Little things that annoy you....

[IanG]

This is just such nonsense.

I'm amazed how many people don't even understand what rego is, or pays for.

Registration is calculated based on how much damage a vehicle does to the roads, based on weight. The amount a cyclist would have to pay, based on the same calculation, doesn't cover the cost of the administration to file it.

Isn't the large majority of road damage done by trucks? I don't think their rego costs reflects that. I could be wrong though.

 

[Coburgtiger]

All of this is beside the point anyway. When a motorist screams out the window at me to pay rego, or throws a water bottle at my head (both happened in the past month), I feel like stopping and reminding them that I pay just as much rego as them. I just left my car at home, and got on this smaller, greener, less destructive vehicle instead.

 

[tigersnake]

Am l missing something here ?.

yes you are gutful.

 

[jb03]

I would always prefer to use a bike path than a city road if I was riding, but from what I see and understand, many bike paths are not suitable for riding at speed, not are they necessarily suitable for road bikes.
many have blind corners are narrow, have slow riders and walkers, and are not the direct routes a cyclist may need.
but people expect cyclists to go out of their way, and ride either a lot slower or unsafely so they do not cause any inconvenience for people driving cars. most people riding bikes on the road rather than a bike path do so for valid reasons.

Aren't slow riders and walkers to cyclists on bike paths the same relationship as bikes are to cars on roads?

 

[Baloo]

Aren't slow riders and walkers to cyclists on bike paths the same relationship as bikes are to cars on roads?

Yeah, pretty much what I was thinking. Cars are also forced to stay on the roads even if the destination isn't a direct route.

 

[Rosy]

Oxalis in the vegie garden.

 

[The_General]

And 'they' are just people on bikes. As opposed to people in cars. 'They' are not a different species. Most also own a car. Think of it this way, I pay just as much registration as any other car user. Some mornings I use my car, some I use my pushbike. In every way, shape, and form it's better for congestion, traffic, the environment and sustainability that I ride my bike. I'm paying the rego to drive my car, but I'm riding my bike instead. I, like every other cyclist, also pay taxes (which are what actually pays for the roads). The idea that 'they don't contribute a cent' is simply ridiculous.

I contribute exactly what a motorist contributes. I just ride a smaller, greener vehicle on occasion.

Also, there are a number of reasons people cycle, and the fact that it's free is a major one. Introducing rego is just going to force more of them into cars, which is going to destroy congestion.

Again, most cyclists are also taxpayers who pay registration on their cars anyway. And, in the end, when I'm sitting at my steering wheel behind an idiot cyclist who is cycling slowly in front of me, weaving in and out of parked cars, and making me slam on the brakes, I think, would this be less frustrating if they paid a fee to be there?

Rego for cyclists will increase congestion, and do nothing for frustration. You'll just be mad at them without a reason to vent about it.

Sorry Coburg, but this is where you just kinda twist things about a bit to justify not paying.

If I have a car, I pay rego. If I have a second car, I pay a second rego. I don't just pay a flat fee and get to drive as many vehicles as I like and say "but I've paid my rego on the one car, it's all good."
Yes, bikes reduce congestion, when they are not in front of cars blocking up the traffic. When they do that, it's creating congestion. When roads like Ohea St (You're a Coburgian, you'd understand the road) are reduced to make it one lane either way and then to put in a bike path (which cyclists rarely use!) it creates congestion. (Yes ToO, Beach Rd is like this, only probably 10x worse). So we've got extra infrastructure being installed for cyclists (who don't pay registration) at the expense of motorists who do. That's beyond annoying. If cyclists want special infrastructure, they should be made to pay specifically for it, just like those who drive cars do via registration an taxes on fuel. Do cyclists pay for TAC insurance for riding their bike? No. There aren't many instances in which are cyclist can't claim TAC reimbursement though (basically if you drive into something and hit it at your own fault, you're not covered). No, those costs are built into higher car registrations.


I'd much prefer to see the government invest that money in railways and tram systems which can decrease the amount of cars (and bikes) off roads significantly more than a bike path.

Most cyclists claim to ride the main reasons they ride bikes are for environmental and health benefits. They are spot on, those are massive benefits. I don't see cyclists saying however that they are going to forego those things, if they have to pay a smaller registration than a car and as a side benefit get infrastructure and TAC insurance as a result.

