Bristol pay-as-you-go bike pilot scrapped

On 28/05/10 23:39, The Medway Handyman wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Tosspot wrote:
On 28/05/10 15:32, bugbear wrote:
JMS wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/8702011.stm

Oh dear - I wonder if Boris's scheme will go the same way?



I wonder if the newcomers to cycling in a city found it too
dangerous?
I wonder if the rents were too high, or the
funding ran out?

Well, if Moody had actually read the article, well I'll help, here's
the relevant bit...

"Hourbike said more funding was needed"

Although, as usual, it works fine in Germany, you find a bike, call
a number on your mobile, it automagically unlocks and off you go.
When you finish, you lock it again, and it's debited to your mobile
account.

Do users pay the entire cost, or is there a significant subsidy from
people deriving no benefit from it?

You mean like the subsidy Road Tax provides for cycle lanes etc?

What's this Road Tax you're on about?

On 28/05/2010 20:26, JNugent wrote:
®i©ardo wrote:
On 28/05/2010 19:31, JNugent wrote:
bugbear wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Tosspot wrote:
On 28/05/10 15:32, bugbear wrote:
JMS wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/8702011.stm

Oh dear - I wonder if Boris's scheme will go the same way?



I wonder if the newcomers to cycling in a city found it too
dangerous?
I wonder if the rents were too high, or the
funding ran out?

Well, if Moody had actually read the article, well I'll help, here's
the
relevant bit...

"Hourbike said more funding was needed"

Although, as usual, it works fine in Germany, you find a bike, call
a number on
your mobile, it automagically unlocks and off you go. When you
finish, you lock
it again, and it's debited to your mobile account.

Do users pay the entire cost, or is there a significant subsidy from
people deriving no benefit from it?

Since using a bike reducing crap in the atmosphere,
everybody *does* benefit from it.

Nonsense. There is no difference in CO2 emissions between the cases
where a Bristol University student cycles a mile or walks a mile.

Even if there was (there isn't), I'm not sure that subsidising the price
of cycle hire is a good use of my money, for which I have plenty of
worthy alternative uses.

Just a small point here. Bristol University and the University of the
West of England are not one and the same. The original Bristol
University is right in the centre of the city, albeit on the top of a
bloody great hill,

Yes, I know that one.

whilst UWE (known as Bristol Polytechnic when I used to lecture there
some 20 years ago) is some 5 miles north of the city and it is at the
latter that the scheme was based.

Fair enough.

Had the scheme been based centrally it might have had greater success,
given the lack of parking in the area, whereas with UWE there are
acres and acres of land dedicated solely to students' parking. Every
other student seems to drive a car, despite frequent buses from the
city centre to the main campus.

Is there a problem with that?

Well, perhaps the land could be put to better use. Save the planet, and
that guff.

;-)

--
Moving things in still pictures

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
DavidR wrote:

"JNugent" wrote

Do users pay the entire cost, or is there a significant subsidy from
people deriving no benefit from it?

When I pay my taxes to use a car, I consider VFM to be related to the
amount
of road I get. In order to get an extra 20 feet of road it is preferable
to
give someone a pound not to use it than to spend 10 pounds making more
road.

And?

Are you *really* claiming (or trying to) that road-users should be
subsidised?

No. He's claiming that NON road users should be subsidised.

Theoretically this makes good sense. Whether it works in practice is
another matter.

Though the real problem is convincing people that it is the right thing to
do. Most people don't see subsidises of non road uses as being of benefit
to road users and think that it is just a subsidising someone else's journey
to work whilst they pay the full cost, which isn't necessarily true.

tim

Tosspot wrote:
On 28/05/10 23:39, The Medway Handyman wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Tosspot wrote:
On 28/05/10 15:32, bugbear wrote:
JMS wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/8702011.stm

Oh dear - I wonder if Boris's scheme will go the same way?



I wonder if the newcomers to cycling in a city found it too
dangerous?
I wonder if the rents were too high, or the
funding ran out?
Well, if Moody had actually read the article, well I'll help, here's
the relevant bit...

"Hourbike said more funding was needed"

Although, as usual, it works fine in Germany, you find a bike, call
a number on your mobile, it automagically unlocks and off you go.
When you finish, you lock it again, and it's debited to your mobile
account.
Do users pay the entire cost, or is there a significant subsidy from
people deriving no benefit from it?
You mean like the subsidy Road Tax provides for cycle lanes etc?

