Police target South Australian cyclists
- Thread starter deejbah
- Start date
T
Theo Bekkers
Guest
DaveB wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>> TimC wrote:
>>
>>>> Watch an average busy intersection with traffic lights, as they
>>>> turn amber. Count how many cars go through the amber and red
>>>> light when it was safe for them to stop.
>>
>>> On my motorcycle commute yesterday, at 6 sets of lights, none.
>>
>> My commute includes 9 sets of lights. I haven't seen a car run a red
>> this week. Two bikes. As a percentage that's pretty bad.
> yep and based on that there is no longer any need for red light
> cameras because obviously the only red light runners are cyclists.
How did you get to there from there?
Theo
> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>> TimC wrote:
>>
>>>> Watch an average busy intersection with traffic lights, as they
>>>> turn amber. Count how many cars go through the amber and red
>>>> light when it was safe for them to stop.
>>
>>> On my motorcycle commute yesterday, at 6 sets of lights, none.
>>
>> My commute includes 9 sets of lights. I haven't seen a car run a red
>> this week. Two bikes. As a percentage that's pretty bad.
> yep and based on that there is no longer any need for red light
> cameras because obviously the only red light runners are cyclists.
How did you get to there from there?
Theo
T
Theo Bekkers
Guest
TimC wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone wrote
>> TimC wrote:
>>> Zebee Johnstone wrote
:
>>>> What else you can do isn't the point, can you do this? And why
>>>> not? Why is it overkill? If the technology to register bicycles
>>>> was available at a price that could be covered by say $200/yr per
>>>> cyclist what are the reasons not to do it?
>>>
>>> About $190 of that would be a good reason not to do it.
>>
>> Bicycles are only worth riding if it's free or close too?
>
> The majority of people riding because it's cheap to go a short
> distance, and can fit in the gap between after dinner and sunset - no.
> I can't say it would be to them.+
So tell me Tim. If bike registration was free but compulsory, would you then
be in favour of it? This would negate the arguments of those that say
bicyclists get away with murder because they can't be identified, and
shouldn't worry those cyclists that are happy to obey the laws or, at least,
play on the same field as other road-using citizens.
Theo
Working on the basis that I think free rego would probably be cheaper to
administer than $10 rego.
> Zebee Johnstone wrote
>> TimC wrote:
>>> Zebee Johnstone wrote
:
>>>> What else you can do isn't the point, can you do this? And why
>>>> not? Why is it overkill? If the technology to register bicycles
>>>> was available at a price that could be covered by say $200/yr per
>>>> cyclist what are the reasons not to do it?
>>>
>>> About $190 of that would be a good reason not to do it.
>>
>> Bicycles are only worth riding if it's free or close too?
>
> The majority of people riding because it's cheap to go a short
> distance, and can fit in the gap between after dinner and sunset - no.
> I can't say it would be to them.+
So tell me Tim. If bike registration was free but compulsory, would you then
be in favour of it? This would negate the arguments of those that say
bicyclists get away with murder because they can't be identified, and
shouldn't worry those cyclists that are happy to obey the laws or, at least,
play on the same field as other road-using citizens.
Theo
Working on the basis that I think free rego would probably be cheaper to
administer than $10 rego.
B
Brendo
Guest
On Jan 12, 9:03 am, scotty72 <scotty72.331...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
>
> > What else you can do isn't the point, can you do this? And why not?
> > Why is it overkill? If the technology to register bicycles was
> > available at a price that could be covered by say $200/yr per cyclist
> > what are the reasons not to do it?
>
> > ZebeeBecause I can't see why lazy motorists who are simply cranky that others
>
> have found a better way want to destroy that better way for everyone
> else. Simple envy - and crankiness.
I don't think that motorists who are knobs are that way out of
jealousy, or envy. I just think they're knobs. The fact that you're on
a bike means 1) you're an easy target, and 2) you and them often meet.
Would they be tools if they were walking and you were running? Yes,
Would they be tools if they were in a HSV Commodore and you were
driving the new matchbox car by TATA? Yes. By shouting something anti
bike-ish it makes it a little more legitimate than just being a
******.
Brendo
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
>
> > What else you can do isn't the point, can you do this? And why not?
> > Why is it overkill? If the technology to register bicycles was
> > available at a price that could be covered by say $200/yr per cyclist
> > what are the reasons not to do it?
