How to **** Off an Arrogant Pedalcyclist

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Jim Yanik
> wrote:
>> (Brent P) wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> In article >, Jim Yanik
>>> wrote:
>>>> (Brent P) wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> In article >, Jim
>>>>> Yanik wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You pay for each and every auto you use on public roads.
>>>>>> You don't get to pay for one and the rest go for free.
>>>>>> Even motorcycles must pay for each MC used on the roads.
>>>>>> You haven't paid for any of your bikes.
>>>>>> Yet you expect the same priveleges as autos.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you going to pay the taxes to collect a fair bicycle tax? I'll
>>>>> pay my annual 75 cents if you'll pay the dollar or more in
>>>>> collection costs.
>>>
>>>> Why would a bicycle tax cost any more than the auto tax to collect?
>>>
>>> It wouldn't. A fair tax would be less than the cost of collection.
>>
>> "fair"? Fair would be bicycles paying to use the roads just like any
>> auto does.And such autos fees begin usually at $25 per year.
>
> Fair. as in based on wear and tear done, space taken up, etc.

Most states do NOT base auto fees on such things.
As in the Hummer's case,size doesn't matter. 8-)
Some states do base license tag fees on weight,but also have a minimum fee.
Then there are motorcycles,which take up about the same space as a bicycle.


> You want
> to charge bicycles the same as a the smallest of cars which are more
> than 50 times heavier and take up a full lane. I'll wager you won't
> allow bicyclists a full lane all the time under this scheme. You want
> a punitive tax.
>
>>>
>>>> The agency is already established;the motor vehicle department.
>>>> (it just needs renaming)
>>>
>>> It still doesn't function at zero cost.
>>>
>>>> It would be enforced just like autos are;by the existing police
>>>> department.
>>>>
>>>> Also,why would you assume that a USER fee would only be $.75? In
>>>> most states,there's a minimum fee for any auto regardless of weight
>>>> or size.Maybe around $25.00.
>>>
>>> So you want a puntive tax on bicyclists. Like cigarettes or alcohol.
>
>> Why is it "punitive"? Every auto pays it,even the tiniest ones.
>> Motorcycles pay it.Only BICYCLES don't.
>
> Because it's way out of proportion.

Only in your thinking.

> Motorcycles get a full lane all
> the time. Motorcycles get to use interstates and other limited access
> highways. Motorcycles get a lot more.


Well,you have always said here that you will "take the lane" as you deem
necessary,and that it's perfectly legal. If you can "take the lane" at
will,then you already have full use.
(it's wiser to stay as far right as you can,though)

Besides,MCs can *keep up with traffic* at traffic speeds,at any road or
other conditions.(here comes the boasts of keeping up with 25mph
traffic",except in a headwind,or if it's really hot out,or......)
Also,you would have to go by the AVERAGE bicyclist,who definitely does not
keep up with traffic.You folks in the bike shorts do not qualify as
"average",IMO.

Motorcycles take up about the same space as a bicycle.

>
>>> Your agenda isn't fairness, it's punishment.
>
>> Fair is *all* road users paying the fee.
>> If bicycles want to use the road,then fairness would be them paying
>> the fee.Not punishment by any means.
>
> I said I'd gladly pay my annual 75 cents. If you want me to pay more,
> I expect to ride down the center of any lane I choose on any road I
> choose just like the other vehicles.

You said you already do that,as you deem necessary.

So,really it's just a matter of "how much" for the bicycle usage fee.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Cheto" > wrote in
:

>
> "Jim Yanik" .> wrote in message
> .. .
>
>> Fair is *all* road users paying the fee.
>> If bicycles want to use the road,then fairness would be them paying
>> the fee.Not punishment by any means.
>
> How much do you suggest we charge pedestrians to use sidewalks or the
> roads when no sidewalks are present?
>
> Cheto
>
>
>

I listed examples of road vehicles that all currently pay road usage fees
while bicycles do not pay any.

