Bristol pay-as-you-go bike pilot scrapped
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: JNugent on 29 May 2010 19:04 DavidR wrote: > "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? I wouldn't dream of paying �1 per car to reduce the queue's length, if that's what you are trying to get at. That would cost me �20 per set of traffic lights. Not a runner. > OK let's say there *are* 19 cars in the queue but 20 people are travelling. > Why be miserable about it? What would it have to do with the amount of tax of which I was relieved?
From: tim.... on 30 May 2010 04:34 "JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote in message news:hPidnc7Wg-iuH5zRnZ2dnUVZ8q6dnZ2d(a)pipex.net... > 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 think you deliberately miss-understood I meant people who have been converted to non-drivers (for any particular journey). And I note that you haven't answered the question of your view of the principle. I therefore assume that you are embarrassed by your answer tim
From: DavidR on 31 May 2010 18:00 "JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote > DavidR wrote: >> "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? > > I wouldn't dream of paying �1 per car to reduce the queue's length, if > that's what you are trying to get at. > > That would cost me �20 per set of traffic lights. Sorry, I seem to be talking to a child. OK, so you object to someone being given use of a bike at your expense. So how about the people using buses and trains at your expense? Would you prefer it if some of them decided to switch and become part of the queue of cars in front of you?
From: JNugent on 31 May 2010 18:16
DavidR wrote: >>>> 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? >> I wouldn't dream of paying �1 per car to reduce the queue's length, if >> that's what you are trying to get at. >> That would cost me �20 per set of traffic lights. > Sorry, I seem to be talking to a child. TRANSLATION: "You just will not fall into my rather obvious traps..." > OK, so you object to someone being > given use of a bike at your expense. I object to people being given the (personal) use of anything at my expense if they have income of their own which can be used. Particularly if their income is equal to or greater than mine. But I know that you don't recognise the unfairness in such arrangements. > So how about the people using buses and trains at your expense? I'm not happy about that. > Would you prefer it if some of them decided to > switch and become part of the queue of cars in front of you? Whatever they choose - their choice being the operative phenomenon - I want them to finance their own journey. In full. I have plenty of much more worthwhile uses for my family's income, thanks. The issue about what they would do if they didn't get more half their fare paid by non-bus-using and non-train-using citizens (ie, the majority, on a daily basis) is not my concern. That's for them to worry about. |