Re: cycling in Los Angeles and cycling in Melbourne

John Doe said:

: should write to their mp and request anual smog checks for cars in aus.
: Its about time we had this.

-snip-

Quoted message said:

You have to remember that it would render a lot of older cars non-compliant.
This would create an unfair burden on people that could not afford modern
cars. You could suggest a national old car buy-back? Don't know if that
one would win votes.

I thought NSW did have an old car buy back..

Anyway, remember that emissions generated during the production of a
mdoern, fuel efficient car can easily outweigh those generated from
the tailpipe of an old car.. That steel doesn't mine or refine
itself, all those rare minerals requied for fuel cells or other
gadgetry, those minute technical specifications that need to be
painstakingly designed and expensively retooled to implement, and lots
more emissions that I haven't read up on yet, all need to be accounted
for..

While the new cars are probably imported from overseas, or worse
still, South Australia *laughs*, it doesn't mean much as far as local
pollution is concerned, but we're certainly not helping global
pollution by constantly buying entire new cars.. Wouldn't a new
engine, new muffler, replacing a few other components, and maybe a new
coat of paint for good measure, do the trick? It would certainly save
on the pollution generated mining and producing the new frame and all
the other stuff there's no need to replace..

PC

"PC" wrote

Quoted message said:

Anyway, remember that emissions generated during the production of a
mdoern, fuel efficient car can easily outweigh those generated from
the tailpipe of an old car.. That steel doesn't mine or refine
itself,

A couple of years ago I saw some stats that suggested that
manufacturing a new car generates about the same amount of pollutants
as will come out of the tailpipe in nine or ten years.

I would love the gov't to make me an offer on my 1980 1800cc Ford
Courier ute. But would any of you taxpayers want to contribute to it?
:-)

There was a proposal to the Fed parliament about 5 or so years ago
that the gov't pay $1000 each to buy back every car at age 20. I'd be
happy to get that for my ute, but my dad would be very upset if they
offered him that for his 1927 Model T, or his 1929 Plymouth, or even
his 1943 Ford Jeep.

Theo

That steel doesn't mine or refine
: itself, all those rare minerals requied for fuel cells or other
: gadgetry,

Not to mention a good beverage holder.

: its always this battler thing that people go on about with this-if these
: cars are
: well tuned it makes a huge difference-just because someone is poor doesn't
: give them the right to pollute the environment and make life [censored] for
: cyclists-

I don't see what cyclists have to do with it. Pollution makes life [censored] for
everyone - cyclists, motorists pedetrians alike. That said. You have to be
socially responsible. Sometimes ideas look good on the surface but making
cars only available to the rich just reinforces the poverty cycle.
You cannot blame one part of the population for this. If we had a cheap,
reliable, and convenient public transport system then yes... take the cars
off those that cannot afford to have them maintained. Unfortunately it
seems that buses and trains don't win votes... sadly roads do.

Pete

John Doe said:

: its always this battler thing that people go on about with this-if these
: cars are
: well tuned it makes a huge difference-just because someone is poor doesn't
: give them the right to pollute the environment and make life [censored] for
: cyclists-

Quoted message said:

I don't see what cyclists have to do with it. Pollution makes life [censored] for
everyone - cyclists, motorists pedetrians alike. That said. You have to be
socially responsible. Sometimes ideas look good on the surface but making
cars only available to the rich just reinforces the poverty cycle.
You cannot blame one part of the population for this. If we had a cheap,
reliable, and convenient public transport system then yes... take the cars
off those that cannot afford to have them maintained. Unfortunately it
seems that buses and trains don't win votes... sadly roads do.

That's a bit of a furphy - especially given recent publicity about the
fact that people care more about public transport than they do about
child abuse..

--
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7214753%5E1702,00.html
The community rates child abuse really low, it rates it after problems
with public transport and council rates.
--

Problem is that pollies need to manage a project closely and get it
right from the start for a PT project to win votes. It requires
effort. Meanwhile, there are enough brains around the roads
department to build successful freeways and tollways without said
politician having to make much effort.

Oh, one other thing - pollies may not feel like making an effort to
improve PT, but any talk about cutting services is a political, well,
to borrow from YM, a bed of nails. One vote gained, ten lost. Just
look at the debacle that Costa is stirring up in NSW with his idiotic
suggestions. It's a shame that the election is 3 1/2 years off.

PC

I wonder how many car owners actually weigh up the true expense of
owning a car, new or old, and decide that the added financial burden
would outstrip the convenience of owning a car. This would have to
include a commitment to regular maintenance of an older vehicle.

I see far to many old bombs on the road. No brakes, no lights, smokey
exhaust. This is socially irresponsible. I think the fact that you see
so many older cars in tip top shape in the United States not only points
to their strict laws regarding maintenance but is also indicative of
their passion for their motor cars. The Aussie public just do not have
that sort of passion for their cars. Even though we feel that owning a
car is our right and is the norm. So often the bomb is just regarded as
a necessity.

