Police target South Australian cyclists

[TimC]

On 2008-01-14, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> EuanB wrote:
>> Then cars came along and they proved to be quite popular.
>> Unfortunately they also killed and seriously injured a lot of people.
>> The victims demand compenstation and society agrees and compensates
>> them.
>>
>> Problem is that cars are so cheap that offenders rarely had the funds
>> to cover the compendation, so society decided that as there's a proven
>> risk insurance is mandatory. That is the only reason we have
>> registration.
>>
>> Cyclists don't cost others money. There are isolated examples but
>> nowhere near enough for cyclists to be considered a burden which
>> requires insuring against. Something to do with cycling being the
>> most benign form of transport there is, including walking. That's why
>> cyclists don't pay rego.
>>
>> Law enforcement is an unrelated topic. Regos got nothing to do with
>> it.
>
> Third Party Insurance is what covers people injured by motor vehicles.
> Nothing to do with rego. Rego is about ID and Law enforcement.

Except in Victoria, where Euan resides, where TAC _is_ the compulsory
third party injury no-fault insurance, and is paid for by rego.

But Euan, that is only in .vic. Dunno what rego fees pay for in other
states. Probably adminning of the rego system.

--
TimC
DISCLAIMER: THIS DISCLAIMER IS NOT REQUIRED BY LEADER KIBO. THIS ARTICLE
DOES NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT THE OPINIONS OF LEADER KIBO. THIS ARTICLE
DOES NOT NECESSARILY DISAGREE WITH LEADER KIBO EITHER. HAVE A NICE DAY!

 

[Ray]

In article <slrn-0.9.7.4-31087-23654-200801141945-
[email protected]>, [email protected]-
astro.swin.edu.au says...
> On 2008-01-14, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> > EuanB wrote:
> >> Then cars came along and they proved to be quite popular.
> >> Unfortunately they also killed and seriously injured a lot of people.
> >> The victims demand compenstation and society agrees and compensates
> >> them.
> >>
> >> Problem is that cars are so cheap that offenders rarely had the funds
> >> to cover the compendation, so society decided that as there's a proven
> >> risk insurance is mandatory. That is the only reason we have
> >> registration.
> >>
> >> Cyclists don't cost others money. There are isolated examples but
> >> nowhere near enough for cyclists to be considered a burden which
> >> requires insuring against. Something to do with cycling being the
> >> most benign form of transport there is, including walking. That's why
> >> cyclists don't pay rego.
> >>
> >> Law enforcement is an unrelated topic. Regos got nothing to do with
> >> it.
> >
> > Third Party Insurance is what covers people injured by motor vehicles.
> > Nothing to do with rego. Rego is about ID and Law enforcement.
>
> Except in Victoria, where Euan resides, where TAC _is_ the compulsory
> third party injury no-fault insurance, and is paid for by rego.
>
> But Euan, that is only in .vic. Dunno what rego fees pay for in other
> states. Probably adminning of the rego system.
>
>
Wrong, Victorian registration clearly itemises the rego component
separate to the TPI.
Yes you pay WITH the rego, but the rego is NOT the TPI.

Ray

 

[TimC]

On 2008-01-14, Ray (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> In article <slrn-0.9.7.4-31087-23654-200801141945-
> [email protected]>, [email protected]-
> astro.swin.edu.au says...
>> On 2008-01-14, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
>> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> > Third Party Insurance is what covers people injured by motor vehicles.
>> > Nothing to do with rego. Rego is about ID and Law enforcement.
>>
>> Except in Victoria, where Euan resides, where TAC _is_ the compulsory
>> third party injury no-fault insurance, and is paid for by rego.
>>
>> But Euan, that is only in .vic. Dunno what rego fees pay for in other
>> states. Probably adminning of the rego system.
>>
> Wrong, Victorian registration clearly itemises the rego component
> separate to the TPI.
> Yes you pay WITH the rego, but the rego is NOT the TPI.

And what's the percentage of the TPI component?

--
TimC
Press any key to continue, any other key to abort
-- thrillbert's code

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 15 Jan 2008 06:37:26 +1100
TimC <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2008-01-14, Ray (aka Bruce)
>> Wrong, Victorian registration clearly itemises the rego component
>> separate to the TPI.
>> Yes you pay WITH the rego, but the rego is NOT the TPI.
>
> And what's the percentage of the TPI component?

My NSW motorcycle rego has $42 for registration, and $42 for "vehicle
levy" which used to be "roads levy".

The TPI is $360.

