How to **** Off an Arrogant Pedalcyclist

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.

In article . net>,
max > wrote:
>In article >,
> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>> In article . net>,
>> max > wrote:
>> >
>> >The reason, which most people seem incapable of actually articulating,
>> >that cycling has so much fewer fatal injuries is that the total system
>> >energy available is dramatically lower.
>> >
>> >For example, a bike-bike collision has roughly 1/500th (0.2%) the total
>> >system energy (not including the 40 gallons of flaming gasoline!) of a
>> >car-car collision, (200# cyclists @15 mph vs. 3000# cars @ 40 mph).
>>
>> 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.
>
>Calculating the energy of deformation seemed a little ott, and
>irrelevant to the simple comparison of relative energy scales.

The simple comparison is just plain irrelevant period. There are too
many other factors involved.

>Blow it out you ass.

Now THAT'S bicyclist logic for you.

--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

"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.