[Closed] Angry commuter - justified??

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

well that is a given [obviously] however any +ve relationship with car onwernship would be an artifact.

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.

All true, unfortunately in many cases these reasons are perceived and misguided. They also tend to be self serving, i.e. there are no jobs locally because everyone relies on the cheap and easy transport offered by cars. The trouble is this is only cheap and easy short term.

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.

Nope, some people love cars. Many see them as a necessary requirment for cementing there place in society, a status symbol. Others see them as the only means of getting a job. There is a perceived "need" for the damn things! If only they were just there for people like yourself, if only they were just a luxury that could be enjoyed in ones leisure time! As it is many seem them as a necessary evil. The light at the end of the tunnel though is that some are beginning to see them as an unecessary evil.

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.

As a Brit, I apologise for it. I apologise for the harm it has done to all the local economies, I apologise for the communities it's destroyed, the health problems it's contributed, the KSI figures, the marginalisation of big sections of society and the sheer boringness* of most of the cars on the roads.

*The Ford Focus, Vauxhall Vectras, VW Golfs et al all stifle the creativity that could so easily be unleashed by the motor industry. Such a shame that the potential hasn't been realised.

Anyways, we are going to have to live with them, but there won't be as many, they won't be powered in the same way, they won't be as cheap, they won't be available to all and hopefully our society won't revolve around them.

well that is a given [obviously] however any +ve relationship with car onwernship would be an artifact

as would any -ve, or at the level of 'noise'.

@GrahamS -I'm not defending the actions of the culprit in the OP. I'm just reacting (whereas I probably shouldn't) to..

A - The actions of individuals being ascribed to every car owner.
B - The acceptance of being abusive to older people just because they drive.
C - The idea that a tiny number of militant cyclists are somehow propping up the economy.

You know, when I commuted in Cardiff (4 miles) I was usually more stressed when biking than driving.

gwj72 - Member

@GrahamS -I'm not defending the actions of the culprit in the OP. I'm just reacting (whereas I probably shouldn't) to..

A - The actions of individuals being ascribed to every car owner.
B - The acceptance of being abusive to older people just because they drive.
C - The idea that a tiny number of militant cyclists are somehow propping up the economy.

apart from non one actually said any of those things.

A - The actions of individuals being ascribed to every car owner.

B - The acceptance of being abusive to older people just because they drive.

C - The idea that a tiny number of militant cyclists are somehow propping up the economy.

apart from non one actually said any of those things.

but someone did say this

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

I'm not defending the actions of the culprit in the OP. I'm just reacting (whereas I probably shouldn't) to..

No you're not - you're just trolling, but that's okay I was in the mood for a debate.

GrahamS - you need to recap...

A
"You were right. She's a typical stupid idiot behind the wheel of a car."
"If in doubt, assume the motorist is in the wrong."
"she is one of 'those' motorists who have a strange atittude to cyclists"

B
I'd have likely spat in her face - actions speak louder then words
A few sharp thumps on her ("an older woman") car door & roof soon sorted that one out

C
Too many car lovers on here Dez - they get all angsty when you point out that their dangerous polluting machines are responsible for all the worlds ills and they don't pay their way

It would be nice if motorists paid their way tho - as it is they get a huge subsidy from the general taxpayer

Actually a lot of cyclists have above average incomes, and also above average tax bills and so pay more towards the roads...

None of which says what you claim it does 🙄

charlie - and its true - you have even been given official government figures

Poor sensitive petrol heads - they really do get angsty when the problems of car ownership are pointed out

they really do get angsty when the problems of car ownership are pointed out

That's not really what's going on here.

and its true - you have even been given official government figures

Yeah as TJ says, none of those quotes actually really match your bullet points - but well done you for recapping anyway 😀

charlie - and its true - you have even been given official government figures

Charlie has a point TJ. The £1.6 million figure was for fatalities at RTAs. You were overreaching when you implied that ALL deaths caused by driving (including those from indirect causes) cost a million per death.

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

I suspect what you meant was to say that deaths [i]directly caused[/i] by driving were a million per death.

Strictly speaking, the money associated with family distress etc. isn't a cost is it? It's more of a monetary value associated with the distress isn't it. It's not as though that money exists anywhere in the economy does it?