Zebee

 

[TimC]

On 2008-01-14, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> In aus.bicycle on Tue, 15 Jan 2008 06:37:26 +1100
> TimC <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 2008-01-14, Ray (aka Bruce)
>>> Wrong, Victorian registration clearly itemises the rego component
>>> separate to the TPI.
>>> Yes you pay WITH the rego, but the rego is NOT the TPI.
>>
>> And what's the percentage of the TPI component?

Woops, should have qualified with "in Vic".

> My NSW motorcycle rego has $42 for registration, and $42 for "vehicle
> levy" which used to be "roads levy".
>
> The TPI is $360.

Interesting.

--
TimC
>Cats are intended to teach us that not everything in nature has a function.
You're saying cats are the opposite of bijectiveness? -- ST in RHOD

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 15 Jan 2008 08:10:09 +1100
TimC <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2008-01-14, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
> Woops, should have qualified with "in Vic".

I recognised you meant in Vic, but figured that NSW numbers would
help in general comparisons as to how rego is handled.

>
>> My NSW motorcycle rego has $42 for registration, and $42 for "vehicle
>> levy" which used to be "roads levy".
>>
>> The TPI is $360.
>
> Interesting.

That's an over 250cc motorcycle, under 250cc ones cost less. For
hysterical raisins probably, but there's not likely to be much change.

NSW is talking about adding a levy to motorcycle TPI to pay for long
term care for riders, despite the actual numbers that show that
crashes *caused* by motorcycles (and thus paid for by TPI) are already
adequately covered.

The problem being that as they are a vulnerable road user, if a
heavier vehicle hits them, they cost a lot. And it isn't politically
viable to up the TPI paid by the vehicles that hit people....

Hmm. Another interesting aspect to the rego for bicycles, and
probably more important in no-fault Vic. That is, the more vulnerable
road users there are, the more the costs will be.[1]

IF they are going to soak motorcyclists for medical costs that aren't
the motorcyclist's fault in a theoretically (hah!) fault-only system,
then what will they do about cyclists? If there are more cyclists
will there be more crashes, if more crashes then will the reponse be
to find some smoke-and-mirrors way of charging the cyclists?

And in no-fault Vic, will there be more pressure to get cyclists to
pay into the system?

Zebee


[1] at least until there are enough that the traffic patterns change a
lot.

 

[scotty72]

Yeah but cyclists are, by definition, a much healthier lot than those of you who let fossil fuels do your sweating for you. We are far less like to be a drain on the health system due to sedentary lifestyles - a far more likely scenario than a serious crash.

Also, we don't pollute the air and cause kids to get cancer etc.

Therefore, fossil fuel burners should be taxed more to pay for the tax rebates for active transport people.

Scotty

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 15 Jan 2008 08:10:09 +1100
TimC <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2008-01-14, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
> Woops, should have qualified with "in Vic".

I recognised you meant in Vic, but figured that NSW numbers would
help in general comparisons as to how rego is handled.

>
>> My NSW motorcycle rego has $42 for registration, and $42 for "vehicle
>> levy" which used to be "roads levy".
>>
>> The TPI is $360.
>
> Interesting.

That's an over 250cc motorcycle, under 250cc ones cost less. For
hysterical raisins probably, but there's not likely to be much change.

NSW is talking about adding a levy to motorcycle TPI to pay for long
term care for riders, despite the actual numbers that show that
crashes *caused* by motorcycles (and thus paid for by TPI) are already
adequately covered.

The problem being that as they are a vulnerable road user, if a
heavier vehicle hits them, they cost a lot. And it isn't politically
viable to up the TPI paid by the vehicles that hit people....

Hmm. Another interesting aspect to the rego for bicycles, and
probably more important in no-fault Vic. That is, the more vulnerable
road users there are, the more the costs will be.[1]

IF they are going to soak motorcyclists for medical costs that aren't
the motorcyclist's fault in a theoretically (hah!) fault-only system,
then what will they do about cyclists? If there are more cyclists
will there be more crashes, if more crashes then will the reponse be
to find some smoke-and-mirrors way of charging the cyclists?

And in no-fault Vic, will there be more pressure to get cyclists to
pay into the system?

Zebee


[1] at least until there are enough that the traffic patterns change a
lot.

 

[Theo Bekkers]

TimC wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote
>> EuanB wrote:

>>> Law enforcement is an unrelated topic. Regos got nothing to do with
>>> it.

>> Third Party Insurance is what covers people injured by motor
>> vehicles. Nothing to do with rego. Rego is about ID and Law
>> enforcement.