I believe that a lot of people only own cars because it's "the norm".
No thought actually goes into it. Especially with ease of finance, the
hard sell from car companies, and the oversupply of new vehicles on
the market.

--

Quoted message said:

--------------------------<

Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

: That's a bit of a furphy - especially given recent publicity about the
: fact that people care more about public transport than they do about
: child abuse..

This maybe a little misleading though. So where do they rate roads and
traffic - was that included? I think you have to look at it from the
individuals POV. They are probably not giving much weight to child abuse
because it does not affect them directly and only affects a small percentage
of the population. There are sympathetic people out there as you seem to be
one (which is a good thing) but most people are only interested in their lot
in life.

Governments are not doing their poling correctly (Especially in Sydney -
with the constant splurge on freeways and link roads) if it is true that
people would prefer a good public transport system over using their car to
get around.

: Problem is that pollies need to manage a project closely and get it
: right from the start for a PT project to win votes. It requires
: effort.

Not really... The sort of PT investment we need will take longer than a term
of government. Most voters can only see what happened in the last couple of
months.

Meanwhile, there are enough brains around the roads
: department to build successful freeways and tollways without said
: politician having to make much effort.

Apart from funding.

: One vote gained, ten lost. Just
: look at the debacle that Costa is stirring up in NSW with his idiotic
: suggestions.
:
:

You would find that most of the NSW population don't care about PT.. In fact
he is probably gaining votes because most of NSW don't use PT and don't want
to. When people cost using a car they often only include the cost of fuel.
Costa himself is using the figures that only a small percentage use PT but
everyone is paying. Even with those idiotic comments I still fail to hear
the media ask the obvious questions about road users being advantaged by PT
users. It keeps them off the roads. The government has to build less roads
if it has a cheap PT system. Hell I reckon PT should be free. You would
see a sharp drop in the use of cars... Followed by a sharp drop in the use
of Petrol... Followed by a sharp drop in petrol tax revenue... They
wouldn't want that now. They would have to find another way to raise
revenue and that is never popular. People get used to paying a type of tax.
They never like new taxes whether or not its replacing a different one.

:It's a shame that the election is 3 1/2 years off.

Costa is not going to make a difference to the election but he will [censored]
most of us PT users. I don't own a car personally. I ride and catch PT 90%
of the time. I love PT and wish that it was better to get people off the
roads.

: so many older cars in tip top shape in the United States not only points
: to their strict laws regarding maintenance but is also indicative of
: their passion for their motor cars.

You obviously have not spent much time in the US. They may not blow as much
smoke but their cars are much much bigger. Our largest passenger car would
be classed as a compact in their eyes. One of my colleagues that lives in
Chicago told me that you just get used to it. As I only travel over their
several times a year I still shake my head at the monsters.

Pete

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

: Problem is that pollies need to manage a project closely and get it
: right from the start for a PT project to win votes. It requires
: effort.

Not really... The sort of PT investment we need will take longer than a term
of government. Most voters can only see what happened in the last couple of
months.

I think that's an easy excuse to dish out, and doesn't really give
respect to voters. Take Kennett as an example. During his initial
election campaign he said under his g'ment things were going to get bad
in the short term, but to stick with him and in the long run they'd be
better. He's still there. Just goes to show people are smarter than
you think.

: I think that's an easy excuse to dish out, and doesn't really give
: respect to voters.

No... I don't give much respect to most voters. Having "most voters" win
elections. Some voters are very astute and can see long term advantage.
However a lot are won or lost in campaigns at the end of the day. Weather
plays a part... Whether we have won the world cup in [censored] sport the last
month plays a part.

This is my opinion BTW but I still respect yours.

Take Kennett as an example. During his initial
: election campaign he said under his g'ment things were going to get bad
: in the short term, but to stick with him and in the long run they'd be

: better. He's still there.

No he is not. We are talking about past victorian premier Jeff Kennet?
Just goes to show people are smarter than

: you think.

IMHO No there not. Not in general. There was probably many reasons why he
stayed in power. You cannot say to me that Howard is still in power because
he took some tough decisions on tax and waterfront reform. You cannot say
Kennet did not give sweeteners to the voters to get him over the line at the
end of the day.

In that its all about a juggling act. They have to sweeten but they also
must deliver quality.

I cannot agree with your POV at this point. I know I sound cynical but with
reason.

Anyway... Keep cycling.

Pete

<Andy White> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

: Problem is that pollies need to manage a project closely and get it
: right from the start for a PT project to win votes. It requires
: effort.

Not really... The sort of PT investment we need will take longer than a

term

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of government. Most voters can only see what happened in the last

couple of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

months.

