Cycle Registration

Jack Russell said:

Apparently loony NSW MP Pat Farmer is proposing cyclists pay
registration . I would be only too happy if that meant governments would
flood us with money as they do motorists whose rego is only a tiny
fraction of what is spent!

So was a letter in the local paper (Melb) this week. Double dipping.
I've been a licenced driver for over 25 years, and granted, my car f---s
up the environment and the roads. By comparison my bike is vastly less
destructive. I would happily pay bike registration if appropriate
facilities were then provided. Which they aren't.
And where do you draw the line? Do 7 year olds have to pay rego too?
This type of debate degenerates rapidly into farce.
Cheers,
Ray

ray said:

This type of debate degenerates rapidly into farce.

Repetitiously.

Here's linkies to todays article: SHM: Cyclists should pay, says MP
smh.com.au1202234066487.htmlOpen ↗

Poll: Should cyclists pay registration fees?
smh.com.auform.htmlOpen ↗

As suggested elsewhere - if you disagree with Pat Farmer, instead of dismissing him, step up to the discussion and engage. Draft reasons to why cyclist rego is not a suitable option to pursue. Ensure that your correspondence is friendly, polite and informative. Instead contacting the media, take a more direct tact and send it to his electorate office.

Otherwise we're taking the risk of becoming inadvertently complicit in ensuring than our elected representatives and the public remain misinformed about their fellow road users.

ray said:

Jack Russell wrote:
.. Double dipping ..
I've been a licenced driver for over 25 years,...

Registration is per vehicle, not per driver.

I don't understand Pat's logic http://tinyurl.com/2h58kn

quote:
"Mr Farmer said motorists often complained it was unfair for cyclists
to use roads without paying registration costs. A bicycle levy would
make such an argument redundant and could increase government funding
for bike lanes, he said."

So what he's saying is that if we pay money to GovCo to provide
facilities[1], our rights to be on the road will be legitemised.. of
course we won't be allowed to use the roads any more, because there'll
be 'facilities', which by law, we're supposed to use 'if practicable'.

[1] - cough, splutter. We all know that the money gathered will be
less than the cost to implement the system, anyway, so all it will do
is employ more public servants.

duncan

I can handle Pat Farmer being clueless on this, but it is harder to
handle when the CEO of Bicycle NSW is quoted in support!!!!

My letter to Alex Unwin:

Alex,

The online version of the SMH on the subject of registration for
bicycles
(http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/cyclists-should-pay-says-mp/2008/02/07/1202234066487.html)
says:

Bicycle NSW said it supported initiatives that seek to legitimise
cycling. "A form of bike registration or levy may help achieve this,"
said its chief executive, Alex Unwin.

Surely this is a misquote. It goes directly against Bicycle NSW's
purpose - More people cycling more often. I can't believe that you would
have made an off-the-cuff statement like this in direct contravention
with the wishes and aspirations of members.

So I am writing to let you know about it so that Bicycle NSW can issue a
press release and you can write to the SMH requiring a retraction.

Regards,
Patrick Keogh

On Feb 8, 9:05 am, cfsmtb <cfsmtb.34f...@no-

mx.forums.cyclingforums.com said:

As suggested elsewhere - if you disagree with Pat Farmer, instead of
dismissing him, step up to the discussion and engage.

I guess that rules out suggesting Pat Farmer registers for a brain
transplant, to enable him to understand elementary issues about
regulation? Heaven help us that such a nong has a seat in the
legislature, not to mention has been given a promoted position by a
mainstream political party ... when there are so many fine people
around.

Donga

Jack Russell said:

Apparently loony NSW MP Pat Farmer is proposing cyclists pay
registration .

No,no,no, you missed the subtlety in his PR releases. He wasn't
accutally proposing it, but suppossedly giving support to George Souris
(a NSW state MP) who has since denied that it is NSW Liberal Party policy.

Pat Farmer's current problem is that after qualifiying for his free
pension for life, he instantly deserted his electorate and is getting
quite a bit of stick over it. He desperately needs something to divert
attention from it. So what better than time honoured conservative
"divide the community" politics.

What really has me wondering is why supposedly pro-bicycle people are
actually giving publicity to this nitwit. Until it appeared in the local
paper, no knew anything about it.

And of course the idiots of BNSW have now applied the oxygen line to
give it maximum publicity.

Quoted message said:

I would be only too happy if that meant governments would
flood us with money as they do motorists whose rego is only a tiny
fraction of what is spent!

