Sensational-Adelaide.com

Llessur2002 wrote:

Nathan wrote:Your rego fees do not pay for roads.

Your rego fees do not pay for roads.

Your rego fees do not pay for roads.

hahaha ahh made my day.

rubberman wrote:So, let's not pay rego. I'm happy with that. But I still want more spent on cars.

Let's make public transport totally free. But I still want those trams down the Parade so I can get to my Satdy latte free.

Let's make water and power and phones free too!

I think I'll join you. My taxes pay for everything, so I can now ask for anything I want cos my taxes are paying for it.

An I'll vote fer politicians who promise to give me all this, AND lower my taxes too! And I will be most shocked if they break their promises.

No worries, deficits don't matter, and you can have anything you want without having to pay extra.

I'm still not following your argument. I follow it it this far:
1. People want to pay less tax.
2. People want more services paid for by tax.

Okay that's a fair point. But then where does your argument go after that? I don't see a connection.

mshagg wrote:

rev wrote: 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?

Im not entirely sure what the point is in engaging with you, when you simply ignore the facts of the matter.

I'll speak slower.

You do not pay for road infrastructure by virtue of registering a motor vehicle.

The only "claim" to entitlement you might have here... and it's spurious at best... relates to excise and GST charged on petrol. However this money is not directly allocated to roads funding. It goes into the broader pool of money for public expenditure along with our income taxes - and represents only one of three tiers of government.

Your council rates contribute to your local roads. State taxes - primarily land/SD and payroll taxes - pay for pretty much everything else.

And you've got the nerve to call out other people as socialists...

I don't believe I said that my registration fees pay for road infrastructure exclusively or otherwise.
That's not even the argument I'm making.

Maybe you should go back to commenting on posts by ShitAdelaide on Instagram if it's too difficult for you here.

Maximus wrote:Folks, this has been on the one hand an interesting discussion, but on the other hand somewhat frustratingly similar to all other car vs bike arguments. I can see merit with various points on both sides of the debate. As always, I think Rev makes some good points, but mate you need to realise that a lot of people can't see past the hyperbole and your writing style can have a tendency to inflame. You sure as hell know how to spark a lively discussion, though, that's for sure!

A couple of thoughts that may or may not add value... When talking about relative costs involved, I don't think the low-impact nature of cycling is the whole story. The fact that cyclists are such disproportionately vulnerable road users I think supports the need, at least in terms of traffic infringement penalties, for parity between cars and bikes. A bike might not be able to cause significant damage to a car or its driver, but if the actions of a cyclist (say, running a red light) results in the cyclist being hit by a car and suffering serious injury, there is exactly the same cost involved for the health system as if it were the car that ran the red light. So, it's not just about the likelihood of a cyclist causing injury, it's also about the likelihood of the cyclist being injured.

Bikes aren't going to cause as much damage to bitumen as quickly as motor vehicles will of course.
The point of registration, wouldn't be to pay for road infrastructure like some people keep arguing against for some odd reason. It will be to keep cyclists accountable. Slap a small number plate on their bikes. Together with them being licensed. Then lets see how many keep breaking the road rules.
They often tell us of the advantages of their push bikes compared to our cars. I wonder how many would be willing to lose that privilege.

I'm held accountable of my actions on the road because I can easily be identified by my number plate. If I'm hooning around, someone can write down my rego and dob me into the police, and I'll get a knock on the door from them, fined, car impounded, whatever.
Of course that doesn't stop some people from doing the wrong thing. But imagine what it would be like if there was no registration, no road rules, no licensing(or loss of licenses), and no accountability.

All I'm saying, is that cyclists should also be held accountable through a similar system of licensing and registration that the rest of us road users are required to do.
Why should one group of road users be exempt?

Part of the counter argument I got was that many of them already pay registration and are licensed for their cars.
Well to that I said ok, so I can stop registerting my bike and not renew my bike license and ride around unlicensed and unregistered too...why should I on my "motor"bike be held to a different, higher mandatory standard then those on their "push"bikes? I pay registration and licensing for my cars. Surely that also makes me exempt from having to pay again for my bike?

Why the double standards?
Why no response to that? Why do they instead ignore that which has destroyed their shit argument, and instead start moaning about how registration does not pay for roads..?

Because they know they are wrong.

Also, on injuries, I suspect many people don't realise the impact that bikes can have on pedestrians. Irrespective of who was at fault, there are cases of pedestrians being seriously and permanently injured, or even occasionally killed, by collisions with cyclists. Source for this? A relative who works in personal injury law. It happens.

