Bristol pay-as-you-go bike pilot scrapped
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Tosspot on 29 May 2010 03:54 On 28/05/10 23:39, The Medway Handyman wrote: > 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? What's this Road Tax you're on about?
From: tim.... on 29 May 2010 05:43 "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? No. He's claiming that NON road users should be subsidised. Theoretically this makes good sense. Whether it works in practice is another matter. Though the real problem is convincing people that it is the right thing to do. Most people don't see subsidises of non road uses as being of benefit to road users and think that it is just a subsidising someone else's journey to work whilst they pay the full cost, which isn't necessarily true. tim
From: JNugent on 29 May 2010 05:46 Tosspot wrote: > On 28/05/10 23:39, The Medway Handyman wrote: >> 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? > > What's this Road Tax you're on about? Don't tell him, Pike!
From: JNugent on 29 May 2010 05:55 tim.... wrote: > "JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >> 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? > No. He's claiming that NON road users should be subsidised. What - the bikes were not allowed on the highway anyway? > Theoretically this makes good sense. Whether it works in practice is > another matter. Amen to your last musing above. If the Hertz bikes weren't intended for use on the road, one wonders what practical use they could have been. > Though the real problem is convincing people that it is the right thing to > do. Most people don't see subsidises of non road uses as being of benefit > to road users and think that it is just a subsidising someone else's journey > to work whilst they pay the full cost, which isn't necessarily true. It is *self-evidently* true. Some may try to argue that it is in my interest to have my pocket picked in order to benefit others, but I - like most people - am resistant to such blandishments.
From: JNugent on 29 May 2010 05:57
DavidR wrote: > "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.) I am definitely a net contributor - by a long margin. Where do I go for my subsidy? Er... sorry... "bribe"...? > (*) 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. It doesn't matter, because what you wrote was not the definition of a subsidy anyway./ |