Time spent to travel

Then they should get company cars.

"Gawnsoft" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 16 May 2004 00:31:27 +0100, "DavidR" <[email hidden]>
wrote (more or less):
...

Quoted message said:

Anyway petrol is cheap. It takes roughly 40 minutes of work now to buy

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

same amount of petrol that an hour of work took 25 years ago. Add in

vehicle

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

economy, 34 minutes of work buys the same mileage.

I recently read of a US study.

Tally up the time spent travelling by private car.

Add the time taken to earn the money to pay for the car.

And the time taken to earn the money to pay for fuel.

And the time taken to earn the money to pay for insurance.

And the time taken to earn the money to pay for maintenance and
repairs.

Add the time taken to arrange and purchase all the above.

Divide the distance travelled
by ( the time taken to travel
plus the time taken to earn all that money
plus the time taken to look after the car)

Americans travelled at an average of 5mph!

Of course, cars and fuel are a lot cheaper ther than here, so it would
be surprising if our cars are that fast.

(If folk are interested I'll hunt about for the actual study).

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)

http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

How about this for an idea...

I drive because I enjoy driving. Life is too short to worry about money and
silly statistics.

:-)

Gawnsoft said:

I recently read of a US study.

Tally up the time spent travelling by private car.

Add the time taken to earn the money to pay for the car.

And the time taken to earn the money to pay for fuel.

And the time taken to earn the money to pay for insurance.

And the time taken to earn the money to pay for maintenance and
repairs.

Add the time taken to arrange and purchase all the above.

Divide the distance travelled
by ( the time taken to travel
plus the time taken to earn all that money
plus the time taken to look after the car)

Americans travelled at an average of 5mph!

Of course, cars and fuel are a lot cheaper ther than here, so it would
be surprising if our cars are that fast.

On that basis I spend a fortune cycling each week just on the time element
alone.

Tony

Quoted message said:

(If folk are interested I'll hunt about for the actual study).

Gawnsoft said:

I recently read of a US study.
Tally up the time spent travelling by private car.
Add the time taken to earn the money to pay for the car.
And the time taken to earn the money to pay for fuel.
And the time taken to earn the money to pay for insurance.
And the time taken to earn the money to pay for maintenance and
repairs.
Add the time taken to arrange and purchase all the above.
Divide the distance travelled
by ( the time taken to travel
plus the time taken to earn all that money
plus the time taken to look after the car)
Americans travelled at an average of 5mph!
Of course, cars and fuel are a lot cheaper ther than here, so it would
be surprising if our cars are that fast.
(If folk are interested I'll hunt about for the actual study).

I'd prefer to hear the result if the same approach were taken to railway
travel in the UK (using the full economic costs of course, including the
hours worked by those who are forced to pay substantial parts of the fares
of the rail-traveller, even though they may themselves rarely or never
travel by that C19 mode).

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.682 / Virus Database: 444 - Release Date: 11/05/04

"Gawnsoft" <[email hidden]> wrote
in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I recently read of a US study.

Tally up the time spent travelling by private car.

Add the time taken to earn the money to pay for the car.

And the time taken to earn the money to pay for fuel.

And the time taken to earn the money to pay for insurance.

And the time taken to earn the money to pay for maintenance and
repairs.

Add the time taken to arrange and purchase all the above.

Divide the distance travelled
by ( the time taken to travel
plus the time taken to earn all that money
plus the time taken to look after the car)

Americans travelled at an average of 5mph!

Of course, cars and fuel are a lot cheaper ther than here, so it
would be surprising if our cars are that fast.

But surely this is an argument against travel per se, rather than cars.

And much the same could be said of all other human activities. Ultimately
life is pointless, a time spent running furiously just to stand still. Maybe
we should all top ourselves.

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (William Pitt,
1783)

"Dave J" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In MsgID<[email hidden]> within

uk.rec.driving said:

On Sun, 16 May 2004 00:31:27 +0100, "DavidR" <[email hidden]>
wrote (more or less):
...

Quoted message said:

Anyway petrol is cheap. It takes roughly 40 minutes of work now to buy the
same amount of petrol that an hour of work took 25 years ago. Add in vehicle
economy, 34 minutes of work buys the same mileage.

I recently read of a US study.

Tally up the time spent travelling by private car.

[..]

Quoted message said:

Of course, cars and fuel are a lot cheaper ther than here, so it would
be surprising if our cars are that fast.

(If folk are interested I'll hunt about for the actual study).

I'd be interested.

I'd be especially interested if you can point me to (just) figures
*here* for average hours per week spent driving and average distance
travelled.

The National Travel Survey claims 149 hours a year driving,
covering 3,411 miles so 23mph on average

On Sun, 16 May 2004 14:50:01 +0100, "PeterE"
<peter@xyz_ringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

"Gawnsoft" <[email hidden]> wrote
in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I recently read of a US study.

Tally up the time spent travelling by private car.

Add the time taken to earn the money to pay for the car.

And the time taken to earn the money to pay for fuel.

