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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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