A Cars forum. AutoBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

How to **** Off an Arrogant Pedalcyclist



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #501  
Old June 7th 05, 07:53 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Jim Yanik wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in
> :
>
> > In article >, Jim Yanik
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I guess this proves *you* can't admit when you're wrong.
> >>
> >> Auto license plate yearly fees ARE a USER tax or fee.

> >
> > I repeat.
> >
> > 1) you are all ****ed off there is no specificly labeled tax on
> > bicycling that is paid every year to use the roads.

>
> No,I merely note that bicycles as vehicles do not pay any usage fee as all
> road-using motor vehicles pay.


Since your logic ability s really messed up, I'll help you:

1.) Direct fees and taxes do not cover the costs of automobile
transport in this state.

2.) Non-auto taxes must cover the difference (balanced budget is
required.)

3.) Bicycle users pay these taxes.

4.) Bicycle users pay for the roads in part.

You may attack this logic if you are able, but it's pretty
straight-forward.


> You guys are the ones that get ****ed when I mention your exception.


No, we get ****ed about your stupid semantics game.

> > 2) You declare a tax that is not labeled a motor vehicle road usage
> > tax and call it one.

>
> Are you so blind you cannot see? (no,just dishonest)
> People PAY a FEE to the State (IOW,a tax) -EVERY year- for LICENSE to
> operate (USE) each specific vehicle on public roads.


Ooops, that's where you goof. See, it's not a fee for road use. In
this state, we must licence our vehicles every year, even if they are
not used on the public roads. It's not called a road tax, but a
licensing fee. In addition, I can use roads where I haven't paid such
a fee, like in neighboring states where I don't pay anything to use
their roads.

While I understand completely that you want to believe it's a use tax,
it isn't called that, so it isn't that.

> Thus a USAGE fee or tax.
> (This is separate from a driver's license,and it's fees.)


Separate how? Even non-drivers pay both of those fees.

> No pay,your plates are invalid,and you are using illegally.


News flash - in this state, even if the car isn't being used on public
roads, it still must be registered!

> All 50 states require license plates for motor vehicles,BTW,that must pay a
> fee(tax) YEARLY or in some special cases more than 1 year.


And all states require you to pay some form of tax, somewhere. If the
state doesn't fund all of the roadwayus 100% with auto-related taxes,
non-motor-vehicle-operators still get to pay for roads.

The distinction is one you made up.

> Your semantics game has failed.


The irony is hilarious.

E.P.

Ads
  #502  
Old June 7th 05, 11:13 PM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, C. E. White wrote:

> Here is a simple way to resolve this:


Let me guess? Another scheme to discorage bicycling?

> Add up all the taxes and fees paid by people and business as
> a result of owning and operating motor vehicles


> Now from this sum subtract out all the money the government
> spends on roads, streets, parking facilities, enforcing
> motor vehicle laws (but not general laws), administering
> vehicle registrations and other motor vehicle laws, etc.,


> I am certain if you do this fairly, there will be money left
> over from the fees and taxes collected that are directly
> related to motor vehicles.


I am fairly certain there isn't.

> Now do the same for bikes.....


> If you are honest, I think you'll agree that bikes are a net
> drain on government resources.


Bicycles don't consume government resources. Especially in IL where
no road has to be maintained for the use of bicycles.

All 'bicycle facilities' are IMO, for motorists who want to ride every so
often and are too scared or for motorists who want to marginalize
bicyclists.

> I did see one funny thing in looking through motor vehicle
> laws as they apply to bicycles in North Carolina. All
> bicycles that are operated on public roads are required to
> have a front light - "Every bicycle shall be equipped with a
> lighted lamp on the front thereof, visible under normal
> atmospheric conditions from a distance of at least 300 feet
> in front of such bicycle, and shall also be equipped with a
> reflex mirror or lamp on the rear, exhibiting a red light
> visible under like conditions from a distance of at least
> 200 feet to the rear of such bicycle, when used at night." I
> hardly ever see a bicycle that meets this requirement.


-WHEN USED AT NIGHT-

The bicycle I used when I ride at night is so equiped. The other I only
ride in daylight. But here we go again with another stupid 'well I saw a
biker violate the vehicle code'. I only need to look at a road to see a
motorist do that. All the cars running around with burned out signal and
brake lamps, high beams on in traffic because the lows are burned out,
etc and so forth....


> And I
> have never seen the police pull over a bike rider for
> violating this law.


I've been pulled over because a cop decided that in his warped view I
wasn't allowed to use the roadway.

