News & Discussion: Roads & Traffic

[mshagg]

Just like I and all other motorists have to keep paying every year for the privilege of using our roads in our private motor vehicles or commercial/business vehicles.

Do you receive an invoice for said services?

Roads are public infrastructure (toll roads excepted). You don't pay for it directly, nor do you have any sort of claim to preferential use. Your entire argument seems to be grounded in the fraudulent assumption that, as a motorist, you pay for the roads?

[Maximus]

Do you receive an invoice for said services?

I think in this case it's called a tax bill....

[Westside]

Well, as much as I've enjoyed this rational debate, full of intellectual insight and well researched hypotheses and ideas based on fact, I am going to bow out of this discussion.

Unfortunately, some people value my life (as a cyclist) less than a stobie pole, as has been made clear on this topic. Apparently the penalty for running a red light or trying to overtake a parked car is death by surrounding drivers. As a vulnerable road user, I have to be constantly on the lookout for like-minded drivers who think $118 a year will give them the exclusive right to every road in the country and all who have not paid this fee (even if they have for another vehicle), should get out of the way. Hopefully, one day, these drivers become the minority as more people embrace a far more enjoyable transport option and leave their car at home.

Sorry world, but you're going to have to find a new spokesperson.



Edit: The registration part of car registration is actually only $118, not the $700 I put in earlier.

[bits]

This user pays idea seems illogical.
So the rich that sit at home getting advice from brokers over their shares should pay nothing towards roads? If all humans did this who would be left making/delivering the products?

For core infrastructure such as roads (plus health, education, police, fire, etc) taxing the entire community according to ability to pay works best.

Directly paying for core infrastructure that everyone depends on disadvantages all the wrong people and the economy.

[rubberman]

This user pays idea seems illogical.
So the rich that sit at home getting advice from brokers over their shares should pay nothing towards roads? If all humans did this who would be left making/delivering the products?

For core infrastructure such as roads (plus health, education, police, fire, etc) taxing the entire community according to ability to pay works best.

Directly paying for core infrastructure that everyone depends on disadvantages all the wrong people and the economy.

So, why charge motor cars and motor bikes then?
Why does putting a motor over a certain size on a bike mean the rider should pay?

Should we do that for telecoms and water? Given that a lot of the costs are fixed for these, why not just make them "free" by that logic?

I don't necessarily agree or disagree, but there needs to be some consistency and fairness.

[realstretts]

This user pays idea seems illogical.
So the rich that sit at home getting advice from brokers over their shares should pay nothing towards roads? If all humans did this who would be left making/delivering the products?

For core infrastructure such as roads (plus health, education, police, fire, etc) taxing the entire community according to ability to pay works best.

Directly paying for core infrastructure that everyone depends on disadvantages all the wrong people and the economy.

So, why charge motor cars and motor bikes then?
Why does putting a motor over a certain size on a bike mean the rider should pay?

Should we do that for telecoms and water? Given that a lot of the costs are fixed for these, why not just make them "free" by that logic?

I don't necessarily agree or disagree, but there needs to be some consistency and fairness.

Because their combustion engines pollute far more than non-combustion forms of transport, they also have the capacity to seriously injure or kill people, they damage the roads at a rate far greater than a 10kg piece of metal, they are a burden on the environment, they are a burden on public space as they require huge amounts of land in comparison to bicycles, they are a burden on the health of everyone due to inactive forms of transport, contributing to chronic health diseases that burden our health system.

I could go on if you'd like

[realstretts]

Also, if you think registration pays for the road system, you are decidedly incorrect. Here is a breakdown from Tasmania, im sure it is very similar here:

Registration Fee: $69.46 This is the cost to administer the scheme
Fire levy: $17
Road safety levy: $25 - because cars contribute the most to road accidents
Motor Tax (3 cylinder car): $107 - a tax on the environmental damage a car inflicts
Compulsory insurance: $338

Now i'm not sure where in this breakdown 'tax to build infrastructure' is factored in here...maybe im blind? Or maybe it is because registration of a vehicle does not perform the function of generating funds to build roads. Well, it is not a maybe, it is a fact that this is the case.

