Catallaxy Files

Anecdotal evidence suggests that the introduction of cycle paths adjoining Canberra roads has led to an increase in bicycle rider injuries. Often cyclists travelling between 20 and 30 km/h are riding alongside cars doing 80 km/h.

A report in the Canberra Times cites a survey that found that:

Canberrans are more likely than anyone else in Australia to find cyclists to be a road hazard

and that cyclists make up around 1/4 of road accident related hospital episodes in Canberra.

I have observed some appalling behaviour by some cyclists – colleagues have observed similar behaviour. (Note I am an occasional cyclist too).

Bad behaviour in motorists and motorcylists is punished.

Motorists and motorcyclists are required to drive/ride roadworthy vehicles. They are required to meet competency standards. They are required to pay for a license and to register their vehicles. They are required to take out third party insurance.

Each vehicle and motorcycle has a number plate. This assists the police in the enforcement of road rules.

Motorists and motorcyclists pay substantial taxes to help fund roads among other things.

So why should cyclists enjoy the benefits of our roads without making a contribution?

Why shouldn’t cyclists have their bicycles registered (at a relatively modest cost) with a number plate? Why shouldn’t cyclists undertake competency tests and be licensed?

Ross Gittins claims that libertarians haven’t spoken out against the pink batts program.

The government’s critics in the opposition, the media and the industry haven’t attacked its decision to offer the subsidy, but rather its failure to implement adequate training, licensing requirements, codes of conduct and inspection of work done. Their implicit and sometimes explicit assumption has been: any fool could have known the private sector isn’t to be trusted. So the government has been asked to bear all the responsibility for the shoddy work, fires and deaths.

Blame it all on Nanny, who was asleep on the job.

But all this is the opposite of what libertarians believe. They believe the private sector is always to be trusted; that rational firms always do a good job, that competition will soon drive the odd cowboy out of the industry and that government regulation of industries almost always does more harm than good.

The government says one good thing to emerge from the disaster is that the insulation installation industry is now tightly regulated. It reminds us that deaths occurred in the industry before the subsidy was introduced, that employers had the usual duty of care to their workers and that the industry is covered by state occupational health and safety legislation.

But libertarians have never been enthusiastic about occupational safety laws and have long disapproved of licensing arrangements, which they believe are used by the industry to restrict supply.

And whatever happened to individuals accepting responsibility for their own affairs? What happened to caveat emptor and civil remedies? Isn’t any of the blame to be shared by cowboy businessmen?

Then this great line.

Libertarians are great enthusiasts for an economic theory known as ”public choice”, which holds that, whatever the original motivation, government interventions are invariably captured by the people being regulated and turned to their own advantage.

It’s always wise to be on guard when listening to vested interests holding forth on how governments should regulate their industry, but apparently not in this case. Where were the public choice theorists when we needed them?

I’m quite astonished to read that libertarians haven’t spoken out. Did Gittins actually speak to any libertarians before writing his article? He didn’t speak to me, or anyone I know.