Please tell me that you are just an ignorant child who still believes in
Santa Claus, the Easter Bnny and The Tooth Fairy.

Duncan said:

I don't understand Pat's logic

No one does. Well, no one with a working brain cell does. The politiest
thing you can say about Pat Farmer is that his understanding of the
world is child-like. He record in the electorate is to "solve simple
problems" that cause adverse impact in the wider scheme.

cfsmtb said:

As suggested elsewhere - if you disagree with Pat Farmer, instead of
dismissing him, step up to the discussion and engage.

Lol, never argue with an idiot. They'll just bring you down to their
level and beat you with experience.

When ever this man is challenged over anything he says, he either backs
down, as in this case, or goes into faith rhetoric.

cfsmtb said:

Poll: Should cyclists pay registration fees?
http://www.smh.com.au/polls/national/form.html

Closed. 79% said "No, things are fine as they are"

He was using the reply that I use

"I am happy to pay registration if you spend proportionally as much on
cycle infrastructure as you do on motor vehicle infrastructure. As the
registration only contributes a minute fraction of that amount cyclists
would be streets ahead. I would also expect a refund on some part of my
car registration as I cannot be using both at once"

He also pointed out the admin costs would be horrific and the whole
thing unenforceable. At least that is what I heard on ABC 702 this morning.

Patrick Keogh said:

I can handle Pat Farmer being clueless on this, but it is harder to
handle when the CEO of Bicycle NSW is quoted in support!!!!

My letter to Alex Unwin:

Alex,

The online version of the SMH on the subject of registration for
bicycles
(http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/cyclists-should-pay-says-mp/2008/02/07/1202234066487.html)
says:

Bicycle NSW said it supported initiatives that seek to legitimise
cycling. "A form of bike registration or levy may help achieve this,"
said its chief executive, Alex Unwin.

Surely this is a misquote. It goes directly against Bicycle NSW's
purpose - More people cycling more often. I can't believe that you would
have made an off-the-cuff statement like this in direct contravention
with the wishes and aspirations of members.

So I am writing to let you know about it so that Bicycle NSW can issue a
press release and you can write to the SMH requiring a retraction.

Regards,
Patrick Keogh

--
Remove norubbish to reply

Jack Russell said:

He was using the reply that I use

Then you are both fools. Bicycle riding is already a legitimate activity
as is kite flying, taking photographs, walking in the park, going
shopping, pushing a pram, etc, or do you advocate that people should be
forced to buy a lisence to do these as well?

Quoted message said:

"I am happy to pay registration if you spend proportionally as much on
cycle infrastructure as you do on motor vehicle infrastructure. As the
registration only contributes a minute fraction of that amount cyclists
would be streets ahead. I would also expect a refund on some part of my
car registration as I cannot be using both at once"

He also pointed out the admin costs would be horrific and the whole
thing unenforceable. At least that is what I heard on ABC 702 this morning.

All Alex Unwin has done is support the opponents of riding bicycles on
roads and declare himself a fool who should not be in the job he is in.

BNSW needs someone who understands when to keep their mouth shut if they
do not understand how media works. You can not make a sound bite to
national media and then expect to moderate the damage by explaining your
statement on a local blather box radio station.

"Terryc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

cfsmtb said:

Poll: Should cyclists pay registration fees?
http://www.smh.com.au/polls/national/form.html

Closed. 79% said "No, things are fine as they are"

Gee, he looks hapy on his website!
Submitted the follwing (possible drivel alert):

"Regarding proposing that cyclists pay rego fees. I have 6 bikes. I
commute on some, race on others, and go bush bashing on some more. Do you
propose I pay rego on each of these bikes ON TOP OF the registration I pay
on my motorcar and motorcycle, as well as tax upon tax I pay for the petrol
each of these mechanical devices uses? If you advocate a user pays system,
then I would expect a rego fee based on damage to the roads, carbon
footprint of transport option and distance travelled. Would not it cost
more to admister such a bicycle rego scheme than it would create funding
(speaking of which, doesn't most road funding come from conolidated revenue
and not rego?) Given the Governement often caters for for lowest common
demoniator or small interst groups, I see why you are citing that motorists
'often complain' about cyclists so called free road use. More bikes get
sold than cars, so bikes users must have more voting power than car users.
Introducing a levy/rego fee will discourage cycling. This will increase
conjestion. Increase CO2 emissions. Increase the amount of fatties already
possessing the potential to burden the heath care system in 20-50 years.
You should be encouraging activities that are environmetally responsible and
a health benifit. I believe there is a recent study out that concludes all
this.

