crankbusters™ – MarkI

Discussion in 'Australia and New Zealand' started by flyingdutch, Jan 2, 2006.

  1. flyingdutch

    flyingdutch New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2004
    Messages:
    5,700
    Likes Received:
    0
    http://www.boroondarabug.org/pages/crankbusters.htm

    Feedback, suggestions

    cheers

    FD
     
    Tags:


  2. Bleve

    Bleve Guest

  3. DaveB

    DaveB Guest

    flyingdutch wrote:
    > http://www.boroondarabug.org/pages/crankbusters.htm
    >
    > Feedback, suggestions
    >
    > cheers
    >
    > FD
    >
    >


    Looks good Dutch. I'm thinking of printing the url and carrying some
    around on my commute ready to stick under a windscreen wiper when needed.

    One thing that might be worth mentioning is the "with all these bike
    trails off the road why are you on the road". I was thinking about this
    one the other day. You've probably got the stats on the percentage of
    the road network dedicated bike trails make up, but I was thinking the
    best response is along the lines of:
    - this percentage of Melbourne transport is dedicated bike trails
    - this precentage is freeways
    - saying cyclists should only use bike trails is like saying motorists
    should only use freeways, it makes sense to use them when they follow
    the route you want, but there are plenty of occasions when they don't,
    and even if they do, you still need to travel through suburban streets
    to get to them.

    DaveB
     
  4. flyingdutch

    flyingdutch New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2004
    Messages:
    5,700
    Likes Received:
    0
    ah, yes. knew i'd forget something :rolleyes:

    Something like...

    "Why dont bikes get onto all those bikepaths?

    Victoria’s road network covers about 196000 kms
    Currently 77km offroad bicycle paths exist in Melbourne,
    with 317km offroad paths in regional Victoria.
    Getting from A-to-B on this paltry offering is challenging to say the least.
    Vehicles have little problem getting from A-to-B on an extensive network.
    Imagine the uproar if that network was reduced to 0.2% of its current span, with few intersections, often poor signage and commonly poor conditions."
     
  5. Skewer

    Skewer Guest

    flyingdutch wrote:
    > http://www.boroondarabug.org/pages/crankbusters.htm
    >
    > Feedback, suggestions
    >
    > cheers
    >
    > FD
    >


    FD Just a small pedantic point.

    The end line of the quote
    "... he greatest element (over 80%) is a TAC
    insurance premium. This goes toward paying
    for the carnage (notice it's not called bikenage!)
    that vehicles cause on a daily basis where
    thousands get killed annually."

    Would probably read better as
    "...where thousands are maimed annually."

    Only a bit over 7% of what the TAC pays out is for Death benifits.
    Over one third of payments is for common law claims, another
    quarter is medical treatments. the rest is log term care and the like.
     
  6. David M

    David M Guest

  7. Euan

    Euan Guest

    flyingdutch <[email protected]> writes:

    > http://www.boroondarabug.org/pages/crankbusters.htm
    >
    > Feedback, suggestions
    >


    # If cyclists want to use the road, why dont they pay rego like us?

    I'd drop point two as I consider it to be irrelevant. Stipulating that
    most cyclists pay rego on a car panders to the belief that the roads is
    a user pays system. Better to annihilate that argument than fight on
    their ground.

    Is it really thousands that get killed on the roads by cars? I thought
    it was hundreds and thousands were maimed with hundreds of thousands
    being injured. I'll check that an follow up.

    # But riding on the road is so dangerous!

    Do you have a cite which backs up the statement that per km cycling on
    roads is as safe as driving? I thought it was slightly riskier per km,
    however per hour of travel cycling is safer (this is due to the
    disparate distances that can be racked up in an hour in each mode of
    transport).

    # But i cant afford to ride a bike

    *cough* ``may only spend 100-500 a year?''!!!!whatthefsck?!? I'm glad
    when the annual bill comes to under 2K and I don't even race! ;-)

    # All Cyclists run red lights!!!

    May be worthwhile pointing out that motorists are no angels in this
    regard either. Refer
    http://www.nrma.com.au/pub/nrma/about_us/media_releases/20050816a.shtml

    Good stuff FD :)
    --
    Cheers | ~~ [email protected]
    Euan | ~~ _-\<,
    Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)
     
  8. flyingdutch

    flyingdutch New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2004
    Messages:
    5,700
    Likes Received:
    0
    its not about what we consider, its to point out what drivers assume. Its also the most (or close to) common blurb spouted by drivers...
     