>
> > ZebeeBecause I can't see why lazy motorists who are simply cranky that others
>
> have found a better way want to destroy that better way for everyone
> else. Simple envy - and crankiness.
I don't think that motorists who are knobs are that way out of
jealousy, or envy. I just think they're knobs. The fact that you're on
a bike means 1) you're an easy target, and 2) you and them often meet.
Would they be tools if they were walking and you were running? Yes,
Would they be tools if they were in a HSV Commodore and you were
driving the new matchbox car by TATA? Yes. By shouting something anti
bike-ish it makes it a little more legitimate than just being a
******.
Brendo
T
Theo Bekkers
Guest
scotty72 wrote:
> fit all motor cars and motor bikes with GPS technology that
> immediately informs the authorities the very second that vehicle
> breaks (by as much as 1 km/h) any speed limit (these can be
> programmed in) or parks in any unauthorised area. Computers could be
> used to detect whenever our mono-popping freaks raise their front
> wheel from the ground.
>
> The GPS could immediately immobilise the engine until the cops come to
> impound it.
>
> I like this, it would get 99% of motorbikes off the road (and 75% of
> cars).
Jawohl!
Theo
> fit all motor cars and motor bikes with GPS technology that
> immediately informs the authorities the very second that vehicle
> breaks (by as much as 1 km/h) any speed limit (these can be
> programmed in) or parks in any unauthorised area. Computers could be
> used to detect whenever our mono-popping freaks raise their front
> wheel from the ground.
>
> The GPS could immediately immobilise the engine until the cops come to
> impound it.
>
> I like this, it would get 99% of motorbikes off the road (and 75% of
> cars).
Jawohl!
Theo
T
Theo Bekkers
Guest
scotty72 wrote:
> PeteSig Wrote:
>>
>>
>> Because we would see a drop in cycling by.. ooh.. say 50-70% at that
>> 'road
>> safety fee'. And an overall reduction in road safety with more cars
>> on the
>> roads and fewer cyclists about (oops, sorry people on bikes)
> I'm sure you're aware that that is the aim of the motor freaks. They
> see us on a happy, clean, free form of transport and they sit
> frustrated in their lonely, costly, smelly cages and can't stand it.
Sorry Scotty, but (when I'm being a motorist) cyclists don't bother me at
all.
Theo
Snotty people stick their noses in the air, cyclists their arses.
> PeteSig Wrote:
>>
>>
>> Because we would see a drop in cycling by.. ooh.. say 50-70% at that
>> 'road
>> safety fee'. And an overall reduction in road safety with more cars
>> on the
>> roads and fewer cyclists about (oops, sorry people on bikes)
> I'm sure you're aware that that is the aim of the motor freaks. They
> see us on a happy, clean, free form of transport and they sit
> frustrated in their lonely, costly, smelly cages and can't stand it.
Sorry Scotty, but (when I'm being a motorist) cyclists don't bother me at
all.
Theo
Snotty people stick their noses in the air, cyclists their arses.
T
Theo Bekkers
Guest
scotty72 wrote:
> Theo Bekkers Wrote:
>> My commute includes 9 sets of lights. I haven't seen a car run a red
>> this
>> week. Two bikes. As a percentage that's pretty bad.
> TheoYeah right. What was that about thr tribe can't see it's own
> faults?
Which tribe am I in? I get confused sometimes.
Currently I'm in the 'sitting in front of the computer' tribe. I am a member
for 40 hours a week.
For another six hours a week I'm in the motorcycle tribe.
Three to four hours in the car-driving tribe.
Three to four hours in the cyclist tribe.
A couple of hours in the 'big red 4WD fire-truck' tribe.
49 hours in the 'asleep in bed' tribe.
Five hours in the 'having abeer with the neighbour' tribe.
Five hours in the preparing-dinner tribe.
A few more in the 'asleep in front of the TV' tribe.
Looks like the 'asleep' tribe wins.
Theo
> Theo Bekkers Wrote:
>> My commute includes 9 sets of lights. I haven't seen a car run a red
>> this
>> week. Two bikes. As a percentage that's pretty bad.
> TheoYeah right. What was that about thr tribe can't see it's own
> faults?
Which tribe am I in? I get confused sometimes.
Currently I'm in the 'sitting in front of the computer' tribe. I am a member
for 40 hours a week.
For another six hours a week I'm in the motorcycle tribe.
Three to four hours in the car-driving tribe.
Three to four hours in the cyclist tribe.
