Why cycling should remain free (ie no licence or rego)

Listening to the radio today, I heard some callers whigning about the
Lane Cove Tunnel road changes along Epping (Effing) Rd.

It is beautiful how people can simulataneously hold two opinions that
directly contradict each other.

Opinion one seems to be general outrage that Effing Rd is being
narrowed to accommodate bus and bicycle lanes.

Opinion two (connected to opinion one) seems to be general outrage that
bicycles are able to use the roads for free.

Here's the contradiction.

Opinion one is justified by the motorists demand to use existing roads
as a FREE alternative feeding big businesses who own the tollways. They
say that they should have a free alternative because their taxes have
already paid for the roads.

However, at the same time

They can't see that cyclists should also have a free alternative to
filling the pockets of big business (oil companies). My taxes also build
the roads (without destroying them) so, why do they have to have free
alternatives but not cyclists.

Amazing how blind we can aspire to be.

Scotty


--
scotty72

On Jan 14, 12:13 pm, scotty72 scotty72.335...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com wrote:

It is beautiful how people can simulataneously hold two opinions that
directly contradict each other.

I wrote a letter to the editor of the West Australian a few weeks ago,
observing much the same thing. In my case I was pointing out the
absurdity that a majority of the population were both angry about
petrol prices being too high, and angry that the Howard govt dragged
their feet on signing up for Kyoto.

Like many cyclists I am largely indifferent to petrol prices and see
high prices as being a necessary evil that will have ultimately
positive results, and support Kyoto and the like for the favourable
environmental outcomes despite the fact that it will make petrol more
expensive.

But where it gets a little crazy is that many people see no
contradiction between demanding that the government use its powers to
drive down the price of petrol as much as possible while
SIMULTANEOUSLY supporting treaties whose primary effect will be to
drive up the cost of CO2 producing products like petrol, in the hope
that by making these things more expensive people will use less of
them, thus reducing pollution.

Labor of course has done much to obfuscate this point, signing Kyoto
with much fanfare while announcing that they will push petroleum
companies as hard as possible to keep prices as low as possible.

Travis

In aus.bicycle on Sun, 13 Jan 2008 20:06:26 -0800 (PST)
Travis wrote:
Like many cyclists I am largely indifferent to petrol prices and see
But where it gets a little crazy is that many people see no
contradiction between demanding that the government use its powers to
drive down the price of petrol as much as possible while
SIMULTANEOUSLY supporting treaties whose primary effect will be to
drive up the cost of CO2 producing products like petrol, in the hope
that by making these things more expensive people will use less of
them, thus reducing pollution.

Dunno that Kyoto will mean higher petrol prices. MIght do things to
the coal fired power stations though.

Also, petrol prices are having an effect - people are buying smaller
more fuel efficient cars. And there are more motorcycles about,
mainly scooters in the denser urban areas.

Petrol prices and congestion dont' seem to stop people driving cars,
and people with long commutes won't ride bicycles.... Housing in well
located areas is in short supply, expensive, and will remain so, so moving
in isn't viable for many.

Solution? I expect even smaller cars, even more fuel efficient, more
work on biofuels from non-corn sources. I don't, alas, expect more
work on replacing coal fired power stations.

Zebee

scotty72 Wrote:
Listening to the radio today, I heard some callers whigning about the
Lane Cove Tunnel road changes along Epping (Effing) Rd.

Blah blah blah, had the same palavar down here last week, have a peruse
of The Age letter responses.

Also if you're listening to ABC Nightlife tonight (10pm +) there is a
discussion + talkback happening soon on cycling infrastructure & related
stuff. In Melbourne you can listen in via live streaming and avoid the
tennis.

http://www.abc.net.au/nightlife/


--
cfsmtb

On Jan 14, 2:25 pm, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
In aus.bicycle on Sun, 13 Jan 2008 20:06:26 -0800 (PST)

Travis wrote:
Like many cyclists I am largely indifferent to petrol prices and see
But where it gets a little crazy is that many people see no
contradiction between demanding that the government use its powers to
drive down the price of petrol as much as possible while
SIMULTANEOUSLY supporting treaties whose primary effect will be to
drive up the cost of CO2 producing products like petrol, in the hope
that by making these things more expensive people will use less of
them, thus reducing pollution.

Dunno that Kyoto will mean higher petrol prices. MIght do things to
the coal fired power stations though.

Why do you think not? The basic idea is that a price is going to be
attached to every tonne of CO2 and this price will be set by the
market. A fixed number of carbon credits will be issued, projects
with negative net carbon emissions (tree planting etc) can create more
credits, but everything which produces carbon will consume them.
Supply and demand will do the rest, potentially driving up the price
of fossil fuels so much that solar et al will become comparable in
price simply from the carbon cost of the former. Solar will benefit
from reductions in production costs, increased competition, improved
technology etc, but the major effect would be just to make fossil
fuels at least as expensive as renewable, depending on how we're going
compared to our targets.

I'm not an expert by any means, but I can't see how putting a price on
carbon would not certainly lead to higher petrol prices unless
accompanied by other offsetting measures (which defeat the point of
all this) such as cutting fuel taxes, government subsidies or vouchers
of some sort for the low income, or just twisting oil companies' arms
to force them to sell their product cheaply and possibly even at a
loss)


Also, petrol prices are having an effect - people are buying smaller
more fuel efficient cars. And there are more motorcycles about,
mainly scooters in the denser urban areas.