  9. Euan

    Euan Guest

    flyingdutch <[email protected]> writes:

    > Euan Wrote:
    >>
    >> # If cyclists want to use the road, why dont they pay rego like us?
    >>
    >> I'd drop point two as I consider it to be irrelevant. Stipulating
    >> that
    >> most cyclists pay rego on a car panders to the belief that the roads
    >> is
    >> a user pays system. Better to annihilate that argument than fight on
    >> their ground.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > its not about what we consider, its to point out what drivers assume.
    > Its also the most (or close to) common blurb spouted by drivers...


    No argument there, I just don't think that saying most cyclists pay rego
    is the correct way to counter that argument as it panders to the users
    pay view of the world. My response to such statements:

    ``The reason that cars are registered to their owners is for the same
    reason that firearms are registered to their owners: both are capable of
    inflicting death and serious injury to others. Sadly this happens with
    such depressing regularity that it has become necessary to instigate
    compulsory third party insurance in the form a TAC payment,
    approximately 80% of the registration fee. The rest of the fee is
    swallowed up in administration costs.

    Cyclists do not habitually kill or seriously injure others, therefore
    there is no need to implement compulsory third part insurance as that
    would discourage cycling and result in even more deaths on the roads due
    to more people using cars.''

    In conversation it's not quite as pompous as that, I've yet to have
    anyone have anything to say in defence of that statement.
    --
    Cheers | ~~ [email protected]
    Euan | ~~ _-\<,
    Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)
     
  10. DaveB

    DaveB Guest

    Euan wrote:
    > No argument there, I just don't think that saying most cyclists pay rego
    > is the correct way to counter that argument as it panders to the users
    > pay view of the world. My response to such statements:
    >
    > ``The reason that cars are registered to their owners is for the same
    > reason that firearms are registered to their owners: both are capable of
    > inflicting death and serious injury to others. Sadly this happens with
    > such depressing regularity that it has become necessary to instigate
    > compulsory third party insurance in the form a TAC payment,
    > approximately 80% of the registration fee. The rest of the fee is
    > swallowed up in administration costs.
    >
    > Cyclists do not habitually kill or seriously injure others, therefore
    > there is no need to implement compulsory third part insurance as that
    > would discourage cycling and result in even more deaths on the roads due
    > to more people using cars.''
    >
    > In conversation it's not quite as pompous as that, I've yet to have
    > anyone have anything to say in defence of that statement.


    I'd agree with the "cyclists pay rego" as a way of reducing the us vs
    them attitiude. Cyclists aren't a bunch of rabid car hating do gooders
    (well not all of them anyway). Most also drive a car.

    DaveB
     
  11. flyingdutch

    flyingdutch New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2004
    Messages:
    5,700
    Likes Received:
    0
    and you reckon bringing a firearms debate is going to make people look at this objectively???
    It's a nice parallel and most likely correct, but imho it's not going to win anyone over.
    My dog or cat doesnt 'inflict death and serious injury to others' (unless they are withholding the tennis ball :D), and yet they get rego'ed.

    I see your anti-user-pays angle. The specific assumption I'm killing is
    "I pay rego, therefore I pay for the road with that rego".
    WE all know that aint right. But most non-cyclists dont.
    Besides, 'users' may not pay but 'taxpayers' do.
    Perhaps I need to better articulate cyclists are taxpayers?


    BUT i still do 'math' cos it's english (not yankspeak) :rolleyes:
     
  12. TimC

    TimC Guest

    On 2006-01-03, DaveB (aka Bruce)
    was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
    > them attitiude. Cyclists aren't a bunch of rabid car hating do gooders


    Oi! Take that back!

    --
    TimC
    You're trying to trick me into being intelligent. It won't work.
    -- David P. Murphy in ASR
     
  13. Euan

    Euan Guest

    flyingdutch <[email protected]> writes:

    >
    > and you reckon bringing a firearms debate is going to make people look
    > at this objectively???


    Not brining in a firearms debate, drawing a parallel but point taken.

    > It's a nice parallel and most likely correct, but imho it's not going
    > to win anyone over.
    > My dog or cat doesnt 'inflict death and serious injury to others'
    > (unless they are withholding the tennis ball :D), and yet they get
    > rego'ed.


