A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » Australia
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Cycle Registration



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old February 8th 08, 05:27 AM posted to aus.bicycle
Jack Russell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 157
Default Cycle Registration

He was using the reply that I use

"I am happy to pay registration if you spend proportionally as much on
cycle infrastructure as you do on motor vehicle infrastructure. As the
registration only contributes a minute fraction of that amount cyclists
would be streets ahead. I would also expect a refund on some part of my
car registration as I cannot be using both at once"

He also pointed out the admin costs would be horrific and the whole
thing unenforceable. At least that is what I heard on ABC 702 this morning.


Patrick Keogh wrote:
I can handle Pat Farmer being clueless on this, but it is harder to
handle when the CEO of Bicycle NSW is quoted in support!!!!

My letter to Alex Unwin:

Alex,

The online version of the SMH on the subject of registration for
bicycles
(http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...234066487.html)
says:

Bicycle NSW said it supported initiatives that seek to legitimise
cycling. "A form of bike registration or levy may help achieve this,"
said its chief executive, Alex Unwin.

Surely this is a misquote. It goes directly against Bicycle NSW's
purpose - More people cycling more often. I can't believe that you would
have made an off-the-cuff statement like this in direct contravention
with the wishes and aspirations of members.

So I am writing to let you know about it so that Bicycle NSW can issue a
press release and you can write to the SMH requiring a retraction.

Regards,
Patrick Keogh



--
Remove norubbish to reply
Ads
  #12  
Old February 8th 08, 06:20 AM posted to aus.bicycle
Terryc[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 244
Default Cycle Registration

Jack Russell wrote:
He was using the reply that I use


Then you are both fools. Bicycle riding is already a legitimate activity
as is kite flying, taking photographs, walking in the park, going
shopping, pushing a pram, etc, or do you advocate that people should be
forced to buy a lisence to do these as well?


"I am happy to pay registration if you spend proportionally as much on
cycle infrastructure as you do on motor vehicle infrastructure. As the
registration only contributes a minute fraction of that amount cyclists
would be streets ahead. I would also expect a refund on some part of my
car registration as I cannot be using both at once"

He also pointed out the admin costs would be horrific and the whole
thing unenforceable. At least that is what I heard on ABC 702 this morning.


All Alex Unwin has done is support the opponents of riding bicycles on
roads and declare himself a fool who should not be in the job he is in.

BNSW needs someone who understands when to keep their mouth shut if they
do not understand how media works. You can not make a sound bite to
national media and then expect to moderate the damage by explaining your
statement on a local blather box radio station.


  #13  
Old February 8th 08, 08:28 AM posted to aus.bicycle
Paul Yates
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 44
Default Cycle Registration


"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!"


  #14  
Old February 9th 08, 01:20 AM posted to aus.bicycle
Terryc[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 244
Default Cycle Registration

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.
  #15  
Old February 9th 08, 06:52 AM posted to aus.bicycle
G-S
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 164
Default Cycle Registration

Terryc wrote:
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.


Healthy young people also tend to live longer and spend long years
dragging extra cost out of the health system.

Unfit people are I'm told more likely to kark it quickly and
comparativly cheaply.


G-S
  #16  
Old February 9th 08, 10:06 AM posted to aus.bicycle
Patrick Keogh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 132
Default Cycle Registration

G-S wrote:
Terryc wrote:
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.


Healthy young people also tend to live longer and spend long years
dragging extra cost out of the health system.

Unfit people are I'm told more likely to kark it quickly and
comparativly cheaply.


G-S

THe problem with these comparisons is that the "cost to the health
system" isn't the main consideration. Look instead at the difference
between productive capacity and cost. If I live a long and healthy life
and inject (say) $3M into the tax system and my health costs are (say)
$0.5M then that is a better result that someone who comes out of school,
works for 2 years and then gets sick and dies at a cost to the health
system of $0.1M.
  #17  
Old February 9th 08, 10:15 AM posted to aus.bicycle
TimC
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,361
Default Cycle Registration

On 2008-02-09, G-S (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
Terryc wrote:
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.


Healthy young people also tend to live longer and spend long years
dragging extra cost out of the health system.

Unfit people are I'm told more likely to kark it quickly and
comparativly cheaply.


Yeah, and fit people should be made to work longer too, because
otherwise they get more years of retirement where they're only sucking
from society.

gd&r from any oldies I offended

--
TimC
My dog is worried about the economy because Alpo is up to 99 cents a can.
Thats almost $7.00 in dog money. -Joe Weinstein in ARK
  #18  
Old February 9th 08, 11:53 AM posted to aus.bicycle
G-S
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 164
Default Cycle Registration

Patrick Keogh wrote:
G-S wrote:
Terryc wrote:
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.


Healthy young people also tend to live longer and spend long years
dragging extra cost out of the health system.

Unfit people are I'm told more likely to kark it quickly and
comparativly cheaply.


G-S

THe problem with these comparisons is that the "cost to the health
system" isn't the main consideration. Look instead at the difference
between productive capacity and cost.


True, but I was referring more to retired fit vs retired unfit people,
not people still in the workforce (although I freely admit I hadn't made
that sufficiently clear


G-S
  #19  
Old February 10th 08, 09:22 AM posted to aus.bicycle
Aeek
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 457
Default Cycle Registration

On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 07:21:18 +1100, ray
wrote:

And where do you draw the line? Do 7 year olds have to pay rego too?
This type of debate degenerates rapidly into farce.


How does it work if its not National? I'm in the ACT. If I cross the
border with my required ACT rego(none), am I ok in looney NSW?
  #20  
Old February 10th 08, 09:51 AM posted to aus.bicycle
Paul Yates
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 44
Default Cycle Registration


"TimC" wrote in message
...
On 2008-02-09, G-S (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
Terryc wrote:
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.


Healthy young people also tend to live longer and spend long years
dragging extra cost out of the health system.

Unfit people are I'm told more likely to kark it quickly and
comparativly cheaply.


Yeah, and fit people should be made to work longer too, because
otherwise they get more years of retirement where they're only sucking
from society.

gd&r from any oldies I offended

--
TimC
My dog is worried about the economy because Alpo is up to 99 cents a can.
Thats almost $7.00 in dog money. -Joe Weinstein in ARK


Geez, You are a hard lot. Us fit people will have sufficient retirement
funds to not be a financial burden!


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NAUCC Registration Spencer Hochberg Unicycling 0 March 21st 07 02:42 AM
buc registration manic_mark Unicycling 3 May 2nd 06 12:26 AM
BUC Pre-registration joemarshall Unicycling 15 April 15th 06 06:15 PM
Cycle registration plates - soon to be a reality? Matt B UK 26 February 21st 06 06:16 PM
OUI 05 Registration karl Unicycling 8 May 28th 05 07:56 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.