In message , at
09:45:02 on Wed, 16 Feb 2005, Dan Gravell
remarked:

The PM is hardly representative or comparable to "business men". I
don't know what you mean by "business man" but I'm guessing there's
too many of them to cater for aI'm afraid, and frankly they're not
important enough to concede to (unlike the PM).
So where do you draw the line?
At people with "Minister" in their job title.
"Junior Minister"
Managing Director of a PLC
Director of any registered Company
People called "Sales Manager" of a company with more than 1000 employees

Ultimately Roland, while we are constrained by natural language in
discussing this point one can always take the discussion down the road
of semantics and ambiguity into a dead end. Let's not do that 'eh?

My choice would be "anyone whose employer considers them important
enough to issue them with a company car or chauffeur" - but I'm sure
others won't agree.

Picking up on the original point, my position is that the car is still
overused given PT provision in London. I consider that in many cases
people are too lazy, or simply do not make a conscious decision to use
PT, as if they have some kind of logical reasoning limit.

I think most of the people in the central area have made a very
conscious decision to use a car. You don't spend 30 grand on a merc, on
a whim!

I come to this conclusion witnessing the chronic congestion caused
almost entirely by private motor vehicle users in South London.

My point is that PT is inherently more scalable, and so would be better
fit to support the people wishing to be transported, regardless of
their bourgeois preferences.

There's precious little PT outside the M25, which is where a lot of the
people we were discussing originate their journeys from. As for local
journeys, I'm sure few would exchange their car for a bus when visiting
the supermarket for their weekly shop - or indeed when popping up to the
High St to pickup their takeaway. People *do* have reasons to use a car.
--
Roland Perry