Why the rage ?

open topic, for anything cycling related.

Re: Why the rage ?

Postby rkelsen » Fri May 24, 2013 10:48 am

Xplora wrote:Car rego is not the issue, licence cost is not the issue, car usage remains the key point. Improving the efficiency of the car would be great, and that might mean reducing freedom in driving. Could be a tall order :)

The poor design of our cities and suburban sprawl have all but killed that possibility.

Unless they 'beef up' public transport and make it 100% free to use, you will never get people out of their cars.
User avatar
rkelsen
 
Posts: 4289
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 10:41 pm

by BNA » Fri May 24, 2013 11:41 am

BNA
 

Re: Why the rage ?

Postby simonn » Fri May 24, 2013 11:41 am

rkelsen wrote:
simonn wrote:That would cause people like me for last few years who had a license but barely drove at all to subsidise everyone else.
...
Fund roads and traffic agencies, road maintenance etc all from fuel tax. The more you drive, the more you pay and this can be achieved without intrusive measures (e.g. GPS tracking etc). Larger and more powerful vehicles cause more damage and create more pollution, but also use more fuel.

So you don't want to subsidise anyone else, but you're happy to have them subsidise you?


Ok, hmmm... a tax on bicycle consumables (lubes, tyres, tubes & chains) then? Fuel tax is easy to implement and bicycles emit pretty much zero pollution are a net gain as far as health care costs go and require barely any road maintenance. Also, it leaves a "tax free" option for people. If you don't want to pay da gubment bubba, just ride a bicycle (or walk, or take PT).

rkelsen wrote:And don't you think that this would achieve the very opposite of what you're aiming at? People would be even more angry toward us 'freeloaders' who don't pay a cent to be on the road.


Maybe not as there will be more cyclists - everyone knows a cyclist, has one in the family etc. May even become fashionable as a tax dodge...?

rkelsen wrote:
simonn wrote:The only problem is that the vocal "pay rego" types would be against it as they do not really want a user pays system, they are just out and out selfish.

It's not just 'them' that are selfish. Everyone is selfish. No exception. If we weren't, then this discussion would not be happening.

Everyone seems to think that they are "unique" or "special" in their need to get to work so that they feed their family, and so therefore everyone else should get out of their way.

And people always seem to want rules which don't apply to themselves.


It applies to me. I am not, and will not be for the foreseeable future, commuting by bicycle regularly due to child care. It is just... fair (and does not intrude on peoples privacy).
Image
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3575
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Why the rage ?

Postby warthog1 » Fri May 24, 2013 12:23 pm

rkelsen wrote:
Unless they 'beef up' public transport and make it 100% free to use, you will never get people out of their cars.


Public transport needs some serious investment true. Increasing fuel prices, if oil goes up and our dollar continues to slide, will pry a few people out of their cars.
User avatar
warthog1
 
Posts: 2730
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm

Re: Why the rage ?

Postby roller » Fri May 24, 2013 12:28 pm

simonn wrote:Ok, hmmm... a tax on bicycle consumables (lubes, tyres, tubes & chains) then?


GST?
Image
User avatar
roller
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:17 pm
Location: embleton

Re: Why the rage ?

Postby Xplora » Fri May 24, 2013 3:00 pm

You can get people out of their cars... you just make it too expensive and they stop getting in. You charge them 10K a year rego and you'll decimate the driver numbers. People need to commute. They don't need to drive. Don't get me wrong... I don't want them to stop driving. I'm a 3rd generation car mechanic LMAO but you have to manage the traffic somehow. If you can't afford to walk, or ride, or PT, you can afford to pay. If you can't afford to pay, you have to charge more to cover it. A lot of people don't really need to drive, they just make decisions to do so.

It does not require great political will to make this happen. Just bump up fuel tax or drop the exemptions for fuel that currently exist. The normative tax structures will help enormously. It will stimulate the economy as well.. local manufacturing improves once it is too pricey to ship interstate. :idea:

Reducing the entitlement is easy. Change the rules, and the people change with them.
Xplora
 
Posts: 5644
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

Re: Why the rage ?

Postby TTar » Fri May 24, 2013 4:36 pm

Some of youse seem to be advocating improving bike riding by compromising car driving. Wouldn't we do better seeking to create our own network?

