Does anyone understand the logic in this article ?

Discussion in 'Australia and New Zealand' started by Andy Simpson, Apr 15, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Andy Simpson

    Andy Simpson Guest

    Tags:


  2. Paul J

    Paul J New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2003
    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    0
    Looks like a bit of hate mail to me. These people just think that the world revolves around the automobile and anything else should remain out of sight. It frightens me to think there are actually people out there driving who would see an accident like this and rather than helping the poor suffering cyclist, start laying blame at the government for not banning cycling in the first place.
     
  3. Super Mario

    Super Mario New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2003
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    0
    The article written on the 16th April by Tim Dare is what you would expect written by your typical overweight moron! Cycling is a growing and popular sport which is fun and healthy.

    Tim writes that cyclists don't pay any registration or fund government roads. May I suggest that Tim do some research into what "rego" actually is, and he might be surprised to find out that "rego" is a weight tax! Cars are heavy vehicles. They produce the pot-holes that he was talking about that plague the city. He also fails to note that a lone cyclist can and is legally allowed to do so in taking up a whole lane!

    Tim have you ever ridden a bike? Why should someone who is physically able to ride their bike to work, be stopped from doing so? I don't think the arrogant writer realises that there is a significant saving in money when you don't have to pay fro transport, let alone fill your car with Petrol which costs close to $1 or even higher a litre!

    This also shows the arrogance of the writer in terms of what sports people play in Sydney. He writes that cyclists often ride in packs. This is true because cycling is a SPORT. Cycling races are conducted in packs! When we train, we often ride in packs. I have not heard of an accident in the streets involving a pack. I have heard recently of accidents and deaths involving CARS, no cyclists!

    Is this writer oblivious to life around him? Does he ever step foot out of his office? There is more to life than just getting up each day, going to work, going home and going to sleep! If that was my life I would rather be put in a box and placed 6 feet under ground!

    Tim get a life!

    A Cyclist:D
     
  4. Tony

    Tony Guest

  5. What is the author of this crap rambling on about? .... it just makes me shake my head in disbelief.
     
  6. Andy Simpson <[email protected]> wrote:
    : From the SMH's Miranda Devine School for the Logically Challenged:

    : http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/15/1050172595996.html

    Mr Tim Dare writes such appallingly tedious and pretentious prose that I'm surprised he has work as
    a journalist. Beats me!

    Cheerz, Lynzz

    PS Anyone who can be bothered to find this guy's email address has my blessing. I'd love to give my
    version of reality.
     
  7. Super Mario

    Super Mario New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2003
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think Mr Tim Dare is an over-weight couch jockey! I don't think he ever gets out of his home much, just to go to and from work!

    He probably drives a Volvo as well!

    I would also like this pigs e-mail address. So if anyone can find it, there is a new set of cannondale gloves waiting!:D
     
  8. Super Mario

    Super Mario New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2003
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    0
    ]
    The article written on the 16th April by Tim Dare is what you would expect written by your typical overweight moron! Cycling is a growing and popular sport which is fun and healthy.

    Tim writes that cyclists don't pay any registration or fund government roads. May I suggest that Tim do some research into what "rego" actually is, and he might be surprised to find out that "rego" is a weight tax! Cars are heavy vehicles. They produce the pot-holes that he was talking about that plague the city. He also fails to note that a lone cyclist can and is legally allowed to do so in taking up a whole lane!

    Tim have you ever ridden a bike? Why should someone who is physically able to ride their bike to work, be stopped from doing so? I don't think the arrogant writer realises that there is a significant saving in money when you don't have to pay fro transport, let alone fill your car with Petrol which costs close to $1 or even higher a litre!

    This also shows the arrogance of the writer in terms of what sports people play in Sydney. He writes that cyclists often ride in packs. This is true because cycling is a SPORT. Cycling races are conducted in packs! When we train, we often ride in packs. I have not heard of an accident in the streets involving a pack. I have heard recently of accidents and deaths involving CARS, no cyclists!

    Is this writer oblivious to life around him? Does he ever step foot out of his office? There is more to life than just getting up each day, going to work, going home and going to sleep! If that was my life I would rather be put in a box and placed 6 feet under ground!

    Tim get a life!