What's this Road Tax you're on about?

Don't tell him, Pike!

®i©ardo wrote:
On 28/05/2010 20:26, JNugent wrote:
®i©ardo wrote:
On 28/05/2010 19:31, JNugent wrote:
bugbear wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Tosspot wrote:
On 28/05/10 15:32, bugbear wrote:
JMS wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/8702011.stm

Oh dear - I wonder if Boris's scheme will go the same way?



I wonder if the newcomers to cycling in a city found it too
dangerous?
I wonder if the rents were too high, or the
funding ran out?

Well, if Moody had actually read the article, well I'll help, here's
the
relevant bit...

"Hourbike said more funding was needed"

Although, as usual, it works fine in Germany, you find a bike, call
a number on
your mobile, it automagically unlocks and off you go. When you
finish, you lock
it again, and it's debited to your mobile account.

Do users pay the entire cost, or is there a significant subsidy from
people deriving no benefit from it?

Since using a bike reducing crap in the atmosphere,
everybody *does* benefit from it.

Nonsense. There is no difference in CO2 emissions between the cases
where a Bristol University student cycles a mile or walks a mile.

Even if there was (there isn't), I'm not sure that subsidising the
price
of cycle hire is a good use of my money, for which I have plenty of
worthy alternative uses.

Just a small point here. Bristol University and the University of the
West of England are not one and the same. The original Bristol
University is right in the centre of the city, albeit on the top of a
bloody great hill,

Yes, I know that one.

whilst UWE (known as Bristol Polytechnic when I used to lecture there
some 20 years ago) is some 5 miles north of the city and it is at the
latter that the scheme was based.

Fair enough.

Had the scheme been based centrally it might have had greater success,
given the lack of parking in the area, whereas with UWE there are
acres and acres of land dedicated solely to students' parking. Every
other student seems to drive a car, despite frequent buses from the
city centre to the main campus.

Is there a problem with that?

Well, perhaps the land could be put to better use. Save the planet, and
that guff.

;-)

I don't think there is a better use for land than enabling and allowing
citizens to live their lives productively, efficiently and happily.

But I am aware that this is not a universal view. :-)

tim.... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:
DavidR wrote:
"JNugent" wrote

Do users pay the entire cost, or is there a significant subsidy from
people deriving no benefit from it?

When I pay my taxes to use a car, I consider VFM to be related to the
amount of road I get. In order to get an extra 20 feet of road it is
preferable to give someone a pound not to use it than to spend 10
pounds making more road.

And?
Are you *really* claiming (or trying to) that road-users should be
subsidised?

No. He's claiming that NON road users should be subsidised.

What - the bikes were not allowed on the highway anyway?

Theoretically this makes good sense. Whether it works in practice is
another matter.

Amen to your last musing above.

If the Hertz bikes weren't intended for use on the road, one wonders what
practical use they could have been.

Though the real problem is convincing people that it is the right thing to
do. Most people don't see subsidises of non road uses as being of benefit
to road users and think that it is just a subsidising someone else's journey
to work whilst they pay the full cost, which isn't necessarily true.

It is *self-evidently* true.

Some may try to argue that it is in my interest to have my pocket picked in
order to benefit others, but I - like most people - am resistant to such
blandishments.

DavidR wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
...
DavidR wrote:

"JNugent" wrote
Do users pay the entire cost, or is there a significant subsidy from
people deriving no benefit from it?
When I pay my taxes to use a car, I consider VFM to be related to the
amount
of road I get. In order to get an extra 20 feet of road it is preferable
to
give someone a pound not to use it than to spend 10 pounds making more
road.
And?

Are you *really* claiming (or trying to) that road-users should be
subsidised?

Perhaps it's a bribe not a subsidy (*). I am saying that when a tax payer
pays for a service the agency involved has a responsibility to try and spend
it in the most efficient manner. (Most people taking the bribe are likely to
be net contributors, anyway.)

I am definitely a net contributor - by a long margin.

Where do I go for my subsidy? Er... sorry... "bribe"...?

(*) A subsidy usually involves taking money from the tax payer and passing
it on to an enterprise producing at a loss - because there is insufficient
demand to cover costs - and the government thinks it's better than having
unemployed people on the books. This doesn't seem to apply here.

