How to **** Off an Arrogant Pedalcyclist

Wed, 18 May 2005 16:41:49 -0400, >,
nobody, "C. E. White" > whined and then sputtered:

>> Autos require subsidies to offset their negative externalities.
>
>OK, so we kill of autos..

Good idea. And the sooner it's implemented the better off we'll all
be. I'll offer my cutting torch to help with this great plan.
--
zk

Bob wrote:
>
> Jim Yanik wrote:
>
> > Autos pay for the roads,bikes do not.
> > Autos move more commerce than bikes,too.
>
> No, all taxpayers pay for the roads. The day that fuel taxes become the
> sole or even primary source of revenue for road construction and
> maintenance will be the day that construction and maintenance ceases.

Where are you from? Gas / fuel tax revenues far exceed the
amount spent to build and maintain roads. In fact, siphoning
off gas tax revenues to fund other government programs, like
bike paths, mass transit, and landscaping is very common.

Ed

Alex Rodriguez wrote:
>
> In article >, .
> says...
>
> >Autos pay for the roads,bikes do not.
>
> Cyclists also pay taxes that help fund the roads. Many cyclists also own
> cars, so they are paying for the road. A cyclist also causes basically no wear
> and tear to the road. So in order to pay their fair share they would only need
> to a trivial amount.

Wrong. Roads deteriorate even if they are not used. Road
maintenance is paid for out of gas tax revenues, so if you
aren't driving your car, you aren't paying to maintain the
road.

Ed

Wed, 18 May 2005 14:09:47 -0500,
>,
scud jockey, Matthew Russotto) defended its prejudice:

>Describing a city bus as "rapid transit" is Newspeak.

Associating driving with freedom is deluded while you're enslaved by
the limitations of you plastic lined cage.

Here the buses get priority in several critical situations like bridge
ramps where skate boarders can regularly beat automobiles during rush
hours.

Buses are often more effective than automobiles when the time required
for parking is considered as part of the overall trip time.
--
zk

"C. E. White" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Alex Rodriguez wrote:
>>
>> In article >,
>> .
>> says...
>>
>> >Autos pay for the roads,bikes do not.
>>
>> Cyclists also pay taxes that help fund the roads. Many cyclists also own
>> cars, so they are paying for the road. A cyclist also causes basically
>> no wear
>> and tear to the road. So in order to pay their fair share they would
>> only need
>> to a trivial amount.
>
> Wrong. Roads deteriorate even if they are not used. Road
> maintenance is paid for out of gas tax revenues, so if you
> aren't driving your car, you aren't paying to maintain the
> road.

The problem with your thesis is that while automotive use adds up to a net
cost to society, bicycling is a net benefit when all externalities are
factored in.

Far from paying; cyclists should be paid to cycle considering the benefit
they bring to the bottom line of social cost/benefit.

--
'Nowhere Man, the world is at your command.
He's as blind as he can be,
Just sees what he wants to see'
-the beatles

Brian Huntley wrote:
>
> Jim Yanik wrote:
> > Autos pay for the roads,bikes do not.
> > Autos move more commerce than bikes,too.
>
> My city currently gets $0.00 per litre of gasoline in tax dollars, plus
> a whopping $0.00 per car/truck/motorcycle/trailer registered. Yet it
> pays for the streets. Some of my property taxes, it would seem, are
> doing so.

Where do you live? In North Carolina, the state government
collects the gas tax, and then allocates a portion to towns
for street maintenance and construction. On a national basis
the US federal government does the same. I've seen that
something like 35% of all US highway related revenue is
generated by taxing gasoline. Registration and property
taxes combined are less than 25%. The balance is from other
sources (bonds, tolls, investment income, etc.). In most
cases, less than 35% of all highway revenue is actually
spent on building and maintaining roads. The rest is used
for other things (like bike paths, bureaucrat outing, and
mass transit).

> And while internal combustion engined vehicles (trucks, mainly) do move
> a lot of goods, the actual 'commerce' in places like Wall Street, Bay
> Street, or The City depends a lot on bicycles.

In article >, C. E. White wrote:

> and mass transis. Last time I checked, bikes riders pay no
> user fees for using roads, bike paths, or sidewalks.

I don't ride on sidewalks and most bike paths are useless. I pay more
taxes that go for roads than many people who drive everywhere do. A
fair amount of road tax for a bicycle would cost more in collection
costs than what would be collected. When is this stupid arguement going
to die?

Wed, 18 May 2005 16:52:47 -0400, >,
scud slave "C. E. White" > complained of its self
imposed limitations:

>It is difficult for me to run stop lights and
>signs or gutter pass in my car.

I bet you can't jump curbs, cut across lawns and alway find free
parking closer to the entrance either. Cripple.
--
zk

In article >, C. E. White wrote:
>
>
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> Wrong. On many levels.
>
>> 1) I pay property taxes that cover more than the wear and tear I do
>> to most of the roads I ride on.