> Except in Victoria, where Euan resides, where TAC _is_ the compulsory
> third party injury no-fault insurance, and is paid for by rego.
>
> But Euan, that is only in .vic. Dunno what rego fees pay for in other
> states. Probably adminning of the rego system.

In WA you get one bill as well. The bill has several distinct components.
I just happen to have one on my desk today for a car. Car rego in WA is
charged at $x per 100 kg. This particular car weighs 1495 kg, so rego is
$227.85. TPI is $239.10 Stamp duty $23.90 recording fee is $10.15. Total
$501.

Rego is what motorists claim they pay for the roads. Hmm.. at $227.85 per
annum, in about 4 years this car will have ccontributed enough for a parking
space. OTOH, this particular car contributed some $9500 in GST, $11,000 in
luxury car tax, and $7,500 in Stamp duty when it was first registered.

Theo

 

[Theo Bekkers]

scotty72 wrote:
> Yeah but cyclists are, by definition, a much healthier lot than those
> of you who let fossil fuels do your sweating for you. We are far less
> like to be a drain on the health system due to sedentary lifestyles -
> a far more likely scenario than a serious crash.
>
> Also, we don't pollute the air and cause kids to get cancer etc.
>
> Therefore, fossil fuel burners should be taxed more to pay for the tax
> rebates for active transport people.

I partly agree, but why pick on motorists who produce 7% of the nation's
polution. Instead pick on electricity users who generate more than 80% of
the polution by burning coal?

Oh, you use electricity?

Theo

 

[scotty72]

No,

I have heard this 7% trotted out.

That is highly in dispute and I've heard a figure of about 45%.

Your figure is doubtlessly simply calculated on - my car burns x litres of fuel and x litres of fuel emmits y kgs of exhaust.

You have to also include the pollution costs of manufacturing, delivery, the endless promotional material for them. (A bicycle is a timy fraction of a car)

It's not just the burning of fuel, it's the energy required to mine it, refine it, deliver it etc.

I've heard estimates that the burning of fuel of a car is between 25% - 33% of its total pollution output.

So, your 7% is a figure I'd expect the NRMA to use to downplay motor vechiles impact.

I'd much prefer to believe the 45% as it would be far closer to reality.

Scotty

scotty72 wrote:
> Yeah but cyclists are, by definition, a much healthier lot than those
> of you who let fossil fuels do your sweating for you. We are far less
> like to be a drain on the health system due to sedentary lifestyles -
> a far more likely scenario than a serious crash.
>
> Also, we don't pollute the air and cause kids to get cancer etc.
>
> Therefore, fossil fuel burners should be taxed more to pay for the tax
> rebates for active transport people.

I partly agree, but why pick on motorists who produce 7% of the nation's
polution. Instead pick on electricity users who generate more than 80% of
the polution by burning coal?

Oh, you use electricity?

Theo

 

[Theo Bekkers]

scotty72 wrote:
> No,
>
> I have heard this 7% trotted out.
>
> That is highly in dispute and I've heard a figure of about 45%.
>
> Your figure is doubtlessly simply calculated on - my car burns x
> litres of fuel and x litres of fuel emmits y kgs of exhaust.
>
> You have to also include the pollution costs of manufacturing,
> delivery, the endless promotional material for them. (A bicycle is a
> timy fraction of a car)
>
> It's not just the burning of fuel, it's the energy required to mine
> it, refine it, deliver it etc.
>
> I've heard estimates that the burning of fuel of a car is between 25%
> - 33% of its total pollution output.
>
> So, your 7% is a figure I'd expect the NRMA to use to downplay motor
> vechiles impact.
>
> I'd much prefer to believe the 45% as it would be far closer to
> reality.

You can believe waht you want Scotty. According to

a.. AUSTRALIA'S POLLUTING POWER Coal-fired electricity and its impact on
....
BIGGEST CAUSE OF GREENHOUSE POLLUTION In Australia in 2000 the use of coal
was responsible for the emission of 186 million tonnes (Mt) of CO2, the most
significant greenhouse gas in ...

a.. wwf.org.au/publications/australias_polluting_power.pdf


About 97% of the electricity industry’s greenhouse gas emissions comes from
24 coal-fired power stations. This

relatively small number of power stations produce an amount of greenhouse
pollution equivalent to the annual

emissions from about 40 million cars, four times Australia’s actual car
fleet.

