Police target South Australian cyclists

John Tserkezis Wrote:
Zebee Johnstone wrote:

What else you can do isn't the point, can you do this? And why not?
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?

$200/yr is the reason not to do it.

For those who ride a LOT, $200 may be easily absorbable into the
budget,
because you're spending a lot more than that on a bike anyway.

But "they" only form a small proportion of riders.

The vast majority have cheap bikes, commonly around the $200 mark for
the
entire bike, so a yearly licence is a joke.

The bike is cheap enough to give away, or stow in the garage never to
be
touched again.

So, those people still have to get where they're going, only option
left is
to drive. You're left with now disused bike paths, now only covered
by the
occasional walker and their dog, further funding will be scrapped, and
spent
on roads that are now carrying the new ex-riders. Except the measly
amount
that WAS being spent on bike paths doesn't cover the additional
workload on
the roads for the single-car-per-person that are using it now.

End result is the city is more stuffed than they were before all this
started.
--
Linux Registered User # 302622
http://counter.li.orgThat's a good point

If our petrol headed freak wants to charge a $200 bike a $200 p/y fee.
THen how about each motorbike and car be charged it's purchase value
each year. Sounds fair!


--
scotty72

DaveB wrote:
Theo Bekkers wrote:
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
TimC wrote:

Watch an average busy intersection with traffic lights, as they
turn amber. Count how many cars go through the amber and red
light when it was safe for them to stop.

On my motorcycle commute yesterday, at 6 sets of lights, none.

My commute includes 9 sets of lights. I haven't seen a car run a red
this week. Two bikes. As a percentage that's pretty bad.

yep and based on that there is no longer any need for red light
cameras because obviously the only red light runners are cyclists.

How did you get to there from there?

Theo

TimC wrote:
Zebee Johnstone wrote
TimC wrote:
Zebee Johnstone wrote
:
What else you can do isn't the point, can you do this? And why
not? 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?

About $190 of that would be a good reason not to do it.

Bicycles are only worth riding if it's free or close too?

The majority of people riding because it's cheap to go a short
distance, and can fit in the gap between after dinner and sunset - no.
I can't say it would be to them.+

So tell me Tim. If bike registration was free but compulsory, would you then
be in favour of it? This would negate the arguments of those that say
bicyclists get away with murder because they can't be identified, and
shouldn't worry those cyclists that are happy to obey the laws or, at least,
play on the same field as other road-using citizens.

Theo
Working on the basis that I think free rego would probably be cheaper to
administer than $10 rego.

On Jan 12, 9:03 am, scotty72 scotty72.331...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com wrote:
Zebee Johnstone Wrote:

What else you can do isn't the point, can you do this? And why not?
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?

ZebeeBecause I can't see why lazy motorists who are simply cranky that others

have found a better way want to destroy that better way for everyone
else. Simple envy - and crankiness.

I don't think that motorists who are knobs are that way out of
jealousy, or envy. I just think they're knobs. The fact that you're on
a bike means 1) you're an easy target, and 2) you and them often meet.
Would they be tools if they were walking and you were running? Yes,
Would they be tools if they were in a HSV Commodore and you were
driving the new matchbox car by TATA? Yes. By shouting something anti
bike-ish it makes it a little more legitimate than just being a
******.

Brendo

scotty72 wrote:

fit all motor cars and motor bikes with GPS technology that
immediately informs the authorities the very second that vehicle
breaks (by as much as 1 km/h) any speed limit (these can be
programmed in) or parks in any unauthorised area. Computers could be
used to detect whenever our mono-popping freaks raise their front
wheel from the ground.

The GPS could immediately immobilise the engine until the cops come to
impound it.

I like this, it would get 99% of motorbikes off the road (and 75% of
cars).

Jawohl!

Theo

scotty72 wrote:
PeteSig Wrote:


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)

I'm sure you're aware that that is the aim of the motor freaks. They
see us on a happy, clean, free form of transport and they sit
frustrated in their lonely, costly, smelly cages and can't stand it.

Sorry Scotty, but (when I'm being a motorist) cyclists don't bother me at
all.

Theo
Snotty people stick their noses in the air, cyclists their arses. :-)

scotty72 wrote:
Theo Bekkers Wrote:

My commute includes 9 sets of lights. I haven't seen a car run a red
this
week. Two bikes. As a percentage that's pretty bad.

TheoYeah right. What was that about thr tribe can't see it's own
faults?

Which tribe am I in? I get confused sometimes.
Currently I'm in the 'sitting in front of the computer' tribe. I am a member
for 40 hours a week.
For another six hours a week I'm in the motorcycle tribe.
Three to four hours in the car-driving tribe.
Three to four hours in the cyclist tribe.
A couple of hours in the 'big red 4WD fire-truck' tribe.
49 hours in the 'asleep in bed' tribe.
Five hours in the 'having abeer with the neighbour' tribe.
Five hours in the preparing-dinner tribe.
A few more in the 'asleep in front of the TV' tribe.

Looks like the 'asleep' tribe wins.

Theo

scotty72 wrote:
John Tserkezis Wrote:
Zebee Johnstone wrote:

What else you can do isn't the point, can you do this? And why not?
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?

$200/yr is the reason not to do it.

For those who ride a LOT, $200 may be easily absorbable into the
budget,
because you're spending a lot more than that on a bike anyway.

If our petrol headed freak wants to charge a $200 bike a $200 p/y fee.
THen how about each motorbike and car be charged it's purchase value
each year. Sounds fair!

Scotty, have you considered enrolling for logic 101 at your local TAFE?

Theo

On 2008-01-12, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
TimC wrote:
Zebee Johnstone wrote
TimC wrote:
About $190 of that would be a good reason not to do it.

Bicycles are only worth riding if it's free or close too?

The majority of people riding because it's cheap to go a short
distance, and can fit in the gap between after dinner and sunset - no.
I can't say it would be to them.+

So tell me Tim. If bike registration was free but compulsory, would you then
be in favour of it? This would negate the arguments of those that say
bicyclists get away with murder because they can't be identified, and
shouldn't worry those cyclists that are happy to obey the laws or, at least,
play on the same field as other road-using citizens.

Theo
Working on the basis that I think free rego would probably be cheaper to
administer than $10 rego.

Remember how this thread started out?

It was because some letter writer objected to us using the roads
because we don't pay for them, through some mistaken belief that
registration pays for roads. Continuing not to pay for a
registration will not shut those ignorants up.

But, perhaps, it might just slow down the people claiming we are
untraceable. However, we'd have the same issues with placement that
motorcyclists have, and so any plate would not be readable from a
distance (and I don't think governments are foolish enough yet to go
the RFID route). Once you've stopped a bicyclist running a red to
read their plate, you might as well book them properly - you don't
need a plate for that. I do note that in some rare circumstances, you
don't need a plate to be identified:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/10/youtube_biker/

--
TimC
Oooh, Look! Shiny New Thing! -- TimC

scotty72 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.

I guess theo is going to ask that peds be licenced and
registered as
huge numbers of them break laws when crossing the road.

If law breaking is going to be our main concern (rather than other
benefits), then we'd better ban driving altogether. Most motorists
break at least one law each time they drive.

I don't remember the last time I saw a cyclist indicate?

Each year, thousands die
as a result. Yes, cars are a benefit to the society - but are they
worth the risk Theo?

Can we do without them? Are you happy to have factories in your suburb?

Or does your hypocracy extent only to bicycles?

If you want to call people hypocritical, you should first learn to spell the
word. :-)

Theo