A couple of hours in the 'big red 4WD fire-truck' tribe.
49 hours in the 'asleep in bed' tribe.
Five hours in the 'having abeer with the neighbour' tribe.
Five hours in the preparing-dinner tribe.
A few more in the 'asleep in front of the TV' tribe.
Looks like the 'asleep' tribe wins.
Theo
T
Theo Bekkers
Guest
scotty72 wrote:
> John Tserkezis Wrote:
>> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>> What else you can do isn't the point, can you do this? And why not?
>>> Why is it overkill? If the technology to register bicycles was
>>> available at a price that could be covered by say $200/yr per
>>> cyclist what are the reasons not to do it?
>> $200/yr is the reason not to do it.
>>
>> For those who ride a LOT, $200 may be easily absorbable into the
>> budget,
>> because you're spending a lot more than that on a bike anyway.
> If our petrol headed freak wants to charge a $200 bike a $200 p/y fee.
> THen how about each motorbike and car be charged it's purchase value
> each year. Sounds fair!
Scotty, have you considered enrolling for logic 101 at your local TAFE?
Theo
> John Tserkezis Wrote:
>> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>> What else you can do isn't the point, can you do this? And why not?
>>> Why is it overkill? If the technology to register bicycles was
>>> available at a price that could be covered by say $200/yr per
>>> cyclist what are the reasons not to do it?
>> $200/yr is the reason not to do it.
>>
>> For those who ride a LOT, $200 may be easily absorbable into the
>> budget,
>> because you're spending a lot more than that on a bike anyway.
> If our petrol headed freak wants to charge a $200 bike a $200 p/y fee.
> THen how about each motorbike and car be charged it's purchase value
> each year. Sounds fair!
Scotty, have you considered enrolling for logic 101 at your local TAFE?
Theo
T
TimC
Guest
On 2008-01-12, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> TimC wrote:
>> Zebee Johnstone wrote
>>> TimC wrote:
>>>> About $190 of that would be a good reason not to do it.
>>>
>>> Bicycles are only worth riding if it's free or close too?
>>
>> The majority of people riding because it's cheap to go a short
>> distance, and can fit in the gap between after dinner and sunset - no.
>> I can't say it would be to them.+
>
> So tell me Tim. If bike registration was free but compulsory, would you then
> be in favour of it? This would negate the arguments of those that say
> bicyclists get away with murder because they can't be identified, and
> shouldn't worry those cyclists that are happy to obey the laws or, at least,
> play on the same field as other road-using citizens.
>
> Theo
> Working on the basis that I think free rego would probably be cheaper to
> administer than $10 rego.
Remember how this thread started out?
It was because some letter writer objected to us using the roads
because we don't pay for them, through some mistaken belief that
registration pays for roads. Continuing not to pay for a
registration will not shut those ignorants up.
But, perhaps, it might just slow down the people claiming we are
untraceable. However, we'd have the same issues with placement that
motorcyclists have, and so any plate would not be readable from a
distance (and I don't think governments are foolish enough yet to go
the RFID route). Once you've stopped a bicyclist running a red to
read their plate, you might as well book them properly - you don't
need a plate for that. I do note that in some rare circumstances, you
don't need a plate to be identified:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/10/youtube_biker/
--
TimC
Oooh, Look! Shiny New Thing! -- TimC
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> TimC wrote:
>> Zebee Johnstone wrote
>>> TimC wrote:
>>>> About $190 of that would be a good reason not to do it.
>>>
>>> Bicycles are only worth riding if it's free or close too?
>>
>> The majority of people riding because it's cheap to go a short
>> distance, and can fit in the gap between after dinner and sunset - no.
>> I can't say it would be to them.+
>
> So tell me Tim. If bike registration was free but compulsory, would you then
> be in favour of it? This would negate the arguments of those that say
> bicyclists get away with murder because they can't be identified, and
> shouldn't worry those cyclists that are happy to obey the laws or, at least,
> play on the same field as other road-using citizens.
>
> Theo
> Working on the basis that I think free rego would probably be cheaper to
> administer than $10 rego.
Remember how this thread started out?
It was because some letter writer objected to us using the roads
because we don't pay for them, through some mistaken belief that
registration pays for roads. Continuing not to pay for a
registration will not shut those ignorants up.
