"the fonz" wrote in message
news:de5a48e2-4b97-426d-9b7b-
> economists advocate pricing based on the externalities of an activity
> or product, i.e. those costs not already incurred.
Yeah, but economists don't send out registration renewals.
> in the case of cyclists, it would be difficult to justify what those
> externalities would be:
> 1. road wear - negligible
True enough.
> 2. congestion/road space - negative cost (societal benefit)
I'd argue that cyclists add to congestion woes in certain circumstances.
Particularly those on multi lane roads where the traffic is flowing at a
reasonable pace but has to slow and change lanes when a couple of bike
riders are riding two abreast in one lane at a dawdling pace upsetting all
the traffic behind them.
> 3. health care - negative cost (societal benefit)
Dunno about that.
Something tells me that riding a bike in city traffic wouldn't be much chop
for you.
> 4. road building - cost of bike paths, although since they're shared
> with pedestrians, so should the cost be - negligible
Many roads in Victoria have sections of the road dedicated purely to
cyclists, and in some cases they've shut down a complete lane and made it
exclusive to cyclists. Apart from the costs associated with doing this
(which we all have to pay for whether you ride a bike or not) there is also
the associated traffic problems that seem completely out of proportion to
the number of bikes that use these paths.
> 5. emissions (health care) - negative cost (societal benefit)
Agreed.
> the reality is that if you applied a registration cost to cyclists
> based on genuine, accepted economic principles, you'd have to pay them
> to use the road.
No, you wouldn't, unless you were also going to apply the same principles to
things like mopeds (which are so close to a pushbike it ain't funny).
Of course, some cyclists should pay a *heavy* annual premium for the right
to wear those .ing ridiculous mutil coloured outfits they wear that we
all have to look at and lose our lunch over.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
|