Please list current sidewalk users that do pay sidewalk usage fees.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Mike Latondresse > wrote in
:

> Jim Yanik .> wrote in
>> "fair"? Fair would be bicycles paying to use the roads just like
>> any auto does.And such autos fees begin usually at $25 per year.
>>
> Sorry Jim "fair" would be that the fees are paid to cyclist given that
> they don't cause the injuries and social havoc that other motor
> vehicles do plus make no negative contribution to the enviroment.

No,"fair" would be "users pay",ALL users.
It is UNfair that bicyclists use the roads without paying a usage fee like
all the other road vehicles must pay.

You folks just want to retain your special exemption.

And bicyclists do make a negative contribution to traffic flow on the
roads.


> I
> would suggest that about $5000/year be paid to commuting cyclist on a
> declining scale depending on mileage.
>



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in

>>> "fair"? Fair would be bicycles paying to use the roads just like any
>>> auto does.And such autos fees begin usually at $25 per year.
>>
>> Fair. as in based on wear and tear done, space taken up, etc.

> Most states do NOT base auto fees on such things.
> As in the Hummer's case,size doesn't matter. 8-)
> Some states do base license tag fees on weight,but also have a minimum fee.
> Then there are motorcycles,which take up about the same space as a bicycle.

It's either weight or a flat fee or value. And a motorcycle can claim the
same space as car under all conditions. A bicyclist cannot.

If I am forced to pay the same for my bicycles as for my cars, I'll ride
right down the middle of the lane all the time.

You won't stand for that, you just want a tax to discourage bicycling, a
punitive tax.

>>>> So you want a puntive tax on bicyclists. Like cigarettes or alcohol.
>>
>>> Why is it "punitive"? Every auto pays it,even the tiniest ones.
>>> Motorcycles pay it.Only BICYCLES don't.
>>
>> Because it's way out of proportion.
>
> Only in your thinking.

You make it very clear it's just about your irrational hate.

>> Motorcycles get a full lane all
>> the time. Motorcycles get to use interstates and other limited access
>> highways. Motorcycles get a lot more.

> Well,you have always said here that you will "take the lane" as you deem
> necessary,and that it's perfectly legal. If you can "take the lane" at
> will,then you already have full use.
> (it's wiser to stay as far right as you can,though)

I cannot take the lane at *ALL* times legally. You make me pay auto level
taxes on a bicycle and I want the full space of a car. I will take the
lane ALWAYS. You think it's bad now getting around a bicyclist? Wait
until I am doing convoy zig-zags in the lane.


> Besides,MCs can *keep up with traffic* at traffic speeds,at any road or
> other conditions.(here comes the boasts of keeping up with 25mph
> traffic",except in a headwind,or if it's really hot out,or......)
> Also,you would have to go by the AVERAGE bicyclist,who definitely does not
> keep up with traffic.You folks in the bike shorts do not qualify as
> "average",IMO.

Irrelevant to your tax scheme. You want to tax bicyclists like cars then
all the special restrictions go away. That's the deal. You can struggle
to get around bicyclists the way you have to in order to get around half
blind senior citizens with reflexes measured on a calender driving along
in their crown victorias.

> Motorcycles take up about the same space as a bicycle.

Actually about 2-3 times more. But you can't decide to split a lane with
them. That's illegal.

>>>> Your agenda isn't fairness, it's punishment.
>>
>>> Fair is *all* road users paying the fee.
>>> If bicycles want to use the road,then fairness would be them paying
>>> the fee.Not punishment by any means.

>> I said I'd gladly pay my annual 75 cents. If you want me to pay more,
>> I expect to ride down the center of any lane I choose on any road I
>> choose just like the other vehicles.

> You said you already do that,as you deem necessary.

I already pay more than my fair share, that's the truth.

> So,really it's just a matter of "how much" for the bicycle usage fee.

You are just hung up on the semantics of registration. You just want to
be punitive because you hate bicycling.

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:

> You folks just want to retain your special exemption.

You are just hung up on semantics.

> And bicyclists do make a negative contribution to traffic flow on the
> roads.

