How to **** Off an Arrogant Pedalcyclist

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Jim Yanik
wrote:
>
> > It's not "punitive" if every type of vehicle using the road pays a
usage
> > fee.
>
> You want bicyclists to pay a disproportional fee. Hence puntive. Your

> goal is to remove bicyclists from the road.

I'm not quite sure where Jim gets the idea that bicyclists aren't
already paying a disproportionate share of the costs of roadway
building and maintenance. For everything except interstates (upon most
of which bicycles are not allowed), fuel taxes and registration fees
come nowhere near covering the costs. In WA, if you buy anything or
pay rent/mortgage, you are paying for the roads. In fact, those
funding sources pay more than fuel taxes provide. Even if fuel taxes
went for ONLY paying for roads (construction and maintenance), fuel
taxes and registration fees wouldn't cover the costs.

I lived in Portland, OR for a brief time, and used a bicycle to get
around (along with public transport.) Oh, I had a car, but taking it
into the downtown area was a pain. No parking, expensive parking,
crappy traffic all made driving a huge pain. I paid full price for an
all-zone TriMet pass, took my beater bike everywhere, and was much
happier.

Funny thing was this - my car got pretty good mileage, and registration
is cheap in Oregon. So, I actually paid more to ride my bike and take
public transit than I would have if I just had driven my car and tried
to park on the street. (Parking would have tipped the payment balance
the other way.) What's more, I always got to my destination on time,
and never felt like I lost anything by riding my bike and/or taking
transit. And I was always home sooner at night than when I drove.
That's all just interesting anecdote.

The point is: sales taxes and property taxes are where the majority of
funds for roadbuilding/maintenance come from round these parts. If I
didn't own a car, I'd already be paying for the roads. And since I'm
paying for them, I'm going to use them legally. If Jim or Scott
doesn't like that, tough titty. Go ahead and just try and stop me.

E.P.

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.
>
> You folks just want to retain your special exemption.
>
> And bicyclists do make a negative contribution to traffic flow on the
> roads.

There is no usage fee. There is a licence requirement to show competence
operating a dangerous vehicle. There is registration to ensure
regulation. There is gas tax to be used for whatever. But there is no
usage fee except toll roads.

It's not a special exemption for bicycle users. It's special
requirements for motor vehicle users. The roads have existed for
thousands of years. Only when motor vehicles came along were these
requirements legislated.

Bicycle drivers may or may not make a negative contribution to traffic
flow depending on road/lane width and motor traffic conditions. They may
make a positive contribution to traffic flow.

They make a positive/non-negative contribution to freeing up motor
vehicle parking.
They make a positive/non-negative contribution to reducing gas demand
and hence price.
They make a positive/non-negative contribution to air quality.

Wayne






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

"Jim Yanik" .> wrote in message
.. .

> "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.

In Illinois such a tax would not be fair since, under current Illinois law,
Bicyclists are not "intended and permitted users" of roads and streets in
Illinois unless expressly marked as such. And since the supermajority of
streets and roads are not marked as such, it would be blatantly unfair to
make bicycles pay taxes for streets and roads for which they are not
"intended and permitted users". If the fee is imposed, then a number of
changes must be made to ensure that Bicyclists are intended and permitted
users".

C. E. White wrote:
> wrote:
> >
> > A more important point is that bicycles inflict zero damage on the
> > roads. ...
>
> This is just not true. Most bike exert at least as much
> pressure per unit area as cars. If you run enough bike
> traffic over a bike path, you'll end up with the same sort
> of damage as you get on automobile paths.

You're confused. One way we can tell is that "pressure per unit area"
is a fundamentally incorrect term; the units of measurement mean
nothing. If you can't get the units correct, it's a sign you're
blathering.

But, to assume you're talking about just "pressure" (not "pressure per
unit area"), I have seen no evidence that pavement damage is
significantly related to pressure. Instead, pavement engineers
commonly accept that pavement damage is related to total weight, with
damage much more than proportional to weight.

If pressure were the concern, you should be whining about taxes on
women's high-heeled shoes. The pressure under a stiletto heel can
reach 2000 psi, far in excess of car, truck or bike pressures.

Do you see lots of crosswalks where stylish ladies have reduced the
pavement to crumbs?

I thought not.



I will admit, that
> a few bikes spread out over a typical street width is not
> going to cause measurable damage. However, lots of bikes
> restricted to a narrow bike path will result in significant
> damage.

On asphalt or concrete?? Absolute nonsense! But feel free to provide
an example. The search should keep you busy - and frustrated - for
quite a while!

- Frank Krygowski

C. E. White wrote:
> Mike Latondresse wrote:
> >
> > >
> > 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. I
> > would suggest that about $5000/year be paid to commuting cyclist on
a
> > declining scale depending on mileage.
>
> What a joke!. My college roommate ended up in the infirmary
> after he was in a bike only accident. Two bikes totaled and
> one person with a broken arm, the other with cuts and
> abrasions. Or then there was another friend that a bike ran
> into when he was in a pedestrian crosswalk on campus (the
> bike ran the stop sign as well). No broken bones, but a lot
> of bruises.

I'm always amazed at people who describe one or two incidents of a bike
injury, and use that to "prove" that bikes are some sort of safety
disaster. Such simple thinking!

