crankbusters™ – MarkI

flyingdutch said:

http://www.boroondarabug.org/pages/crankbusters.htm

Feedback, suggestions

Is this a collation of the BV "coffee table talk" questions? 🙂

flyingdutch said:

http://www.boroondarabug.org/pages/crankbusters.htm

Feedback, suggestions

cheers

FD

Looks good Dutch. I'm thinking of printing the url and carrying some
around on my commute ready to stick under a windscreen wiper when needed.

One thing that might be worth mentioning is the "with all these bike
trails off the road why are you on the road". I was thinking about this
one the other day. You've probably got the stats on the percentage of
the road network dedicated bike trails make up, but I was thinking the
best response is along the lines of:
- this percentage of Melbourne transport is dedicated bike trails
- this precentage is freeways
- saying cyclists should only use bike trails is like saying motorists
should only use freeways, it makes sense to use them when they follow
the route you want, but there are plenty of occasions when they don't,
and even if they do, you still need to travel through suburban streets
to get to them.

DaveB

DaveB said:

Looks good Dutch. I'm thinking of printing the url and carrying some
around on my commute ready to stick under a windscreen wiper when needed.

One thing that might be worth mentioning is the "with all these bike
trails off the road why are you on the road". I was thinking about this
one the other day. You've probably got the stats on the percentage of
the road network dedicated bike trails make up, but I was thinking the
best response is along the lines of:
- this percentage of Melbourne transport is dedicated bike trails
- this precentage is freeways
- saying cyclists should only use bike trails is like saying motorists
should only use freeways, it makes sense to use them when they follow
the route you want, but there are plenty of occasions when they don't,
and even if they do, you still need to travel through suburban streets
to get to them.

DaveB

ah, yes. knew i'd forget something 🙄

Something like...

"Why dont bikes get onto all those bikepaths?

Victoria’s road network covers about 196000 kms
Currently 77km offroad bicycle paths exist in Melbourne,
with 317km offroad paths in regional Victoria.
Getting from A-to-B on this paltry offering is challenging to say the least.
Vehicles have little problem getting from A-to-B on an extensive network.
Imagine the uproar if that network was reduced to 0.2% of its current span, with few intersections, often poor signage and commonly poor conditions."

flyingdutch said:

http://www.boroondarabug.org/pages/crankbusters.htm

Feedback, suggestions

cheers

FD

FD Just a small pedantic point.

The end line of the quote
"... he greatest element (over 80%) is a TAC
insurance premium. This goes toward paying
for the carnage (notice it's not called bikenage!)
that vehicles cause on a daily basis where
thousands get killed annually."

Would probably read better as
"...where thousands are maimed annually."

Only a bit over 7% of what the TAC pays out is for Death benifits.
Over one third of payments is for common law claims, another
quarter is medical treatments. the rest is log term care and the like.

flyingdutch said:

http://www.boroondarabug.org/pages/crankbusters.htm

Feedback, suggestions

If you're interested in busted cranks, possibly also check out
http://pardo.net/pardo/bike/pic/fail/FAIL-001.html

Cheers
David M

flyingdutch said:

http://www.boroondarabug.org/pages/crankbusters.htm

Feedback, suggestions

# If cyclists want to use the road, why dont they pay rego like us?

I'd drop point two as I consider it to be irrelevant. Stipulating that
most cyclists pay rego on a car panders to the belief that the roads is
a user pays system. Better to annihilate that argument than fight on
their ground.

Is it really thousands that get killed on the roads by cars? I thought
it was hundreds and thousands were maimed with hundreds of thousands
being injured. I'll check that an follow up.

# But riding on the road is so dangerous!

Do you have a cite which backs up the statement that per km cycling on
roads is as safe as driving? I thought it was slightly riskier per km,
however per hour of travel cycling is safer (this is due to the
disparate distances that can be racked up in an hour in each mode of
transport).

