Police target South Australian cyclists

[Theo Bekkers]

TimC wrote:

> 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?

Sounds fair, can I expect a reduction of $4000 in income tax to balance
things out?
Money for roads comes mostly from the Fed Gov't in general tax distribution,
plus some grants for specific roads (eg black spots). Licensing revenue goes
directly to the States. Your balancing rebate comes from the Fed Gov't.

Theo

 

[scotty72]

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

Good points

The average propensity for knobishness mulitplies once s/he gets in control of a motor vehicle.

 

[scotty72]

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

Many sorries for not double proof reading my quick posts

but, at least when you run out of reason, you can attack my typing. Gives you somewhere to go.

You ask, can we do without cars. Prob no. But we could try.

No-one needs a car. People base their lifestyle choices around them but they could do without them. I've reduced my useage (in kms) by about 75%. I'm not yet unable to live.

Factories. How much produce / product / stock is moved by car anyway. Maybe in WA it's different, but in the east, we have trucks.

I'll ask you, can we do without bicycles? I doubt it.

We are fat enough, unhealthy enough. and polluted enough as a country already and your grand solution for this is to ban the healthiest, cleanest from of transport (apart from walking) there is. What was that you said about Logic 101 at the local TAFE?

Scotty

EDIT

Wanna see a cyclist indicate. Follow me. I do it as the law requires. That is Turning. We don't have to for stopping as it is dangerous - so I don't

 

[scotty72]

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.

I know, I was pointing out the stupidity of being asked to pay $200 rego for a vehicle worth (perhaps) less than that.

 

[scotty72]

Cars are registered.

Having a plate or sticker etc on the back doesn't prevent law breaking.

As we've pointed out, most motorists break some law every day (about 90% speed through school zones) and many speed through orange/red lights.

Obviously, you are so anti bike that you want to dream up a way to get cyclists off the road. BINGO, force them into the licence / rego bureaucracy. Force them to bolt on a heavy (on road bikes - grams count) plate.

As you know, many will say stuff that.

You get your NRMA fueled wish of - get the cyclists of MY roads.

Selfish. Communist. You see others onto a good thing and you wanna ban it.

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

 

[scotty72]

Depends

A large % of motorists regularly break the law.

So maybe that makes them arseholes.

Scotty

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

 

[scotty72]

TimC wrote:

> 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?

Sounds fair, can I expect a reduction of $4000 in income tax to balance
things out?
Money for roads comes mostly from the Fed Gov't in general tax distribution,
plus some grants for specific roads (eg black spots). Licensing revenue goes
directly to the States. Your balancing rebate comes from the Fed Gov't.

Theo

Yes, we agree. So, those 2 car families will get stung hard/

Also, as cars cause all sort of environmental, health etc disasters, lets triple the fuel tax to pay for all that. That is very fair. The more you drive, the more petrol you need to buy = the more tax you will pay to clean up your mess.

SCotty

 

[Theo Bekkers]

scotty72 wrote:
> Theo Bekkers Wrote:

>> I don't remember the last time I saw a cyclist indicate?

>> If you want to call people hypocritical, you should first learn to
>> spell the word.

> Many sorries for not double proof reading my quick posts
>
> but, at least when you run out of reason, you can attack my typing.
> Gives you somewhere to go.

I am conatantly amused by the varied spelling of hyppocrite. Your's wasn't
too bad.

> You ask, can we do without cars. Prob no. But we could try.
>
> No-one needs a car. People base their lifestyle choices around them
> but they could do without them. I've reduced my useage (in kms) by
> about 75%. I'm not yet unable to live.
>
> Factories. How much produce / product / stock is moved by car anyway.
> Maybe in WA it's different, but in the east, we have trucks.

I was suggesting that people will need to live close by where they live.
Hence a factory in your suburb.

> I'll ask you, can we do without bicycles? I doubt it.

We managed pretty well until about 1880. We got cars at about the same time.

> We are fat enough, unhealthy enough. and polluted enough as a country
> already and your grand solution for this is to ban the healthiest,
> cleanest from of transport (apart from walking) there is. What was
> that you said about Logic 101 at the local TAFE?

You idiot. I am a cyclist. I cycle daily. I have never advocated banning
bicycles. I just don't consider they should be exempt from the rules of the
road.

> Wanna see a cyclist indicate. Follow me. I do it as the law requires.
> That is Turning. We don't have to for stopping as it is dangerous -
> so I don't

You don't have to indicate to stop? I didn't know that. I thought you only
didn't need to indicate to turn left.

So if a policeman should stop you, you and your bike will be compliant with
the law? Two orange reflectors on each wheel and each pedal. Red reflector
on the back, white reflector on the front, and an efficient bell? Great! and
good for you. I think mine is missing a couple of those items.

