1) Claiming that because you drive you have no right to argue for public
transport

If you drive, you have no right to argue that people shouldn't drive.
It's that simple. You also have no right to abuse the majority of car
drivers on the implicit claim that you're better.

There is a more subtle element that you would be able to see if you stopped
trying to align everyone else's arguments into your own categories of
pro-car/anti-car.

My own situation is that for my jobs and studies I have had to travel across
the country (very extensively and frequently).

Where possible I travel by public transport, for the reasons identified.

Due to the current state of public transport there are some journeys I have
to make by car. This does not stop me arguing for an *increase* in the
provision of public transport and a *decrease* in the use of cars.

If I had ever claimed that all other people shouldn't drive at all, you
might have a valid argument based on inconsistency of approach.

Neither does this stop me from arguing that the current road laws should be
enforced.

I'm sorry if this doesn't fit into your black and white "public transport &
zero cars"/"cars & no public transport" constructs.

2) Claiming that because you don't drive you are too naive and stupid to
argue for public transport

I don't think I've ever levelled that at David or Charlie. I guess I
might have levelled it against (shudder) Duhg, but that doesn't count.

You've used this argument against me several times to conclude points of
argument.