Cyclists

[BAUTE]

Originally Posted by sourbastard

If cyclists are on the road and to be treated like any other vehicle I believe they should pay Registration.

My reasoning is very simple.

The infrastructure for bike paths & lanes are not free, the concrete doesnt lay itself down, and the people who plan traffic management for bicycles also do not work for free. There is an inherant cost there, and it should not be born by those who do not use it.

This is the same trap John fell in to, there is no link between rego and road funding, I ride my bike to work, I pay tax, hence are paying for both the roads I drive on and the bikepaths I use where they are appropriate.

I don't have children I don't want to subsidise childcare or schools for people that choose to have kids but I don't have a choice either.

I won't argue on insurance its not a bad idea, I am covered under the public liability component of my contents insurance however

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by parawolf

Now this is the first time in this thread that the reasoning behind rego for cyclists has been properly justified. However I'm already covered? How I pay $85 a year to be a Bicycle Victoria Member Now as this is not a government backed compulsory registration, $85 is excessively more than what it would be if every victorian cyclist would have to pay.

Now, any cyclist is automatically covered by TAC, and this 'membership' provides additional amounts above the upper limits provided by the TAC.

I figure if it was similarly configured 'insurance/registration' as part of a complusary payment to the state government - it would probably be less than $10 per year. Even it could be built into a one-off registration charge when you buy a new bike from a bike store of say $25 (I believe this because most of the people at my work BUG - Bicycle User Group - change their bike every 3 - 4 years).

I'd be happy with a registration, as long as it provided me with coverage at least equal to my Bicycle Victoria membership.

My understanding is that TAC only covers a cyclist if they hit a car that is being driven. If a cyclist swerves to miss a an erratic driver and rides into the back of a parked car, TAC will not cover the cyclist medical costs.

[Sourbastard]

Originally Posted by BAUTE

This is the same trap John fell in to, there is no link between rego and road funding

OK, not sure where this has come from, but I used to work for Transport SA in 2000/2001, and Registration and Licensing fees valued at $205,352,000 went straight into the revenue and budget for the department to operate. Total revenue including other fees and services(Inspections, custom license plates etc etc etc) came to $497,663,000 for the 2001 year. Now I dont know how things are done in Vic, but over here, the money you pay for registration services goes straight into the department and gets spent on roads and services, it doesnt get sent back to the government. Ever. If you do, they cut your budget for the next year.

Now the revenue from the government appropriation that year was only $16,155,000, which is chicken feed compared to that taken in registration fees.

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by parawolf

Apart from that they shouldn't be riding 3 abreast, except if 1 rider is overtaking 2, but nothing what you have said is illegal. So why are you tapping your horn? There is nothing illegal about what they are doing (again apart from riding permanently 3 abreast). So if you a tapping your horn because you are being held up, deal with it. If you want do something, ring the police and get them to fine those that are riding 3 abreast.

According to VicRoads cyclist can ride up to four abreast.

Originally Posted by VicRoads

A cyclist must not ride alongside more than one other rider unless:

the rider is overtaking other cyclists who may be cycling beside each other; or
the rider is taking part in an on-road cycling event that has been approved by the Chief Commissioner of Police.

If a cyclist is riding alongside another cyclist, the cyclist must not ride more than 1.5 m from the other cyclist.

If anybody beeps there horn at me I usually give a sarcastic wave. Cars don't beep at slow moving tractors/trucks/cranes/etc to get out of the way, so why should they beep at cyclist.

Well at the risk of being far too agreeable..........

I think sourbastard has raised the first legitimate point with regard to a user pays system of any kind for cyclists. In the climate we live in proper coverage over both your and others assets is crucial, as well as with respect to injury claims and costs. Putting my bike away for a moment and imagining my XR8 being clouted by a cyclist because he didn't like my driving (or parking), it's definately an fair point.

xbgs351 is right, I've been held up on country roads far more often by slow moving vehicles than bikes over the years and have no ill will towards their actions. Unfortunately there are certain areas that attract lots of cyclists who do have the potential to affect the flow of traffic (ie Beach Rd on a Sunday morning) but as I have mentioned previously most cyclists (particularly when in groups) on weekend mornings. Easier said than done I know but if they annoy you so much avoid the areas. If not, accept they are going to be there and deal with it.

