Talkback one eyed lunatics.

Paul E Dunn wrote:
On 14/05/2015 16:03, Peter Jason wrote:

On Thu, 14 May 2015 15:28:49 +1000, F Murtz
wrote:

view to his, he seems to have the opinion that it is a foregone
conclusion that we will have rider registration by the end of the year.

Long long lonnnnnnnngg overdue!

Yep, about time the entitled pontificating pricks paid their way on our
roads.

I would probably have more empathy for cyclists if it wasn't for their
compentuous, superior and holier than thou attitude towards other road
users.

**** 'em.





Yes you got to watch out for them compentuous Blighters.

On 25/05/15 11:30, Paul E Dunn wrote:
Long long lonnnnnnnngg overdue!

Yep, about time the entitled pontificating pricks paid their way on our
roads.

There's a difference about the opinion of being entitled to borrow a
small 3m² slice of a road to roll about 100~200kg of bicycle, luggage
and rider over, and believing registration equates to ownership of an
entire road system.

You realise the "road" technically also includes the footpath too and
that vehicle registration pays for absolutely none of it?

"Stuart Longland" wrote in message
...
On 25/05/15 11:30, Paul E Dunn wrote:
Long long lonnnnnnnngg overdue!

Yep, about time the entitled pontificating pricks paid their way on our
roads.

There's a difference about the opinion of being entitled to borrow a
small 3m² slice of a road to roll about 100~200kg of bicycle, luggage
and rider over, and believing registration equates to ownership of an
entire road system.

You realise the "road" technically also includes the footpath too

No it does not.

and that vehicle registration pays for absolutely none of it?

Wrong, as always.

"Stuart Longland" wrote in message
...
On 30/05/15 20:33, Rod Speed wrote:


"Stuart Longland" wrote in message
...
On 25/05/15 11:30, Paul E Dunn wrote:
Long long lonnnnnnnngg overdue!

Yep, about time the entitled pontificating pricks paid their way
on our roads.

There's a difference about the opinion of being entitled to borrow
a small 3m² slice of a road to roll about 100~200kg of bicycle,
luggage and rider over, and believing registration equates to
ownership of an entire road system.

You realise the "road" technically also includes the footpath too

No it does not.

So you say it includes the bit the cars drive on only?
Who maintains the footpath?

The local council, even with footpaths that don’t go anywhere near any road.

Any time I've seen it happen it's been the same mob that do the roads.

Irrelevant with footpaths that don’t go anywhere near any road.

The footpath often gets built at the same time as the road itself.

Wrong again. We have just added lots where there never was
any footpath done at the time when the road was built. In fact there
are FAR more roads without footpaths than roads with footpaths.

It sees less maintenance, but the two are linked,

Not when the footpath is nowhere near any road.

and generally in the towns, local council looks after both.

They generally look after the water supply and sewers and library too.

So what ?

and that vehicle registration pays for absolutely none of it?

Wrong, as always.

"as always"? You say I'm "always" wrong?

You quite sure you ain't one of those rocket scientist terminal ****wit ?

Could you provide evidence where I am "always" wrong?

Yes, every single one of your posts.

Or are we making sweeping generalisations based on one post?

Nope.

I did a quick search, so not exhaustive,
I discovered the following document:

https://www.bitre.gov.au/publication...les/is_040.pdf

Okay, it's from 2011. So a little old, but let's have a look anyway:

The total amount of funding for road-related expenditure by the
Australian, state, territory and local Governments in 2008–09 was
$15.8 billion (Table 1). This amount includes transfers from the
private sector. Between 2000–01 and 2008–09 total road-related
expenditure increased by an average of 8.57 per cent per year in
nominal terms

So $15.8B spent. Where did that come from?

- Of the $15.6 billion collected in 2008–09 from selected taxes and
charges, $8.7 billion was petroleum products excise.
- State and territory governments raised $3.4 billion from vehicle
registration and licence fees.
- Stamp duty collected on vehicle registration fees raised $2.0
billion.
- Fringe Benefit Tax (FBT) paid on motor vehicles added an extra $1.7
billion. The amount of GST (on motor vehicles purchase, maintenance
and use including fuel consumption) is not yet available but was $4.0
billion in 2004–05. FBT and GST are not included in the total because
no data are available on them for most years.

So $3.4B from $15.8B.

So your original is just plain wrong, as I said.

That's bugger all, and probably just covers the
costs of running some of these departments.

You're wrong, as always.

More than half of it came from taxing fuel:

Irrelevant to your pig ignorant claim.

guess what, bicycles don't use it.

Some do.

Any time I've seen a road being fixed, it's generally
been local council doing it unless it's a major highway

Same is true of the sewers and water supply as well.

(which I avoid using).