All of this info can be found here: http://www.transport.tas.gov.au/fees_fo ... t_vehicles

And here: http://www.transport.tas.gov.au/fees_fo ... t_vehicles

Roads are in fact paid for via general taxation, of which i'm sure every cyclist contributes to through their tax even though their burden on the system is significantly less

[OlympusAnt]

South Australia has always been fundamentally a toll-free state. It should remain that way.

Cyclists though, do not get me started on that.

[bits]

So, why charge motor cars and motor bikes then?
Why does putting a motor over a certain size on a bike mean the rider should pay?

We don't change charge motor cars or bikes for roads. We charge them for a registration system, insurance, pollution etc.
Roads are paid for by all tax payers.

Telecoms; are we not using tax payers money to build the nbn?
I would be all for a basic internet service for everyone being given to all Australian citizens.
We should also have [email protected]
But we still class feminine hygiene products as a luxury for tax purposes. If that's a luxury I don't hold much hope for the internet being classed as a requirement.

When we build large things like dams and desal plants, their entire cost is not worn by the user's directly. Much of the cost is worn in general tax.

What do you think your income tax, gst, payroll tax etc pays for?

Toll roads are such a blunt instrument for tax. They do not take in to account the user's ability to pay. The guy on minimum wage driving to work is taxed as much as the millionaire driving to their holiday.
It is an unfair system that I hope Adelaide never uses. The fairest way to build core things such as roads is to tax the population based on their ability to pay.

[rev]

This user pays idea seems illogical.
So the rich that sit at home getting advice from brokers over their shares should pay nothing towards roads? If all humans did this who would be left making/delivering the products?

For core infrastructure such as roads (plus health, education, police, fire, etc) taxing the entire community according to ability to pay works best.

Directly paying for core infrastructure that everyone depends on disadvantages all the wrong people and the economy.

So, why charge motor cars and motor bikes then?
Why does putting a motor over a certain size on a bike mean the rider should pay?

Should we do that for telecoms and water? Given that a lot of the costs are fixed for these, why not just make them "free" by that logic?

I don't necessarily agree or disagree, but there needs to be some consistency and fairness.

Because their combustion engines pollute far more than non-combustion forms of transport, they also have the capacity to seriously injure or kill people, they damage the roads at a rate far greater than a 10kg piece of metal, they are a burden on the environment, they are a burden on public space as they require huge amounts of land in comparison to bicycles, they are a burden on the health of everyone due to inactive forms of transport, contributing to chronic health diseases that burden our health system.

I could go on if you'd like

Oh please do go on.
While you're on the subject of pollution, please do tell us about the magical factories that make the magical push bikes of magical materials that produce 0 pollution.
I'd really like to hear about these magical places particularly where the magical tyres are made.

[rev]

So, why charge motor cars and motor bikes then?
Why does putting a motor over a certain size on a bike mean the rider should pay?

We don't change charge motor cars or bikes for roads. We charge them for a registration system, insurance, pollution etc.
Roads are paid for by all tax payers.

Telecoms; are we not using tax payers money to build the nbn?
I would be all for a basic internet service for everyone being given to all Australian citizens.
We should also have [email protected]
But we still class feminine hygiene products as a luxury for tax purposes. If that's a luxury I don't hold much hope for the internet being classed as a requirement.

When we build large things like dams and desal plants, their entire cost is not worn by the user's directly. Much of the cost is worn in general tax.

What do you think your income tax, gst, payroll tax etc pays for?

Toll roads are such a blunt instrument for tax. They do not take in to account the user's ability to pay. The guy on minimum wage driving to work is taxed as much as the millionaire driving to their holiday.
It is an unfair system that I hope Adelaide never uses. The fairest way to build core things such as roads is to tax the population based on their ability to pay.

Wahh waah we want everything provided for us by governments but we don't want to pay for any of it.

When was the forum infiltrated by people who never grew out/up out of their "rebellious" "alternative"(so alternative and different they all do it) socialist stage in life types?

[rev]

If you weren't a bunch of dictatorial my belief/opinion is right and should be imposed on everyone else socialist whack jobs, you might have realised that nobody wants to run you over with their car nobody wants to see you turned into road kill and that nobody is saying don't use the road.

