Bike lanes and ****

Uncle Bully wrote:
If you adopt the user pays principle, motorists should pay more than they
do now,


Based on what logic?
By what magic thought process have you deduced that current rego is too low?



SUV (Stupendously Useless & Vacuous) idiots even more,


Agree.


and truck lines most of all.


They already do.


Cyclists should be paid a rebate as we are doing the rest of you a favour.


There goes that logic again.
Explain to me how you are doing me a favour by riding in the middle of the
road at 20km/h effectively cutting off an entire lane to the rest of use who
have paid to use it?


Ohhh a ******.
Not too friggin often I do 20 kph. and if we are talking av speeds in
the cbd not too bloody often you do either Guess who is faster


Dave

How about teh ******s that do burnouts knackering the bitumen left right and
centre, why should they pay less than my 4x4? I chew up dirt not bitumen, I
should also be eligable for a rebate due to off road useage then eh!.Every
km done offroad get $$$ Back.




"Dave" wrote in message
...
Uncle Bully wrote:
If we worked it out fairly by km traveled you would find the average
cyclists rego not worth the trouble to collect.

If I have to pay $100 a year to do 100km, then car drivers should pay
$100
per km. Because they cause 100 times more expense in road works than
pushbikes easily.

What could be fairer than that?



Motorcycles then too should be up for a discount. And 4WDs? Oh dear.
You have my vote.


yeah me too.

This has been donme to death. An equitible type rego based on damage to
roads has cyclists paying about $1 year, motorbikes about $100, the
average car about $500 the average 4wd lots more and so on

Any idea how to collect that $ 1 a year. Bearing in mind that to be worth
it is has to cost less than $1 per bike.

Dave

Scotty Wrote:
How about teh ******s that do burnouts knackering the bitumen left righ
an
centre, why should they pay less than my 4x4? I chew up dirt no
bitumen,
should also be eligable for a rebate due to off road useage the
eh!.Ever
km done offroad get $$$ Back




"Dave" wrote in messag
..
Uncle Bully wrote
If we worked it out fairly by km traveled you would find the averag
cyclists rego not worth the trouble to collect

If I have to pay $100 a year to do 100km, then car drivers shoul
pa
$10
per km. Because they cause 100 times more expense in road works tha
pushbikes easily

What could be fairer than that



Motorcycles then too should be up for a discount. And 4WDs? Oh dear
You have my vote


yeah me too

This has been donme to death. An equitible type rego based on damag
t
roads has cyclists paying about $1 year, motorbikes about $100, th
average car about $500 the average 4wd lots more and so o

Any idea how to collect that $ 1 a year. Bearing in mind that to b
wort
it is has to cost less than $1 per bike

Dave

Registration does not pay for the roads. Roads are paid for by taxes.
Rego pretty much only covers the cost of administering it. We would al
be paying much much more if rego were to be the sole funding source fo
road construction and maintenance

And what about the relative mileages? Should a motorist who travel
5,000km a year pay the same as one who travels 50,000km - as a
present

I am impressed by the Singapore approach. A surcharge when a vehicl
enters the CBD. Set off by a black box mounted on the car passing ove
a series of sensors. Can be tailored to charge different amounts fo
peak and non-peak times and for certain types of vehicle. Charge th
max for 4WDs entering the CBD at peak hour times

Steve

--
SteveA

Dave Wrote:
Uncle Bully wrote
If you adopt the user pays principle, motorists should pay more tha
the
do now


Based on what logic
By what magic thought process have you deduced that current rego i
too low



SUV (Stupendously Useless & Vacuous) idiots even more


Agree


and truck lines most of all


They already do


Cyclists should be paid a rebate as we are doing the rest of you
favour


There goes that logic again
Explain to me how you are doing me a favour by riding in the middl
of th
road at 20km/h effectively cutting off an entire lane to the rest o
use wh
have paid to use it


Ohhh a ******
Not too friggin often I do 20 kph. and if we are talking av speeds i
the cbd not too bloody often you do either Guess who is faste



Dave
And if you are talking about who has paid to use it - I bloody have.
Rego does not pay for the roads. Taxes do. I pay more than th
average amount of tax. Logically, on that basis, I am entitled to
greater share of the roads than most cars. A significant number o
cyclists would be in a similar position

If you want to assume that the clearly incorrect argument that reg
pays for roads is correct, you will find that many, if not the vas
majority of cyclists are car owners who pay rego even if they do no
happen to be in their cars at that particular time

Steve

--
SteveA

SteveA wrote:
Scotty Wrote:

How about teh ******s that do burnouts knackering the bitumen left right
and
centre, why should they pay less than my 4x4? I chew up dirt not
bitumen, I
should also be eligable for a rebate due to off road useage then
eh!.Every
km done offroad get $$$ Back.