But, perhaps, it might just slow down the people claiming we are
untraceable. However, we'd have the same issues with placement that
motorcyclists have, and so any plate would not be readable from a
distance (and I don't think governments are foolish enough yet to go
the RFID route). Once you've stopped a bicyclist running a red to
read their plate, you might as well book them properly - you don't
need a plate for that. I do note that in some rare circumstances, you
don't need a plate to be identified:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/10/youtube_biker/
--
TimC
Oooh, Look! Shiny New Thing! -- TimC
T
Theo Bekkers
Guest
scotty72 wrote:
> Theo Bekkers Wrote:
>> So it's worth ignoring the law-breakers because of the health
>> advantages?
>>
>> I rode a bike when they were licenced. I didn't know anyone who
>> didn't ride
>> because of the licence fee. Next question.
>I guess theo is going to ask that peds be licenced and
> registered as
> huge numbers of them break laws when crossing the road.
>
> If law breaking is going to be our main concern (rather than other
> benefits), then we'd better ban driving altogether. Most motorists
> break at least one law each time they drive.
I don't remember the last time I saw a cyclist indicate?
> Each year, thousands die
> as a result. Yes, cars are a benefit to the society - but are they
> worth the risk Theo?
Can we do without them? Are you happy to have factories in your suburb?
> Or does your hypocracy extent only to bicycles?
If you want to call people hypocritical, you should first learn to spell the
word.
Theo
> Theo Bekkers Wrote:
>> So it's worth ignoring the law-breakers because of the health
>> advantages?
>>
>> I rode a bike when they were licenced. I didn't know anyone who
>> didn't ride
>> because of the licence fee. Next question.
>I guess theo is going to ask that peds be licenced and
> registered as
> huge numbers of them break laws when crossing the road.
>
> If law breaking is going to be our main concern (rather than other
> benefits), then we'd better ban driving altogether. Most motorists
> break at least one law each time they drive.
I don't remember the last time I saw a cyclist indicate?
> Each year, thousands die
> as a result. Yes, cars are a benefit to the society - but are they
> worth the risk Theo?
Can we do without them? Are you happy to have factories in your suburb?
> Or does your hypocracy extent only to bicycles?
If you want to call people hypocritical, you should first learn to spell the
word.
Theo
T
Theo Bekkers
Guest
TimC wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote
>> So tell me Tim. If bike registration was free but compulsory, would
>> you then be in favour of it? This would negate the arguments of
>> those that say bicyclists get away with murder because they can't be
>> identified, and shouldn't worry those cyclists that are happy to
>> obey the laws or, at least, play on the same field as other
>> road-using citizens.
>> Working on the basis that I think free rego would probably be
>> cheaper to administer than $10 rego.
>
> Remember how this thread started out?
>
> It was because some letter writer objected to us using the roads
> because we don't pay for them, through some mistaken belief that
> registration pays for roads. Continuing not to pay for a
> registration will not shut those ignorants up.
So you'd be happy with $10 then, or are you avoiding the question
altogether.
Theo
The last time I had a plate on my bike, (bikes were indeed licenced, ad not
that long ago) it cost me 2/6, about two weeks pocket money. The WA gov't
abandoned bicycle licensing circa 1961.
> Theo Bekkers wrote
>> So tell me Tim. If bike registration was free but compulsory, would
>> you then be in favour of it? This would negate the arguments of
>> those that say bicyclists get away with murder because they can't be
>> identified, and shouldn't worry those cyclists that are happy to
>> obey the laws or, at least, play on the same field as other
>> road-using citizens.
>> Working on the basis that I think free rego would probably be
>> cheaper to administer than $10 rego.
>
> Remember how this thread started out?
>
> It was because some letter writer objected to us using the roads
> because we don't pay for them, through some mistaken belief that
> registration pays for roads. Continuing not to pay for a
> registration will not shut those ignorants up.
So you'd be happy with $10 then, or are you avoiding the question
altogether.
Theo
The last time I had a plate on my bike, (bikes were indeed licenced, ad not
that long ago) it cost me 2/6, about two weeks pocket money. The WA gov't
abandoned bicycle licensing circa 1961.
J
John Tserkezis
Guest
scotty72 wrote:
> If our petrol headed freak wants to charge a $200 bike a $200 p/y fee.
> THen how about each motorbike and car be charged it's purchase value
> each year. Sounds fair!
It doesn't work like that though.
It's been said, the combination yearly costs (licence/rego/green slip etc)
are somewhat indicative of the size of the vehicle, and how much damage it
causes to the roads.
This is not the case. It all comes down to how much the market will bear.
