Reckless Cyclist

[BenTong]

I think cyclists these days really big fark lor ... Can use bus lane delaying buses with passerengers also can ...

 

Think can write in to LTA and TP and MOT and see what kind of replies they will give .

Let me boldly offer some thoughts:

 

To LTA:

 

Weekends.. Designate a lane for cyclists.

Licence e bikes

Please increase enforcement. How you going to do that? Look at your cameras la. Then send enforcement team to those areas la.use your brain and analytics .

 

 

To cyclists

Please cycle slowly on PCNs and be extra careful on pavements (you should not be on it the first place)

 

Don't insists that you are legally right.. Stoopiak

[Nzy]

Let me boldly offer some thoughts:

 

To LTA:

 

Weekends.. Designate a lane for cyclists.

Licence e bikes

Please increase enforcement. How you going to do that? Look at your cameras la. Then send enforcement team to those areas la.use your brain and analytics .

 

 

To cyclists

Please cycle slowly on PCNs and be extra careful on pavements (you should not be on it the first place)

 

Don't insists that you are legally right.. Stoopiak

 

If cyclists only can cycle on weekends then how they go to work? Those that cycle to work don't work on weekends only leh.

It seems "technically" you can even walk two abreast on the leftmost lane? 

 

Isn't that jaywalking? Pedestrian is not vehicle leh.

 

 

Edited March 10, 2016 by Nzy

[BenTong]

If cyclists only can cycle on weekends then how they go to work? Those that cycle to work don't work on weekends only leh.

 

Isn't that jaywalking? Pedestrian is not vehicle leh.

Who says anything about not allowing cycling on weekdays?

 

go ahead like you normally do.

 

Not advocating a full time bike lane yet for all days but for only for weekends.

[Vratenza]

Just wondering, did anyone already answered to what is COE income used for? Also those car import duties, ARF etc?

 

 

come come, let me answer my own question (again).......

 

From Singapore Budget FY2014 

http://www.singaporebudget.gov.sg/data/budget_2015/download/FY2015_Analysis_of_Revenue_and_Expenditure.pdf

 

1.2 Operating Revenue FY2014

Operating Revenue has been revised upwards by $1.8 billion (or 3.1%) to $61.4 billion. This increase is mainly due to higher-than-expected collections from

 

Motor Vehicle Taxes and Vehicle Quota Premiums. Motor Vehicle Taxes are projected to increase by $0.5 billion (or 33.5%) to $1.8 billion, due to higher-than-expected collections of Additional Registration Fees and lower-than-expected Preferential Additional Registration Fee (PARF) rebates paid out. Vehicle Quota Premiums, i.e. receipts from Certificates of Entitlement (COE), are estimated to increase by $0.7 billion (or 24.1%) to $3.7 billion as a result of COE prices exceeding expectations.

 

Corporate Income Tax (CIT) collections are also estimated to increase by $0.4 billion (or 3.3%), due to growth in corporate surpluses.

 

These increases are partly offset by a $0.2 billion (or 6.3%) decrease in Customs and Excise Tax collections, and slight downward revisions in collections of Withholding Tax, Stamp Duties and Other Fees and Charges.

 

The distribution of Operating Revenue in FY2014 by the various components is shown in Chart 1.1.

 

Total Operating Revenue is 61.4 billion

 

Total vehicle ownership revenue (MVT+COE) = 1.8+3.7 = 5.5 billion

 

Total expenditure on Transport is 6 billion

 

I am not financially trained, but based on published figures, seem like ownership revenue is already paying for 5.5 out of 6 billion spent on Transport related matters. We have not take into consideration usage revenue from ERP and petrol duties yet.

 

May I propose that motoring population is effectively paying for LTA/MoT 's running expenses. And who builds and maintains our transport infrastructure?

[Baal]

Clap clap.

[Nzy]

come come, let me answer my own question (again).......

 

From Singapore Budget FY2014 

http://www.singaporebudget.gov.sg/data/budget_2015/download/FY2015_Analysis_of_Revenue_and_Expenditure.pdf

 

Total Operating Revenue is 61.4 billion

 

Total vehicle ownership revenue (MVT+COE) = 1.8+3.7 = 5.5 billion

 

Total expenditure on Transport is 6 billion

 

I am not financially trained, but based on published figures, seem like ownership revenue is already paying for 5.5 out of 6 billion spent on Transport related matters. We have not take into consideration usage revenue from ERP and petrol duties yet.

 

May I propose that motoring population is effectively paying for LTA/MoT 's running expenses. And who builds and maintains our transport infrastructure?

 

Just because the tax collected from all the taxes related to motor vehicles, is enough to cover LTA's running expenses, doesn't mean that all these taxes are being used to maintain the roads and transport infrastructure. What about the 40+ billion income tax collected? All the tax just goes to the government and how they spend it depends on the budget la. Nothing to do with motor-vehicle taxes all going to LTA.

