Train costs.

In my case, I can just walk. 5 minutes.

Newspaper - 50p.

Was it your car? If not - then yes, you are probably right.

If not - how much did the car cost originally? How much have you paid on tax
and insurance for the car?
How much fuel did it use? How are the tyres, the oil - general wear and
tear.

Because, it seems to me, you don't take into account the amount it costs to
get you (and to run) the car in the first place.


We had this discussion in the office the other day - a chap there said "hah
hah I've paid less than you to drive in" so we did the maths.

Rail ticket works out at £15 a day - return.

His car journey includes £5 congestion charge, 40 miles of fuel and wear and
tear, plus the depreciation and cost of the vehicle in the first place -
which works out at something like 70p a mile or the like. 70*40 = £28 + £5 =
£33.

The only 'advantage' he had, was that it takes a bit less time, and that he
has the car to do other things on the weekend.

 

I am

Anyway, your idol in this regard has proven he has feet of clay, so I feel
no inclination to rush the conversion.

 

Why can you not see that this does not matter when you are comparing the
true cost of like for like transport on train and car?

I am not disagreeing with you some people don't care - but I am disagreeing
with you that it changes the true cost in any why whatsoever.

 

Further, 3km is apparently the current 'maximum' that people will walk. I
would say realistically it's more 1 - 2.
That said, that means there are a lot of people in easy reach of a station,
or a cheap bus to that station.

But it isn't. It doesn't matter what he thinks - it isn't <period> as you
say.

Just like Joe Public then?

 

Sorry? I don't recall saying that anywhere - if anything it's the opposite.

I'd rather spend my time cutting my toenails - it would be a more
constructive use of my time then continuing this discussion, or in fact,
reading _any_ of your posts.

 

No. It. Is. Not.

He thinks the fuel is the cost of the journey. It isn't.

 

Forgive me for speaking for dwb, but neither of us said that. We said
that the cost of the petrol isn't the cost of the journey. It isn't.

Case closed.

 

Don't worry about Rope, mate, he's a bit dim.

Fucking unbelievable, isn't he.

 

No I didn't. You said:

I said: It isn't.

And it isn't.

 

I think that's only true if you assume most motorists - i.e. most people -
are stupid. Not everyone will make an accurate calculation of their
running costs but everyone will know there's more to it than fuel. There
are plenty of web-sites and magazine articles that will help you calculate
it, and any motoring magazine will include it in their long-term tests, so
it's really not an unfamiliar idea to most people.

I try to keep a rough idea of my fixed and per-mile costs, although I
don't go to any great effort, preferring an approximation to the effort of
keeping records of costs. (Something around 25/15p per mile.)

 

It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the

"Today I will agree with something posted, but argue about it anyway."

--

Dave

GS 850 x2 / SE 6a
SbS#6 DIAABTCOD#16 APOSTLE#6 FUB#3
FUB KotL OSOS#12? UKRMMA#19 COSOC#10

 

It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the

Of course it isn't - I fully agree, but Rope's point is that yer actual
ordinary Joe Bloggs will tend to think it is.

--

Dave

GS 850 x2 / SE 6a
SbS#6 DIAABTCOD#16 APOSTLE#6 FUB#3
FUB KotL OSOS#12? UKRMMA#19 COSOC#10

 

Maybe he's pointing out that they're stupid?

 

I blame the parents.