The Political Thread

[The Legendary Shark]

Again, no argument against the usefulness of insurance.
.
If we expand your position, is it fair to say that if you can't afford or don't want medical insurance you shouldn't get sick, if you can't afford or don't want holiday insurance you shouldn't go on holiday or if you can't afford or don't want home insurance you shouldn't have a home? I should guess not.
.
Having medical insurance doesn't make you go out of your way to fall ill. Having holiday insurance doesn't make you go out of your way to fall off a donkey in Madrid. Having home insurance doesn't make you go out of your way to burn it down. Having car insurance doesn't make you go out of your way to back into a traffic light.
.
If anything, the exact opposite to all the above is true - a lack of insurance makes people more careful because they know the shit they'll be in if something happens and they haven't got any.
.
The "Speed Awareness Course" cost you time and resources. In essence, you paid for your own lesson in obedience to the state.
.
And if some lunatic is (God forbid) driving a tonne of machinery towards your son at 70mph it probably won't be because of a lack of insurance. If this scenario is a genuine accident then I'd suggest that an uninsured driver is more likely to at least attempt to swerve whilst the insured driver may rely on that and not swerve quite so readily. It is possible then, however unlikely, that in certain circumstances a lack of insurance may actually save lives.
.
Altruistic behaviour is part of human nature, as an aside, it is an essential element in social species like ours. Authority discourages altruism because it wants us to rely on it for everything.

[Banners]

If we expand your position, is it fair to say that if you can't afford or don't want medical insurance you shouldn't get sick, if you can't afford or don't want holiday insurance you shouldn't go on holiday or if you can't afford or don't want home insurance you shouldn't have a home? I should guess not.

No, it's not fair because the types of insurance you refer to don't directly affect other people. If I don't have home insurance then that presents no risk to anyone else but me and my family, but if I don't have car insurance then that could detrimentally affect someone else's wellbeing.

I like the idea that no car insurance would make us safer drivers. Indeed, instead of seatbelts, airbags, crush zones and myriad other innovations, perhaps the best thing to make us all safer drivers would be to have a big spike in the middle of the steering wheel.

[The Legendary Shark]

Home insurance should cover damage to your neighbours' homes should whatever evil besets your own cause collateral damage. If, when you fall off a donkey in Madrid, you land on the donkey wrangler and break his leg, your travel insurance should cover you for that. Can't really think of one for personal health insurance, so I'll give you that one.
.
It's all just a matter of scale - falling off a donkey is generally less hazardous than crashing a car - but they're essentially the same thing; risks we take. To make one form of insurance mandatory and the other not makes a nonsense of the whole thing - as if there are levels of personal responsibility beyond which you cannot be trusted and levels of personal freedom to which you are not allowed access.
.
The iron spike on the steering wheel does have a certain appeal - especially for those teenagers with supercharged sewing machines stuffed with speakers like sideboards and dangly things in all the windows. Unfortunately, they'll just have to learn from experience like the rest of us did.

[Tiplodocus]

[ perhaps the best thing to make us all safer drivers would be to have a big spike in the middle of the steering wheel.

That used to be part of my act.  If they really wanted to make cars safer, they'd build them out of bendy foam rubber with giant flashing lights on the top and limit the speed to twenty miles an hour.

[The Legendary Shark]

"Heh. It's funny because it's true," - Homer Simpson.

[Professor Bear]

Something that always fascinated me about cars is that only a small percentage of the energy they produce is used to move the driver, something like 6-9 percent.  The environmental economics of that seems a bit shoddy when you consider how many cars there are, and how many people use them to go short distances.

[The Legendary Shark]

A prime symptom of mankind's current culture of waste and excess.

[Professor Bear]

Or proof that Transformers are real and took over our planet a long time ago.

[Jimmy Baker's Assistant]

Something that always fascinated me about cars is that only a small percentage of the energy they produce is used to move the driver, something like 6-9 percent.  The environmental economics of that seems a bit shoddy when you consider how many cars there are, and how many people use them to go short distances.

I guess you get to that number because cars are much heavier than people. It's also somewhat meaningless, the percentage of the energy produced to move bus and train drivers is much lower, and they don't even particularly want to go where they are driving to!

Cars are undoubtedly hugely wasteful, but the environmental damage is caused by the means of energy used to propel them. Electricity, produced in a sustainable manner, is the only form of vehicle fuel that has any sort of future on this planet.

[Professor Bear]

I guess you get to that number because cars are much heavier than people. It's also somewhat meaningless, the percentage of the energy produced to move bus and train drivers is much lower, and they don't even particularly want to go where they are driving to!

The same observation doesn't apply to public transport systems because the whole point of moving a bus isn't to transport a single occupant, it's to move the bus (and then people get on and off while it's going along its set route).  Thus buses/trains are far more efficient as a concept, even if they use more energy than a car does.

[Jimmy Baker's Assistant]

The same observation doesn't apply to public transport systems because the whole point of moving a bus isn't to transport a single occupant, it's to move the bus (and then people get on and off while it's going along its set route).  Thus buses/trains are far more efficient as a concept, even if they use more energy than a car does.

The observation isn't particularly meaningful in relation to cars, either, which was sort of my point.

Trains and buses are undoubtedly more energy efficient than cars, especially when horrifically overcrowded.

A public transport system that is reasonably-priced and reasonably-pleasant to utilise would be a fantastic benefit not just to the environment but to the UK in general. One of these days we should really give it a try.

[von Boom]

Apparently 90% of all transit in Hong Kong is done by public transit. Their 'octopus' cards are used for more than just transit. It can be used as currency in corner shops and restaurants.

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

A public transport system that is reasonably-priced and reasonably-pleasant to utilise would be a fantastic benefit not just to the environment but to the UK in general. One of these days we should really give it a try.

Well if we only let politicians claim against public transport for their traveling expenses, our public transport would be second to none within a month. It might even put them back in touch with the common man.

And pigs might fly..

[Professor Bear]

The observation isn't particularly meaningful in relation to cars, either, which was sort of my point.

Nonsense - now I have educated you, you know that Transformers are real.

[Tiplodocus]

Something that always fascinated me about cars is that only a small percentage of the energy they produce is used to move the driver, something like 6-9 percent.  The environmental economics of that seems a bit shoddy when you consider how many cars there are, and how many people use them to go short distances.

Similarly the amount of food that goes into producing a bit of meat. Cows are pretty inefficient food machines, they like to eat food to get energy for other things like moving about, keeping themselves warm, living in general etc.

It'd be much more sustainable to, I dunno, cut out the middle cow and grow fruit and veg for ourselves rather than for cattle. And ethical.