|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Police target South Australian cyclists
scotty72 wrote:
Theo Bekkers Wrote: Sounds fair, can I expect a reduction of $4000 in income tax to balance things out? Money for roads comes mostly from the Fed Gov't in general tax distribution, plus some grants for specific roads (eg black spots). Licensing revenue goes directly to the States. Your balancing rebate comes from the Fed Gov't. Yes, we agree. So, those 2 car families will get stung hard/ Also, as cars cause all sort of environmental, health etc disasters, lets triple the fuel tax to pay for all that. That is very fair. The more you drive, the more petrol you need to buy = the more tax you will pay to clean up your mess. I see no serious problem with swapping the road system from a public asset to a user pays system. I assume this is what you are suggesting here. As I don't own a car I will look forward to the tax rebate I will get from the gov't as I will no longer be contributing to roads. Just be careful what you are wishing for. Theo |
Ads |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Police target South Australian cyclists
Theo Bekkers Wrote: PeteSig wrote: "Zebee Johnstone" wrote: Why is it overkill? If the technology to register bicycles was available at a price that could be covered by say $200/yr per cyclist what are the reasons not to do it? Because we would see a drop in cycling by.. ooh.. say 50-70% at that 'road safety fee'. And an overall reduction in road safety with more cars on the roads and fewer cyclists about (oops, sorry people on bikes) So it's worth ignoring the law-breakers because of the health advantages? I rode a bike when they were licenced. I didn't know anyone who didn't ride because of the licence fee. Next question. Here's one for you. How much does red light running cost insurance companies? Not a guess, some quantifialbe data. Surely if it's that bad a problem there must be some data around on what a burden to society it is? I mean red light running is quantifiable so if red light running is a bigger problem with cyclists there must be some data? No? Well for the record the NRMA put out a press release in 2005 collisions at traffic lights cost 66 million dollars in 2004. Top of the list of common causes, according to the NRMA who as we all know hate motorists, is running red lights. Granted there's no indication that any kind of precedence is present in the list. So come on Theo, there's my question. How much does traffic light bingles involving cyclists cost each year? How much of that can be attributed to running red lights? -- EuanB |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Police target South Australian cyclists
scotty72 wrote:
Cars are registered. Having a plate or sticker etc on the back doesn't prevent law breaking. It allows them to be caught. Fear of consequences affect behavior. Do you really think cyclists would run red lights if there was a 100% chance of them being caught? No? How about less than 1%? As we've pointed out, most motorists break some law every day (about 90% speed through school zones) and many speed through orange/red lights. Agreed. But just maybe that says something about the law, or the enforcement of the law. Obviously, you are so anti bike that you want to dream up a way to get cyclists off the road. BINGO, force them into the licence / rego bureaucracy. Force them to bolt on a heavy (on road bikes - grams count) plate. I'll bet it wouldn't weigh 50 grams. You could empty that much out of your bidon to compensate. About a mouthful of water. You get your NRMA fueled wish of - get the cyclists of MY roads. Selfish. Communist. You see others onto a good thing and you wanna ban it. I think you may have missed the point that I spend as much time on a bicycle as in a car, but probaly more on a motorcycle. Theo |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Police target South Australian cyclists
On 2008-01-12, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea: scotty72 wrote: I know, I was pointing out the stupidity of being asked to pay $200 rego for a vehicle worth (perhaps) less than that. You think there are cars on the road worth less than their annual licence and compulsory insurance fees? Do you think these vehicles should be exempt from these fees? Personally, I think they should be off the road, because they're unroadworthy. They got mine when I moved to Vic. Obviously more strict than NSW checks, probably because they only get to perform one once in a blue moon upon change of ownership. When I'm driving a car, I'm fairly confident that the other vehicles on the road have third party insurance. On a cycle path, I'm fairly confident that none have. Hah. Try claiming from someone's third party. Didn't help in my hit and run. Didn't help another time when no witnesses bothered to stop (no way I'm going to court against a multinational when I've got no proof, no money and no time). -- TimC "This strongly suggests to me that perl is way out of hand, or that I need another drink, or both." -- Alan J Rosenthal |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Police target South Australian cyclists
On 2008-01-12, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea: scotty72 wrote: Also, as cars cause all sort of environmental, health etc disasters, lets triple the fuel tax to pay for all that. That is very fair. The more you drive, the more petrol you need to buy = the more tax you will pay to clean up your mess. I see no serious problem with swapping the road system from a public asset to a user pays system. I assume this is what you are suggesting here. As I don't own a car I will look forward to the tax rebate I will get from the gov't as I will no longer be contributing to roads. Your family company will be required to pay for it. Which will come out of your wages. -- TimC As a computer, I find your faith in technology amusing. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Police target South Australian cyclists