[Vratenza]

Just because the tax collected from all the taxes related to motor vehicles, is enough to cover LTA's running expenses, doesn't mean that all these taxes are being used to maintain the roads and transport infrastructure. What about the 40+ billion income tax collected? All the tax just goes to the government and how they spend it depends on the budget la. Nothing to do with motor-vehicle taxes all going to LTA.

 

I knew someone will bring up this point.

 

And you are right.

 

Everything goes into a big rojak bowl call the total governement revenue and the rojak seller just dish out a predetermined serving to each ministry. There will not be any direct dollar-to-dollar correlation to the the flow of money.

 

the fact that the vehicle related revenue is more than enough to cover for the expenditure of the LTA/MoT's expenditure also indirectly means part of the excess is channeled to other ministry? NEA? NParks?

 

Mr A pays 20K income tax, decides not to own or use a car.

 

Mr B pays 20K income tax, but buys himself a luxury car to reward himself. 

 

Which of the 2 has paid more than his fair share of taxes for the usage of the road?

 

In fact, the motor vehicle related revenue pays for more than the road construction,maintenance, traffic lights . It also pays for public transport infrastructure as well (think MRT/LRT/BUS).

[Nzy]

Mr A pays 20K income tax, decides not to own or use a car.

 

Mr B pays 20K income tax, but buys himself a luxury car to reward himself. 

 

Which of the 2 has paid more than his fair share of taxes for the usage of the road?

 

So now if Mr A pays 20k income tax and Mr B pays 10k income tax. Both don't drive. Mr B has paid for more than his fair share for the usage of the footpath? Can Mr A ask Mr B to get out of his way because he pays more income tax?

 

Then going by your logic, smokers should be allowed to smoke wherever they want. They pay tax also. More tax than someone who doesn't smoke.

Edited March 10, 2016 by Nzy

[Vratenza]

So now if Mr A pays 20k income tax and Mr B pays 10k income tax. Both don't drive. Mr B has paid for more than his fair share for the usage of the footpath? Can Mr A ask Mr B to get out of his way because he pays more income tax?

 

Then going by your logic, smokers should be allowed to smoke wherever they want. They pay tax also. More tax than someone who doesn't smoke.

 

i thought we are talking about cars and usage of roads? Shall not be drawn into a diversive move.

 

Mr B paid for his car as well as all the stipulated taxes and COE, plus petrol duties and ERP. He should have the right to the road more than someone who did not.

 

All said and done, having more right to the road does not mean he can be a bully and traumatize cyclists who behave badly.

 

Not illegal to cycle abreast don't mean they must. 2 lane road with occasional vehicular traffic, by all means cycle 2 abreast. In this case when the road is so crowded with vehicular traffic and they still insist on cycling 2 abreast just because it is legal is either they lack situational awareness, road courtesy or simply egoistic.

[Nzy]

i thought we are talking about cars and usage of roads? Shall not be drawn into a diversive move.

 

Mr B paid for his car as well as all the stipulated taxes and COE, plus petrol duties and ERP. He should have the right to the road more than someone who did not.

 

All said and done, having more right to the road does not mean he can be a bully and traumatize cyclists who behave badly.

 

Not illegal to cycle abreast don't mean they must. 2 lane road with occasional vehicular traffic, by all means cycle 2 abreast. In this case when the road is so crowded with vehicular traffic and they still insist on cycling 2 abreast just because it is legal is either they lack situational awareness, road courtesy or simply egoistic.

 

Aren't we talking about taxes paid? Since you say he pay all the taxes required he should have more right to the road than someone who did not. So someone who pays more income tax should have more right to the footpath also right?

 

Ok. Since you say don't talk about other taxes. We talk about the road taxes only. So a cyclist who has a few luxury cars and supercars at home is sure to be paying more road tax and relevant motor-vehicle tax than an average road user right? So does it mean that when you meet these kind of cyclists, you will agree it is right for them to take up the whole lane since he should have the right to the road more than someone who paid less of these motor-vehicle taxes than him? 

[Vratenza]

Aren't we talking about taxes paid? Since you say he pay all the taxes required he should have more right to the road than someone who did not. So someone who pays more income tax should have more right to the footpath also right?

 

Ok. Since you say don't talk about other taxes. We talk about the road taxes only. So a cyclist who has a few luxury cars and supercars at home is sure to be paying more road tax and relevant motor-vehicle tax than an average road user right? So does it mean that when you meet these kind of cyclists, you will agree it is right for them to take up the whole lane since he should have the right to the road more than someone who paid less of these motor-vehicle taxes than him? 

 

He drive his super car out and he travel at 30kph on the left lane. Even the lorry and container truck will horn at him. but eventually they will just overtake from the right. But as you pointed out...in the left lane, it is not road hogging.

 

don't even need to bring in super cars, even a picanto driver have paid for his fair share of road usage "fee". And the answer is NO, if you want to ask if the super car owner have more right than the picanto to the road.

 

But once the picanto or super car owner park his car at home and take out his bicycle to travel back up the same road, he relinquish his right of road at home. In another words, the road right is not transferable.

