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 |
#351
|
|||
|
|||
Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On 24 May 2005 20:47:28 -0700, wrote: >> Scott en Aztlán wrote: >>> On Tue, 24 May 2005 18:00:50 GMT, Wayne Pein > >>> wrote: >>>> Until then, I and others bicyclists will freely use the roads. >>> Emphasis on "free." >> Because, of course, bicyclists pay no taxes. We'd tell you how that >> works, but then we'd have to kill you. > Actually, pedalcyclists pay almost as much for roads as motorists. > They pay property taxes, sales taxes, Mello-Roos taxes (in > California), etc. WHOOSH. |
Ads |
#353
|
|||
|
|||
In article . com>,
> wrote: > > >Matthew Russotto wrote: >> In article .com>, >> > wrote: >> > >> >Jim Yanik wrote: >> >> >> >> No;users pay,plain and simple. >> >> >> > >> >Where, other than interstate highways, do the users pay 100% of the >> >costs? >> > >> >Nowhere. >> >> Pennsylvania, for all state maintained roadways. > >I'll bet not. DOT admin, state patrol costs, etc. I guess you're not a good gambler. (State patrol costs? What, are you kidding? State patrol is revenue positive; why do you think they have those ticket books?) >And the indirect costs are not even imagined. If you count costs you pull out of your ass, I'm sure they aren't. >> Most places, once you work through the fancy accounting that transfers >> road money elsewhere then partially makes up for it by transferring >> other money into the roads. > >Not. Like in PA, the Federal fuel taxes which go to Washington, make a U-turn back to Harrisburg, and then are diverted into mass transit. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. |
#354
|
|||
|
|||
In article . com>,
> wrote: > > >Matthew Russotto wrote: >> >> >> Bicyclist logic is so weird. Bicyclists think picking out particular >> differences in two scenarios somehow proves something, when they >> haven't accounted for all the OTHER differences. For instance, all >> the inanimate metal available to ABSORB the energy of the collision. > > >Talk about weird logic. From the stats presented in this thread, it >seems that cars would need a heck of a lot more absorbant metal to be >able to approach the safety record of bicycles. All that and riding in >a hostile environment. Your attitude must spring from envy. I can ride a bicycle any time I like. Today it's 50 degrees and raining; I choose not to. All I'm pointing out is that a simple energy comparison shows nothing; I don't know why you find that so objectionable. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. |
#355
|
|||
|
|||
In article <%5Vke.602$tv3.298@trnddc06>,
Bernard farquart > wrote: > > wrote in message roups.com... >> > >> >> If you're interested in finding the pressure that the vehicle puts on >> the road, you can use a pocket tool: a tire pressure gage. Ignoring >> the slight effect of tire sidewall stiffness, if you have (say) 35 psi >> in your tires, your vehicle applies 35 psi to the pavement under each >> tire. This is true whether you have one wheel, four wheels or >> sixteen. How could it be otherwise? > >So if I let the air out of my tires, will my vehicle weigh less? Yes, but not noticably. The pressure your vehicle exerts on the road will drop (but be exerted over a larger area) until the car is no longer being supported primarily by the air in the tires. Anyway, he's right about the pressure on the road being the same as the pressure in the tires. He's wrong about total weight being the only determinant of pavement damage, though. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. |
#356
|
|||
|
|||
Matthew Russotto wrote: > > Anyway, he's right about the pressure on the road being the same as > the pressure in the tires. He's wrong about total weight being the > only determinant of pavement damage, though. :-) Yet I never said that it was the _only_ determinant. Go back and read more carefully. What I have said is that bicycles do negligible damage to the road surface. You guys can either prove me wrong (honest photographic evidence would work well) or stop slinging red herrings. - Frank Krygowski |
#357
