Blissfully not my own government.

https://cyclingindustry.news/cycle-to-work-needs-urgent-systemic-change/
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Friday, January 26, 2024 at 1:13:21 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> Blissfully not my own government.
>
> https://cyclingindustry.news/cycle-to-work-needs-urgent-systemic-change/
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> a...@yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

I'm not clear what they're trying to do. Get people to commute via bicycle more?

Tom Kunich <cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, January 26, 2024 at 1:13:21 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>> Blissfully not my own government.
>>
>> https://cyclingindustry.news/cycle-to-work-needs-urgent-systemic-change/
>> --
>> Andrew Muzi
>> a...@yellowjersey.org
>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>
> I'm not clear what they're trying to do. Get people to commute via bicycle more?
>
That is the idea of the scheme yes, it’s quite old now.

Would seem to be be funded by the bike retailers and as government stuff is
over complicated, with a fair amount of bending the law over bikes mainly
as no one wanted the hassle mainly.

Roger Merriman

On 1/27/2024 3:50 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Friday, January 26, 2024 at 1:13:21 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>> Blissfully not my own government.
>>
>> https://cyclingindustry.news/cycle-to-work-needs-urgent-systemic-change/

>
> I'm not clear what they're trying to do. Get people to commute via bicycle more?

Well, probably despite a long history of failures worldwide.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 09:20:32 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 1/27/2024 3:50 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> On Friday, January 26, 2024 at 1:13:21?PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>> Blissfully not my own government.
>>>
>>> https://cyclingindustry.news/cycle-to-work-needs-urgent-systemic-change/
>
>>
>> I'm not clear what they're trying to do. Get people to commute via bicycle more?
>
>Well, probably despite a long history of failures worldwide.

Why is there such a driving issue of trying get people to commute on
bicycles?

On 1/28/2024 9:41 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 09:20:32 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 1/27/2024 3:50 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> On Friday, January 26, 2024 at 1:13:21?PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> Blissfully not my own government.
>>>>
>>>> https://cyclingindustry.news/cycle-to-work-needs-urgent-systemic-change/
>>
>>>
>>> I'm not clear what they're trying to do. Get people to commute via bicycle more?
>>
>> Well, probably despite a long history of failures worldwide.
>
> Why is there such a driving issue of trying get people to commute on
> bicycles?

Project contracts, the wellspring of kickbacks to the people
who administer the projects.

And they just keep on giving! Every obvious and flagrant
failure leads to a call for a new program!

A nearby city has made dramatic and expensive changes to its
bus system every few years since they bought out the private
operator 50 years ago. It still sucks and it still loses
piles of money on operations (capital expenses having been
utterly lost already). But 'New New New' is the incessant
answer, citizens be damned or at least run over. The latest
is a system of raised platforms in the center of a 6 lane
major avenue so old ladies with their walkers will cross
three lanes, mount the steps and then stand in the snow as
cars spray them with slush/crud mix. Brilliant!

--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 09:20:32 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 1/27/2024 3:50 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> On Friday, January 26, 2024 at 1:13:21?PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> Blissfully not my own government.
>>>>
>>>> https://cyclingindustry.news/cycle-to-work-needs-urgent-systemic-change/
>>
>>>
>>> I'm not clear what they're trying to do. Get people to commute via bicycle more?
>>
>> Well, probably despite a long history of failures worldwide.
>
> Why is there such a driving issue of trying get people to commute on
> bicycles?
>

this is uk so mostly aimed at the big cities such as london. I *think* it
predates all of the more modern cycle infrastructure, but either way bikes
are cheap for a city in that they are extremely efficient of space and any
infrastructure is relatively cheap, as these things go.

Certainly london number of junctions/areas bikes outnumber cars by quite
some margin during peak times.