# But i cant afford to ride a bike

*cough* ``may only spend 100-500 a year?''!!!!whatthefsck?!? I'm glad
when the annual bill comes to under 2K and I don't even race! ;-)

# All Cyclists run red lights!!!

May be worthwhile pointing out that motorists are no angels in this
regard either. Refer
http://www.nrma.com.au/pub/nrma/about_us/media_releases/20050816a.shtml

Good stuff FD :-)
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

Euan said:

# If cyclists want to use the road, why dont they pay rego like us?

I'd drop point two as I consider it to be irrelevant. Stipulating that
most cyclists pay rego on a car panders to the belief that the roads is
a user pays system. Better to annihilate that argument than fight on
their ground.

its not about what we consider, its to point out what drivers assume. Its also the most (or close to) common blurb spouted by drivers...

flyingdutch said:

Euan said:

# If cyclists want to use the road, why dont they pay rego like us?

I'd drop point two as I consider it to be irrelevant. Stipulating
that
most cyclists pay rego on a car panders to the belief that the roads
is
a user pays system. Better to annihilate that argument than fight on
their ground.

its not about what we consider, its to point out what drivers assume.
Its also the most (or close to) common blurb spouted by drivers...

No argument there, I just don't think that saying most cyclists pay rego
is the correct way to counter that argument as it panders to the users
pay view of the world. My response to such statements:

``The reason that cars are registered to their owners is for the same
reason that firearms are registered to their owners: both are capable of
inflicting death and serious injury to others. Sadly this happens with
such depressing regularity that it has become necessary to instigate
compulsory third party insurance in the form a TAC payment,
approximately 80% of the registration fee. The rest of the fee is
swallowed up in administration costs.

Cyclists do not habitually kill or seriously injure others, therefore
there is no need to implement compulsory third part insurance as that
would discourage cycling and result in even more deaths on the roads due
to more people using cars.''

In conversation it's not quite as pompous as that, I've yet to have
anyone have anything to say in defence of that statement.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

In article <[email hidden]>, Euan <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Feedback, suggestions

Small nit: Down Here we do maths, not math...

--
Shane Stanley

Euan said:

No argument there, I just don't think that saying most cyclists pay rego
is the correct way to counter that argument as it panders to the users
pay view of the world. My response to such statements:

``The reason that cars are registered to their owners is for the same
reason that firearms are registered to their owners: both are capable of
inflicting death and serious injury to others. Sadly this happens with
such depressing regularity that it has become necessary to instigate
compulsory third party insurance in the form a TAC payment,
approximately 80% of the registration fee. The rest of the fee is
swallowed up in administration costs.

Cyclists do not habitually kill or seriously injure others, therefore
there is no need to implement compulsory third part insurance as that
would discourage cycling and result in even more deaths on the roads due
to more people using cars.''

In conversation it's not quite as pompous as that, I've yet to have
anyone have anything to say in defence of that statement.

I'd agree with the "cyclists pay rego" as a way of reducing the us vs
them attitiude. Cyclists aren't a bunch of rabid car hating do gooders
(well not all of them anyway). Most also drive a car.

DaveB

Euan said:

No argument there, I just don't think that saying most cyclists pay rego
is the correct way to counter that argument as it panders to the users
pay view of the world. My response to such statements:

``The reason that cars are registered to their owners is for the same
reason that firearms are registered to their owners: both are capable of
inflicting death and serious injury to others. Sadly this happens with
such depressing regularity that it has become necessary to instigate
compulsory third party insurance in the form a TAC payment,
approximately 80% of the registration fee. The rest of the fee is
swallowed up in administration costs.

Cyclists do not habitually kill or seriously injure others, therefore
there is no need to implement compulsory third part insurance as that
would discourage cycling and result in even more deaths on the roads due
to more people using cars.''

In conversation it's not quite as pompous as that, I've yet to have
anyone have anything to say in defence of that statement.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

and you reckon bringing a firearms debate is going to make people look at this objectively???
It's a nice parallel and most likely correct, but imho it's not going to win anyone over.
My dog or cat doesnt 'inflict death and serious injury to others' (unless they are withholding the tennis ball 😄), and yet they get rego'ed.

I see your anti-user-pays angle. The specific assumption I'm killing is
"I pay rego, therefore I pay for the road with that rego".
WE all know that aint right. But most non-cyclists dont.
Besides, 'users' may not pay but 'taxpayers' do.
Perhaps I need to better articulate cyclists are taxpayers?

