The senior executive decided on coach travel after it was found that taking 200 of the company's staff from Reading to Coventry by rail could cost as much as £27,000.
Last week, the first £1,000 fare in the history of Britain's railways was revealed by a survey showing how long-distance prices have soared since privatisation in the mid-1990s.
The trip from Newquay, Cornwall, costs £1,002 if the ticket is bought on the day of travel, and has met with fierce criticism.
Why the fucking fuck would anyone spend a thousand pounds to travel by TRAIN, for gods sake - you can fly to Los Angeles for around £400. And that's for one person. Imagine if there are 4 of you.
How can the environmentalists expect us to give up car travel when it's better in every way compared to public transport? It hasn't even got the price going for it! If I am held up, I'd much rather sit in a traffic jam (which I'd point out to the environmentalists isn't anywhere near as prolific as they try to make out!) in a plush comfortable car than on a freezing cold platform at Birmingham New Street.
So, let's weigh it up:
Going by car:
* Is cheaper than public transport, especially if there's more than one of you
* It's often quicker
* You can travel whenever you want, at no notice
* You can go wherever you want
* You don't need to wait for your car to be ready
* You can listen to any music you want, or choose to travel in complete silence - not listening to someone else's stupid mobile phone conversation
* You can be cool on a hot day, and warm on a cold one
* You don't have to tolerate other passengers, especially smelly, noisy, or fat ones
* Delays can be avoided with re-routing
* You can stop when you want for food or drink, for the kind of food or drink YOU want
Remind me why I should take the train or the bus?
31 comments:
You forgot some of the main benefits -
1. You don't have to pay to use the roads except for the occasional toll crossing like the Severn Bridge.
2. You don't have to pay to park on the street, even where parking demand far exceeds supply.
3. You don't have to pay for using roads at peak times when demand far exceeds supply and road space is extremely valuable (except for London).
4. You can use Park & Ride sites at highly subsidised rates.
5. You don't have to pay to park at large supermarkets and out-of-town shopping centres.
6. You are very unlikely to be prosecuted for failing to obey speed limits or parking restrictions.
7. You can park on the footway to avoid the risk of damage to your wing mirrors.
8. You don't have to pay for the environmental damage arising from your driving.
9. You can make telephone calls and send texts while you are driving.
10. In a collision with a pedestrian or cyclist they will probably be blamed for 'not looking' or 'being hard to see'.
11. You don't have to be a self-righteous smug cyclist, constantly whinging on and on and on and on...(even when your cause is given £24 million pounds)
12. You can’t go squish under a bus/lorry
13. You don’t have to request special lifts to take you up those big hills your little legs can’t manage
14. No one looks good in lycra
But unfortunately...
You can’t pick and chose which sections of the Highway Code you want to obey on any certain day. Just say some motorists were being horrible to you and you can do what you want.
Oh yes, lifts. thanks for reminding me.
11. You get exclusive use of the lifts in Trenchard St Car Park which have been specially adapted at great expense by the city council to keep cyclists and other riff-raff out.
12. You get the barrier equipment on Prince Street Bridge renewed using funds taken from the so-called Cycling City budget, which is actually being used to force cyclists off the road and onto pavments to benefit motorists.
13. You get £117 million of public money spent on widening the M4 and M5 around north east Bristol from 6 to 8 lanes.
Go on then Chris, I'll humour you:
1. You don't have to pay to use the roads except for the occasional toll crossing like the Severn Bridge
Yes we do, in the form of vehicle excise duty and fuel duty. Your car is not allowed on the public highway unless you have a valid tax disc, and you can't use it without petrol. I'd also point out that cyclists get to use the roads without paying for either of these. Doubtless you'll be able to provide paragraphs of justifications as to why you shouldn't have to, but the fact still remains.
2. You don't have to pay to park on the street, even where parking demand far exceeds supply.
Yep - bonus. Although RPZs in certain areas are putting an end to that
3. You don't have to pay for using roads at peak times when demand far exceeds supply and road space is extremely valuable (except for London).
Yes we do - see point 1.
4. You can use Park & Ride sites at highly subsidised rates.
Well, I can't, because I live in the city. I actually disagree with P&R being highly subsidised as it means I am subsidising the travel of those who live outside the city rather than those who live in it.
5. You don't have to pay to park at large supermarkets and out-of-town shopping centres.
No, and quite right too. This deters people from driving into the centre, reducing congestion. And why shouldn't I be able to park for free at large supermarkets? How do you suggest I get my week's shopping home? On a carpet of environmentalist's hot air? Maybe sail it home on a river of their bullshit?
