IDEO have worked with Shimano to develop a cool coaster bike
follow the link.
http://www.ideo.com/work/featured/shimano
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Sunday, April 18, 2010
time for user pays?
Pay to Pedal? Reflections on an economic cycle
YEW-KWANG NG
April 19, 2010
Time for user pays?
News of a cyclist dying in an accident recently has drawn attention, yet again, to the rising tension between the growing numbers of cyclists and drivers on Victoria's roads. While there are grave concerns for the safety of bike riders on busy roads, many motorists feel inconvenienced at having to share space with cyclists. Some even view them as a nuisance or a hazard.
Increasing the number of safe and adequate bike paths alongside busy roadways is a big step towards a resolution, but this raises the question of who should pay. A recent national survey found that motorists want more bike paths to keep cyclists off the road, but they also want bike riders to pay registration fees to cover the costs.
As an economist, I normally support the principle of user pays. However, I am strongly against charging for bike riding, for reasons discussed below. But first a few words on the user-pays principle.
In its basic form, this principle states that whoever uses something should pay. So cyclists who use bike paths should pay, right? No, not really. It is not that simple.
First, it is often presumed that cyclists should pay because they derive significant benefits each time they use the bike path. This is usually not an appropriate principle. That a person derives benefits from using or doing something is not a valid reason for charging. A person may gain big benefits from walking, sleeping, reading, singing, making love or contemplation, but these activities clearly do not require payment. Put differently, if what a person does imposes no costs or damage on anyone, there is no good reason to charge. We charge users not because of the benefits they derive but because of the costs of providing the relevant items. As a simple first principle, the amount of payment should accord with the costs imposed, not the benefits derived.
Second, the cost of riding a bike is minimal, if not zero. Cycling imposes no pollution or significant noise, and hardly poses a threat to others in the form of accidents (at least in terms of harming others). Moreover, bike paths in Australia are far from congested. Thus, each cyclist imposes virtually no costs by taking an additional ride.
True, there are costs involved in riding a bike: the time to cycle and the cost of the bicycle itself. However, these are already paid for by the cyclist. Therefore, cyclists should not be asked to pay a registration fee.
On the supply side, the provision of bike paths is costly and society may have to recover these costs by charging cyclists. There are, however, considerations suggesting just the reverse.
First, we note that bike riding for commuters is a substitute for driving and I look at the costs of driving relative to cycling. I can safely state that drivers are not charged for the full costs of driving their vehicles. Just like cyclists, motorists pay for the "internal" driving costs in terms of their own time and of the car itself. However, motorists do not pay for the large "external" costs associated with driving, which include such things as increased air pollution, road congestion , a noisy environment and road accidents. The additional costs of road maintenance may also be added, but these are not substantial except for heavy vehicles, which are not a substitute for cycling. On the other hand, if we include the huge costs of road building and extension, congestion costs should be offset, as wider roads reduce congestion.
It is true that motorists pay registration fees and taxes on petrol. However, these are not sufficient to cover these external costs, especially if the serious problem of global warming through greenhouse emissions is factored in.
On this basis, it is logical and highly appropriate to impose higher charges on driving — to get motorists to cover both the internal and external costs of their driving. Aside from charging the usual registration fees, an efficient way to achieve this on a user-pays basis is to impose higher taxes on petrol. Most governments do not do this because it is not popular with voters, who are mostly motorists. In fact, many governments overseas not only don't tax petrol but subsidise it instead. This is highly undesirable.
In many countries, including Australia, most voters are motorists. Except for those who value the time saving from reduced congestion, most motorists see a higher petrol price as detrimental. The individual gain from lower congestion, though substantial, is generally perceived to be much smaller than the loss of extra dollars.
From an economist's perspective, this motorist view is flawed. Though motorists lose more from the higher petrol price than they gain from lower congestion, the net loss is typically less than the higher tax revenue collected by the government. If we take into account the indirect effects of this higher government revenue, there will be overall net gains (at least for cases where the higher congestion or pollution tax is justified). The higher revenue could be used, for example, to lower taxes elsewhere, to improve the road system or to improve the environment. In the end, a typical motorist would benefit substantially from these indirect effects. However, being indirect, these effects and their benefits are taken less into account. Thus, I often tell my students it is only when you celebrate a higher petrol price through higher congestion and pollution taxes that you are really a good economist!
