if only they / we knew

monsterman said:

http://tinyurl.com/gxj2h*

Stupid, in that most people already have the car. The marginal costs are
only about $0.15/km once you've already paid rego. Unless you can do
without the car altogether, you may as well use it. In fact, it's arguably
sensible to make the most of your fixed costs by doing as many km as
possible.

"Wider costs" are included in that "fixed", although they're really
marginal. They're way too hard to truly factor in.

--
Dave Hughes | [email hidden]
"Remember - if all you have is an axe, every problem
looks like hours of fun." -- Frossie, ASR

Random Data said:

monsterman said:

http://tinyurl.com/gxj2h*

Stupid, in that most people already have the car. The marginal costs are
only about $0.15/km once you've already paid rego. Unless you can do
without the car altogether, you may as well use it. In fact, it's arguably
sensible to make the most of your fixed costs by doing as many km as
possible.

"Wider costs" are included in that "fixed", although they're really
marginal. They're way too hard to truly factor in.

I guess that all depends on how you define marginal. The investment in
car-centric infrastructure is far from marginal. The daily road toll (46
hospitalisations a day in Victoria) is far from marginal. The emergency
services required to clean up after the carnage each day is far from
marginal. That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure there are plenty
of other fixed costs.

The truth is that these costs are not transparent to motorists because
we do not have a user pays system for the roads. Roads are funded out
of consolidated revenue as are, to some extent, the emergency services.
I'm not arguing for a user pays system, just stating that not having
one hides the true cost of a car centric culture.

Every case is different, for me if I were single I would not buy a car.
I can get to and from work perfectly well by bicycle, shopping is just
around the corner. The number of social engagements where I'd not be
able to use a bicycle are few, certainly few enough to make using a taxi
a far cheaper proposition. You're right in saying that people who
already have cars are already getting hammered for their weekly costs.
The trick is educating people that if their circumstances are right they
can have a better quality of life by ditching the car and using public
transport, walking, cycling and occasionally using hire cars.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

Euan said:

Random Data said:

monsterman said:

http://tinyurl.com/gxj2h*

Stupid, in that most people already have the car. The marginal costs are
only about $0.15/km once you've already paid rego. Unless you can do
without the car altogether, you may as well use it. In fact, it's arguably
sensible to make the most of your fixed costs by doing as many km as
possible.

"Wider costs" are included in that "fixed", although they're really
marginal. They're way too hard to truly factor in.

I guess that all depends on how you define marginal. The investment in
car-centric infrastructure is far from marginal. [snip]

Presumably he's defining "marginal" in the economic sense.

The marginal cost is how much extra it would cost the society for one
more person to drive a car.

The first car driver costs billions, as we've got to engineer and build
a car and road system for him/her. The other users or so only
contribute to wear and tear on the already existing roads plus the cost
of production of their own vehicles and petrol and of course
environmental damage and health care costs.

On average the cost per user is (total costs) / (number of drivers),
its quite a lot, but this is a much higher number than (cost of adding
one more car to the road) / 1.

Since an entirely car free society isn't really possible, its marginal
costs which are more relevant. You just can't get a load of wheat from
the farm to a flour mill using bicycle transportation alone.

Travis

Travis said:

Since an entirely car free society isn't really possible, its marginal
costs which are more relevant. You just can't get a load of wheat from
the farm to a flour mill using bicycle transportation alone.

We manage such feats for centuries before we had cars, there is no
reason that society could not go back to a car free model if the need
arose. Sure there'd be transitional pain but society's not going to die
if we lose the motor car.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

Euan said:

Travis said:

Since an entirely car free society isn't really possible, its marginal
costs which are more relevant. You just can't get a load of wheat from
the farm to a flour mill using bicycle transportation alone.

We manage such feats for centuries before we had cars, there is no
reason that society could not go back to a car free model if the need
arose. Sure there'd be transitional pain but society's not going to die
if we lose the motor car.

Society somehow survived the French Revolution, the Bolsheviks, the
Cultural Revolution, the Kmer Rouge etc too, but lots of ordinary
people didn't....

Ever read about the life of the pioneers, back when getting sick
outside of horse riding distance from a doctor meant death and going
anywhere was a long and dangerous journey, when explorers tended to die
in the middle of deserts and people went into the Blue Mountains, never
to come out?