If it WERE up to road damage, maintenance of licence, distributed costs and
whatnot, Trucks would pay Bazillions per year, Cars a pittance, and all
motorbikes (and those f*ucking stupid Smart car (coffins on wheels)) would be
laughed off out of the office without paying a cent.
But that's not the case. My rego and green slip (on my motorbike) is close,
too close, to some cars. Much larger cars - owing to the fact that there are
very few cars smaller than any bike... anyway...
How does that work? It's a case of "it's worth it regardless" When you're
talking to your average motorcycle nut, they generally wouldn't be caught dead
in a car. So the inflated price is still worth it. The motorbike has enough
all-round advantage to the user that they would still rather ride than sit on
a couch with a steering wheel.
Now let's look at pushbikes.
On the plusses:
It's good for the environment (compared to other means).
Purchase cost is usually stupidly cheap (unless you're a nutcase like me).
Maintenance costs (unless you're a nutcase) can be nearly free.
The biochemical engine that runs it gets BETTER with age.
It can be a right bucketload of fun without breaking any laws.
Parking is unconditionally free. (yes I know, but I refuse to pay).
On the minuses:
You need to sweat, so end up quite soggy at your destination.
You need to wear daggy bright coloured lycra.
It's a real effort up some hills - or else you get out and push.
Busses, Taxis and Cars all try to kill you at every opportunity.
When said busses, taxis and cars don't sucessfully kill you, reporting
incident to police will result in a laugh. Or two, if you're lucky.
Now, except for the 'risk of being killed bit', it might seem like a REALLY
good deal.
However, this IS a package deal, so we get everything.
I will be happy to pay rego when driver attitude changes enough they don't
try to kill me, or when hell freezes over. Whichever comes first.
Like I said, a cold cold day in hell.
--
Linux Registered User # 302622
<http://counter.li.org>
> If our petrol headed freak wants to charge a $200 bike a $200 p/y fee.
> THen how about each motorbike and car be charged it's purchase value
> each year. Sounds fair!
It doesn't work like that though.
It's been said, the combination yearly costs (licence/rego/green slip etc)
are somewhat indicative of the size of the vehicle, and how much damage it
causes to the roads.
This is not the case. It all comes down to how much the market will bear.
If it WERE up to road damage, maintenance of licence, distributed costs and
whatnot, Trucks would pay Bazillions per year, Cars a pittance, and all
motorbikes (and those f*ucking stupid Smart car (coffins on wheels)) would be
laughed off out of the office without paying a cent.
But that's not the case. My rego and green slip (on my motorbike) is close,
too close, to some cars. Much larger cars - owing to the fact that there are
very few cars smaller than any bike... anyway...
How does that work? It's a case of "it's worth it regardless" When you're
talking to your average motorcycle nut, they generally wouldn't be caught dead
in a car. So the inflated price is still worth it. The motorbike has enough
all-round advantage to the user that they would still rather ride than sit on
a couch with a steering wheel.
Now let's look at pushbikes.
On the plusses:
It's good for the environment (compared to other means).
Purchase cost is usually stupidly cheap (unless you're a nutcase like me).
Maintenance costs (unless you're a nutcase) can be nearly free.
The biochemical engine that runs it gets BETTER with age.
It can be a right bucketload of fun without breaking any laws.
Parking is unconditionally free. (yes I know, but I refuse to pay).
On the minuses:
You need to sweat, so end up quite soggy at your destination.
You need to wear daggy bright coloured lycra.
It's a real effort up some hills - or else you get out and push.
Busses, Taxis and Cars all try to kill you at every opportunity.
When said busses, taxis and cars don't sucessfully kill you, reporting
incident to police will result in a laugh. Or two, if you're lucky.
Now, except for the 'risk of being killed bit', it might seem like a REALLY
good deal.
However, this IS a package deal, so we get everything.
I will be happy to pay rego when driver attitude changes enough they don't
try to kill me, or when hell freezes over. Whichever comes first.
Like I said, a cold cold day in hell.
--
Linux Registered User # 302622
<http://counter.li.org>
B
beerwolf
Guest
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> There are murders, so do we stop bothering about burglaries? Can't
> see the logic.
Didn't you get the bit about limited law enforcement resources?
The effort should be concentrated where it does most good.
--
beerwolf
> There are murders, so do we stop bothering about burglaries? Can't
> see the logic.
Didn't you get the bit about limited law enforcement resources?
