Bike "facilities", you gotta love them, at least for the giggle

On 8/4/2014 3:18 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, August 4, 2014 1:41:41 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, August 4, 2014 12:40:38 AM UTC+1, James wrote to Lou Holtman:



The cheapest I can buy a litre of milk is $1.



A standard reference for a long time was a basic loaf of bread. These intercomparisons are tricky; I doubt you'll get a useful comparison on one contemptible. Australia is actually a cheap place to live. To maintain the same standard of living where Lou lives, an Australian moving to The Netherlands would have to increase his salary by a multiple rather than a fraction. Also, the money is spent differently. The EU, and The Netherlands even more, are semi-socialist jurisdictions in senses Australian politicians, even the ones who witter on about "workers paradises" haven't even grasped exist, and this has profound influences on apparent living standards.



In addition, Australian compulsory third party insurance, added to car's registration fee, is cheep insurance when compared with the same cover in Europe. It was deliberately designed that way, and taken over by the State, with other arrangements made to cap liability claims in personal injury cases, because the cost was spiraling and the commercial insurers no longer wanted to handle it. (I wasn't there when it happened; I got this from Ren de Garis, who used to lead the Liberals in the Senate in South Australia, though I think it was done a bit before his time too.) It always struck me as an advantageous system for the consumer, and it sounds from Duane's post as if the Qubec has the same system, with frills.



Andre Jute

I was just reading in the Toronto (Canada) Sun that the city is nstalling some counter-flow bicycle lanes. That's right, they're installing bicycle lanes that run the OPPOSITE direction to motor vehicle traffic.

Cheers


I don't know of any around here that are exactly counter flow. But
there are some that are bidirectional on busy 2 way roads so it's
counter flow for one side. I try to ignore them. We passed one
particularly nasty one yesterday where it dumps you abruptly into
oncoming traffic.

On 04/08/2014 18:41, Andre Jute wrote:

Australia is actually a cheap place to live.

You may be a bit behind the times there.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/201...-prices-survey

On 8/4/2014 3:37 PM, Clive George wrote:
On 04/08/2014 20:18, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

I was just reading in the Toronto (Canada) Sun that the city is
nstalling some counter-flow bicycle lanes. That's right, they're
installing bicycle lanes that run the OPPOSITE direction to motor
vehicle traffic.

On one-way streets this is often a good thing.


It's always going to depend on where and how they end.

On 8/4/2014 2:18 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, August 4, 2014 1:41:41 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, August 4, 2014 12:40:38 AM UTC+1, James wrote to Lou Holtman:



The cheapest I can buy a litre of milk is $1.



A standard reference for a long time was a basic loaf of bread. These intercomparisons are tricky; I doubt you'll get a useful comparison on one contemptible. Australia is actually a cheap place to live. To maintain the same standard of living where Lou lives, an Australian moving to The Netherlands would have to increase his salary by a multiple rather than a fraction. Also, the money is spent differently. The EU, and The Netherlands even more, are semi-socialist jurisdictions in senses Australian politicians, even the ones who witter on about "workers paradises" haven't even grasped exist, and this has profound influences on apparent living standards.



In addition, Australian compulsory third party insurance, added to car's registration fee, is cheep insurance when compared with the same cover in Europe. It was deliberately designed that way, and taken over by the State, with other arrangements made to cap liability claims in personal injury cases, because the cost was spiraling and the commercial insurers no longer wanted to handle it. (I wasn't there when it happened; I got this from Ren de Garis, who used to lead the Liberals in the Senate in South Australia, though I think it was done a bit before his time too.) It always struck me as an advantageous system for the consumer, and it sounds from Duane's post as if the Qubec has the same system, with frills.



Andre Jute

I was just reading in the Toronto (Canada) Sun that the city is nstalling some counter-flow bicycle lanes. That's right, they're installing bicycle lanes that run the OPPOSITE direction to motor vehicle traffic.

Cheers


Their mission of wreaking mayhem upon the taxpayers is
usually only metaphorical.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 04/08/14 23:01, Duane wrote:

Our license fee includes liability insurance. Most also have
comprehensive coverage. The prices are affected by age, driving
record, traffic violations and whether mercury is in retrograde.
But basically, worse drivers pay more than good drivers unless the good
drivers are teenagers.


Sounds good. Is that liability insurance for property or persons, or both?

--
JS

James wrote:
On 04/08/14 23:01, Duane wrote:

Our license fee includes liability insurance. Most also have
comprehensive coverage. The prices are affected by age, driving
record, traffic violations and whether mercury is in retrograde.
But basically, worse drivers pay more than good drivers unless the good
drivers are teenagers.


Sounds good. Is that liability insurance for property or persons, or both?

Both though I'm not sure the extent of property coverage. It is supposed
to cover cyclists and their bikes but I know of a case where the police
wouldn't write an accident report claiming it was home owner insurance that
paid for bike damage. I've checked and this was wrong. Though the cyclist
was pretty shaken up to challenge the cops. He has a lawyer now so we'll
see how that goes.

