Bristol pay-as-you-go bike pilot scrapped

On 29/05/10 12:58, Rob wrote:
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 ?

No, sorry, could you provide a link?

Rob wrote:
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 ?

Cyclists don't like the phrase, it reminds them that they are sponging
freeloaders.


--
Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist
--
Q. Why don't they put pockets in lycra cycling shorts?
A. Because cyclists never put their hands in their pockets.

Tosspot wrote:
|| On 29/05/10 12:58, Rob wrote:
||| 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 ?
||
|| No, sorry, could you provide a link?

Okay.

http://tinyurl.com/3xlqc4m

HTH

--
Rob

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
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.

It's a perfectly reasonable scenario, not necessarily this one with the
bikes, but for others. This is especially true when you add into the mix
the cost of the time lost to congestion.

You may value this time at zero but a trucking company doesn't

tim

Tosspot wrote:
On 29/05/10 12:58, Rob wrote:
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 ?

No, sorry, could you provide a link?

Willingly:

http://tinyurl.com/yevnnra

A fairly recent UK government publication, with prominent mention of road tax
in at least two different media (including writing, of course).

Nice to see you taking an interest.

tim.... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:
tim.... wrote:
"JNugent" wrote:
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.

It's a perfectly reasonable scenario, not necessarily this one with the
bikes, but for others.

Are you sure you've got the numbers right?

Let's recap on what you said:

I have £1 taken out of my pocket...

....it is given to A N Other...

....who then swaps from an on-foot or bus journey to a bike for the day (or
even from a car to a bike for the day) and...

....that saves me £1.50 in fuel (presumably just on that day)?

Could you show your working out, please?

Because it doesn't look right to me, even though you say it's a "perfectly
reasonable scenario".

This is especially true when you add into the mix
the cost of the time lost to congestion.

You may value this time at zero but a trucking company doesn't

What "time" are you talking about? In particular, what difference does a
single passenger, transferring walking or a bus to a bike, in Bristol (of all
places) make to my journey 150 miles or so away? Or to a truck going from
Hull to Liverpool?

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

"JNugent" wrote:
tim.... wrote:
"JNugent" wrote:
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.

It's a perfectly reasonable scenario, not necessarily this one with the
bikes, but for others.

Are you sure you've got the numbers right?

Let's recap on what you said:

I have £1 taken out of my pocket...

...it is given to A N Other...

...who then swaps from an on-foot or bus journey to a bike for the day (or
even from a car to a bike for the day) and...

...that saves me £1.50 in fuel (presumably just on that day)?

Could you show your working out, please?

No I didn't say that.

I said if there was a method of doing this would you still want to pay the
1.50.

I'm just trying to find out your view on the principle

Because it doesn't look right to me, even though you say it's a "perfectly
reasonable scenario".

This is especially true when you add into the mix the cost of the time
lost to congestion.

You may value this time at zero but a trucking company doesn't

What "time" are you talking about? In particular, what difference does a
single passenger, transferring walking or a bus to a bike, in Bristol (of
all places) make to my journey 150 miles or so away? Or to a truck going
from Hull to Liverpool?

We are not talking about taking one pound from you and giving it to a single
person.

We are talking about taking one pound from every taxpayer and using it to
build something that reduces congestion, that is intended to be used by non
drivers.

tim

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

"JNugent" wrote:
tim.... wrote:
"JNugent" wrote:
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.
It's a perfectly reasonable scenario, not necessarily this one with the
bikes, but for others.
Are you sure you've got the numbers right?

Let's recap on what you said:

I have £1 taken out of my pocket...

...it is given to A N Other...

...who then swaps from an on-foot or bus journey to a bike for the day (or
even from a car to a bike for the day) and...

...that saves me £1.50 in fuel (presumably just on that day)?

Could you show your working out, please?

No I didn't say that.

I said if there was a method of doing this would you still want to pay the
1.50.

I'm just trying to find out your view on the principle

Because it doesn't look right to me, even though you say it's a "perfectly
reasonable scenario".

This is especially true when you add into the mix the cost of the time
lost to congestion.
You may value this time at zero but a trucking company doesn't
What "time" are you talking about? In particular, what difference does a
single passenger, transferring walking or a bus to a bike, in Bristol (of
all places) make to my journey 150 miles or so away? Or to a truck going
from Hull to Liverpool?

We are not talking about taking one pound from you and giving it to a single
person.

We are talking about taking one pound from every taxpayer and using it to
build something that reduces congestion, that is intended to be used by non
drivers.

If it to be used by non-drivers (*think* about it), how could it ever reduce
congestion?

I shall discount the possibility that non-drivers habitually take taxis to
work, because I know that not many do.

"JNugent" wrote
DavidR 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?

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.

So, in fact, are most cyclists - or if studying most will eventually become
contributors.

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

Let's start again. While you are driving in your car there might be a slow
moving queue of 20 cars between you and the next junction. Now, had there
been only 19 cars between you and the junction, you would have been better
off. Do you not agree?

OK let's say there *are* 19 cars in the queue but 20 people are travelling.
Why be miserable about it?

DavidR wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
DavidR 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?
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.

So, in fact, are most cyclists - or if studying most will eventually become
contributors.

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

Let's start again. While you are driving in your car there might be a slow
moving queue of 20 cars between you and the next junction. Now, had there
been only 19 cars between you and the junction, you would have been better
off. Do you not agree?

I wouldn't dream of paying £1 per car to reduce the queue's length, if that's
what you are trying to get at.

That would cost me £20 per set of traffic lights.

Not a runner.

OK let's say there *are* 19 cars in the queue but 20 people are travelling.
Why be miserable about it?

What would it have to do with the amount of tax of which I was relieved?