Theo

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Theo Bekkers wrote:

> I am conatantly amused by the varied spelling of hyppocrite. Your's
> wasn't too bad.

Oops "constantly"

> I was suggesting that people will need to live close by where they
> live. Hence a factory in your suburb.

That's a bit worse. "will need to live close by where they work".

Theo

 

[Theo Bekkers]

scotty72 wrote:

> I know, I was pointing out the stupidity of being asked to pay $200
> rego for a vehicle worth (perhaps) less than that.

You think there are cars on the road worth less than their annual licence
and compulsory insurance fees?

Do you think these vehicles should be exempt from these fees?

When I'm driving a car, I'm fairly confident that the other vehicles on the
road have third party insurance. On a cycle path, I'm fairly confident that
none have.

Theo

 

[Theo Bekkers]

scotty72 wrote:
> Theo Bekkers Wrote:

>> Sounds fair, can I expect a reduction of $4000 in income tax to
>> balance
>> things out?
>> Money for roads comes mostly from the Fed Gov't in general tax
>> distribution,
>> plus some grants for specific roads (eg black spots). Licensing
>> revenue goes
>> directly to the States. Your balancing rebate comes from the Fed
>> Gov't.

>Yes, we agree. So, those 2 car families will get stung hard/
>
> Also, as cars cause all sort of environmental, health etc disasters,
> lets triple the fuel tax to pay for all that. That is very fair. The
> more you drive, the more petrol you need to buy = the more tax you
> will pay to clean up your mess.

I see no serious problem with swapping the road system from a public asset
to a user pays system. I assume this is what you are suggesting here. As I
don't own a car I will look forward to the tax rebate I will get from the
gov't as I will no longer be contributing to roads.

Just be careful what you are wishing for.

Theo

 

[EuanB]

PeteSig wrote:
> "Zebee Johnstone" wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> 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)

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.

Here's one for you. How much does red light running cost insurance companies? Not a guess, some quantifialbe data.

Surely if it's that bad a problem there must be some data around on what a burden to society it is? I mean red light running is quantifiable so if red light running is a bigger problem with cyclists there must be some data?

No?

Well for the record the NRMA put out a press release in 2005 collisions at traffic lights cost 66 million dollars in 2004. Top of the list of common causes, according to the NRMA who as we all know hate motorists, is running red lights. Granted there's no indication that any kind of precedence is present in the list.

So come on Theo, there's my question. How much does traffic light bingles involving cyclists cost each year? How much of that can be attributed to running red lights?

 

[Theo Bekkers]

scotty72 wrote:
> Cars are registered.
>
> Having a plate or sticker etc on the back doesn't prevent law
> breaking.

It allows them to be caught. Fear of consequences affect behavior. Do you
really think cyclists would run red lights if there was a 100% chance of
them being caught? No? How about less than 1%?

> As we've pointed out, most motorists break some law every day (about
> 90% speed through school zones) and many speed through orange/red
> lights.

Agreed. But just maybe that says something about the law, or the enforcement
of the law.

> Obviously, you are so anti bike that you want to dream up a way to get
> cyclists off the road. BINGO, force them into the licence / rego
> bureaucracy. Force them to bolt on a heavy (on road bikes - grams
> count) plate.

I'll bet it wouldn't weigh 50 grams. You could empty that much out of your
bidon to compensate. About a mouthful of water.

> You get your NRMA fueled wish of - get the cyclists of MY roads.
>
> Selfish. Communist. You see others onto a good thing and you wanna ban
> it.

I think you may have missed the point that I spend as much time on a bicycle
as in a car, but probaly more on a motorcycle.

Theo

 

[TimC]

On 2008-01-12, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> scotty72 wrote:
>
>> I know, I was pointing out the stupidity of being asked to pay $200
>> rego for a vehicle worth (perhaps) less than that.
>
> You think there are cars on the road worth less than their annual licence
> and compulsory insurance fees?
>
> Do you think these vehicles should be exempt from these fees?

Personally, I think they should be off the road, because they're
unroadworthy. They got mine when I moved to Vic. Obviously more
strict than NSW checks, probably because they only get to perform one
once in a blue moon upon change of ownership.

> When I'm driving a car, I'm fairly confident that the other vehicles on the
> road have third party insurance. On a cycle path, I'm fairly confident that
> none have.

Hah. Try claiming from someone's third party. Didn't help in my hit
and run. Didn't help another time when no witnesses bothered to stop
(no way I'm going to court against a multinational when I've got no
proof, no money and no time).

