transport options

Been a while since something got my goat sufficient to bother doing this.
An argument a few weeks back at Sunday dinner in which a family member
tried convincing me that motor cars were the best transport option as
being the most flexible, and that alternatives were not as green as they
made out.
First up, it's sad to see a more or less reputable publication (in this
case New Scientist) producing such an obviously fallacious argument.
Yes, granted, cars are a very flexible form of transport, as my own in the
carport frequently demonstrates. But the fallacies are self-evident.
Firstly, flexibility only extends as far as everyone else exercising their
own flexibility allows it to, which increasingly is less. And it totally
ignores the obvious and horrendous social (not to speak of environmental)
costs.
In most wars, a casualty rate of one World Trade Centre attack every day
would probably be regarded by most governments as unacceptably high.
Unfortunately, that's the DIRECT casualty figure for the automobile
worldwide. Add the indirect casualties, respiratory problems aggravated by
pollution etc, this could be easily doubled. We all accept that toll
unquestioningly.
Fast forward to this arvo when a friend gave me a Bicycle Victoria
magazine painting a most rosy image of the cycling world around here.
Unfortunately, this again conflicts with reality. Reality is exactly 1 km
from my front door at the bottom of the hill. In my case, it's called
Burwood Highway, but you can substitute Plenty Road, Old Geelong Road, or
any road interstate you love to hate of your choice.
Burwood Highway is an unmitigated horror, like all the other major roads
around here. No bus lanes, no sealed shoulders worth a rap, just you and
traffic roaring past your right elbow at anything from 70 to 100 k/mh. We
accept that unquestioningly as well.
Yet a blithe local council report in 2007 on transport options showed that
this was where most casualty crashes occurred. Because people use it in
spite of the total lack of provision for vehicles other than motorized,
and the utter impracticability of the Sunday afternoon cycle track barely
a kilometre away. Which I am not infrequently screamed at to get onto. I
flatly refuse.
The same above council report, having noted this, then went on to propose
funding of $15 million over a five year period on less than 1000 people.
This is the number of regular cycle commuters in this area, give or take a
few.
Reality is not cycle2school programmes, reality is the hordes of UAVs
(Urban Assault Vehicles)in every street around my local primary school
every weekday afternoon.
Reality is also VicRoads (Substitute pet hate state transport
authority)who doubtless had a well-earned laugh at the above council
report. The flat fact is that they have absolute power to get what they
want over and above state administrations of any persuasion, and have been
doing so for decades.
I should add we didn't get the $15 million anyway. Instead, we got a `bush
boulevard', which provides something more aesthetic for the
ever-increasing hordes of motorists to crash into.
The motor car, the railway train and the bicycle were all 19th century
ideas that worked, more or less. The 20th century refined them, some more
than others, and though we're almost a decade into it we're yet to see
what, if anything, the 21st century might produce in terms of concepts
rather than consequences.
As to the vieux rose of Bicycle Victoria, as opposed to the bitumen tints
of VicRoads, I'll take them more serously when I see sealed shoulders on
that awful highway, and not get screamed `Get off the f---ing road' for
using it.
Regards,
Ray

--
Posted at www.usenet.com.au

On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 10:43:08 +0000, ray wrote:


First up, it's sad to see a more or less reputable publication (in this
case New Scientist)

Aaaahm that is your mistake. The only thing scientific about New
Scientist is the second word of its name. Many articles are not
scientific in any way shape or form and are simply product plugs. NS is
now a most score target on the lobbiest viral opinion change platform.

--

Great advances in Debian Linux; post a bug report and get spam in three
days.

"terryc" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 10:43:08 +0000, ray wrote:


First up, it's sad to see a more or less reputable publication (in this
case New Scientist)

Aaaahm that is your mistake. The only thing scientific about New
Scientist is the second word of its name. Many articles are not
scientific in any way shape or form and are simply product plugs. NS is
now a most score target on the lobbiest viral opinion change platform.

--

Great advances in Debian Linux; post a bug report and get spam in three
days.


Sadly in our society transport is looked at in the respect of how much each
system contributes to the economy -

Bicycle - contributes nothing, as there are no licence fees to be paid and
no big business to benefit from it in any way. Health and fuel saving may
seem like an important issue, but read on....