And the time taken to earn the money to pay for insurance.

And the time taken to earn the money to pay for maintenance and
repairs.

Add the time taken to arrange and purchase all the above.

Divide the distance travelled
by ( the time taken to travel
plus the time taken to earn all that money
plus the time taken to look after the car)

Americans travelled at an average of 5mph!

Of course, cars and fuel are a lot cheaper ther than here, so it
would be surprising if our cars are that fast.

But surely this is an argument against travel per se, rather than cars.

Only if the results are the same across transport modes.

Quoted message said:

And much the same could be said of all other human activities. Ultimately
life is pointless, a time spent running furiously just to stand still. Maybe
we should all top ourselves.

Unless you find travelling from A to B an end in itself, I'm not sure
this is true.

Normally I go from A to B so that I can then carry out my human
activity there.

Driving nose to tail along the M4 isn't my idea of the purpose of
life. :-)

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

On Sun, 16 May 2004 14:35:45 +0100, "Tony Raven"
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

Gawnsoft said:

I recently read of a US study.

Tally up the time spent travelling by private car.

Add the time taken to earn the money to pay for the car.

And the time taken to earn the money to pay for fuel.

And the time taken to earn the money to pay for insurance.

And the time taken to earn the money to pay for maintenance and
repairs.

Add the time taken to arrange and purchase all the above.

Divide the distance travelled
by ( the time taken to travel
plus the time taken to earn all that money
plus the time taken to look after the car)

Americans travelled at an average of 5mph!

Of course, cars and fuel are a lot cheaper ther than here, so it would
be surprising if our cars are that fast.

On that basis I spend a fortune cycling each week just on the time element
alone.

Then again, maybe your 'all up' m.p.h. is higher than a cars each
week?

Unless of course, your bike was made out of unobtanium, in which case
all bets are off! :-)

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

On Sun, 16 May 2004 14:49:54 +0100, "JNugent"
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

Gawnsoft said:

I recently read of a US study.
Tally up the time spent travelling by private car.
Add the time taken to earn the money to pay for the car.
And the time taken to earn the money to pay for fuel.
And the time taken to earn the money to pay for insurance.
And the time taken to earn the money to pay for maintenance and
repairs.
Add the time taken to arrange and purchase all the above.
Divide the distance travelled
by ( the time taken to travel
plus the time taken to earn all that money
plus the time taken to look after the car)
Americans travelled at an average of 5mph!
Of course, cars and fuel are a lot cheaper ther than here, so it would
be surprising if our cars are that fast.
(If folk are interested I'll hunt about for the actual study).

I'd prefer to hear the result if the same approach were taken to railway
travel in the UK (using the full economic costs of course, including the
hours worked by those who are forced to pay substantial parts of the fares
of the rail-traveller, even though they may themselves rarely or never
travel by that C19 mode).

I'm happy to hear that result too.

Mind you, the above approach didn't use the full economic costs for
cars.

So I'd also want to hear the result for cars if the full economic cost
borne by non-travellers was factored in.

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

PeterE said:

And much the same could be said of all other human activities.
Ultimately life is pointless, a time spent running furiously just to
stand still. Maybe we should all top ourselves.

Surely the primary purpose of all life on this planet is to reproduce? Isn't
there something in current business doctrine about concentrating on core
activities?

On Sun, 16 May 2004 14:50:01 +0100, "PeterE"
<peter@xyz_ringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

But surely this is an argument against travel per se, rather than cars.

Any form aof travel which soaks upa n appreciable proportion of your
income, anyway. The annual depreciation on our caris roughly the cost
of my touring bike which I bought 20 years ago and still works just
fine. All my bikes cost less than a quarter of what my one car costs
to insure, there is no VED or fuel duty, and the time I spend
travelling keeps me fit s is not truly "lost" time.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

"Nathaniel Porter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

How about this for an idea...

I drive because I enjoy driving. Life is too short to worry about money and
silly statistics.

Why worry about 2 abstracts? 😉

On Sun, 16 May 2004 14:50:01 +0100, "PeterE"

peter@xyz_ringtail.fsnet.co.uk said:

But surely this is an argument against travel per se, rather than cars.

I read it more as an observation than an argument. But, yes, it is
valid for travel per se.

People forget that once you start wanting to travel further than can
be walked (or cycled) it is expensive whichever mode you choose.

I'm saving hundreds every month since I got rid of the car but I'm
still spending (fewer) hundreds on taxis, trains and planes instead.
But travelling is more enjoyable and a lot less stressful, I suppose.

Gawnsoft said:

<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Gawnsoft wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I recently read of a US study.
Tally up the time spent travelling by private car.
Add the time taken to earn the money to pay for the car.
And the time taken to earn the money to pay for fuel.
And the time taken to earn the money to pay for insurance.
And the time taken to earn the money to pay for maintenance and
repairs.
Add the time taken to arrange and purchase all the above.
Divide the distance travelled
by ( the time taken to travel
plus the time taken to earn all that money
plus the time taken to look after the car)
Americans travelled at an average of 5mph!
Of course, cars and fuel are a lot cheaper ther than here, so it
would be surprising if our cars are that fast.
(If folk are interested I'll hunt about for the actual study).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'd prefer to hear the result if the same approach were taken to
railway travel in the UK (using the full economic costs of course,
including the hours worked by those who are forced to pay
substantial parts of the fares of the rail-traveller, even though
they may themselves rarely or never travel by that C19 mode).

