If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#491
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Yanik wrote:
> Auto license plate yearly fees ARE a USER tax or fee. Bzzt. Wrong. California's DMV (for one) has a "planned non-operation" license fee. Thank you for using SPACES between your misguided words, however. :-D |
Ads |
#492
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Sornson wrote:
> Jim Yanik wrote: > >> Auto license plate yearly fees ARE a USER tax or fee. > > Bzzt. Wrong. California's DMV (for one) has a "planned non-operation" > license fee. California wrecks his rant in more ways than that since California also has bicycle licenses for which you pay a yearly fee (or bi-yearly, but some states (Florida?) also let you pay for 2 years of auto registration at once as well). I got mine in Davis, e.g. http://www.taps.ucdavis.edu/bicycle/.../licenses.html and so I'm proud to be able to say that the usage fees for my bicycles are paid in full. Since we've had several hundred posts here in which Mr. Yanik has indicated that the payment of a user fee is what gives one the right to use the road, then I'm sure he'll want to step up to the defense of my right to use road when riding my fully-paid-up bicycles. So while I sympathize with Mr. Yanik's concern that cyclists pay their user fees to use the road, it isn't clear to me how Mr. Yanik would know whether the cyclist occupying the lane in front of him is a paid up user of the road or not. In fact, it is even possible that the cyclist is me. It seems to me that all he can do is to assume the cyclists he comes across have a right to the road and leave it to local law enforcement to sort out who belongs there and who doesn't, just like it works for cars. Dennis Ferguson |
#493
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis Ferguson > wrote in
: > Bill Sornson wrote: >> Jim Yanik wrote: >> >>> Auto license plate yearly fees ARE a USER tax or fee. >> >> Bzzt. Wrong. California's DMV (for one) has a "planned non-operation" >> license fee. A cite,please? > > California wrecks his rant in more ways than that since California also > has bicycle licenses for which you pay a yearly fee (or bi-yearly, but > some states (Florida?) also let you pay for 2 years of auto registration > at once as well). I got mine in Davis, e.g. You're not paying for "registration" yearly,you're paying the fee for use. Otherwise,"registration" would only be a one-time fee. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
#494
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Yanik wrote:
> Dennis Ferguson > wrote in > : > >> Bill Sornson wrote: >>> Jim Yanik wrote: >>> >>>> Auto license plate yearly fees ARE a USER tax or fee. >>> >>> Bzzt. Wrong. California's DMV (for one) has a "planned >>> non-operation" license fee. > > A cite,please? Um, the DMV renewal notices I receive every year. >> California wrecks his rant in more ways than that since California >> also has bicycle licenses for which you pay a yearly fee (or >> bi-yearly, but some states (Florida?) also let you pay for 2 years >> of auto registration at once as well). I got mine in Davis, e.g. > > You're not paying for "registration" yearly,you're paying the fee for > use. Otherwise,"registration" would only be a one-time fee. So why do I have to pay a business license fee every year, too? PS: Your space bar is suing you for neglect. |
#495
|
|||
|
|||
In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:
> I guess this proves *you* can't admit when you're wrong. > > Auto license plate yearly fees ARE a USER tax or fee. I repeat. 1) you are all ****ed off there is no specificly labeled tax on bicycling that is paid every year to use the roads. 2) You declare a tax that is not labeled a motor vehicle road usage tax and call it one. |
#496
|
|||
|
|||
Brent P wrote: > > In article >, Jim Yanik wrote: > > > I guess this proves *you* can't admit when you're wrong. > > > > Auto license plate yearly fees ARE a USER tax or fee. > > I repeat. > > 1) you are all ****ed off there is no specificly labeled tax on > bicycling that is paid every year to use the roads. > > 2) You declare a tax that is not labeled a motor vehicle road usage tax > and call it one. Here is a simple way to resolve this: Add up all the taxes and fees paid by people and business as a result of owning and operating motor vehicles - this would include fuel taxes, registration fees, property taxes on cars, sales taxes on cars, sales taxes on car parts, excise taxes on tires, road tolls, ferry fees, parking fees, fines for motor vehicle violations, inspection fees, license fees for business that sell car parts and cars (apportioned fairly), etc. Now from this sum subtract out all the money the government spends on roads, streets, parking facilities, enforcing motor vehicle laws (but not general laws), administering vehicle registrations and other motor vehicle laws, etc., etc. Be sure to weed out all the money hidden in department of transportation budgets that are not actually motor vehicle related (landscaping, sidewalks, mass transit, bike paths, tourist welcome centers, etc. and be sure to apportion administrative costs fairly). I am certain if you do this fairly, there will be money left over from the fees and taxes collected that are directly related to motor vehicles. Now do the same for bikes..... If you are honest, I think you'll agree that bikes are a net drain on government resources. Maybe a small one. And I suppose you can argue that a strict ledger balance is not including environmental harm and health problems associated with motor vehicles. I am not opposed to increasing the fuel taxes to "charge" people for these "costs." However, I still say there is no way bike riders are "paying" for the roads in the same way that motor vehicle operators are paying for the roads. However, at least in my state, bike riders by law have the right to use public roads (except Interstates), so the argument about whether or not they are paying for the right is pointless. I did see one funny thing in looking through motor vehicle laws as they apply to bicycles in North Carolina. All bicycles that are operated on public roads are required to have a front light - "Every bicycle shall be equipped with a lighted lamp on the front thereof, visible under normal atmospheric conditions from a distance of at least 300 feet in front of such bicycle, and shall also be equipped with a reflex mirror or lamp on the rear, exhibiting a red light visible under like conditions from a distance of at least 200 feet to the rear of such bicycle, when used at night." I hardly ever see a bicycle that meets this requirement. And I have never seen the police pull over a bike rider for violating this law. But then they never seem to ticket them for running red lights, gutter riding or any of the other illegal and obnoxious behaviors that arrogant pedal cyclist routinely engage in. Regards, Ed White |
#497
|
|||
|
|||
|
#498
|
|||
|
|||
C. E. White wrote:
> I did see one funny thing in looking through motor vehicle > laws as they apply to bicycles in North Carolina. All > bicycles that are operated on public roads are required to > have a front light - "Every bicycle shall be equipped with a > lighted lamp on the front thereof, visible under normal > atmospheric conditions from a distance of at least 300 feet > in front of such bicycle, and shall also be equipped with a > reflex mirror or lamp on the rear, exhibiting a red light > visible under like conditions from a distance of at least > 200 feet to the rear of such bicycle, when used at night." I > hardly ever see a bicycle that meets this requirement. And I > have never seen the police pull over a bike rider for > violating this law. But then they never seem to ticket them > for running red lights, gutter riding or any of the other > illegal and obnoxious behaviors that arrogant pedal cyclist > routinely engage in. > > Regards, > > Ed White Obviously an ingnorantly written law in that such lighting requirements are only needed at night. I guess those violations by bicyclists are considered trivial, just as motorists' ubiquitous exceeding of the posted speed limit is considered trivial. Wayne |
#499
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Yanik wrote:
> No pay,your plates are invalid,and you are using illegally. > All 50 states require license plates for motor vehicles,BTW,that must > pay a fee(tax) YEARLY or in some special cases more than 1 year. > > Your semantics game has failed. Much like your spacebar. |
#500
|
|||
|
|||
C. E. White wrote: > > Here is a simple way to resolve this: .... much snipped... So, Ed, if it's so simple, get on with it. Do the paperwork, then write your legislators. Or run for office on this platform. Why _do_ you guys waste so much time yammering here, when you could be out solving this so-called problem? - Frank Krygowski |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Arrogant Pedalcyclists in Action | John Harlow | Driving | 8 | April 15th 05 01:55 AM |
Go Ahead, Try to Justify This Pedalcyclist Behavior | Laura Bush murdered her boy friend | Driving | 4 | April 9th 05 07:05 PM |
Arrogant Pedalcyclists in Training | Brent P | Driving | 6 | April 3rd 05 12:14 AM |
Someone's Taking the Piss | SteveH | Alfa Romeo | 11 | July 30th 04 02:36 PM |