Sensational-Adelaide.com

Llessur2002 wrote:

rubberman wrote:It is at this point I have most sympathy for politicians. The endless parade of people demanding stuff, and then when those making the demands are asked to pay even a small amount, the politicians get a torrent of ill mannered and ill informed abuse.

Who's actually asked cyclists to pay any money? Other than a bunch of over excited AdelaideNow commenters I've not heard anything - I'm not aware any political party in Australia has ever floated the idea. Presumably because it's been proven time and time again that introducing a rego (or whatever you want to call this payment) scheme for cyclists will cost far more to administer than it would receive in revenue - as well as the knock on effects to our economy by taking cyclists off of the road and putting them into yet more single-occupant cars sitting stationary at intersections. Why would any politician support such a backward idea other than to appease the (albeit rather vocal) anti-bike minority?

Thankfully, younger generations seem a little more savvy with regards to sustainable transport solutions so with the passing of a generation or two the argument should be put well and truly to bed. Hopefully by which time most developed countries (Australia included) will boast magnificent networks of free-to-use cycling infrastructure to support the much larger number of people choosing this method of transportation over private vehicles.

rubberman wrote: A few things here. There's nothing free. If you want a magnificent cycling infrastructure, you are going to pay for it in some way. If it makes you happier, we can all pretend it's free while we shake our heads because some other totally unrelated tax has just gone up.

As for the cost of collecting any charges. I'm sure that the younger generation you talk about know that doing it electronically is dirt cheap. I mean, who fills out income tax forms in paper these days?

But anyway, it's always been the case that if you don't want to pay for something, it's going to be a struggle to get it. Bikes have been round for over 100 years, and it's only recently cyclists have made any progress. Maybe, just maybe if cyclists hadn't been so cheap over the years, they'd have gotten a whole lot more and a whole lot sooner.

rubberman wrote:A few things here. There's nothing free. If you want a magnificent cycling infrastructure, you are going to pay for it in some way. If it makes you happier, we can all pretend it's free while we shake our heads because some other totally unrelated tax has just gone up.

As for the cost of collecting any charges. I'm sure that the younger generation you talk about know that doing it electronically is dirt cheap. I mean, who fills out income tax forms in paper these days?

But anyway, it's always been the case that if you don't want to pay for something, it's going to be a struggle to get it. Bikes have been round for over 100 years, and it's only recently cyclists have made any progress. Maybe, just maybe if cyclists hadn't been so cheap over the years, they'd have gotten a whole lot more and a whole lot sooner.

rubberman wrote:But anyway, it's always been the case that if you don't want to pay for something, it's going to be a struggle to get it. Bikes have been round for over 100 years, and it's only recently cyclists have made any progress. Maybe, just maybe if cyclists hadn't been so cheap over the years, they'd have gotten a whole lot more and a whole lot sooner.

Llessur2002 wrote: Who's actually ever asked cyclists to pay any money?
Any political party have that in their manifesto? Even the Motoring Enthusiast Party?

Llessur2002 wrote:

rubberman wrote:A few things here. There's nothing free. If you want a magnificent cycling infrastructure, you are going to pay for it in some way. If it makes you happier, we can all pretend it's free while we shake our heads because some other totally unrelated tax has just gone up.

As for the cost of collecting any charges. I'm sure that the younger generation you talk about know that doing it electronically is dirt cheap. I mean, who fills out income tax forms in paper these days?

But anyway, it's always been the case that if you don't want to pay for something, it's going to be a struggle to get it. Bikes have been round for over 100 years, and it's only recently cyclists have made any progress. Maybe, just maybe if cyclists hadn't been so cheap over the years, they'd have gotten a whole lot more and a whole lot sooner.

No, hang on - you can't just band around accusations of 'cyclists being cheap'. That's as bad as that trashy "article" by Jess Leo.

So:

(Snip)

How can you accuse a group of people of 'refusing to pay' when the question's never been asked?

And what about previous comments about cyclists actually returning money to the economy? $14 per trip? If that's true then that's a bigger economic benefit that any rego scheme could return...

rubberman wrote:
Those figures quoted are benefits. They ignore the costs. That's why we have cost:benefit analyses.

If people don't get the reality of the present financial situation governments are in, and that money for one thing means less money for something else, there's no helping them then. For example, money has been cut from dental services, and people have to wait a year if they can't afford a private dentist.

Maybe the benefit of shortening dental waiting times exceeds the benefit of bike lanes. So, as an example, government would logically cut money from bike lanes if that were the case.

Or with Holdens closing maybe support to sackec workers is a higher priority? Point is, that if you're not paying, you get no seat at these economic discussions.

rubberman wrote:A few things here. There's nothing free. If you want a magnificent cycling infrastructure, you are going to pay for it in some way. If it makes you happier, we can all pretend it's free while we shake our heads because some other totally unrelated tax has just gone up.

Westside wrote:

rubberman wrote:A few things here. There's nothing free. If you want a magnificent cycling infrastructure, you are going to pay for it in some way. If it makes you happier, we can all pretend it's free while we shake our heads because some other totally unrelated tax has just gone up.