You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly
irrelevant. What you do or do not claim to avoid using in spades.

This document is more up to date:
http://www.budget.qld.gov.au/budget-...-3-2013-14.pdf

Even someone as stupid as you should have notice that Queensland
is only part of the entire country if someone was actually stupid
enough to lend you a seeing eye dog and a white cane.

How much did they make from vehicle registration there? Page 14
says less than $700M. It's increasing from year to year because
more cars are on the road, but it's still far short of the expenditure.

Irrelevant to your original stupid pig ignorant claim.

So "absolutely none of it" was an exaggeration,

It was in fact just plain wrong, as I said.

but not far from the truth. Most of it seems
to be from sources other than taxation.

Irrelevant to your original stupid pig ignorant claim.

More to the point, have you factored in what it would cost
to regulate and manage a registratio system on bicycles?

Just one way of doing what is being discussed.

It'd probably cost more to regulate than it would raise.

But the alternatives wouldn’t.

I think we need to lose the "I own the road" attitude.

**** all have any such attitude.

None of us own the road, it's a public utility and
as members of the public, we all have the right
to use, and responsibility to share, the roads.

Wrong with pedestrians.

I avoid the major roads when I can, if I cannot then instead
of getting angry at us, maybe you could join sides with us
and get angry at the people who design these roads.

I don’t get angry at anyone and I actually have enough of a
clue to realise that it makes no sense to spend significant
money on designing roads for the trivial number of people
who are actually stupid enough to ride their bike on them.

I never use the motorways.

You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly
irrelevant. What you do or do not claim to use in spades.

I would use off-road cycle paths if such paths existed for the routes I
use.

We aren't actually stupid enough waste our money
on something like that that **** all ever use.

Quite often the paths follow creeks or take scenic
routes which do not suit where I'm going.

Your problem, as always.

I usually want to get from A to B, not
do a Tour-de-Brisbane getting around.

Your problem, as always.

The cycleways also have a habit of suddenly ceasing to exist
with no clear direction as to where one is supposed to go.

Your problem, as always.

The path just suddenly ends, say at an intersection,
with no path continuing on the other side. So we
get dumped onto the road whether we like it or not.

Your problem, as always.

Some nice wide shoulders would benefit both of us:

Not worth the cost.

it would benefit people who have a breakdown as it would give
a safe area to be completely off the road and not blocking traffic.

Not worth the cost given that that happens so rarely.

It would benefit me because I can ride
those shoulders and not bother the traffic.

Not worth the cost given that that happens so rarely.

We should be joining forces to lobby the government for a better deal,

Nope, because that isn't worth the immense
cost which we would obviously have to pay for.

not fighting each-other over trivialities like registration.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

On Sat, 30 May 2015 20:33:40 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"Stuart Longland" wrote in message
...
On 25/05/15 11:30, Paul E Dunn wrote:
Long long lonnnnnnnngg overdue!

Yep, about time the entitled pontificating pricks paid their way on our
roads.

There's a difference about the opinion of being entitled to borrow a
small 3m² slice of a road to roll about 100~200kg of bicycle, luggage
and rider over, and believing registration equates to ownership of an
entire road system.

You realise the "road" technically also includes the footpath too

No it does not.

and that vehicle registration pays for absolutely none of it?

Wrong, as always.


Have you considered that the imposition of bicycle regos would reduce
the number of bikes? Already they swarm like bugs, and a rego would
reduce their number. Indeed, if a discount were given for tandem
bikes, this would reduce the plague even further.
http://info.detnews.com/dn/history/b.../decacycle.gif
....and so on ad infinitum.

Just thought I'd help a bit.

On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 13:39:47 +1000, Peter Jason wrote:

On Sat, 30 May 2015 20:33:40 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"Stuart Longland" wrote in message
...
On 25/05/15 11:30, Paul E Dunn wrote:
Long long lonnnnnnnngg overdue!

Yep, about time the entitled pontificating pricks paid their way on our
roads.

There's a difference about the opinion of being entitled to borrow a
small 3m² slice of a road to roll about 100~200kg of bicycle, luggage
and rider over, and believing registration equates to ownership of an
entire road system.

You realise the "road" technically also includes the footpath too

No it does not.

and that vehicle registration pays for absolutely none of it?

Wrong, as always.


Have you considered that the imposition of bicycle regos would reduce
the number of bikes? Already they swarm like bugs, and a rego would
reduce their number. Indeed, if a discount were given for tandem
bikes, this would reduce the plague even further.
http://info.detnews.com/dn/history/b.../decacycle.gif
...and so on ad infinitum.

Just thought I'd help a bit.

P O S T S C R I P T:
http://bicicletario.com/wp-content/u...-circular1.jpg
An even BETTER final solution!!

