Imagine a helmet strapped on a human skull— forever (3 Viewers)

[SylviaB]

Ideally, we should all get floated around from destination to destination by magical unicorns.

The Age runs an exposé on how these poor creatures are being exploited by greedy corporations. RSPCA organises massive protests against the use of unicorn labour. Labour party includes helping the unicorns as part of their platform, and win the election.

government mandates wage and benefit increases and better working conditions for these unicorns, and introduce regulations prohibiting unicorns being made to work more than a certain number of hours a week. Although they were happy with their current workload, the unicorns gladly comply seeing as though they can now work less and get paid more.

this sends unicorn transport businesses broke. fearing public backlash over the loss of this transport, the government nationalises the unicorn transport industry

due to government bureaucracy and general incompetence, the system runs at a massive deficit and quality of service deteriorates

to cover the loses, taxes are jacked up and prices increase

customers begin to become frustrated with delays and the increasingly high prices. revenue decreases

meanwhile, a unicorn union is formed and organises a strike, demanding an increase in pay and number of sick days available to the unicrons. The government complies.

having now becoming lazy, unmotivated creatures, the unicorns abuse their sick day entitlements, with many failing to show up for work days at a time, exacerbating the existing delays. many develop drug, alcohol and gambling problems. Mass numbers of unicorns have to be retired with full state pension with benefits. Huge government funding in rehabilitation centres for these unicorns. taxes increased.

the government introduces taxes on all other forms of public transport to help keep unicorn transport afloat.


the few unicorns left strike again demanding massive wage increases because of their increased workload. government complies.

the system collapses, with the few, incompetent unicorns left being financially in-viable and being unable to sustain the system. entire unicorn transport industry collapses.

huge payouts are given for the unicorns who lose their jobs. Government greatly increases taxes to cover the loses of the failed unicorn system.
Free market capitalism gets blamed, strict regulation introduced on all other transport sectors.


So yeah, use buses.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

If only we didn't have roads... then we wouldn't be so dependent on our cars!

That's pretty disingenuous. You know my position on this. I don't favor abolishing roads, I favor privatizing them.

Surprise, surprise when you provide something to people free of charge they will over use it, because ITS FREE.

 

[philphie]

i don't want o pay for a road if i'm pedestrian crossing...

 

[Enteebee]

That's pretty disingenuous. You know my position on this. I don't favor abolishing roads, I favor privatizing them.

Surprise, surprise when you provide something to people free of charge they will over use it, because ITS FREE.

As far as I understand it, as it is now people pay far more in tolls/registration costs/taxes etc in NSW than the cost of the roads/maintenance. It is only once you include externalities such as Road Fatalities (loss of revenue from taxing that person) and Carbon pollution that the roads can be said to be running at a loss.

IDK if it's particularly clear cut that if people had to pay for the road and the maintenance that there would be less roads. Perhaps in more rural areas...

 

[BlackDragon]

IDK if it's particularly clear cut that if people had to pay for the road and the maintenance that there would be less roads. Perhaps in more rural areas...

Demand for roads in pretty inelastic, and I don't think privatising them would reduce their use too much. It might redirect traffic to the cheapest option, but that's it. If a person needs to drive from a to b then they are going to have to do it regardless.

 

[Graney]

LMFAO... You obviously live in a pretty lush neighborhood.

Just after the end of world war 2, a public opinion poll in Los Angeles showed 88% of the public were in favor of expansion of the rail network.

In the 1930's General motors, standard oil of california and Firestone bought the largest busmaker in the US, and took ownership of streetcar operations in 80 cities, systematically shutting down these operations.

In the 1950's, politicians influenced by the auto lobby, wiped plans for railways off the agenda. Traffic congestion increased, and the solution was always to build more motorways.

It's clear if you look at systems like the Los angeles transport system, that the growth in the motorways was driven strongly by corporate greed and political interests, and is a world away from actually serving the interests of the people of that city.

I think if you try to make a mass transit system around private vehicles, the system inevitably ends up something like the LA system.

Cars have their uses- for going unusual destinations at unusual times, which should be a minority of journeys.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Demand for roads in pretty inelastic, and I don't think privatising them would reduce their use too much. It might redirect traffic to the cheapest option, but that's it. If a person needs to drive from a to b then they are going to have to do it regardless.

Demand for roads is inelastic in the short term.

In the long term, demand for most things becomes elastic. People that already own cars and are used to using them for most of their travel are not going to change their habits overnight.

But over years and decades, people will of course respond to prices if public transport becomes comparatively cheaper and more efficient.

We see this in parts of Europe and Asia where taxes and registration costs on cars are much higher, and public transport is more efficient, usage of public transport is much, much higher. Of course population density is a huge factor. People often pull out the old, "Australia is such a huge country, its not viable" argument. Australia may be large, but most of the population lives in urban areas, and most travel takes place within those urban areas. There is no reason why we can't have greater urban consolidation in cities like Sydney and Melbourne, and shift towards investing more in public transport and less in roads within those cities while still maintaining a good network of regional and interstate roads. A great deal of urban consolidation has already taken place in Sydney, and the demand for higher density housing continues to grow. All we really need to do is lift things like height and density restrictions on new buildings.