> But then they never seem to ticket them
> for running red lights, gutter riding or any of the other
> illegal and obnoxious behaviors that arrogant pedal cyclist
> routinely engage in.


I ride 100% legally and stated this earlier several times. This yet
another attempt at distraction. I see motorists run red lights, shoulder
pass, etc etc etc and I can count on one hand the number of times I've
seen them get pulled over for it.


  #503  
Old June 7th 05, 11:26 PM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in
> :
>
>> In article >, Jim Yanik
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I guess this proves *you* can't admit when you're wrong.
>>>
>>> Auto license plate yearly fees ARE a USER tax or fee.

>>
>> I repeat.
>>
>> 1) you are all ****ed off there is no specificly labeled tax on
>> bicycling that is paid every year to use the roads.

>
> No,I merely note that bicycles as vehicles do not pay any usage fee as all
> road-using motor vehicles pay.
> You guys are the ones that get ****ed when I mention your exception.


I pay all sorts of taxes. Call any one of them you'd like a usage fee,
just like you do with motor vehicles.

>> 2) You declare a tax that is not labeled a motor vehicle road usage
>> tax and call it one.


> Are you so blind you cannot see? (no,just dishonest)


There is no such labeled fee. And that's what you are hung up on. Taxes
are paid that more than cover bicycle use, and you are hung up on the
lack of a label.

> People PAY a FEE to the State (IOW,a tax) -EVERY year- for LICENSE to
> operate (USE) each specific vehicle on public roads.
> Thus a USAGE fee or tax.
> (This is separate from a driver's license,and it's fees.)


Try to redefine it any way you want, but that's not how it's defined in
the state of IL.

(625 ILCS 5/1.171) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 1.171)
Sec. 1.171. Registration . Registration Sticker. Registration. The
registration certificate or certificates, registration plates and
registration stickers issued under the laws of this State pertaining to
the registration of vehicles.
Registration Sticker or Stickers. A device or devices to be attached
to a rear registration plate that will renew the registration and
registration plate or plates for a pre.determined period not to exceed
one registration year except as provided in subsection (1) of Section
3.414 of this Code. Should the Secretary of State determine it is
advisable to require a registration sticker to be attached to a front
registration plate, he may require such action and provide the necessary
additional sticker. Such determination shall be publicly announced at
least 30 days in advance of a new annual registration year.
(Source: P.A. 80.1185.)

Where does 'user fee' come in? I didn't fine it in the registration
section either. All there is, is your interpetation.

> No pay,your plates are invalid,and you are using illegally.
> All 50 states require license plates for motor vehicles,BTW,that must pay a
> fee(tax) YEARLY or in some special cases more than 1 year.


So complain to someone living in a state where it's defined as a road
usage fee.

> Your semantics game has failed.


You started it, and you're still wrong. I'll rename the cook county TB
sanitiarium tax the 'bicycle road usage tax'. Now every one in cook
county IL pays to use a bicycle on the roads. Same thing you're doing.
It's your interpetation of 'registration' but it's not.


  #504  
Old June 8th 05, 12:52 AM
Jim Yanik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Jim Yanik
> wrote:
>>
(Brent P) wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> In article >, Jim Yanik
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I guess this proves *you* can't admit when you're wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Auto license plate yearly fees ARE a USER tax or fee.
>>>
>>> I repeat.
>>>
>>> 1) you are all ****ed off there is no specificly labeled tax on
>>> bicycling that is paid every year to use the roads.

>>
>> No,I merely note that bicycles as vehicles do not pay any usage fee
>> as all road-using motor vehicles pay.
>> You guys are the ones that get ****ed when I mention your exception.

>
> I pay all sorts of taxes. Call any one of them you'd like a usage fee,
> just like you do with motor vehicles.
>
>>> 2) You declare a tax that is not labeled a motor vehicle road usage
>>> tax and call it one.

>
>> Are you so blind you cannot see? (no,just dishonest)

>
> There is no such labeled fee. And that's what you are hung up on.
> Taxes are paid that more than cover bicycle use, and you are hung up
> on the lack of a label.
>
>> People PAY a FEE to the State (IOW,a tax) -EVERY year- for LICENSE to
>> operate (USE) each specific vehicle on public roads.
>> Thus a USAGE fee or tax.
>> (This is separate from a driver's license,and it's fees.)

