How to **** Off an Arrogant Pedalcyclist

In article >, C. E. White wrote:
> the US federal government does the same. I've seen that
> something like 35% of all US highway related revenue is
> generated by taxing gasoline.

A whole third.

> Registration and property taxes combined are less than 25%.

And a bicycle is less than a 1/4 of a car in size, thusly everyone has
already paid enough to use a bicycle on the road unless they are
homeless, living on the street and don't have a car.

You just proved bicyclists pay their share.

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Jim Yanik
> wrote:
>> (Brent P) wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> In article >, Jim Yanik
>>> wrote:
>>>> (Brent P) wrote in
>>>> news >>>>
>>>>> In article >, Jim
>>>>> Yanik wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Have a car smack into a bicyclist at speeds 25mph or over and the
>>>>>> cyclist loses every time.
>>>>>
>>>>> I ride between 18 and 30mph. On arterial streets I am often
>>>>> crusing at 24-25mph. I have a speedo now, so I can actually see my
>>>>> real speed. At 25mph the collision speed would be about zero.
>>>>
>>>> Depends on the vectors.And once you go flying OFF your bike,the
>>>> impact with the ground or some other solid unmoving object will
>>>> not do you any good.Even road rash is gonna hurt bad.
>>>
>>> Same with a car colliding with a semi. And so does an airbag
>>> exploding in your face.
>>
>> They provide even more protection for an auto occupant.
>> Fact is,one IS safer inside a vehicle than exposed on a bicycle.Much
>> safer. Even colliding with a semi.
>
> The green house of your car is very weak. It protects you from the
> rain and snow and maybe a thrown egg or plastic bottle but that's
> about it.

An auto body protects one far more than anything a cyclist wears.
Even if the auto don't have airbags or seat belts.

>
>>>
>>> Since when do you get to tell me what acceptable risks are?
>
>> Well,it certainly is your choice to take risks.
>> You just do not choose to recognize cycling in traffic as such.
>
> Because it's not. There is no evidence to suggest it is. It seems you
> are taking the speed kills point of view that only what happens
> because of a collision is the valid measure of safety. That actually
> not having collisions would be the goal. If that's the case, I suggest
> you never exceed 35mph with your vehicle, anything greater and you
> might get killed if you crash.
>
>
>

One can take all the precautions possible to avoid collisions and STILL get
struck.

You just will not recognize it.You deceive yourself.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Alex Rodriguez > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> . says...
>
>>Autos pay for the roads,bikes do not.
>
> Cyclists also pay taxes that help fund the roads.

Not relevant.If one has more than one auto,they have to pay for plates for
each additional vehicle.Paying ofr one plate does not exclude the others
from the fees for using public roads.

>Many cyclists also
> own cars, so they are paying for the road.

Only for their autos.

>A cyclist also causes
> basically no wear and tear to the road.

Not relevant.
They still are USING it.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

AZ Nomad > wrote in
:

> On 17 May 2005 16:12:37 GMT, Jim Yanik > wrote:
>
>
>>Have a car smack into a bicyclist at speeds 25mph or over and the
>>cyclist loses every time. Smack an import into a big SUV or the
>>reverse at 25 mph
>
> Have a semi smack you at 80 from behind and you'll lose every time
> too.
>

That still doesn't change the odds or resultant damages that cyclists get
from auto-cyclist collisions. Cyclists are far more vulnerable than any
auto traffic.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

C. E. White wrote:

> Wrong. Roads deteriorate even if they are not used.

I don't believe that. Can you provide documentation to support your
assertion?

Wayne

Brent P wrote:
> In article .com>,
Brian Huntley wrote:
>
> > And while internal combustion engined vehicles (trucks, mainly) do
move
> > a lot of goods, the actual 'commerce' in places like Wall Street,
Bay
> > Street, or The City depends a lot on bicycles.
>
> I wonder if a bicycle messenger using the commerce defense for his
> violation of the vehicle code would go over well? I certainly
wouldn't
> buy that excuse from bicycle messengers any more than I buy it from
the
> motoring public.

Defense? Violation? What the heck are you talking about?

C. E. White wrote:
> Brian Huntley wrote:
>
> > My city currently gets $0.00 per litre of gasoline in tax dollars,
plus
> > a whopping $0.00 per car/truck/motorcycle/trailer registered. Yet
it
> > pays for the streets. Some of my property taxes, it would seem, are
> > doing so.
>
> Where do you live? In North Carolina, the state government
> collects the gas tax, and then allocates a portion to towns
> for street maintenance and construction.

Toronto, Canada. Both the Feds and the Province (Ontario) can and do
collect gas taxes, but the city cannot levy them (or any other tax
without provincial approval.) At this point in time, Toronto
effectively receives $0 from either source, and in fact pays out almost
50% of locally collected taxes upstream to the province. But that's our
problem. And with luck, the upcoming Federal budget will pass, as it
has some equalization measures in it.