[MO]

I was thinking of the rego thing being a local council routine...who's worse than a council inspector when it comes to issuing fines.

Not to mention the bike paths etc are the local councils responsibility.

As for the insurance I would've thought everyone covered their backside by having lots of insurance in this litigous society we have.

Ooohh just had a thought as to what else should be registered with councils...but thats another thread..maybe.

[xbgs351]

http://www.bv.com.au/inform.php?a=7&b=176&c=549

Originally Posted by Bicyle Victoria

Bike paths and lanes cost a fraction of other infrastructure
Average cost for one kilometre of:

Freeway
$13 million

Tram track
$8 million

Off-road bike path
$150,000

On-road bike lane
$20,000 (to mark bike lanes on an existing road)

http://stcwa.org.au/journal/18Sept20...339_19533.html

Originally Posted by Sustainable Transport Solutions

Integrated planning is vital to achieve a safe, bicycle friendly environment in urban areas that will entice would-be cyclists onto bicycles for local and commuter trips. Good planning features include separated, car-free, on- and off-road provision for bicycles.

The costs for cyclist hospitalisations show that serious consideration in planning is imperative: the five-year average of cyclist hospitalisations in WA is 3,200 per annum (26 per cent of all road crash hospitalisations). With an estimated cost per hospitalisation of $360,000, cyclist crashes cost the State more than $1 billion per year, and this ignores fatalities ($1.8 million each) and accidents requiring out-of-hospital treatment.

Low cycling activity is often correlated with transport policies that pay little attention to the safety of cyclists. York City Council (UK) developed a transport strategy that placed 'vulnerable' road users at the top of the road user hierarchy and implemented appropriate traffic restraint measures. As a result, bicycle trips rose from 16 to 19 per cent between 1991 and 2000, car use declined from 55 to 53 per cent and there were 30 per cent fewer bicycle casualties.

Most roads in Perth do not comply with the principles of spatial requirements for bicycles as developed in the Austroads Guide to Engineering Practice Part 14 for Bicycles, yet there is excessive provision for motor traffic. The principle that "every street is a bicycle street", espoused in the Bicycle Strategy for the 21st Century (Government of WA, 1996), needs to be imbedded in operational road planning and design. Appropriate road design minimum standards must be applied to the construction and maintenance of road works undertaken by State and Local Governments.

http://www.pedalpower.org.au/oldsite/about/benefits.htm
Benefits of the Bicycle
Written by: MATTHEW J. ZOLL, Arizona

Recently there have been several letters to the editor recommending that bicycles "pay their way." I'd like to discuss a few of the facts related to this. Federal Highway Administration data indicate that 93% of the cyclists are also drivers who pay motor vehicle taxes. Regional transportation costs show that bicycle lanes add approximately 2% to the cost of building roads. Sidewalks add another 2 percent. Not many people demand that pedestrians pay the full costs of sidewalks.

Bicycle lanes benefit all users. A 1989 Texas Transportation Institute study found that bicycle lanes provide nearly $5 in safety benefits for drivers alone for every $1 in costs. A 1995 FHWA study found that bicycle lanes reduce motor vehicle crashes by 49 percent. Who pays for transportation costs, and how? Should all costs be paid for directly by users, and therefore only those payers can legally use the facility? When was the last time we paid a fee at the door to visit a library, park, or to send our kids to public school? Another 1995 FHWA study determined drivers pay less than 20 percent of the total costs of driving, including costs for building and maintaining roads, costs for air pollution, congestion, accidents, loss of open space and other factors.

We pay for some of the road costs through other means, including housing costs for roadways built as part of developments, property taxes, sales taxes, such as those used in Phoenix freeway system, and development impact fees. The indirect costs are paid through higher insurance premiums and hospitalization bills. According to a 1997 FHWA report, the total social costs of air pollution are $40 billion per year, with over 60 percent of Americans living in areas that fail to meet national air quality standards.

Even more significant, the U.S. now has the highest obesity rates in the world and heart disease is the number one killer of Americans. Meanwhile, we spend less than $500 million annually on programs that benefit healthful walking and bicycling.