Look TJ I realise you can't admit you're wrong because you'll have to hand in your lumo cycle clips of power back to your commander if you do. They will be watching..

So I'll save face for you and repent my selfish driving ways. What have I done?! Think of the children / polar bears / wales etc.

Happy?

So - I am still awaiting my apology for you doubting me on that. Now thas 1.6 million for a premature death by car, So half that for a premature death by pollution? so average out around a million? Seems reasonable to me. 32 000 people died premature deaths from pollution in the UK each year. 1/3 ish of all pollution comes from cars and its concentrated where the people are in the cities.

You just don't want to face up to how expensive wasteful and harmful the car addiction is

I suspect what you meant was to say that deaths directly caused by driving were a million per death.

No, I'm sure not, otherwise much earlier he would have said something like "ooops, that's not what i meant"

So half that for a premature death by pollution?

why half? Does that cause the same emotional stress? or less or half?

You really need to stop just making this stuff up

Strictly speaking, the money associated with family distress etc. isn't a cost is it? It's more of a monetary value associated with the distress isn't it. It's not as though that money exists anywhere in the economy does it?

The problems of quantifying the unquantifyable.

Would it not be calculated based on potential work time lost through distress, loss of earnings from anyone killed, professional time spent on counselling/psychology/psychiatric help. I suppose it depends how far down the line it's taken, the impact can be lifelong for those it impacts on so could cover any conceivable expense.

Quite a scary undertaking really.

otherwise much earlier he would have said something like "ooops, that's not what i meant"

TJ? Admit he is wrong?

So half that for a premature death by pollution? so average out around a million?

Hmmm... so if my old man dies of lung cancer who should I send the bill for £1 million to then? Sorry TJ but I don't agree with you on this point. An RTA fatality can involve ambulances, fire crews, helicopters, lengthy hospital stays, road closures, large amounts of damage, fatal accident enquiries and so on.

Somebody popping off with a respiratory infection won't involve any of that, except maybe a hospital stay.

You just don't want to face up to how expensive wasteful and harmful the car addiction is

Yeah, right. Actually the Lancaster link showed that owning a car may confer 2 kinds of health benefits, which increase longevity, so having a car increases lifespan, those folks not owning cars die early and cost us billions!!! 🙄

[url= http://www.bristol.gov.uk/ccm/cms-service/stream/asset/?asset_id=29542007 ]linky[/url]

Driving makes you fat.

[url= http://www.bristol.gov.uk/ccm/cms-service/stream/asset/?asset_id=29560004 ]linky[/url]

And cycling makes you live longer

Not if one of the car driving grannies of death runs you over 😀

So, if you drive and cycle you get fat and live longer?

Owners and those with car access were
more likely to be male, to be married or
cohabiting, less likely to be living in a oneperson
household, and were younger than
were renters. They also had greater monthly
household incomes adjusted for family size,
were less likely to receive all household
income from benefits, and were more likely
to be in non-manual social classes. Given
these characteristics, which are all positively
associated with health, it is not surprising
that those living in owner occupied homes
and with car access had significantly better
health on all eight health measures.

yes it proved if you were rich you live longer.What causal relationship did it suggest or demonstrate for cars helping you live longer besides wealth?

The overall conclusion of our study is that it
is not that owner occupation or access to
private transport have any intrinsic benefits
for health, but that public renting and
public transport as currently configured in
the UK can have health damaging effects
through both physical and psychosocial
pathways

So, if you drive and cycle you get fat and live longer?

You can do both at the same time? My, that's quite a trick.

P.S Cycling's good for the economy.

[url= http://www.bristol.gov.uk/ccm/cms-service/stream/asset/?asset_id=31140014 ]linky[/url]

This bit

[i]Having money and a good job enhance
one’s ability to gain access to socially
desirable assets such as owner occupation
and access to private transport. [b]These
assets may then confer two types of health
promoting benefits; psychosocial ones
relating to control, status, security etc.,[/b] and
more practical ones relating to protection
from health damaging features of the
immediate environment such as damp or
cold in the home[/i]

The question was answered by the first reply - how on earth is there 6 pages of this rubbish?

The question was answered by the first reply - how on earth is there 6 pages of this rubbish?

Are you new here? 😉

how on earth is there 6 pages of this rubbish?

It's only about 3 pages if you take out the bits where people have just quoted each other. Three pages of crap is about average I'd say.

It's only about 3 pages if you take out the bits where people have just quoted each other. Three pages of crap is about average I'd say.

Yeah, but the other three pages of quoting is also crap, because they were oringinally crap, they're just quoted crap. So really six pages of crap is what we've got.

Either way though it's nothing out of the ordinary!

It's only about 3 pages if you take out the bits where people have just quoted each other. Three pages of crap is about average I'd say.

Yeah, but the other three pages of quoting is also crap, because they were oringinally crap, they're just quoted crap. So really six pages of crap is what we've got.

Either way though it's nothing out of the ordinary!

I get your point CM that wealth allows you to buy things that confer advantages health wise. I am not convinced that the powerful psychoscial beneftits of car wonership above can actually be quantified into anything meanigful tbh

You can do both at the same time? My, that's quite a trick.

You'd be surprised at the kinds of tricks people in here try

powerful psychoscial beneftits of car wonership above can actually be quantified into anything meanigful tbh

but it does seem to indicate that they result in health benefits and longevity

but it does seem to indicate that they result in health benefits and longevity

Do you really think so? I suggest you re-read it.

on refelection I would say the reverse actually [tempted to leave it at that 😉

Poor housing reduces your life span rather than good housing increases it.
Again the "benefits " of car ownership seem somewhat wolly and I cannot see anything particualrily casual there tbh. they dont claim it either tbh hence "may"

Poor housing reduces your life span rather than good housing increases it.

Well, much of a muchness when you compare one to the other, I'm happy with either.

Again the "benefits " of car ownership seem somewhat wolly and I cannot see anything particualrily casual there tbh. they dont claim it either tbh hence "may

Yup, pretty much the nature of Social Science research, proof is a rare thing. But a plausible underlying story might be that if life is shit, then having access to a car which gets you out of it once in a while has positive health benefits.

So shall we leave it at that then?

Car owners are nice clean healthy wealthy people.
Non owners are impoverished and doomed to premature death.

😀

Non owners are impoverished and doomed to premature death.

- which costs the economy billions

....but is paid for by car owners who have all the money! (And the non-owners are all povo or dead).

I might start a workhouse for non-drivers in my barn. Give them a bit of porridge and stuff, let them clean and wax my motors every day. Might chuck in a bail of straw to sleep on.

how on earth is there 6 pages of this rubbish?

Much of it was really a means for TJ to assuage his guilt of many years as a polluter of the atmosphere.

I might start a workhouse for non-drivers in my barn. Give them a bit of porridge and stuff, let them clean and wax my motors every day. Might chuck in a bail of straw to sleep on

Please don't leave when you go back to work 🙂

GrahamS - Member

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!

Errr, the keyword 'breakdown'. That links to a five line xls table that has summary costs in it. I want to know:

1. What the net costs are (i.e. after netting off the benefits)
2. What the incremental costs are (not the theroetical maxiums pretending services need to be purchased for every incident when in fact they are sunk costs)

I simply don't believe the numbers are anything other than guesswork and are heavily weighted to make the Govts point. Govts talk bowlox all the time and can't be trusted to provide meaningful data.

You lot should know that, you'll be shouting 'speed kills next' 🙂

speed does kill.

Point of order, it's rapid deceleration that kills 😉

so does no speed. In fact it is more commonly the transition from speed to no speed which is the killiest

Point of order, it's rapid deceleration that kills

and rapid acceleration too

we could get very pedantic on this one

Just for a change 🙂

One man's pedantry is another man's essential detail....

we could get very pedantic on this one

see, you say that, but I think, in reality, you lack the skillz

the motivation, but nice goad.

ok, one more try...

the motivation, but nice goad.

Thanks, you can be a go[s]n[/s]ad too.

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

How was this quantified? Were people who drove generally in higher paid, more stressful jobs with greater responsibility? Just a thought....

Anyway, I'd say I was least stressed when I drive to work compared to riding or public transport, and here's why:

1) Nice warm (or cool, as required) car, radio, leave when I want, return when I want.

2) Public transport now impossible as the bus has been rerouted. If I wanted to get to work by public transport I'd now be very stressed, as I wouldn't get there

3) By bike, usually fine, but occasionally one near death experience (they make trucks VERY big down here), and usual fights for space at traffic islands. Also, to avoid the main roads I'm left with two crossings across main roads, which at commuting time take about 5 minutes of standing watching traffic. In the car, I can use the main road without fear of being squashed by a road train.

So despite the fact I usually cycle to work, I'm definitely less stressed when I drive. As for public transport, unilateral changes to routing and timetabling make reliance on it a somewhat tedious exercise.

I might start a workhouse for non-drivers in my barn. Give them a bit of porridge and stuff, let them clean and wax my motors every day. Might chuck in a bail of straw to sleep on.

Gissa job Mista!

Peyote <non-car owner>

Errr, the keyword 'breakdown'. That links to a five line xls table that has summary costs in it. I want to know:

Well you have the same Google I do - if the official Dept of Transport figures aren't good enough then feel free to dig deeper and I'm sure you'll find more detailed breakdowns from the DfT and the Audit Office.

Or show me some figures that say it is actually much cheaper than that.

1. What the net costs are (i.e. after netting off the benefits)

I'm not sure there are any "benefits" in a fatal RTA??

2. What the incremental costs are (not the theroetical maxiums pretending services need to be purchased for every incident when in fact they are sunk costs)

They would only be "sunk costs" because experience determines the overall level of emergency cover they require. Just because they are paid for up front doesn't mean they wouldn't be substantially cheaper if there were no RTAs.

(i.e. an area may have 100 ambulances covering it. But that doesn't mean that calling an ambulance to an RTA is free, because without any RTAs they might only need 70 ambulances for that area).

What tyres for crossing narrow bridges and avoiding angry elderly ladies?

GrahamS - Member

Errr, the keyword 'breakdown'. That links to a five line xls table that has summary costs in it. I want to know:

Well you have the same Google I do - if the official Dept of Transport figures aren't good enough then feel free to dig deeper and I'm sure you'll find more detailed breakdowns from the DfT and the Audit Office.

Or show me some figures that say it is actually much cheaper than that.

Errr, shant. If you blithely quote, you substantiate. I'm not saying they are lower or higher, I just don't believe they are not largely made up. 'Official' cuts no ice. The 'official' dossier on WMD's strike a chord?

1. What the net costs are (i.e. after netting off the benefits)

I'm not sure there are any "benefits" in a fatal RTA??

🙂 I think that was the direct/indirect benefits of the transport industry not the RTA.

2. What the incremental costs are (not the theroetical maxiums pretending services need to be purchased for every incident when in fact they are sunk costs)

They would only be "sunk costs" because experience determines the overall level of emergency cover they require. Just because they are paid for up front doesn't mean they wouldn't be substantially cheaper if there were no RTAs.

(i.e. an area may have 100 ambulances covering it. But that doesn't mean that calling an ambulance to an RTA is free, because without any RTAs they might only need 70 ambulances for that area).

No it doesn't and it also doesn't mean total service provision costs/number of RTA's. We don't know what costs are included in the numbers (incremental, direct, totals etc) as we don't have a breakdown hence the fabled £1m is largely made up though officially so that's alright.

Best not quote numbers if you're not too sure of them. The 'it must be true cos so and so says so' defence is a bit lame even in Primary school 🙂

Errr, shant. If you blithely quote, you substantiate... Best not quote numbers if you're not too sure of them.

I'm sure those are the numbers published by the Department Of Transport and that seems like pretty good substantiation to me.

The table I linked was just the figures, the full thing is Article 2 of this document, which explains a little more summary detail about the figures and cites the methodology used:
[url= http://www.dft.gov.uk/adobepdf/162469/221412/221549/227755/rrcgb2009articles.pdf ]Reported Road Casualties Great Britain 2009: Articles 1-7 (PDF 672 kb)[/url]

Feel free to go as deep into that rabbit hole as you like.