"spindrift"
hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 14 Mar, 14:00, Jeff York
btinternet.com> wrote:>>"how would that compare to a "cost of not having
>> any traffic on the roads at all" ie economic stagnation?"
>
>Please don't post silly straw man arguments.
I see no strawman... I see a criticism of a cost/benefit analysis that
includes only the costs.
>The argument against raised taxation for motorists is not "economic
>stagnation" nor is it a return to horse and carts, calm down.
I didn't say that it was, merely drew your attention to the "benefit"
side of the equation..
>> "Covered largely by insurance, paid for by motorists, commercial
>> vehicle owners and (responsible) cyclists."
>
>Not true. NHS costs are paid by taxpayers,
The NHS bills the insurance companies of involved / liable drivers.
> MIB pay uninsured drivers
>so anyone who pays insurance premiums covers uninsured drivers. Damage
>to roads after accidents is paid for by local authorities. Damage to
>other peoples' property is covered by their own insurance and sets
>everyone elses' premiums higher.
In all cases, damage to 3rd party property is able to be compensated
from the liable party's insurance.
>>"These are guesses, pure and simple. Designed to make a political
>> point."
>
>They are estimates arrived at by experts and set out in peer-reviewed
>publications.
You mean like, for example, the peer-reviewed estimates that
unequivocally stated that by now there would be millions dead from
NvCJD?
They are "guesses". That they are peer-reviewed makes not one jot of
difference.
>"eco-nuts?"
>
>Are you new to debating?
>
>Have you perhaps misunderstood childish insults for a reasoned
>exchange of ideas?
I think that "eco-nuts" is a useful shorthand for many of the
"Militant Green" faction, who, after the collapse of radical socialism
appear to have found a new vehicle with which to promote their agenda
of greater control over the great unwashed... It's also quicker to
type than muesli-knitters... :-)
>> "Yeah... Right... All 6mm of it in the last decade."
>
>Errr, could you source your claim that global warming is limited to a
>6mm rise? Is that the only aspect of concern, in your view?
Depending on whom you listen to, the rise in sea level is reported as
anything from a couple of mm to about 16mm per decade. As to "aspect
of concern" I was simply remarking on the point that *you* made about
"coastal defences... rising sea levels..". I believe that the 2007
IPCC summary that was published last month (still waiting for the
proper report though) has cut back quite severely on its
prognostications on the size of possible rises to about 17" by 2100,
IIRC.
>> "Oil, you might be surprised to know, is not just used by cars."
>
>Another pointless straw man, nobody claimed oil is only used by cars.
>Why are you doing this?
Because you claimed that the Royal Navy was largely employed in
keeping the sea-lanes open for the passage of oil tankers, with the
implication that without motorists the costs of this would not be
necessary. You were, of course, wrong.
>>"So, to put it another way, they're based on wishful-thinking and
>> guesswork again"
>
>You would place the value of human life at less than the figure
>quoted?
>
>What figure would you place on another person's life please?
Well... The QALY figure used by the NHS in deciding whether treatment
is economically viable puts it at something less than 50%% of the
figure I quoted, 15/34ths to be precise..
>I think you may benefit from reading the linked data above again but
>this time keep in mind the clearly sensible approach which is to
>strike a balance between the subsidies motorists receive and the
>benefits of having a safe, convenient road system.
That only applies if you consider that motorists are, in fact,
subsidised by the "general taxpaying population" - which I don't. The
only figures that are available to give the slightest measure of
credence to the idea are *all* based upon guesses to a greater or
lesser degree... And in every case appear to attempt to present a
cost/benefit analysis by examining only the "cost" option.
>You see an anti-car agenda where there isn't one, reign your paranoid
>hysteria in a bit laddie.
I didn't see it as "anti-car" so much as "pro-bollocks".