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Yanik wrote: > Scott en Aztl=E1n > wrote in > : > > > On 24 May 2005 20:47:28 -0700, wrote: > > > >> > >> > >>Scott en Aztl=E1n wrote: > >>> On Tue, 24 May 2005 18:00:50 GMT, Wayne Pein > wrote: > >>> > >>> >Until then, I and others bicyclists will freely use the roads. > >>> > >>> Emphasis on "free." > >> > >>Because, of course, bicyclists pay no taxes. We'd tell you how that > >>works, but then we'd have to kill you. > > > > Actually, pedalcyclists pay almost as much for roads as motorists. > > They pay property taxes, sales taxes, Mello-Roos taxes (in > > California), etc. > > > > But no usage tax. Brent was right - you just have a semantics beef. Cyclists subsidize your lower automobile "user fees", and you have the temerity to complain that they don't do enough. By your own admission, heh. I'll make you a deal - as soon as motor vehicles pay the whole freight for road-related expenses, then come to me about paying some additional tax over the top of what I already pay. Then your "fairness" argument might actually have some logic and weight. Until then, you're just a whiner. HAND, E=2EP. |
#358
|
|||
|
|||
max wrote: > > In article >, > Jim Yanik .> wrote: > > > Except that auto users pay user fees,and bicyclists do not pay any user > > fees for their bicycles.The fact that they pay for their autos does not > > exclude them from paying for a MOTORcycle,but they expect it for their > > bicycles. > > put up or shut up: how much for a bike? > > Defend your position: what is the fact-based analysis by which you > derived the above number? > > .max I estimate that the average single car owner pays somewhere around $370 in user fess each year, broken down as follows: Registration Fee - $30 Inspection Fee - $20 Property Tax on Car (car only) - $100 Gasoline Tax - $210 Some people (like me) pay a lot more. I paid somewhere around $1500 in user fees last years (I own four vehicles, and only have one driver in the household). If "vehicular" bike owners pay 1/3 of what the average car owner pays for each bike, I'd be happier. So when vehicular bike owners start paying an additional $120 or so a year per bike for the right to ride the bikes on the public roads, I think it would be fairer. And don't tell me how much you are already paying for your other vehicles. Despiste the fact that I can only drive one vehicle at a time, I still have to pay registartion and property taxes for the other vehicles. Ed |
#359
|
|||
|
|||
C. E. White wrote:
> max wrote: >> >> In article >, >> Jim Yanik .> wrote: >> >>> Except that auto users pay user fees,and bicyclists do not pay any >>> user fees for their bicycles.The fact that they pay for their autos >>> does not exclude them from paying for a MOTORcycle,but they expect >>> it for their bicycles. >> >> put up or shut up: how much for a bike? >> >> Defend your position: what is the fact-based analysis by which you >> derived the above number? >> >> .max > > I estimate that the average single car owner pays somewhere > around $370 in user fess each year, broken down as follows: > > Registration Fee - $30 > Inspection Fee - $20 > Property Tax on Car (car only) - $100 > Gasoline Tax - $210 > > Some people (like me) pay a lot more. I paid somewhere > around $1500 in user fees last years (I own four vehicles, > and only have one driver in the household). > > If "vehicular" bike owners pay 1/3 of what the average car > owner pays for each bike, I'd be happier. So when vehicular > bike owners start paying an additional $120 or so a year per > bike for the right to ride the bikes on the public roads, I > think it would be fairer. And don't tell me how much you are > already paying for your other vehicles. Despiste the fact > that I can only drive one vehicle at a time, I still have to > pay registartion and property taxes for the other vehicles. Sell a car or three and buy a few bikes. Problemn solved; off you go. |
#360
|
|||
|
|||
"Jim Yanik" .> wrote in message .. . > Can you name any roads built back then expressly for bicyclists? Yes. I would refer you to a book called "Divided Highways" by Tom Lewis which is a history of the development of the Interstate Highway. In the early part of the book he talks about Col. Albert Pope who lead the movement for early bicycles and roads. The book states at page 7 "Pope organized riders into an early lobbying group, the League of American Wheelmen, financed courses in road engineering at MIT, and built a short stretch of Macadam road in Boston to show people how wonderful a smooth payment could be." The book goes on further to state: "The league of American Wheelmen became the first highway lobby group that served as a model for others to follow. Through its own publication, Good Roads, the league supported "good roads" associations across the country; it held "good roads" conventions and argued ceaselessly before state legislatures for raod improvements. In New Jerseyin 1891, it lobbied the legislature to pass the first state aid bill for road construction in the nation. In the next quarter century all other states followed New Jersey's progressive thinking. This makes the Illinois decision particularly perverted. |
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 |