Quoted message said:

I'm happy to hear that result too.
Mind you, the above approach didn't use the full economic costs for
cars.

If you ever do the calculation fr railways (or for PT in general), please
feel free to add in a similarly-made-up number for the external costs of
those modes.

Speak to people like my friend in Liverpool, whose garden is repeatedly
invaded by people (most of them old enough to know better) who are
theoretically waiting at the bus-stop outside his property. Some of them
seem to think that his property is their to do as they like in. And they
seem to like doing some pretty disgusting things on occasion.

The costs to him - if it could be quantified - would be considerable.

Quoted message said:

So I'd also want to hear the result for cars if the full economic cost
borne by non-travellers was factored in.

Indeed.

Bon't forget the nuisance caused to flat-dwellers near every London suburban
railway station - daily (and nightly) treated to an amplified running
commentary as to where the next train came from, where it is supposed to be
going and why it won't get there when it was supposed to. This is merely an
example, of course - but a very extensive one.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.686 / Virus Database: 447 - Release Date: 14/05/04

JNugent [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

Indeed.

Bon't forget the nuisance caused to flat-dwellers near every London suburban
railway station - daily (and nightly) treated to an amplified running
commentary as to where the next train came from, where it is supposed to be
going and why it won't get there when it was supposed to. This is merely an
example, of course - but a very extensive one.

If we're taking in that level of detail, I presume that a fair
comparison with cars would include the double / triple glazing costs of
all housing estates near major roads. The costs of building giant
concrete walls in an attempt to keep the noise out. The early morning
slamming of car doors by inconsiderate neighbours.

These are merely examples of course.

Jon

Gawnsoft <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 16 May 2004 00:31:27 +0100, "DavidR" <[email hidden]>
wrote (more or less):
...

Quoted message said:

Anyway petrol is cheap. It takes roughly 40 minutes of work now to buy the
same amount of petrol that an hour of work took 25 years ago. Add in vehicle
economy, 34 minutes of work buys the same mileage.

I recently read of a US study.

Tally up the time spent travelling by private car.

Add the time taken to earn the money to pay for the car.

And the time taken to earn the money to pay for fuel.

And the time taken to earn the money to pay for insurance.

And the time taken to earn the money to pay for maintenance and
repairs.

Add the time taken to arrange and purchase all the above.

Divide the distance travelled
by ( the time taken to travel
plus the time taken to earn all that money
plus the time taken to look after the car)

Americans travelled at an average of 5mph!

Of course, cars and fuel are a lot cheaper ther than here, so it would
be surprising if our cars are that fast.

(If folk are interested I'll hunt about for the actual study).

It does depend on the type of car and the usage though. If you think
about it, Americans tend to have big cars with V8's etc, these guzzle
'gas' very quickly. If you get a cheap, small car etc. then it may
not cost as much. Could my 899cc car be faser than a Ferrari?

I like cars, and they're very useful. Buses are terrible and
expensive, but I won't go into that. Walking takes a long time too,
it takes me almost 3hrs to walk to uni! If I walk to uni and back
again most of the day's gone.

On 17 May 2004 09:37:47 -0700, [email hidden] (Peter)

wrote in message : said:

Walking takes a long time too,
it takes me almost 3hrs to walk to uni! If I walk to uni and back
again most of the day's gone.

So you ride a bike instead, obviously ;-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

On 17 May 2004 09:37:47 -0700, [email hidden] (Peter)

wrote in message : said:

Walking takes a long time too,
it takes me almost 3hrs to walk to uni! If I walk to uni and back
again most of the day's gone.

So you ride a bike instead, obviously ;-)

Guy

Oh yeah, I never thought about that. I haven't got a bike though and
if I did have one then I'd have nowhere to put it :-(

Actually, it's very unpleasant walking. I walked down one road and
there was something wrong with one of the cars. I could taste the
exhaust gasses in my mouth, even with my mouth shut. There was also a
similar experience a few days later. For this reason I think that
cycling a walking are very unpleasant, and maybe bad for somebodys
health.

On 17 May 2004 15:38:38 -0700, [email hidden] (Peter)
wrote (more or less):
....

Quoted message said:

Actually, it's very unpleasant walking. I walked down one road and
there was something wrong with one of the cars. I could taste the
exhaust gasses in my mouth, even with my mouth shut. There was also a
similar experience a few days later. For this reason I think that
cycling a walking are very unpleasant, and maybe bad for somebodys
health.

The same air goes into a car's ventilation intake and then into your
mouth as goes into a cyclist or walkers mouth.

Unless you're keeping bottled air in your car?

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk