Is it time bicycles were registered?

[Mulger bill]

I belive the real reason motorists want rego for bikes is not so much the mistaken belief about identifying and punishing lawbreakers but the fact that they are jealous because they pay and we don't

They think that they pay.

Nobody pays to use the roads, they are free for all people.
What they pay for is the right to use a powered vehicle.

If all the costs of private motor vehicle usage were properly calculated and invoiced annually based on, say, the load over each wheel and the distance driven not only would they scream blue murder because their "rego" fee would no doubt be on the wrong side of four figures before the CTP component was added but they'd hate us even more because of the lesser rego that most of us would be paying because our smokeboxes spend large amounts of time cluttering up our front yards and sheds rather than public roads and carparks.

[Ross]

I belive the real reason motorists want rego for bikes is not so much the mistaken belief about identifying and punishing lawbreakers but the fact that they are jealous because they pay and we don't

They think that they pay.

Nobody pays to use the roads, they are free for all people.
What they pay for is the right to use a powered vehicle.

That's what I meant.

Maybe a fairer way to charge for rego/CTP is to have some sort of elctronic chip installed on your vehicle (and bicycle, if law is introduced that they are liable for registration) that relays info back to rego authorities telling them the time and/or distance the vehicle is used for and at the end of the period a rego bill gets sent to the owner. So someone that doesn't use their vehicle very much gets charged a lot less than someone that uses their vehicle a lot. People in country areas could be disadvantaged though.

The disadvantage to thecaptn's suggestion of registering people rather than bikes is there would be no way of identifying which riders were registered and which weren't unless they were forced to pin a rego number on their clothing (like a race number) which I'm sure wouldn't be very popular.

If all the costs of private motor vehicle usage were properly calculated and invoiced annually based on, say, the load over each wheel and the distance driven not only would they scream blue murder because their "rego" fee would no doubt be on the wrong side of four figures before the CTP component was added but they'd hate us even more because of the lesser rego that most of us would be paying because our smokeboxes spend large amounts of time cluttering up our front yards and sheds rather than public roads and carparks.

I think rego in ACT is already calculated on a vehicle's weight or is it engine capacity?

[KonaCommuter]

The disadvantage to thecaptn's suggestion of registering people rather than bikes is there would be no way of identifying which riders were registered and which weren't unless they were forced to pin a rego number on their clothing (like a race number) which I'm sure wouldn't be very popular.

Oh man, you have no idea how hard it was to resist putting up images from 70 years ago

[Ken Ho]

I belive the real reason motorists want rego for bikes is not so much the mistaken belief about identifying and punishing lawbreakers but the fact that they are jealous because they pay and we don't

They think that they pay.

Nobody pays to use the roads, they are free for all people.
What they pay for is the right to use a powered vehicle.

That's what I meant.

Maybe a fairer way to charge for rego/CTP is to have some sort of elctronic chip installed on your vehicle (and bicycle, if law is introduced that they are liable for registration) that relays info back to rego authorities telling them the time and/or distance the vehicle is used for and at the end of the period a rego bill gets sent to the owner. So someone that doesn't use their vehicle very much gets charged a lot less than someone that uses their vehicle a lot. People in country areas could be disadvantaged though.

The disadvantage to thecaptn's suggestion of registering people rather than bikes is there would be no way of identifying which riders were registered and which weren't unless they were forced to pin a rego number on their clothing (like a race number) which I'm sure wouldn't be very popular.

If all the costs of private motor vehicle usage were properly calculated and invoiced annually based on, say, the load over each wheel and the distance driven not only would they scream blue murder because their "rego" fee would no doubt be on the wrong side of four figures before the CTP component was added but they'd hate us even more because of the lesser rego that most of us would be paying because our smokeboxes spend large amounts of time cluttering up our front yards and sheds rather than public roads and carparks.

I think rego in ACT is already calculated on a vehicle's weight or is it engine capacity?

Careful what you wish for.
D you really want a totalitarian state where your every movement is tracked ?

[Mulger bill]

You got a mobile phone Ken?

[Ken Ho]

You got a mobile phone Ken?

Yes, I'm aware of the GPS info harnessed by mobile phones, but currently that info is not converted into government info on a daily basis, used to bill me for activities. I'm also aware that technology currently exists to do a whole bunch of scary intrusion into our lives.
Ross was suggesting that we take one more step down a very slippery slope and do just that.
I'm not keen for that to happen. It really scares me that people can innocently and stupidly suggest these things.
Our society still contains the same basic elements that led to the Spanish Inquisition, and it doesn't take much for that mindset to re-surface. The Inquisition was for the greater good, after all, according to the Inquisition.
We already have a leveel of regulation in our lives that the KGB only dreamed of.

Do you want to get a letter informing you of your appointment to have your mandated GPS tracker implanted in the body part, not of your choice ?
It would be the logical next step after mandating them in cars.

[Pax]

Every time I see that this thread come up on "new posts" I read "Is it time bicycles were registered?" I think to myself NO!!!....so I thought that it was about time I added that thoughtful response to the conversation.

No need to thank me for my insight.

[rkelsen]

We already have a level of regulation in our lives that the KGB only dreamed of.

Food for thought, Ken.

[human909]

You got a mobile phone Ken?

Yes, I'm aware of the GPS info harnessed by mobile phones, but currently that info is not converted into government info on a daily basis, used to bill me for activities. I'm also aware that technology currently exists to do a whole bunch of scary intrusion into our lives.
Ross was suggesting that we take one more step down a very slippery slope and do just that.
I'm not keen for that to happen. It really scares me that people can innocently and stupidly suggest these things.
Our society still contains the same basic elements that led to the Spanish Inquisition, and it doesn't take much for that mindset to re-surface. The Inquisition was for the greater good, after all, according to the Inquisition.
We already have a leveel of regulation in our lives that the KGB only dreamed of.

Do you want to get a letter informing you of your appointment to have your mandated GPS tracker implanted in the body part, not of your choice ?
It would be the logical next step after mandating them in cars.

You amongst the 10-20% with those concerns...

So the scary conclusion is that we are already sliding down that slope and most people are concerned enough to notice or care.

[high_tea]

What I find striking is that this argument often starts by accepting motorists' claim that every dollar they pay in tax, excise or licensing in their capacity as motorists should be spent on roads. If a smoker made that claim, they'd be laughed at. Nobody seriously claims that pedestrians should fund footpaths on a user-pays basis because that's completely insane. I'm impressed that the various motorist lobby groups have sold this idea, but I think the idea is worth challenging. The historical reason for fuel excise is pretty simple: state governments were (and are) forever strapped for cash and loved slapping excise on things like fuel and tobacco and liquor, things that were subject to inelastic demand. Point is, the governments weren't particularly interested in supporting smokers or drinkers or motorists in return. They just wanted their money and lo and behold, it got handed over. There was some expectation that the money would go on useful stuff, but the expectation that it be spent supporting the activity in question just wasn't there.

Tangentially, I'm curious how much fuel gets burned off-road. Because those fuel-users would, by the reasoning that the motorist lobby have gotten adopted, have a legitimate grievance: that they are being charged to build roads that they don't use.

[human909]

What I find striking is that this argument often starts by accepting motorists' claim that every dollar they pay in tax, excise or licensing in their capacity as motorists should be spent on roads. If a smoker made that claim, they'd be laughed at.

I'd be ecstatic if simply ALL the the taxes, excises and fees that motorists paid went to the roads.

[high_tea]

What I find striking is that this argument often starts by accepting motorists' claim that every dollar they pay in tax, excise or licensing in their capacity as motorists should be spent on roads. If a smoker made that claim, they'd be laughed at.

I'd be ecstatic if simply ALL the the taxes, excises and fees that motorists paid went to the roads.

As would the Royal Automobile Club of Wherever, or so they say. I suspect that your definition of ALL differs from theirs (I disagree strongly with the way they reckon these things). But there's still the elephant in the room: why are they entitled to expect this, however it's reckoned?

I don't understand the expectation. I really don't. Is there some ideological point that I'm missing that entitles motorists, and not smokers, to this quid pro quo?

[human909]

What I was meaning is that all that is largely irrelevant because fuel excise, rego etc pale into comparison compared to the costs of roads. If the costs of roads were solely payed by current fuel excise, rego etc then I think even cyclists would be supporting further road expenditure.

Honestly I have no problems with our current government's spending on road infrastructure. In fact I'd argue that there could be more money spent in some areas. That said public transport needs much more expenditure focus in our major cities. Bike infrastructure costs pale in comparison. Honestly it isn't funds that are the problem it is the will.

