Noddy wrote:
> "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.
road _wear_ is negligible, but roads still need maintenance,
even if they aren't getting used. Look at the dedicated bike
lanes, and dedicated bikeways. They still need maintenance,
even if the bikes themselves cause negligible damage.
>
>> 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.
Agreed. And you just get past them, stop at a red light, and
the .wits overtake you on the left while you are stopped,
and you have to go through the whole routine again.
>
>> 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.
And they'll create a dedicated lane for the cyclists, and
the .wits still ride out in the main traffic anyway! Or
they'll have a concrete dedicated bike path separate from
the road - it'll be empty and they'll all be on the road.
Must be something about the seat pressure on their arse that
destroys their ability to think.
I wouldn't say the cost of road building would be
negligible. In many cases the bike lane takes up 10-20% of
the road surface. That's a lot of space and value dedicated
to just one type of road user.
>
>> 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.
>
> |