Of course.
But on the road, the cyclist is the weakest link.
That makes it even more important for cyclists to have to obey road rules.
How are you going to get them to obey road rules, if they aren't licensed and aren't registered?
You wont, because there is no way to hold them accountable. What are you going to do, follow them home? Then they'll call the cops and you'll be up a creek for that and the cops wont care about the cyclist who broke the road rules.

Rev, for much of this I have been struggling to follow your argument however you do make some very good points in your previous comment.

Accountability is key. A road user, be they using the road in a car, a motorbike, a push bike or as a pedestrian would be less likely to willfully break the law of their actions can be attributed to them.

The issue is how to hold road users who are presently unidentified on the roads accountable? As others have said, licensing and registration of cyclists has been shown to cost more money than it brings in, while also having the risk of making cycling less inviting.

Cycling should definitely be promoted and encouraged as the positive impacts vastly outweigh the negatives, however that is not to say that cyclists should not be held accountable for their actions.

Nice try Rev but how many car drivers do you witness breaking the road rules each day? If it's not 10 or more then you're not looking properly. And how many of those do you report to the police? None I bet. Yet I'd bet my bottom dollar that you'd report the first cyclist you saw doing something you deemed illegal. Like so many of the anti-bike brigade I suspect this has absolutely nothing to do with a strong moral desire to police the roads but deep down it's either a territorial reaction to suddenly having to share 'your' roads with another group of users who have different infrastructure requirements to your own, or it's a simple case of jealousy that another group of road users is able to avoid the congestion issues which affect motor vehicle users. Just a guess, apologies if I'm wrong, but regardless of your reply I reckon I'm not far off the mark.

Llessur2002 wrote:Nice try Rev but how many car drivers do you witness breaking the road rules each day? If it's not 10 or more then you're not looking properly. And how many of those do you report to the police? None I bet. Yet I'd bet my bottom dollar that you'd report the first cyclist you saw doing something you deemed illegal. Like so many of the anti-bike brigade I suspect this has absolutely nothing to do with a strong moral desire to police the roads but deep down it's either a territorial reaction to suddenly having to share 'your' roads with another group of users who have different infrastructure requirements to your own, or it's a simple case of jealousy that another group of road users is able to avoid the congestion issues which affect motor vehicle users. Just a guess, apologies if I'm wrong, but regardless of your reply I reckon I'm not far off the mark.

Heh, typical. Nice try? Nah mate, the "nice try" is your attempt to deflect attention, yet again, back onto motorists. As usual with the pro lycra hoon brigade.

Now you want to play psychologist? You don't even get what I'm saying, instead you are taking it personally as I've said something directed against you.
You aren't a lycra hoon are you? You obey the road rules and ride sensibly and responsibly on the roads don't you?

I'm jealous that cyclists get to ride on the road legally now? Huh? WTF? How does that even make sense in relation to this argument?
I mean, wow...do I have to point out the obvious that I as a motorist can still use the road..therefore jealousy doesn't even factor into it.

It's interesting how some of you, you especially, keep bitching and moaning about motorists doing the wrong thing every time someone points out cycling hoons on our roads. But you especially are not capable of admitting that there are hoon cyclists who do the wrong thing every damn day.

How many motorists do I see breaking road rules every day? Lots. But there's already a system and mechanisms in place to deal with that. Is there some reason you don't think cyclists who now use the same roads as motorists, shouldn't be held accountable as well?

And what makes you think I wouldn't report a motorist for doing the wrong thing? I had neighbors who turned parts of the street into a burnout pad, I reported them plenty of times to the police, giving them police their regos.
And you're right, I wouldn't hesitate to report a cyclist...if they had rego plates like every other damn vehicle that uses our roads is required to.

You keep referring back to bad motorists as your go to counter argument..why? Has someone suggested cyclists should be under some sort of stricter regulations and regime compared to motorists?

https://youtu.be/y2biCJdtNK4[/youtube]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2biCJdtNK4

"4.5 kms in 14 min 18 seconds for me – about 19 kph including red lights. I was riding slowly concerned about right hooks and left hooks. A colleague of mine was in one of the cars – the same trip took him over an hour – less than 4.5 kph."

Perfect example of the utility of the bicycle and why we need more of them on the roads

rev wrote: Is there some reason you don't think cyclists who now use the same roads as motorists, shouldn't be held accountable as well?

Cyclists have been using the roads since before cars were invented, they are not now allowed on the road.

I agree they should be picked up by the cops when they do wrong. I just don't agree that we require a licensing system or a registration system to do that.

Children are taken to learning centers during schooling to learn how to follow the road rules while on a bike. Just like they learn how to be a pedestrian with lights etc.
There is many centers but here is an example of one:
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-34.918 ... !1e3?hl=en
It teaches about traffic lights, giveway signs, pedestrian crossing, round abouts, etc etc.

rev wrote: How many motorists do I see breaking road rules every day? Lots. But there's already a system and mechanisms in place to deal with that. Is there some reason you don't think cyclists who now use the same roads as motorists, shouldn't be held accountable as well?

