Re: Cars make more economic sense than transit: fact

["ant" <dont-look@evil.spam>]

Mark Gibson wrote in message ...
>Iskandar Baharuddin (brengsek@highway1.com.au) wrote:
>>Forg wrote:
>>>
>>> That makes no sense to me. If you know the person, you just pay them
>>> "money for running costs" ... that's what we used to do going to uni.
>>>
>>> If you don't know the person, what the hell is the difference between
>>> that and a private bus company running a regular route?
>>>
>>> --
>>
>>The bus company has a licence to operate. The pay-to-ride car
>>pool is illegal. That's the only difference I can think of - but
>>it is enough to stop most people from having a go.
>
>I'd prefer the unlicensed jitney/taxi service because it is likely
>to be cheaper and faster than a bus-based mass transit scam.
>Of course I don't think licensing is a good idea in the first place...
>

so if you are injured in an accident and are unable to seek compensation
because the driver was not licensed would you still oppose licensing?

if you are in a bus or taxi and it is involved in an accident causing you
personal injury or loss you are entitled to compensation, its called public
liability insurance, and insurance companies will not provide that if
certain levels of driver and vehicle safety are not assured through some
sort of certification or licensing system. the costs are there for a reason,
to protect public safety. abolish the licensing system and you will have
every bad driver and his unroadworthy car offering private taxi and
minibuses with no protection for the public.
sometimes governments or other central registrys can perform a valuable
public service.


ant