 

[BlackDragon]

Demand for roads is inelastic in the short term.

In the long term, demand for most things becomes elastic. People that already own cars and are used to using them for most of their travel are not going to change their habits overnight.

But over years and decades, people will of course respond to prices if public transport becomes comparatively cheaper and more efficient.

We see this in parts of Europe and Asia where taxes and registration costs on cars are much higher, and public transport is more efficient, usage of public transport is much, much higher. Of course population density is a huge factor. People often pull out the old, "Australia is such a huge country, its not viable" argument. Australia may be large, but most of the population lives in urban areas, and most travel takes place within those urban areas. There is no reason why we can't have greater urban consolidation in cities like Sydney and Melbourne, and shift towards investing more in public transport and less in roads within those cities while still maintaining a good network of regional and interstate roads. A great deal of urban consolidation has already taken place in Sydney, and the demand for higher density housing continues to grow. All we really need to do is lift things like height and density restrictions on new buildings.

Well I certainly agree that in our major metropolitan centres there needs to be great shift towards more realistic population densities and centralised transport. The way things are now is a mess. But to a large extent, in terms of travel around Australia, it is hard to see how a more advanced non-road travel system could be implemented, because there simply aren't enough people to make it work. I certainly agree that long term change in our cities is possible and that much less use of cars is desirable, but it would take a really concerted long-term shift to make it possible. And not the sort of benign shift of privatising roads but a really direct change to a comprehensive, attractive and viable alternative. But that's really been the poison chalice of the last 15 years of NSW state government, nobody has been able to fund anything or introduce something great in terms of public transport. But I think shifting away from cars and unplanned low density housing needs more than that, it needs a shift in perspective on development and planning, and a complete shift in philosophy on everything really. But yep, i agree, inelastic demand shouldn't worry us overall.

 

[Enteebee]

Just after the end of world war 2, a public opinion poll in Los Angeles showed 88% of the public were in favor of expansion of the rail network.

That's cool... I'm sure lots of people favor expansion of public transport and want it to be better.

claim that cars are only more popular due to corruption

I really don't think so... For instance, I happen to know I wouldn't consider using the train for my daily trips into the city unless I knew:

a) It was the fastest way in/out (It's far slower).
b) I would have nearly as comfortable a trip (a seat would be nice, one that isn't next to some guy sweating all over you would be better)
c) There wouldn't be asshole kids all over the trains.
d) I could get either a good, safe parking spot for the train OR a similarly good bus trip to the station.

I honestly don't think I'm particularly different to your average person who doesn't take the train to work. Furthermore, I don't think a system could be put in place for most of us that would deliver these outcomes (while maintaining a roads system for unusual places/times) for less than the price we currently pay for our cars/the roads.

I only think it is a government or a society who could come to the conclusion upgrading the rail network would be better -- In that I only think once you start introducing externalities like carbon pollution that it starts to be a better deal.

---------

But sure, I agree with Dom. If we were to build more high-density housing designed around public transport and slowly transform our economy we could end up with a better system... But as Sydney stands now, I think roads will have to do.

 

[loquasagacious]

But sure, I agree with Dom. If we were to build more high-density housing designed around public transport and slowly transform our economy we could end up with a better system... But as Sydney stands now, I think roads will have to do.

The assumption here though is that people will want to live in higher densities. While I do think it is a great idea I don't know whether other people do and so I am skeptical that our transport problems could be solved (in twenty years) if we simply removed height/building restrictions.

 

[Graney]

That's cool... I'm sure lots of people favor expansion of public transport and want it to be better.

When 88% of people said they wanted more public transport, it was because few of their journeys were by car. You have to remember that in the early 50's, only half of all families owned cars, so the actions of industry, and the development of infrastructure at this time shaped how the car culture developed. It was forced on people, it was not developed in proportionate response to consumer demand.

I really don't think so... For instance, I happen to know I wouldn't consider using the train for my daily trips into the city unless I knew:

a) It was the fastest way in/out (It's far slower).
b) I would have nearly as comfortable a trip (a seat would be nice, one that isn't next to some guy sweating all over you would be better)
c) There wouldn't be asshole kids all over the trains.
d) I could get either a good, safe parking spot for the train OR a similarly good bus trip to the station.

These are reasonable concerns. I'm really thinking about once you get into cities on the scale of LA, and you've developed a culture where people expect these luxuries, and you continue to try to provide these things by building more and larger motorways, certainly you lose massively on the speed side of things, the expense, not to mention the energy efficiency.

Sydney shows every sign for expanding massively, which will increase congestion and slow travel times in comparison with an alternative mass transit system, with no real plan for way out.