We do not need more bike lanes, what we need is better education for all
road users, rather than the poor excuse for a licence test and leniency on
hoons, speedsters, red light runners and various other law breakers. How
about I complain about people using the excuse "I need my car for
work/lifestyle" when the judge wants to take awy their licence.

I humbly suggest the honorable MP stick to his shado portfolio topic of
sports rather than dabbling in infrastruture and transport. He needs to be
encouraging people to take up sport!"

Paul Yates said:

Increase the amount of fatties already
possessing the potential to burden the heath care system in 20-50 years.

Apparently, thin people cost the health system more. Seems they have
more strokes, which are more costly to treat.

Terryc said:

Paul Yates said:

Increase the amount of fatties already possessing the potential to
burden the heath care system in 20-50 years.

Apparently, thin people cost the health system more. Seems they have
more strokes, which are more costly to treat.

Healthy young people also tend to live longer and spend long years
dragging extra cost out of the health system.

Unfit people are I'm told more likely to kark it quickly and
comparativly cheaply.

G-S

G-S said:

Terryc said:

Paul Yates said:

Increase the amount of fatties already possessing the potential to
burden the heath care system in 20-50 years.

Apparently, thin people cost the health system more. Seems they have
more strokes, which are more costly to treat.

Healthy young people also tend to live longer and spend long years
dragging extra cost out of the health system.

Unfit people are I'm told more likely to kark it quickly and
comparativly cheaply.

G-S

THe problem with these comparisons is that the "cost to the health
system" isn't the main consideration. Look instead at the difference
between productive capacity and cost. If I live a long and healthy life
and inject (say) $3M into the tax system and my health costs are (say)
$0.5M then that is a better result that someone who comes out of school,
works for 2 years and then gets sick and dies at a cost to the health
system of $0.1M.

On 2008-02-09, G-S (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

Terryc said:

Paul Yates said:

Increase the amount of fatties already possessing the potential to
burden the heath care system in 20-50 years.

Apparently, thin people cost the health system more. Seems they have
more strokes, which are more costly to treat.

Healthy young people also tend to live longer and spend long years
dragging extra cost out of the health system.

Unfit people are I'm told more likely to kark it quickly and
comparativly cheaply.

Yeah, and fit people should be made to work longer too, because
otherwise they get more years of retirement where they're only sucking
from society.

<gd&r from any oldies I offended>

--
TimC
My dog is worried about the economy because Alpo is up to 99 cents a can.
Thats almost $7.00 in dog money. -Joe Weinstein in ARK

Patrick Keogh said:

G-S said:

Terryc said:

Paul Yates wrote:
> Increase the amount of fatties already possessing the potential to
> burden the heath care system in 20-50 years.

Apparently, thin people cost the health system more. Seems they have
more strokes, which are more costly to treat.

Healthy young people also tend to live longer and spend long years
dragging extra cost out of the health system.

Unfit people are I'm told more likely to kark it quickly and
comparativly cheaply.

G-S

THe problem with these comparisons is that the "cost to the health
system" isn't the main consideration. Look instead at the difference
between productive capacity and cost.

True, but I was referring more to retired fit vs retired unfit people,
not people still in the workforce (although I freely admit I hadn't made
that sufficiently clear 🙂

G-S

On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 07:21:18 +1100, ray <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

And where do you draw the line? Do 7 year olds have to pay rego too?
This type of debate degenerates rapidly into farce.

How does it work if its not National? I'm in the ACT. If I cross the
border with my required ACT rego(none), am I ok in looney NSW?

"TimC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 2008-02-09, G-S (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

Terryc said:

Paul Yates wrote:
> Increase the amount of fatties already possessing the potential to
> burden the heath care system in 20-50 years.

Apparently, thin people cost the health system more. Seems they have
more strokes, which are more costly to treat.

Healthy young people also tend to live longer and spend long years
dragging extra cost out of the health system.

Unfit people are I'm told more likely to kark it quickly and
comparativly cheaply.

Yeah, and fit people should be made to work longer too, because
otherwise they get more years of retirement where they're only sucking
from society.

<gd&r from any oldies I offended>

--
TimC
My dog is worried about the economy because Alpo is up to 99 cents a can.
Thats almost $7.00 in dog money. -Joe Weinstein in ARK

Geez, You are a hard lot. Us fit people will have sufficient retirement
funds to not be a financial burden!