I can tell you makes a much larger and measurable impact. Every sloth
driver. Going to charge them puntive fees too? After all, if you are
going to charge bicyclists for an impact too small to be measured, you're
going to have to charge all the slow drivers and especially the SUV
drivers. I can't remember the last one that didn't slow me down in a
turn.

Jim Yanik wrote:
> "Cheto" > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > How much do you suggest we charge pedestrians to use sidewalks or
the
> > roads when no sidewalks are present?
> >
>
> I listed examples of road vehicles that all currently pay road usage
fees
> while bicycles do not pay any.
>
> Please list current sidewalk users that do pay sidewalk usage fees.

Wow. Talk about missing the point!

Sidewalk users don't pay a user fee, partly because non-motorized
transportation is reckoned to be a fundamental right; operating a motor
vehicle imposes dangers on others, and is NOT a fundamental right -
it's subject to licensing.

Sidewalk users also do negligible damage to that facility, and require
no other special expenses by the government, so there is no need to
collect user fees to offset those costs. Motor vehicles wear out roads
in a significant manner, and require expenses for everything from
traffic signals to traffic cops and traffic courts.

In those ways, cyclists are much more similar to sidewalk users than to
motor vehicle operators. Thus, there's no justification for collecting
cycling fees.

And, BTW, these questions were settled by the courts and by legislators
roughly 100 years ago. Don't delude yourself that you're presenting
something new and brilliant; you're just demonstrating how little you
know.

- Frank Krygowski

Jim Yanik wrote:
>
>
> No,"fair" would be "users pay",ALL users.
> It is UNfair that bicyclists use the roads without paying a usage fee
like
> all the other road vehicles must pay.

If there _were_ to be a usage fee, one version of "fair" would be to
base it on costs to society. We've been over that - the costs of
cycling are negligible. Based on that, the fee should be negligible -
i.e. no more than a dime per year.

But there might be another way. We could compute it based on space
consumed, and perhaps weight. Let's say, as a first approximation, the
fee should be proportional to space used times weight.

Now pay attention: The space taken up by a vehicle during a typical
year would be its annual mileage times its width. For a typical car,
roughly 12000 miles times roughly six feet wide. That's 72,000
foot-miles.

For a typical bike? Width would be roughly two feet. Mileage? Ah,
there's a tough one! An "average" American bike probably rolls less
than five miles per year. Let's be very generous and say 200 miles.
That's 400 foot-miles, or 1/180th as much as a car.

Weight? 3000 pounds is a light car. 30 pounds is a heavy bike.
That's 1/100th. Now note! Pavement damage is NOT proportional to
weight! It's proportional to weight raised to a rather high power.
But we'll give the motorheads yet another break and pretend a bike does
1/100 the damage a car does.

So in the most simplistic analysis, a bike's fee should be 1/18000
times that of a car.

What's your car's annual license fee, Jim? I'll mail in one
eighteen-thousandth of that tomorrow, if you like. Too bad the stamp
will be so expensive!

- Frank Krygowski

> wrote in message
oups.com...

> Sidewalk users don't pay a user fee, partly because non-motorized
> transportation is reckoned to be a fundamental right; operating a motor
> vehicle imposes dangers on others, and is NOT a fundamental right -
> it's subject to licensing.
>
> Sidewalk users also do negligible damage to that facility, and require
> no other special expenses by the government, so there is no need to
> collect user fees to offset those costs. Motor vehicles wear out roads
> in a significant manner, and require expenses for everything from
> traffic signals to traffic cops and traffic courts.
>
> In those ways, cyclists are much more similar to sidewalk users than to
> motor vehicle operators. Thus, there's no justification for collecting
> cycling fees.

Exactly. This was a concept I learned 35 years ago when I first took
Driver's Ed. Why is it so difficult for some to understand?

Cheto

I'd go with something like:

E = (horsepower X weight /(meters/watt)

Tax = (E-vehicle - E-pedestrian) X Z-cents/mile

I'll stack my road* bike against any car, from Prius to Escalade.

Where's my money?

