-
Perhaps in that circumstance the vehicle is not a privately owned machine but a work tool for the social worker for such things.
Morality is subjective so its really just my opinion (as it is that morality is subjective).
The reason I hold this view is because of the harm drivers cause to other people from their filthy habit. Not just the damage they cause to people and property when they get it wrong but the severe harm to the air, the environment to everyones health including theirs and their passengers .
I understand that few drivers intentionally mean any harm. It more a cultural tolerance, a mass brainwashing where such views as mine are considered bonkers while driving is just what people need to do
skydancer-
Outside of London the infrastructure that was public transport can be near non-existent. Without a car my dear old mum would be pretty much house bound, no way can she ride a bike but she would fall far short of having an assessed mobility need. Her best friend, who is reliant on my mum to get about is a blue badge holder but cannot drive herself. It's not a right for her own a car nor is it a privilege, she could use mini cabs and trains so it's not even a necessity, she chooses to have one though because it provides her with a sense of independence to go where she likes when she likes.
Ramsaye
Depends on how you define necessary.
Perhaps if we work through an example that might be useful. My colleague is a duty social worker and number of times throughout the year will be called out during the night to attend a domestic situation where there is concern for the safety of a child. Even if the location of the call out were on a public transport route, at the time of night, the services simply aren't running. Due to the sensitive nature of the work, use of a taxi service isn't appropriate and given that there may be a need to transport vulnerable children neither is a bicycle.
What do you feel makes the ownership of a private vehicle and use in these circumstances immoral?