I don't think oil has ever been priced to accurately reflect how precious and irreplaceable it is. It is priced to reflect expected availability for the next 80 year human lifespan at most, if it was accorded it's real potential value to humanity for the rest of human history, it would seem criminal to waste it on inefficient private transport.

But as Sydney stands now, I think roads will have to do.

I agree

The assumption here though is that people will want to live in higher densities. While I do think it is a great idea I don't know whether other people do and so I am skeptical that our transport problems could be solved (in twenty years) if we simply removed height/building restrictions.

People will only respond to price measures. It's actually cheaper for me to ride a small motorcycle than to travel by public transport, and a small car is only marginally worse.

I see development evolving and cities changing in mabye 50-100 years when rising oil prices force people to move into higher density. It's not really worth governments or individuals doing or advocating anything before then, the culture of independent, open plan living, with a large amount of personal space is too deeply ingrained.

 

[A High Way Man]

U guys are threatening to ruin the helmet industrie

 

[pman]

U guys are threatening to ruin the helmet industrie

you will never ruin the helmet industry or remove the need for roads, there will always be competative cyclists that will wear helmets or not be allowed to compete, There will also always be people who willwant roads, whether it be for bikes, cars or anything else, long distance public transport doesn't work! either the timetable won't suit or the car will be faster

 

[BlackDragon]

Notwithstanding the need for transport I think the world would be much more beautiful if there wasn't tarmac everywhere.

 

[TacoTerrorist]

Are you seriously asking this??
isnt it obvious to you that its beneficial to society that people not to be injured or killed in situations that could be easily prevented/minimised through the use of a helmet?

When are you dickheads going to realise that the government shouldn't have the right to tell you what to do? If I want to ride a bike without a helmet it's my own fault if I get seriously injured. The government shouldn't coerce me to wear one.

 

[pman]

they may not have the right to but they prob have the responsibility to

 

[murphyad]

When are you dickheads going to realise that the government shouldn't have the right to tell you what to do?

When are dickheads like you going to realise that the government doesn't not have the right to tell you what to do? See what's wrong with that sentence? Yep, the tone. Just Another Arrogant Libertard is what you are.

If I want to ride a bike without a helmet it's my own fault if I get seriously injured. The government shouldn't coerce me to wear one.

Yeah nice going, just totally ignore external social costs like healthcare expenses (possibly borne by the taxpayer), loss of productivity due to your injury/death and reduction of family and friends quality of life due to grief over the accident thanks to your foolhardy actions.

You clearly have no empathy whatsoever, and disregard the impact of you being a total dumb fuck and not wearing a helmet on those who you associate with. Or perhaps you have no friends at all, instead choosing to whittle away your life on the internet whining about the evil weevil government.

Definite neg rep earned for your efforts there, chum.

 

[TacoTerrorist]

When are dickheads like you going to realise that the government doesn't not have the right to tell you what to do? See what's wrong with that sentence? Yep, the tone. Just Another Arrogant Libertard is what you are.

'Libertard'? Care to elaborate? What are you, anti-liberty? I wrote the sentence therefore I choose the tone in which to express it.

Yeah nice going, just totally ignore external social costs like healthcare expenses (possibly borne by the taxpayer), loss of productivity due to your injury/death and reduction of family and friends quality of life due to grief over the accident thanks to your foolhardy actions.

On the highly unlikely chance that I were to be killed by not wearing a helmet, those repercussions you pointed out would be dire. However, fundamentally I am my own person and regardless of any such ramifications a person should have the right to not wear a helmet.

You clearly have no empathy whatsoever, and disregard the impact of you being a total dumb fuck and not wearing a helmet on those who you associate with. Or perhaps you have no friends at all, instead choosing to whittle away your life on the internet whining about the evil weevil government.

Untrue. Also, I didn't say I wouldn't wear a helmet, I said that I should have the right to not be made to wear one.

Definite neg rep earned for your efforts there, chum.

Don't care, fascist.

 

[murphyad]

'Libertard'? Care to elaborate?

I can sum up the term in one sentence.

Don't care, fascist.

On the highly unlikely chance that I were to be killed by not wearing a helmet, those repercussions you pointed out would be dire. However, fundamentally I am my own person and regardless of any such ramifications a person should have the right to not wear a helmet.

No. Don't forget, other people live in this world too.

Untrue. Also, I didn't say I wouldn't wear a helmet, I said that I should have the right to not be made to wear one.

The implication was that you were somehow displeased with such a grossly excessive imposition of authority by the government because you would choose otherwise were it possible. Besides, don't take it so personally. My remarks apply to anyone who shares your (irr)rationalisations.


Have a nice day.

 

[TacoTerrorist]

No. Don't forget, other people live in this world too.

Not wearing a helmet is about as victimless a 'crime' as you can get. So by your logic suicide should be illegal too? I mean, it would have psychological effects on your family.

You're ridiculous.