Reward for two-wheeled commuting?

Cyclists in bike lanes ride to work day lane filtering bus lanes reward

If cyclists have their way, the Federal Government should pay them a $5 daily reward for commuting to work and taking the strain off roads and public transport.

The ridiculous suggestion comes in the lead-up to the Federal election from the Bicycle Network which claims to be Australia’s biggest bike riding organisation with more than 50,000 members.

 

Politicians usually give in to the strong cycling lobby, but if they do this time, then they should also reward motorcyclists.

After all, have they not heard of the Belgian consultancy Transport & Mobility Leuven study that found if 10% of all private cars were replaced by motorcycles, it would reduce traffic congestion by 40%. 

If 25% went from steering wheel to handlebar, traffic congestion would cease.

Rules Lane filter splitting filtering reward
Motorcyclists ease congestion

Ridiculous reward

We are all for a carrot rather than a stick approach to social problems, but the Bicycle Network suggestion is ludicrous.

For a start, who would qualify? 

What about electric-assisted bicycles, scooters, skateboards, Segways etc?

And with the coming wave of electric motorcycles, should they also be included?

Where do you stop? Three-wheelers?

And how would the payment be made and monitored?

Cyclists reject paying registration and number pates, so any sort of automated reverse toll cameras would be impossible!

Bicycle claims

The Bicycle Network suggestion would cost the government $500m a year, but they say it would save more on road and transport infrastructure.

They also claim that for every kilometre cycled, society benefits up to $1.07. 

“An average bike commute of around 10km contributes $10, but an average commute by car in Australia costs society up to $9.30,” they claim.

“Rewarding people who ride to work with a $5 bonus will encourage even more people to swap out cars for bikes. 

“Keen bike commuters who ride every day could earn up to $1100 a year, while also saving on car and petrol costs.”

Absurd demand

Motorcycle Riders Association of Melbourne spokesman Damien Codognotto says bicycles and motorcyclists have a lot in common and agrees that more riders would ease traffic congestion.

“So if pushbike riders are paid $5 per commute motorbike commuters who pay registration and insurance for both their cars and their bikes, should get $5 too,” he says.

“The difference between bicyclists and motorcyclists, in this case, is that we rarely ask for the absurd!”

18 Comments

  1. NO!
    If you need to pay to change behaviour, we are on the wrong track. Much better to spend that $5 to build more bike ways. Then perhaps more cyclist take up push biking.

  2. Also, we forget that Government money is actually Our money. I object to even a tongue in cheek quip that my money should be dispersed in free coffees for cyclists.

  3. It’s never going to happen, but it gets people thinking and discussing!

    What we do need are more incentives to get people out of single-occupancy cars and into alternative forms of transport to/from work – whether that be bicycles, public transport, eBikes, scooters or motorcycles. Better bus routes, segregated cycle ways, better motorcycle filtering laws, motorcycle parking, showers and changing facilities at government offices, etc. They all help ease congestion and pollution in our cities.

    Vulnerable road users need to stick together and lobby for this sort of thing, not argue about who’s hogging the road by (legally) riding two abreast or who’s pipes are too loud…

  4. Love the first photo. Real separated bicycle infrastructure. Even a person or two without a helmet – quite a contrast from Australia where most riders are sporty and lycra (myself included when I ride a bicycle). It’s counter intuitive but relaxing the helmet law = more people riding, less driving, less congestion, cleaner air, better health outcomes. Throw in $5 a day to commute by bicycle and it’s win win. The Bicycle Network policy is a good idea that should be given a go rather than saying it would not work. No need to buy into any anti-cycling clickbait that is an unsavory characteristic of Australia

  5. Instead of despising cyclists we should be following their lead and copying them. If we had a strong lobby group in this state like Bicycle Queensland then we may have a chance of seeing some of the things we want and need happen.

  6. A good start would be adjusting registration costs. One of my bikes cost as much as my wife’s Kia Sorrento to register, $800.00. Our governments are more interested in money than almost anything else.

