Sensational-Adelaide.com

rubberman wrote:If someone uses roads, be that as motor vehicle drivers or cyclists, surely it is fair that they be charged for that use. In the case of motorists, this is partly by rego, by fuel levies, and general taxes.

So why shouldn't cyclists pay a proportion of the cost of the roads they use?

They do!

rubberman wrote:

GoodSmackUp wrote:

rubberman wrote:If someone uses roads, be that as motor vehicle drivers or cyclists, surely it is fair that they be charged for that use. In the case of motorists, this is partly by rego, by fuel levies, and general taxes.

So why shouldn't cyclists pay a proportion of the cost of the roads they use?

Because the wear and tear caused by a bike is no way near proportional to it's size compared to a car

Wear and tear is less, agreed, and so is the space taken up. However, neither of those are zero, so neither should rego be zero.

The argument that because many bike riders already pay car rego, so they shouldn't pay rego for a bike...well, if someone pays rego on a truck, do they get free rego on their car? The charge is per vehicle, not per person.

Cyclists impose costs. Bike lanes are not free for example, nor is policing. Users should pay something, even if it's otherwise subsidised.

Every road in SA is subsidised in one way or another.

I think only the most irrational people would keep banging on about such pointless thing as push bike rego.

Free parking isn't free yet we still have those.

The cost of administering bike registration would be higher than the benefit. Also, do the 10 year old kids who ride their bike to school really need to deal with something like bike registration?

Should humans have a rego to use the public footpath and cross roads? Those footpaths and buttons are not free.
We could just tattoo the wrists of everyone with a barcode.
It would help identify people if they start a fight and punch someone or damage a car.

Maybe we should tax shoes slightly to recover the wear and tear like we do fuel.

There we have the problem for governments in Australia. Everyone wants something for free: Trams down the Parade, bike lanes, you name it. However, when it comes to paying, it's every excuse in the world why those same people don't have to pay.

No wonder all we get are loads of surveys, studies, announcements, plans, but only a dribble of actual projects complete.

If we want stuff done, we've got to be prepared to pay for it. Otherwise we get what happens now. We pretend to pay, and governments pretend to do anything.

I'd be prepared to pay for bike rego if cycling infrastructure got a greater share of road funding, however I believe cycling infrastructure receives about 1% of funding compared to road lanes in this state, so if that's the case, these anti cycling senile conservatives can go get f*$^ked when they ask for bike registration.

The hidden negative costs of cars, roads and traffic are enormous, and we are finally seeing economic/business/community benefits of cycling infrastructure - see blog link below

https://slowstreets.wordpress.com/2016/ ... ike-lanes/

jk1237 wrote:I'd be prepared to pay for bike rego if cycling infrastructure got a greater share of road funding, however I believe cycling infrastructure receives about 1% of funding compared to road lanes in this state, so if that's the case, these anti cycling senile conservatives can go get f*$^ked when they ask for bike registration.

The hidden negative costs of cars, roads and traffic are enormous, and we are finally seeing economic/business/community benefits of cycling infrastructure - see blog link below

https://slowstreets.wordpress.com/2016/ ... ike-lanes/

Yep. Everyone has an excuse for not wanting to pay for improvements themselves. And if they run out of excuses, there's always name calling.

I look forward to more studies, announcements, plans and surveys. It's all we're prepared to pay for.

Actual progress, not so much.

rev wrote:Cyclists who ride 3-4-5 abreast. Who do not form a single line or no more then 2 abreast even when cars are coming from both directions.

Cyslists who ride in the middle or near the middle of the road and don't move to the side to allow vehicles to pass them.

Cyclists who don't stop and give way at the roundabout but ride right through it without even looking.

I think the police should do periodic blitz's and fine cyclists who offend like these examples. Only fairs fair given vehicle drivers have been formally notified (threatened by fines actually) to modify their overtaking behaviour.

If a group of 5 cyclists are spread 2-3 abreast then all 5 should be fined. $100 a head should do it...

rev wrote:Cyclists who when they notice a car coming behind them, start riding faster to beat the car.

Maybe a discourtesy depending on circumstance, but not really a fineable offence. Could argue the car driver should show similar courtesy and slow for a brief moment.

Norman wrote:The cost of administering bike registration would be higher than the benefit. Also, do the 10 year old kids who ride their bike to school really need to deal with something like bike registration?

Because 10yo kids are riding their bikes through traffic on the roads, right?