[Mulger bill]

Trust me, I don't want big brother breathing further down my neck, he already fogs up my glasses...
Just because something can be done does not mean it should be done.
But...
It's happening by stealth one small chunk at a time and each time it's necessary to "stop those evil SubjectXes doing Y which we know you want stopped because the Feral Hun has demanded it on your behalf". All 0.05% of them.
The frog is yet to realise that the water is getting hotter...

[Ken Ho]

Trust me, I don't want big brother breathing further down my neck, he already fogs up my glasses...
Just because something can be done does not mean it should be done.
But...
It's happening by stealth one small chunk at a time and each time it's necessary to "stop those evil SubjectXes doing Y which we know you want stopped because the Feral Hun has demanded it on your behalf". All 0.05% of them.
The frog is yet to realise that the water is getting hotter...

I think we are on the same page here.
The "chip" that Ross is in favour of would Lso be capable of tracking speed continuously and mailing out speeding fines automatically as a further source of revenue. I'm not sure I want that either, any more than I want my whole home monitored with surveillance cameras.
Those things are easily within the realm of current technology and I'm sure that some boffin somewhere has considered proposing it, in the interest of public good. Bugger that.
Someone please strangle Ross quietly before he thinks to write to the "authoritahs" suggesting it.

[Ross]

Someone please strangle Ross quietly before he thinks to write to the "authoritahs" suggesting it.

Too late

Maybe the rego/CTP system we already have is about the fairest we can have without going down the chip route.
If it would stop the vitriol from motorists towards cyclists then I would be happy to pay rego on my bikes but I seriously doubt it would have any effect.

[Mulger bill]

Ken, frankly I'm shocked.

Don't you know it's for our own good, if you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to worry about, if it saves even one life and every other banal little cliche until I projectile vomit over the keyboard

Shaun

[Xenon]

Maybe a fairer way to charge for rego/CTP is to have some sort of elctronic chip installed on your vehicle (and bicycle, if law is introduced that they are liable for registration) that relays info back to rego authorities telling them the time and/or distance the vehicle is used for and at the end of the period a rego bill gets sent to the owner. So someone that doesn't use their vehicle very much gets charged a lot less than someone that uses their vehicle a lot. People in country areas could be disadvantaged though.

It's much simpler than that - simply remove registration/insurance charges and increase fuel excise to compensate.

[rkelsen]

Too late

[human909]

It's much simpler than that - simply remove registration/insurance charges and increase fuel excise to compensate.

Not only that but having CTP funded that way will generally ensure those who are the higher risk pay more! With all those V8 utes and urban tractors paying more and a small hatchback paying much less.

[Ken Ho]

Ken, frankly I'm shocked.

Don't you know it's for our own good, if you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to worry about, if it saves even one life and every other banal little cliche until I projectile vomit over the keyboard

Shaun

Yeah, the innocent have nothing to fear. Until they are in th hands of the corrupt, lazy, stupid, greedy or preciously self-righteous.

[g-boaf]

I agree - rego needs to occur - along with insurance.

Given that riding might be less safe than driving a car, insurance companies could price the policies appropriate to the level of risk.

And if you do the right thing, then you'll have nothing to fear or worry about.

I think it'll be amazing to see that happen. It will have a very beneficial effect on making car traffic jams worse than before.

[rkelsen]

Given that riding might be less safe than driving a car

It's not:
http://aushiker.com/cyclist-road-toll/
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/107 ... ummary.pdf

[ColinOldnCranky]

Given that riding might be less safe than driving a car

It's not:
http://aushiker.com/cyclist-road-toll/
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/107 ... ummary.pdf

I've had a bit of a look at the links you stated.

Where do you infer in the statistical summary an indication that it is not more dangerous?

I do note with some concern that , in simple counts, the only modes not improving over ten years have been cyclists and motor cyclists.

[Ross]

Given that riding might be less safe than driving a car

It's not:
http://aushiker.com/cyclist-road-toll/
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/107 ... ummary.pdf

Statistics aren't relevant unless they compare number of road users. WIth vehicles it is easy to count them because they are registered but with bicycles it's a lot harder because they aren't registered. You can't go on sales (of bikes) because a lot of people buy bikes and ride them once or twice and leave them to decay in the back of the shed plus a lot of people don't ride on the roads.