6. You are very unlikely to be prosecuted for failing to obey speed limits or parking restrictions.
Actually, I have been prosecuted for both these things (in the form of FPNs) and many other people have been.
7. You can park on the footway to avoid the risk of damage to your wing mirrors.
Cyclists CAN jump red lights under the widely-held assumption that the rules don't apply to them - doesn't make it right.
8. You don't have to pay for the environmental damage arising from your driving.
Yes we do - this is the often-used justification for the extortionate levels of fuel duty, as well as the extortionate new VED bands based on CO2 emissions.
9. You can make telephone calls and send texts while you are driving.
Not legally - see point 7.
10. In a collision with a pedestrian or cyclist they will probably be blamed for 'not looking' or 'being hard to see'.
Probably because, based on my experience with most cyclists and pedestrians on Bristol's roads, they didn't look.
11. You get exclusive use of the lifts in Trenchard St Car Park which have been specially adapted at great expense by the city council to keep cyclists and other riff-raff out.
They still stink of piss and I try not to use them anyway. I've got no problems with cyclists using it though.
12. You get the barrier equipment on Prince Street Bridge renewed using funds taken from the so-called Cycling City budget, which is actually being used to force cyclists off the road and onto pavments to benefit motorists.
I didn't think there was much of a pavement on Prince Street bridge? And isn't Price Street bridge a single carriageway now with traffic-light control? I hardly see that as a benefit to motorists. I'm quite happy to accept it wasn't very well executed to the benefit of cyclists though, as BCC were in charge.
13. You get £117 million of public money spent on widening the M4 and M5 around north east Bristol from 6 to 8 lanes.
Damn right too. God knows motorists contribute enough to the "public money" pot in various duties and taxes.
You don't have to stand in the wind and the rain waiting for the bus to get there late, nor risk losing your place in the queue should you move away from the bus stop to have a cigarette.
Likewise you don't have to wait alone at the bus stop late at night looking like the perfect victim to any lurking gang of hoodies or deranged drug addict.
I think its unfair to say "public transport sucks" just because in Bristol we have to deal with FirstBus and First GW. In London the tube is excellent in the core, the bus services actually work with it and oystercard makes it more affordable and decouples the top-up from use, just like filling up a petrol tank does. And they give kids under 16 free travel, so it isnt so excessive to take the family anywhere.
I think a correct title of this post should be "Fuck Public Transport from FirstBus"
SteveL: Fair comment - the tube is indeed brilliant.
However national train services suck donkey cock, and bus services in Bristol specifically are awful (though nationally are still quite pricey).
Is the reason Chris attacked the car as a form of transport, because in this instance, there is no defence for public transport?
Attack is the best form of defence as they say.
As I have said before. Give the people in the South West (and particularly Bristol) a convenient, cheap and reliable form of public transport and it will be used. Until then... the car comes out top and will be used by the majority.
...and we should (and do!) make absolutely no apology for that.
Before i started working shifts i used to work near the centre of Bristol. It was cheaper, safer, faster and a hell of a lot more convienient to insure and run motor bike than it was to catch the bus.
There is no defence for our transport system here, and our national rail service is nothing but a joke.
Paul said "...the reason Chris attacked the car as a form of transport.."
Did I attack the car as a form of transport? I merely added to Dave's list of the many advantages of the car compared to other options.
I entirely agree that under present circumstances, particularly bearing in mind the massive public subsidies that motorists receive, it really is the logical choice for most people.
particularly bearing in mind the massive public subsidies that motorists receive
Excuse me, but fuck you Chris. I have to spend £200 a year just to legally park and drive my car on the road, as does practically every other motorist - some less, some more. Every single time I fill up my car, near enough 70% of the money I pay (money that I've already been taxed on in my pay packet) goes straight in taxes to the government. My car is parked on a drive attached to a house which I pay rent for.
I don't recieve a fucking PENNY in subsidies from the public, and neither does any other motorist. In fact I contribute thousands of pounds to the public purse in various forms of duty solely related to motoring.
Cyclists demanding cycle lanes and cycle tracks and "lifts" without paying any more tax than any other citizen (and in fact a lot less tax than motorists) get more subsidy than motorists.
Kindly shove your twisted, nonsensical "actually, motorists are subsidised" logic up your arse, because given how much I am raped by the government every time I fill up my car, frankly I find it offensive.
Chris said... I merely added to Dave's list of the many advantages of the car compared to other options.
