realstretts 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.
I'm just gonna quote myself again so you hopefully see this - cyclists do pay toward the system by the very virtue of their economic benefits to society. Cars cost the system money and therefore must pay to offset this economic burden:
Some statistical data for you sir,
"This means that, for each person who cycles 20 minutes to work and back, our economy benefits by
$14.30; and for each person who walks 20 minutes to work and back benefits our economy by $8.48."
"Traffic congestion is estimated to cost $20.4 billion by 2020"
Simple comparison between cycling and driving from this report: ]Australian Government 2013, Walking Riding and Access to Public Transport, quoting Qld Dept of Transport and Main Roads 2010, Benefits of inclusion of active transport in infrastructure projects, by SKM and PWC
There is a reason cars have to pay and bicycles do not and SHOULD NOT: their burden on the economy, the road system, the chronic health issues of EVERYBODY, their pollution, their injury and fatality rates, their insurance costs, their contribution to excessive congestion on the roads...I could go on, cars cost society a considerable amount of money - bicycle riders do not cost society, in fact, they provide a net economic benefit to society.
Whilst cars suck money out of the system, it is clear that bicycles contribute money back to the system in economic benefit - therefore, cyclists ALREADY PAY money to the system, yet receive inadequate funding for infrastructure despite this.
Ok, let's look at that report. In the executive summary, it breaks down the benefits. 90% of benefits accrue to the cyclist. Health benefits, cost savings for not running a car, savings in parking costs all accrue to the cyclist. So, those benefits do not accrue to "the system", they accrue to the individual cyclist.
So, having grabbed 90% of the benefits, you then want the infrastructure to provide those benefits free! Shameless.
Then, if one googles along the lines of cyclists paying for road use, or registration, what do we find? Mostly cycling lobby groups protecting their ability to get benefits without paying.
How is this any different to the usual "Privatise the benefits and socialise the losses" we get from all other self interested lobby groups?
This is the same as the housing industry and defence of negative gearing, the super industry and their rorts, the miners against their super profits tax, the pokie industry against restrictions, industry against the carbon tax. Everybody wants some concession benefiting them, citing the taxes they already pay as reasons to not have to contribute a single dollar toward that concession.
Now, I guess that if everyone else is doing it, cyclists might as well get in on the act, and the country's finances can go get stuffed. But please, let's not pretend it's anything more than it is: 90% of benefits already go to the cyclist, and you're after a bit more.
Funnily enough, one of the negatives is the cost of injury to cyclists. However, when it comes to one of the most obvious measures to reduce that; instruction, testing and licensing of competence, no way do cyclists want it. However, if it's making other people pay for more infrastructure, that's another matter.