    In the case of feral cats, tell that to the indigenous wildlife who have
    no defense against them. Cute little kitty's a well oiled killing
    machine.

    Oh wait...they're not registered!
    --
    Cheers | ~~ [email protected]
    Euan | ~~ _-\<,
    Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)
     
  14. cfsmtb

    cfsmtb New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    Messages:
    4,963
    Likes Received:
    0

    We've got one here that *thinks* she's feral. Cranky little calico - Great Huntress Of Moths. And assorted invertebrates.

    Pissweak really. :D
     
  15. flyingdutch

    flyingdutch New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2004
    Messages:
    5,700
    Likes Received:
    0
    you oil your.....??? <deploys anti-smut device> that was close
    </deploys anti-smut device>
     
  16. dave

    dave Guest

    Euan wrote:
    > flyingdutch <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    >
    >>and you reckon bringing a firearms debate is going to make people look
    >>at this objectively???

    >
    >
    > Not brining in a firearms debate, drawing a parallel but point taken.
    >
    >
    >>It's a nice parallel and most likely correct, but imho it's not going
    >>to win anyone over.
    >>My dog or cat doesnt 'inflict death and serious injury to others'
    >>(unless they are withholding the tennis ball :D), and yet they get
    >>rego'ed.

    >
    >
    > In the case of feral cats, tell that to the indigenous wildlife who have
    > no defense against them. Cute little kitty's a well oiled killing
    > machine.
    >
    > Oh wait...they're not registered!


    Pit bulls are a really good justification for every house having a
    firearm. Yeah thats tongue in cheap but not many. Talk about your
    lethal killing machine. And the owners so often have a 4wd
     
  17. TimC

    TimC Guest

    On 2006-01-03, dave (aka Bruce)
    was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
    > Pit bulls are a really good justification for every house having a
    > firearm. Yeah thats tongue in cheap but not many. Talk about your
    > lethal killing machine. And the owners so often have a 4wd


    Apparently going to be bread out of existance in Australia, over the
    next dog generation. All pitballs -- including ones that used to be
    used for breeding -- must be desexed next year, I think it was.

    --
    TimC
    "I wish there was a knob on the TV to turn up the intelligence. There's a
    knob called `brightness', but it doesn't work." -- Gallagher
     
  18. BrettS

    BrettS Guest

    TimC wrote:
    > On 2006-01-03, dave (aka Bruce)
    > was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
    >
    >>Pit bulls are a really good justification for every house having a
    >>firearm. Yeah thats tongue in cheap but not many. Talk about your
    >>lethal killing machine. And the owners so often have a 4wd

    >
    >
    > Apparently going to be bread out of existance in Australia, over the

    ^^^^^
    > next dog generation. All pitballs -- including ones that used to be
    > used for breeding -- must be desexed next year, I think it was.
    >


    What, is pit bull meat being used to fill *real* hot dogs now?

    Couldn't resist ;-)

    --
    BrettS
     
  19. Plodder

    Plodder Guest

    --
    Frank
    [email protected]
    Drop DACKS to reply
    "flyingdutch" <[email protected]> wrote in
    message news:[email protected]
    >
    > http://www.boroondarabug.org/pages/crankbusters.htm
    >
    > Feedback, suggestions
    >
    > cheers
    >
    > FD
    >
    >
    > --
    > flyingdutch
    >


    Generally looks good. Couple of comments:
    (1) Acronyms - TAC, BUG: An expansion of these terms would be good (like you
    did with EBL). There's not much that excludes people better than an
    unexplained acronym.

    (2) "Most cyclists DO pay rego... etc" - Don't want to enter into the
    argument that cyclists also own cars and therefore pay rego. It's not the
    car the cyclist owns that's being questioned; it's the bike the cyclist is
    using. The response that no rego goes to roadworks is good - it undermines
    the 'user pays' principle upon which the original argument is predicated.
    Still, it doesn't address why cyclists shouldn't pay a nominal TAC to cover
    collisions and accidents on roads, shared paths, etc.

    Perhaps a simple explanation of the risk of cyclist-caused injury to others
    vs the cost of administering such a nominal fee is worth including (albeit a
    bit long-winded). It would show that charging cyclists TAC would cost more
    than it's worth.

    That'll do - I'm not caffeinated yet so the soggy grey mess in my skull
    isn't working yet!

    Frank
     
Loading...
Loading...