What people are saying is that there should be a fair system in place where all road users pay and go through the same procedures.
If I have to pay to use a car and own a car and drive it on public roads, why should you be different on your push bike?

Obviously the costs for cyclists should be less then a car like they are for motorbikes.
But just like people on motorbikes have to go through a practical course to get their license so should cyclists as well as sitting a theory test on basic road rules applicable to cyclists...like not weaving in and out and in front of traffic, like using your hand to indicate to drivers your intention to turn, like giving way at round abouts, like riding within boundaries and not confusing our public roads for the Tour de France with your wet dream of being in the peloton. And many more.

Everyone else has to follow the road rules why the hell should cyclists be exempt? What the hell makes you so special?

You say you already pay.

I already pay for one car why should I pay for a second and a motorbike why can't I go and buy them and drive/ride them as I please on the road ignoring road rules and being a danger on the roads just like many cyclists do?

Are you ok with that?
Do you think people with drivers licenses should be able to ride motorbikes unregistered unlicensed and uninsured?
It's exactly the same scenario except the motorbike weighs more and has an engine.

Come on don't be hypocrites now.
If it's good enough for you to be riding around in a dangerous manner ignoring road rules that are applicable to cyclists, uninsured, unregistered and unlicensed then I should be able to do the same on my motor powered bike.

Or doesn't that count because it doesn't fit into the moronic socialist ideology(that you forgot to leave in the past with your teenage years) where anyone with a different opinion or belief is shouted down, and key points are ignored and drowned out by stupidity, in order to get everyone to conform like robots?

[bits]

Wahh waah we want everything provided for us by governments but we don't want to pay for any of it.

Not at all. We should pay tax to cover the cost of things. Eg income tax, gst, payroll tax. And use other taxes for pricing signals for things like fuel, water, etc.
What we should not do is create direct taxes(user pays) for basic infrastructure.

[bits]

What people are saying is that there should be a fair system in place where all road users pay and go through the same procedures.
If I have to pay to use a car and own a car and drive it on public roads, why should you be different on your push bike?

Everyone else has to follow the road rules why the hell should cyclists be exempt? What the hell makes you so special?

I already pay for one car why should I pay for a second and a motorbike why can't I go and buy them and drive/ride them as I please on the road ignoring road rules and being a danger on the roads just like many cyclists do?

Come on don't be hypocrites now.
If it's good enough for you to be riding around in a dangerous manner ignoring road rules that are applicable to cyclists, uninsured, unregistered and unlicensed then I should be able to do the same on my motor powered bike.

Cars and motor bikes have a much larger weight, speed and pollution(including at the production factory). They are not at all comparable to push bikes.

You are lost on a weird thought process that in your head gives a push bike a comparable risk of harm to these other much larger vehicles.

You are now comparing the tiny tyres on a push bike to the massive tyres on motor bikes and cars. Comparing a couple of tubes to a massive frame of a car. Ignoring the engine as being the main pollution point that pollutes at every drive. Ignoring benefits in health and traffic congestion from riding a bike.

Pedestrians do not need to get a license to use roads, we learn those skills at school. We also have courses for push bikes at school. Have you never been to one of the push bike safety centres?
And think about all the pollution the glue and rubber soles of the shoe creates in the factory right?

Push bikes are super low risk, low pollution, improve traffic and improve health. Their cost is so small/non-existent that any attempt to administer them as you suggest would cost more than raised and reduce the amount of riders. Which are both bad things, so the government's of the world do not do it.

[realstretts]

Oh please do go on.
While you're on the subject of pollution, please do tell us about the magical factories that make the magical push bikes of magical materials that produce 0 pollution.
I'd really like to hear about these magical places particularly where the magical tyres are made.

lol you cant be serious when you think bicycles come anywhere near close to the amount of environmental degradation that cars contribute. Even factoring in manufacturing.

This has been such a weird discussion, on one side you have those defending bicycles who have presented facts, figures and evidence to support their argument. On the other side you have those who have simply stated their opinion without any knowledge or advancement of evidence to support their position. Their arguments are on the whole fundamentally flawed, and they have continued to ignore the evidence presented to them. It is clear that you have made up your mind and no amount of logic, evidence, facts, figures will sway that. There is no point debating someone who is not open to being challenged.