On 14 Mar, 15:54, Jeff York
btinternet.com> wrote:> "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".
1/
Perhaps you could steer me towards any post here that proposed banning
traffic?
That's the scenario you invented out of thin air.
That's why it's a straw man, nobody mentioned it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
2/
"The NHS bills the insurance companies of involved / liable drivers."
Not true. This is only where personal injury compensation is paid:
http://www.dh.gov.uk/PolicyAndGuidance/OrganisationPolicy/FinanceAndPlanning/Roa...
3/
"You mean like, for example, the peer-reviewed estimates that
unequivocally stated that by now there would be millions dead from
NvCJD?"
Source please. For instance a source as credible as Whitelegg, whom
you claim is an "eco nut", presumably in the good company of the CBI
which is the source of the congestion costs. CBI a bunch of tree-
hugging sandal-eaters, mmm?
4/
"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. "
I claimed no such thing.
5/
"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.."
So, to answer the question, which was what YOU think the value of a
life is, not the NHS, you are saying less than £430,000?
You would consider £430,000 in exchange for your child, say, a fair
deal?