    A Cyclist
    :D :D :D
     
  9. John Doe

    John Doe Guest

    Logically Challenged:
    : http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/15/1050172595996.html
    :

    Tim Dare has nothing better to do. Your only real option is to write a letter to retort. He is a
    wannabe journalist who is not employed by the SMH. If you read the Herald you will find that 80% of
    the opinion is written by the same bunch of people. I would like to ask him (because as he states
    cyclists dont contribute to the road system) who will pay for the environmental damage later on.
    Where will the revenue come from? Federal revenue that's where. Federal taxes. My guess would be
    that I pay more federal taxes than a one off writer who does very little - he doesn't write that
    much by the way, he basically limits his writing to criticism and finger pointing... He is just a
    loser that should be ignored.

    I guess under his reckoning you should only be able to drive on federal roads based proportionally
    on how much tax you pay.

    One thing in life is certain... there will always be narrow minded dickheads.

    Cheers Peter
     
  10. Alan Erskine

    Alan Erskine Guest

    "Andy Simpson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > From the SMH's Miranda Devine School for the Logically Challenged:
    >
    > http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/15/1050172595996.html

    I used the "contact us" link on the lower right corner of the page to send a comment. Essentially,
    it was that the driver would have been liable for any injuries to the cyclist as the driver did not
    look to ensure that there was no one coming. Remember the old insurance add where a truck rips the
    door off the parked car?

    The cyclist was doing everything right; it was the driver who was in the wrong!

    --
    Alan Erskine alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au The Coalition of the Willing, against the Axis of Evil,
    In a War of the Damned
     
  11. Andy Simpson

    Andy Simpson Guest

    OK, so nobody else could understand him either. I've written to the SMH, but as I expect my letter
    won't be published, here it is:

    Subject "Evil cyclists stole Tim Dare's brain" The logic behind Tim Dare's bizarre diatribe on
    cyclists ("Putting a spoke in the pedal pumpers") is so poor, the supporting evidence so scant that
    the most important question it raises is about your newspaper. Why do you publish this rubbish ?

    Andy
     
  12. Paul J

    Paul J New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2003
    Messages:
    119
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tim Dare even contradicts himself in this one.
    He's so fearful of the plague of cyclists around town. "little is being done to cope with the rise in amateur cyclist power"
    He even claims that cyclists present a hazard. On who's planet??

    And yet he also feels that cycling is not very popular. "planners acknowledge that the forecast increase in cycling to work is fiction"

    Don't get too upset with him folks. He is a dying breed afterall. Better off having a chuckle at his ravings and paying more attention to what we love best. CYCLING.
     
  13. Joop

    Joop Guest

  14. Ritch

    Ritch Guest

    "Alan Erskine" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > "Andy Simpson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > From the SMH's Miranda Devine School for the Logically Challenged:
    > >
    > > http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/15/1050172595996.html
    >
    > I used the "contact us" link on the lower right corner of the page to send a comment. Essentially,
    > it was that the driver would have been liable for any injuries to the cyclist as the driver did
    > not look to ensure that there was no one coming. Remember the old insurance add where a truck rips
    > the door off the parked car?
    >
    > The cyclist was doing everything right; it was the driver who was in the wrong!

    The article makes some assertions but no recommendations regarding registration of bicycles. It is
    left to the reader to conclude that, based on the structure of the writing. Some of the points ring
    true, especially the effect of rain on mode of transport... we find out who the {\troll "real
    bikers"} are when it rains. Nevertheless, the article smacks of indignation that anyone would even
    consider riding to work, because the author could not fathom it himself. Riding is not for everyone,
    but attitudes like his do nothing to encourage people to find out for themselves.

    Ritch
     
  15. John Staines

    John Staines Guest

    Attitudes like this advertise to the general public that it's acceptable to dislike and disrespect
    cyclists...and that it's quiet ok to abuse us.

    It makes me chuckle when I read that cyclists don't contribute anything to society...bar making life
    difficult for the poor old motorist. Yet I see car after car pass me by with a single person in
    it...clogging the roads, polluting the atmosphere with exhaust fumes and generally destroying the
    environment....through oil and noise pollution.

