How to **** Off an Arrogant Pedalcyclist

"fbloogyudsr" > wrote in message ...
true.
>
> Ahhh. So my good friend Louise Taylor, now age 67 and riding a
> Conalgo, who had #1 bib on last year's RAMROD (20th or so straight
> years doing RAMROD) and who still holds several Triathlon Masters
> records around the NW, is a poser? I'm sure she will be glad to know that!

No, doing stuff like lame Ramrods and triathlons make her a geek.
I don't like geeks.

She should start doing Cat 4 crits and road races.

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Jim Yanik
> wrote:
>
>> But no usage tax.
>
> Show me a usage tax for automobiles. Extra points if you can show one
> in IL.

Easy,your plate fee.
You don't need a plate if you use your auto on private property.
Note that you still also pay a sales tax when you bought the auto,but not
every time you renew your plates.

>
> I paid use tax on my bicycle when I bought it, same with my cars.

No,you paid a SALES tax.You would pay that even if your auto or bicycle
never used any public road.The auto license fee is the fee you pay every
year to use the public roads.I note that some states also have an
additional tax,a property tax,they consider the auto to be property.Indiana
and one of the Carolinas do that.

>
>> If states were to tax vehicles and fuel to completely pay for the
>> roads,no one could afford to drive anything.
>
> What you are saying is that people who drive less are supporting those
> who drive more.

No,because even people who do not drive or even own any vehicle benefit
from roads.Roads carry commerce,like food.Even people who never travel at
all benefit from roads.


> That if roads et al were paid for by actual use, then
> driving would be rather expensive. You want driving to be cheap so
> everybody is taxed regardless of how much they drive. The true meaning
> of your statement is that your driving is dependent upon people who
> drive much less or not at all.

No,because even people who do not drive or even own any vehicle benefit
from roads.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

(Matthew Russotto) wrote in
:

> State patrol is revenue positive; why do you think they
> have those ticket books?)

I kinda doubt that any state police department writes enough tickets to pay
for all their expenses,even if they get a share of the ticket fines.I
believe only those abusing local small town police departments write enough
tix to cover their whole pie.the ones that AAA warns about,the speed trap
towns,especially the ones who write tix in areas outside their town limits.
They have a lot lower overhead.




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"C. E. White" > wrote in
:

>
>
> 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
>

Property taxes are not relevant.Most states do not have such a tax.
Same for the Inspection tax.
I'm surprised you didn't include the sales tax,like Brent P. did.
Besides,most states have a minimum fee for road vehicles regardless of
their size,weight,or area footprint.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Wayne Pein > wrote in
:

> C. E. White wrote:
>
>
>> I estimate that the average single car owner pays somewhere
>> around $370 in user fess each year, broken down as follows:
>>
>> Registration Fee - $30
>
>
> Registration is so the vehicle can be tracked. There is no need for this
> for bicycles.

Sure there is.Bicycles get stolen,they get used in crimes,and they collide
with people or other things and cause property damage.
I suspect that the fee is the same for a car,motorcycle or Vespa.So it
should be the same for a bicycle.

>
>
>> Inspection Fee - $20
>
>
> This is so the vehicle doesn't overly damage the environment (more than
> it already does) or have the potential for catostrophic failure to harm
> others. There is no need for this for bicycles.

Gotta make sure your headlight and reflectors are on the bike and working.
B-)

Although,again,many states have no inspections anymore.

>
>> Property Tax on Car (car only) - $100
>
> Oh OK. If it'll make you feel better I'll donate $5 for my bicycle to my
> county for property tax.

Most states do not have this tax.If they do,it's usually based on the value
of the vehicle;if you have an expensive titanium or carbon fiber framed
bike,it's gonna cost you more than $5.Some bicycles sell for 5 or 6
thousand USdollars. The fee usually gets decreased as the vehicle ages,down
to some minimum value.

>
>
>> Gasoline Tax - $210
>
> This is irrelvant for bicyclists. However, you should be thankful
> bicyclists don't use it, reducing demand and hence your price.
> Therefore, I am owed $5 for my altruistic use of the bike (this says
> nothing of the environmental damage that I am avoiding on your behalf).

No,you aren't "owed" anything for NOT using something.

>
> This cancels out my property tax donation.
>
>
> But hey, I know that isn't good enough for some of you motorists, so I'm
> gonna buy a licence plate for my bike from
> http://www.biketags.com/index.html?l...talog28_0.html
>
> This way, motorists will be duped into feeling better about me being a
> vehicle operator. Maybe I'll even have a nice message on it such as
> COEXIST. Perhaps a message such as EXPECT DELAYS would add comic relief
> for your frustrations.
>
> Wayne
>

But you stll will not be paying your *yearly* usage fee.
Other vehicles pay EVERY year.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Alex Rodriguez > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> . says...
>
>>I don't slow it down like bicycles do.(I'm usually on the high side of
>>the speed limit)
>>I move my GSR along quickly enough,and I'm no sloth driver,either.
>>And headwind or road slope does not affect me like they do a pedalist.
>
> True, but stopped cars in front usually don't slow down a cyclist.
> -------------
> Alex
>
>
>

Because they use illegal tactics that are prohibited for autos or other
motor vehicles.Like squeezing between car and curb.They often do not stop
for stop signs or stop lights.They also often ride on the wrong side of the
road. They often fail to use any turn or stop signals.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article >,
Jim Yanik .> writes:

>>> If states were to tax vehicles and fuel to completely pay for the
>>> roads,no one could afford to drive anything.
>>
>> What you are saying is that people who drive less are supporting those
>> who drive more.
>
> No,because even people who do not drive or even own any vehicle benefit
> from roads.Roads carry commerce,like food.Even people who never travel at
> all benefit from roads.