Roger Merriman

On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 16:56:23 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:

>Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 09:20:32 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/27/2024 3:50 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>> On Friday, January 26, 2024 at 1:13:21?PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> Blissfully not my own government.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://cyclingindustry.news/cycle-to-work-needs-urgent-systemic-change/
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not clear what they're trying to do. Get people to commute via bicycle more?
>>>
>>> Well, probably despite a long history of failures worldwide.
>>
>> Why is there such a driving issue of trying get people to commute on
>> bicycles?
>>
>
>this is uk so mostly aimed at the big cities such as london. I *think* it
>predates all of the more modern cycle infrastructure, but either way bikes
>are cheap for a city in that they are extremely efficient of space and any
>infrastructure is relatively cheap, as these things go.
>
>Certainly london number of junctions/areas bikes outnumber cars by quite
>some margin during peak times.
>
>Roger Merriman

It seems to me that the majority of people simply prefer NOT to
commute on their bicycles.

Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 16:56:23 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 09:20:32 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/27/2024 3:50 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, January 26, 2024 at 1:13:21?PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> Blissfully not my own government.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://cyclingindustry.news/cycle-to-work-needs-urgent-systemic-change/
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not clear what they're trying to do. Get people to commute via bicycle more?
>>>>
>>>> Well, probably despite a long history of failures worldwide.
>>>
>>> Why is there such a driving issue of trying get people to commute on
>>> bicycles?
>>>
>>
>> this is uk so mostly aimed at the big cities such as london. I *think* it
>> predates all of the more modern cycle infrastructure, but either way bikes
>> are cheap for a city in that they are extremely efficient of space and any
>> infrastructure is relatively cheap, as these things go.
>>
>> Certainly london number of junctions/areas bikes outnumber cars by quite
>> some margin during peak times.
>>
>> Roger Merriman
>
>
> It seems to me that the majority of people simply prefer NOT to
> commute on their bicycles.
>
It’s not so much the numbers who cycle but that they aren’t driving even
using public transport etc where each person uses a much bigger footprint.

As ever depends on the journey location and what one is doing!

Roger Merriman

On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 17:28:58 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:

>Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 16:56:23 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 09:20:32 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/27/2024 3:50 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, January 26, 2024 at 1:13:21?PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>> Blissfully not my own government.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://cyclingindustry.news/cycle-to-work-needs-urgent-systemic-change/
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not clear what they're trying to do. Get people to commute via bicycle more?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, probably despite a long history of failures worldwide.
>>>>
>>>> Why is there such a driving issue of trying get people to commute on
>>>> bicycles?
>>>>
>>>
>>> this is uk so mostly aimed at the big cities such as london. I *think* it
>>> predates all of the more modern cycle infrastructure, but either way bikes
>>> are cheap for a city in that they are extremely efficient of space and any
>>> infrastructure is relatively cheap, as these things go.
>>>
>>> Certainly london number of junctions/areas bikes outnumber cars by quite
>>> some margin during peak times.
>>>
>>> Roger Merriman
>>
>>
>> It seems to me that the majority of people simply prefer NOT to
>> commute on their bicycles.
>>
>It’s not so much the numbers who cycle but that they aren’t driving even
>using public transport etc where each person uses a much bigger footprint.
>
>As ever depends on the journey location and what one is doing!
>
>Roger Merriman

In order for bicycle commuting to be more common, people will have to
stop living so far from their jobs. For several years, I drove 35
miles to my job. That's not uncommon.

Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 17:28:58 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 16:56:23 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 09:20:32 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/27/2024 3:50 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, January 26, 2024 at 1:13:21?PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>> Blissfully not my own government.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://cyclingindustry.news/cycle-to-work-needs-urgent-systemic-change/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not clear what they're trying to do. Get people to commute via bicycle more?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, probably despite a long history of failures worldwide.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is there such a driving issue of trying get people to commute on
>>>>> bicycles?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> this is uk so mostly aimed at the big cities such as london. I *think* it
>>>> predates all of the more modern cycle infrastructure, but either way bikes
>>>> are cheap for a city in that they are extremely efficient of space and any
>>>> infrastructure is relatively cheap, as these things go.
>>>>
>>>> Certainly london number of junctions/areas bikes outnumber cars by quite
>>>> some margin during peak times.
>>>>
>>>> Roger Merriman
>>>
>>>
>>> It seems to me that the majority of people simply prefer NOT to
>>> commute on their bicycles.
>>>
>> It’s not so much the numbers who cycle but that they aren’t driving even
>> using public transport etc where each person uses a much bigger footprint.
>>
>> As ever depends on the journey location and what one is doing!
>>
>> Roger Merriman
>
> In order for bicycle commuting to be more common, people will have to
> stop living so far from their jobs. For several years, I drove 35
> miles to my job. That's not uncommon.
>

Well yes, that’s a long old slog in and back. Do get a reasonable number
around here, long before the cycleways commuting into the city/Canary Wharf
and so on, which is 15/20 miles in.

But it’s a fairly grim or rather crowded train in, plus tube/bus. And one
pays handsomely for the privilege enough that if someone is a fit roadie
can say i could buy a decent bike for the annual travel card!

Hence on dark evenings can see the lights in Richmond Park making there way
home!

Roger Merriman

On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 09:20:32 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 1/27/2024 3:50 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> On Friday, January 26, 2024 at 1:13:21?PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>> Blissfully not my own government.
>>>
>>> https://cyclingindustry.news/cycle-to-work-needs-urgent-systemic-change/
>
>>
>> I'm not clear what they're trying to do. Get people to commute via bicycle more?
>
>Well, probably despite a long history of failures worldwide.

But, when it's spring time in Alaska it's 40 below :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 16:56:23 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:

>Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 09:20:32 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/27/2024 3:50 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>> On Friday, January 26, 2024 at 1:13:21?PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> Blissfully not my own government.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://cyclingindustry.news/cycle-to-work-needs-urgent-systemic-change/
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not clear what they're trying to do. Get people to commute via bicycle more?
>>>
>>> Well, probably despite a long history of failures worldwide.
>>
>> Why is there such a driving issue of trying get people to commute on
>> bicycles?
>>
>
>this is uk so mostly aimed at the big cities such as london. I *think* it
>predates all of the more modern cycle infrastructure, but either way bikes
>are cheap for a city in that they are extremely efficient of space and any
>infrastructure is relatively cheap, as these things go.
>
>Certainly london number of junctions/areas bikes outnumber cars by quite
>some margin during peak times.
>
>Roger Merriman

But what about the 155 days of rain?
--
Cheers,

John B.

John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 16:56:23 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 09:20:32 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/27/2024 3:50 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, January 26, 2024 at 1:13:21?PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> Blissfully not my own government.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://cyclingindustry.news/cycle-to-work-needs-urgent-systemic-change/
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not clear what they're trying to do. Get people to commute via bicycle more?
>>>>
>>>> Well, probably despite a long history of failures worldwide.
>>>
>>> Why is there such a driving issue of trying get people to commute on
>>> bicycles?
>>>
>>
>> this is uk so mostly aimed at the big cities such as london. I *think* it
>> predates all of the more modern cycle infrastructure, but either way bikes
>> are cheap for a city in that they are extremely efficient of space and any
>> infrastructure is relatively cheap, as these things go.
>>
>> Certainly london number of junctions/areas bikes outnumber cars by quite
>> some margin during peak times.
>>
>> Roger Merriman
>
> But what about the 155 days of rain?

Commute type of folks don’t seem particularly concerned with weather, ie
fairly hardly lot more leisure lot who are.

Roger Merriman

Am 27.01.2024 um 22:50 schrieb Tom Kunich:
> On Friday, January 26, 2024 at 1:13:21 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>> Blissfully not my own government.
>>
>> https://cyclingindustry.news/cycle-to-work-needs-urgent-systemic-change/
>
> I'm not clear what they're trying to do. Get people to commute via bicycle more?

In "high-tax" countries, one extremely popular tax-reducing idea is
"benefits in kind": the employer buys (leases and pays for) some goods
and gives those goods to the employee in lieu of regular wages.

As a result, the employee has a reduced "formal income", which reduces
all payments that are linked to formal income (unemployment insuance,
trade union membership, retirement benefits, often health incurance).

Germany has optional schemes for: cars, IT equipment, (electric)
bicycles, "private retirement funds".

I now learn that the UK also has a scheme for bicycles.

<https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5dc9475440f0b64251080457/cycle-to-work-guidance.pdf>

Typically, these schemes are very complicated in order to minimize tax
loss, so taking part in most such schemes is only feasible via a scheme
operator, and the scheme operator takes the lions's share of the tax bonus.

Rolf

Am 28.01.2024 um 16:41 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 09:20:32 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 1/27/2024 3:50 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> On Friday, January 26, 2024 at 1:13:21?PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> Blissfully not my own government.
>>>>
>>>> https://cyclingindustry.news/cycle-to-work-needs-urgent-systemic-change/
>>
>>>
>>> I'm not clear what they're trying to do. Get people to commute via bicycle more?
>>
>> Well, probably despite a long history of failures worldwide.
>
> Why is there such a driving issue of trying get people to commute on
> bicycles?

Because it reduces CO2 compared to driving. Because it's a lot
healthier than driving. Because it reduces congestion compared to driving.

Some German agencies have calculated that the "external costs" of
driving (health costs, pollution, road building where not covered by
taxes) are on the order of €0.3 per km while cycling gives an external
benefit (reduced health costs) of €0.1 per km.

Am 28.01.2024 um 22:43 schrieb John B.:
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 16:56:23 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 09:20:32 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/27/2024 3:50 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, January 26, 2024 at 1:13:21?PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> Blissfully not my own government.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://cyclingindustry.news/cycle-to-work-needs-urgent-systemic-change/
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not clear what they're trying to do. Get people to commute via bicycle more?
>>>>
>>>> Well, probably despite a long history of failures worldwide.
>>>
>>> Why is there such a driving issue of trying get people to commute on
>>> bicycles?
>>>
>>
>> this is uk so mostly aimed at the big cities such as london. I *think* it
>> predates all of the more modern cycle infrastructure, but either way bikes
>> are cheap for a city in that they are extremely efficient of space and any
>> infrastructure is relatively cheap, as these things go.
>>
>> Certainly london number of junctions/areas bikes outnumber cars by quite
>> some margin during peak times.
>
> But what about the 155 days of rain?

a) that's 205 days of "no rain"
b) out of those 155 days with rain, only approx 50 have rain at the time
when you commute
c) "rain" in London often means "drizzle" (can easily be ignored with
appropriate clothing)

c)

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 11:38:17 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:

>Am 28.01.2024 um 16:41 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
>> On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 09:20:32 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/27/2024 3:50 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>> On Friday, January 26, 2024 at 1:13:21?PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> Blissfully not my own government.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://cyclingindustry.news/cycle-to-work-needs-urgent-systemic-change/
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not clear what they're trying to do. Get people to commute via bicycle more?
>>>
>>> Well, probably despite a long history of failures worldwide.
>>
>> Why is there such a driving issue of trying get people to commute on
>> bicycles?
>
>Because it reduces CO2 compared to driving.

Plant more trees instead of making people do what they may not want to
do.

> Because it's a lot
>healthier than driving.

That's nobody's business but the person whose health is the issue.

>Because it reduces congestion compared to driving.

Market based choices should be allowed to make the decision.

>
>Some German agencies have calculated that the "external costs" of
>driving (health costs, pollution, road building where not covered by
>taxes) are on the order of €0.3 per km while cycling gives an external
>benefit (reduced health costs) of €0.1 per km.

Am 29.01.2024 um 11:45 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 11:38:17 +0100, Rolf Mantel
> <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>
>> Am 28.01.2024 um 16:41 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
>>> On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 09:20:32 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/27/2024 3:50 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, January 26, 2024 at 1:13:21?PM UTC-8, AMuzi
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Blissfully not my own government.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://cyclingindustry.news/cycle-to-work-needs-urgent-systemic-change/
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
I'm not clear what they're trying to do. Get people to commute via
bicycle more?
>>>>
>>>> Well, probably despite a long history of failures worldwide.
>>>
>>> Why is there such a driving issue of trying get people to commute
>>> on bicycles?
>>
>> Because it reduces CO2 compared to driving.
>
> Plant more trees instead of making people do what they may not want
> to do.

Nobody talks about "what people don't want to". We're talking about
"encourage positive behavior that people want to but are too inert."
The people benefit, and the government benefits.

>> Because it's a lot healthier than driving.
>
> That's nobody's business but the person whose health is the issue.

As a society in general, this is not true. Employers benefit from
people being less on sick-leave. Health insurances benefit (thus
indirectly everybody else insured by the same health insurance).

>> Because it reduces congestion compared to driving.
>
> Market based choices should be allowed to make the decision.

Sure, we're talking about market based choices but a market relies on
a market mechanism: how much congestion tax do you pay when you drive
into town during peak times?

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 12:43:23 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:

>Am 29.01.2024 um 11:45 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 11:38:17 +0100, Rolf Mantel
>> <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 28.01.2024 um 16:41 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
>>>> On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 09:20:32 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/27/2024 3:50 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, January 26, 2024 at 1:13:21?PM UTC-8, AMuzi
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Blissfully not my own government.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://cyclingindustry.news/cycle-to-work-needs-urgent-systemic-change/
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>I'm not clear what they're trying to do. Get people to commute via
>bicycle more?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, probably despite a long history of failures worldwide.
>>>>
>>>> Why is there such a driving issue of trying get people to commute
>>>> on bicycles?
>>>
>>> Because it reduces CO2 compared to driving.
>>
>> Plant more trees instead of making people do what they may not want
>> to do.
>
>Nobody talks about "what people don't want to". We're talking about
>"encourage positive behavior that people want to but are too inert."
>The people benefit, and the government benefits.

The government presumes to know what the "people want to [do] but are
to inert." They also presume that they should encourage it.

>>> Because it's a lot healthier than driving.
>>
>> That's nobody's business but the person whose health is the issue.
>
>As a society in general, this is not true. Employers benefit from
>people being less on sick-leave. Health insurances benefit (thus
>indirectly everybody else insured by the same health insurance).

Sorry, I do not buy on to the ridiculous notion that I have a
responsibility to do something simply for the benefit of others. It's
my decision to make.

>>> Because it reduces congestion compared to driving.
>>
>> Market based choices should be allowed to make the decision.
>
>Sure, we're talking about market based choices but a market relies on
>a market mechanism: how much congestion tax do you pay when you drive
>into town during peak times?

The price paid is generally not in the form of a tax, but the "price"
does affect the market. People use public transportation to avoid that
price. I assume some use bicycles for the same reason. There may be
more of that if the congestion trend continues, which it likely will.

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 11:38:17 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:

>Am 28.01.2024 um 16:41 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
>> On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 09:20:32 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/27/2024 3:50 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>> On Friday, January 26, 2024 at 1:13:21?PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> Blissfully not my own government.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://cyclingindustry.news/cycle-to-work-needs-urgent-systemic-change/
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not clear what they're trying to do. Get people to commute via bicycle more?
>>>
>>> Well, probably despite a long history of failures worldwide.
>>
>> Why is there such a driving issue of trying get people to commute on
>> bicycles?
>
>Because it reduces CO2 compared to driving. Because it's a lot
>healthier than driving. Because it reduces congestion compared to driving.
>
>Some German agencies have calculated that the "external costs" of
>driving (health costs, pollution, road building where not covered by
>taxes) are on the order of €0.3 per km while cycling gives an external
>benefit (reduced health costs) of €0.1 per km.

But I've lived in a number of developing countries and personnel
transportation seems to grow the same way in all of them. In the
really undeveloped countries people walk of use animals for
transportation - ox cart. As the economy grows bicycles appear on the
scene and then comes the small motorcycle and finally the motor car.

And people don't go backward. They don't sell the car and buy an ox
cart.
--
Cheers,

John B.

Am 29.01.2024 um 13:02 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 12:43:23 +0100, Rolf Mantel
> <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>
>> Am 29.01.2024 um 11:45 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
>>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 11:38:17 +0100, Rolf Mantel
>>> <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am 28.01.2024 um 16:41 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
>>>>> On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 09:20:32 -0600, AMuzi
>>>>> <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/27/2024 3:50 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, January 26, 2024 at 1:13:21?PM UTC-8, AMuzi
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Blissfully not my own government.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://cyclingindustry.news/cycle-to-work-needs-urgent-systemic-change/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>>
I'm not clear what they're trying to do. Get people to commute via
>> bicycle more?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, probably despite a long history of failures
>>>>>> worldwide.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is there such a driving issue of trying get people to
>>>>> commute on bicycles?
>>>>
>>>> Because it reduces CO2 compared to driving.
>>>
>>> Plant more trees instead of making people do what they may not
>>> want to do.
>>
>> Nobody talks about "what people don't want to". We're talking
>> about "encourage positive behavior that people want to but are too
>> inert." The people benefit, and the government benefits.
>
> The government presumes to know what the "people want to [do] but
> are to inert." They also presume that they should encourage it.

The government does not need to know what people want to but are too
inert. For them it is sufficient to put out an offer and see who takes
it up.

My health insurance offer €10 payback to everybody who documents that
they cycle at least 25 miles per week for 10 out of 12 weeks (max twice
per year), just like they offer a €10 discount for anybody completing a
training to stop smoking, doing a dental clean-up or a training for
healthy food. They don't care why I do something only that I do something.

>>>> Because it's a lot healthier than driving.
>>>
>>> That's nobody's business but the person whose health is the
>>> issue.
>>
>> As a society in general, this is not true. Employers benefit from
>> people being less on sick-leave. Health insurances benefit (thus
>> indirectly everybody else insured by the same health insurance).
>
> Sorry, I do not buy on to the ridiculous notion that I have a
> responsibility to do something simply for the benefit of others.
> It's my decision to make.

Sure, it's plainly your decision and the majority of the benefit is with
you but other people benefit as well.
According to free choice I am allowed to give you money for any purpose,
so it is legitimate to give you money on the condition that you are nice
to me.
My health incurance by law is allowed to hand out money in symbloic
quantities as long as they are able to convince their governors that the
money spent on average reduces my health costs.

>>>> Because it reduces congestion compared to driving.
>>>
>>> Market based choices should be allowed to make the decision.
>>
>> Sure, we're talking about market based choices but a market relies
>> on a market mechanism: how much congestion tax do you pay when you
>> drive into town during peak times?
>
> The price paid is generally not in the form of a tax, but the
> "price" does affect the market. People use public transportation to
> avoid that price. > I assume some use bicycles for the same reason.

A "no-money" market is the worst of all possible markets because it
lacks a bidding mechanism for who gets the valuable resources.
A monetized market gives a significantly more efficient allocation of
resources.

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 14:09:31 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:

>Am 29.01.2024 um 13:02 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 12:43:23 +0100, Rolf Mantel
>> <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 29.01.2024 um 11:45 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
>>>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 11:38:17 +0100, Rolf Mantel
>>>> <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Am 28.01.2024 um 16:41 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 09:20:32 -0600, AMuzi
>>>>>> <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/27/2024 3:50 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 26, 2024 at 1:13:21?PM UTC-8, AMuzi
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Blissfully not my own government.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://cyclingindustry.news/cycle-to-work-needs-urgent-systemic-change/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>I'm not clear what they're trying to do. Get people to commute via
>>> bicycle more?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, probably despite a long history of failures
>>>>>>> worldwide.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why is there such a driving issue of trying get people to
>>>>>> commute on bicycles?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because it reduces CO2 compared to driving.
>>>>
>>>> Plant more trees instead of making people do what they may not
>>>> want to do.
>>>
>>> Nobody talks about "what people don't want to". We're talking
>>> about "encourage positive behavior that people want to but are too
>>> inert." The people benefit, and the government benefits.
>>
>> The government presumes to know what the "people want to [do] but
>> are to inert." They also presume that they should encourage it.
>
>The government does not need to know what people want to but are too
>inert. For them it is sufficient to put out an offer and see who takes
>it up.

I have no problem with voluntary decisions, but the government
encouragement influences those decisions. In the USA the government
interferes with the production of fossil fuels while subsidizing
electric car sales.

>My health insurance offer €10 payback to everybody who documents that
>they cycle at least 25 miles per week for 10 out of 12 weeks (max twice
>per year), just like they offer a €10 discount for anybody completing a
>training to stop smoking, doing a dental clean-up or a training for
>healthy food. They don't care why I do something only that I do something.
>
>>>>> Because it's a lot healthier than driving.
>>>>
>>>> That's nobody's business but the person whose health is the
>>>> issue.
>>>
>>> As a society in general, this is not true. Employers benefit from
>>> people being less on sick-leave. Health insurances benefit (thus
>>> indirectly everybody else insured by the same health insurance).
>>
>> Sorry, I do not buy on to the ridiculous notion that I have a
>> responsibility to do something simply for the benefit of others.
>> It's my decision to make.
>
>Sure, it's plainly your decision and the majority of the benefit is with
>you but other people benefit as well.
>According to free choice I am allowed to give you money for any purpose,
>so it is legitimate to give you money on the condition that you are nice
>to me.
>My health incurance by law is allowed to hand out money in symbloic
>quantities as long as they are able to convince their governors that the
>money spent on average reduces my health costs.
>
>>>>> Because it reduces congestion compared to driving.
>>>>
>>>> Market based choices should be allowed to make the decision.
>>>
>>> Sure, we're talking about market based choices but a market relies
>>> on a market mechanism: how much congestion tax do you pay when you
>>> drive into town during peak times?
>>
>> The price paid is generally not in the form of a tax, but the
>> "price" does affect the market. People use public transportation to
>> avoid that price. > I assume some use bicycles for the same reason.
>
>A "no-money" market is the worst of all possible markets because it
>lacks a bidding mechanism for who gets the valuable resources.
>A monetized market gives a significantly more efficient allocation of
>resources.

It's not a no-money market. The government uses the tax revenue to
build facilities, and people don't like higher taxes.

On 1/29/2024 4:38 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> Am 28.01.2024 um 16:41 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
>> On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 09:20:32 -0600, AMuzi
>> <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/27/2024 3:50 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>> On Friday, January 26, 2024 at 1:13:21?PM UTC-8, AMuzi
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Blissfully not my own government.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://cyclingindustry.news/cycle-to-work-needs-urgent-systemic-change/
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not clear what they're trying to do. Get people to
>>>> commute via bicycle more?
>>>
>>> Well, probably despite a long history of failures worldwide.
>>
>> Why is there such a driving issue of trying get people to
>> commute on
>> bicycles?
>
> Because it reduces CO2 compared to driving.  Because it's a
> lot healthier than driving. Because it reduces congestion
> compared to driving.
>
> Some German agencies have calculated that the "external
> costs" of driving (health costs, pollution, road building
> where not covered by taxes) are on the order of €0.3 per km
> while cycling gives an external benefit (reduced health
> costs) of €0.1 per km.

If you're happy in such a structured society of social
engineering, I'm happy that you're happy.

--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 1/29/2024 8:09 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>
> My health incurance by law is allowed to hand out money in symbloic
> quantities as long as they are able to convince their governors that the
> money spent on average reduces my health costs.

Somewhat related: A few years ago I was in a rehearsal for a musical
production. A wife of one of the musicians was pacing back and forth
energetically during the entire rehearsal. Afterwards, I asked her about
that. She said that her medical insurance company had given her a step
counter, and she got reduced rates if she met a minimum number of steps
each day.

The insurance company, a for-profit enterprise, had apparently
determined that this incentive program paid off for them monetarily. The
lower revenue from premiums was more than offset by the lower medical
expenses of the people who opted into the walking program.

Why would this be OK if a for-profit company did it to maximize their
net profit, but a similar scheme would be evil if a government did it,
trying to minimize government health care expenses?

--
- Frank Krygowski