56
Stop the free ride: all motorists should pay their way, whatever vehicle they drive
(theconversation.com)
A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.
If you're posting anything related to:
If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News
This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:
Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition
Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:
https://aussie.zone/communities
Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.
Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone
So tax cyclists a nominal amount. $10/year.
Hang on , though. Tell me - because I don't know - who pays for cyclist injury compensation? e.g. Car and cyclist collide, cyclist is taken off to hospital where they lose a foot. Those who pay the third-party personal injury component of vehicle registration are covered for compensation for that sort of injury. Where would a cyclist's compensation come from?
And if it comes from the same insurance pool as motorists, why aren't cyclists contributing?
FWIW I'm the most polite and respectful motorist when it comes to cyclists, but if they're using the road, they should share the cost. Even a nominal amount would be good. Right now they get to use the road without contributing like other road users.
For clarity: your idea of $10/year as a "nominal" amount is itself patently absurd. That's an enormous cost, many hundreds of times more than the amount that would be proportional to how much damage they do to the infrastructure, compared to other vehicles.
If you wanted a truly "fair" price, it would be measured in cents, if that. And at that point, the cost to administer the system would far outweigh the revenue brought in.
Absolutely fucking terrible idea.
From the driver. When bikes and cars collide, the driver is basically always responsible, so they're the ones who pay.
Cyclists don't create a cost. More cyclists is literally a net positive economically, the exact opposite of car drivers. Cyclists cause negligible wear and tear on the roads, even once you account for the risk of crashes (which is actually a car's fault anyway), they're a lower burden on public healthcare, and they're more likely to be spending money at local businesses.
Literally everything about encouraging more people to ride rather than drive is positive. And by extension, putting up any barriers is a terrible idea. Even a "nominal amount" would deter huge numbers of people from cycling. And that's not the effect we want.