So commerce/industry/trade benefits hugely from roads.
Roads facilitate bringing customers to market, and
employees to their workplaces.

Maybe Business should chip-in more for roads.

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

In article .com>, wrote:

> In particular, there are many times I'm on my bike, trapped by an
> expired left-turn arrow because the road zombies in front of me didn't
> bother to go when the light turned green. Or, they moved just barely
> fast enough for _them_ to make it through.

This sort of thing is constant wether I am driving or bicycling. I will
often choose to take different routes depending on how many and what kind
of vehicles are waiting in a left turn lane.

Once I had to wait two cycles at a light because of sloth drivers. When
it looked like I'd have to wait a 3rd cycle, I pulled out into the left
lane and passed them. This woke one up, who then decided to accelerate
and tried to crush me between his van and the curb once I had returned to
the right lane.

In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in
> :
>
>> In article >, Jim Yanik
>> wrote:
>>
>>> But no usage tax.
>>
>> Show me a usage tax for automobiles. Extra points if you can show one
>> in IL.
>
> Easy,your plate fee.

That's not a usage fee.

> You don't need a plate if you use your auto on private property.

I don't need turn signals, good tires, brakes, and whole host of other
things to use a vehicle on private property.

> Note that you still also pay a sales tax when you bought the auto,but not
> every time you renew your plates.

>> I paid use tax on my bicycle when I bought it, same with my cars.

> No,you paid a SALES tax.

Check IL law. It's semantically called a *USE* tax. This way the state
thinks it can then legally collect it on items purchased out of state as
a way around the ban on states taxing interstate commerce. IL taxes the
use of the item in the state. It functions like a sales tax and is simply
a semantic end run around federal law, but you want split semantic hairs
so....

> You would pay that even if your auto or bicycle
> never used any public road.The auto license fee is the fee you pay every
> year to use the public roads.

The use tax in IL is paid at the time of purchase. When one goes to
register a car they just purchased in this state, one has to pay title,
registration, and use tax. I had to pay this tax on my torqueless wonder
car even though the sales price was ZERO. Thankfully it was the lowest
possible value because the car was over the age limit and from a family
member.

> I note that some states also have an
> additional tax,a property tax,they consider the auto to be property.Indiana
> and one of the Carolinas do that.

And in Germany, you are taxed for each television you own.

>>> If states were to tax vehicles and fuel to completely pay for the
>>> roads,no one could afford to drive anything.

>> What you are saying is that people who drive less are supporting those
>> who drive more.

> No,because even people who do not drive or even own any vehicle benefit
> from roads.Roads carry commerce,like food.Even people who never travel at
> all benefit from roads.

What you are saying is that without people who drive less paying more
than they use, driving would be too expensive. Wether they *should* or
not isn't part of this. You just stated you need non-drivers paying a
good portion of the costs.

>> That if roads et al were paid for by actual use, then
>> driving would be rather expensive. You want driving to be cheap so
>> everybody is taxed regardless of how much they drive. The true meaning
>> of your statement is that your driving is dependent upon people who
>> drive much less or not at all.

> No,because even people who do not drive or even own any vehicle benefit
> from roads.

That's an arguement for *should*. Your statement is very clear, you need
non drivers and people who drive less than what they pay for to keep the
system affordable for people who drive more. Wether those who don't drive
enough to get their 'money's worth' directly benefit or not isn't even
part of this. You need them not using the roads themselves, directly,
with motor vehicles to keep driving affordable. You were very clear.

Thusly, bicyclists help keep driving affordable by using their bicycles
instead of their cars.

It seems your idea to tax bicyclists to satisify your semantic need is
counterproductive to driving. Don't fall into the trap that people will
keep doing what they do when a tax is added. This is what elected
officals often think. That their taxes won't change behavior. Tax
bicycling the way you want it to be and the effect will be more people
driving more miles. Which in turn will require more resources and greater
taxes on driving.

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On 25 May 2005 14:13:21 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> Obviously.
>
>>If states were to tax vehicles and fuel to completely pay for the roads,no
>>one could afford to drive anything.
>
> What a ridiculous statement.
>
> If fuel and vehicle taxes completely paid for roads, all the other
> taxes (e.g. property and sales) would drop by the exact same amount.
> Everybody (except pedalcyclists who do not also own cars) would still
> be paying the same amount, it would simply come out of a diffferent
> pocket.

That was the first angle I was going take. But then I realized, what
would I do if fuel taxes got much higher but my costs in property, sales,
and income taxes dropped? I'd use the bicycle more to get a net savings.

Jim has likely opened up a can of worms that government doesn't want
opened up and probably why they've never given in to this taxing of
bicycles directly to use the road nonsense. They know if they started doing
it, they would just encourage more people to drive more increasing their
costs more than their revenues. Then they would have to pass even more
taxes and **** off voters just to keep even. It's easier just to keep
quiet on matter and not tax bicycles directly beyond the point of sale.