As the author said in her article, there's three ways of moving around but only two carriageways. If we can't have separated bike paths all over town, maybe we should be pushing for the establishment of coherent backstreet/laneway/parklands routes and leave the motorists to their own devices.

Having to constantly assert your right to be on the road becomes very tedious very quickly and I don't know about anyone else, but it's very rare indeed that I want to ride on a heavily trafficked street.

A cyclist on a public road who is no way impeding or otherwise inconveniencing drivers will still be criticised (or worse) by the nutjob motorists -- let them stew in their own sense of entitlement in traffic jams and motoring bedlam that will be just as bad without a bike in sight -- let's create our third carriageway.
Sent from my fortified compound
TTar
 
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 3:41 pm

Re: Why the rage ?

Postby KonaCommuter » Fri May 24, 2013 4:49 pm

TTar wrote:Some of youse seem to be advocating improving bike riding by compromising car driving. Wouldn't we do better seeking to create our own network?

As the author said in her article, there's three ways of moving around but only two carriageways. If we can't have separated bike paths all over town, maybe we should be pushing for the establishment of coherent backstreet/laneway/parklands routes and leave the motorists to their own devices.

Having to constantly assert your right to be on the road becomes very tedious very quickly and I don't know about anyone else, but it's very rare indeed that I want to ride on a heavily trafficked street.

A cyclist on a public road who is no way impeding or otherwise inconveniencing drivers will still be criticised (or worse) by the nutjob motorists -- let them stew in their own sense of entitlement in traffic jams and motoring bedlam that will be just as bad without a bike in sight -- let's create our third carriageway.


Cyclists were here before cars, Horse and cart before that, horse before that and just plain ole' walking before that. Cars are Johnny Come Lately and let's be honest, they have a finite life thanks to Peak Oil.


http://inventors.about.com/od/bstartinv ... icycle.htm

While evidence suggests that there may have been a few hobbyhorses in Australia in the 1840s, it was the velocipede which really began to interest Australians in cycling. The first of these machines was introduced into Melbourne in 1868 and, in the following July, Australia's first bicycle race was held at the Melbourne Cricket Ground.



http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/58525297

Well known in South Australia as a manufacturer of farm
implements, Mr. David Shearer, of Mannum, River Murray,
can claim to be Australia's first inventor of a motor car.Fix this text
In the early (1890's) nineties he designed and built a power-
propelled vehicle, which, a few years later, astonished all
Adelaide as it chugged its way through the streets at 15 miles
an hour. Special permission from the Mayor had to be obtained
before the car could be driven through the streets.
2012 Oppy A4
User avatar
KonaCommuter
 
Posts: 978
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 8:28 pm
Location: Brisbane Northside

Re: Why the rage ?

Postby TTar » Fri May 24, 2013 5:19 pm

KonaCommuter wrote:Cyclists were here before cars, Horse and cart before that, horse before that and just plain ole' walking before that. Cars are Johnny Come Lately and let's be honest, they have a finite life thanks to Peak Oil.






Yes, but cars will then be powered by ideologically sound patchouli oil or something and there will still be the same bogans muscling cyclists off the precious tarmac.

Most of us would agree reducing the number of cars and improving cycling facilities are both good things, but they're not necessarily related issues.

When motoring groups lobby for another atrocity, they don't consider cyclists for a moment. Cyclists need to adopt the same attitude -- decide what's best for us and go for it -- in my opinion, what's best for cyclists does not involve pleading for a narrow patch of road designed for cars, but rather separated paths or bike-friendly, car-free routes.
Sent from my fortified compound
TTar
 
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 3:41 pm

Re: Why the rage ?

Postby KonaCommuter » Fri May 24, 2013 5:44 pm

TTar wrote:


When motoring groups lobby for another atrocity, they don't consider cyclists for a moment. Cyclists need to adopt the same attitude -- decide what's best for us and go for it -- in my opinion, what's best for cyclists does not involve pleading for a narrow patch of road designed for cars, but rather separated paths or bike-friendly, car-free routes.



Quoted for truth.



All my life I've been playing the fair card. It's only recently that I've realised I've been a mug and conceding far to much. The Jury that exonerated a truck driver killing a cyclist has sealed that deal for me.
2012 Oppy A4
User avatar
KonaCommuter
 
Posts: 978
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 8:28 pm
Location: Brisbane Northside

Re: Why the rage ?