    While we cyclists of all abilities quietly and effeciently bundle again doing very little if any
    damage to roads, environment and peoples health (due to fumes etc)

    So when you look at it....Mr Dare (is that his real name?) is a wannabee journo making up for
    possible lack of talent by trying to make a reputation for himself aka Mr Hinch or that other div
    Alan Jones.

    I'd be lying if I said I didn't use a car.....as I live in the country I don't have much choice as
    public transport doesn't exist...bar the odd privately operated bus that passes through. But I sure
    do acknowledge and respect the majority of cyclists. :eek:)

    Cheers

    John

    Ritch wrote:
    >
    > "Alan Erskine" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:<[email protected]>...
    > > "Andy Simpson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > From the SMH's Miranda Devine School for the Logically Challenged:
    > > >
    > > > http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/15/1050172595996.html
    > >
    > > I used the "contact us" link on the lower right corner of the page to send a comment.
    > > Essentially, it was that the driver would have been liable for any injuries to the cyclist as
    > > the driver did not look to ensure that there was no one coming. Remember the old insurance add
    > > where a truck rips the door off the parked car?
    > >
    > > The cyclist was doing everything right; it was the driver who was in the wrong!
    >
    > The article makes some assertions but no recommendations regarding registration of bicycles. It is
    > left to the reader to conclude that, based on the structure of the writing. Some of the points
    > ring true, especially the effect of rain on mode of transport... we find out who the {\troll "real
    > bikers"} are when it rains. Nevertheless, the article smacks of indignation that anyone would even
    > consider riding to work, because the author could not fathom it himself. Riding is not for
    > everyone, but attitudes like his do nothing to encourage people to find out for themselves.
    >
    > Ritch
     
  16. Michael Day

    Michael Day Guest

    I found this on a website a few days ago - A commonly held opinion is that cyclists are not
    "entitled" to use the roads because they do not pay any road taxes or registration fees or have to
    carry insurance. A similar opinion is that cyclists should have to pay (at least part of) the cost
    of all the new bicycle facilities that are slowly appearing in many cities and towns. These opinions
    are usually expressed by people who are opposed to the encouragement of bicycling on other grounds,
    such as: it is too dangerous or it blocks traffic or cyclists always disobey the traffic laws. Even
    senior figures in State road authorities have brought up these arguments when dealing with bicycle
    lobby groups, possibly as a negotiating tactic or with a stereotyped view that cyclists are usually
    unemployed or anti-social or "greenie ratbags".

    An easy counter to the tax argument, apart from pointing out that the various State Laws and Rules
    governing roads and vehicles explicitly give cyclists the right to use the roads and have done so
    for most of the last one hundred years, is to ask whether the holder of the opinion above also holds
    that pedestrians are not entitled to use the roads unless they pay something toward footpaths and
    overbridges and so on. Do they also think that children or the unemployed or pensioners should pay
    to ride bicycles?

    A more telling counter is to point out that most roads that cyclists use have been built and are
    maintained by local councils out of rates paid by residents or businesses and that since most or all
    cyclists are ratepayers or will be ratepayers in one form or another ( whether renting or owning)
    there is little for cyclists to feel guilty about. The roads are a community asset built up over
    many years for the movement of people of all ages and income level by whatever legal form of
    transport - the current generation of motorists has in no way paid for all the roads they use so can
    hardly claim some exclusive right to use the roads or even some greater right than cyclists or
    pedestrians.

    Also, most adult cyclists do pay taxes, including taxes on new bicycles, parts and accessories,
    which go towards general revenue, from where most monies for major new roads and road related
    expenses (costs of policing, ambulance, road crews, pollution, to name a few) come from. The costs
    imposed on society by bicyclists is small and the amount spent on bicyclists is small ( around 1 or
    2 % of the road budget ). The cost of setting up a registration scheme would be a major fraction of
    the bicycling budget, as studies by the road authorities have shown, and would be much better spent
    on facilities. Many cyclists are not opposed to a registration scheme in principle, but it is fairly
    clear that it would be difficult to administer and would only serve to discourage bicycling,
    especially among children. Registration for cyclists would however give cyclists more recognition
    and oblige road authorities to provide better facilities.