Not for me, thanks.

What we really need right now is a nuclear fusion reactor, to produce
virtually unlimited cheap energy with negligible pollution and low
risk, to provide the power necessary for charging up whatever energy
storage devices we'll be running our electric cars off (batteries,
hydrogen fuel cells, suped up capacitors etc).

But until we get that, a sensible compromise solution which maximises
efficient use of the available technology today is the way to go.
Policies to encourage mass transit and human powered transport where
possible are of course worthwhile and politicians should be made aware
that these are issues that we consider to be important.

Travis

quote='Travis'Euan said:

Travis wrote:

We manage such feats for centuries before we had cars, there is no
reason that society could not go back to a car free model if the need
arose. Sure there'd be transitional pain but society's not going to die
if we lose the motor car.

Society somehow survived the French Revolution, the Bolsheviks, the
Cultural Revolution, the Kmer Rouge etc too, but lots of ordinary
people didn't....
Travis[/QUOTE]

what would all the bogons do ?? with drag competitions and being able to drive around cruising ?? They could well armed militia and start inciting civil anarchy !

just imagine Chapel Street, everybody cruising by on bikes with stereos attached to the back.

MikeyOz said:

just imagine Chapel Street, everybody cruising by on bikes with stereos attached to the back.

bit like Sydney Rd will be today! 😄

cyclovia.orgcyclovia.orgOpen ↗

Travis said:

Euan said:

Travis said:

Since an entirely car free society isn't really possible, its marginal
costs which are more relevant. You just can't get a load of wheat from
the farm to a flour mill using bicycle transportation alone.

We manage such feats for centuries before we had cars, there is no
reason that society could not go back to a car free model if the need
arose. Sure there'd be transitional pain but society's not going to die
if we lose the motor car.

Society somehow survived the French Revolution, the Bolsheviks, the
Cultural Revolution, the Kmer Rouge etc too, but lots of ordinary
people didn't....

Which is why I said `society' and not `people'. Oh look, I even said
there's `be transitional pain.'

Quoted message said:

Ever read about the life of the pioneers, back when getting sick
outside of horse riding distance from a doctor meant death and going
anywhere was a long and dangerous journey, when explorers tended to die
in the middle of deserts and people went into the Blue Mountains, never
to come out?

Your point? Explorers still die today precisely because they are
exploring. Explorers try to set out equipped for the challenge but do
occaisionlly fail. Nothing's changed there.

Quoted message said:

What we really need right now is a nuclear fusion reactor, to produce
virtually unlimited cheap energy with negligible pollution and low
risk, to provide the power necessary for charging up whatever energy
storage devices we'll be running our electric cars off (batteries,
hydrogen fuel cells, suped up capacitors etc).

I'd prefer to concentrate on solutions using existing technology. If
someone invents a technology that allows us to continue our currently
unsustainable way of life then fine. I'd rather not gamble the future
on what might happen.

Quoted message said:

But until we get that, a sensible compromise solution which maximises
efficient use of the available technology today is the way to go.
Policies to encourage mass transit and human powered transport where
possible are of course worthwhile and politicians should be made aware
that these are issues that we consider to be important.

Agreed.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

In aus.bicycle on Sat, 27 May 2006 23:42:58 GMT

Euan said:

Travis said:

Ever read about the life of the pioneers, back when getting sick
outside of horse riding distance from a doctor meant death and going
anywhere was a long and dangerous journey, when explorers tended to die
in the middle of deserts and people went into the Blue Mountains, never
to come out?

Your point? Explorers still die today precisely because they are
exploring. Explorers try to set out equipped for the challenge but do
occaisionlly fail. Nothing's changed there.

You noted the explorers, but missed the doctor....

If there's very little motor transport, there's very little motor
transport suitable road.

How quickly do you want an ambulance, and what do you want it equipped
with?

Zebee

Zebee Johnstone said:

In aus.bicycle on Sat, 27 May 2006 23:42:58 GMT

Euan said:

Travis said:

Ever read about the life of the pioneers, back when getting sick
outside of horse riding distance from a doctor meant death and going
anywhere was a long and dangerous journey, when explorers tended to die
in the middle of deserts and people went into the Blue Mountains, never
to come out?

Your point? Explorers still die today precisely because they are
exploring. Explorers try to set out equipped for the challenge but do
occaisionlly fail. Nothing's changed there.