Lastly, it's not so much that cyclists are slow that's the problem. It's that they are inconsiderate. Let's say I'm driving the black spur, and want to take it easy and enjoy the scenery. For those that want to go quicker, I simply pull over into the passing areas and let cars past. I acknowledge others want to enjoy their day and how much of an inconvenience is it really for me to move aside and let them pass? It takes 30 seconds, and everyone's happy. Just takes a little courtesy....

 

[Tigers of Old]

Yes, bikes reduce congestion, when they are not in front of cars blocking up the traffic. When they do that, it's creating congestion. When roads like Ohea St (You're a Coburgian, you'd understand the road) are reduced to make it one lane either way and then to put in a bike path (which cyclists rarely use!) it creates congestion.

Aren't slow riders and walkers to cyclists on bike paths the same relationship as bikes are to cars on roads?

Well said!

 

[Coburgtiger]

Sorry Coburg, but this is where you just kinda twist things about a bit to justify not paying.

If I have a car, I pay rego. If I have a second car, I pay a second rego. I don't just pay a flat fee and get to drive as many vehicles as I like and say "but I've paid my rego on the one car, it's all good."
Yes, bikes reduce congestion, when they are not in front of cars blocking up the traffic. When they do that, it's creating congestion. When roads like Ohea St (You're a Coburgian, you'd understand the road) are reduced to make it one lane either way and then to put in a bike path (which cyclists rarely use!) it creates congestion. (Yes ToO, Beach Rd is like this, only probably 10x worse). So we've got extra infrastructure being installed for cyclists (who don't pay registration) at the expense of motorists who do. That's beyond annoying. If cyclists want special infrastructure, they should be made to pay specifically for it, just like those who drive cars do via registration an taxes on fuel. Do cyclists pay for TAC insurance for riding their bike? No. There aren't many instances in which are cyclist can't claim TAC reimbursement though (basically if you drive into something and hit it at your own fault, you're not covered). No, those costs are built into higher car registrations.


I'd much prefer to see the government invest that money in railways and tram systems which can decrease the amount of cars (and bikes) off roads significantly more than a bike path.

Most cyclists claim to ride the main reasons they ride bikes are for environmental and health benefits. They are spot on, those are massive benefits. I don't see cyclists saying however that they are going to forego those things, if they have to pay a smaller registration than a car and as a side benefit get infrastructure and TAC insurance as a result.

Lastly, it's not so much that cyclists are slow that's the problem. It's that they are inconsiderate. Let's say I'm driving the black spur, and want to take it easy and enjoy the scenery. For those that want to go quicker, I simply pull over into the passing areas and let cars past. I acknowledge others want to enjoy their day and how much of an inconvenience is it really for me to move aside and let them pass? It takes 30 seconds, and everyone's happy. Just takes a little courtesy....

General, there are about 90 things I disagree with in that post, to the point where an argument seems futile.

Just the thought of starting a rant against the claim 'cyclists are inconsiderate' - as if they're some sub species of human with a different social aptitude - gets me all worked up.

I'll just say this, people are people and behave like people regardless of their vehicle.

One thing I do agree with, is the stupidity of the O'hea St bike path. It's just about the worst designed piece of infrastructure in Melbourne.

They took a great, wide, functional road, and turned it into a narrow nightmare. When I'm driving, I avoid it at all costs.

The stupidest part is, as a cyclist who near daily crosses from West to East, I also avoid it at all costs. It is so so dangerous for cyclists, because it has both lanes running down one side of the street. No motorist entering from a side street would ever expect a cyclist to be coming from their left on their side.

It also is practically invisible to motorists. And it's extremely uncomfortable for cyclists, because it's paved so that your constantly getting jolted.

Even stupider, yes, it connects to the upfield bike path on the East side, but it just spits out on to a main road on the other.

It's bad for motorists, bad for cyclists, dangerous, uncomfortable, pointless, and it's ruined what was a great road. The worst part, I now ride down Gaffney St. Even though this expensive new bike path is 1 block away. I have to in order to not die.

As a TAXPAYER (this path was funded by the Department of Sustainability and Environment) I'm massively annoyed that my money as been wasted on this venture.

Because as much as your nonsense suggests otherwise, cycling does significantly reduce congestion. That does not mean a cyclist never causes congestion. It means that there is a huge amount less congestion than there would be, if all those cyclists were driving cars.

