malcolmw wrote:
Perhaps my "emergency" case above was overstated as my experience has been worse than most due to personal circumstances. However, mothers with young children might see it similarly.
My emergency case was also quite severe, but I can't see why it is a reason to not try to reduce number of journeys travelled?
Following your logic, I should never be away from my local office in case of an emergency.
So lets take the scenario of life threatening accident to one of my children. If I am 200 miles away in Woking, I will want to get home as quickly as possible. I am car sharing with a colleague who lives 7 miles from my home.
Scenario A - we are car sharing in my car, I contact my colleague (who may be in another meeting) and tell him that I am leaving now, either he comes with me or gets the train later.
Scenario B - we are car sharing in colleagues car. I contact my colleague, explain the situation. Either he can leave now, or he can't. If he can't, I can get a train.
(Note: the train is faster than driving, last night 3.5 hours door to door compared to an average 4.5 hours driving, this includes transfer across London in rush hour and waiting for a local train from Waterloo).
OK, so by getting the train I am incurring a cost, but this is an emergency, right. Even if I do incur a high cost, I can probably claim most of it back from my company on expenses.
So perhaps there is no train station nearby. So I get a taxi to the nearest train station, or even get a taxi directly home. See note above about cost, most taxi firms will offer pre-arranged cost for long journeys rather than being 'on the meter'.
So there are options. How often do these emergencies occur?
_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.
A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.