I think that's an easy excuse to dish out, and doesn't really give
respect to voters. Take Kennett as an example. During his initial
election campaign he said under his g'ment things were going to get bad
in the short term, but to stick with him and in the long run they'd be
better. He's still there. Just goes to show people are smarter than
you think.

???

He was kicked out two terms ago on a protest vote.

Tim

Paul J said:

I wonder how many car owners actually weigh up the true expense of
owning a car, new or old, and decide that the added financial burden
would outstrip the convenience of owning a car. This would have to
include a commitment to regular maintenance of an older vehicle.

I see far to many old bombs on the road. No brakes, no lights, smokey
exhaust. This is socially irresponsible. <snip>

Agreed - in NSW you can report smokey vehicles to the RTA on 131555.
They will ask your name, where you saw the car, it's rego/model/colour,
and what type of smoke it was blowing and for how long (they want to
catch the chronic smoke-blowers, not people starting their cars on a
cold morning).

I think if a petrol car gets reported twice, they send the owner a
notice, and if it's a diesel, it only takes one report (something to do
with different expected levels of smoke, I dunno).

&roo

: catch the chronic smoke-blowers, not people starting their cars on a
: cold morning).

Thats right. Most cars blow steam on a cold morning.

:
: I think if a petrol car gets reported twice, they send the owner a
: notice, and if it's a diesel, it only takes one report

I never knew you could report cars. Or if you did anything would be done.
I have seen some shockers.

Andy White <> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Take Kennett as an example. During his initial
election campaign he said under his g'ment things were going to get bad
in the short term, but to stick with him and in the long run they'd be
better. He's still there. Just goes to show people are smarter than
you think.

That really is quite funny seeing as he's long gone. Apparently people
ARE smarter than you think...

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Andy White <> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Take Kennett as an example. During his initial
election campaign he said under his g'ment things were going to get bad
in the short term, but to stick with him and in the long run they'd be
better. He's still there. Just goes to show people are smarter than
you think.

That really is quite funny seeing as he's long gone. Apparently people
ARE smarter than you think...

Doh! Ok, bad example. But I'm sure there is one somewhere ;-)

John Doe said:

so many older cars in tip top shape in the United States not only points
: to their strict laws regarding maintenance but is also indicative of
: their passion for their motor cars.

Quoted message said:

You obviously have not spent much time in the US. They may not blow as

Quoted message said:

much smoke but their cars are much much bigger. Our largest passenger

car would be classed as a >compact in their eyes. One of my colleagues
that lives in Chicago told me that you just get used to it. As I >only
travel over their several times a year I still shake my head at the
monsters.

Pete

Notice that I mentioned that people in the US are much more passionate
about their motor cars than we are here in Oz. I made no mention about
the size of their cars. But since you mentioned it, the size of their
cars may indicate how passionately they "believe" in the almighty
automobile. In fact, in the eyes of many of their citizens the
automobile is an inaleinable right to be protected with religious zeal.

--

Quoted message said:

--------------------------<

Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

Quoted message said:

"trains are the second most efficient way of shifting matter around the
surface of the planet - after the bicycle".
and
You might remember the movie, Who Framed Roger Rabbit? On the surface,
it's a jokey story about a 1920s world where humans live side-by-side
with "toons" - indestructible cartoon characters. But the subplot is
about a "toon" who wanted to destroy public transport in the town of Los
Angeles. His plan was to buy up all the public transport, and then close
it down, so that he could build strange things called "freeways" that
would carry huge numbers of cars. Now this might seem like an outrageous
conspiracy theory - but this subplot is based on an accusation aimed at
General Motors back in the 1920s.
Back then, Los Angeles had a very efficient, clean and rapid system of
public transport - of electric trolley cars. The conspiracy theory
claims that General Motors, via a series of dummy companies, gradually
bought up all the efficient city public transport systems across the
USA. They replaced the fast, silent and clean electric trolley cars
with slow, noisy and very smelly diesel buses. The passengers and
townspeople complained about the stinky buses, and so the public
transport systems closed themselves down - leaving the commuters with
no option but to buy a car.

I think the idea that we would be better off with 'newer' cars on the
road is false. The manufacturing process is just as polluting and
wastefull to the environment as is driving an old car.

Anyway to quote the great
http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/trek/s268283.htmDr Karl 🙂

--

Quoted message said:

--------------------------<

Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

: I think the idea that we would be better off with 'newer' cars on the
: road is false. The manufacturing process is just as polluting and
: wastefull to the environment as is driving an old car.

If it was an equivalent situation then the newer cars would be better for
cyclists. However there are many other social downfalls to making everyone
have modern cars.

: Anyway to quote the great
: http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/trek/s268283.htmDr Karl 🙂

Thanks for this. That was a good read. I like Dr Karl. I like it because
I cycle to the rail 21km's then catch the train to work. Ditto in the
afternoon. So I am using the 2 most efficient forms of transport.

Pete