--
TimC
"This strongly suggests to me that perl is way out of hand,
or that I need another drink, or both." -- Alan J Rosenthal

 

[TimC]

On 2008-01-12, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> scotty72 wrote:
>> Also, as cars cause all sort of environmental, health etc disasters,
>> lets triple the fuel tax to pay for all that. That is very fair. The
>> more you drive, the more petrol you need to buy = the more tax you
>> will pay to clean up your mess.
>
> I see no serious problem with swapping the road system from a public asset
> to a user pays system. I assume this is what you are suggesting here. As I
> don't own a car I will look forward to the tax rebate I will get from the
> gov't as I will no longer be contributing to roads.

Your family company will be required to pay for it.

Which will come out of your wages.

--
TimC
As a computer, I find your faith in technology amusing.

 

[Theo Bekkers]

EuanB 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.

> Here's one for you. How much does red light running cost insurance
> companies? Not a guess, some quantifialbe data.
>
> Surely if it's that bad a problem there must be some data around on
> what a burden to society it is? I mean red light running is
> quantifiable so if red light running is a bigger problem with cyclists
> there must be some data?
>
> No?
>
> Well for the record the NRMA put out a press release in 2005
> collisions at traffic lights cost 66 million dollars in 2004. Top of
> the list of common causes, according to the NRMA who as we all know
> hate motorists, is running red lights. Granted there's no indication
> that any kind of precedence is present in the list.
>
> So come on Theo, there's my question. How much does traffic light
> bingles involving cyclists cost each year? How much of that can be
> attributed to running red lights?

I have no idea. Is it important? Is it the question being asked here?
Supposing there is no cost (aside from that incident on Beach road) does
that mean we should ignore the law? Can we go from there to "it's OK for
cyclists and motorists to run reds if they don't hit anyone"? Should all
laws be obeyed regardless of the financial impact they have on society?

If I (not likely) cruise down to Northbridge on a Sat night and pick up a
girl 'in the trade', go somewhere quiet together and give her some money
afterwards, why have I broken a law? Why has she? How much are Insurance
companies out of pocket?

OK, OK, let's say our transaction had a tax invoice for GST purposes, but do
you get a tax invoice from your lawnmower man?

Theo

 

[Theo Bekkers]

TimC wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote

>> You think there are cars on the road worth less than their annual
>> licence and compulsory insurance fees?
>>
>> Do you think these vehicles should be exempt from these fees?
>
> Personally, I think they should be off the road, because they're
> unroadworthy. They got mine when I moved to Vic. Obviously more
> strict than NSW checks, probably because they only get to perform one
> once in a blue moon upon change of ownership.

No checks at all in WA unless you're bringing the vehicle from interstate.
Does no checks really mean unroadworthy? Does age mean unroadworthy? Does
low value mean unroadworthy? I can't see the association myself.

>> When I'm driving a car, I'm fairly confident that the other vehicles
>> on the road have third party insurance. On a cycle path, I'm fairly
>> confident that none have.

> Hah. Try claiming from someone's third party. Didn't help in my hit
> and run. Didn't help another time when no witnesses bothered to stop
> (no way I'm going to court against a multinational when I've got no
> proof, no money and no time).

Sorry, I think you misunderstood me. Third party injury, not property. I
have no confidence that half the cars on the road have that. This is why our
vehicles are fully insured.

Theo

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Sat, 12 Jan 2008 11:09:57 +0900
Theo Bekkers <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I don't remember the last time I saw a cyclist indicate?
>

I do it all the time. Must be the 'bent riding position makes me
think I'm piloting a vehicle, so I behave like one.

Zebee

 

[Theo Bekkers]

TimC wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote

>> I see no serious problem with swapping the road system from a public
>> asset to a user pays system. I assume this is what you are
>> suggesting here. As I don't own a car I will look forward to the tax
>> rebate I will get from the gov't as I will no longer be contributing
>> to roads.

> Your family company will be required to pay for it.

Not a problem.

> Which will come out of your wages.

We will pass the costs on to you, our customers, the same as all companies
do with their costs.

Theo

 

[TimC]

On 2008-01-12, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> TimC wrote:
>> Theo Bekkers wrote
>
>>> You think there are cars on the road worth less than their annual
>>> licence and compulsory insurance fees?
>>>
>>> Do you think these vehicles should be exempt from these fees?
>>
>> Personally, I think they should be off the road, because they're
>> unroadworthy. They got mine when I moved to Vic. Obviously more
>> strict than NSW checks, probably because they only get to perform one
>> once in a blue moon upon change of ownership.
>
> No checks at all in WA unless you're bringing the vehicle from interstate.
> Does no checks really mean unroadworthy? Does age mean unroadworthy? Does
> low value mean unroadworthy? I can't see the association myself.

Low value means not likely to have any money spent on it to keep it
roadworthy should things start to go wrong with it - like having an
indicator lamp covering being smashed.

--
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