Cycling (and, to a lesser extent, public transport) should be encouraged as a good alternative to driving. Providing incentives for bike use should work to reduce driving indirectly. It is imperative for the Victorian government to provide carefully designed safe bike paths for the growing numbers of cyclists in our community. More importantly, cyclists should not be made to pay for them. Riding a bike is a much better exercise than driving a car. Not only do we end up with a cleaner, less congested environment, we also end up healthier ourselves.
Professor Yew-Kwang Ng is from Monash University's economics department. He was assisted by Dr Rebecca Valenzuela.
ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
1. Why should users pay for the costs imposed on the society rather than the benefits they derive?
2. Do you agree with the author that the fees and taxes on car driving are not sufficient to cover the external costs? Are you in favour of higher taxes on petrol?
3. Apart from those mentioned in this article, can you think of other possible external costs of cars?
4. What lessons may be learnt from the idea that people tend to take much more account of direct effects than indirect ones?
5. Do you think that you are doing enough exercise?
YEW-KWANG NG
April 19, 2010
Time for user pays?
News of a cyclist dying in an accident recently has drawn attention, yet again, to the rising tension between the growing numbers of cyclists and drivers on Victoria's roads. While there are grave concerns for the safety of bike riders on busy roads, many motorists feel inconvenienced at having to share space with cyclists. Some even view them as a nuisance or a hazard.
Increasing the number of safe and adequate bike paths alongside busy roadways is a big step towards a resolution, but this raises the question of who should pay. A recent national survey found that motorists want more bike paths to keep cyclists off the road, but they also want bike riders to pay registration fees to cover the costs.
As an economist, I normally support the principle of user pays. However, I am strongly against charging for bike riding, for reasons discussed below. But first a few words on the user-pays principle.
In its basic form, this principle states that whoever uses something should pay. So cyclists who use bike paths should pay, right? No, not really. It is not that simple.
First, it is often presumed that cyclists should pay because they derive significant benefits each time they use the bike path. This is usually not an appropriate principle. That a person derives benefits from using or doing something is not a valid reason for charging. A person may gain big benefits from walking, sleeping, reading, singing, making love or contemplation, but these activities clearly do not require payment. Put differently, if what a person does imposes no costs or damage on anyone, there is no good reason to charge. We charge users not because of the benefits they derive but because of the costs of providing the relevant items. As a simple first principle, the amount of payment should accord with the costs imposed, not the benefits derived.
Second, the cost of riding a bike is minimal, if not zero. Cycling imposes no pollution or significant noise, and hardly poses a threat to others in the form of accidents (at least in terms of harming others). Moreover, bike paths in Australia are far from congested. Thus, each cyclist imposes virtually no costs by taking an additional ride.
True, there are costs involved in riding a bike: the time to cycle and the cost of the bicycle itself. However, these are already paid for by the cyclist. Therefore, cyclists should not be asked to pay a registration fee.
On the supply side, the provision of bike paths is costly and society may have to recover these costs by charging cyclists. There are, however, considerations suggesting just the reverse.
First, we note that bike riding for commuters is a substitute for driving and I look at the costs of driving relative to cycling. I can safely state that drivers are not charged for the full costs of driving their vehicles. Just like cyclists, motorists pay for the "internal" driving costs in terms of their own time and of the car itself. However, motorists do not pay for the large "external" costs associated with driving, which include such things as increased air pollution, road congestion , a noisy environment and road accidents. The additional costs of road maintenance may also be added, but these are not substantial except for heavy vehicles, which are not a substitute for cycling. On the other hand, if we include the huge costs of road building and extension, congestion costs should be offset, as wider roads reduce congestion.
It is true that motorists pay registration fees and taxes on petrol. However, these are not sufficient to cover these external costs, especially if the serious problem of global warming through greenhouse emissions is factored in.
On this basis, it is logical and highly appropriate to impose higher charges on driving — to get motorists to cover both the internal and external costs of their driving. Aside from charging the usual registration fees, an efficient way to achieve this on a user-pays basis is to impose higher taxes on petrol. Most governments do not do this because it is not popular with voters, who are mostly motorists. In fact, many governments overseas not only don't tax petrol but subsidise it instead. This is highly undesirable.
In many countries, including Australia, most voters are motorists. Except for those who value the time saving from reduced congestion, most motorists see a higher petrol price as detrimental. The individual gain from lower congestion, though substantial, is generally perceived to be much smaller than the loss of extra dollars.