It doesn't matter, because what you wrote was not the definition of a subsidy
anyway./

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
tim.... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:
DavidR wrote:
"JNugent" wrote

Do users pay the entire cost, or is there a significant subsidy from
people deriving no benefit from it?

When I pay my taxes to use a car, I consider VFM to be related to the
amount of road I get. In order to get an extra 20 feet of road it is
preferable to give someone a pound not to use it than to spend 10
pounds making more road.

And?
Are you *really* claiming (or trying to) that road-users should be
subsidised?

No. He's claiming that NON road users should be subsidised.

What - the bikes were not allowed on the highway anyway?

They do not (usually) compromise the space need for a car.

Theoretically this makes good sense. Whether it works in practice is
another matter.

Amen to your last musing above.

If the Hertz bikes weren't intended for use on the road, one wonders what
practical use they could have been.

Though the real problem is convincing people that it is the right thing
to do. Most people don't see subsidises of non road uses as being of
benefit to road users and think that it is just a subsidising someone
else's journey to work whilst they pay the full cost, which isn't
necessarily true.

It is *self-evidently* true.

Some may try to argue that it is in my interest to have my pocket picked
in order to benefit others, but I - like most people - am resistant to
such blandishments.

So if by, say, taking a pound out of your pocket to persuade other not use a
road, you save 1.50 in fuel costs because your journey is less congested,
you would still rather use the money to buy fuel because you get to use the
item being purchased rather than it benefiting an anonymous individual. Is
that right?

tim

tim.... wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
...
tim.... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:
DavidR wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
Do users pay the entire cost, or is there a significant subsidy from
people deriving no benefit from it?
When I pay my taxes to use a car, I consider VFM to be related to the
amount of road I get. In order to get an extra 20 feet of road it is
preferable to give someone a pound not to use it than to spend 10
pounds making more road.
And?
Are you *really* claiming (or trying to) that road-users should be
subsidised?
No. He's claiming that NON road users should be subsidised.
What - the bikes were not allowed on the highway anyway?

They do not (usually) compromise the space need for a car.

Theoretically this makes good sense. Whether it works in practice is
another matter.
Amen to your last musing above.

If the Hertz bikes weren't intended for use on the road, one wonders what
practical use they could have been.

Though the real problem is convincing people that it is the right thing
to do. Most people don't see subsidises of non road uses as being of
benefit to road users and think that it is just a subsidising someone
else's journey to work whilst they pay the full cost, which isn't
necessarily true.
It is *self-evidently* true.

Some may try to argue that it is in my interest to have my pocket picked
in order to benefit others, but I - like most people - am resistant to
such blandishments.

So if by, say, taking a pound out of your pocket to persuade other not use a
road, you save 1.50 in fuel costs because your journey is less congested,
you would still rather use the money to buy fuel because you get to use the
item being purchased rather than it benefiting an anonymous individual. Is
that right?

No, it isn't right.

It's clear nonsense.

Try to fabricate a less-unbelievable scenario.

Tosspot wrote:
|| On 28/05/10 23:39, The Medway Handyman wrote:
||| JNugent wrote:
|||| Tosspot wrote:
||||| On 28/05/10 15:32, bugbear wrote:
|||||| JMS wrote:
||||||| http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/8702011.stm
|||||||
||||||| Oh dear - I wonder if Boris's scheme will go the same way?
|||||||
|||||||
|||||||
||||||| I wonder if the newcomers to cycling in a city found it too
||||||| dangerous?
|||||| I wonder if the rents were too high, or the
|||||| funding ran out?
|||||
||||| Well, if Moody had actually read the article, well I'll help,
||||| here's the relevant bit...
|||||
||||| "Hourbike said more funding was needed"
|||||
||||| Although, as usual, it works fine in Germany, you find a bike,
||||| call a number on your mobile, it automagically unlocks and off
||||| you go. When you finish, you lock it again, and it's debited to
||||| your mobile account.
||||
|||| Do users pay the entire cost, or is there a significant subsidy
|||| from people deriving no benefit from it?
|||
||| You mean like the subsidy Road Tax provides for cycle lanes etc?
||
|| What's this Road Tax you're on about?

The extra tax some people have to pay for permission to use their vehicles
on public roads. Surely you must have heard of it ?

--
Rob