On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 13:41:49 +1000, Peter Jason wrote:

On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 13:39:47 +1000, Peter Jason wrote:
Have you considered that the imposition of bicycle regos would reduce
the number of bikes? Already they swarm like bugs, and a rego would
reduce their number. Indeed, if a discount were given for tandem
bikes, this would reduce the plague even further.
http://info.detnews.com/dn/history/b.../decacycle.gif
...and so on ad infinitum.

Just thought I'd help a bit.

P O S T S C R I P T:
http://bicicletario.com/wp-content/u...-circular1.jpg
An even BETTER final solution!!

I prefer the final solution:
http://ak-hdl.buzzfed.com/static/201...05883648-7.jpg

On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 14:34:31 +1000, Jeßus
wrote:

On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 13:41:49 +1000, Peter Jason wrote:

On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 13:39:47 +1000, Peter Jason wrote:
Have you considered that the imposition of bicycle regos would reduce
the number of bikes? Already they swarm like bugs, and a rego would
reduce their number. Indeed, if a discount were given for tandem
bikes, this would reduce the plague even further.
http://info.detnews.com/dn/history/b.../decacycle.gif
...and so on ad infinitum.

Just thought I'd help a bit.

P O S T S C R I P T:
http://bicicletario.com/wp-content/u...-circular1.jpg
An even BETTER final solution!!

I prefer the final solution:
http://ak-hdl.buzzfed.com/static/201...05883648-7.jpg


Ah yes. Truly a heart-warming end of story.

Geez, you get wound up like a clock!

On 05/06/15 12:10, Rod Speed wrote:
"Stuart Longland" wrote in message
...
On 30/05/15 20:33, Rod Speed wrote:

So you say it includes the bit the cars drive on only?
Who maintains the footpath?

The local council, even with footpaths that don’t go anywhere near any
road.

Doesn't mean they're not part of the road.

You quite sure you ain't one of those rocket scientist terminal ****wit ?

Err, parse error? What's that supposed to mean? Doesn't read as
English to me.

Could you provide evidence where I am "always" wrong?

Yes, every single one of your posts.

You must've looked real hard then. Or you're making sweeping
generalisations based on one or two posts in one thread.

Or are we making sweeping generalisations based on one post?

Nope.

Seems like you are.

I did a quick search, so not exhaustive,
I discovered the following document:

https://www.bitre.gov.au/publication...les/is_040.pdf

Okay, it's from 2011. So a little old, but let's have a look anyway:

The total amount of funding for road-related expenditure by the
Australian, state, territory and local Governments in 2008–09 was
$15.8 billion (Table 1). This amount includes transfers from the
private sector. Between 2000–01 and 2008–09 total road-related
expenditure increased by an average of 8.57 per cent per year in
nominal terms

So $15.8B spent. Where did that come from?

- Of the $15.6 billion collected in 2008–09 from selected taxes and
charges, $8.7 billion was petroleum products excise.
- State and territory governments raised $3.4 billion from vehicle
registration and licence fees.
- Stamp duty collected on vehicle registration fees raised $2.0
billion.
- Fringe Benefit Tax (FBT) paid on motor vehicles added an extra $1.7
billion. The amount of GST (on motor vehicles purchase, maintenance
and use including fuel consumption) is not yet available but was $4.0
billion in 2004–05. FBT and GST are not included in the total because
no data are available on them for most years.

So $3.4B from $15.8B.

So your original is just plain wrong, as I said.

Not completely. While it's hard to dig up details on how the money gets
spent, my understanding is that the rego costs barely cover the costs to
actually run these departments, let alone maintenance costs.

Registration is more about ensuring your vehicle is safe enough to
travel down one of these roads at 40km/hr+. Otherwise, why have the
requirement to get roadworthy certificates?

That's bugger all, and probably just covers the
costs of running some of these departments.

You're wrong, as always.

As I said, I've went looking, couldn't find any detailed expenditure
information, however if you happen to know of some, you are most welcome
to contribute it to the discussion.

More than half of it came from taxing fuel:

Irrelevant to your pig ignorant claim.

Ad hominem will get you nowhere.

guess what, bicycles don't use it.

Some do.

The ones that do are illegal and aren't technically bicycles, they're
mopeds.

Any time I've seen a road being fixed, it's generally
been local council doing it unless it's a major highway

Same is true of the sewers and water supply as well.

Nope, water supply has been privatised; around here a mob called Urban
Utilities look after it.

I haven't looked into the arrangement regarding the sewers. They are
probably a different department of the council.

(which I avoid using).

You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly
irrelevant. What you do or do not claim to avoid using in spades.