Some are saying that cyclists do pay for the roads, because they have cars that they pay rego etc for. What sort of brain malfunctioning logic is that?
I have a car, that I pay insurance and rego for every year. Using the logic of some people here I therefore shouldn't have to pay registration for my motorbike. Or second car.

For every vehicle motorists have on the road, they pay. Why should cyclists be exempt from the same rules and regulations and fees the rest of us are who use the roads daily are under? You want to share the roads with motor vehicles, then share the costs as well.

You guys can bring up the idiots in cars thing all you want. But the fact is that the majority of cars on our roads are fitted with safety features such as ABS and air bags. What safety feature is your bike fitted with? A flashing light? If I crash into another car because the other driver is doing the wrong thing, I'm likely to only suffer minor injuries. If you crash into a car on your bike because you do the wrong thing, like cut in front of traffic across the middle of a busy road, or fail to give way at a round about, you could well be killed.

You know what my reaction would be if I was put in a situation where my options where, hitting a tree, parked cars, oncoming traffic, stobie pole/light pole, or cyclist clad in his super duper protective shield of lycra in front of me...the cyclist would feel the full force of my 4wd's bullbar.
Why? Because it's going to do the least amount of damage to me physically. My car will still be repairable. My airbags probably wont go off either.
The tree doesn't deserve to get hit. The tree didn't do the wrong thing.
The stobie pole & light pole don't deserve it either.
The people who parked their cars on the side of the road don't deserve it either.
The people in the oncoming cars don't deserve it either.
Not saying the cyclist who did the wrong thing and caused a dangerous situation would deserve it either, but I wouldn't have any sympathy or remorse regardless of how badly injured that cyclist was as a result of him/her being inconsiderate and ignoring road rules and doing the wrong thing.
There's quite a number of them who do the wrong thing every day.

There's a guy who crosses airport road near the fire station every morning. He doesn't stop he doesn't look to check if there's oncoming traffic. He just rides right across Airport road. The other morning he was nearly collected by a Star Track van, this morning I nearly hit him. He would be dead if I had hit him.
Would I feel bad? Not a chance.
I don't feel bad for arrogant assholes who think they can do whatever they want and get away with it.

So..how many of you went down to Military Road at West Beach this morning?
None of you?
It's a shame because you would see first hand exactly what I'm talking about.

Here's a tip you should share with your fellow cycling enthuthiasts.
You aren't Cadel Evans, you aren't Lance Armstrong(even if you are doping), you aren't racing in a Tour, you aren't racing on closed off streets in a safe controlled environment.
Next time you want to try and race a car or bus or truck and try and beat it past the parked car ahead that you need to swerve past, ask your selves if it's worth risking your life to save a second just to get past a motor vehicle that ways many many times your bike and your weight combined just to piss off the driver.
Next time you a riding in a pack, ask your self if it's worth staying in the middle of the road obstructing traffic, or if you should obey the road rules and potentially save your own life.

Wayno wrote: I think the police should do periodic blitz's and fine cyclists who offend like these examples. Only fairs fair given vehicle drivers have been formally notified (threatened by fines actually) to modify their overtaking behaviour.

If a group of 5 cyclists are spread 2-3 abreast then all 5 should be fined. $100 a head should do it...

$100 a head when many of the ones who are doing are riding around on bikes worth thousands of dollars?
How about fines that are as steep as fines for motorists?
It's not your ordinary cyclist going to work that is arrogantly breaking the law in some pitiful attempt to show they are "king of the road", it's your enthuthiast types(I don't know what to call them other then offensive names about lycra other then this) in lycra.

Maybe a discourtesy depending on circumstance, but not really a fineable offence. Could argue the car driver should show similar courtesy and slow for a brief moment.

So a motor vehicle traveling faster then a push bike, that will reach and pass a parked car or other obstruction on the side of the road before the push bike, should slow down for a push bike that should be on the side of the road not obstructing traffic....?
If it's only a "brief moment", thus not a big deal, why don't these cycling hoons maintain their speed, or slow down if necessary, and allow for the much larger motor vehicles passing them that can turn them into road kill in a "brief moment", and allow for the motor vehicles to pass by first?

I don't see the fascination or point these lycra hoons have with dicing with death every day on our roads.

There's a mentality in our society that the cyclists are the victims and the cars are the offenders.
But if you pay attention to what goes on on our roads with many of these lycra hoons, you'll see exactly where the fault lies quite often.
I'm not saying motorists are perfect and never do the wrong thing.