>
> Try to redefine it any way you want, but that's not how it's defined
> in the state of IL.
>
> (625 ILCS 5/1.171) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 1.171)
> Sec. 1.171. Registration . Registration Sticker. Registration. The
> registration certificate or certificates, registration plates and
> registration stickers issued under the laws of this State pertaining
> to the registration of vehicles.
> Registration Sticker or Stickers. A device or devices to be
> attached
> to a rear registration plate that will renew the registration and
> registration plate or plates for a pre.determined period not to exceed
> one registration year except as provided in subsection (1) of Section
> 3.414 of this Code. Should the Secretary of State determine it is
> advisable to require a registration sticker to be attached to a front
> registration plate, he may require such action and provide the
> necessary additional sticker. Such determination shall be publicly
> announced at least 30 days in advance of a new annual registration
> year. (Source: P.A. 80.1185.)
>
> Where does 'user fee' come in? I didn't fine it in the registration
> section either. All there is, is your interpetation.


Why do you think they need to "renew" your 'registration' EVERY YEAR?
It doesn't change.It's still the same plate number,year after year.
It's a yearly USER FEE.

>
>> No pay,your plates are invalid,and you are using illegally.
>> All 50 states require license plates for motor vehicles,BTW,that must
>> pay a fee(tax) YEARLY or in some special cases more than 1 year.

>
> So complain to someone living in a state where it's defined as a road
> usage fee.
>



Your semantics game has failed.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
  #505  
Old June 8th 05, 02:17 AM
Bill Sornson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jim Yanik wrote:

> Why do you think they need to "renew" your 'registration' EVERY YEAR?
> It doesn't change.It's still the same plate number,year after year.
> It's a yearly USER FEE.


So why do I have to pay a yearly business license fee? To "use" the...air?

Yanik's yankin' us, BS


  #506  
Old June 8th 05, 02:36 AM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:

> Why do you think they need to "renew" your 'registration' EVERY YEAR?
> It doesn't change.It's still the same plate number,year after year.
> It's a yearly USER FEE.


Hell if I know. It's a tax. Why am I forced into social security?

And for what IL charges on registration, it doesn't make sense as a
user fee.

Why do I have to pay $10 and have my driver's license renewed every 4
years? Are you going to say that's a 'user fee' too? You'll redefine
whatever you can as your 'user fee' I suppose. thusly freeing me to
redefine taxes as bicycle user fees, negating the whole thing.

> Your semantics game has failed.


Awww don't like where your 'there's no tax labeled 'bicycle user fee'
arguement got you? Well there's no 'motorist user fee' either in the
state where I live. Least to the best of my knowledge.
  #508  
Old June 8th 05, 08:52 PM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in
> :
>
>> In article >, Jim Yanik
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Why do you think they need to "renew" your 'registration' EVERY YEAR?
>>> It doesn't change.It's still the same plate number,year after year.
>>> It's a yearly USER FEE.

>>
>> Hell if I know. It's a tax.

>
> Thanks for admitting it.


Yes I admit that taxation is often not logical.

>> Why am I forced into social security?


>> And for what IL charges on registration, it doesn't make sense as a
>> user fee.


> Much of what gov't does does not make sense.


BINGO. hence it's not a user fee just because it has to be paid every
years.

>> Why do I have to pay $10 and have my driver's license renewed every 4
>> years?


> Check your eyesight and have a new picture taken.
> Licenses do wear out,or need updating.(Not so for your lic.plate.)
> Maybe get you to pay any outstanding parking tickets,too.


I've seen beaten up and worn license plates.

>> Are you going to say that's a 'user fee' too?


> In a way,yes.You are licensed -to use- a motor vehicle even if it is not
> registered to you,like a rental,or another person's licensed auto.
> Note that you need no driver's license if you operate off-road,on private
> property.Same for lic.plates and registration.


If government could figure out a way to tax it and control it on private
property, they would. You are simply pointing out a constitutional issue,
and confusing it with paying-for-roads.


  #509  
Old June 9th 05, 12:27 AM
Jim Yanik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Jim Yanik
> wrote:
>>
(Brent P) wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> In article >, Jim Yanik
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why do you think they need to "renew" your 'registration' EVERY
>>>> YEAR? It doesn't change.It's still the same plate number,year after
>>>> year. It's a yearly USER FEE.
>>>
>>> Hell if I know. It's a tax.

>>
>> Thanks for admitting it.

>
> Yes I admit that taxation is often not logical.


That is not what you wrote.Your words;"It's a tax." referrring to license
plate "renewals".

Your registration does not wear out,fade away,or change over time,so the
only reason for "renewal" is a *user fee*,no other reason.

It may be small,but applied to millions of autos per state,it adds up to a
nice piece of change.

>
>>> Why am I forced into social security?

>
>>> And for what IL charges on registration, it doesn't make sense as a
>>> user fee.

>
>> Much of what gov't does does not make sense.