Australia’s 24 coal power stations also produce more emissions than the
total emissions from many entire

countries, including Argentina, Belgium, Greece, Ireland, Israel, Malaysia,
Pakistan, Portugal, Sweden,

Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, all eastern European countries apart from
Russia and Poland, and all African

countries apart from South Africa.



But believe whatever you want.

Theo

 

[John Henderson]

John Tserkezis wrote:

> Quoting ARR Oct 1999:
>
> "259 Riding at night
> The rider of a bicycle must not ride at night, or in hazardous
> weather conditions causing reduced visibility, unless the
> bicycle, or the rider, displays: (a) a flashing or steady
> white light that is clearly visible for at least 200 metres
> from the front of the bicycle; and (b) a flashing or steady
> red light that is clearly visible for at least 200 metres from
> the rear of the bicycle; and (c) a red reflector that is
> clearly visible for at least 50 metres from the rear of the
> bicycle when light is projected onto it by a vehicle's
> headlight on low-beam."
>
> What I really don't get, is the requirement for part (C). I
> would have thought the active lighting in part (B) would make
> a reflector redundant.

Active lighting can fail. All is susceptible to at least one of
the following:

1. Incandescent bulbs regularly blow.

2. Batteries can fail or go flat before you reach your
destination.

3. Dynamos stop generating when the wheel stops.

I'm surprised a forward-facing white or yellow reflector isn't
also required. But a rear lighting failure is more likely to
go unnoticed.

John

 

[Ray]

In article <slrn-0.9.7.4-25287-9853-200801150636-
[email protected]>, [email protected]-
astro.swin.edu.au says...
> On 2008-01-14, Ray (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> > In article <slrn-0.9.7.4-31087-23654-200801141945-
> > [email protected]>, [email protected]-
> > astro.swin.edu.au says...
> >> On 2008-01-14, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
> >> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> >> > Third Party Insurance is what covers people injured by motor vehicles.
> >> > Nothing to do with rego. Rego is about ID and Law enforcement.
> >>
> >> Except in Victoria, where Euan resides, where TAC _is_ the compulsory
> >> third party injury no-fault insurance, and is paid for by rego.
> >>
> >> But Euan, that is only in .vic. Dunno what rego fees pay for in other
> >> states. Probably adminning of the rego system.
> >>
> > Wrong, Victorian registration clearly itemises the rego component
> > separate to the TPI.
> > Yes you pay WITH the rego, but the rego is NOT the TPI.
>
> And what's the percentage of the TPI component?
>
>

For our car:
($285.00 + $28.50) / $486 = 64.5%

Rego is $173

Regardless, the rego itself does not pay for the TAC.

 

[scotty72]

A nice set of stats that completely ignore and seek to obfuscate the point I was making.

But, appologising for the oil industry makes you happy, so....

Scotty

scotty72 wrote:
> No,
>
> I have heard this 7% trotted out.
>
> That is highly in dispute and I've heard a figure of about 45%.
>
> Your figure is doubtlessly simply calculated on - my car burns x
> litres of fuel and x litres of fuel emmits y kgs of exhaust.
>
> You have to also include the pollution costs of manufacturing,
> delivery, the endless promotional material for them. (A bicycle is a
> timy fraction of a car)
>
> It's not just the burning of fuel, it's the energy required to mine
> it, refine it, deliver it etc.
>
> I've heard estimates that the burning of fuel of a car is between 25%
> - 33% of its total pollution output.
>
> So, your 7% is a figure I'd expect the NRMA to use to downplay motor
> vechiles impact.
>
> I'd much prefer to believe the 45% as it would be far closer to
> reality.

You can believe waht you want Scotty. According to

a.. AUSTRALIA'S POLLUTING POWER Coal-fired electricity and its impact on
....
BIGGEST CAUSE OF GREENHOUSE POLLUTION In Australia in 2000 the use of coal
was responsible for the emission of 186 million tonnes (Mt) of CO2, the most
significant greenhouse gas in ...

a.. wwf.org.au/publications/australias_polluting_power.pdf


About 97% of the electricity industry’s greenhouse gas emissions comes from
24 coal-fired power stations. This

relatively small number of power stations produce an amount of greenhouse
pollution equivalent to the annual

emissions from about 40 million cars, four times Australia’s actual car
fleet.

Australia’s 24 coal power stations also produce more emissions than the
total emissions from many entire

countries, including Argentina, Belgium, Greece, Ireland, Israel, Malaysia,
Pakistan, Portugal, Sweden,

Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, all eastern European countries apart from
Russia and Poland, and all African

countries apart from South Africa.



But believe whatever you want.

Theo