explain it!!

A quick google –

3000 deaths 8 billion audit commision
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/feb/26/transport.world
1.6 million each road death – IAM
http://www.motortorque.com/news/auto-1006/road-safety-deaths-39cost-billions39-says-charity.asp
road accidents cost 18 billion a year 1.7 million a death, £200 000 a serious injury,
http://www.motortorque.com/news/auto-1011/39staggering39-cost-of-uk-road-deaths-revealed.asp

Edit – you want an explanation? Look to the audit office or IAM or Rospa – the sources for the various figures

Sorry TJ, I’m being a bit hard of thinking, It’s still not clear how a premature death costs a million pounds.
please explain, these links are not clear

I want you to explain, not have to search through your references. Which so far seem to be related to RTAs rather than the general case

and these

The figure comes from adding up lost output and health care as well as the cost of pain and suffering to the families of the victim.

are just unquantifiable nad meaningless

All I said was its the generally accepted figure – and it clearly is – or actually more than a million is. i suggest Rospa or the audit office might be able to give you more of an explanation. Me – I am happy to accept it as a reasonable ballpark figure.

Clearly it will vary greatly – but its an average.

Cost of medical care – some die after treatment, cost of the paramedics time, the hospital treatment, the days in ITU.

cost of the police time in investigating the death

cost of the Inquest / FAI

Loss of earnings

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?

I’ll say it again. The numbers are made up to suit the argument. It’s such a complex case how anyone on an Internet forum could ever get to the bottom of the real cost or real net benefit is beyond me. Referencing the Guardian or that august body, the IAM doesn’t prove enything except they have repeated the mantra.

My bottom line is a modern tarnsport system that supports a mobile/flexible workforce has to be a benefit to a modern society.

<edit> TJ you’re referencing RTA death costs not premature deaths (though death by RTA would be somewhat premature). You’re also missing the point that these are theoretical costs not the true incremental costs of dealing with those RTA’s. I.e. we’d need fire/ambliance/police etc just in case cats got stuck up trees rather than pesky motorists (or cyclists) topping themselves.

Boblo – of course any figures that blow your argument out of the water must be invented. ~The audit office and the IAM – (that bastion of car hating) are inventing ludicrous figures just to discredit you.

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

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.

Actually this is the first time you’ve qualified this in this way, so strictly speaking, start 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?

you are clearly a trusting soul TJ, but do you think those values sound plausible?
also, please do feel free to address the issue of other non-RTA premature deaths which you said cost a million

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

hahahahahaha funniest post I’ve read in a while

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.
How much you have to learn, cherub. *shakes head in disbelief*

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 “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.” 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 additional taxation paid because you are a motorist (i.e. fuel duty and VED) covers your “share” of the roads bill.

Fuel Tax and VED pull in £24,615 million and £5,441 million respectively and the Road Expenditure in England was £7,664 million 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

aye because cars aren’t just transport, they are a sign of prestige if you don’t have a nice new car your a failure. Or not as the case maybe. If people didn’t have 4wheeled status symbols to spunk their money on there’d be something else compensate for other shortfalls in life (and we might actually have a decent transport system).

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 everyone 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?

seriously?

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… ”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.

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.

Cars don’t cause stress and inactivity
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!