The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates we spend less than $1 per child per year on bicycle and pedestrian safety education in our schools. The number one goal of thousands of Tucson respondents to the Tucson Livable Communities Initiative last year was to have "Viable and Accessible Alternatives to Automobile Transportation." Let's continue to help people get back on their feet and rediscover the joys of walking and cycling for the true personal mobility and improved health.

http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/qt/L...nsportbenefits

Originally Posted by QUEENSLAND TRANSPORT

Transport benefits

Maintaining and improving the transport network costs the Australian government an average of $A27 million every working day.

Bikes do less damage to road surfaces than cars. Bike paths give people "freeways" for the price of footpaths.

The estimated costs of congestion are $A5 billion per year. More bikes and less cars on the road can reduce this congestion and its associated costs.

Bikes and cycling facilities can extend the catchments of existing public transport services. On average, 10 times more households are within cycling distance of public transport than are within walking distance.

The majority of car trips to school are within walking distance. Cycling or walking these trips significantly reduces congestion around schools and improves safety for children.

To achieve a 75 per cent increase in cycling trips would require each person in Australia to substitute two car trips per month with cycling.

Bicycles offer door to door service because they can be parked closer to destinations than cars. They are often quicker than cars over short distances of up to five km.

Bicycle lanes and paved shoulders on roads create a number of benefits for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. These include:
Improved safety for cyclists and motorists - due to reduced need to travel out of the lane to pass cyclists.
Additional space for motorists to stop in the event of a mechanical difficulty, emergency, or to escape potential crashes or reduce their severity.
Access for emergency vehicles as motorists have more space to move out of their path.
Extra sight distance and turning space.
Cycling conserves roadway and residential space thereby providing opportunities for less cement and more plant life in urban areas. Up to 40 per cent of urban areas in Australia are taken up by providing infrastructure for motor vehicles including roads, car parking, service stations and auto manufacture

[Hunter]

$13m per km... that seems a little excessive.

[parawolf]

Originally Posted by Hunter

$13m per km... that seems a little excessive.

$13m does sound high, but the amount of engineering effort that goes into building a road from scratch is massive. I see first hand from friends that are in engineering working on the eastlink project. Then there is problem things like land aquistion costs to factor in, water run off, environmental repair, electrical supply, and then the amount of raw materials and the time taken.

But this discussion diverts from the thread topic.

[max^power]

OMG what a can of worms...sorry for posting it.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by xbgs351

http://www.bv.com.au/inform.php?a=7&b=176&c=549

On-road bike lane
$20,000 (to mark bike lanes on an existing road)

Bah! $20k per km??? Hardly a valid comparison, they're using existing infrastructure. It's about as relevent as saying roads for cars are only $20k/km, by marking out lines on existing $13mil/km bike paths.

It would cost a damn sight more to create a bike path of road quality from scratch.

[HOON69]

if the bike is entitled to be riden on the road then drivers should abide by the road rules etc

bike riders need to remember they are small and should stay left and not hog 75% of a lane they shouldnt be allowed to spread out should be nose to tail etc

bikes paying rego : yeah right next it'll be rollerblades skates and kites need to apply to fly their kites in air space etc

common courtesy goes along way..

[MO]

Its coming sooner than you think....dogs have to be registered why not cats and the rest.

[LUXO_8]

Originally Posted by John McMaster

Its coming sooner than you think....dogs have to be registered why not cats and the rest.

dogs and cats have to be registered, also, i believe they have to be desexed unless you have a permit to be a breeder......

but thread has taken itself off on a tangent, lets get back to Cycling and cyclists shall we

[MO]

Originally Posted by MADNC_8

dogs and cats have to be registered, also, i believe they have to be desexed unless you have a permit to be a breeder......

but thread has taken itself off on a tangent, lets get back to Cycling and cyclists shall we

Dogs have to be rego'd in any council not so cats some may require it but not all.

As for the blades and boards the councils in most cases provide them a venue this comes out of ratepayers money...so why should'nt others contribute to the system...this is not off track...it is about user pays!!!!!!!!

[parawolf]

Originally Posted by John McMaster

Dogs have to be rego'd in any council not so cats some may require it but not all.

As for the blades and boards the councils in most cases provide them a venue this comes out of ratepayers money...so why should'nt others contribute to the system...this is not off track...it is about user pays!!!!!!!!

You don't need rego your kids (if you have any) though.... So what is your point about user pays again? only people with kids use the kiddy play ground at the local park - why should my council fees go to this?