    Road taxes are generally applied on the basis of size of vehicle and wheel load. Heavy trucks do far
    more damage to roads than cars and therefore pay more road tax. Motorists do far more damage than
    cyclists, therefore motorists pay more than cyclists. Many argue that heavy trucks do not pay enough
    road tax, but it seems not very likely that the costs due to road damage caused by cyclists would be
    worth recovering, even if they could be estimated.

    Many adult cyclists also own cars and pay registration and petrol tax, so these cyclists can be
    excluded from the argument immediately, unless to say that, by paying for a full car licence and
    registration whilst not using the car for every trip, they possibly deserve a proportionate refund.
    Cyclists can carry insurance for third party damage or injury, and many do ( although not a
    majority), as a benefit of membership of the various State bicycle organisations, and are covered in
    many cases by other insurance policies. In any event the cost of injury to other people from
    cyclists is overall small and is much less overall than if the cyclists chose to drive for the same
    journey. Insurance for cyclists should be more widely promoted and better rates offered.

    Another point is that if, over the last thirty or so years, new roads had been designed to cater for
    all legal road users ( including bicyclists) then there wouldn't be the need for most of the
    expensive retrofitting that opponents of cycling now say cyclists should be paying for. The
    complaint against cyclists should really be directed to the traffic engineers who have designed
    roads in the last few decades. The authorities have recognised this
    (1), and are now spending more on infrastructure for cyclists to catch up for past neglect. Cyclists
    could also point out that motor vehicles are in many cases excessively large for the task at hand
    ( single occupant trip to work for instance) and if they drove something smaller there would be
    more room for cyclists on many roads and less need for separate bicycle facilities. Governments
    might well be asked why there is not more incentive for people to drive smaller cars, or greater
    disincentives to big car use.

    A further counter argument is that motorists and owners of vehicles, far from paying too much
    already in the way of taxes, don't pay enough to cover the real costs of motor vehicle use. Several
    studies, quoted in Litman, (2) have found that if all the external costs such as those due to death
    and injury, air pollution ( including possible green house climate change), effects on health from a
    reduction in walking and cycling, congestion, policing and ambulance resources, productive land
    removed, destruction of natural habitats, urban sprawl, financial and tax subsidies to road
    construction companies and so on are totalled then motoring taxes should be at least doubled.
    Admittedly it would be very hard to disentangle many of the costs from the distributed benefits to
    society from having roads, ie it could be argued that since all of the community benefits or needs
    roads and transport then it is fair that not all of the costs are borne by motor vehicle owners.

    At this level of argument, one that most anti cyclists would be unlikely to reach, it could then be
    argued that encouraging more cycling may well be of nett benefit to society, in that it tends to
    reduce all the external costs above. For individual projects, benefit/cost ratios for bicycle
    facilities are usually much greater than for new motor vehicle facilities, which often struggle to
    reach a figure greater than 1. Even at the basic level, if more people cycled to work or play or the
    shops instead of travelling by automobile there would be a reduction in congestion, which surely is
    of great benefit to the remaining motorists. ( for a refutation of the argument that cyclists cause
    congestion see(1)). The potential health benefits of increased cycling are great, as outlined by
    Mayer Hillman(3) or by Dr Harry Owen, past president of the BFA.

    In summary, people who hold the opinion that cyclists should pay registration and other taxes are
    mistaken on many levels. Cyclists do pay taxes, motorists usually do not pay enough. Cycling has
    many benefits, including improvements to community health, which outweigh any costs or disbenefits,
    therefore bicycling should be encouraged. Cyclists have the legal right to use the roads, as the law
    for many years has recognised there is a substantial principle of equity and freedom of movement
    involved. Motorists have themselves caused the need for sometimes expensive retrofitting of bicycle
    infrastructure.

    (2) Todd Litman, (November 2000). Whose Roads? Defining Bicyclists' and Pedestrians' Right to Use
    Public Roadways. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Canada. http://www.vtpi.org/whoserd.htm

    (3) Mayer Hillman, (1992) Cycling: Towards Health and Safety. British Medical Association

    (4) Carl Scully MPO, NSW Minister for Transport. Foreword to Action for Bikes, Bike Plan 2010

    Other refs P schimek- the Dilemmas of bicycle planning

    "Andy Simpson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > From the SMH's Miranda Devine School for the Logically Challenged:
    >
    > http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/15/1050172595996.html
    >
     
  17. Glen F

    Glen F Guest

    A good summary. Reference?