On 19 May 2005 00:51:52 GMT, Jim Yanik > wrote:


>AZ Nomad > wrote in
:

>> On 17 May 2005 16:12:37 GMT, Jim Yanik > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Have a car smack into a bicyclist at speeds 25mph or over and the
>>>cyclist loses every time. Smack an import into a big SUV or the
>>>reverse at 25 mph
>>
>> Have a semi smack you at 80 from behind and you'll lose every time
>> too.
>>

>That still doesn't change the odds or resultant damages that cyclists get
>from auto-cyclist collisions. Cyclists are far more vulnerable than any
>auto traffic.

Then I guess it's a damn good thing they don't ride on the highways.

C=2E E. White wrote:
> Bob wrote:
> >
> > Jim Yanik wrote:
> >
> > > Autos pay for the roads,bikes do not.
> > > Autos move more commerce than bikes,too.
> >
> > No, all taxpayers pay for the roads. The day that fuel taxes become
the
> > sole or even primary source of revenue for road construction and
> > maintenance will be the day that construction and maintenance
ceases.
>
> Where are you from? Gas / fuel tax revenues far exceed the
> amount spent to build and maintain roads. In fact, siphoning
> off gas tax revenues to fund other government programs, like
> bike paths, mass transit, and landscaping is very common.

I think you're GREATLY overestimating the amount spent on bike paths,
mass transit and landscaping. Feel free to prove me wrong by giving me
those amounts as percentages of your state's transportation budget.

But for accuracy, you should include things like traffic enforcement
expenses (we'd need far fewer cops, patrol cars, judges, etc. if not
for yahoos in cars), traffic injuries (ambulances, hospital fees, lost
work time, funeral expenses etc), other health costs worsened by
automobiles (the effects of driving stress, air pollution, noise
pollution, obesity from larded bottoms sunk into car seats, etc.)

BTW, I had this on file:


----------------------------------------------------------------

=EF=BB=BFSTUDY FINDS THAT BICYCLISTS AND PEDESTRIANS SUBSIDIZE MOTORISTS!

Anybody who accuses bicyclists of not paying a fair share of road
costs is wrong. According to a recent study, _Whose Roads?_,
bicyclists pay more road costs per mile of travel than automobile
users.

The study estimates that motor vehicle users pay an average of
2=2E3 cents per mile in user charges such as fuel taxes and motor
vehicle registration fees, and impose 6.5 cents per mile in road
service costs. The difference between automobile user charge
contributions and road service costs is supported by general taxes and
property assessments. Bicyclists and pedestrians pay an equal share of
these taxes, but impose costs averaging only .2 cents per mile in road
service costs, and travel much shorter distances than automobile
users. Bicyclists and pedestrians pay more per mile of travel in
general taxes than drivers pay in general taxes and user
charges combined, despite the much lower costs they impose.

Overpayment by bicyclists is even more significant with respect to
local
roads, the roads that bicyclists ride on most. Only a third of the
funds for building and maintaining local roads originate from motor
vehicle user charges. The rest comes from local property, income and
sales taxes. Motor vehicle user charges contribute only about 1 cent
per mile towards local roads and impose costs six and one half times
that amount. Everybody, including bicyclists, pays local taxes that
make up the difference.

The report's author, Todd Litman, states, "Many people assume that
motor vehicle user charges cover all road costs when in fact they only
pay about two-thirds of facility costs, and an even smaller portion of
total roadway services provided for motor vehicles. We all pay for
these services, no matter how we travel. When you consider the
extremely low public costs associated with non-motorized travel,
bicyclists and pedestrians are unfairly subsidizing motor vehicle
use."

The study also determines that cycling reduces congestion. It points
out that people who are economically, socially, and physically
disadvantaged rely heavily on cycling, walking, and argues that
"shifting resources (funding, road space, and emphasis of road design)
from motor vehicle use to non-motorized modes would increase equity."

_Whose Roads?_ is one of several reports on the costs, cost
effectiveness, and fairness of different transportation modes. Another
report, _Quantifying Bicycling Benefits for Achieving Transportation
Demand Management Goals_ describes how to calculate the benefits of
increased bicycling based on criteria used for assessing
transportation investments.


- Frank Krygowski

"Wayne Pein" > wrote in message
om...
> C. E. White wrote:
>
>> Wrong. Roads deteriorate even if they are not used.
>
> I don't believe that. Can you provide documentation to support your
> assertion?


I have seen evidence that roads deteriorate *faster* if they aren't used. I
once walked on a path made from part of a road. The walking part (chained
off from the rest of the road) was fine, however, where vegetation was
allowed to grow its roots buckled the asphalt.

--
Scott Ehardt
http://www.scehardt.com