The effort should be concentrated where it does most good.
--
beerwolf
B
beerwolf
Guest
cfsmtb wrote:
> If you go back to the initial premise for whatever being said it's not
> actually about higher levels of compliance, it's being driven by a
> subjective, disingenuous argument which lazily paraphrases and
> cherry-picks what has been discussed on numerous cycling newsgroups for
> years. And then parroting back a naive and misguided approach as
> apparently a unique and novel proposition. If people want a zero
> approach to either crimes or misdemeanour's in civil society, well that
> brings in the mandatory approach. Venture at your own risk.
Yes, we have seen it before. Still needs to be fought though.
I sense the imminent approach of a Godwin moment.
--
beerwolf
> If you go back to the initial premise for whatever being said it's not
> actually about higher levels of compliance, it's being driven by a
> subjective, disingenuous argument which lazily paraphrases and
> cherry-picks what has been discussed on numerous cycling newsgroups for
> years. And then parroting back a naive and misguided approach as
> apparently a unique and novel proposition. If people want a zero
> approach to either crimes or misdemeanour's in civil society, well that
> brings in the mandatory approach. Venture at your own risk.
Yes, we have seen it before. Still needs to be fought though.
I sense the imminent approach of a Godwin moment.
--
beerwolf
T
TimC
Guest
On 2008-01-12, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> TimC wrote:
>> Theo Bekkers wrote
>
>>> So tell me Tim. If bike registration was free but compulsory, would
>>> you then be in favour of it? This would negate the arguments of
>>> those that say bicyclists get away with murder because they can't be
>>> identified, and shouldn't worry those cyclists that are happy to
>>> obey the laws or, at least, play on the same field as other
>>> road-using citizens.
>
>>> Working on the basis that I think free rego would probably be
>>> cheaper to administer than $10 rego.
>>
>> Remember how this thread started out?
>>
>> It was because some letter writer objected to us using the roads
>> because we don't pay for them, through some mistaken belief that
>> registration pays for roads. Continuing not to pay for a
>> registration will not shut those ignorants up.
>
> So you'd be happy with $10 then, or are you avoiding the question
> altogether.
Would $10 get the ignorants off our back? I don't suspect it would.
And as you said, it would be quite expensive to administer. So since
it doesn't help, and it hinders, it's probably not worth doing, unless
someone models it and finds otherwise.
--
TimC
Can't open /usr/share/games/fortunes/fortunes. Lid stuck on cookie jar.
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> TimC wrote:
>> Theo Bekkers wrote
>
>>> So tell me Tim. If bike registration was free but compulsory, would
>>> you then be in favour of it? This would negate the arguments of
>>> those that say bicyclists get away with murder because they can't be
>>> identified, and shouldn't worry those cyclists that are happy to
>>> obey the laws or, at least, play on the same field as other
>>> road-using citizens.
>
>>> Working on the basis that I think free rego would probably be
>>> cheaper to administer than $10 rego.
>>
>> Remember how this thread started out?
>>
>> It was because some letter writer objected to us using the roads
>> because we don't pay for them, through some mistaken belief that
>> registration pays for roads. Continuing not to pay for a
>> registration will not shut those ignorants up.
>
> So you'd be happy with $10 then, or are you avoiding the question
> altogether.
Would $10 get the ignorants off our back? I don't suspect it would.
And as you said, it would be quite expensive to administer. So since
it doesn't help, and it hinders, it's probably not worth doing, unless
someone models it and finds otherwise.
--
TimC
Can't open /usr/share/games/fortunes/fortunes. Lid stuck on cookie jar.
T
TimC
Guest
On 2008-01-12, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> scotty72 wrote:
>> Theo Bekkers Wrote:
>>> I guess theo is going to ask that peds be licenced and registered
>>> as huge numbers of them break laws when crossing the road.
>>
>> If law breaking is going to be our main concern (rather than other
>> benefits), then we'd better ban driving altogether. Most motorists
>> break at least one law each time they drive.
>
> I don't remember the last time I saw a cyclist indicate?
Heh. I do sometimes. I'm more inclined to keep control of my vehicle
though, given conditions on the roads around here, than to strictly
obey the law (recalling of course, that it is not required to indicate
left on a bicycle, only right, and that the way our brakes are
arranged, I'd much rather be braking with my right hand than
indicating right).