>
> BINGO. hence it's not a user fee just because it has to be paid every
> years.


Sure it is a user fee;the "renewal" sticker is your tax stamp,just like on
cigarette packs.

>
>>> Why do I have to pay $10 and have my driver's license renewed every
>>> 4 years?

>
>> Check your eyesight and have a new picture taken.
>> Licenses do wear out,or need updating.(Not so for your lic.plate.)
>> Maybe get you to pay any outstanding parking tickets,too.

>
> I've seen beaten up and worn license plates.


Sure,due to bumping into things,and here in the South,even fading.
But not common enough to necessitate "renewal" EVERY YEAR.

Florida sends me a new plate with a new number every 5 years,IIRC.
One nice thing is that if your FL.plate gets damaged in a collision or
stolen,you can get a new plate FREE.You need a police report reference
number,though.Oh,and the yearly FL plate "renewal" fees go to the county
TAX COLLECTOR.

>
>>> Are you going to say that's a 'user fee' too?

>
>> In a way,yes.You are licensed -to use- a motor vehicle even if it is
>> not registered to you,like a rental,or another person's licensed
>> auto. Note that you need no driver's license if you operate
>> off-road,on private property.Same for lic.plates and registration.

>
> If government could figure out a way to tax it and control it on
> private property, they would.


No,because it doesn't affect anyone in the public venue.

> You are simply pointing out a
> constitutional issue, and confusing it with paying-for-roads.



No,you simply refuse to acknowledge the obvious.
License plate fees ARE a "user fee";for the *license to USE* the vehicle on
public roads.(state permission)
I suspect that if this were not part of the argument about licensing
bicycles for road use,you'd have admitted it to be a user fee long ago.




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
  #510  
Old June 9th 05, 04:51 AM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:

>> Yes I admit that taxation is often not logical.

>
> That is not what you wrote.Your words;"It's a tax." referrring to license
> plate "renewals".


So are speeding tickets for the most part. So is social security.

> Your registration does not wear out,fade away,or change over time,so the
> only reason for "renewal" is a *user fee*,no other reason.


I have to pay all sorts of taxes annually. that doesn't make them user
fees.

> It may be small,but applied to millions of autos per state,it adds up to a
> nice piece of change.


certainly not enough to cover unlimited usage. Unlimited cellphone
packages cost many, many times more.

>>> Much of what gov't does does not make sense.

>>
>> BINGO. hence it's not a user fee just because it has to be paid every
>> years.

>
> Sure it is a user fee;the "renewal" sticker is your tax stamp,just like on
> cigarette packs.


And cig taxes aren't user taxes for anything.


>>> Check your eyesight and have a new picture taken.
>>> Licenses do wear out,or need updating.(Not so for your lic.plate.)
>>> Maybe get you to pay any outstanding parking tickets,too.

>>
>> I've seen beaten up and worn license plates.

>
> Sure,due to bumping into things,and here in the South,even fading.
> But not common enough to necessitate "renewal" EVERY YEAR.


Oh well,,, back in the day they were replaced every year... go figure.

> Florida sends me a new plate with a new number every 5 years,IIRC.
> One nice thing is that if your FL.plate gets damaged in a collision or
> stolen,you can get a new plate FREE.You need a police report reference
> number,though.Oh,and the yearly FL plate "renewal" fees go to the county
> TAX COLLECTOR.


Not in IL. IL charges for new plates.


>>>> Are you going to say that's a 'user fee' too?

>>
>>> In a way,yes.You are licensed -to use- a motor vehicle even if it is
>>> not registered to you,like a rental,or another person's licensed
>>> auto. Note that you need no driver's license if you operate
>>> off-road,on private property.Same for lic.plates and registration.

>>
>> If government could figure out a way to tax it and control it on
>> private property, they would.

>
> No,because it doesn't affect anyone in the public venue.


That's why they can't. Remove that limitation on government and they damn
well will tax it.

>> You are simply pointing out a
>> constitutional issue, and confusing it with paying-for-roads.


> No,you simply refuse to acknowledge the obvious.


The obvious is your being picky with tax labels for bicycling and not
being so with autos.

> License plate fees ARE a "user fee";for the *license to USE* the vehicle on
> public roads.(state permission)


Not that I have seen in the law.

> I suspect that if this were not part of the argument about licensing
> bicycles for road use,you'd have admitted it to be a user fee long ago.


It's not a user fee in IL. I've had a car ticketed that was parked on
private property for expired registration. It never left the property.
Bogus ticket, because the law doesn't require it, but the cops certainly
don't share your interpetation of it as just a 'user fee'.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.