Bristol pay-as-you-go bike pilot scrapped
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: tim.... on 29 May 2010 09:51 "JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote in message news:dt2dncMftbJcd53RnZ2dnUVZ8g0AAAAA(a)pipex.net... > tim.... wrote: >> "JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote in message >> news:UsudnU_H8d4MeZ3RnZ2dnUVZ8v-dnZ2d(a)pipex.net... >>> 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? >> >> They do not (usually) compromise the space need for a car. >> >>>> 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. >> >> So if by, say, taking a pound out of your pocket to persuade other not >> use a road, you save 1.50 in fuel costs because your journey is less >> congested, you would still rather use the money to buy fuel because you >> get to use the item being purchased rather than it benefiting an >> anonymous individual. Is that right? > > No, it isn't right. > > It's clear nonsense. > > Try to fabricate a less-unbelievable scenario. It's a perfectly reasonable scenario, not necessarily this one with the bikes, but for others. This is especially true when you add into the mix the cost of the time lost to congestion. You may value this time at zero but a trucking company doesn't tim
From: JNugent on 29 May 2010 12:04 tim.... wrote: > "JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >> tim.... wrote: >>> "JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >>>> 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? >>> They do not (usually) compromise the space need for a car. >>>>> 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. >>> So if by, say, taking a pound out of your pocket to persuade other not >>> use a road, you save 1.50 in fuel costs because your journey is less >>> congested, you would still rather use the money to buy fuel because you >>> get to use the item being purchased rather than it benefiting an >>> anonymous individual. Is that right? >> No, it isn't right. >> It's clear nonsense. >> Try to fabricate a less-unbelievable scenario. > It's a perfectly reasonable scenario, not necessarily this one with the > bikes, but for others. Are you sure you've got the numbers right? Let's recap on what you said: I have �1 taken out of my pocket... ....it is given to A N Other... ....who then swaps from an on-foot or bus journey to a bike for the day (or even from a car to a bike for the day) and... ....that saves me �1.50 in fuel (presumably just on that day)? Could you show your working out, please? Because it doesn't look right to me, even though you say it's a "perfectly reasonable scenario". > This is especially true when you add into the mix > the cost of the time lost to congestion. > You may value this time at zero but a trucking company doesn't What "time" are you talking about? In particular, what difference does a single passenger, transferring walking or a bus to a bike, in Bristol (of all places) make to my journey 150 miles or so away? Or to a truck going from Hull to Liverpool?
From: tim.... on 29 May 2010 15:33 "JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote in message news:h96dnfCLx4W5ppzRnZ2dnUVZ7t6dnZ2d(a)pipex.net... > tim.... wrote: > >> "JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >>> tim.... wrote: >>>> "JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >>>>> 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? > >>>> They do not (usually) compromise the space need for a car. > >>>>>> 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. > >>>> So if by, say, taking a pound out of your pocket to persuade other not >>>> use a road, you save 1.50 in fuel costs because your journey is less >>>> congested, you would still rather use the money to buy fuel because you >>>> get to use the item being purchased rather than it benefiting an >>>> anonymous individual. Is that right? > >>> No, it isn't right. >>> It's clear nonsense. >>> Try to fabricate a less-unbelievable scenario. > >> It's a perfectly reasonable scenario, not necessarily this one with the >> bikes, but for others. > > Are you sure you've got the numbers right? > > Let's recap on what you said: > > I have �1 taken out of my pocket... > > ...it is given to A N Other... > > ...who then swaps from an on-foot or bus journey to a bike for the day (or > even from a car to a bike for the day) and... > > ...that saves me �1.50 in fuel (presumably just on that day)? > > Could you show your working out, please? No I didn't say that. I said if there was a method of doing this would you still want to pay the 1.50. I'm just trying to find out your view on the principle > Because it doesn't look right to me, even though you say it's a "perfectly > reasonable scenario". > >> This is especially true when you add into the mix the cost of the time >> lost to congestion. > >> You may value this time at zero but a trucking company doesn't > > What "time" are you talking about? In particular, what difference does a > single passenger, transferring walking or a bus to a bike, in Bristol (of > all places) make to my journey 150 miles or so away? Or to a truck going > from Hull to Liverpool? We are not talking about taking one pound from you and giving it to a single person. We are talking about taking one pound from every taxpayer and using it to build something that reduces congestion, that is intended to be used by non drivers. tim
From: JNugent on 29 May 2010 17:08 tim.... wrote: > "JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote in message > news:h96dnfCLx4W5ppzRnZ2dnUVZ7t6dnZ2d(a)pipex.net... >> tim.... wrote: >> >>> "JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >>>> tim.... wrote: >>>>> "JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >>>>>> 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? >>>>> They do not (usually) compromise the space need for a car. >>>>>>> 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. >>>>> So if by, say, taking a pound out of your pocket to persuade other not >>>>> use a road, you save 1.50 in fuel costs because your journey is less >>>>> congested, you would still rather use the money to buy fuel because you >>>>> get to use the item being purchased rather than it benefiting an >>>>> anonymous individual. Is that right? >>>> No, it isn't right. >>>> It's clear nonsense. >>>> Try to fabricate a less-unbelievable scenario. >>> It's a perfectly reasonable scenario, not necessarily this one with the >>> bikes, but for others. >> Are you sure you've got the numbers right? >> >> Let's recap on what you said: >> >> I have �1 taken out of my pocket... >> >> ...it is given to A N Other... >> >> ...who then swaps from an on-foot or bus journey to a bike for the day (or >> even from a car to a bike for the day) and... >> >> ...that saves me �1.50 in fuel (presumably just on that day)? >> >> Could you show your working out, please? > > No I didn't say that. > > I said if there was a method of doing this would you still want to pay the > 1.50. > > I'm just trying to find out your view on the principle > >> Because it doesn't look right to me, even though you say it's a "perfectly >> reasonable scenario". >> >>> This is especially true when you add into the mix the cost of the time >>> lost to congestion. >>> You may value this time at zero but a trucking company doesn't >> What "time" are you talking about? In particular, what difference does a >> single passenger, transferring walking or a bus to a bike, in Bristol (of >> all places) make to my journey 150 miles or so away? Or to a truck going >> from Hull to Liverpool? > > We are not talking about taking one pound from you and giving it to a single > person. > > We are talking about taking one pound from every taxpayer and using it to > build something that reduces congestion, that is intended to be used by non > drivers. If it to be used by non-drivers (*think* about it), how could it ever reduce congestion? I shall discount the possibility that non-drivers habitually take taxis to work, because I know that not many do.
From: DavidR on 29 May 2010 18:10
"JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote > DavidR 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? >> >> 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. So, in fact, are most cyclists - or if studying most will eventually become contributors. > Where do I go for my subsidy? Er... sorry... "bribe"...? Let's start again. While you are driving in your car there might be a slow moving queue of 20 cars between you and the next junction. Now, had there been only 19 cars between you and the junction, you would have been better off. Do you not agree? OK let's say there *are* 19 cars in the queue but 20 people are travelling. Why be miserable about it? |