How does it not occur to you to compare the numbers of, say, deaths and
serious injuries caused by various activities? As examples:

Bikes cause fewer emergency room visits than basketball. They do cause
more ER visits than beds and other soft furniture, but not by much. (I
hope you're not worried about being injured by your bed!)

Bikes cause roughly 800 fatalities per year in the US. Motor vehicles
cause around 35,000 to 40,000.

Bicyclists suffer less than 1% of the fatal head injuries in America.
Motor vehicle occupants are roughly 50% of those victims.

And of course, riding a bike provides health benefits that reduce the
most common causes of non-accidental death in the US. The exercise of
cycling helps combat heart disease, stroke, cancer and lung diseases.
Sitting in a car, fuming at traffic, just causes

Cycling has been calculated to have a 20:1 benefit to risk ratio.
Don't pretend it's harmful.

Try reading http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetyS...SafetyQuiz.htm
to learn a little about this issue.

- Frank Krygowski

Mon, 23 May 2005 17:59:01 -0400,
et>, nobody, Paul
> impotently squeaked behind its screen:

>On Mon, 23 May 2005 20:05:57 GMT, Fabrizio Mazzoleni , said the following
>in rec.autos.driving...
>
>
><bunch of bull**** snipped>
>
>shut the **** up, crossposting scumbags!

suck my fuzzy blue smurf anus, Paulie.
--
zk

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Jim Yanik
> wrote:
>
>> It's not "punitive" if every type of vehicle using the road pays a
>> usage fee.
>
> You want bicyclists to pay a disproportional fee.

It's not "disproportional". Use is use.Even if your bicycle "foorprint" is
smaller and your bike lighter,you still are USING the road.And a certain
amount of distance has to be given you even in passing.

Most states have a minimum fee for vehicles USING the public roads.
Thus not "punitive",either.

>Hence puntive. Your
> goal is to remove bicyclists from the road.
>
>>> You make it very clear it's just about your irrational hate.
>>
>> Strange,I actually enjoy bicycling.(but not in traffic.)
>
> Then don't complain about the taxes being used to build bicycle paths
> that go around in circles since you are the kind of person they are
> being built for.

I can complain or criticize all I want;it's still a free country.
>
>>>> 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.
>
> *sigh* And I suppose you kill puppies for fun?

I'm just going on what you frequently post here.You seem to always have
some reason for "taking the lane,and are frequently angry at motorists.
>
>>> 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?
>
> Context is meaningless to you. If you want to play usenet games I'll
> just killfile you.
>
>>>> 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.
>
> POBs are trying to stay out of the way of cars,

I agree with this

> stay off the road,

Don't agree with this.

and
> are not vehicular bicyclists.

Don't agree with this either.

>They are a problem because they don't
> become part of traffic. They are riding the way you want them do,
> don't complain.
>
> Meanwhile vehicular bicyclists are not in the way, move swiftly, obey
> the vehicle code, etc and so forth and you want them removed because
> they are using the road.

Yeah,they're all just perfect cyclists.NOT.

>Irrantional.
>
>> 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.
>
> You want a punitive tax with a nice semantic title to justify your
> irrantional hate of road bicyclists.

You only define it that way to support your desire for a "freebie".

>
>>>> 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.
>
> Completely true. You want dollars delivered under a specific title
> just to satisify the semantics.
>

No;users pay,plain and simple.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Wayne Pein > wrote in
. com:

> C. E. White wrote:
>
>
>> And the motorist are paying for it. I don't think bicyclist
>> should be run off the road. However, I do think they need
>> stop pretending that they "own" the road.
>
> Of course, bicycle driver DO own the roads to the same extent that
> motorists own the roads.

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.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Wayne Pein > wrote in
om:

> 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.
>>
>> You folks just want to retain your special exemption.
>>
>> And bicyclists do make a negative contribution to traffic flow on the
>> roads.
>
> There is no usage fee. There is a licence requirement to show
> competence operating a dangerous vehicle. There is registration to
> ensure regulation. There is gas tax to be used for whatever. But there
> is no usage fee except toll roads.

Sure there is a "user fee";that's why you have to pay -every year- for auto
registration.Otherwise you would only need to register it once.

Tollroads are "pay extra for extra convenience" roads.
Auto operators pay for the convenience of using public roads,but bicyclists
do not pay,and expect the use for free.

>
> It's not a special exemption for bicycle users. It's special
> requirements for motor vehicle users. The roads have existed for
> thousands of years.

Not those in the United States. We've only been around for about 200some
years.

>Only when motor vehicles came along were these
> requirements legislated.
>
> Bicycle drivers may or may not make a negative contribution to traffic
> flow depending on road/lane width and motor traffic conditions. They
> may make a positive contribution to traffic flow.
>
> They make a positive/non-negative contribution to freeing up motor
> vehicle parking.

Parking is OFF-road,and usually on private property;thus not
applicable.Nice try.

> They make a positive/non-negative contribution to reducing gas demand
> and hence price.
> They make a positive/non-negative contribution to air quality.

None of these are applicable to -user- fees.
The fact that you are not using gas has no bearing on the USE of the -road-
..Same goes for air quality.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote (after much snippage):

> No;users pay,plain and simple.

M o r o n .