..max
*or even my MTB with the Nokian Triple X 2.4
gigantor moon buggy tires
<http://www.suomityres.fi/bike/bmx/index.html>

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Jim Yanik
> wrote:
>> (Brent P) wrote in
>
>>>> "fair"? Fair would be bicycles paying to use the roads just like
>>>> any auto does.And such autos fees begin usually at $25 per year.
>>>
>>> Fair. as in based on wear and tear done, space taken up, etc.
>
>> Most states do NOT base auto fees on such things.
>> As in the Hummer's case,size doesn't matter. 8-)
>> Some states do base license tag fees on weight,but also have a
>> minimum fee. Then there are motorcycles,which take up about the same
>> space as a bicycle.
>
> It's either weight or a flat fee or value. And a motorcycle can claim
> the same space as car under all conditions. A bicyclist cannot.

>
> If I am forced to pay the same for my bicycles as for my cars, I'll
> ride right down the middle of the lane all the time.
>
> You won't stand for that, you just want a tax to discourage bicycling,
> a punitive tax.

It's not "punitive" if every type of vehicle using the road pays a usage
fee.

>
>>>>> So you want a puntive tax on bicyclists. Like cigarettes or
>>>>> alcohol.
>>>
>>>> Why is it "punitive"? Every auto pays it,even the tiniest ones.
>>>> Motorcycles pay it.Only BICYCLES don't.
>>>
>>> Because it's way out of proportion.
>>
>> Only in your thinking.
>
> You make it very clear it's just about your irrational hate.

Strange,I actually enjoy bicycling.(but not in traffic.)

>
>>> Motorcycles get a full lane all
>>> the time. Motorcycles get to use interstates and other limited
>>> access highways. Motorcycles get a lot more.
>
>> Well,you have always said here that you will "take the lane" as you
>> deem necessary,and that it's perfectly legal. If you can "take the
>> lane" at will,then you already have full use.
>> (it's wiser to stay as far right as you can,though)
>
> I cannot take the lane at *ALL* times legally.

But you probably do anyways.

> You make me pay auto
> level taxes on a bicycle and I want the full space of a car. I will
> take the lane ALWAYS. You think it's bad now getting around a
> bicyclist? Wait until I am doing convoy zig-zags in the lane.

Anything to be a rolling roadblock,huh?

>
>
>> Besides,MCs can *keep up with traffic* at traffic speeds,at any road
>> or other conditions.(here comes the boasts of keeping up with 25mph
>> traffic",except in a headwind,or if it's really hot out,or......)
>> Also,you would have to go by the AVERAGE bicyclist,who definitely
>> does not keep up with traffic.You folks in the bike shorts do not
>> qualify as "average",IMO.
>
> Irrelevant to your tax scheme. You want to tax bicyclists like cars
> then all the special restrictions go away. That's the deal. You can
> struggle to get around bicyclists the way you have to in order to get
> around half blind senior citizens with reflexes measured on a calender
> driving along in their crown victorias.

Many of those bicyclists ARE half-blind senior citizens.Or drunks who've
lost their driver's license,or kids. THOSE are the "average" bicyclist.
>
>> Motorcycles take up about the same space as a bicycle.
>
> Actually about 2-3 times more. But you can't decide to split a lane
> with them. That's illegal.
>
>>>>> Your agenda isn't fairness, it's punishment.
>>>
>>>> Fair is *all* road users paying the fee.
>>>> If bicycles want to use the road,then fairness would be them paying
>>>> the fee.Not punishment by any means.
>
>>> I said I'd gladly pay my annual 75 cents. If you want me to pay
>>> more, I expect to ride down the center of any lane I choose on any
>>> road I choose just like the other vehicles.
>
>> You said you already do that,as you deem necessary.
>
> I already pay more than my fair share, that's the truth.

No,it's not."FAIR share" means you pay a user fee just as the other road
vehicles pay. An exclusion is NOT "fair" by any measurement.
>
>> So,really it's just a matter of "how much" for the bicycle usage fee.
>
> You are just hung up on the semantics of registration. You just want
> to be punitive because you hate bicycling.
>

Again,a false claim.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net