Postby trailgumby » Fri May 24, 2013 5:44 pm

Cyclists need to adopt the same attitude -- decide what's best for us and go for it -- in my opinion, what's best for cyclists does not involve pleading for a narrow patch of road designed for cars, but rather separated paths or bike-friendly, car-free routes.

... that go somewhere we want to go ... rather than being designed by non-cyclists deciding for us where we should go!
"People have a right to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Evidence must be located, not created, and opinions not backed by evidence cannot be given much weight." -- James W Loewen

http://www.facebook.com/Drive2WorkDay
User avatar
trailgumby
 
Posts: 10204
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 4:30 pm
Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney

Re: Why the rage ?

Postby Xplora » Sat May 25, 2013 12:31 pm

^^ That's the problem... cycleways are a useful solution for serious roadways like the M2/4/7/5 in Sydney, but pedestrian activity must be taken into consideration at all points because people need to walk places. You can't expect people to choose to ride if they can't walk as well. Some people can't ride. Some people get flats. It's an effortful transport mode compared to driving.

Since peds can't be stopped or avoided - we must look at the main danger to PEOPLE. Not just riders or peds or little kids. Cars are the biggest danger, and physics ensures this won't change. If you can't put enough pressure to ensure sensible behaviour and compliance from drivers, then you have to ban bikes or peds. That banning is actually impossible. So you have to fix the car problem and reduce the risk of driver failure. You can adjust the physics by slowing them down, and long jail terms for people who kill other people on the roads. Accidents happen because people either suck at driving, or aren't being preemptively careful. The ped you drive over can't control the car, so the driver has to bear the responsibility for that. 100%. Tweaking our criminal code isn't that hard, if you actually want to do it. Drive over a few judges and polticians and you'll see a bit more motivation, I am certain.

*Don't drive over people, it's not cool*
Xplora
 
Posts: 5644
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

Re: Why the rage ?

Postby mick243 » Sat May 25, 2013 12:45 pm

plenty of ideas/methods out there.....

step 1, remove the term "accident" from road legislation and all reporting (IE its not an "MVA" (motor vehicle accident) - its a "collision"/"crash") - *someone is ALWAYS at fault*
step 2, make crashing a motor vehicle *into anything* an offence of strict liability. (variable penalty from nothing upwards, depending on circumstance)
step 3, make injuring a person in a motor vehicle crash an offence of strict liability. (minimum penalty = medical costs + lost wages of injured parties)
step 4, watch how fast MM's learn to drive properly.


oh, and make it MUCH harder to get a driving license...... perhaps mandatory cycling time/distance first :twisted:
mick243
 
Posts: 210
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 10:44 am

Re: Why the rage ?

Postby Ken Ho » Sat May 25, 2013 1:27 pm

How about a merit point system to sit alongside the de-merit point system.
We have the stick, but no carrot.
You have officially become your parents.
Ken Ho
 
Posts: 1266
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:28 pm
Location: Pikey, based on Southern Gold Coast

Re: Why the rage ?

Postby Duck! » Sat May 25, 2013 1:54 pm

mick243 wrote:plenty of ideas/methods out there.....

step 1, remove the term "accident" from road legislation and all reporting (IE its not an "MVA" (motor vehicle accident) - its a "collision"/"crash") - *someone is ALWAYS at fault*
step 2, make crashing a motor vehicle *into anything* an offence of strict liability. (variable penalty from nothing upwards, depending on circumstance)
step 3, make injuring a person in a motor vehicle crash an offence of strict liability. (minimum penalty = medical costs + lost wages of injured parties)
step 4, watch how fast MM's learn to drive properly.


oh, and make it MUCH harder to get a driving license...... perhaps mandatory cycling time/distance first :twisted:

Yes! Also have every driver retested when it's time to renew their licence, both a written test and a practical one.

Oh yeah, and also recognise that cars (and people hanging out of them) can be used as weapons, and treat offences committed in this manner accordingly, not simply dismissing them as traffic incidents (which invariably currently incur far less severe penalties).
Last edited by Duck! on Sat May 25, 2013 1:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I had a thought, but it got run over as it crossed my mind.
Duck!
Expert
 
Posts: 1691
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 8:21 pm
Location: On The Tools

Re: Why the rage ?