 

[AngryAnt]

Why do people ride bikes ?
1/ To get fit

Saves the government millions on health expenditure even with the increased costs due to accident/mortality.

2/ Climate change supporter ?

You have it the wrong way round. Internal combustion engine users "support" climate change, cyclists are climate neutral in their effects.

 

[Rosy]

....... Internal combustion engine users "support" climate change,......

Do they? What do you mean by support climate change? I drive a car but I wasn't aware I support climate change.

 

[AngryAnt]

Do they? What do you mean by support climate change?

I love your rhetorical questions rosy. :hihi

For the record I own four internal combustion engines, one car, two motorbikes and a lawnmower. When I use them, I'm contributing to climate change by pushing extra CO2 into Earth's atmosphere. I also "support" climate change in other ways by using energy produced from brown coal (although I try to purchase electricity from renewable sources), consuming meat and other goods that get trucked to me, using other products etc etc. I also ride a pushbike to work halfway most days - I ride to flinders st and then get a train the rest of the way, love to ride the whole way but at 34 kms would make my day even longer.

I also fly overseas occasionally.

I'm a leftie/greenie but I have to be realistic about the impacts my lifestyle has on the planet, and trying to minimise these impacts when I can.

So yeah, if I drive a car every day then I am supporting climate change much more than someone who rides a pushbike every day instead.

 

[Rosy]

I love your rhetorical questions rosy. :hihi

.....

Good to know. If my questions were rhetorical then the answers are no and I don't.

 

[Willo]

I love your rhetorical questions rosy. :hihi

For the record I own four internal combustion engines, one car, two motorbikes and a lawnmower. When I use them, I'm contributing to climate change by pushing extra CO2 into Earth's atmosphere. I also "support" climate change in other ways by using energy produced from brown coal (although I try to purchase electricity from renewable sources), consuming meat and other goods that get trucked to me, using other products etc etc. I also ride a pushbike to work halfway most days - I ride to flinders st and then get a train the rest of the way, love to ride the whole way but at 34 kms would make my day even longer.

I also fly overseas occasionally.

I'm a leftie/greenie but I have to be realistic about the impacts my lifestyle has on the planet, and trying to minimise these impacts when I can.

So yeah, if I drive a car every day then I am supporting climate change much more than someone who rides a pushbike every day instead.

What about the extra co2 bike riders exhale?

 

[TigerForce]

For the record I own four internal combustion engines, one car, two motorbikes and a lawnmower. When I use them, I'm contributing to climate change by pushing extra CO2 into Earth's atmosphere.

This adds to my little annoyances. Idiots who still drive pre-2000 vehicles with exhaust fumes blowing out. If they can't buy a new vehicle, at least get the pipes fixed!!. I usually drive with windows down (even on hot days as I don't like using the Air Con in the car) and always end up inhaling a lot of this bad air.

 

[AngryAnt]

What about the extra co2 bike riders exhale?

Good point. I also fart a lot even when not cycling, methane is another contributor to atmospheric heat retention.

 

[AngryAnt]

Good to know. If my questions were rhetorical then the answers are no and I don't.

You can be as well intentioned as you like - your car still emits C02 when you drive it, and the atmosphere doesn't care that you don't support climate change.

 

[TigerForce]

Good point. I also fart a lot even when not cycling, methane is another contributor to atmospheric heat retention.

Dr lamb22 suggests: :hihi

 

[Rosy]

You can be as well intentioned as you like - your car still emits C02 when you drive it, and the atmosphere doesn't care that you don't support climate change.

There's a difference in supporting climate change and contributing to it. It's almost impossible not to contribute to it. I try to lessen the impact by planting thousands of trees.

 

[taztiger4]

This adds to my little annoyances. Idiots who still drive pre-2000 vehicles with exhaust fumes blowing out. If they can't buy a new vehicle, at least get the pipes fixed!!. I usually drive with windows down (even on hot days as I don't like using the Air Con in the car) and always end up inhaling a lot of this bad air.

Is that right ?, my 66 Falcon is the ultimate in recycling & green friendlyness, your POS modern car created tonnes & tonnes of green house gases during manufacture, every little bit of it is created by machine not man like mine & machines need electricity generated by coal & gas
p.s your stupid habit of not using the aircon will cause the seals in the ac pipework to dry out ,and in next to no time you will be pumping ozone depleting R134a into the atmosphere