How to **** Off an Arrogant Pedalcyclist

John F. Carr wrote:

> But the cost of urban roads is mostly space, not pavement wear.
> Let's charge 1 cent per 10 km per square meter of road space
> used, including vehicle and clear zone.
>
>
>
>
> If the cyclist keeps right and expects a 1m clear zone on
> each side and 10m ahead and behind, that's 40 square meters
> or $80 per year.


If he is seen to be driving in the middle
> of the lane, or in the wrong lane, then he gets billed for
> the full 3.5 meter lane width for that year, or $280.

Oh no, bicyclists get to use the full 3.5 meter lane width (as we
currently do if we choose). Why would I want you in your dangerous
polluting vehicle encroaching on my lane if I'm paying for it? However,
since bicyclists are traveling slowly, say 15 mph, and so are following
vehicles, headway and tailway clearszones can be just 2.86 meters. So
bicyclists have 10 square meters or $20 per year.


>
> But then it has to be legal to run over bicyclists to tone down
> their obnoxiously self-righteous attitude. Of course, if they
> do get run over while obeying traffic laws they get a rebate on
> the space tax. But when was the last time you saw a biker in
> a city obey the law?
>

But then, it has to be legal to preemptively murder motorists on the
grounds of self defense.

Wayne

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Wayne Pein wrote:

> > But then it has to be legal to run over bicyclists to tone down
> > their obnoxiously self-righteous attitude.

> But then, it has to be legal to preemptively murder motorists on the
> grounds of self defense.

But then, Oh, christ. Here we go again with the circular fingerpointing
back and forth between bicyclists and motorists. Close sesame!

-DS (clickety click, sound of killfile additions)

John F. Carr wrote:


> The speed limit in Massachusetts is "reasonable and proper."

Hmmmm. I've never seen that sign. So all the posted speed limits are
suggestions? And since when did the dictionary define "limit" as
"somewhere in the range?"


> I obey that law.

But disregard the posted limit signs when you deem it "reasonable and
proper?"

I also obeyed all stop and yield signs and
> traffic signals on my way to work. It's been months since
> the last time I saw a bicyclist obey a red light or stop sign.

Perhaps bicyclists use your "reasonable and proper" definition applied
to traffic control devices and conclude that what's good for the goose
is good for the gander. After all, if it weren't for motor vehicles,
every signal and stop sign would be a roundabout, enabling continuous
movement for bicycle drivers who are most penalized by energy sapping
and wasteful stops.

Wayne

"John F. Carr" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> lokey > wrote:
>>
>> People really want to go user pay?
>>
>> OK.
>>
>> Everyone pays 1 cent per 100 kilometres, per kilogram per annum
>
> But the cost of urban roads is mostly space, not pavement wear.

Uproven assertion and the oppsite of what some auto-adicts have been arguing
but, OK:

> Let's charge 1 cent per 10 km per square meter of road space
> used, including vehicle and clear zone.
>
>> So a cyclist and bike [assume 2000 km 100 kg] pays $20
>
> If the cyclist keeps right

Nope. He's paying for the lane. Otherwise since one could easily fit 4 bike
lanes into a single auto lane you would have to divide the cyclists fee by 4
and still allow 4 cyclists to ride abreast taking the entire lane f they are
each paying their fee.

>and expects a 1m clear zone on
> each side and 10m ahead and behind, that's 40 square meters
> or $80 per year.

A car requiring a greater clear zone thanks to the greater velocities -
let's estimate a 5 fold increase in front and rear clear zones.

> If he is seen to be driving in the middle
> of the lane,

He is entitled to a quarter of the lane. Four cyclists are permitted to ride
abreast taking the entire lane. They have paid for it.

> or in the wrong lane,

There is no 'wrong' lane. He has paid for it.

>then he gets billed for
> the full 3.5 meter lane width for that year,

Nope. He gets billed for a quarter of the lane.

In article > ,
Wayne Pein > wrote:
>John F. Carr wrote:
>
>
>> The speed limit in Massachusetts is "reasonable and proper."
>
>Hmmmm. I've never seen that sign. So all the posted speed limits are
>suggestions?

Right.

>And since when did the dictionary define "limit" as
>"somewhere in the range?"

Consult the law, not a dictionary. If you are
interested in the answer to "since when", see
<http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/ma-historic-speed.html>.
Short form: unposted speed limits ceased to be
absolute limits in 1906 and posted speed limits
ceased to be absolute limits in 1948.

(If the speed limits around here really were limits,
I have an alternate legal justification but we don't
need to go down that route.


>> I obey that law.
>
>But disregard the posted limit signs when you deem it "reasonable and
>proper?"

I pay careful attention to speed limit signs, since
motor vehicle law and policy is a personal interest
of mine. I just don't mistake them for something
they are not. Neither do the state police -- they
admit that the signs aren't meant to be taken seriously.

>I also obeyed all stop and yield signs and
>> traffic signals on my way to work. It's been months since
>> the last time I saw a bicyclist obey a red light or stop sign.
>
>Perhaps bicyclists use your "reasonable and proper" definition applied
>to traffic control devices and conclude that what's good for the goose
>is good for the gander. After all, if it weren't for motor vehicles,
>every signal and stop sign would be a roundabout, enabling continuous
>movement for bicycle drivers who are most penalized by energy sapping
>and wasteful stops.

But the law does not grant permission to drive through a red
light without stopping even when doing so is safe, while it
does grant permission to exceed the speed limit when doing
so is safe.