Why do they? because it is classified as basic infrastructure. It makes on suburb/council district more attractive than another, it attracts a different kind of person, and increases land and home values, which in turn the council charges more for their yearly rates.

Again i'd be happy to pay rego to the state government, however at a pro-rata rate weight for weight of a car, it would be about $4 per bike. The administration fees would make this $4 not work collecting, and establishing who has a bike and who doesn't have a bike.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by parawolf

Again i'd be happy to pay rego to the state government, however at a pro-rata rate weight for weight of a car, it would be about $4 per bike. The administration fees would make this $4 not work collecting, and establishing who has a bike and who doesn't have a bike.

On weight alone. What if it had some sort of insurance component (ie. CTP) to cover injuries to pedestrians etc? I doubt many such injuries happen, but when they do, there is little recourse for the victim under the current system.

[parawolf]

Originally Posted by b0son

On weight alone. What if it had some sort of insurance component (ie. CTP) to cover injuries to pedestrians etc? I doubt many such injuries happen, but when they do, there is little recourse for the victim under the current system.

Well how does it happen now with TAC and a motor vehicle? There is little recourse for a pedestrian if the person is unregistered, or has false registration details. However TAC (in vic) is a no fault coverage policy. The pedestrian being covered by TAC in case of an accident with a motor vehicle by the assumed motor vehicle registration. If the vehicle is a hit and run, the person is still covered.

I still maintain that weight is a far call because that is the way that cars are covered (in victoria) I believe.

Assume a 80kg is hit by a 1800kg falcon.

Compare that again to a 80kg person being hit by a 80kg person on a 12kg bike.

The force of the impact would be far less as the cyclist has a lower Vmax than a car, is more manuverable than a car, and lower mass. It is very unlikely that a front on impact from a cyclist would occur, much more likely is to be clipped or winged by the cyclist. Assume a scaled up version of the same hit, a pedestrian that is likely to get away with bruising from a cyclist, could end up with a broken bone, or head injuries from a car.

Anyway, look at www.tacsafety.com.au and track some of stats in regards to pedestrian safety.

Between 1/Oct/2004 and 1/Oct/2005:
Fatalities: 30
Males: 18
Females: 12
12 out of those 30 were in the 70+ age group
And the most common day was Friday or Saturday to get killed.

Serious Injuries: 488
Males: 272
Females: 214
Unrecorded: 2
72 out of 488(the largest group) was again the over 70 age group.
And the most common day was Friday for an injury.

So by the reasoning shown by some people in this thread, the over 70's should be registered to be a pedestrian to improve safety for them.

[xbgs351]

bump

.

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by Malakai

Oh no, why did you do that?

Thread mining is punishable by public execution. Everyone to the town square!

Nothing in the rules about thread mining, but I did find this one (in bold):

Site Terms & Conditions

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a moderated site, which means that there are a few simple rules in place to ensure that everyone is free to enjoy the community here without fear.

In short, the following things are not permitted:


1. Posts about or containing references to: religion, race, sensitive or controversial subjects.


2. Posts that are (or could reasonably be considered to be): defamatory, threatening, invasive of privacy, or which otherwise violate any law applicable within Australia.


3. Posts containing advertising material in any form except those posted on or on behalf of supporting site sponsors.


Posts which breach any of the points above will be removed at the absolute discretion of the administration team. If you feel that a post has been removed incorrectly then please use the Private Messaging system provided to discuss the issue with a member of the admin team rather than discuss the issue publicly.

_2:

[MO]

Originally Posted by xbgs351

Nothing in the rules about thread mining, but I did find this one (in bold):

_2:

And your point is?

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by MO

And your point is?

No point, it was a joke :

[MO]

Originally Posted by xbgs351

No point, it was a joke :

Don't give up your day job....a comediene your not!!!!!!

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by MO

Don't give up your day job....a comediene your not!!!!!!

How about a comedian? :

[MO]

Originally Posted by xbgs351

How about a comedian? :

Well I went for the feminine because I thought your a bit of a big girls blouse(tic)

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by MO

Well I went for the feminine because I thought your a bit of a big girls blouse(tic)

Whatever floats your boat.

[MO]

Originally Posted by xbgs351

Whatever floats your boat.

Just having fun no harm intended....hehehe

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by MO

Just having fun no harm intended....hehehe

I know :