From an economist's perspective, this motorist view is flawed. Though motorists lose more from the higher petrol price than they gain from lower congestion, the net loss is typically less than the higher tax revenue collected by the government. If we take into account the indirect effects of this higher government revenue, there will be overall net gains (at least for cases where the higher congestion or pollution tax is justified). The higher revenue could be used, for example, to lower taxes elsewhere, to improve the road system or to improve the environment. In the end, a typical motorist would benefit substantially from these indirect effects. However, being indirect, these effects and their benefits are taken less into account. Thus, I often tell my students it is only when you celebrate a higher petrol price through higher congestion and pollution taxes that you are really a good economist!
Cycling (and, to a lesser extent, public transport) should be encouraged as a good alternative to driving. Providing incentives for bike use should work to reduce driving indirectly. It is imperative for the Victorian government to provide carefully designed safe bike paths for the growing numbers of cyclists in our community. More importantly, cyclists should not be made to pay for them. Riding a bike is a much better exercise than driving a car. Not only do we end up with a cleaner, less congested environment, we also end up healthier ourselves.
Professor Yew-Kwang Ng is from Monash University's economics department. He was assisted by Dr Rebecca Valenzuela.
ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
1. Why should users pay for the costs imposed on the society rather than the benefits they derive?
2. Do you agree with the author that the fees and taxes on car driving are not sufficient to cover the external costs? Are you in favour of higher taxes on petrol?
3. Apart from those mentioned in this article, can you think of other possible external costs of cars?
4. What lessons may be learnt from the idea that people tend to take much more account of direct effects than indirect ones?
5. Do you think that you are doing enough exercise?
Monday, March 22, 2010
Understanding Melbourne Flux
List five (5) major changes that are currently taking place around the world.
When ‘thinking’ about your business model for the
Devise a means to take advantage of this change for social, economic and environmental good.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Esquisse 3: Alternative materials
Recent advances in science and manufacturing have resulted in a broader palette of materials available to designers than at any other time in history. Many of these emerging materials and processes have the potential to revolutionise bicycle design and manufacture and should be thoroughly researched for the ozcykler project.
Alternative construction materials and processes for your bicycle and supporting infrastructure designs should have the potential to:
- enhance performance,
- create uniqueness
- increase design flexibility
- simplify manufacture
- reduce environmental impact
- reduce costs,
- increase durability,
- reduce weight,
- improve efficiency,
- resist vandals
- facilitate public acceptance and
- drive innovation
Another potential driver for adopting alternative materials is a shortage of existing natural materials or concerns about their long-term sustainability.
Activity:
Research and analyse alternative materials processes and technologies which may be suitable for manufacture of the shared bicycle and supporting street infrastructure.
Focus on design for the public domain, weight reduction, strength and durability.
Target your research towards economically viable materials and processes which are appropriate for high volume production. Ensure that your consideration includes a strong focus on life-cycle principles for each material/process.
Deliverables:
3 x A4 pages outlining your creative ideas for alternative materials, clearly indicating where these materials will be used and the potential benefits of embracing this technology for your bicycle system design.
You must have at least 3 well-justified alternative materials in total.
Make your pages visually interesting and only include information that you feel is relevant. Dot points can be used for all pages and remember quality is better than quantity.
Submission due: Tues 23 March
Monday, March 15, 2010
Understanding Melbourne – Product Service System Design
Product Service Systems are when a firm offers a mix of both products and services, in comparison to the traditional focus on products. As defined by (van Halen, te Riele, Goedkoop) "a marketable set of products and services capable of jointly fulfilling a user's needs". PSSes can be realised by smart products.
The initial move to PSS was largely motivated by the need on the part of traditionally oriented manufacturing firms to cope with changing market forces and the recognition that services in combination with products could provide higher profits than products alone. Faced with shrinking markets and increased commoditization of their products, these firms saw service provision as a new path towards profits and growth.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_service_system
Your task
List 10 key features of each system you have researched
Table, Consider and evaluate using a scale of 1-10 (1=not relevant 10 = extremely relevant
Eg.
Distances between hubs
Payment types
Incentive schemes
Based on your scoring define the parameters of a business model for your product service system.
Using a SWOT analysis evaluate the following (refer to chart)
Strengths
Weaknesses
Opportunities
Threats
Present your PSS to class.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)