    One minor point: Most of our residential street / collector road network was actually built by
    subdivision developers, not local councils. The capital cost was paid by the people who originally
    bought the blocks; only the maintenance cost is met from Council rates.

    Car registration fees and petrol taxes contribute essentially nothing to the vast majority of the
    urban road network.
     
  18. Mpd

    Mpd Guest

    "Lindsay Rowlands" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Andy Simpson <[email protected]>
    wrote:
    > : From the SMH's Miranda Devine School for the Logically Challenged:
    >
    > : http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/15/1050172595996.html
    >
    > Mr Tim Dare writes such appallingly tedious and pretentious prose that I'm surprised he has work
    > as a journalist. Beats me!
    >
    > Cheerz, Lynzz
    >
    > PS Anyone who can be bothered to find this guy's email address has my blessing. I'd love to give
    > my version of reality.

    Not his first piece of published shite

    http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/11/11/1036308630118.html

    Bureaucratic meddlers take the park out of Centennial ... Nine of the 21 newest initiatives on
    transport and access favour cyclists. Why isn't explained. Few cyclists pedal to the park, so the
    trust is to build storage facilities. Presumably they'll be charged, sooner or later, but nobody is
    saying. And stand by for a lively burglary business in expensive bikes. Nobody on the trust or in
    the bureaucracy is talking that up.

    ...
     
  19. poo poo heads. further evidence Sydney is full of wankers. I like the new plural term for cyclists
    though - locust swarm. . ...But little is being done to cope with the rise in amateur cyclist power.
    Whirling spokes are reaching occasional plague proportions on some roads. ... They're a road hazard,
    with apparent tacit approval of the State Government.

    if anyone has had a bus on their right + riding in the gutter at 30k when a door opens you will know
    what I am talking about. no where to go. or the left hand turn around you at 40k.or the right hand
    turn in front of you at 25k, I went into his passenger door - a pair of handlebars later

    For pedal-pumpers there are no tests, licences, registration fees, or
    third party or comprehensive insurance. They contribute nothing to the
    special road fund,

    of course I don't own a car, smell funny and only scuttle back to catch public transport when it
    gets sniffley. I do want to get there three cancelled trains later in a packed doorway with a
    newspaper in my face and umbrella up my clacker. I pay insurance on my car, bikes and Bike
    Victoria coverage. (Bike Vic's insurance company won't insure people in a share house but that's
    another story)

    Sydney councils are embracing the hokum of a 3per cent to 5per cent
    increase in cycling to and from work. Some are providing cycleways.

    if you have ridden a cycleway lately it is a dodgem course of dogs, walkers and a great way to get
    punctures. if you have ever had the old dog on leash dog turns around goes right and owner goes left
    at your honk of the bike horn you will know to avoid them.

    It's a myth that a hilly city, with narrow, potholed lanes, subject to
    sudden downpours and humid, 30C days can attract, or accommodate, a
    significant rise in ride-to-work cyclists. Because of demographics, any
    rise would reduce demand for public transport, not cars.

    the link of demographics is pure myth.

    Tim Dare is a Sydney wanker.
    > > From the SMH's Miranda Devine School for the Logically Challenged:
    > >
    http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/15/1050172595996.html
     
  20. Twisties

    Twisties New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Messages:
    145
    Likes Received:
    0
    so what they are aying is. they ant every1 to drive cars. people should not be allowed to ride bikes.

    cyclistst are not allowoed to ride on footpaths, and if ur not given a bike lane what other choice do u have?

    >Perhaps a politician or senior bureaucrat ran thin on original >ideas pinched on overseas junkets (only Europeans and >Americans have an original idea).
    (seams like this person hates australia:eek: )

    >That, in turn, would mean reduced bus and train services. But >any wet, cold, or hot, humid day would send cyclists scuttling >back to packed buses and trains. The public transport complaint >lines would be jammed. UH OH! the phone lines are going to be packed! crap!

    that made me realy angry....
    :mad: :mad:

    maybe tim shoud learn how to ride a bike before he makes fun of people who can!
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...