There ought to be priority lanes on roads dedicated to important business people
Debate Rounds (2)
Not so in Moscow during the Soviet era, though, where some comrades were more equal than others. Until the fall of Communism, Politburo members, senior officials and foreign dignitaries were entitled to use dedicated Zil lanes - Zil being the make of limousine favoured by the Russian elite - which allowed them sweep imperiously by stationary or slow-moving traffic and which gave them priority at junctions. [1,2]
Communism has gone now and today Moscow's former Zil lanes are open to Russian oligarchs and the proletariat alike.
Nevertheless, individuals are still segregated according to importance at airports around the world where business, first class and private aviation passengers have their own dedicated check-in desks, security lanes and lounges - at no point are premium passengers expected to mingle with the common herd.
However, it's often a different story to and from the airport, on congested motorways and around town where banking executives, property magnates, leading industrialists, successful tech entrepreneurs, business tycoons, media moguls, distinguished visitors from abroad and other wealth creators are obliged to squander their precious time sitting in traffics jams.
Traffic congestion costs Britain GBP4.3bn a year but this expense could be mitigated with the introduction of priority lanes on certain congested roads and motorways, with lane passes issued to qualifying individuals.
In order to avoid the scheme being labeled as "roads for the richest", passes would be granted to those with the greatest need rather than those with the highest net worth, and would be issued on a case-by-case basis, similar to the way that second passports are currently issued.
Under this system those ineligible for the pass would span all socio-economic classes from an unemployed person on his way to sign on or meet his friends in the pub; a middle-class mum on the school run, on her way to the shops or the gym; a couple of pensioners on their way to the post office, a jumble sale or tea dance through to a pampered socialite on her way to a spa, upmarket hair salon or Michelin-starred restaurant or an aristocratic playboy on his way to a shooting party, a polo match or dinner at his club.
This scheme would not only make key corporate personnel more efficient but would also send reinforce our message to the world that Britain is a business-friendly country.
That German saying is lovely, I hope you realise which side it supports.
I shall now lay out your arguments bare to show you just how flawed they truly are. Then I shall demolish them beyond repair and smile as I watch your entire ego crumble beneath my brilliance.
If I lose a conduct mark for this then so be it. It's totally worth the one point.
Now, onto the nitty gritty:
Pro's first assertion: People of higher incomes being entitled to better planes, or seat within planes, than those of lower incomes is analogous to the proposed policy.
Con's first rebuttal: The planes are analogous to the quality of the car, they are entirely dissimilar to the lane that the car is permitted to use.
Pro's second assertion: The traffic congestion costs would be reduced by turning one land on an already-built road into a lane only allowed to be used for qualifying individuals.
Con's second rebuttal: This will end up costing more because the traffic within the roads, that have one lane less than they used to, will have less space in which to overtake and move along. It is a law of physics that the resistance (equivalent to the intensity a of traffic jam) is inversely proportional to the surface area in which the particles can move. The thinner the space for them to move, the higher the resistance.
Pro's third assertion: It avoids prejudice to the poor by analysing those who need it most.
Con's third rebuttal: This is unfeasible, thus impossible to enforce.
9lsyh2rDaeXXYpeGCOlb forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Dennybug 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Only conduct will be given to Pro, due to Con's remarks which had nothing to do with the topic at hand and where simply said in spite. interesting debate shame that con FF
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.