Cycle Registration

Apparently loony NSW MP Pat Farmer is proposing cyclists pay
registration . I would be only too happy if that meant governments would
flood us with money as they do motorists whose rego is only a tiny
fraction of what is spent!
--
Remove norubbish to reply

Jack Russell wrote:
Apparently loony NSW MP Pat Farmer is proposing cyclists pay
registration . I would be only too happy if that meant governments would
flood us with money as they do motorists whose rego is only a tiny
fraction of what is spent!
So was a letter in the local paper (Melb) this week. Double dipping.
I've been a licenced driver for over 25 years, and granted, my car f---s
up the environment and the roads. By comparison my bike is vastly less
destructive. I would happily pay bike registration if appropriate
facilities were then provided. Which they aren't.
And where do you draw the line? Do 7 year olds have to pay rego too?
This type of debate degenerates rapidly into farce.
Cheers,
Ray

ray Wrote:

This type of debate degenerates rapidly into farce.Repetitiously.

Here's linkies to todays article: SHM: Cyclists should pay, says MP
http://tinyurl.com/2h58kn

Poll: Should cyclists pay registration fees?
http://www.smh.com.au/polls/national/form.html

As suggested elsewhere - if you disagree with Pat Farmer, instead of
dismissing him, step up to the discussion and engage. Draft reasons to
why cyclist rego is not a suitable option to pursue. Ensure that your
correspondence is friendly, polite and informative. Instead contacting
the media, take a more direct tact and send it to his electorate office.

Otherwise we're taking the risk of becoming inadvertently complicit
in ensuring than our elected representatives and the public remain
misinformed about their fellow road users.


--
cfsmtb

On Feb 8, 9:05 am, cfsmtb cfsmtb.34f...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com wrote:

As suggested elsewhere - if you disagree with Pat Farmer, instead of
dismissing him, step up to the discussion and engage.

I guess that rules out suggesting Pat Farmer registers for a brain
transplant, to enable him to understand elementary issues about
regulation? Heaven help us that such a nong has a seat in the
legislature, not to mention has been given a promoted position by a
mainstream political party ... when there are so many fine people
around.

Donga

cfsmtb wrote:

As suggested elsewhere - if you disagree with Pat Farmer, instead of
dismissing him, step up to the discussion and engage.

Lol, never argue with an idiot. They'll just bring you down to their
level and beat you with experience.

When ever this man is challenged over anything he says, he either backs
down, as in this case, or goes into faith rhetoric.

cfsmtb wrote:

Poll: Should cyclists pay registration fees?
http://www.smh.com.au/polls/national/form.html
Closed. 79% said "No, things are fine as they are"

"Terryc" wrote in message
...
cfsmtb wrote:

Poll: Should cyclists pay registration fees?
http://www.smh.com.au/polls/national/form.html
Closed. 79% said "No, things are fine as they are"

Gee, he looks hapy on his website!
Submitted the follwing (possible drivel alert):

"Regarding proposing that cyclists pay rego fees. I have 6 bikes. I
commute on some, race on others, and go bush bashing on some more. Do you
propose I pay rego on each of these bikes ON TOP OF the registration I pay
on my motorcar and motorcycle, as well as tax upon tax I pay for the petrol
each of these mechanical devices uses? If you advocate a user pays system,
then I would expect a rego fee based on damage to the roads, carbon
footprint of transport option and distance travelled. Would not it cost
more to admister such a bicycle rego scheme than it would create funding
(speaking of which, doesn't most road funding come from conolidated revenue
and not rego?) Given the Governement often caters for for lowest common
demoniator or small interst groups, I see why you are citing that motorists
'often complain' about cyclists so called free road use. More bikes get
sold than cars, so bikes users must have more voting power than car users.
Introducing a levy/rego fee will discourage cycling. This will increase
conjestion. Increase CO2 emissions. Increase the amount of fatties already
possessing the potential to burden the heath care system in 20-50 years.
You should be encouraging activities that are environmetally responsible and
a health benifit. I believe there is a recent study out that concludes all
this.

We do not need more bike lanes, what we need is better education for all
road users, rather than the poor excuse for a licence test and leniency on
hoons, speedsters, red light runners and various other law breakers. How
about I complain about people using the excuse "I need my car for
work/lifestyle" when the judge wants to take awy their licence.

I humbly suggest the honorable MP stick to his shado portfolio topic of
sports rather than dabbling in infrastruture and transport. He needs to be
encouraging people to take up sport!"

Paul Yates wrote:
Increase the amount of fatties already
possessing the potential to burden the heath care system in 20-50 years.

Apparently, thin people cost the health system more. Seems they have
more strokes, which are more costly to treat.

Paul Yates Wrote:

I humbly suggest the honorable MP stick to his shado portfolio topic
of
sports rather than dabbling in infrastruture and transport. He needs
to be
encouraging people to take up sport!"The Hon. MP could do well by studying the collected works of Alan Odds,
President of the National Roads and Cyclists Association.

http://www.mynrca.com.au/


--
cfsmtb

On Feb 8, 7:21 am, ray wrote:
Jack Russell wrote:
.. Double dipping ..
I've been a licenced driver for over 25 years,...

Registration is per vehicle, not per driver.

I don't understand Pat's logic http://tinyurl.com/2h58kn

quote:
"Mr Farmer said motorists often complained it was unfair for cyclists
to use roads without paying registration costs. A bicycle levy would
make such an argument redundant and could increase government funding
for bike lanes, he said."

So what he's saying is that if we pay money to GovCo to provide
facilities[1], our rights to be on the road will be legitemised.. of
course we won't be allowed to use the roads any more, because there'll
be 'facilities', which by law, we're supposed to use 'if practicable'.

[1] - cough, splutter. We all know that the money gathered will be
less than the cost to implement the system, anyway, so all it will do
is employ more public servants.

duncan