Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

[AUS] Pay-as-you-drive proposal to ease traffic congestion

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by pro-pilot, Mar 10, 2008.

  1. Well. The true need to front plate bikes and chip all vehicles is starting to become a little clearer.
    As mentioned before we are moving towards a draconian state where taxes and charges are the tool of the oppressor.
    But they will use the peer pressure of the brainwashed do-gooders to ensure your complicity!
    The facts are that the population is continually expanding. So there is a crunch time comming at some point.
    I am surprised that they are complaining about the road toll.


  2. All these proposals yet most get knocked back.
    do you honestly believe that with higher interest rates and mortgage issues people are having, plus the increasing cost of fuel etc. etc. etc. that the government will look at it and say mmmmmm... nup!
  3. Same thing in England, its retarded for one big arse reason. Why are the roads congested at certain times? Because thats when people have to go to work/clock off. Saying that people will change their habit to go at different times is plainly retarded, I don't think employers will share that thought!!!

  4. Re: [AUS] Pay-as-you-drive proposal to ease traffic congesti

    I love the language. If my paranoid schizophrenic brother finally kills himself with the constant cocktail of drugs he is on, can you call me up at 3am in the morning instead, just for old times sake?
  5. I hate how they assume low income earners can just change their habits like its a whim. Reliable transport is a necessity and a right.

    Highest interest rates in 10 years... :mad:
    already can't afford petrol but have to buy it... :mad:
    have to drive or we can't earn our pittence wage :?

    Fix public transport first, stop charging more and more for the crap service, then try taxing people off the roads.

    ...Oh, and why not invent another tax on grocery shopping FFS :evil:
  6. Yep, make public transport more available, more reliable and cheaper to encourage the use of that, rather than trying to make every other for of transport more expensive.

    I need my car for work. I need to travel in peak times, on congested roads. And I need a job to pay taxes. (And pollies wages).

    That being said, if people were to start using public transport as a primary means of getting to and from work, where would the government raise it's revenue from? So it makes economic sense to force more people on congested roads and charge them to do so.
  7. Re: [AUS] Pay-as-you-drive proposal to ease traffic congesti

    That's the same bullshit system they have in the UK. According to that this is an "environmentally friendly vehicle" simply because it's a hybrid - totally ignoring the fact it's fuel consumption is no better than most medium sized cars :roll:.

    Traffic congestion shouldn't be an issue in this country, we don't have that many people (other cities/countries cope with far more). Biggest mistake they ever made was not putting in a decent rail system - not only for passengers but also for freight. It would have meant a lot less large trucks on roads not designed for them.
  8. Victoria should take a look at singapores public transport system, second to none.
    Ours is a joke,
    perhaps a light rail system above the ground would allow the current rail lines to branch out to areas where required.

  9. After all they ARE politicians/government and if it means more revenue then hell yes they will bring it in, anything to fill their pockets with and empty joe blows even more!
  10. It's a freaking joke, right?

    The system is already "user pays". You drive a uneconomical gas guzzling piece of shit, and the govt. is already slugging you around 50% of the pump price when all is said and done.

    The system is already user pays. Is this just an idiotic proposal that attempts to ignore the fact that the govt. is already making a wad of cash out of every tankful than goes into cars at present?

    You drive in congested peak periods, and you pay more already, 'cos fuel economy isn't exactly great in stop-start traffic.

    As if we need yet another complicated levy system on top of this.

  11. Yes and considering some labor state governments are under the nose, particularly in NSW and Victoria they run a huge chance of being voted out under the current economic climate.
    A proposal is made by a bunch of bureaucrats commissioned by I believe the previous federal government to propose something.
    doesn't mean the proposal will see the time of day, much like many ludicrous proposals.
  12. i'd love to see a lower toll on the tulla when coming back from the airport at 10pm on sunday night, compared to the jokers who want to use it at 8:30 on monday morning.
  13. Good article in The Age recently...

    ...To put it simply, people like having a car. For most Australians, owning a car means having the freedom to travel wherever you want, whenever you want — just ask any giddy teenager with their newly acquired driver's licence.

    The urban historian Graeme Davidson describes how the automobile was a major impetus behind postwar gender equality in Australia, as women recognised that the freedom to drive also meant the freedom to do a lot more things. And, for a young person, owning a car — or even just being able to borrow their parents' car — has long represented a degree of personal autonomy.

    No matter how many billions the Victorian Government spends on public transport, it will never be able to challenge the independence provided by an automobile....

  14. The bit that effectively kills the idea, or rather, kills its credibility is this:

    We were supposed to see a lot of these taxes removed when the GST was introduced. Do you really expect any state government to forgo any of the above?

    People whinge and biatch now about stamp duty, and how GST or stamp duty is levied on each other (I forget which) and effectively having a tax on a tax. Yet no government has done anything about it.

    The crime in all this is where the toll roads were built, no rail system was built in tandem. For example Transurban has a contract with the state government one of the conditions of which ban any rail system being built along the Citylink corridor, particularly out to Melbourne Airport.
  15. If it's a government ploy, why is the suggestion coming from a motoring organisation?
  16. That's naive, Rob. While I have my doubts that they are behind this particular proposal, it's pretty much standard state government strategy nowadays to enlist some other organisation to "push" a particular idea for them, so they can be seen as simply "responding" to community demand. Motoring/insurance organisations are far from immune to this kind of deal-making.
    I can't see this one getting up, given the government's refusal to commit to expanding the public transport system. It's already at bursting point and nobody can afford to be seen to be spending big in the current economic circumstances.
  17. It was a Dorothy Dixxer Titus.

    Now the idea that the motoring organisations are in the government pocket is on the table...

    Personally, I find the idea that all 8 have been corrupted is a bit hard to believe...

    But still, take the prima facie case, a motoring organisation is putting this idea forward, how does it align with their motoring goals?
  18. Just to chuck in another point to ponder....

    When the congestion charge was introduced in central London, bikes were exempt. As a result, powered two wheeler use in the capital rose an estimated 20%.

    But better still, PTW crashes went down 20% too. I assume that this was due to a combination of fewer cars on the roads and more drivers who know riders (who have been shown in various studies to be more aware of PTWs even if they don't ride themselves).

    I can't remember if the crash reduction was in the rate or in the absolute figure, but either is impressive.

    Neither result would be a bad thing for motorcyclists.
  19. Yes guys - here is the most valid point - if a congestion charge is introduced - we riders won't have to pay. And it will make the roads safer for us.

    If we were serious - then maybe we should be arguing for the introduction of this charge.

    While the FNP issue is still on the agenda - I know that what they really plan is to insert a chip inside our headlights or something similar. Its not too hard and is technically feasible....

    To most of us FNP is all about revenue raising and speeding. If this is introduced its going to affect the entire population.

    If introduced the cost of introduction will be "user pays" - for every vehicle owner - PTW and otherwise.

    The question we need to answer - and quickly - is does it benefit us? I can see that there is a positive and a negative here. But, which way should we swing.....???