EuanB wrote:
Theo Bekkers Wrote: So it's worth ignoring the law-breakers because of the health advantages? I rode a bike when they were licenced. I didn't know anyone who didn't ride because of the licence fee. Next question. Here's one for you. How much does red light running cost insurance companies? Not a guess, some quantifialbe data. Surely if it's that bad a problem there must be some data around on what a burden to society it is? I mean red light running is quantifiable so if red light running is a bigger problem with cyclists there must be some data? No? Well for the record the NRMA put out a press release in 2005 collisions at traffic lights cost 66 million dollars in 2004. Top of the list of common causes, according to the NRMA who as we all know hate motorists, is running red lights. Granted there's no indication that any kind of precedence is present in the list. So come on Theo, there's my question. How much does traffic light bingles involving cyclists cost each year? How much of that can be attributed to running red lights? I have no idea. Is it important? Is it the question being asked here? Supposing there is no cost (aside from that incident on Beach road) does that mean we should ignore the law? Can we go from there to "it's OK for cyclists and motorists to run reds if they don't hit anyone"? Should all laws be obeyed regardless of the financial impact they have on society? If I (not likely) cruise down to Northbridge on a Sat night and pick up a girl 'in the trade', go somewhere quiet together and give her some money afterwards, why have I broken a law? Why has she? How much are Insurance companies out of pocket? OK, OK, let's say our transaction had a tax invoice for GST purposes, but do you get a tax invoice from your lawnmower man? Theo |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Police target South Australian cyclists
TimC wrote:
Theo Bekkers wrote You think there are cars on the road worth less than their annual licence and compulsory insurance fees? Do you think these vehicles should be exempt from these fees? Personally, I think they should be off the road, because they're unroadworthy. They got mine when I moved to Vic. Obviously more strict than NSW checks, probably because they only get to perform one once in a blue moon upon change of ownership. No checks at all in WA unless you're bringing the vehicle from interstate. Does no checks really mean unroadworthy? Does age mean unroadworthy? Does low value mean unroadworthy? I can't see the association myself. When I'm driving a car, I'm fairly confident that the other vehicles on the road have third party insurance. On a cycle path, I'm fairly confident that none have. Hah. Try claiming from someone's third party. Didn't help in my hit and run. Didn't help another time when no witnesses bothered to stop (no way I'm going to court against a multinational when I've got no proof, no money and no time). Sorry, I think you misunderstood me. Third party injury, not property. I have no confidence that half the cars on the road have that. This is why our vehicles are fully insured. Theo |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Police target South Australian cyclists
In aus.bicycle on Sat, 12 Jan 2008 11:09:57 +0900
Theo Bekkers wrote: I don't remember the last time I saw a cyclist indicate? I do it all the time. Must be the 'bent riding position makes me think I'm piloting a vehicle, so I behave like one. Zebee |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Police target South Australian cyclists
TimC wrote:
Theo Bekkers wrote I see no serious problem with swapping the road system from a public asset to a user pays system. I assume this is what you are suggesting here. As I don't own a car I will look forward to the tax rebate I will get from the gov't as I will no longer be contributing to roads. Your family company will be required to pay for it. Not a problem. Which will come out of your wages. We will pass the costs on to you, our customers, the same as all companies do with their costs. Theo |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Police target South Australian cyclists
On 2008-01-12, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea: TimC wrote: Theo Bekkers wrote You think there are cars on the road worth less than their annual licence and compulsory insurance fees? Do you think these vehicles should be exempt from these fees? Personally, I think they should be off the road, because they're unroadworthy. They got mine when I moved to Vic. Obviously more strict than NSW checks, probably because they only get to perform one once in a blue moon upon change of ownership. No checks at all in WA unless you're bringing the vehicle from interstate. Does no checks really mean unroadworthy? Does age mean unroadworthy? Does low value mean unroadworthy? I can't see the association myself. Low value means not likely to have any money spent on it to keep it roadworthy should things start to go wrong with it - like having an indicator lamp covering being smashed. -- TimC hey Beavis, we're segfaulting, heh heh heh, I know, Butthead, so let's SIGBUS from inside the handler, heh heh heh --Stephen J. Turnbull |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Australian Federal Police said | white sands | Australia | 2 | December 8th 06 05:10 AM |
Australian Federal Police said | white sands | Techniques | 1 | December 8th 06 04:01 AM |
Australian Federal Police said | volksie | Techniques | 3 | September 16th 05 06:55 PM |
Australian Federal Police said | volksie | Australia | 3 | September 16th 05 06:55 PM |
Australian Federal Police | flyingdutch | Australia | 0 | September 8th 04 12:34 AM |