Then why are you spending so much time replying if I'm irrelevant?
Clearly I am not. :-)

This document is more up to date:
http://www.budget.qld.gov.au/budget-...-3-2013-14.pdf

Even someone as stupid as you should have notice that Queensland
is only part of the entire country if someone was actually stupid
enough to lend you a seeing eye dog and a white cane.

I didn't say it was the entire country now did I? It just happens to be
the second largest state, and the largest state on the eastern seaboard.
(Now tell me I'm wrong about that!)

How much did they make from vehicle registration there? Page 14
says less than $700M. It's increasing from year to year because
more cars are on the road, but it's still far short of the expenditure.

Irrelevant to your original stupid pig ignorant claim.

Is it? I could go look for data from NSW, Victoria, Tasmania, NT, WA,
SA… I dare say they'll show a similar trend. Again, you're welcome to
provide your own evidence.

So "absolutely none of it" was an exaggeration,

It was in fact just plain wrong, as I said.

but not far from the truth. Most of it seems
to be from sources other than taxation.

Irrelevant to your original stupid pig ignorant claim.

You like that term don't you? I've already stated that yes, I did get
some of it wrong, but have since found out a bit more of the truth.
Clearly you know something about the topic I don't, and I invite you to
share.

I'm willing to be educated, kindly educate.

More to the point, have you factored in what it would cost
to regulate and manage a registratio system on bicycles?

Just one way of doing what is being discussed.

To what end?

It'd probably cost more to regulate than it would raise.

But the alternatives wouldn’t.

Well, one alternative is to "do nothing", which strangely enough, costs
very little.

I think we need to lose the "I own the road" attitude.

**** all have any such attitude.

Indeed, bugger all do, that we agree on, but enough that there's a
problem. They're as much a problem for cars as they are for bicycles too.

I'm sure you've run across them, and they operate all kinds of vehicles.
Bicycles through to semi-trailers and everything in between.

None of us own the road, it's a public utility and
as members of the public, we all have the right
to use, and responsibility to share, the roads.

Wrong with pedestrians.

Road rules say they have right of way, even on the road.

I avoid the major roads when I can, if I cannot then instead
of getting angry at us, maybe you could join sides with us
and get angry at the people who design these roads.

I don’t get angry at anyone and I actually have enough of a
clue to realise that it makes no sense to spend significant
money on designing roads for the trivial number of people
who are actually stupid enough to ride their bike on them.

So you'd rather be stuck in traffic that's clogged up with cars that
take about 3 times the space of a bicycle?

Some nice wide shoulders would benefit both of us:

Not worth the cost.

Not worth making it safer to enter/exit a vehicle?
Not worth having an area where you can quickly pick up or drop someone off?

There was a study done regarding the main street of Edinburgh some time
back. This was some years ago, so do forgive me for not having the
specifics on hand. They were experiencing traffic snarls on their
four-lane stretch of road, and were considering widening it.

Instead, after some modelling, they made the outer two most lanes more
or less a drop-off zone. You could stop there for a minute or two, but
no more. The traffic snarls disappeared.

it would benefit people who have a breakdown as it would give
a safe area to be completely off the road and not blocking traffic.

Not worth the cost given that that happens so rarely.

Yep, but buses/taxis/private cars picking up and dropping off passengers
isn't so uncommon.

I wouldn't say breakdowns are rare either, otherwise the tow truck
businesses wouldn't make any income. There seems to be at least one or
two incidents on the road that I hear of if I turn on the radio of an
evening.

We should be joining forces to lobby the government for a better deal,

Nope, because that isn't worth the immense
cost which we would obviously have to pay for.

Suit yourself. I pay taxes, and would be assisting to fund such
projects. I'm not convinced the costs would be "immense"; we're talking
an extra 2.5m of bitumen, and would soon pay for itself with reduced
road congestion leading to shorter commute times.

"Peter Jason" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 May 2015 20:33:40 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"Stuart Longland" wrote in message
...
On 25/05/15 11:30, Paul E Dunn wrote:
Long long lonnnnnnnngg overdue!

Yep, about time the entitled pontificating pricks paid their way on our
roads.

There's a difference about the opinion of being entitled to borrow a
small 3m² slice of a road to roll about 100~200kg of bicycle, luggage
and rider over, and believing registration equates to ownership of an
entire road system.

You realise the "road" technically also includes the footpath too

No it does not.

and that vehicle registration pays for absolutely none of it?

Wrong, as always.

Have you considered that the imposition of
bicycle regos would reduce the number of bikes?

Corse it would.

Already they swarm like bugs,

Even sillier than you usually manage.

and a rego would reduce their number.

Duh.

Indeed, if a discount were given for tandem
bikes, this would reduce the plague even further.
http://info.detnews.com/dn/history/b.../decacycle.gif
...and so on ad infinitum.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

Just thought I'd help a bit.

You didn't.