You don't need to pay upfront for the entire barrel, you just pay for your pint. And once you've finished the pint that's it. If you want another pint you can buy another one, if you don't, you need pay no more.
Notably you can’t respond to the point that the investment in a car gives you massive ongoing benefits for cost efficient travel.
You do understand the principle of investment vs say consumption?
Some us do buy the barrel because that is more cost efficient. The problem then is it is very time limited. Again, it is about long term decisions.
Assuming that you can afford the upfront cost of purchase (which will be a four-figure sum, minimum these days) you then have to fork out for insurance and maintenance (including unexpected expensive repairs). You may be in the privileged position of being able to afford all this upfront with cash on the hip in case of emergency but many people struggle, so they take out loans which tie them down to repayments - the opposite of freedom.
And yet 75% of even the poor do.
Houses cost more, starting businesses even more. Kids will cost you far, far more than a car. A “mere” holiday costs car level sums.
People including the poor still do all of the above. So obsessing over a large number is irrelevent - it’s the benefit it brings you for that.
Pricing poor people off of the railway is deeply regressive. But here we are.
Everyone is getting priced off the railway because it cannot control its cost and offer a cost efficient service.* It only exists thanks to massive subsidies yet is a small minority of people’s travel.
Pricing people off a mode most dont use very much seems far less important than pricing them off one nearly everyone uses all the time.
Now that is common sense.
* I returned my season ticket, £6k, because not only was the service deteriorating despite the price rising, it was far more beneficial to me to change jobs and drive to the new location. The drive is a bit tedious (as was the train tbh) but actually more predictable and over a year, far cheaper. It also makes the rest of my transport far more cost efficient by amortising the fixed costs. It’s also more comfortable to boot and I can combine journeys, eg shops run/pickup & drop off.
I now use the train even less for leisure for the same reason. Noting with a growing family the cost vs public transport remains flat vs escalating linearly.
Well I looked at the ONS who used deciles. Regardless, the poorer someone is, the less likely they are to own a car. That's common sense.
The ONS doesnt “use”, it simply groups.
And? The point is even the poor are overwhelmingly motorists first and public transport users second. The facts flatly contradict the assertions of the prejudiced.
If we were in Parliament you would be asked to retract that or leave. Kindly stop saying (in veiled terms) that I am a liar.
Because you were lying (not least as you clearly had no alternative information when you began!). Please stop doing it. The facts as I put forward remain that the poor, sensibly defined and as linked to, overwhelmingly have access to a car.
Your “fact” is simply akin to finding the poorest person and stating they dont. It adds nothing, reductio ad absurdum.
10% of the population is 6.8million. A pretty decent sample, no?
Not as a useful definition of “the poor” where the lowest fifth of wealth, twice that, was judged as the most useful slice by people looking at the reality of car ownership. Not by me to try and troll a debate, but others looking at this professionally.
According to the FCA 7.4m people are struggling to pay bills and credit repayments. Around 11% of the population. Incidentally the comparable figure from the US is 18%, with a whopping 66% of their population living paycheck to paycheck. Obviously there are many factors (healthcare etc.) but lack of alternatives to car travel is definitely a big issue there.
You think that this sort of stuff isn't really happening?
You think that this is different? Or new? Or somehow by removing their cars and drastically curtailing their freedom to work and live would improve this?
Do you advocate they dont have kids or go on holiday? The objective of life is to live, a car gives a freedom never known in history to do that and access to opportunities to earn and live your life fully.
Do you not think perhaps people can make their own minds up? And the facts speak plainly for the results even if you dont like them?
Doesn't it bother you that you've got no empathy for people who are struggling?
Doesnt it bother you a lot more that in addition to lying you are now actively making things up?
Pretty desperate when you resort to putting things in people’s mouths - it transparently shows you’ve no argument to what they do say.
Decent public transport and active travel infrastructure would extend those employment opportunities to people who do not drive.
Insignificant vs the benefits of private point to point. Wouldnt even come close to what that offers people in freedom to work and live. Also very expensive and I doubt you plan to pay.
That’s why the overwhelming majority of people of all wealth status have cars.
I'm aware that there are benefits. But I also acknowledge the drawbacks.
People clearly value the benefits far more than the drawbacks. Perhaps you should listen more and try to force them down your route less?
Well-funded public transport also has benefits.
But a fraction of that of cars for the things people want to do and pay for. Hence why we have them. Its also grossly expensive against other more important expenditure where there isnt mostly a much better alternative.
I don't want to force anyone out of anything. I want people to have a free choice of transport.
Everyone should have everything eh. Well that’s a practical and realistic plan. Free helicopters for all!
www.ft.com
thisisgravity.co.uk
