asterope said:
ive just put in my little bit about the supposed 'cyclist' mr stockburger's comment that bicycles are inefficient. seems he equates 'speed' with efficiency.
for the total input of energy to make and run a bicycle vs the total output of energy in the form of distance/speed/time, the bicycle is the most efficient machine that has ever been invented, and hence the most efficient form of transport that has ever been invented.
i would have thought a cyclist knew this.
I really should know better than to feed the troll but sometimes temptation's too great. Wonder if it will get published.
Registration does not pay for roads, it pays for compulsory third party insurance. Considering that the cost of road trauma to Australia is estimated to be around 17 billion dollars a year, that majority of which comes from car accidents, I'd be surprised if the compulsory third party cover paid by motorists even scratches the surface. To put that in to perspective 17 billion dollars is 2.3% of Australia's GDP.
Federal roads are funded from consolodated revenue. I contribute to consolodated revenue every month when I get paid and a large slice of that pay goes to tax. For that contribution I take up an eigth of the road space that a car takes up and do substantially less damage, in fact natural erosion does more damage to the road than I ever could.
Local roads are paid for by rates and GST. Being a home owner I pay rates. Amazingly enough I buy things with what's left of my pay and contribute to GST.
Motorists breathe in 2 to three times the air pollution that cyclists do. This is because all the nasty stuff is at ground level, right where the air intakes are. Add to that the lack of air ciruclation and dissipation in a car and all the poisons that are already in the car (that's the new car smell everyone's so fond of) and it's hardly surprising.
The UK voted the bicycle the most significant invention in history and with good reason. It is the most efficient means of transport known to man. The case for energy has already been made, let me put it to you in terms of time.
The average car costs $200 per week to run. I pay about $20 per week to run two bikes. Let's say I get paid $1,000 per week. On a forty hour week I've covered my transport costs for the week before I've worked my first hour. If I was running a car one day a week I work covers nothing except my transport costs. To be fair over the course of a week it takes me ten minutes more to get to and from work on the bicycle than it does in a car thanks to peak hour traffic, however that's time I don't have to spend in the gym.
The benefits of active transport far outweigh the risks. By riding to work instead of drving or catching over-subscribed public transport I can expect another fifteen years of active life. What's meant by that is that when I reach 70 I'll still be able to get about under my own steam and not have to be cared for in a nursing home. I'll take the relatively small risk of dying on the road on my bicycle, which is only twice the risk of dying in a car on the road, for that extra fifteen years of useful life in a heartbeat.
All of the above is fact, not opinion, backed up by independant studies.
Cycling is not just a passtime; although it is certainly a sustainable; healthy and enjoyable one; it's a enviromentally sound, sustainable and efficient means of transport.
So Mr Stockburger, who's the one living in fairytale laa laa land now?
