Re: Cars make more economic sense than transit: fact

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

Mike Dahmus wrote in message <37a8eee9.2411140@news.io.com>...
>On 30 Jul 1999 14:02:45 GMT, arenn@urbanophile.com (Aaron M. Renn) hired an
>infinite number of monkeys to write:
>
>>On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 13:26:23 +1000, ant <dont-look@evil.spam> wrote:
>>>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?
>>
>>Why would this preclude you from suing for damages?
>
>How on earth are you going to find the guy?
>
and basically because the driver was operating outside the law, and if
he/she had little or no assets you would have nothing even if it was a clear
case of driver negligence. insurance companies wont pay out on claims if the
insured driver is not licensed. they wont even think of providing public
conveyance insurance without proper licensing, registration and safety
checks on the vehicle and driver.
once you factor in those costs and the cost of running the car and providing
the driver with enough to live on taxis start looking fairly economical, and
government subsidized public transport even more so.


ant