 

no matter what, just like the motorcyclist who insist on their legal rights, think about who will get the short end of the stick when an accident occurs.

 

I rather be alive than to be right.

[2BDriver]

No but bi-polar bear will STOMP and kpkb about FTrash penguins from the South.

Pure White Country Prime Minister  wants all the resident polar bears to integrate  with these migrants FT's "Penguins", no choice...polar bears continue to  "L L S T " in it's den for ever lasting     hibernation  

[Vratenza]

Aren't we talking about taxes paid? Since you say he pay all the taxes required he should have more right to the road than someone who did not. So someone who pays more income tax should have more right to the footpath also right?

 

Ok. Since you say don't talk about other taxes. We talk about the road taxes only. So a cyclist who has a few luxury cars and supercars at home is sure to be paying more road tax and relevant motor-vehicle tax than an average road user right? So does it mean that when you meet these kind of cyclists, you will agree it is right for them to take up the whole lane since he should have the right to the road more than someone who paid less of these motor-vehicle taxes than him? 

 

He drive his super car out and he travel at 30kph on the left lane. Even the lorry and container truck will horn at him. but eventually they will just overtake from the right. But as you pointed out...in the left lane, it is not road hogging.

 

don't even need to bring in super cars, even a picanto driver have paid for his fair share of road usage "fee". And the answer is NO, if you want to ask if the super car owner have more right than the picanto to the road.

 

But once the picanto or super car owner park his car at home and take out his bicycle to travel back up the same road, he relinquish his right of road at home. In another words, the road right is not transferable.

 

no matter what, just like the motorcyclist who insist on their legal rights, think about who will get the short end of the stick when an accident occurs.

 

I rather be alive than to be right.

 

*******************************************************************************************************************************************************

I must state categorically that I have nothing against cyclists, I believe we can all share the road. We motorist might have all the rights by virtue of the taxes paid, but end of the day we should have graciousness to allow cyclist to share the road with us so long as they ride safely and graciously too. when cyclists start to behave inconsiderately, that is when driver's tolerance and patient's are tested to the limits.

 

I shall end the exchange here. 

[Nzy]

He drive his super car out and he travel at 30kph on the left lane. Even the lorry and container truck will horn at him. but eventually they will just overtake from the right. But as you pointed out...in the left lane, it is not road hogging.

 

don't even need to bring in super cars, even a picanto driver have paid for his fair share of road usage "fee". And the answer is NO, if you want to ask if the super car owner have more right than the picanto to the road.

 

But once the picanto or super car owner park his car at home and take out his bicycle to travel back up the same road, he relinquish his right of road at home. In another words, the road right is not transferable.

 

no matter what, just like the motorcyclist who insist on their legal rights, think about who will get the short end of the stick when an accident occurs.

 

I rather be alive than to be right.

 

*******************************************************************************************************************************************************

I must state categorically that I have nothing against cyclists, I believe we can all share the road. We motorist might have all the rights by virtue of the taxes paid, but end of the day we should have graciousness to allow cyclist to share the road with us so long as they ride safely and graciously too. when cyclists start to behave inconsiderately, that is when driver's tolerance and patient's are tested to the limits.

 

I shall end the exchange here. 

 

I rather be alive and right. They aren't mutually exclusive. 

[1fast1]

Ever tried stuffing a polar bear into spandex?

[1fast1]

In the spirit of the Tesla S being taxed for emissions generated by electron generation by SP, I propose that yah yah bicycle owners be taxed whenever they use an electric pump (even one at the petrol station) to inflate their tyres. Those use power that also involve CO2 emissions, right? Fair's fair, what?

 

I don't care if it's a pittance. Make 'em pay, no matter how inconvenient. OK ,OK, I'm not so evil, GIRO can also lah.

 

(Oh, since we don't actually know when the owner is using an electric pump, the safe assumption is that one is always being used, because who uses a hand pump nowadays? Progress, right? This is also in the same spirit of how they assumed that solar power would never be used to power that Tesla for the lifetime of the car. Again, fair's fair.)

Edited March 10, 2016 by Turboflat4

[Sabian]

In the spirit of the Tesla S being taxed for emissions generated by electron generation by SP, I propose that yah yah bicycle owners be taxed whenever they use an electric pump (even one at the petrol station) to inflate their tyres. Those use power that also involve CO2 emissions, right? Fair's fair, what?

 

I don't care if it's a pittance. Make 'em pay, no matter how inconvenient. OK ,OK, I'm not so evil, GIRO can also lah.

 

(Oh, since we don't actually know when the owner is using an electric pump, the safe assumption is that one is always being used, because who uses a hand pump nowadays? Progress, right? This is also in the same spirit of how they assumed that solar power would never be used to power that Tesla for the lifetime of the car. Again, fair's fair.)

Errr...Porker?

[1fast1]

Errr...Porker?

No lah, he uses this wan.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Size-Doctor-Electric-Penis-Battery/dp/B00CKW6T8S