We have one roundabout in town. I indicate the start of my turn
right, but invariably pull my hands back on the bars when I'm pretty
sure I've received an acknowledgement from a driver waiting at the
opposite side. The road trains go through that intersection at about
40km/h, and have worn a set of very deep grooves into the road. It's
bumpy as heck, and I wouldn't want to go down because the bike gives
me a buck. It's fun enough in cars when the steering wheel tried to
kick out of your grip.
There was one intersection in Melbourne where I'd rarely indicate
right either -- I was more relying on my positioning in the right of
the right hand lane to indicate my intentions. This was mainly
because the thought of drifting at an acute angle at 40km/h into the
tram tracks didn't really appeal to me.
Give me a set of orange blinkies, bright enough to be practical,
controlled from a central button on the bars, any day. Don't exist on
the market yet.
--
TimC
The path to enlightenment_0.16.5-6 is through apt-get
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> scotty72 wrote:
>> Theo Bekkers Wrote:
>>> I guess theo is going to ask that peds be licenced and registered
>>> as huge numbers of them break laws when crossing the road.
>>
>> If law breaking is going to be our main concern (rather than other
>> benefits), then we'd better ban driving altogether. Most motorists
>> break at least one law each time they drive.
>
> I don't remember the last time I saw a cyclist indicate?
Heh. I do sometimes. I'm more inclined to keep control of my vehicle
though, given conditions on the roads around here, than to strictly
obey the law (recalling of course, that it is not required to indicate
left on a bicycle, only right, and that the way our brakes are
arranged, I'd much rather be braking with my right hand than
indicating right).
We have one roundabout in town. I indicate the start of my turn
right, but invariably pull my hands back on the bars when I'm pretty
sure I've received an acknowledgement from a driver waiting at the
opposite side. The road trains go through that intersection at about
40km/h, and have worn a set of very deep grooves into the road. It's
bumpy as heck, and I wouldn't want to go down because the bike gives
me a buck. It's fun enough in cars when the steering wheel tried to
kick out of your grip.
There was one intersection in Melbourne where I'd rarely indicate
right either -- I was more relying on my positioning in the right of
the right hand lane to indicate my intentions. This was mainly
because the thought of drifting at an acute angle at 40km/h into the
tram tracks didn't really appeal to me.
Give me a set of orange blinkies, bright enough to be practical,
controlled from a central button on the bars, any day. Don't exist on
the market yet.
--
TimC
The path to enlightenment_0.16.5-6 is through apt-get
T
TimC
Guest
On 2008-01-12, John Tserkezis (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> scotty72 wrote:
>
>> If our petrol headed freak wants to charge a $200 bike a $200 p/y fee.
>> THen how about each motorbike and car be charged it's purchase value
>> each year. Sounds fair!
>
> It doesn't work like that though.
If there are 10M cars in Australia, and we spend $10B per year on
roads, then each car does about $1,000 worth of damage to the roads in
a typical year. Then multiply that by another 4 or so for health
related costs from people driving.
Since cars depreciate at about an average of $4,000 per year, then why
not charge them some form of registration at about $4,000 per year to
cover costs, instead of pulling it out of general revenue?
> On the minuses:
> You need to sweat, so end up quite soggy at your destination.
> You need to wear daggy bright coloured lycra.
> It's a real effort up some hills - or else you get out and push.
> Busses, Taxis and Cars all try to kill you at every opportunity.
> When said busses, taxis and cars don't sucessfully kill you, reporting
> incident to police will result in a laugh. Or two, if you're lucky.
I have only my around-towner in town today - the fast bike is up at
the observatory, because I left it there after shift, knowing we only
have the small bus til school goes back, which I can't use as bike
transport mechanism. My around-towner is a decade or two old (thanks
dutchie - nice bike, although my fixie project is on indefinitely
hold), where I haven't yet gotten around to replacing the tires --
they look old, but they've been good til now.
I hadn't ridden it in a while, so I pumped the tires up to their
rating, and went off to have lunch, parking the bike in the sun. 20
minutes later, boom. 20 more minutes, I go over to have a look, and
realise the front is gone, and the rear is bulging through the fabric.
I guess 90PSI + delta of 20degrees gives 96PSI.
That was a warm walk home. Definitely soggy afterwards. Still, I
have two spares waiting at home from PBK, although they are racing
tires intended for the other bike.
--
TimC
No, the best way to prepare is to write programs, and to study great
programs that other people have written. In my case, I went to the garbage
cans at the Computer Science Center and I fished out listings of their
operating system. -- Bill Gates
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> scotty72 wrote:
>
>> If our petrol headed freak wants to charge a $200 bike a $200 p/y fee.