--
duane

On 05/08/14 01:59, Lou Holtman wrote:
On Monday, August 4, 2014 1:40:38 AM UTC+2, James wrote:


What does it cost to own a car in The Netherlands, Lou?

I run my car through a calculation site:

about 0.70 euro every kilometer for my 5 year old Mercedes C
Sportcoupe which I bought this year. All based on 10000 km a year. I
have 80% no claim discount on my insurance for a no risk coverage.
About 50/50 fixed costs and variable costs. Hmmm makes you think how
expensive it is.


Hmm. I'd guess at $2000 p.a. for insurance and registration, and
another $1000 for servicing. My Jeep uses about 10.5l/100km diesel, or
1050l/10,000km = $1628. That's $4628/10,000km, or 46c/km for a 2 tonne 4WD.

That doesn't include paying for toll roads or parking. I don't
generally pay for parking. The amount p.a. would be negligible.


I drive my own vehicle for work a fair bit at the moment, and the
company I work for pays me 77c/km.

Perhaps the government calculated running costs and added depreciation?
I'm not sure. Anyway, an interesting exercise.


Licence renewal comes every 10 years or so, and the cost is
negligible

over that period of time.

same here. If you don't claim any damage to your insurance you get a
discount over the years. I have 80% discount.


Is the insurance compulsory? Is there separate personal and property
insurance?

--
JS

On 8/4/2014 3:18 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:


I was just reading in the Toronto (Canada) Sun that the city is
nstalling some counter-flow bicycle lanes. That's right, they're
installing bicycle lanes that run the OPPOSITE direction to motor
vehicle traffic.


That can sometimes be fine, depending on how it's done - especially at
the ends.

There are cities with networks of one-way streets in alternate
directions. Motorists choose their streets based on their desired
direction (say, north or south), and drive a block or more laterally
(say, east or west) when they want to access a street heading the other
way. But it's sometimes much less desirable for cyclists to do that
additional distance, especially if they want to get to someplace just
barely in the "wrong" direction.

One of our club's big battles was when the local metropark converted a
popular mile+ road to one way northbound for cars, two way for bikes - a
concept we agree with. Southbound bikes are on the west side, as they
should be (in the U.S.) But they also relegated northbound bikes to the
west side! That's just nonsense, especially at the ends.

When I took the incompetent designer for a bike ride (his first in
decades, BTW) to show him the facilities many problems, we stopped at
the northern end, where a city street began. And as if on cue, the next
northbound cyclist bumbled along facing traffic on the city street,
thanks to the metropark's miseducation.

We fought that facility for years. The closest we ever got to success
was when one of the subsequent park directors told us, "Look, if we were
doing it now, we'd do it the way you're saying. But we can't afford to
change it."

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Monday, August 4, 2014 3:37:04 PM UTC-4, Clive George wrote:
On 04/08/2014 20:18, Sir Ridesalot wrote:



I was just reading in the Toronto (Canada) Sun that the city is nstalling some counter-flow bicycle lanes. That's right, they're installing bicycle lanes that run the OPPOSITE direction to motor vehicle traffic.



On one-way streets this is often a good thing.

Unfortunately this will be on a multi-lane dual direction road.

Cheers

On Monday, August 4, 2014 6:27:01 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/4/2014 3:18 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:





I was just reading in the Toronto (Canada) Sun that the city is

nstalling some counter-flow bicycle lanes. That's right, they're

installing bicycle lanes that run the OPPOSITE direction to motor

vehicle traffic.





That can sometimes be fine, depending on how it's done - especially at

the ends.



There are cities with networks of one-way streets in alternate

directions. Motorists choose their streets based on their desired

direction (say, north or south), and drive a block or more laterally

(say, east or west) when they want to access a street heading the other

way. But it's sometimes much less desirable for cyclists to do that

additional distance, especially if they want to get to someplace just

barely in the "wrong" direction.



One of our club's big battles was when the local metropark converted a

popular mile+ road to one way northbound for cars, two way for bikes - a

concept we agree with. Southbound bikes are on the west side, as they

should be (in the U.S.) But they also relegated northbound bikes to the

west side! That's just nonsense, especially at the ends.



When I took the incompetent designer for a bike ride (his first in

decades, BTW) to show him the facilities many problems, we stopped at

the northern end, where a city street began. And as if on cue, the next

northbound cyclist bumbled along facing traffic on the city street,

thanks to the metropark's miseducation.



We fought that facility for years. The closest we ever got to success

was when one of the subsequent park directors told us, "Look, if we were

doing it now, we'd do it the way you're saying. But we can't afford to

change it."



--

- Frank Krygowski

This will be on a two-way street and means te bicyclists will be riding *AGAINST* traffic. Stupid and very dangerous in my opinion.

Cheers