But there is a better reason that this argument doesn't really
shed any light on the issue. In the urban areas where most
bicyclists, especially the law-ignoring kind, are found the
flow of traffic is well under the speed that the law says is
evidence of unsafe driving (over 30 MPH for at least 1/8 mile;
there is not even a suggested limit on instantaneous speed).
Meanwhile, 90% of bike riders ignore intersection traffic
controls. That 90% figure is a real count, by the local
newspaper, not just a guess.

--
John Carr )

"C. E. White" > wrote in
:

>
>
> Brent P wrote:
>>
>> In article >, Jim Yanik
>> wrote:
>>
>> > So what if prop taxes help pay for roads?
>> > That still doesn't mean that one can drive an auto without paying a
>> > USE tax for each vehicle.A road use tax that bicyclists do NOT
>> > pay,but still use the roads.
>> > Whether non road-users pay prop taxes is not relevant to road USERS
>> > paying USER taxes.
>>
>> Playing your same old semantic games. I paid the use tax on my
>> bicycle when I bought it. You want to play semantics, that's where
>> the 'use' tax is paid in IL.
>>
>> There is no other 'use' tax.
>
> But the "use" tax (sales tax) on bicycles goes into the
> general fund. This fund is not used to pay for roads.
>
> Ed
>

Any "use" tax would be paid yearly,as a plate fee.
Prop taxes are not "use fees" WRT bicycle use on public roads.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Wayne Pein > wrote in
. com:


>
> But then, it has to be legal to preemptively murder motorists on the
> grounds of self defense.
>
> Wayne
>


Only an irrational person would want to murder(*preemptively*,yet!
Premeditated murder) people on the basis of someone MIGHT harm
them.(actually paranoia)


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

(John F. Carr) wrote in news:429f43c1$0$562$b45e6eb0@senator-
bedfellow.mit.edu:

> In article . com>,
> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>John F. Carr wrote:
>>> But when was the last time you saw a biker in
>>> a city obey the law?
>>
>>Oh, about twenty minutes ago. That would have been me.
>
> So you don't live around Boston, then.
>
>>Now, how often do you obey the laws? Start by discussing the speed
>>limits, please.
>
> The speed limit in Massachusetts is "reasonable and proper."
> I obey that law. I also obeyed all stop and yield signs and
> traffic signals on my way to work. It's been months since
> the last time I saw a bicyclist obey a red light or stop sign.
>

That's pretty much the norm across the US.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

John F. Carr wrote:


>
>>And since when did the dictionary define "limit" as
>>"somewhere in the range?"
>
>
> Consult the law, not a dictionary. If you are
> interested in the answer to "since when", see
> <http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/ma-historic-speed.html>.
> Short form: unposted speed limits ceased to be
> absolute limits in 1906 and posted speed limits
> ceased to be absolute limits in 1948.
>
> (If the speed limits around here really were limits,
> I have an alternate legal justification but we don't
> need to go down that route.


In essence, motorists decided that it was inconvenient for them to obey
their own laws, and so the motoring majority changed the law for their
convenience.

>
>
>
>>>I obey that law.
>>
>>But disregard the posted limit signs when you deem it "reasonable and
>>proper?"
>
>
> I pay careful attention to speed limit signs, since
> motor vehicle law and policy is a personal interest
> of mine. I just don't mistake them for something
> they are not. Neither do the state police -- they
> admit that the signs aren't meant to be taken seriously.


Of course they would say that. It's impossible to enforce something that
everyone ignores.


>
> But the law does not grant permission to drive through a red
> light without stopping even when doing so is safe, while it
> does grant permission to exceed the speed limit when doing
> so is safe.

That's because the law that is ignored, speed limit, is ignored by the
motoring majority by popular opinion (and probably a large dose of
"money talks" to get the law written as such). On the other hand, the
vast minority bicycle driver population which could benefit from a law
enabling them to "skirt" lights cannot write their own laws, as can the
motoring majority. So bicyclists flaut the law because their operational
abilities (small size, maneuverability, ability to easily see and hear)
readily enable it (just like motorists are able to exceed the speed
limit) and there is typically no penalty. So, in essence bicyclists
achieve what motorists have achieved; personal advantage.


>
> But there is a better reason that this argument doesn't really
> shed any light on the issue. In the urban areas where most
> bicyclists, especially the law-ignoring kind, are found the
> flow of traffic is well under the speed that the law says is
> evidence of unsafe driving (over 30 MPH for at least 1/8 mile;
> there is not even a suggested limit on instantaneous speed).
> Meanwhile, 90% of bike riders ignore intersection traffic
> controls. That 90% figure is a real count, by the local
> newspaper, not just a guess.


They do it because the can. They do it because they don't want to be
subject to motorist caused congestion. They do it because they don't
want to be subject to fumes of stopped motor vehicles. They do it
because the conservation of momentum is much more important to bicycles
than motor vehicles in which the operator merely presses the gas. They
do it because lights often are not tripped by bicycles. They do it to
get a jump on the thundering herd which gets hostile if delayed by a
slow accelerating bicycle.

Like I said previously, if motor vehicles didn't exist (I'm not
advocating that), every intersection would be a roundabout and no one
would have to stop. As it is, bicyclists are greatly penalized by the
ubiquity of motor vehicles. So they compensate.

Wayne

Jim Yanik wrote:

> Wayne Pein > wrote in
> . com:
>
>
>
>>But then, it has to be legal to preemptively murder motorists on the
>>grounds of self defense.
>>
>>Wayne
>>
>
>
>
> Only an irrational person would want to murder(*preemptively*,yet!
> Premeditated murder) people on the basis of someone MIGHT harm
> them.(actually paranoia)
>
>

Uh, you conveniently left out that John Carr first wrote, "But then it
has to be legal to run over bicyclists to tone down their obnoxiously
self-righteous attitude."

Wayne