I notice you are not a "Donating Member" of this forum, so, by your logic, you shouldn't be able to use this forum until you pay up. People who have never paid income tax in their life still receive health care. Conversely, people living in rural SA may never have been to Adelaide Oval, but they still contributed to paying for it.

Economics today is far more complex than user pays therefore user gets. Governments receive income from a number of ways and they use that on many forms of expenditure - both capital and in operating costs. As has been described in numerous studies around the world, that taxing, or enforcing licences for cyclists, just doesn't work. No city, no state, no country in the world has implemented it. So I'm not sure why the vocal and ignorant minority continue to spout this rubbish about cyclists not contributing to the cost of roads. It has been proven time and time again that if only a small percentage of drivers swapped to cycling, the cost of road infrastructure and maintenance would significantly drop. So paying people to ride instead of drive would make more economic sense than your proposal.

So go away, do some research, and if you find anything that supports your proposal, then please enlighten us. Because until then, the rest of the world has spoken and we're showing you the door.

rubberman wrote:(Snip)

rubberman wrote:Point is, that if you're not paying, you get no seat at these economic discussions.

Westside wrote:do some research, and if you find anything that supports your proposal, then please enlighten us.

rubberman wrote:

Those figures quoted are benefits. They ignore the costs. That's why we have cost:benefit analyses.

Llessur2002 wrote: ^This. I've yet to see anything suggesting a registration fee for cyclists would have any financial benefit. Start showing me the numbers and maybe I'll change my opinion. I'm a reasonable kinda guy.

"We haven't seen lycra-wearing cyclists doing 40km/h on footpaths": SAPOL

Police commissioner Grant Stevens has moved to curb driver dissatisfaction with new cycling laws, arguing officers have issued more expiations to bike-riders than motorists “during the initial stages of this new legislation”, and had not seen an influx of “lycra-wearing cyclists” hooning down public walkways.

The changes were phased in late last year, with drivers subject to fines for encroaching within a metre of cyclists in 60km/h zones, but allowed to cross double lines to overtake.

Contentiously, bicyclists are also allowed to ride on footpaths.

Stevens told a parliamentary inquiry yesterday the early experience of SAPOL officers was that “more expiations were issued to cyclists than they were to car drivers”.

“So I would like to say that is a suggestion that the police have a balanced view on this, and ‘what’s good for the goose is good for the gander’ is the prevailing situation,” he said.

Stevens said he was aware of high-profile complaints about cyclists riding between idling cars and violating the metre rule – a distance the onus is on motorists to honour – but emphasised that “as with anything, we expect our police officers to apply a degree of reasonableness to their assessment of the circumstances and act in accordance with what is reasonable”.

“There are limitations to what a vehicle driver can do if a cyclist is going to encroach on that one-metre point, and that is an issue that would dictate whether or not we, firstly, intervene at all,” he said.

“I think the greatest criticism we get is when police officers act strictly to the letter of the law and issue expiations for things that might be seen as a technical breach of the regulations or road rules.”

Asked about the issue of cyclists riding on footpaths, Stevens noted the issue was one that “attracts significant public debate”.

“Anecdotally, we are not hearing instances of people who are reverting to footpaths and riding bicycles in a manner that would create significant risk to the public,” he said.

“The principles around riding on the footpath are to ensure that young people and people who may be less confident on a bicycle or who are simply commuting to and from local areas are able to do so safely. We haven’t seen any big trends of lycra-wearing cyclists jumping on the footpaths and travelling at 30 or 40km/h.”

In response, committee member and Xenophon-aligned crossbencher John Darley noted that he had been “nearly run over by a bike in front of Parliament House on North Terrace this morning”.

The RAA’s road safety manager Charles Mountain told InDaily the commissioner’s comments reflected the motoring body’s own feedback, as well as the experience in Queensland, where similar changes were enacted in 2014.

“The cyclists who choose to ride on the footpath are generally not comfortable riding on the road anyway, so they tend to be happy riding at a slower speed,” he said.

“It also highlights too the ongoing need about effectively sharing the road between motorists and cyclists, ensuring both do the right thing and abide by the rules.”

He said while the RAA had received feedback from motorists unhappy with the changes, “a lot of that has come about because people don’t fully understand how the rules work and the rationale behind them”.

“Once we’ve explained how the rules work, most people are reasonably comfortable with them,” he said.

Westside wrote:

rubberman wrote:A few things here. There's nothing free. If you want a magnificent cycling infrastructure, you are going to pay for it in some way. If it makes you happier, we can all pretend it's free while we shake our heads because some other totally unrelated tax has just gone up.

People who have never paid income tax in their life still receive health care.

Economics today is far more complex than user pays therefore user gets. Governments receive income from a number of ways and they use that on many forms of expenditure - both capital and in operating costs. As has been described in numerous studies around the world, that taxing, or enforcing licences for cyclists, just doesn't work. No city, no state, no country in the world has implemented it. So I'm not sure why the vocal and ignorant minority continue to spout this rubbish about cyclists not contributing to the cost of roads. It has been proven time and time again that if only a small percentage of drivers swapped to cycling, the cost of road infrastructure and maintenance would significantly drop. So paying people to ride instead of drive would make more economic sense than your proposal.

So go away, do some research, and if you find anything that supports your proposal, then please enlighten us. Because until then, the rest of the world has spoken and we're showing you the door.