But it's a two way street(no crappy pun intended). You can't demand motorists obey road rules, you can't point the finger at motorists all the time, when the other side, the lycra hoons, are breaking the road rules them selves.
Seems some people here don't actually realize that little fact in this argument, and want to pretend and try and drown out all that by moaning about motorists.

Sigh

People talking about how cyclists should pay rego so that they pay for road infrastructure should pause a moment and realise that rego does not pay for road infrastructure. It goes into the general revenue pool and totals a small fraction of the costs of roads.

We all, already pay for road infrastructure through taxes like council rates, GST, rego, payroll tax, stamp duty and other state applied taxes/levies.

So yes, little ten year old Jonny on his way to school with his training wheels has paid his fair share for the road when he bought that lollipop (+GST) at the deli.

monotonehell wrote:People talking about how cyclists should pay rego so that they pay for road infrastructure should pause a moment and realise that rego does not pay for road infrastructure. It goes into the general revenue pool and totals a small fraction of the costs of roads.

We all, already pay for road infrastructure through taxes like council rates, GST, rego, payroll tax, stamp duty and other state applied taxes/levies.

So yes, little ten year old Jonny on his way to school with his training wheels has paid his fair share for the road when he bought that lollipop (+GST) at the deli.

Well yes, it's true that almost all government receipts go into General Revenue. It's a question of whether it is fair or not for cyclists to pay something towards the cost of roads. To me, if cyclists didn't want a proportion of the roads as bike lanes, and they got off the road when motorists wanted to pass, then the answer is that they shouldn't have to pay a single cent, because the extra wear and tear on roads is negligible. However, once they want to use a metre each side of the road for exclusive bike use, or they expect to occupy the road and delay motorists, they should start to pay. Not only because of fairness, but also governments are only going to allocate money sparingly, and if there's no extra money from somewhere, be that extra tax, or a cut elsewhere, cyclists won't get the money spent they need.

The argument about paying is a false one. There's three alternatives: pay more tax and get stuff done, pay no extra tax and get nothing, pay no extra tax but the government cuts something from you, yes you, somewhere else. One way or the other we pay, or it won't happen. The issue is, what's the fairest and most efficient way of doing it. For me, it's "user pays at least something".

so should every single street in the whole of Adelaide have toll gates, going by your illogical pro petrol, user pays argument - Rubberman

I feel like I have found Adelaide Now with this pro car, anti cycling, conservative, spend entire state budget only on wide roads for cars, bullshit

rubberman wrote:

monotonehell wrote:People talking about how cyclists should pay rego so that they pay for road infrastructure should pause a moment and realise that rego does not pay for road infrastructure. It goes into the general revenue pool and totals a small fraction of the costs of roads.

We all, already pay for road infrastructure through taxes like council rates, GST, rego, payroll tax, stamp duty and other state applied taxes/levies.

So yes, little ten year old Jonny on his way to school with his training wheels has paid his fair share for the road when he bought that lollipop (+GST) at the deli.

Well yes, it's true that almost all government receipts go into General Revenue. It's a question of whether it is fair or not for cyclists to pay something towards the cost of roads. To me, if cyclists didn't want a proportion of the roads as bike lanes, and they got off the road when motorists wanted to pass, then the answer is that they shouldn't have to pay a single cent, because the extra wear and tear on roads is negligible. However, once they want to use a metre each side of the road for exclusive bike use, or they expect to occupy the road and delay motorists, they should start to pay. Not only because of fairness, but also governments are only going to allocate money sparingly, and if there's no extra money from somewhere, be that extra tax, or a cut elsewhere, cyclists won't get the money spent they need.

The argument about paying is a false one. There's three alternatives: pay more tax and get stuff done, pay no extra tax and get nothing, pay no extra tax but the government cuts something from you, yes you, somewhere else. One way or the other we pay, or it won't happen. The issue is, what's the fairest and most efficient way of doing it. For me, it's "user pays at least something".

If you want to look at it in a who pays way then: A little over half of the cost of maintaining roads comes out of council rates. While a little under half comes out of state general revenue. Commonwealth revenue tops up the state share by a small amount - and most of that goes specifically to infrastructure projects or putting up signs say how wonderful the Commonwealth are.

Rego covers about 80% of the state's share.
So everyone pays the lion's share toward maintaining the roads. And motorists pay the same as everyone else PLUS a bit more to drive their vehicles on the road. Passengers on public transport pay their share through fares which gets passed via rego. The costs of freight laden vehicles are passed on to the consumers of those products...

Everyone IS paying at least something (even little Jonny Trainingwheels) so where's the problem?