SAPOL issued 800 infringements to 400 odd cyclists during a three week period that coincided with the TDU. To suggest cyclists are not accountable is to hold a very distorted view of reality.

I'm in two minds about whether cyclists are already held sufficiently accountable for their actions. In theory, cyclists are held accountable to the same standards as motorists. They have to obey most of the same road rules as motorists and can be fined for not doing so. Generally speaking, though, I think the enforcement is much greater for motorists -- particularly with car-specific initiatives such as speed cameras, booze buses, etc -- apart from those particular times when the police do a cyclist 'blitz' on not wearing helmets, etc. And this probably just reflects the reality that, on balance, a car has the potential to do far more damage than a bike -- e.g. if a cyclist rides up onto the footpath to dodge a red light, most of the time that's probably not going to cause a problem, but if a car did it...

But I absolutely agree with Rev when he says "the cyclist is the weakest link". It's not just about the (relative lack of) damage a cyclist can do, but also about the damage they can bring upon themselves through their own irresponsible riding. Not only is this a personal problem for the cyclist, but with the way the health system is going in this country (i.e. massively rising costs), it's also a wider problem for society.

Rev, what do you think about my suggestion for a levy on bike purchases to fund an insurance scheme for injuries caused by cyclists (whether that be to themselves or to other people)?

Let's say we register cyclists, shouldn't we also register scooters because the scooters aren't much of a step away from bikes.

Now that we've registered cyclists and scooters there's not much difference between scooters and skateboards and roller skates so perhaps we should register them as well.

Now some people can run as fast as other people can go on scooters or skateboards so if you want to run you have to be registered.

But hold on I can walk as fast as some of my friends run when they go for a jog so maybe I should be registered to walk. (I also have a tendency to Jaywalk)

Fact is you have to draw a line under what level of vehicle or mobility device is registered. I don't think anyone anywhere has yet been able to work out a financially viable way of registering vehicles below the level of a motorbike. Added to this is the well documented economic benefits that accrue to BOTH individuals and governments of moving people away from private motor vehicle usage and toward cycling and walking.

urban wrote:Let's say we register cyclists, shouldn't we also register scooters because the scooters aren't much of a step away from bikes.

Now that we've registered cyclists and scooters there's not much difference between scooters and skateboards and roller skates so perhaps we should register them as well.

Now some people can run as fast as other people can go on scooters or skateboards so if you want to run you have to be registered.

But hold on I can walk as fast as some of my friends run when they go for a jog so maybe I should be registered to walk. (I also have a tendency to Jaywalk)

Fact is you have to draw a line under what level of vehicle or mobility device is registered. I don't think anyone anywhere has yet been able to work out a financially viable way of registering vehicles below the level of a motorbike. Added to this is the well documented economic benefits that accrue to BOTH individuals and governments of moving people away from private motor vehicle usage and toward cycling and walking.

I think those in opposition to the registration of bicycles have provided a sound and factual argument against such an imposition to avoid utilizing a slippery slope fallacious argument. A forum of Corey Bernardi's is of no benefit to anyone

realstretts wrote:

urban wrote:Let's say we register cyclists, shouldn't we also register scooters because the scooters aren't much of a step away from bikes.

Now that we've registered cyclists and scooters there's not much difference between scooters and skateboards and roller skates so perhaps we should register them as well.

Now some people can run as fast as other people can go on scooters or skateboards so if you want to run you have to be registered.

But hold on I can walk as fast as some of my friends run when they go for a jog so maybe I should be registered to walk. (I also have a tendency to Jaywalk)

Fact is you have to draw a line under what level of vehicle or mobility device is registered. I don't think anyone anywhere has yet been able to work out a financially viable way of registering vehicles below the level of a motorbike. Added to this is the well documented economic benefits that accrue to BOTH individuals and governments of moving people away from private motor vehicle usage and toward cycling and walking.

I think those in opposition to the registration of bicycles have provided a sound and factual argument against such an imposition to avoid utilizing a slippery slope fallacious argument. A forum of Corey Bernardi's is of no benefit to anyone

Sound and factual realstretts?

The report you quoted demonstrates that the negative costs of accidents to cyclists far outweighs the benefits to the community.

How is it therefore sound and reasonable to oppose competence testing and licencing and registration to ensure better knowledge of road rules, and safer behaviour?

That same report shows that most of the benefits (90%) accrue to cyclists, rather than the community as a whole. There's "factual" for you.

What some people will do to avoid paying for something.