BUT i still do 'math' cos it's english (not yankspeak) 🙄

On 2006-01-03, DaveB (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

them attitiude. Cyclists aren't a bunch of rabid car hating do gooders

Oi! Take that back!

--
TimC
You're trying to trick me into being intelligent. It won't work.
-- David P. Murphy in ASR

flyingdutch said:

and you reckon bringing a firearms debate is going to make people look
at this objectively???

Not brining in a firearms debate, drawing a parallel but point taken.

Quoted message said:

It's a nice parallel and most likely correct, but imho it's not going
to win anyone over.
My dog or cat doesnt 'inflict death and serious injury to others'
(unless they are withholding the tennis ball 😄), and yet they get
rego'ed.

In the case of feral cats, tell that to the indigenous wildlife who have
no defense against them. Cute little kitty's a well oiled killing
machine.

Oh wait...they're not registered!
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

Euan said:

In the case of feral cats, tell that to the indigenous wildlife who have
no defense against them. Cute little kitty's a well oiled killing
machine.

We've got one here that *thinks* she's feral. Cranky little calico - Great Huntress Of Moths. And assorted invertebrates.

Pissweak really. 😄

Euan said:

Cute little kitty's a well oiled killing
machine.

you oil your.....??? <deploys anti-[censored] device> that was close
</deploys anti-[censored] device>

Euan said:

flyingdutch said:

and you reckon bringing a firearms debate is going to make people look
at this objectively???

Not brining in a firearms debate, drawing a parallel but point taken.

Quoted message said:

It's a nice parallel and most likely correct, but imho it's not going
to win anyone over.
My dog or cat doesnt 'inflict death and serious injury to others'
(unless they are withholding the tennis ball 😄), and yet they get
rego'ed.

In the case of feral cats, tell that to the indigenous wildlife who have
no defense against them. Cute little kitty's a well oiled killing
machine.

Oh wait...they're not registered!

Pit bulls are a really good justification for every house having a
firearm. Yeah thats tongue in cheap but not many. Talk about your
lethal killing machine. And the owners so often have a 4wd

On 2006-01-03, dave (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

Pit bulls are a really good justification for every house having a
firearm. Yeah thats tongue in cheap but not many. Talk about your
lethal killing machine. And the owners so often have a 4wd

Apparently going to be bread out of existance in Australia, over the
next dog generation. All pitballs -- including ones that used to be
used for breeding -- must be desexed next year, I think it was.

--
TimC
"I wish there was a knob on the TV to turn up the intelligence. There's a
knob called `brightness', but it doesn't work." -- Gallagher

TimC said:

On 2006-01-03, dave (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

Pit bulls are a really good justification for every house having a
firearm. Yeah thats tongue in cheap but not many. Talk about your
lethal killing machine. And the owners so often have a 4wd

Apparently going to be bread out of existance in Australia, over the

^^^^^

Quoted message said:

next dog generation. All pitballs -- including ones that used to be
used for breeding -- must be desexed next year, I think it was.

What, is pit bull meat being used to fill *real* hot dogs now?

Couldn't resist ;-)

--
BrettS

--
Frank
[email hidden]
Drop DACKS to reply
"flyingdutch" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.boroondarabug.org/pages/crankbusters.htm

Feedback, suggestions

cheers

FD

--
flyingdutch

Generally looks good. Couple of comments:
(1) Acronyms - TAC, BUG: An expansion of these terms would be good (like you
did with EBL). There's not much that excludes people better than an
unexplained acronym.

(2) "Most cyclists DO pay rego... etc" - Don't want to enter into the
argument that cyclists also own cars and therefore pay rego. It's not the
car the cyclist owns that's being questioned; it's the bike the cyclist is
using. The response that no rego goes to roadworks is good - it undermines
the 'user pays' principle upon which the original argument is predicated.
Still, it doesn't address why cyclists shouldn't pay a nominal TAC to cover
collisions and accidents on roads, shared paths, etc.

Perhaps a simple explanation of the risk of cyclist-caused injury to others
vs the cost of administering such a nominal fee is worth including (albeit a
bit long-winded). It would show that charging cyclists TAC would cost more
than it's worth.

That'll do - I'm not caffeinated yet so the soggy grey mess in my skull
isn't working yet!

Frank