Public Transport - that is also seen as contributing little except some
"popularity" with some parts of the electorate. Public transport users are
generally seen to be people who cannot afford to drive, park, etc.

The Motor Car - Now there's a difference! Lots of expensive vehicle
manufacturers, all vying with each other for their steel contraptions; the
infrastructure, providing employment for thousands of people in constructing
expensive highways, interchanges, freeways, etc; lots of trauma centres,
doctors, surgeons, and other specialists treating the tens of thousands of
injured annually; then there is the thriving fuel industry..... I could
probably go on. It's all about profit-making, and, sadly, bicycles
contribute little to that.

Transport such as the bicycle, in my opinion, is just another example of
something that seems so obviously an advantage to us - until seen in the
"big picture" economic sense.

Henry

On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 08:52:00 +1000, hemyd wrote:


Sadly in our society transport is looked at in the respect of how much
each system contributes to the economy -

Bicycle - contributes nothing,

Aaah, there is the way to point out how ludicrous it is. According to our
media, Australians apparently have a fascination with rich people. smart
australians really want to know the net wealth, rather than total assets.
As alan bond and countless others will and have shown, you also need to
know what mortgages and loans underpin this wealth.

Bit like asking exactly what "contributes" mean. If motor cars cause
$1,000,000,000 worth of expenditure each year, are they really
contributing, when 400,000,000 is spent on roadways, 400,000,000 is spent
on crash repairs and 400,000,000 is spent on direct health related
matters each year? That adds up to a subsidy.


Would you be interested to know that your rates(if you own property)
would almost half and your rent (if you don't) could go down by 10-20% if
road users had to local councils "rates" on the area under roadways?

Motor vehicle are a hugely subsidised device in this society.


--

Great advances in Debian Linux; post a bug report and get spam in three
days.

On Jul 8, 8:36*am, terryc wrote:

Aaah, there is the way to point out how ludicrous it is. According to our
media, Australians apparently have a fascination with rich people. smart
australians really want to know the net wealth, rather than total assets.
As alan bond and countless others will and have shown, you also need to
know what mortgages and loans underpin this wealth.

Bit like asking exactly what "contributes" mean. *If motor cars cause
$1,000,000,000 worth of expenditure each *year, are they really
contributing, when 400,000,000 is spent on roadways, 400,000,000 is spent
on crash repairs and *400,000,000 is spent on direct health related
matters each year? *That adds up to a subsidy.

Can you point me to some real figures Terry, or are you expecting me
to just accept these as being close to reality?

Would you be interested to know that your rates(if you own property)
would almost half and your rent (if you don't) could go down by 10-20% if
road users had to local councils "rates" on the area under roadways?

And who would pay these rates? Are you perhaps suggesting that there
should be no public land to provide ways to move people and goods
between points?

Motor vehicle are a hugely subsidised device in this society.

Subsidised means we all share the cost of these things. Why should
that be a problem? Do you think anyone, apart from you, would vote for
a party who promise to abolish roads?

Lastly, Do you think bicycle paths are subsidised?

Cheers
Theo

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 00:38:48 -0700, theo wrote:


Can you point me to some real figures Terry, or are you expecting me to
just accept these as being close to reality?

Lol, the old fat arse car driver who once rode a bicycle comes out of the
murk.. Learn to read.

Would you be interested to know that your rates(if you own property)
would almost half and your rent (if you don't) could go down by 10-20%
if road users had to local councils "rates" on the area under roadways?

And who would pay these rates?

Aren't you user pays? Oh wait, you want your penis replacement to be
subsidised by everyone.

--

Great advances in Debian Linux; post a bug report and get spam in three
days.

On Jul 18, 5:28*pm, terryc wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 00:38:48 -0700, theo wrote:
Can you point me to some real figures Terry, or are you expecting me to
just accept these as being close to reality?

Lol, the old fat arse car driver who once rode a bicycle comes out of the
murk.. Learn to read.

I read this
"Bit like asking exactly what "contributes" mean. If motor cars
cause
$1,000,000,000 worth of expenditure each year, are they really
contributing, when 400,000,000 is spent on roadways, 400,000,000 is
spent
on crash repairs and 400,000,000 is spent on direct health related
matters each year? That adds up to a subsidy"

Are you trying to say you didn't just make these figures up?