You noted the explorers, but missed the doctor....

So today we have ready access to doctors, ambulances etc.. It wasn't
always so and may not always be. Society will survive or mutate in to
another society, the human race will adapt as it has before.

Quoted message said:

If there's very little motor transport, there's very little motor
transport suitable road.

And not much suitable for road bikes either in all liilihood.

Quoted message said:

How quickly do you want an ambulance, and what do you want it equipped
with?

As quick as current technology allows obviously. We don't always get
what we want though, do we?
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

Travis said:

What we really need right now is a nuclear fusion reactor

Or even better, cheaper solar energy conversion, since that would be less
likely to increase global temperatures. Being a bit parochial, I also like
the idea that Australia could become a significant solar energy exporter.

Of course there could be social issues related to cycling even if our energy
sources and vehicles were so efficient that we did not have to worry about
petrol costs or pollution.

People travelling everywhere in tiny, super=efficient cars (plastic bugs?)
could still have accidents so the road toll probably won't vanish. Lack of
exercise could still be a problem. And those who exercise by cycling will
run the risk of being sideswiped by a plastic bug driver.

Cheers,

Vince

Zebee Johnstone said:

You noted the explorers, but missed the doctor....

If there's very little motor transport, there's very little motor
transport suitable road.

Roads may not have tar surfaces, but bicycle travel will be able to continue
on more basic roads and tracks. Remember Australia's rural bicycle boom in
the 1890s predated good rural roads by at least two decades. Arthur
Richardson first rode across the Nullarbor in 1896. There was no road link.

Quoted message said:

How quickly do you want an ambulance, and what do you want it equipped
with?

Maybe we'll focus on using our highly developed medical skills to provide
more local, 'grass-roots' health care. Like getting people to lead a more
active lifestyle, ensuring most people can practise first aid. Accidents
will always happen, but with less cars on the roads and more compact towns
the distance/time to get medical assistance need not be worse. One would
hope we will conserve our scarce energy resources for essential services,
like providing for medical care, fire fighting, police etc

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

MikeyOz said:

what would all the bogons do ?? with drag competitions and being able to drive around cruising ?? They could well armed militia and start inciting civil anarchy !

just imagine Chapel Street, everybody cruising by on bikes with stereos attached to the back.

Lowrider culture would go viral?!?

BTW - have a giggle at this:

Let's all buy a bicycle and break our leg
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/5/26/231530/721

{mild sarcasm}Don Young's got it all wrong, it's collarbone + ribs. {/mild sarcasm}

Euan said:

I guess that all depends on how you define marginal.

I'm using marginal in the sense I used it in the first paragraph, which is
to say "something affected by a change in what I can vary". While I'm
bundling the cost of accidents, etc. in as a fixed cost, it does depend to
an extent on the number of km travelled. However, it's not necessarily
directly proportional, unlike fuel.

I'd also suggest you're in a relative minority in your ability to not have
a car. For a lot of people in the 'burbs their lifestyle is built so much
around having a car that ditching one is hard - you're too far from
shops/work a lot of the time. It'd be manageable, but it's a lot easier in
the inner suburbs where walking is a possibility.

--
Dave Hughes | [email hidden]
"...and Trogdor smote the kerrek. And all was laid to burnination."
- Strongbad

On 2006-05-28, Random Data (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

I'd also suggest you're in a relative minority in your ability to not have
a car. For a lot of people in the 'burbs their lifestyle is built so much
around having a car that ditching one is hard - you're too far from
shops/work a lot of the time. It'd be manageable, but it's a lot easier in
the inner suburbs where walking is a possibility.

Bellushi. I'm too far from anything interesting, and hence don't walk
anywhere; I use the bike for everything. Hence, my walking muscles
atrophied 4 years ago.

So much pain every few years when I find myself at a two week long
conference.

--
TimC
There's only one way to better your memory. Everytime you forget
something, poke your brain with a stick. That'll teach it. -- Ash

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

Quoted message said:

Euan said:

I guess that all depends on how you define marginal.

I'm using marginal in the sense I used it in the first paragraph, which is
to say "something affected by a change in what I can vary". While I'm
bundling the cost of accidents, etc. in as a fixed cost, it does depend to
an extent on the number of km travelled. However, it's not necessarily
directly proportional, unlike fuel.