I'm glad you are finally seeing sense and realising the car is superior in most ways.
Chris Hutt should read this and understand that motorists are fleeced to the tune of a billion pounds per week
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/caradvice/mrmoney/6509935/Mr-Money-Labours-still-milking-the-motorist.html
And this, which states that a year ago, despite motorists paying £45 billion a year in motoring-related taxes (which can only have gone up in the last year), only around £10billion is spent on the road network. I'd wager that less money has been spent on the roads in the last year going on how it seems less and less potholes are being repaired, but yet more and more tax is being taken.
"Subsidised" my fat arse.
Are people asking Chris 'Cars are really bad' Hutt to pull is head out of this ass for 2 seconds and actually think about what is saying?
Chris Hutt is a weapons grade tool who lives in some sort of environMENTAL GaGa land that is a million miles away from the rest of us who have to deal with reality.
I am surprised that you bite any more. Feed the troll...
Swindon Alan
Chris Hutt is also uncharacteristicly quiet
Hi fans, I'm back. By popular demand it seems.
Allow me to explain a few facts about taxation. Fuel duty generates £25.7 billion and vehicle excise duty £6.1 billion, so £31.8 billion in total. But these taxes are not hypothecated and go towards general government expenditure.
Total taxation revenues are £607 billion, so the 'motoring taxes' above account for only about 5% of total tax revenue. It therefore follows that motorists pay for about 5% of all government expenditure, including 5% of expenditure on roads.
The remaining 95% of expenditure on roads is paid from the remaining 95% of taxation revenues which are in principle paid as much by motorists as non-motorists.
As has been said about £10 billion in spent on roads, of which motorists can claim to have paid 5%, or £0.5 billion through motoring taxation. The remaining £9.5 billion of expenditure on roads is paid by all of us through non-motoring taxes.
So motorists pay £0.5 billion in motoring taxes towards roads and get £10 billion, 20 times as much, of expenditure in return. And still you complain.
Do not feed the troll!
That's a neat way of avoiding having to consider an argument you don't like. A lot easier than having to think about it.
You really are fucking bonkers, aren't you Hutt?
Motorists pay £30bn a year and get £10bn spent on the roads?
Fuck the allocation or accountant's fudges (are you an accountant by any chance?), that doesn't look like any sort of good deal to me.
Yes, I am thinking, you seriously dangerous tool.
Swindon Alan
But only 5% of motoring taxes are allocated to expenditure on roads. So, on average, motorists pay only marginally more towards road expenditure than non-motorists yet derive vastly greater benefit.
Take two people with equal incomes, one who drives a car and the other who cycles instead. Let's say both pay £10,000 in general taxation but the motorist in addition pays VED (say £150) and fuel duty on 10,000 miles of travel at say 40 miles per gallon comes out at around £600, so the motorist pays an additional £750 of tax.
The motorist pays £10,750 of tax of which 5% pays for roads, so that's £537. The cyclist pays £10,000 of tax of which 5% pays for roads, so that's £500. So the motorist in this case pays just £37 more towards the roads compared to the cyclist.
Yet the motorist is travelling perhaps 10,000 miles on the roads compared to perhaps 2,000 miles of road travel by the cyclist (say 1,000 miles cycling 4 miles a day to and from work and another 1,000 miles of recreational cycling).
The motorist in this example is paying 5.37 pence of tax per mile travelled on roads while the cyclist is paying 25 pence of tax per mile travelled on roads. So the cyclist is paying almost 5 times as much tax as the motorist for each mile travelled.
Yup. Bonkers.
Swindon Alan
I'm disappointed that no one on here appears to have the wit to find even the slightest weakness in my argument. Surely it cannot be as perfectly logical as it first seems? I suppose I shall have to post it elsewhere.
I'm disappointed that no one on here appears to have the wit to find even the slightest weakness in my argument.
I can.
But only 5% of motoring taxes are allocated to expenditure on roads.
Prove it.
I thought I'd already done that. 'Motoring taxes' constitute 5% of total tax revenues, therefore they provide 5% of all expenditure of tax revenues including expenditure on roads.
There is actually a big mistake in my second lot of workings, but no one spotted it. I said -
"The motorist pays £10,750 of tax of which 5% pays for roads..."
But the amount spent on roads is only £8.3 billion which is only 1.4% of total expenditure of tax revenues of £606 billion.
So my figures for how much the motorist and cyclist pay respectively towards roads should have been £150.50 and £140, so the motorist pays £10.50 or 7% more than the cyclist for, in this case, 5 times as much use.