Would you be interested to know that your rates(if you own property)
would almost half and your rent (if you don't) could go down by 10-20%
if road users had to local councils "rates" on the area under roadways?

And who would pay these rates?

Aren't you user pays? Oh wait, you want your penis replacement to be
subsidised by everyone.

No, I'm not user pays. I have no problem with other people's children
being educated in the schools built with my taxes. I also have no
problem with transport facilities being rpovided from general revenue.

If the Gov't only paid rates on all that crown land our land rates
would be even cheaper?

You also snipped and ignored
"Are you perhaps suggesting that there
should be no public land to provide ways to move people and goods
between points? "

And
"Lastly, Do you think bicycle paths are subsidised?"
I think they are and even though I believe they are mostly useless for
anyone who wants to go somewhere, like to work, I still have no
problem with them being provided from the public purse.

Do you think motorists should pay for roads and cyclists should pay
for cyclepaths?

Theo

theo wrote:

a lot which needed to be snipped except this part....

And "Lastly, Do you think bicycle paths are subsidised?"

I think they are and even though I believe they are mostly useless for
anyone who wants to go somewhere, like to work, I still have no
problem with them being provided from the public purse.

Do you think motorists should pay for roads and cyclists should pay
for cyclepaths?


Most of the use of Canberra's cycle paths is dominated on weekdays by
cyclists getting to work.

I have no figures which say what percentage of cyclists riding to work
on the paths also own cars, but I suspect maybe 50% at least, and then
their partners might also have a car. So, all the vehicle owners pay
huge taxes and fuel excise and expense of vehicles.
The taxes are paid to fund roads etc, but the cyclist isn't wearing them
out when he rides to work on them or on the cycle path which costs about
1/10 the cost per kilometre to build and maintain. So while he saves the
roads and system from wear by not using them, he should be given a
rebate for cycling, ie, paid to cycle to work. Of course he won't ever
be paid to ride to work, any more than I will be paid for not having a
family, which allows everyone else's brats to get a better education in
uncrowded schools because my brats ain't cluttering up the class room.
My offspring won't contribute to global heating either.

One reason the continuation of cycle paths and lanes including their
repairing and upgrading in the ACT is supported politically by both
major parties is because pollies like to be seen to be doing something
to encourage ppl to ride to work thus saving taxpayers the cost to
everyone of providing roads, parking and bus services.

But I believe that for every 10 new cars coming on the roads, there
might be one new cyclist, based on net figures which allow for people
ceasing to drive or ride.

The Isrealies have good experience building 10M high walls between
themselves and Palestinians in a desperate effort to stop carnage by
Palestinian suicide bombers. If only a few such walls could be erected
right across major arterial roads in the ACT. Just have little holes for
emergency vehicles and of course cyclists. Unfortunately, such antics
would quickly inspire a nice little civil war, and the use of some large
sledge hammers by the suvivors. But until the walls came down, the road
toll AND carbon emissions would both be miniscule, and the car industry,
supply, maintenance and taxes from it all would virtually stall
completely. Worker productivity would of course reduce a bit because
workers would be tired from all the cycling to work, and and bored
stupid by not having to earn such fabulous salaries to pay for motoring,
which is form of vanity to which thay are addicted. They'd be depressed
because they could not spend on the truckloads of rubbish to be found at
every supermarket near you.

Possibly if there had been a way to force cyclists to pay directly for
the cycle path construction and maintenance and signage, it would have
been implemented by now. One can always say the bloke cycling to work is
saving public money by not driving, but maybe it is NOT a great amount
of actual money. What about when I ride just for pleasure? Should I
really have to stop at check points to pay a toll?

Basically, the whole wonderful structure of Modern Urban and Suburban
Living Amenties, MUSLAs, is maintained by a heck of a lot of money
earned and paid for goods services people never use directly, but which
other people pay for. For example, I never use buses or taxies.
I still pay taxes for them. Ditto hospitals and for all the other things
Governments spend money on such as submarines to sneek up on future
invaders of Oz, and artworks along road ways that look like a pile of
scrap metal, or some other grand monument to celebrate the philosophy of
Nihilism which I didn't vote for.