"Dave" wrote in message
...

Uncle Bully wrote:

If we worked it out fairly by km traveled you would find the average
cyclists rego not worth the trouble to collect.

If I have to pay $100 a year to do 100km, then car drivers should

pay

$100
per km. Because they cause 100 times more expense in road works than
pushbikes easily.

What could be fairer than that?



Motorcycles then too should be up for a discount. And 4WDs? Oh dear.
You have my vote.



yeah me too.

This has been donme to death. An equitible type rego based on damage

to

roads has cyclists paying about $1 year, motorbikes about $100, the
average car about $500 the average 4wd lots more and so on

Any idea how to collect that $ 1 a year. Bearing in mind that to be

worth

it is has to cost less than $1 per bike.

Dave


Registration does not pay for the roads. Roads are paid for by taxes.
Rego pretty much only covers the cost of administering it. We would all
be paying much much more if rego were to be the sole funding source for
road construction and maintenance.

And what about the relative mileages? Should a motorist who travels
5,000km a year pay the same as one who travels 50,000km - as at
present?

I am impressed by the Singapore approach. A surcharge when a vehicle
enters the CBD. Set off by a black box mounted on the car passing over
a series of sensors. Can be tailored to charge different amounts for
peak and non-peak times and for certain types of vehicle. Charge the
max for 4WDs entering the CBD at peak hour times!

SteveA


true enough.. I was simplifying. The principle is totally valid tho.
And sure it should be based on milege. Hang on that could be done by
taxing petrol. And to make cyclists pay their share.. bananas

"Scotty" wrote in message
...
How about teh ******s that do burnouts knackering the bitumen left right
and centre, why should they pay less than my 4x4? I chew up dirt not
bitumen, I should also be eligable for a rebate due to off road useage
then eh!.Every km done offroad get $$$ Back.

You'll be liable for offroad tax too then. You haven't got the hang of this
game have you

And the only reason a cyclist might block a moving car is because the left
most lane is already blocked by a parked car. I can use an argument that
roads are built for going, not for parking. Clear the roads from
stationary objects and you have a much smoother, fairer traffic system for
all.


Not where I live. We have clearways the whole way to the city during
rushour. But one solitary cyclist can effectively cuts three lanes down to
two because no-one can get around them.

"Scotty" wrote in message
...
How about teh ******s that do burnouts knackering the bitumen left right
and
centre, why should they pay less than my 4x4? I chew up dirt not bitumen,
I
should also be eligable for a rebate due to off road useage then eh!.Every
km done offroad get $$$ Back.

Sounds reasonable until you realise that vehicle damage to roads functions
as a cube of the axle loading. For the same milage, it takes about 15,625
cyclists (assuming average weight of 100kg) to do the same damage as one
2,500kg 4WD. I do about 8,000-10,000km per year on the bike. What's your
mileage per year? Then again, dirt roads need more frequent repair for a
given amount of traffic than bitumen, so we'd probably need to charge you
extra. Let's say we're nice and don't slap you with a surcharge for dirt
road damage or greater mileage. If bikes pay $0.05 per annum, that makes
your rego bill $781.25 plus TAC premium. That's assuming that your 4WD with
you in it weighs 2500kg. Most of the large ones weigh more than 2,600kg.
Without fuel. Or driver. Let's be conservative and call it 2,750kg GVM. Rego
at that weight comes to $1,039.84 plus TAC premium. Actually, this is
sounding more and more reasonable all the time...

"Uncle Bully" wrote in message
...

SUV (Stupendously Useless & Vacuous) idiots even more,

Agree.

To use your own words right back at you:

Based on what logic?

--
Regards,
Noddy.

"Uncle Bully" wrote in message
...

If we worked it out fairly by km traveled you would find the average
cyclists rego not worth the trouble to collect.

If I have to pay $100 a year to do 100km, then car drivers should pay
$100
per km. Because they cause 100 times more expense in road works than
pushbikes easily.

What could be fairer than that?


Motorcycles then too should be up for a discount. And 4WDs? Oh dear.
You have my vote.

Yep thanks, makes sense because if my play 4x4 rig does 1/20th km than Joe
Blows Falcodore, why should I pay more rego?