True, though our prices are still way below those in Europe etc, and
ultimately we seem to be getting used to it. We're no longer shocked
and horrified to see petrol above a dollar for instance, but there was
a time when a common belief was "they can't put the price up past
99.99c, because the pumps don't have a digit for the dollar". How
quaint!

What I'm saying is that the psychological shock of the recent price
hikes won't have a permanent effect. People grow accustomed to high
prices and despite their whining about them tend not to worry about
them after a while. A hike from $90c to $1.40 is a shock and for a
while people will be "forced" to take public transport etc instead,
but leave it at $1.40 long enough and people go right back to their
old habits.

Petrol prices and congestion dont' seem to stop people driving cars,
and people with long commutes won't ride bicycles.... Housing in well
located areas is in short supply, expensive, and will remain so, so moving
in isn't viable for many.

Which is all true, it indicates that at least anywhere around current
prices the price elasticity of demand for petrol is very inelastic
(i.e. price rises have minimal effect on consumption). Still, that
doesn't mean the price won't be driven up by carbon credits being
priced in.

Solution? I expect even smaller cars, even more fuel efficient, more
work on biofuels from non-corn sources. I don't, alas, expect more
work on replacing coal fired power stations.

Telecommuting too.

Travis

"snip
Which is all true, it indicates that at least anywhere around current
prices the price elasticity of demand for petrol is very inelastic
(i.e. price rises have minimal effect on consumption). Still, that
doesn't mean the price won't be driven up by carbon credits being
priced in.

Solution? I expect even smaller cars, even more fuel efficient, more
work on biofuels from non-corn sources. I don't, alas, expect more
work on replacing coal fired power stations.

Telecommuting too.

Travis

Given everything tends to be priced due to availability and demand, petrol
is set to skyrocket in price. China and India both demand more and more oil.
This goes for the USA. Any country with more and more energy demands = more
oil needed. As there is a finite amount, the prices will go up up up.
Biofuels have no future as they tend to damange the environment (let's clear
more land) or take away from food crops.

The sooner we have something like "Mr. Fusion" powering our larger
transports, the better. My transport is curently powered by a coffee, a
bowl of cereal and an OJ (well at least in the morning)

Paul Yates wrote:

Biofuels have no future as they tend to damange the environment (let's clear
more land) or take away from food crops.


It's true that food/bio fuel production is pretty much a trade off from
one to the other but that's far from saying that they have 'no future'.

If it gets to the point where farmers can make more $ growing plants for
bio-fuel and there is sufficient market for it they'll switch (believe
me... they'll follow the mighty $ )

And yes the effect of that would be a reduction in food excess available
which would drive up domestic and export prices for food. But at some
point a more or less stable state should be achieved between competing
market forces (might take a while though).

A significant effect I suspect would be to deny cheap food to third
world countries (which would already be hurting because of hugely higher
fuel costs) with lesser (but still noticible) effects on lower
socio-economic levels in 1st world countries.

*BUT* bio-fuels themselves would still have a future (just one where the
economic fall out is nasty).


G-S

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 16 Jan 2008 00:04:22 +1100
G-S wrote:

It's true that food/bio fuel production is pretty much a trade off from
one to the other but that's far from saying that they have 'no future'.

There's also incentive to find more efficient biofuels.

THe current hot prospect is a grass that produces much more ethanol
per acre than corn does.

Others are looking at algae, food waste, and so on.

The energy market is going to change one hell of a lot in the next 20
years.

Zebee

G-S wrote:

It's true that food/bio fuel production is pretty much a trade off
from one to the other but that's far from saying that they have 'no
future'.
If it gets to the point where farmers can make more $ growing plants
for bio-fuel and there is sufficient market for it they'll switch
(believe me... they'll follow the mighty $ )

And yes the effect of that would be a reduction in food excess
available which would drive up domestic and export prices for food.
But at some point a more or less stable state should be achieved
between competing market forces (might take a while though).

A significant effect I suspect would be to deny cheap food to third
world countries (which would already be hurting because of hugely
higher fuel costs) with lesser (but still noticible) effects on lower
socio-economic levels in 1st world countries.

So some farmer in Afghanistan will have to decide whether to grow grain or
poppies.

Hang on, they've already decided that and can now afford all the oil they
want.

Theo

"cfsmtb" wrote in message
...

scotty72 Wrote:
Listening to the radio today, I heard some callers whigning about the
Lane Cove Tunnel road changes along Epping (Effing) Rd.

Blah blah blah, had the same palavar down here last week, have a peruse
of The Age letter responses.

Also if you're listening to ABC Nightlife tonight (10pm +) there is a
discussion + talkback happening soon on cycling infrastructure & related
stuff. In Melbourne you can listen in via live streaming and avoid the
tennis.

http://www.abc.net.au/nightlife/


--
cfsmtb


Because cycling makes you fit and healthy and driving causes death, injury
and obesity?

Stuff the roads and their costs. What about the general benifit and savings
in TAC payouts and health costs.