Postby mick243 » Sat May 25, 2013 1:54 pm

yeah, that could work also - something like a % off your rego for years of no offences/crashes - sorta like no claim discount with insurance.


problem with the stick currently, they dont use it enough - the cops wave the stick, but the courts dont follow through with the swing.
mick243
 
Posts: 210
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 10:44 am

Re: Why the rage ?

Postby KonaCommuter » Sat May 25, 2013 5:53 pm

mick243 wrote:plenty of ideas/methods out there.....

step 1, remove the term "accident" from road legislation and all reporting (IE its not an "MVA" (motor vehicle accident) - its a "collision"/"crash") - *someone is ALWAYS at fault*
step 2, make crashing a motor vehicle *into anything* an offence of strict liability. (variable penalty from nothing upwards, depending on circumstance)
step 3, make injuring a person in a motor vehicle crash an offence of strict liability. (minimum penalty = medical costs + lost wages of injured parties)
step 4, watch how fast MM's learn to drive properly.


oh, and make it MUCH harder to get a driving license...... perhaps mandatory cycling time/distance first :twisted:




No more fully comprehensive insurance. You're up for say 25% costs (medical, missed wages, emergency services, investigation, clean up, repair of public infrastructure etc etc etc). Then it's "Whoa, hit a cyclist/pedestrian = loss of house and superannuation" and watch people trip over themselves trying to offload their cars and use PT
2012 Oppy A4
User avatar
KonaCommuter
 
Posts: 978
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 8:28 pm
Location: Brisbane Northside

Re: Why the rage ?

Postby high_tea » Sat May 25, 2013 6:07 pm

KonaCommuter wrote:
mick243 wrote:plenty of ideas/methods out there.....

step 1, remove the term "accident" from road legislation and all reporting (IE its not an "MVA" (motor vehicle accident) - its a "collision"/"crash") - *someone is ALWAYS at fault*
step 2, make crashing a motor vehicle *into anything* an offence of strict liability. (variable penalty from nothing upwards, depending on circumstance)
step 3, make injuring a person in a motor vehicle crash an offence of strict liability. (minimum penalty = medical costs + lost wages of injured parties)
step 4, watch how fast MM's learn to drive properly.


oh, and make it MUCH harder to get a driving license...... perhaps mandatory cycling time/distance first :twisted:




No more fully comprehensive insurance. You're up for say 25% costs (medical, missed wages, emergency services, investigation, clean up, repair of public infrastructure etc etc etc). Then it's "Whoa, hit a cyclist/pedestrian = loss of house and superannuation" and watch people trip over themselves trying to offload their cars and use PT


Intriguing, but laws that are disproportionately hard on poorer folk don't sit well with me. On reflection, I guess that's "people who aren't particularly wealthy, but nonetheless have something to lose"; both the very wealthy and the completely broke wouldn't be much deterred by such a law.

Loss of license + fine seemed to work OK as a deterrent with DUI. The big change with RBT laws and so forth is that they changed the law to make it easy peasy to enforce. Handy deeming provisions to get around those pesky rules of evidence and the right to test motorists and random, for example. I can't think of something analagous to do to, say, overtaking laws.

When you get into the harmful stuff - actual collisions - I can see strict liability playing a part. When it's been discussed before, people have been nervous about it applying to cyclists. On reflection, I think this is a good thing. A law that doesn't make you think pretty hard about what you're doing isn't much of a law IMO.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

Re: Why the rage ?

Postby CatCanRide » Sun May 26, 2013 8:00 am

We do have a small bite of a carrot here in Vic to drive safely.
Recently got my licence renewal and there was a discount for not having any demerit points on my licence.
Not much of an incentive when it isn't advertised and I only need to renew my licence every ten years.
so now you know make sure you drive super carefully to get that bit of carrot. :)
User avatar
CatCanRide
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 5:21 pm

Re: Why the rage ?

Postby Ken Ho » Sun May 26, 2013 9:21 am

mick243 wrote:yeah, that could work also - something like a % off your rego for years of no offences/crashes - sorta like no claim discount with insurance.


problem with the stick currently, they dont use it enough - the cops wave the stick, but the courts dont follow through with the swing.