In terms of pence per mile the motorist pays 1.5p tax and the cyclist 7p tax.
Yes, but Chris, unless you work in the treasury (and given the percentage of petrol cost that goes straight to the treasury, it would come as no surprise) then you have absolutely no idea what percentage of road spending comes from fuel duty and VED. "5%" is a figure that you've pulled out of your arse, based on very basic (and likely incorrect) assumptions such as every tax going into a big pot, and then spending coming out of that pot. In the most simplistic terms, this is sort of what happens, but it's never as simple as that. I would put large amounts of money on the fact that more of the road budget comes from fuel duty/VED than, say, income tax, because that's how the government do things.
What is far more likely is that MOST of road spending is covered by VED and fuel duty, and then the large remaining surplus from these duties (of which cyclists contribute nothing to) go to general government spending. After all, how fair is it that the general public should pay for road maintenance even if they don't drive? Think about it. I will happily trawl the web for proof of this when I have time and I'm convinced you'll be proved wrong.
You do have an incredibly infuriating habit of twisting facts and information to suit your agenda. Being able to extrapolate a conclusion that cyclists pay more to use the roads than motorists is an example of this utter absurdity.
No, the 5% figure does not come out of my arse but from Wikipedia, which you probably think is some kind of conspiracy to pervert the truth by ageing hippies. Anyway check this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UK_taxes.svg
As you can clearly see VED delivers £6.1 billion and Fuel Duty £25.7 billion. The total of all those taxes isn't actually given but I'm feeling helpful so I'll add them up on my calculator and.... it comes to £541.1 billion.
This is significantly less than the figure I used for total taxation of £607 billion given in another page of Wikipedia. So if we take the £541 billion figure then 25.7 + 6.1 = 31.8 billion = 5.87%, so say 6%.
Taking motoring taxes as 6% rather than 5% of total taxes doesn't really make any difference to my argument which is based on the fact that motoring taxes are not 'hypothecated' and just go into the big pot along with all the other taxes mentioned.
Yes, it is that simple. There was once a time when we had something called 'road tax' which was hypothecated and actually paid directly for road works. But of course the politicians couldn't resist dipping into it and it was abolished as such by Winston Churchill in 1936.
Today there are hardly any hypothecated taxes. The Television Licence is one and ... that's all I can think of. Although as you can see from the pie chart linked to above Council Tax amounts to £24.9 billion and does not go into the big pot but to each local council directly.
You say I twist facts but what facts have I 'twisted'? Obviously I select facts that I think support my argument but doesn't everyone do that? You certainly do when it comes to AGW. It's up to you to find some facts that undermine my argument, if that's what you want to do.
You've completely missed the point regarding hypothecation.
When it is stated that the various duties that motorists are forced to pay aren't hypothecated, all this means is that the treasury isn't forced to spend all the revenue it collects from these duties on the roads, and is able to divert surplus (of which there is a lot) towards general government spending (quite right too). It is still entirely possible (and if you bothered to think about it, highly probable) that all road spending is covered solely by VED/Fuel Duty, and then the surplus goes into the "general pot". This is only fair, after all, why should non-motorists pay for the upkeep of the roads when duties paid by motorists cover the required figure for spending many times over?
This basic misunderstanding you have has rendered your sums and assertions that cyclists pay more than motorists to use the roads as utter bullshit.
And anyway, fuel duty is hypothecated (or at the very least, part of it is), you're just assuming it's not because it conveniently supports your ridiculous argument that cyclists pay more than motorists to use the road. When you consider that motorists have to pay billions of pounds a year to use the roads (I can't legally drive or park on it without paying hundreds of pounds a year) and that cyclists can leglly use it whilst paying sweet fuck all, you must realise how ridiculous this sounds, hypothecated or not.
If you fancy some proof of hypothecation (even in part):
A share of hypothecated fuel duty. The government has promised that any future above inflation increases in fuel duty should be ringfenced for transport spending. This would net London £30million per year for each 1% increase Institute for Public Policy, 2000
You twist facts by bringing in frankly irrelevant factors such as mileage covered by cyclists and motorists because it balances the statistics in your favour. I have to pay hundreds if not thousands of pounds over my income tax to legally drive one mile a year or ten thousand miles a year, you can cycle as far as you want without having to pay a penny over your income tax.
Oh and don't forget in your calculations that the motorist pays VAT on the duty as well as on the fuel (source), one of the few examples in existence today.
Post a Comment