Bristol pay-as-you-go bike pilot scrapped
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: DavidR on 28 May 2010 15:47 "JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote > > Do users pay the entire cost, or is there a significant subsidy from > people deriving no benefit from it? When I pay my taxes to use a car, I consider VFM to be related to the amount of road I get. In order to get an extra 20 feet of road it is preferable to give someone a pound not to use it than to spend 10 pounds making more road.
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 28 May 2010 17:29 On Fri, 28 May 2010 15:52:10 +0100, Tosspot <Frank.Leake(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On 28/05/10 15:32, bugbear wrote: >> JMS wrote: >>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/8702011.stm >>> >>> Oh dear - I wonder if Boris's scheme will go the same way? >>> >>> >>> >>> I wonder if the newcomers to cycling in a city found it too dangerous? >> >> I wonder if the rents were too high, or the >> funding ran out? > >Well, if Moody had actually read the article, well I'll help, here's the >relevant bit... > >"Hourbike said more funding was needed" > >Although, as usual, it works fine in Germany, you find a bike, call a number on >your mobile, it automagically unlocks and off you go. When you finish, you lock >it again, and it's debited to your mobile account. More funding was need - ie it was not financially self sufficient. ie not enough people were using it. When it started - it was stated : "The plan is to have nine hubs and sixty bikes up and running starting in November and for the scheme to grow from there according to demand. " Get that : "according to demand". There was not the demand. It did not grow. It ran out of money Sorry sunshine - it has been scrapped - if it had been a roaring success, then it would not have been. -- Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for the Highway Code and laws. The answer: All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance, and be registered. Registration number to be clearly visible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest. Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed. (With thanks to KeithT for the idea)
From: The Medway Handyman on 28 May 2010 18:39 JNugent wrote: > Tosspot wrote: >> On 28/05/10 15:32, bugbear wrote: >>> JMS wrote: >>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/8702011.stm >>>> >>>> Oh dear - I wonder if Boris's scheme will go the same way? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I wonder if the newcomers to cycling in a city found it too >>>> dangerous? >>> I wonder if the rents were too high, or the >>> funding ran out? >> >> Well, if Moody had actually read the article, well I'll help, here's >> the relevant bit... >> >> "Hourbike said more funding was needed" >> >> Although, as usual, it works fine in Germany, you find a bike, call >> a number on your mobile, it automagically unlocks and off you go. >> When you finish, you lock it again, and it's debited to your mobile >> account. > > Do users pay the entire cost, or is there a significant subsidy from > people deriving no benefit from it? You mean like the subsidy Road Tax provides for cycle lanes etc? -- Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.
From: JNugent on 28 May 2010 18:39 DavidR wrote: > "JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote >> Do users pay the entire cost, or is there a significant subsidy from >> people deriving no benefit from it? > When I pay my taxes to use a car, I consider VFM to be related to the amount > of road I get. In order to get an extra 20 feet of road it is preferable to > give someone a pound not to use it than to spend 10 pounds making more > road. And? Are you *really* claiming (or trying to) that road-users should be subsidised?
From: DavidR on 28 May 2010 19:24
"JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote in message news:XNudnbflEYKq253RnZ2dnUVZ8nAAAAAA(a)pipex.net... > DavidR wrote: > >> "JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote > >>> Do users pay the entire cost, or is there a significant subsidy from >>> people deriving no benefit from it? > >> When I pay my taxes to use a car, I consider VFM to be related to the >> amount >> of road I get. In order to get an extra 20 feet of road it is preferable >> to >> give someone a pound not to use it than to spend 10 pounds making more >> road. > > And? > > Are you *really* claiming (or trying to) that road-users should be > subsidised? Perhaps it's a bribe not a subsidy (*). I am saying that when a tax payer pays for a service the agency involved has a responsibility to try and spend it in the most efficient manner. (Most people taking the bribe are likely to be net contributors, anyway.) (*) A subsidy usually involves taking money from the tax payer and passing it on to an enterprise producing at a loss - because there is insufficient demand to cover costs - and the government thinks it's better than having unemployed people on the books. This doesn't seem to apply here. |