> Most locations don't depend on property taxes to pay for
> roads. User fee's in the form of gas taxes are the primary
> source of funds for road construction and maintenance.

Which I and practically all other adult bicyclists pay. The road fund has
a net benefit everytime we use our bicycles. More than enough to cover
those who don't own motor vechicles.

> Maybe
> if they actually used your property taxes to maintain roads,
> they would cover your personal wear and tear on the roads,
> but I doubt they cover your share of the maintenance if only
> bikes used the roads, and they certainly wouldn't come close
> to covering the initial construction cost.

The construction costs are high because the roads are built for trucks.
Bicycles need a lane 18 inches wide and a surface of fine compacted
gravel. Motor vehicles need the thick pavement, thusly motor vehicle
taxes pay for it.

> Around here,
> gasoline tax money is routinely diverted to pay for bike
> paths, despite many streets that are in poor condition.

I don't want bike paths. They are for drivers who like to drive their
bicycle somewhere and then ride slowly in circles for an afternoon.

>> 2) Bicycles cause so little wear as to be unmeasurable.

> Roads deteriorate whether they are used or not.

Wooptie do.

> Since bike
> riders aren't paying user fee's like car drivers,

All $0.75 a year or so.

> they
> aren't even covering the cost of age related deterioration.

Motor vehicles need the heavy expensive roads. Not bicycles. I could live
with a smooth dirt path that is 'maintained' by constant bicycle travel.

> And I am not at all sure the wear is unmeasurable. It might
> be unmeasurable for one bike, but how about if there were
> thousands of bikes? The pressure exerted by bike tires per
> unit area or probably greater than car tires.

Bicycles don't even need pavement, just a smooth surface. Some of the
fastest surface I've ever ridden on was dry dirt.


>> 3) I, like most bicyclists, own motor vehicles. I've paid to use THREE
>> motor vehicles on the road. I could recruit two friends to drive the
>> other two if I wanted. Instead of taking up the space of three vehicles,
>> I take up only the space of a bicycle.

> Good for you, but if it wasn't for the cars and user fee
> revenue that they generate, you probably would not have the
> roads.

Without bicyclists there never would have been good roads in the USA.

>> > Autos move more commerce than bikes,too.
>>
>> So you promptly drive into the ditch everytime a semi wants to pass you?

> My car can go as fast as a semi, a bicycles can't go as fast
> as a car.

I often go as fast or faster than cars. Sure, the car might pass me mid
block, but he's there waiting at the next intersection.

> It is difficult for me to run stop lights and
> signs or gutter pass in my car. Cyclist do it all the time.

Drivers rutinely exceed the posted speed limits, even in residential
areas to cut me off then slam on the brakes to make a stop. They then
accelerate a crawl, delaying me.

Oh, and should I use even more of the worse drivers out there and make
that the norm? I obey the vehicle code to the letter when riding, and it
****es off you anti-bicycle drivers even more. Your kind can't even deal
with me holding my turn in the queue at stop light. Getting all ****ed
off because I am in line ahead of you. Then if I gutter passed illegally
you'd be all ****ed off about that to.

In article >, C. E. White wrote:
>
>
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> laughable. Bicycles don't require the thick, wide roads. Trucks do.
>> Our road requirements are very small and easily covered by the taxes we
>> pay. Once upon a time I calculated what a fair registration cost for a
>> bicycle would be based on what I pay for my cars. Postage would practically
>> double it. That means it would cost more to collect, it would cost
>> government money, thusly they do not bother. Now of course you'd suggest
>> a punitive tax, because your goal isn't fairness, it's eliminating the
>> rights of others to use the road with the vehicle of their choice.
>
> You seem to think that the registration fees pay for roads.

They are one of the taxes.

> They don't. They pay for the bureaucracy that keeps track of
> cars, so that the cars can be taxed by other government
> bureaucracies to generate even more revenues to maintain
> other bureaucracies. Roads construction and maintenance is
> more than funded by gas tax revenues. If you aren't driving
> your cars, you aren't paying to build and maintain the
> roads.

Most of the roads I ride on are funded by PROPERTY TAXES. The remaining
ones are more than covered under other taxes I PAY.

Let's get to the root of this arguement. It has nothing to do with paying
or not paying. It's just a made up reason to justify running bicyclists
off the roads. Motor vehicles needed thick pavement and wide lanes, so
you pay for it.

> In fact, since many bike paths are actually funded by
> siphoning off gas tax revenues, if you aren't driving your
> car, you aren't even paying to maintain the bike paths.

Once again, I'll repeat. Bicycle paths are not for vehicular bicyclists.
They are for people like you, people who drive their bikes to a forest
preserve or something and then take a slow ride on the meandering and
often circular trails for an afternoon. When they are done they pack the
bikes back up in their _motor_ vehicles and go home.