I'd also suggest you're in a relative minority in your ability to not have
a car. For a lot of people in the 'burbs their lifestyle is built so much
around having a car that ditching one is hard - you're too far from
shops/work a lot of the time. It'd be manageable, but it's a lot easier in
the inner suburbs where walking is a possibility.

--

It doesn't have to be an all or nothng exercise. (I keep finding myself
using that sentence) My girlfriend owns a car. So we are a household with
two adults and one car which remains in the driveway most days. Now granted
we're not way out in the burbs (West Footscray) but our distance from the
city doesn't dictate how we do or do not use the car. She works in Prahran
and I work in East Kew so our commutes are notably further than the distance
we live from the city. Neither of us drive to work. When I was living in the
outer eastern suburbs (Ferntree Gully, Croydon) it would not have been any
more difficult to live without a car than it would be for me now. We use a
car, but only when we need it and that's fairly seldom. Generally it comes
down to a need to cart stuff. We're neither of us particularly fit.
(although it would seem that we're better than most) So I'd be prepared to
suggest that ditching one of two cars in the two car family and replacing
the other car with something less landbargish would be perfectly feasible.
Oh, and for those of you who were suggesting that a large car is neccessary
in order to use a baby capsule, I quite easily fitted and used a current
standards compliant baby capsule in a '98 3 door Hyundai Excel hatch the
other day. So when my girlfriend and I have a child we're not going to need
to change that car.

Random Data said:

I'd also suggest you're in a relative minority in your ability to not have
a car. For a lot of people in the 'burbs their lifestyle is built so much
around having a car that ditching one is hard - you're too far from
shops/work a lot of the time. It'd be manageable, but it's a lot easier in
the inner suburbs where walking is a possibility.

Dingley Village is classified as the inner burbs? I work in the CBD,
it's 30kms each way. In peak hour the time taken to ride can be quicker
than the time taken to drive.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

TimC said:

Bellushi. I'm too far from anything interesting, and hence don't walk
anywhere; I use the bike for everything. Hence, my walking muscles
atrophied 4 years ago.

OK, I'll withdraw the distance comment *in part*. We're about 25km from
the CBD, with one car and two small kids, and get weird looks from
neighbours and coworkers. Resound probably expressed it best as coming
down to needing to cart stuff. We'd have to do a lot more shopping trips,
since stocking up once or twice a week becomes too hard. We've got a bike
trailer, but even the local shops is a killer uphill, and we're
approaching the weight limit of the trailer with just kids. I doubt my
wife could tow the trailer with both kids up the hill.

The convenience of being able to jump in the car and easily transport two
kids + shopping and assorted [censored] means we're not going to do without any
time soon. In the inner city we'd be able to walk and use a pram/backpack
without too much trouble. And we're probably better off public transport
wise than a huge number of Sydney siders.

--
Dave Hughes | [email hidden]
"It's 106 miles to Chicago, we've got a full tank of gas, half a pack
of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses" - Elwood Blues

On 2006-05-28, Euan (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

Random Data said:

I'd also suggest you're in a relative minority in your ability to not have
a car. For a lot of people in the 'burbs their lifestyle is built so much
around having a car that ditching one is hard - you're too far from
shops/work a lot of the time. It'd be manageable, but it's a lot easier in
the inner suburbs where walking is a possibility.

Dingley Village is classified as the inner burbs? I work in the CBD,
it's 30kms each way. In peak hour the time taken to ride can be quicker
than the time taken to drive.

Yeah, but you have a car in the family. So presumably, you do less
shopping on the bike than you otherwise would have to if you had to go
shopping for you and SusieB on the bike.

I forgot that my own shopping does require a bit of juggling if I want
to get it on the way home instead of climbing back up that hill
unnecessarily (to those who say I should look forward to getting on
the bike more, I say bah -- give me more hours in the day dammit). I
have to plan ahead if I want to get both icecream and a lettuce (the
icecream always wins). And I have to go shopping every second day,
most of the time. And that's just for me and the little furry buggers
(the icecream also wins out of the furry bugger food and litter).

--
TimC
hey Beavis, we're segfaulting, heh heh heh, I know, Butthead, so let's
SIGBUS from inside the handler, heh heh heh --Stephen J. Turnbull