There isn't any way I know of reducing all the wasteful expenditure
being made on 1,001 things by just about everyone.
Who needs to waste $7,000 on a bicycle wit all the latest, or on a house
with 23 bathrooms, and 16 garages?

Our species is not just a terrible Pox On The Earth, but a damned
argumentative one.

I just read James Lovelock's latest book, 'The Vanishing Face of Gaia'.

I was worried about greenhouse heating, and how to relate my lifstyle
habits to the future. But I don't need to worry, because we are a dopey
species who will react to fearsomely hot summers by simply buying more
powerful air con units, thus making things worse.
Have no fear, the planet, ie, Gaia, will react to our stupidity, and
continue to do what its done in the past, ie, regulate the climate in
response to upsetting inputs.

The temperature will rise alarmingly in 50 years and make Canberra's
terrible winters about like Sydney's, very nice. But summers will become
like western NSW. Sea levels will drown coastal cities all around the
world, and all that building work will have to be done again, at great
cost to the environments and emissions.

No amount of cycling by everyone can change the climate. And hardly
anyone will cycle anywhere. There are about 100,000 ppl who could cycle
in Canberra if they wanted to, which could only be if they were forced
at gun point or if petrol prices rose to $100 per litre. But how many
did I see on my ride in the nicest location around Lake Burley Griffin
today? Maybe 200. I was careful to avoid a "negative experience" with
several members of the public aged under 5, and quite a few dogs and
walkers.

Basically, we can't stop Greenhouse; we have phuct up big time, and the
damage has been done to CO2 and land clearance to such an extent it'd be
impossible to fix, bearing in mind that population will still increase
and most want to live well like I do, and hell, I'm damned frugal as I
scrape by on an income of less than 10 grand a year. So we need to learn
to survive, rather than try to undo the damage, which is very unlikely
to ever happen simply because it would push the cost of living up 4
times, and everyone tends to blame everyone else, and nothing is done
consensually on the international level. Even if we could get nuclear
power going quickly, that would just have people spending less on fossil
fuels and then spend more to ruin the environment simply by greedily
building houses with 65 bedrooms, and by buying bicycles costing
$10,000. If it ain't one thing that someone wants, then its some other
damn thing. We are a frightful mob of wanters.

Just who pays for what and why and how and where and to whom is a petty
vexatious issue to which there is never a clear simple answer IMHO.

Our society has built a large complex wheel which now revolves to carry
us all along, and as spokes drop out new ones are built, and the wheel
keeps turning and it slowly increases in speed and weight. Many spokes
could be removed, but our wheel keeps turning. It rolls along happily to
crush anything in its path.

Patrick Turner.






Theo

On Jul 19, 5:11*pm, Patrick Turner wrote:
theo wrote:

a lot which needed to be snipped except this part....

And "Lastly, Do you think bicycle paths are subsidised?"
I think they are and even though I believe they are mostly useless for
anyone who wants to go somewhere, like to work, I still have no
problem with them being provided from the public purse.

Do you think motorists should pay for roads and cyclists should pay
for cyclepaths?

Most of the use of Canberra's cycle paths is dominated on weekdays by
cyclists getting to work.

I have no figures which say what percentage of cyclists riding to work
on the paths also own cars, but I suspect maybe 50% at least, and then
their partners might also have a car. So, all the vehicle owners pay
huge taxes and fuel excise and expense of vehicles.
The taxes are paid to fund roads etc, but the cyclist isn't wearing them
out when he rides to work on them or on the cycle path which costs about
1/10 the cost per kilometre to build and maintain. So while he saves the
roads and system from wear by not using them, he should be given a
rebate for cycling, ie, paid to cycle to work. Of course he won't ever
be paid to ride to work, any more than I will be paid for not having a
family, which allows everyone else's brats to get a better education in
uncrowded schools because my brats ain't cluttering up the class room.

So you think cyclists who also own cars should not have to pay for the
cycle paths. Cool. So all cyclists who don't own cars should pay for
them then?

Theo

"theo" wrote in message
...
...
So you think cyclists who also own cars should not have to pay for the
cycle paths. Cool. So all cyclists who don't own cars should pay for
them then?

Obviously.

And freakin' pedestrian should pay for both!

Clogical deduction.

Theo