  7. My friends – I have seen what happens when a group of cyclists are in close proximity. Someone goes A over T and then down comes the whole group. Spill after spill after spill. Every Tour de France it’s the same thing – some stick insect in lycra washes out the front wheel with understeer and goes down, followed by a huge tangle of cycles. Tell me one time it hasn’t happened. Deadly dangerous. Giro d’ Italia, Vuelta a Espana, the Sun Tour, Commonwealth Games, Olympics. Supposedly the best treadly riders in the world – A over T without exception. Pathetic. Ever seen a mass motorcycle ride do the same thing? Of course not. The odd spit off here and there, but that’s it. Deadly treadlies. Should be banned. Too dangerous. Let bikes use the deadly treadly lanes. A much safer concept. Need more proof? The penny-farthing cycle – massive front wheel, tiny rear wheel. Effin ridiculous. Ever seen an equivalent design concept in motorcycles. Of course not. Point proved. Dickheads. Dangerous, deadly dickheads. Hoggin the road 20 abreast riding down the Avenue des Champs-Elysees – you see it every year. Dickheads.

  8. “The Bicycle Network suggestion would cost the government $500m a year, but they say it would save more on road and transport infrastructure.” — obviously The Bicycle Network ignores the road and transport infrastructure costs (on going) of building bicycle lanes (it has cost and continues to cost $miilions in Sydney CBD and surrounds). I have nothing against people commuting on a push-bike, however I see no reason why they should be subsidised; I do however see reason why they should pay some sort of registration given they are using public roadways and footpaths for free.

  9. WOW never ceases to amaze me how hostile non bike riders get when ever push bikes get mentioned. Take a chill pill! As far as paying for the roads go, my uneducated guess is almost all pushy riders have at least a car at home…..so they are paying for the road, and doing no damage to it. But if you want rego charges on pushys then lets make sure all YOUR kids (which in the end means YOU) have to have and pay for rego….that would be fun wouldn’t it.
    Lets face it, the more we encourage people on to push bikes the less congested the roads and the healthier the people will be…they are a great form of commuting. And the added bonus will be that there will be less people with ATTITUDE issues. Now that would be good for all road users.

  10. I think a better way to have cyclists reduce traffic congestion is to make then ride in a single file rather than 2 abreast. I’ve give them $10 a day if they did that!

  11. Every thing has a cost. Not taking any form of transportation other than your feet costs the government X dollars for every kilometre due to the loss of revenue from fuel tax and having to provide a sidewalk. And I’m sure that there is someone in the government who is actually thinking about the lost revenue not to mention the lobbyists who want us driving nothing but huge gas guzzlers.
    The filtering rules and speed limits are all designed with the idea of revenue raising as the primary concern and not safety as they claim. I doubt however that anyone in the bean counting department has looked at the cost of raising revenue this way, but if they have there is probably a formula they apply that says that as long as the cost of the extra hospitalisations infrastructure lost wages etc doesn’t exceed ninety percent of the revenue raised they won’t even look at changing their methods.

  12. Guys calm down. This proposal is nothing more than a clever way to get pollies and people thinking seriously about getting people out of their cars. They don’t expect to be taken seriously but it does make people (and more importantly pollies, who mostly aren’t people), sit up and take notice of the “economics argument” and think that maybe two wheels could be a good idea.

    There’s no downside for motorcyclists to this campaign.

  13. This happens in a few countries overseas, so maybe it’s worth looking into how they do it. For what it’s worth anything that reduces pollution, congestion and gets a few more people exercising is worth trying on a trial basis. Building wider roads at great expense just leads to more congestion.

  14. If public transport was reliable and more frequent and SAFE, then people would use it instrad of dtiving or riding to work each day.
    As for PAYING bicycle riders anything to ride to work is the most ridiculous proposal I have ever heard.
    Bicycle riders REFUSE to even.pay TAC insurance. Bicycle MUST be forced to pay TAC insurance so they stop BLUDGING on the rest of us who DO PAY TAC. WE COULD ALL PAY LESS TAC INSURANCE IF BICYCLE RIDERS PAID THEIR SHARE.
    UNTILL THEY PAY THEIR OWN TAC INSURANCE, THEN GIVE THEM NOTHING.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.