>> THen how about each motorbike and car be charged it's purchase value
>> each year. Sounds fair!
>
> It doesn't work like that though.
If there are 10M cars in Australia, and we spend $10B per year on
roads, then each car does about $1,000 worth of damage to the roads in
a typical year. Then multiply that by another 4 or so for health
related costs from people driving.
Since cars depreciate at about an average of $4,000 per year, then why
not charge them some form of registration at about $4,000 per year to
cover costs, instead of pulling it out of general revenue?
> On the minuses:
> You need to sweat, so end up quite soggy at your destination.
> You need to wear daggy bright coloured lycra.
> It's a real effort up some hills - or else you get out and push.
> Busses, Taxis and Cars all try to kill you at every opportunity.
> When said busses, taxis and cars don't sucessfully kill you, reporting
> incident to police will result in a laugh. Or two, if you're lucky.
I have only my around-towner in town today - the fast bike is up at
the observatory, because I left it there after shift, knowing we only
have the small bus til school goes back, which I can't use as bike
transport mechanism. My around-towner is a decade or two old (thanks
dutchie - nice bike, although my fixie project is on indefinitely
hold), where I haven't yet gotten around to replacing the tires --
they look old, but they've been good til now.
I hadn't ridden it in a while, so I pumped the tires up to their
rating, and went off to have lunch, parking the bike in the sun. 20
minutes later, boom. 20 more minutes, I go over to have a look, and
realise the front is gone, and the rear is bulging through the fabric.
I guess 90PSI + delta of 20degrees gives 96PSI.
That was a warm walk home. Definitely soggy afterwards. Still, I
have two spares waiting at home from PBK, although they are racing
tires intended for the other bike.
--
TimC
No, the best way to prepare is to write programs, and to study great
programs that other people have written. In my case, I went to the garbage
cans at the Computer Science Center and I fished out listings of their
operating system. -- Bill Gates
T
Theo Bekkers
Guest
TimC wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote
>> So you'd be happy with $10 then, or are you avoiding the question
>> altogether.
> Would $10 get the ignorants off our back? I don't suspect it would.
> And as you said, it would be quite expensive to administer. So since
> it doesn't help, and it hinders, it's probably not worth doing, unless
> someone models it and finds otherwise.
So you're only objecting to the cost then? Supposing the fee of $10 was
revenue neutral and even provided employment for a few more out of work
cyclists as a bonus, cyclists would no longer be seen as able to flout the
laws, could say they are ccontributing to the costs. The ignorants would
lose both their argument. Surely there would then be positives in such a
proposal? I personally would have no objection to it. As I said, when I was
a teenager, my bike had a licence plate.
Theo
> Theo Bekkers wrote
>> So you'd be happy with $10 then, or are you avoiding the question
>> altogether.
> Would $10 get the ignorants off our back? I don't suspect it would.
> And as you said, it would be quite expensive to administer. So since
> it doesn't help, and it hinders, it's probably not worth doing, unless
> someone models it and finds otherwise.
So you're only objecting to the cost then? Supposing the fee of $10 was
revenue neutral and even provided employment for a few more out of work
cyclists as a bonus, cyclists would no longer be seen as able to flout the
laws, could say they are ccontributing to the costs. The ignorants would
lose both their argument. Surely there would then be positives in such a
proposal? I personally would have no objection to it. As I said, when I was
a teenager, my bike had a licence plate.
Theo
T
Theo Bekkers
Guest
aeek wrote:
> which is why I was careful to word it as "Not all drivers but this
> driver and mates", not even assuming He. Arseholes who think its fun
> to endanger others on the roads should not be on the road!
Of course. I'm sure we are all agreed on that. The tone on the ng seems to
be "All car drivers are arseholes". As a part-time driver I object to that.
In fact only a small percentage of people are indeed arseholes, they just
give the rest of humanity a bad name.
Theo
> which is why I was careful to word it as "Not all drivers but this
> driver and mates", not even assuming He. Arseholes who think its fun
> to endanger others on the roads should not be on the road!
Of course. I'm sure we are all agreed on that. The tone on the ng seems to
be "All car drivers are arseholes". As a part-time driver I object to that.
In fact only a small percentage of people are indeed arseholes, they just
give the rest of humanity a bad name.
Theo
