kwv

Comments from a certain Eric Noll in The Canberra Times (link to the comment and the comment is below) in reply to Warwick Bradly Sunday, 21 August 2005 is saying in one word or another cyclists don't pay their way.

Even those Eric never ever provide evidence to prove this and doesn't like it when asked to provide the evidence not only for this but other road safety matters as well.

And which is similar to what a certain Michael F Lane does, doesn't like when people ask him to provide evidence:

https://canberra.yourguide.com.au/det...nion_id=102194

Cars not paying their way
Eric Noll
Monday, 22 August 2005

Warwick Bradly
Sunday, 21 August 2005

Your piece on costs exceeding revenues relative to vehicle accident damages etc, is an arguable point, but, what in the world has that got to do with the fact that cyclists still do not contribute anything. All other vehicle users do, why are cyclists exempt. Cyclists certainly have more potential to incur serious injury than does a motor vehicle occupant and yet they make no contribution at all toward the costs associated with such an event. Seems a bit one sided to me

kf5nd

Those pesky pedestrians also don't pay petrol taxes, damn them to hell. And prams, well, they are simply unlicensed rogue vehicles, aren't they.

Stick a barcode on that baby's forehead!

Sawtooth

I have no problem with paying for the portion of the road that I use and use up. It is my belief that since roads are not entirely funded by car and gas taxes, I am probably already paying for more than my share since my bike causes very little wear and tear on the roads relative to cars.

webist

When my wife and I are out riding our bikes there are two automobiles parked at home. Both are well used and fully taxed. I don't think the writer has a clear understanding of the concept of 'public works."

InfamousG

Eric's comment was in reference to this:


A bicycle has very little chance to cause serious injury to a driver as a result of negligent riding. If a cyclist is at fault in an accident (such as running a red light or stop sign) the driver ('s insurance) is not obligated to pay the medical bills or to repair/replace the bike, the cyclist must pay the damage bills to the car. If a cyclist is injured as a result of a negligent driver, then yes, the driver ('s insurance) should be covering the costs.

The point of Eric's comment is rather moot and not a one-sided scenario. In the event of an at-fault collision, the person whom is at-fault is required to pay the damages.

Santaria

Sounds like the original mandatory insurance for vehicles stance, personally.

Or, alternatively, he wants no fault bicycle insurance so that a cyclist can't be compensated if a driver hits him? I'll have to reread and see if there is a underlying message there...

oboeguy

A leader on another forum I frequent said much the same. I pointed out that I'd be happy to overpay my share, say, $5 per year for my road usage on the bike.

trackhub

The Anti-bike writers and newspaper columnists have been making the same arguments since the 70's, when I first began riding as a young adult. You would think they would have come up with something else, something more original over the last thirty years, but no...

The people who use the "bikes don't pay fuel taxes and insurance" argument are usually the same ones who insist that "the roads were put there for cars!!" They simply don't want to hear that bicycles ruled the roads for years before the first model T clanged its way off the assembly floor. And telling such people about the good roads movement of the 1890's, (It was led by then L.A.W. president Horatio Earle) will either silence them, (for a few milliseconds, at least) or cause them to erupt like Mt. Saint Helens.

efarrar

This is just ridiculous. We live in a _petroleum_ economy. You paid your gas taxes when your mail was delivered, when your cable guy drove out to your house, when a farmer used gas to plow his land then deliver his grain to another farmer who used the grain to feed his cows who pays a guy to deliver the cows to the slaughterhouse who..... I think you get the picture. I can't think of the precise economic term, but basically everybody pays for roads and gas whether or not they actually go out and buy roads or gas. Similarly, everybody pays for the military to go fight a war; though you may buy your son a kevlar vest when he goes to Iraq you shouldn't expect me to buy him one too.

More potential to incur serious injury!?!?!?!? **** him. I got hit and run by a car today:
cyclist injured: 1
bicycle damages: $80
motorists injured: 0
car damages: >$500 (busted their front windshield)

And with regard to potential, the car almost hit another car and a pedestrian. How could 180 pounds of flesh and aluminum going 24mph possibly cause more damage than a half ton of steel going 40mph?

kwv

Eric Noll is still going on and on with with BS saying the article it was wrong but not providing evidence to say why, keep on asking is there is "something specific" am I am looking for even those I asked him before for evidence, saying "I also expect you to do your own research" etc etc etc

But at least the cyclists friend NOT M F Lane from The National Motorist Association has keep quiet or maybe he is letting Eric speak for him?

kwv

Those pesky pedestrians who don't pay petrol taxes, yes Eric is also damning them to hell especially himself as no matter how he feel he is an pedestrian..

Especially when he said they aren't allow to use the roads and when pointed out to him that pedestrians are allow to use to the roads.

Next thing he is saying they cannot use certain roads.

slagjumper

do smokers, drinkers and over-eaters and those with bad genes pay more? Not yet.