No, the problem with the stick, is that it does not teach people what to do.
Ever train a dog ?
You have officially become your parents.
Ken Ho
 
Posts: 1266
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:28 pm
Location: Pikey, based on Southern Gold Coast

Re: Why the rage ?

Postby mick243 » Sun May 26, 2013 10:51 am

yep, I've trained a number of dogs - and its quite similar to people...

most dogs (and most people) dont need much carrot OR much stick, because they want to do whats right.

on occasion, lots of carrot is the best option. *** you CANNOT extinguish a behavior with carrot ***

sometimes, you need stick. stick needs to be unambiguous, unemotional, and swift. if you don't use enough stick, the recipient often becomes "immune" to it (gee, didn't hurt that much, the risk/reward equation still comes out in my favour - ill repeat!) *** OTOH its quite difficult to teach a behavior with stick ***
mick243
 
Posts: 210
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 10:44 am

Re: Why the rage ?

Postby Ken Ho » Sun May 26, 2013 5:23 pm

mick243 wrote:yep, I've trained a number of dogs - and its quite similar to people...

most dogs (and most people) dont need much carrot OR much stick, because they want to do whats right.

on occasion, lots of carrot is the best option. *** you CANNOT extinguish a behavior with carrot ***

sometimes, you need stick. stick needs to be unambiguous, unemotional, and swift. if you don't use enough stick, the recipient often becomes "immune" to it (gee, didn't hurt that much, the risk/reward equation still comes out in my favour - ill repeat!) *** OTOH its quite difficult to teach a behavior with stick ***


Um, yes, I know all that, my point exactly.
We want drivers to learn how to drive around us, ie learn a new behaviour, but there is no-one teaching them.
How about an on-line course worth a couple of merit points ? Or better, a hands on course worth a few more.
You have officially become your parents.
Ken Ho
 
Posts: 1266
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:28 pm
Location: Pikey, based on Southern Gold Coast

Re: Why the rage ?

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Sun May 26, 2013 8:03 pm

Xplora wrote:You can get people out of their cars... you just make it too expensive and they stop getting in. You charge them 10K a year rego and you'll decimate the driver numbers. People need to commute. They don't need to drive. Don't get me wrong... I don't want them to stop driving. I'm a 3rd generation car mechanic LMAO but you have to manage the traffic somehow. If you can't afford to walk, or ride, or PT, you can afford to pay. If you can't afford to pay, you have to charge more to cover it. A lot of people don't really need to drive, they just make decisions to do so.

It does not require great political will to make this happen. Just bump up fuel tax or drop the exemptions for fuel that currently exist. The normative tax structures will help enormously. It will stimulate the economy as well.. local manufacturing improves once it is too pricey to ship interstate. :idea:

Reducing the entitlement is easy. Change the rules, and the people change with them.


Hmmm. I recall when petrol was around 25c per gallon (about 5 cents per litre) and the oil crisis was hitting (early 1970's) when people and commentators predicted that once petrol got to, say, 50c per gallon (10 cpl) that there would be a wholesale exodus from driving. Even after taking the rising CPI into consideration the price has well and truly got past that. People just got used to it.

Making it expensive does make a difference, but only for a while. People get into the habit of the extra expense and are forgiving of it.

On the other hand they also find tougher parking become once experienced for a while is accpetable. Hitting parking seems to be a good thing to do. (The City of Perth's free CAT buses are funded by an increasing levy on parking bays. Clever. Drivers are funding the alternative for those that do not drive.)

On political will I make the following observation. The cost to add an extra lane to existing freeway or highway in a built up metropolis is massive - the cost of adding a lane to our existing Polly Farmer tunnel was stated as $50m for the 1.6km and that required no actrual widening of the tunnel. Yet governments do not balk at doing it when congestion hits drivers. No government will allow congestion to to happen for very long without being seen to do something about it. This and related public transport along the congested conduits became about the major issue in the year leading up to our last state election after a period of ignoring it.

I think that the sort of decision where a government chooses NOT to address congestion is only made when the cost of the works is so massive that the political pain from not having money for other essentials is even greater.
Unchain yourself - Ride a unicycle .Image
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4649
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm

Previous

Return to General discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aushiker, bychosis, Flo, Kiante, nezumi, Red Rider, Rockford, skull



Popular Bike Shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ebay Ebay AU



InTouch with BNA
“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter