Thread: Disgraceful behaviour by Discovery driver

Originally Posted by Eevo

well the rego component of rego is quite small. $15 a quarter and i dont think it goes towards roads. the large component goes towards CTP. (i think the system is different in nsw)

taxes (both income and fuel) go towards roads.

Yes, in NSW you have to buy your own CTP, it's not included in the rego.

The point I was making was that everyone, whether they drive a vehicle or not, relies on and benefits from the road system. I have no problem with paying to drive my vehicles on the road, but even someone who doesn't own a car does, in reality, "use" the road system if the bigger picture is considered.

yes, that why we pay taxes.
unless your one of the special peoples

Originally Posted by Warb

A lovely sentiment, but nothing more. As a species we're very good at "sharing" things that aren't ours, but it's a different story when people want to share "our" stuff!

It's OK when it's happening to somebody else........

No one owns the worlds roads.

My rego and road tax in NSW is $750 for the Deefer. (Business) Then there's CTP on top of that (near $500)

Does that infer I have more rights on the road and so am more entitled than those of you who 'only' pay private road tax and rego ?

I just don't get the bike rego argument, it sounds much more like sour grapes to me " I have to pay $xxx so why don't you ?"

Just t get it back on topic....

Is there any news on the Disco driver and has he been charged with anything ?
Did anything happen prior to the vid we've all seen ?
Have the police issued a statement ?

Originally Posted by MrLandy

No one owns the worlds roads.

Then I claim them all!!

I think you were trying to say that the roads are held by a country's government in trust for all it's people. That may be true, but in turn that means that the country's government can determine how people can use those roads. When those rules suit a group or individual, then all is well. But when the rules go against what a particular person or group wants, things are very different. How would cyclists feel if the government decreed that new bikes must have air bags, crumple zones and seat belts before they can be ridden on the road. Before you answer, remember that such rules exist for other vehicles and were made "for the good of the people" with no referendum. Surely a cyclist would be safer if they were in a rigid steel box with suitable safety equipment?......

Like I said, it's OK when it's happening to someone else!

Originally Posted by rick130

My rego and road tax in NSW is $750 for the Deefer. (Business) Then there's CTP on top of that (near $500)

Does that infer I have more rights on the road and so am more entitled than those of you who 'only' pay private road tax and rego ?

I just don't get the bike rego argument, it sounds much more like sour grapes to me " I have to pay $xxx so why don't you ?"

Just t get it back on topic....

Is there any news on the Disco driver and has he been charged with anything ?
Did anything happen prior to the vid we've all seen ?
Have the police issued a statement ?

I think (and suggested in the cyclist thread sometime ago IIRC) that most would be happy for our pushy friends to be given rego free of charge but have (at whatever cost ??) some sort of CTP insurance and ID. The insurance would cover them if for example, the peloton went wheels up and the ID could be a sticker so as not to add weight or sharp edges on the bike.

Originally Posted by Warb

Then I claim them all!!

I think you were trying to say that the roads are held by a country's government in trust for all it's people. That may be true, but in turn that means that the country's government can determine how people can use those roads. When those rules suit a group or individual, then all is well. But when the rules go against what a particular person or group wants, things are very different. How would cyclists feel if the government decreed that new bikes must have air bags, crumple zones and seat belts before they can be ridden on the road. Before you answer, remember that such rules exist for other vehicles and were made "for the good of the people" with no referendum. Surely a cyclist would be safer if they were in a rigid steel box with suitable safety equipment?......

Like I said, it's OK when it's happening to someone else!

I meant what I said.

(Why is it that some people think they can put words in other people's mouths in lieu of simply stating their own opinion?)

No one owns the worlds journeys or knowledge either. Plenty claim they do and in the short term they may convince themselves they've succeeded.

I disagree. It's not ok when it's happening to someone else. That's what this whole puerile thread is all about. ..me me me me me.

Next.

Originally Posted by MrLandy

Why is it that some people think they can put words in other people's mouths in lieu of simply stating their own opinion?

I wasn't putting words in your mouth, and certainly not in lieu of stating my opinion. Simply put, your statement appeared so nonsensical that I assumed it was not meant literally. It is hard to imagine that you genuinely believe there are large traits of "unowned" land criss-crossing the country. I therefore assumed you were talking metaphorically ("owned by the people for the people") and attempted to explain that in realistic terms. Clearly I was wrong, and you do believe that the roads are unowned. I'm still not certain how that fits in with the various English/Australia/Aboriginal land ownership claims over the years, or just how and why building a road suddenly causes a piece of land to become unowned? Hopefully you'll explain!

Originally Posted by MrLandy

I meant what I said.

You genuinely believe that no-one owns the worlds road? Is that limited to roads, or land in general? I'm assuming that the "belief" is an ideological one, rather than your understanding of how the law works, because the simple fact is that under legislation it is quite clear that dedicated public roads are owned by the state.

But pursuing the ideological discussion, I live on a farm which has roads running through it. The roads vary from bitumen highways, to dirt roads. The bitumen road, and some of the dirt roads, are "owned" and maintained by the council or government. Some of the dirt roads are "owned" and maintained by me. You couldn't tell which is which just by looking. Does this make any difference to you, or does the fact that it looks like a "road" mean that I no longer own it?

You have also implied that you DON'T believe the roads are held by the governments. Does that mean you don't see a need to abide by the regulations they apply to them? Because surely a person or organisation has no right to make rulings over something that they don't own or control?

Originally Posted by MrLandy

No one owns the worlds knowledge either.

So you don't believe in copyrights or patents?